User talk:Vsmith/archive8

Bauxite, Boehmite, Diaspore, Aluminum Oxide Hydroxide

It seems there is a circular reference in the page for Bauxite, caused by a redirection. There is a link active for Diaspore, this correctly shows the Diaspore page with information on AlO(OH). There is a link for Boehmite, this brings up a complete copy of the Bauxite page, even though URL in the address bar reads that Explorer is rendering the Boehmite page. Also, there is a red link (i.e. dead link) for aluminum oxide hydroxide, on the page for Diaspore itself. A place holding page for aluminum oxide hydroxide has been created. It includes the terms Boehmite and Diaspore. I can correctly link the Diaspore page, but Boehmite is presently redirecting to Bauxite. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sandgk (talk • contribs) 14:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC).Sandgk 14:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Look now - just created the boehmite article. And added a bit to your AlOOH page. Cheers, Vsmith 13:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - that should help. I initially took the liberty of conforming the nomenclature on the new to American English - "Aluminum" in place of Aluminium, but have since reverted the same on realizing that the Bauxite page and others in the group use the anglo-centric nomenclature. (One fun reason for which is that you can then sing the element's name to the Hallelujah Chorus). There were also some formatting issues with the text that I hope I have corrected in your newly created Boehmite page. By the way, is dipyramidal rigidly preferred over bipyramidal? Again, thanks Sandgk 00:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my spelling glitches. The aluminum/aluminium thingy - IUPAC favors the ium spelling and has been pretty much adopted in chemistry & science articles on Wikipedia. The f spelling for sulfur was adopted versus the ph at the same time - there were several nasty edit wars over those two words a couple years ago. I have adjusted and even find myself using the ium spelling with my chem students - at least they are aware of the spelling variation. As for the di/bi bit - that's just the way it was used in the Webmineral page I was using as a ref., don't really know which is proper. Cheers, Vsmith 00:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

my inappropriate link

I see you rejected my link. I wonder if you would mind looking at the link and reconsider the decision. I promise to accept your decision as final. It isn't a personal website, and it isn't a completely commercial website (unlike, for example, the link to the Geomatix website). It does sell a service, but it has some tides-related information and I am in the process of adding lots more. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnluick (talk • contribs) 03:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Quite simply it is your website if you work on it/add to it. Re-read the WP:SPAM page, Wikipedia is not for the promotion of your work. Please add sourced and verifiable content to Wikipedia articles - not just external links to your favorite site. I've just chopped a few more spam links from the tide page, thank you. Cheers, Vsmith 14:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Padparadscha‎

Please don't delete this outright as it is truly an important variety of corundum, but I thought you would get pleasure from cutting this down... Cheers. SauliH 02:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

What a piece of .... - don't rightly know if I want to play with that or not - not tonight anyway. Vsmith 02:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Age Of Universe Based On Biblical Writings

Hello,

I noticed that the subject on Biblical writings that I helped contribute, then was edited, then was removed by you. Can you make any recommendations, for i.e. more content, photos more sources, references?

thank you

God bless —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevenchange (talk • contribs) 02:30, 2 February 2007

See Origin belief and Creation within belief systems for mythological explanations. The age of the universe article is obviously based on physics/cosmology and your insertion of mythology in the middle of things was quite innappropriate and out of place. Yes, I know that you likely consider it to be truth rather than myth - but tough stuff :-) Cheers, Vsmith 02:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

oceanography links

Hi Vsmith,

you are welcome to remove as many links as you like, but I don't have the time to edit om Wikipedia. It is just a pity that my oceanogrpahy website has my name on it; it is much more than a "personal web site": Universities in all continents run mirrors of it because they think this is one of the best educational sites for oceanography; UNESCO distributes my site on CD to all countries in the world because they agree.

If you have the time to work on Wikipedia you are welcome to transfer all my material into Wikipedia. I do not insist on copyright, everything I have is free. Rather than writing the same stuff again for Wikipedia I thought it would make sense to establish a link. But if you don't like it, bad luck.

