Jump to content

User talk:Vsmith/archive5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Labradorite

RE: Labradorite. I have seen some non-pleochroic light yellowish or translucent white crystals in a West Texas gem show that were called labradorite. I could not see any pleochroism in the case setting and did not follow up. Are you familiar with this variety (if it is one)? Crubins 11:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect most labradorite to not show the labradorescence or schiller effect as it is the common feldspar in basalts. The showey samples known to mineral collectors and gem enthusiasts are chosen because they do show the colors. As I understand it the effect is due to inernal reflection and interference on closely spaced twin lamellae. If the spacing between twin planes is too thick the irridescence isn't there. I would only be suprised that a gem dealer would use a more common (?) sample without the effect to display. Vsmith 12:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment Crubins 20:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

block

I think that 209.80.142.210 has vandlized a little to much --Pewwer42 14:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help please

Would you mind helping me please with someone who is continually defacing an biographic article with their own CV please?

63.86.10.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) & 71.39.227.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is the same person who keeps adding his CV to Brent Russell a south african rugby player, this has been going on for weeks, I left a message on request for investigation with nothing happening, and I've left warnings as with many others on his talk pages, but feel quite impotent when I can't do owt. Would you mind having a look please. Thanks muchly Khukri (talk . contribs) 19:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your note a bit ago, checked the article and it seems to have quieted down after DFs block. I will watch if for a bit, too. Vsmith 21:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
appreciated Khukri (talk . contribs) 21:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

The work is appreciated which you keep doing at the chemical elements among other pages, but there's usually little reason to directly interact with you. So I thought I'd just throw a "hello" in your general direction (no need to catch or return it, obviously I know you're there, and courtesy replies are like fruitcake :). Femto 10:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

intrusive

I didn't address the inconvenience to the geology articles because when I clicked "what links here" about twenty geology articles popped up and I thought to myself "my god these people were lazy / lacked foresight to decamp on an adjective; I'm outnumbered in my capacity to clean up loose ends, nor am I so fond of my edit count." For a noun or noun phrase, I would granted squatter's rights. I'm fine with how you changed it, though. MaxEnt 04:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mylonite

I saw you editted Mylonite, i left you a message there btw. What i want to ask is: I put some brackets in the text there, I thought that would be a good thing to do with so many specialistic terms in it. I find that on the English wikipedia, this is not a common practice. In fact i've seen many articles in which links seem to have been avoided just because the articles they directed to did not (yet) exist. Do you think i was right to do so? Is there a guideline for when to make a link or not? Woodwalker 22:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My main purpose was to avoid disambig pages or wrong pages on dikes and veins. When I write a new article I try to avoid too much red jargon, simply because the jargon is meaningless to non-geologists and all that red is simply ugly. I really am not aware of any official policy on it though. As I recall, that article was heavily edited by our Aussie geologist User:Rolinator and he sometimes is a bit heavy on the jargon. He knows his stuff though and is a good geological editor. Those red links do need to be either explained on the page or turned blue and a red link is an invitation for someone to write an article. So link away - or explain/reword the article. Cheers, Vsmith 23:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's how I'll do it. I'll try to write articles on the missing red stuff, when I have time. Woodwalker 09:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Pussy, France

May I suggest that you go to the «Pussy, France» page and remove the respective «See also» section, just as you did for «Fucking, Austria».

Wikipedia:WikiProject Soil

Know you will be interested in this. -- Paleorthid 06:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Volcano Page: Thanks

Thanks for fixing the truncation of the Volcano page. I don't know how that happened, but now that I know that it can, I'll be more careful about checking for such problems. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 13:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was odd - strange things happen now & then. Good redo of the into. Vsmith 13:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Relf

So what do you want to do about Jeff Relf? He seems bent on singlehandedly fouling up the Einstein article, no matter what others say. I think what we should do is come up with a suitable "religious" section which relies exclusively on secondary sources and then make it clear to Jeff that it is better than his rambling and disconnected version of things, and if need be eventually put a block on him if he continues to be disruptive. What are your thoughts on this? --Fastfission 22:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - he is quite resistant to the idea of consensus and I dislike the creatively pieced together quote approach. I would definitely support a redo, but don't feel qualified nor have ready access to those secondary sources to do the writing. Vsmith 23:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus science