If you want to know what my current interest is (I regret having chosen oceanography as a job and am very relieved that I could retire last year) you can look up my timeline proposal in the Village Pump.

Happy editing,

Matthias —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MattTomczak (talk • contribs) 12:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Block problem?

Hi. You blocked user Wvogeler today but it doesn't seem to have worked. He/she has been able to edit his/her talk page to remove your block notice. Dunno much about these things but that can't be right.

andy 00:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

When blocked, a user still has access to edit his own talk page. Will take a look, thanks, Vsmith 01:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH

How do I remove the yellow message box at the top of my screen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.239.169.233 (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Religious Perspectives on Dinosaurs

I guess I must be doing something contrary to normal practice such that you are deleting refs to more detailed accounts of dating techniques. I am relatively new to editing so if you will kindly direct me accordingly I will try and follow the party line. Your somewhat cryptic comment led me to believe you had not bothered to read the section - shoot first and ask questions later. GoldenMeadows 16:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Shoot first? Seems you called me a vandal :-) - oh well. What references did I delete? I converted an inline link to a citation with more information on the source than a naked url. As for the see alsos - we usually reserve those for the end of the article. If you want to include those links into a section simply write a sentence of good prose which includes the links. Please also note that editing comments should not appear on the page as rendered to the user - either place notes on the talk page or set them off as hidden notes. Cheers, Vsmith 16:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

IP Block - School

You recently implemented an anonymous user block against 216.69.63.254. If it becomes necessary to block this IP address again, you may want to use the "schoolblock" tag, as this IP range is assigned to Bluegrass Community & Technical College. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psxer2600 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 5 February 2007

Thanks for the info. Vsmith 18:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Academic Publishing Wiki

Hi Vsmith:

You had commented on an issue I had when I was linking from articles on Amateur Astronomy and Astronomy to Academic Publishing Wiki and Amateur Astronomy. Fountains of Bryn Mawr had blocked me from editing for spamming. You added a comment on his discussion page:

"Above user blocked for spamming, he/she had removed the blocking message from his talk page prior to your response to the above. Just to let you know. Cheers, Vsmith 01:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)"

Frankly, I did not understand what your comments meant. Am I o.k. now?

Thanks for your consideration.

Wvogeler —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wvogeler (talk • contribs) 00:34, 6 February 2007

You were blocked for 24 hours by me - not by Fountains of Bryn Mawr, I was simply informing her/him of the block as you had blanked the block message from your talk page. Your block is over - are you OK? If you begin adding spam links to the pages, you will be blocked for a longer period. You are welcome to edit responsibly and add sourced content to Wikipedia articles. Cheers, Vsmith 00:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

VSmith:

Thanks for explaining your comments. I am still puzzled, however, about how it is considered spamming to promote Academic Publishing Wiki.

I have reviewed the main page at Academic Publishing Wiki again, and it urges users to promote and publicize the project. Don't you think it would be good to link Wikipedia articles to another Wiki project?

I look forward to any suggestions, and help, in promoting the Academic Publishing Wiki.

WVogeler —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wvogeler (talk • contribs) 01:08, 6 February 2007

Please read the policies at WP:SPAMwhich states in part:

Wikipedia is not a space for personal promotion or the promotion of products, services, Web sites, fandoms, ideologies, or other memes. If you're here to tell readers how great something is, or to get exposure for an idea or product that nobody's heard of yet, you're in the wrong place.

Wikipedia is not here to promote another site. We editors are here to write an encyclopedia - simple as that. As I stated above, you are most welcome to join us and add to the content of various Wikipedia articles. But, if all you want to do is promote another site, then please do your promoting elswhere. Also note - you can sign and time/datestamp your talk page comments by simply typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end. Thank you, Vsmith 01:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Promoting Academic Publishing Wiki

(For your information, VSmith, I have reported the following to JWSmith who apparently is a volunteer editor at Academic Publishing Wiki. You may have some thoughts to contribute.)