Hi Vsmith, Take a look at the proposed text on my talk and let me know whether I should post it under Consensus science or under Junk science. Kind regards,--Iconoclast 20:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JanWMerks, I'm not a statistician so don't know much about the situation on that page. The consensus science page just barely survived afd about 18 months ago and was quite a battlefield for a time. Personally I think it should have been deleted long ago, but ... It is still on my watchlist so the recent spate of edit warring got my attention. Also, noting the problems discussed on your talk page re: geostatistics and such, I would have to ask for source info that was clearly not your own work. Vsmith 03:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for slander, libel and personal attack

Please read the article on Slander and libel before accusing anyone of personal attacks. ...IMHO (Talk) 03:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My note was simply cautionary, please assume good faith of your fellow editors. Vsmith 03:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein and his religous view section...

What is going on there? Is one person going to dictate this section? He has removed your edits and replaced it with more pseduo-whatever. (Thanks for spotting the then/than business - thats one of my favourite mistakes to make, I think!) --Desdinova 13:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think we're making some slow progress - he has mellowed a bit and didn't revert my changes - just tried to make it seem that I was in agreement with him, ah well - more fun & games :-) Vsmith 13:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Relf and Einstein

Yet again he is making the same entries.

Jeff strikes again

I don't know how to revert unfortunately --Desdinova 02:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, saw that and reverted. Reverting is quite simple, just open the previous (or earlier) page from the history or diff, click edit, then give a good reason in the edit summary, and save. Be cautious and don't do it to often, unless reverting vandalism. Cheers, Vsmith 02:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - I'm aware of the 3 reverts rule. Just a little frustrated at people Desdinova 03:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

unanswered query

Hi - I've just picked you off the Project participants list, as a likely-looking editor to be able to help me (or to know someone who can!). I left a message on the Project Talk page, a few days ago, without response Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocks and minerals entitled: 'Help needed please'. Can you take a look over there and see what you think, please? Very grateful for your time and trouble. - Ballista 13:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on project talk page. Vsmith 21:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added

A ref to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics%2C_philosophy_and_controversy to make the position a bit clearer.

On the talk: page I've mention previous talk of atoms (Dalton et al.) and also wave/particle nature of light (Huygens/Newton).

See what you think. You seem to have a much better writing style then me, so clean it up ;-)

Holocene

Regarding removal of "alleged" from Holocene page. Can you provide to me the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that "human-induced" global warming is indeed a proven fact, and not just alleged?

Neutral Point of View

Thanks, Erik Armstrong (tallershadow)

Alleged was far to weak - looked like some periferal skeptic POV pushing to me. Check out the evidence and current state of scientific consensus at global warming. The paragraph in Holocene needs a bit more rewriting as it includes some iffy speculations and is unsourced (unless the further reading was really the source). Vsmith 20:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So then the answer to my question is 'no', then? Because, actually, there is not a widespread scientific consensus claiming that 'human-induced' global warming exists beyond a reasonable doubt, or that it is the majority of cause behind the recent warming trends.

Hmm... Read the following: The current scientific consensus, as expressed in 2001 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and recently confirmed by a joint statement of the G8 academies of science, is that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities." From Attribution of recent climate change. See also: Scientific opinion on climate change. Vsmith 21:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Listen to the news - NBC is covering this as I type - Strongest consensus ever. And I've seen that website - not impressed. Sign your comments please. Vsmith 22:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You and me both know that you are convinced on your position, as am I, so let's just leave it at that. You're not impressed by information that doesn't support your stance, just as I believe that the major news networks are biased towards supporting certain left-wing causes. This whole thing is so politicized it's not even funny. Since you obviously have more time to edit and revise certain pages as you deem fit, your opinions will shine on. I signed my 'real' name up above, so relax, ok? Good day.

--Tallershadow 16:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True or False? Relevant or irrelevant?