I have had some trouble trying to promote Academic Publishing Wiki and a new journal I created there called Amateur Astronomy. You can read about my efforts and obstacles on my Wikipedia discussion page.

Basically, I got into trouble after I linked from Wikipedia articles on "Astronomy" and "Amateur Astronomy" to Acadmeic Publishing Wiki and Amateur Astronomy because the articles said that "amateur astronomers can still make contributions to the science." Unfortunately, some Wiki users said I was spamming and then blocked me from editing.

I have stopped linking, but I think it would help Academic Publishing Wiki if users could link to it from Wikipedia where appropriate. It seems inconsistent to ban links to another Wiki community, especially when other Wikipedia links abound to less reliable sites.

I notice that the Academic Publishing Wiki has not grown very much since it was created in 2005, and so I suggest that you or another Academic Publishing Wiki administrator consider a change to the policy about linking from Wikipedia to other Wiki communities. Otherwise, I fear that Academic Publishing Wiki may fail like its predecessor from lack of exposure.

WVogelerWvogeler 14:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia "Promotes" Academic Publishing Wiki

Despite claims to the contrary, Wikipedia promotes Academic Publishing Wiki by linking from Wikipedia to Academic Publishing Wiki.

This is demonstrated by the link under "Further Reading," found at Wikipedia's policy page on original research

Further comment is appreciated.

WvogelerWvogeler

Replied on your page. Vsmith 00:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Form over substance

I hope you are not "promoting" form over substance, VSmith.

You focus on a negative connotation of the word "promote," but you miss the substance of my use of the word. I use the word "promote," as Merriam-Webster defines it, to "promote understanding [1]"

In any case, I appreciate that you recognize Wikipedia's policy page links to the Acadmic Publishing Wiki. It promotes understanding.

WVogeler

Oceanic Crust

Hello Vsmith,

I was just wondering about your article on oceanic crust. I was interested in adding to it but I looked at the history page and it looks as if attempted additions have for the most part been reverted. I was wondering if it was because those additions were innacurate or if this article is just seen as finished. I'm still interested in adding to it and was just wondering what you think. Thanks.

Karl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl07 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 6 February 2007

You are most welcome to add content to the article as it is currently just an unsourced stub. Please add reliably sourced info and cite or list the references you use. The problem with looking at the abundant reversions on the history is that the vast majority are for simple vandalism edits. If you add verifiable well written information it will most likely remain - although it will be edited further and if questioned, Wikipedia editors are not shy about questioning and discussing for improvement. Jump right in and enjoy. Vsmith 00:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

sorry

i am sorry

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Remilo (talk • contribs) 02:45, 9 February 2007

OK, just be more careful with your edits in the future and avoid the cheese nonsense. Note: I have redirected your new page granite biotite to granite as it was laking in content and perhaps misnamed. Did you mean biotite granite? Vsmith 02:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Missouri

Vsmith,

Hey please double-check your recent edit to Missouri. There was some obvious baloney in the article and I removed it:

"was michael saiz who went back in time and conqured them he became there leader and they simply callled him, ouemessourita and then he grabed the lighting from the sky and created the pencil"..."Michael saiz was here the fist person ever in missouri because he went back in time and picked his nose and ate his booger now he lives forever 2004."