"In 2001 the original 1956 Directory structure integrated by a President and five members designated by the National Executive authority was reduced, eliminating four positions of the Directory by Decrees 1065/01 and 1066/01." --200.45.150.234 01:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Couls you please explain why you are reverting my edits? (read the articles and discussion pages first) --200.45.150.234 01:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

major revisions complete

The Half-life computation article has undergone substantial revision which has hopefully addressed everyone's concerns. If you have any further comments after looking at the article again, please list the items you do not like, make whatever comment you have and please be specific and allow time for further revision. If there is any reason I can not comply with your wishes then I will let you know the reason why. ...IMHO (Talk) 12:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your brief visit to The Exit Store.com

I saw that you visited TheExitStore and remained at the homepage without navigating to any of the 40 informational pages concerning energy efficiency, trade offs on technology, use of tritium within exit signs, photoluminescent egress, etc.... Before you take the liberty to remove links on the basis of commericial intent, perhaps you may consider delving deeper into the external link. Clearly displayed on the home page are dozens of very informative links concerning the topics of my wikipedia additions. You have deemed ALL of our content as avertising, or commercial in nature, which it is not. The content is hosted on a commercial server, however the information concerning these topics is unbiased and non-commerically slanted. I wish not to grant licensing of this content into the public domain. Wether or not it is Indiana.edu or a .org non-nuclear proliferation website, every group uses some form of commercial transaction to maintain an existence. Does being one who is more obvious than others in their pursuit of self proprogation make them a more deserving target of penalty? If you were to see a price tag or a graphic with a website banner included or links added to a wikipedia page that bears no association to the content, then call it spam and then revert my additions. Until then, I am certain that my practical and informative linked information has a place amoungst the eyes of viewers on these topics and is at the very least a simple way of saving them or those within their circle of influence, countless dollars by removing electrically wasteful safety lighting fixtures, conserving tax payer dollars by switching to land fill friendly photoluminescent technology, and hopefully may prevent illegal disposal of nuclear signs into city refuse. Now, I ask of you... does your school use an electroluminescent or photoluminescent exit sign technology? Even "Energy efficient" LEDs use 20x's more electricity than these. An incandescent sign uses 200x's as much. An electroluminescent sign uses 1/4 of 1 watt per hour and will last for 30 years. A photoluminescent sign uses no electricity, will last for the life of the building, is non-toxic and requires no batteries for backup or disposal. Your district would recover the cost of the new signs by the energy savings and reduced maintenance costs in the first year alone. Take the savings per sign and then multiply it by the thousands of signs installed, and then you can begin to see how costly the lack of this knowledge is. Finally, and perhaps of greatest service, we sale all the signs at wholesale prices, with no minimum, rather than stacking on 5 tiers of commission that you would find using the very district popular GreyBear (<--intentional sp) or G-Ranger (<--intentional sp) Yes we sell signs, but we also offer a public service. Taking heed to your request, we will be more considerate in our posting of information. Thanks for your time.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakatzpajamas (talk • contribs)
Visited link - saw blatant sales pitch - removed linkspam from six pages. Wikipedia is not an advertizing medium. --Vsmith 00:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Junk science

You ought to ask Dr D E Meyers to answer the following question:

Does or doesn't each functionally dependent variable have its own variance? If yes, what happened to the variance of the distance-weighted average? If no, why not?

IAMG has yet to repond to any of these question. By the way, your spam remark doesn't make any sense. Look it up on Wikipedia. My website does not transmit spam to anybody.

Kind regards, JanWMerks

Without outside verification it is POV. Without outside (independent) source it is OR. Posting a link to your own work is OR and spam. Please support your contentions with peer reviewed sources by someone else and stop playing your games, gaming the 3rr system the way you are is getting tiresome. You have been asked repeatedly to back your assertions with outside references - I see no hint of compliance. And adding your website while not logged in or getting an anon to do it for you is quite transparent. Vsmith 01:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, Vsmith, Did you already ask Dr Meyers to assist in drafting the text for geostatistics? Have you already read what Stanford's Journel wrote to the JMG's Editor? Are you contemplating to buy for your personal benefit an inexpensive copy of Volk's "Applied Statistics for Engineers"? Kind regards, JWM,--Iconoclast 23:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, did you read what Stanford's Journel wrote in October 1992 to JMG's Editor? I'll post it again sometime soon. Please do not delete what you don't grasp. Rgds, JWM--Iconoclast 23:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, don't you delete what you don't grasp, man. (Feel free to delete unencyclopedic rantings and personal soapbox links though...) Femto 13:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey, I never really thanked you for reverting the vandalism to my page. So thanks. --Clyde Miller 00:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infiltration and permeability articles

Please help me consider what I could do about the following

Took a look at the articles in question. Seems they are all stubby, so I see no problem with simply including relevant missing info from permeability (soil science) and Infiltration (hydrology) into the Infiltration capacity stub. I don't see any need for deletion of the articles post merge; just leave them with histories as redirects. Although if someone wants a history merge, just put a request in for it (something I've never tried)). As for the Permeability (geology) article, it seems due to the petroleum geology aspect to have a different focus and probably should remain independent - 'tho I wouldn't have strenuous objections. Your proposed permeability (geosciences) seems a bit much at the moment. --Vsmith 20:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Talk:Radiometric_dating#Straw_poll

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ...IMHO (Talk) 01:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well .. so nice of you to give me this warning. However, I am well aware of 3rr - and do please heed the warning yourself. Also, be cautious with the charge of vandalism - adding clarification to a straw poll which lacked identification as to its originator is not vandalism. Falsely accusing your fellow editors of vandalism is not civil. Cheers! Vsmith 01:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You and your comrads have been caught.

Ligitimate clarification comments are inserted at the bottom of the poll in their own subsection not in the middle of straw poll introductory text. Inserting such references in the middle of a straw poll introduction text is obviously for the purpose and intent of disrupting the poll. You and your comrads have been caught. ...IMHO (Talk) 02:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Please cite Wikipedia policy regarding location of clarification comments in talk pages. I'm not aware of such. The clarifying note was set off in brackets as an obvious addition - perhaps not ideally placed, but definitely not vandalism. If you felt it inappropriately placed, the proper action would have been simply to move and attribute it. Again, please assume good faith and be civil. Vsmith 02:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but most if not all of your comments as well as those of Jclerman, ten of all trades and others make it diffcult if not impossible to interpret such placement of commentary as an obvious attemt to express the opposite of good faith. As for citation you may consult the general policies regarding any form of vandalism which also pretends not to maintain a disguise. ...IMHO (Talk) 07:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Einstein

What would be the procedure for requesting protection for the 'Scientific Philosophy' section, as Jeff is now getting more and insistent on adding this pseudo-* stuff to it?


I note in the last 24 hours JR has reverted at:

1:21, 6:14 and 12:13

Desdinova 12:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:Good article

hi, i hope you can take part in the deletion review debate for the above metadata template that puts a star on the article's mainpage (you voted in the original deletion debate). the vote is here Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 8 (scroll down for Template:Good Article section). thanks. Zzzzz 00:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Making vandalbots mad

I was in IRc with Tawker when the rangeblock was put in place. I fired up VP and cleaned up well. :-D Thanks! --ZsinjTalk 19:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Quick work - Thanks!

Re: your message: You bet! See you around! -Tapir Terrific 19:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fossil record

Sadly, holocaust denial exists. Its wrong, but it exists. The situation is that holocaust denial is notable enough for a mention in the Holocaust article. Similarly, creationism is wrong, but notable enough for a mention in the fossil record article. 80.189.215.95 13:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see the connection - holocast denial has absolutely nothing to do with the fossil record. Creationism has its own flock of articles and is irrelevant to the fossil record, just seems that some creationist POV pushers want to maximize exposure to their religious nonsense. Vsmith 16:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you probably understand the concept of a metaphor. Also this was in use on the discussion page, prior to my involvement. I'll reply in full on the fossil record talk page.80.189.8.190 18:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Thanks for your service in Vietnam.

I just noticed you have some comments regarding alleged spam that I put on. This was from a few months back (or more). Do you have a way of seeing what you were referring to? It wasn't clear in your comments.

Thanks.--Utahredrock 15:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome.
Looks like back in Feb. you added a bunch of external links to an online magazine. While the magazine itself may be legit. the sudden adding of eight or so links to it on various articles without any supportinig content addition triggered the canned spam note that I posted on your talk plus the rollback of the added links. Read the links contained within that spam notice for further info. Vsmith 16:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

t:GW

Well done, it was past time William M. Connolley 19:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had to access via dial-up modem over the weekend and that monster talk page took forever to download. My satellite connection was down - turned out to be a wasp nest in my antenna receiver, them buzzers were fun to get out :-) Vsmith 20:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Stone with a capitalised 'S'

Hi, Walkerma suggested I contact you about this.

There is a redirect on Blue Stone a nuclear weapon component, that takes readers to Blue stone, something completely different concerning mineralology. If you go to Yellow Sun which I edited recently you'll see that someone has later added a link to Blue Stone which is then redirected.