You actually reverted my edit to replace that stuff.Cynic783 18:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that - happens at times, I've reverted further now. Thanks for telling me. Vsmith 18:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No prob..thanks for fixing it!Cynic783 19:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Gemstones External Link

Hello Vsmith: You recently deleted a link to the gemstone article that I had previously added. I thought that this was a good link to identify gemstones with, since had a large veriety and had good close-ups of each type of gemstone. I have not been able to find any other web site that is as concise and well done. Would you reconsider the removal, please. Do you have an alternate site instead? Thanks Leon7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leon7 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 9 February 2007

That link was simply a sales pitch with photos. We don't promote commercial links, simple as that. There are other sites that are noncommercial with images - the mindat.org site and webmineral.com site - both have images and are non-commercial (they do have minor advertizing) and are used as references for most of the mineral articles. Vsmith 19:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a Philosophical Issue

You ignore completely the problem of verifiability, and your COI allegation is thinly veiled ad hominem. The majority of my posts have nothing to do with me (I have no "organization"). Kyle, Jim, Davy, Dana--their data is lost. I personally saw Dana puking his guts out on the South Kaibab when he finished his quad. I am referring this whole thing to the UltraRunning magazine board of editors, which, as I have noted, is the definitive source for UR data and stats. I will suggest a verifiability standard to them, along with a COI policy. If it diverges from that of wikipedia when individual exploits are concerned, wikipedia will either have to acknowledge this or concede that it is not as comprehensive or accurate as it claims.

BTW, you likely used my dad's microwave trunk relays in 'nam. He was a brigade commander. I'm Army. Guess that explains a lot.

Hyperphil 05:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here for you to "toot your own horn" - or your buddies horns. That what conflict of interest is about. The place for any running records is in an article on ultrarunning or marathons. Articles such as the Grand canyon or about individual mountains are not the place for such. The only running bit appropriate in those article is perhaps a brief mention of running with perhaps a link to some running page where the details and records would be listed. The policies of the Ultrarunning mag. are irrelevant here although it seems they should have a COI policy. Is Wikipedia comprehensive on ultrarunning - I haven't a clue. Mayhaps you could improve that in the article on ultrarunning (of course, using verifiable references and avoiding COI issues). Cheers, Vsmith 16:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Strontium Edits

With respect there were several errors in the strontium article which as an expert I have corrected. Strontium is a metal yet talks exclusively about compounds - technically the whole article needs re-writing from the metal perspective. My colleugues and I are the world's experts on strontium metal and our views are sought by many who have a deap interest in this subject. Please respect other peoples views. Ed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TRUGROUP (talk • contribs) 15:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm not questioning your expertise nor your edits to the article. Simply removed the external link to your company or whatever. Wikipedia is not here to promote commercial interests - please read the WP:SPAM policy page I referred you to.

Any improvements you make to the strontium article are welcome, just be sure they are backed up by a verifiable independant source. Please also read WP:OR and avoid basing your edits on your own work, unless published by a verifiable journal/source. Vsmith 16:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Unblock of Rebroad (talk · contribs)

FYI, I have unblocked Rebroad (talk · contribs). Please see [2] for my comments on it. Blocks are a preventative measure, not a punitive one. Since this user was unaware of that aspect of the policy and has promised not to breach the policy in the future, I feel that an unblock is in order. As with any administrative action I take, I consider it to be open to review and reversal if I am incorrect, but honestly, the more I thought about it, I could not see a non-punitive reason to leave the user blocked. --BigDT 02:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Hi Vsmith. Thanks for the clarificaion on my talk page regarding the 3RR. I'm amazed I'd gone all this time with the misunderstanding on the 3RR. I'm curious to know if I've therefore breached it before without realising it, but I suspect not, as I've rarely been involved in edit wars until recently with the carbon dating article! It's funny, I was talking to my girlfriend this evening, and she was also of the opinion that only scientificially proven material should be in the article. In a way, I do too - the main reason I felt that the "controversy" should be mentioned is so as to also include the fact that the disputed accuracy of carbon dating has no scientific basis. Otherwise, without mentioning that, readers of the article may suspect the truth is simply being withheld, or that it's some sort of conspiracy by the scientific community - whereas if they see it mentioned that the religious bodies have no scientific basis for their accusations, then they might instead try to find the truth out for themselves, or at least see if they can prove the statement to be incorrect - which, if they can, would surely lead to an even better wikipedia article (assuming they can cite credible and reliable sources!). Regards, --Rebroad 02:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

deleting spam

Hi Vsmith - sorry to bother you, I turn to you rather than begin an edit war. See [this diff] - I deleted it once as linkspam (the user added it to 10 or more pages, and I see it as a commercial site). He's added it back, so I ask you to see if my judgement is correct. Many thanks... Cheers Geologyguy 16:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

additional on this topic, copied from my talk page:

deletions of otispa

rockhead (aka:Geologyguy), good u r watching my op-eds,your first comment was re the content of my webpage oiljetpump.com. I notice the Schlumberger dictionary is added to several articles... the schlumberger web page is a STRICTLY commercial page with information. I have no problem with such an approach. What i have a problem with is rockheads who favor one commercial site over another.

secondly, i decided to add a comment from an AAG web page to see what you would then do. it was also deleted using a different pretext. I will appeal your actions unless your deletion of the AAG link is restored by Feb 28/07. opa —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Otispa (talk • contribs) 16:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Feel free! (copied to Vsmith) Cheers Geologyguy 17:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find that the New Georgia Encyclopedia is not a spam link, but an appropriate attribution to guide readers to fact checked, authenticated, verified information on a subject. White I appreciate Wikipedia's contribution, any policy that ELIMINATES fact-checked information that is on-point for the subject matter of an article is, in my opinion, a DISSERVICE to the credibility of your site and its readers. I will welcome a reply. I would also welcome a clarification of who you are, and on what basis your decisions are made. It will help me to better understand how Wikipedia works and the criteria used in eliminating links or, for that matter, information contained in articles. Thank you,

Jamil Zainaldin

how do u get a job as an admin for wikipedia n what r the advantages

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby137 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 20 February 2007

Hi Bobby137, after a lot of good editing and vandalism fighting for a few months to a year other editors may view your good work and nominate you for adminship. Then the Wikipedia community discusses your qualifications and votes on the nomination. If enough editors support your nomination, you are given the mop - which simply means you can clean up messes (vandalism and such) a bit easier. Advantages: - basically it makes vandalism reverting easier and admins can block persistent vandals. Cheers, Vsmith 22:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I would like to send my thanks to you for blocking the individual out. I am a distant cousin of both Dan and Joe Klecko (father's side) and I was lucky enough to come across this earlier today. I would hate to see most of my father's side of the family wind up in the hospital due to heart attacks (we are a close knit family).

Rwboa22 21:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Not really sure who I blocked in regard to this? Anyway, I have removed that sprot tag that you added - just adding the tag doesn't do anything, sprotection requires an administrator. I don't see much anon vandalism on the page, so no reason for sprotect. I've added the page to my watch list and will keep an eye on it for a while. Vsmith 00:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with the page John Wesley Powell on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Cavenba 00:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for the warning - seems you jumped into the middle of a botched vandalism revert involving a couple of anons - I was trying to clean it up when interupted by your canned message above. Now, why not take a minute and check who it is you are warning? Cheers, Vsmith 01:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

My revert

Sorry if I caused a problem. Everyone makes mistakes, it's a human thing. Once again sorry, I'll try to be more careful. Cavenba 00:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, kinda funny really - and I went ahead and cleaned up the mess. Cheers, Vsmith 01:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

At least it won't happen to you again, you're on my white-list. It's just that some thing in VandalProof look like Vandalism. Cavenba 01:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