It was, and still is, subject to time constraints, my intention to generate a short descriptive piece about ENI's (Electronic Neutron Generators) as part of a more general update of British nuclear history. Blue Stone was originally a security codename used to describe several design generations of these devices that replaced the crude, short-lifespan impact generators used on early nuclear weapons, eg. Fat Man, Blue Danube, and its now the only name used for these ENI devices other than the later alpha-numeric jumbles. The name Blue Stone has become to ENIs in nuclear weapons terminology what hoover is to vacuum cleaners.

I'd like to get the redirect moved but am not sufficiently Wikified and want to proceed cautiously. Some source material for Blue Stone can be found at http://www.mcis.soton.ac.uk/pdf/Site_Files/nuclear_history/glossary.pdf

Correction. http://www.mcis.soton.ac.uk/Site_Files/pdf/nuclear_history/glossary.pdf Brian.Burnell 07:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regards. Brian.Burnell 06:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have at it. I just turned that redir into a stub for your enjoyment :-)
The redir was to a non-specific mineral topic, so I see no problem with it. Seems to have been used in the past for some band wannabe vanity bits - so there remain some musical articles in the What links here listing. Have fun, Vsmith 12:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

minerals

Hi VSmith, I must confess, I did not give it much thought whether minerals should have the template:ChemicalSources on them or not. Part of me says 'yes', these are chemicals, they have (probably) unique identifiers, and a short websearch (google) gives loads of sites (databases) which give spectroscopic data (Raman, X-ray, colours, etc.). They could therefore be encapsulated in Chemical Sources .. on the other hand .. they are not bought as a chemical, at least, most of them, so no need to avoid massive commercial links. What are your thoughts on this? --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - In my clean-up of the arsenide/antimonide/bismuthide categories earlier I did remove the template from pararealgar as it seemed irrelevant there (that's the only one I remember :-). As for most minerals I don't see the need for the template as they see little use as the chemical, that said, I see no problem with adding the template to minerals which see commercial use as the chemical. So, I guess proceed with an as needed basis - if commercial chemical spamming becomes a problem with a mineral then add the template. In that, I'm assuming spam prevention is one purpose of the template. Vsmith 22:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, indeed pararealgar was the page where I saw the template removed. The primary reason why the template was created was indeed the link-spam from commercial suppliers, but it does also give possibility to have other things linking (finding compound-data by unique identifiers, or name). Roughly, I have added the template to everything that came up from categories under 'chemical compounds' (more than 2300 pages). That does include some of the minerals. Indeed, for most minerals there is no real need (especially not for the commercial reason), though one could think to put the mineral databases also in the list on Wikipedia:Chemical sources (might need another name, then), and making also mineral-identifiers link to the page (for which we still need someone willing to programm it ...). I guess mineralogists also would like to find spectroscopic data, and then a meta-page would give the full list of external links (making the mineral-page itself cleaner, and the person looking for data can choose his or her favourite database from the list, instead of having to use the one that is supplied by the writer of the mineral-page). For now I will leave it to evolve and see what happens with the links (mainly because I fly to Zaragoza for the next ICOMC on Saturday). Guess some cleanup will be needed when I am back. See you around. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks

Thanks Vsmith for being a sensible voice in Composting toilet edit war! As I said I was kicking myself for allowing my buttons to get pressed and getting embroiled which is obviously what the OP wanted, I blame the hot weather which is making everybody a bit tetchy around here... quercus robur 13:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, trolls get to us all at times :-) Vsmith 19:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another thanks

Thanks for removing this attack. I didn't check as carefully as you did. --Uncle Ed 19:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's fun when edits get crossed up things were happenin pretty fast there for a bit. :-) Vsmith 19:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help request

Hi, I noticed on your user page that you're a geologist. A couple months ago I rewrote the Antelope Canyon article from scratch. I added a Geology section, but as I'm not a geologist, it's pretty skimpy and and I don't have the expertise to know what's right, wrong, or ripe to be expanded. Would you mind taking a look at it, and offering some advice or making an editing pass on it? -- moondigger 19:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will take a look a bit later, right now I gotta go meet the missus, and I'm late :-) Vsmith 19:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No hurry... whenever is good for you. Thanks! -- moondigger 19:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Einstein and Cosmology

No consensus was made as to cosmology in general, a large field of endeavour. However, there seems to be no reason to refute his contributions to relativistic cosmology and I have even included sourced information on his contributions to this effect. --68.224.247.234 01:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, no consensus that I see for inclusion in the intro. Seems quite clear to me. Vsmith 01:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment on Talk:Albert Einstein. You're quite right. I just find it to be one of the most frustrating pages. It's not that wonderful an article, but somehow all the editors' energy goes into resolving silly disputes – like all the text generated about the one word "cosmology" in the intro, the surreal infobox dispute, and the whole User:Licorne debacle – it's enough to make one's blood boil. Perhaps that's an indication I should take it off my watchlist. –Joke 03:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sometimes it gets to me too. Have to walk away and go into ignore mode for a bit. Sometimes I write a scathing response and then delete it, but that can be dangerous - what if I hit save instead :-) Please though, keep monitoring the article, we need all the sane eyes avaiable at times. The other contentious ones on my list are the Global warming and Evolution families of articles. Cheers, Vsmith 11:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Posting References

Hello Vsmith,

Thank you very much for your "Welcome" notice, and I will read your links provided. I saw that there were no articles under certain areas that I knew about so I just decided to write them. I try to make sure what I write is factual and always document my sources, and this is why I am emailing you now. I notice that some articles only have "external links" with only a subject title that then leads to the other sources at the end of the article, while others, like mine, document the complete source with the http address provided. I prefer to document the source in its entirety for open peer review, but is there a preferred standard format that you would like to see being used? Thanks. Don Valich

Hi, you're doing great. Yes, references is the heading for sources you have used and external links is for further information. As you may note, I've changed a couple headings for you along with other fixes. Keep up the good work, there are lots of blank spots in the geology articles here. Vsmith 02:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oops!

Hey yes sorry about the "umpteen saves"! I only worked out that there was a preview button after I had begun my reign of terror on that poor article! Thanks for fixing all that stuff up on that article by the way, I couldn't work out how to fix it properly. Sorry about that again,

Dex-12
Just realized I hadn't replied yet. No problem, we're all learning here (well there are some who think they know it all, but the rest of us run the joint:-) Vsmith 03:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thx re Jane

Thx, it does look more professional now. I just submitted tonight in Wikipedia for the first time. I din't know it would go up so quickly!

Ah - professional, yeah that's the word :-) we just like to have fun around here and act professional! Yes, your edits appear immediately, so think before you leap. Enjoy your editing. Vsmith 03:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References in text itself?

Do we put our sources and references in the text it self?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by AaronCBurke (talk • contribs)
There are several ways to do it, some get quite complex, but for a short article just list the references at the end or place inline weblinks directly in the text [1] - like that, (view the edit screen to see what I did). Take a look at several other articles to see some variations.
The links in that welcome message I sent you contain all sorts of info. Also, just type four tildes ~~~~ to add your userid and date to talk page comments automatically. Vsmith 03:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the APA style most often used in scientific articles, short quotations fewer than ~40 words should have the reference cited at the end of the quote. For example: It has been said that "time is the medium of all change, and this applies to the past as it does to the future." (Smarty, 2006, p. 101).

Block quotations larger than 40 words should be introduced first by the author and date of publication. For example: The source of the following critique of Moby Dick is Dr. Cruise Sojourner, published in his book, "A Whale of a Story" (p.123). Or: In a study by Sciknow (2008), "The world's knowledge is increasing beyond the levels of intellectual comprehension...."

No quotation marks are necessary in block quotations as long as the author has been properly introduced. A comma or period comes after the parenthetical citation in a block quotation.Valich 03:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, I don't think that it's a good idea to just have links or "external links" that only go to a website without including the name, author and date of the source, because these weblinks often change or become outdated and then lead to no where.Valich 03:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with and prefer the Wikipedia:Harvard referencing, however, Wikipedia has sorta evolved its own diverse set of systems - see Wikipedia:Citing sources. Main point add sources in some way - the format can be fixed later. Wikipedia:Footnotes has been fought over for a bit, but is evolving into something more useful as technical fixes are made. Vsmith 14:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need for clean up

Crude Oil Assay Article

OK I understand now.

Please go ahead and mark this article for deletion. The page is educational. The issue is with the two links in the article. The two links I added go to existing commercial webpages with lists of ASTM specified or industry specified test methods and other quality measurement parameters. What confuses me is that I see such linkage to commercial web-pages often in Wikipedia where commercial laboratories have added links to particular topics. I was assuming that others would add additional links to this page as it evolves, but apparently the 'launch version' is not meeting requirements.