School blocks

Please use {{schoolblock|optional comment}} as your block reason when blocking IP addresses that have been tagged as SharedIPEDU, because "blatant vandalism" confuses school teachers and unblock-en-l ends up having to deal with irate email addresses and/or waste time explaining the same thing over and over again. Case in point: User_talk:65.211.248.1 and [3]. Thanks. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Vsmith, I'm noticing you're still using "school vandalism" as your block reason. Please switch over to {{schoolblock}} because very often innocent users behind a blocked school IP will NOT read their talk page and will email unblock-en-l as their first point action. Please help save our time on unblock-en-l and make the switch. --  Netsnipe  ►  21:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Per the template page, its use is for 6 mo. blocks of school IPs, to be placed on the IP talk. This needs clarifying. I seldom issue 6 mo. blocks, so by my reading, it doesn't apply. Now am I reading it right or does the template page really mess it up? Vsmith 23:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That only applies to using it on an IP's talk page. You should use the template itself as a blocking reason whenever you are blocking a school IP. --  Netsnipe  ►  04:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

External link spam

I feel that the Link I added was decidedly appropriate, and deserves a place on Wikipedia. I do not need permission to add this link, and while it may represent a conflict of interest, we provide an exception educational experience for college students nationwide- More appropriate than "Grand Canyon Dories" who is technically for-profit. I appreciate the self governing nature of Wikipedia, and while I do not condone the spamming of this useful tool, I approve of and urge readers to follow up on what they learned with a professionally-run experiential education program on the subject at hand. Your consideration is appreciated, as more people would benefit from my link than the article on Grand Canyon alone. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.114.229.119 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 26 February 2007

The site may well be a good educational site, however for you to be promoting it constitutes spam and brings up the issue of conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not here to promote your site, we are here to write an encyclopedia. Thank you, Vsmith 23:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

hello

hello how r u? sorry about vandalising the pages

Blocked anon, registered user

(Because you handled the most recent block on this anon IP —

on User talk: 209.232.151.49

209.232.151.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

moved the signature of

Blindman shady (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

with the edit summary "(move my signature)"  (emphasis added)

— this is provided for your information.) — Athænara ✉ 08:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Kriging

Hello!

I've originally visited the kriging page several months ago, looking for useful information (Specifically, I wanted to implement kriging in a Fortran program to interpolate unordered elevation data). The page struck me as being chaotic and going off at a tangent; little specific information on the kriging technique was provided, but there was a lot of vituperative wrangling against geostatistics.

I complained on the talk page and waited a long time for the article to improve. I revisited the article periodically, read the talk page and related user talk pages closely (JanWMerks and Merksmatrix in particular), and came to the conclusion that the reason the article is so wretched is because it is under continuous attack by a father-and-son team of cranks, who disrupt any constructive work with their own unsubstantiated agenda.

In order to give bona-fide editors like you more breathing space, I recommend that this matter be given due process under Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Specifically, I propose that a request for help be filed under AMA Requests for Assistance, as a first step. Perhaps the Advocate will be able to guide us in the steps that need to be taken to stop the disruptive behavior. My ultimate goal is Article probation. I am fed up with the cranks. Aren't you?

Please let me know what you think at my talk page. I sent this message to Hike395, Michael Hardy, Vsmith, SCmurky, Antro5, Nvj and Berland, as these names appear a number of times in the discussions. Freederick 16:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't think I've ever edited this one - although have removed some OR and self promo links from the geostatistics page. No expertise in the field, so I've not done much - but agree that there has been much crankism going on. Vsmith 16:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Stratigraphy: Historical development

The following was removed:

"Correction. Superposition is a principle affirmed by Nicolas Stenon, not a law. It has been challenged as such by the experiments of Guy Berthault published in Lithological and Mineral Resources a journal of the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Geology. For details see www.sedimentology.fr"

The reason given was:

"Maybe so, but we don't mess up the article with it. If the Law is to be changed to Principle - then we'll just change it. Discuss? Vsmith 23:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)"

Sir,

The object is not to replace the term "law" by principle" but to draw attention to the historical situation whereby what was proposed as the "law" of Superposition (or more correctly as a principle) has been challenged by peer-reviewed scientific experiments in sedimentology published in the scientfic literature.

What was proposed as a principle of stratigraphy has been questioned by the scientific method. Should this fact not be reported?