Please delete this page as you have discussed.

Regards;

Erik Holladay --Erik Holladay 18:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I think I'll leave it as there is potential there (WP:AFD might get some attention for it though). I've removed the long list and your commercial link, added an ext link and stub note. The article has possibilities - wait a bit & see if someone grabs it and runs. Cheers, Vsmith 22:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vsmith,

I see you removed some of the External Links under Travel & Tourism. The site Go Visit Costa Rica site is a very informative site about Costa Rica and it is not spam. The only link you left there is the Wikipedia Travel site which is very small and not as informative as the Go Visit Costa Rica site. I would like to suggest that you keep the Go Visit Costa Rica site as an external link.

Thank You,

Todd

Looks like spam to me. What's your connection to the site? Vsmith 23:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vsmith,

Thanks for getting back to me.

Have you looked at the website? The site is only about Costa Rica as a tourist destination and it is very high quality with over 10,000 pages of unique content including unique photos and one of a kind maps. It is one of the more popular websites for Costa Rica tourism and it is endoursed by the Costa Rican Tourism Board. I help run the website.

Thanks, Todd

I have looked at the site, it is very well done, however it is spam. Have you read the spam warning I placed on your talk? You help run the site in question, the site in question is an advertizing site promoting a product - that is spam. Wikipedia is not here for your advertizing purposes. Vsmith 11:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Graphite's Edibility

Graphite is definitely edible. This is consistent with the pencil (see Miscellaneous) page which states that graphite can be heavily consumed.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisklerkx (talk • contribs) 18:45, 6 August 2006
The edibility ref in the pencil article has the context of pencil lead being graphite and not toxic lead. (I removed the senseless heavily bit). On the graphite page the addition of edibility with no context is meaningless. It has no nutritional value - what is the point? Vsmith 18:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That logic is terrible! Once we start removing information just because it has no immediate practical value, Wikipedia will suffer. This is not a guide to healthy eating. Graphite is edible, and that is a fact. -Chrisklerkx
An unencyclopediac fact. Sawdust and sand are edible also along with gobs of other stuff that has no nutritional value or any reason for including in an encyclopedia. Vsmith 19:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion copied to Talk:Graphite for visibility Vsmith 19:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GHG

Are you still on? THe anon has been blocked for 3RR... but I'm out of R for the day... William M. Connolley 20:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was offline for a couple hours, I see DF took care of it. Cheers, Vsmith 21:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Offline? Tsk tsk... :-) William M. Connolley 21:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I was in such a hurry to undo the vandalism done by OoTV that I did not notice the deleted 'scientific' in the Big Bang article. Justin Hirsh 21:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, you beat me to the OoTV revert so I just replaced the scientific after I indef blocked the OoTV vandal account. Vsmith 22:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

gemwise & spam

Vsmith, Thanks for the welcome. My posts promote a contrarian point of view in the quality grading and connoisseurship of gemstones. I read over the spam link as you requested. Seems to me, other than the fact that the author himself is making the reference, it is legitmate to put my book Secrets in the reference section since the point of view, i.e that the loupe standard is bs designed to make what is not particularly rare seem rarer is legitimate and if you want more information my book would be the source.

I see that the whole gem section needs work particularly when it comes to quality. My writing has a point of view that differs quite a bit from the mainstream. Oddly enough, my book is one of only one or two that address these issues at all. The trade has done a good job of suppressing information for a thousand years. So what else would I reference?

Gemwise (Richard W. Wise)

Thanks for the response. However, please consider carefully the No original research policy and use published sources other than, or in addition to, your own book for references (Citing only your book would appear to be self-promotion). If there are no other sources supporting your contrarian view, then those edits may need to be removed. Also, please read WP:NPOV and use caution when writing about your point of view. Vsmith 12:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thankyou

Just wanted to thank you for tracking down those citations for the evidence for evolution page. I was having trouble finding anything although I knew the statement was valid and your good timing saved me a lot of frantic hunting about the spare room! Weenerbunny 16:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Google book search is great for finding refs. :-) Personally, I thought the statement was essentially common sense - but someone wanted a ref. Maybe 3 was a bit of overkill. Cheers, Vsmith 00:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer

What do you think now that the article has been rewritten and the origins of the phrase have been traced? Gazpacho 21:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email

FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 00:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vsmith/archive5&oldid=1142700712"