Berthault

Hi, I am reviewing the papers you linked to. Seems to me we are off a notch or two though. The details of sedimentology do not in my experience invalidate Steno's laws. We are talking of two different things here, and must consider the historical frame in which Steno and the early workers developed their concepts. The Law of Superposition still is valid in the large picture. Of course when we look at cross bedding and channel deposition in detail we may see presumed inconsistencies, however, the laws of Steno apply in the over-all picture for strata at the large scale and I see no reason to propose that the relative age dating developed using the old principles is in any way invalidated simply because of local scour and fill and cross-bedding within a single stratum. I haven't finished reviewing your papers though, and may return to the subject later. Vsmith 16:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Charmstone Page

Hi,

Why do you keep taking the link I suggested out of the page "Charmstone"?

It is the first time I (try to) add something in Wikipedia, so I am not so sure why you guys are removing my link.

Can you, please, explain?

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SimmyUK (talk • contribs) 13:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

It's really quite simple. A testimonial supporting such quackery on a promotional site simply doesn't work. If you have results published in peer reviewed medical journals please present them. Mere anecdotal evidence such as you are trying to link to is not accepable. Vsmith 16:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr Smith, you are a sad, sad, grumpy old man. I feel realy sorry for your "narrowmindedness". The good thing is that not all geologists are such ignorants and some, like Michael Gienger, actualy tried to study more the just the physical aspects of the stones and afterr years of study came to the conclusion that they are much more than beautiful rocks. Kindest regards! p.s.: Don't worry, I won't waste my time with a person like you anymore. So, you can reply as you wish, 'cause I won't be here to listen. Ta ra! —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimmyUK (talk • contribs) 13:47, 6 March 2007

OK. Good-bye. :-) Vsmith 02:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

New mineral article for inclusion

Hello Vsmith. I'm new to Wikipedia...been trying to figure it all out to include an article. One of the problems I'm having among others is finding the correct category for it. I'm not real good at this type of thing, I see you're interested in minerals. I was wondering if perhaps you would be helpful to include the article for me?

The info and images can be found at this web address. http://www.neatstuff.net/avalon/new-stone-avalonite.html I have given the OK to use this info. at the bottom of that page....

"Re-use of this information and images of Avalonite are permitted under the GFDL. This information and images are released into the public domain to be used freely by anyone who wishes to do so."

Anyway, just thought I would ask for some help.

Thanks for your consideration.

Regards, Kellie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crystaldeva (talk • contribs) 17:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

I'll be blunt. The website you linked is a commercial supplier of stones and minerals, hyping them as healing stones or some such. They list avalonite as a trademarked name for a color variety of rock consisting largely of zoisite. Google search returns nothing but sales pitches and hype for this fantastic healing stone or other such cruft. Not one valid reference in the first 10 pages. Google scholar has nada. And I doubt you'll find it listed on mindat.org or webmineral.com - the two most reliable mineralogical databanks. So, it simply doesn't pass muster on the notability scale. Unless you can provide a valid mineralogical reference for it - not commercial sales pitches - then simply don't start an article based on the hype. Thanks, Vsmith 23:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry I ruined you link at List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts- didn't see that. Someone took out citation requests along with the tags. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. It wasn't "my link" though - and should've been a ref rather than an inliner anyway. Cheers, Vsmith 02:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Stratigraphy - Stenon's priniciples

Hello Dr. Smith,

Not having had a response to my several messages, I am wondering if you are on vacation or they haven't reached you. Could you let me know? My email is berthault@sedimentology.fr.

Thank you - Guy Berthault

Stratigraphy - Stenon's principles

Thank you for your comment of March 5 and I am glad you are reviewing the link I sent. As you will see the research combines laboratory experiments and paleohydraulic analyses in the field. So we are looking at the whole picture not a single stratum.

A law applies universally. One cannot refer to experimental facts as “inconsistencies”. The facts are founded on empirical data and one has to distinguish objectively where the law applies and where it doesn’t.

No one witnessed the stratification of rocks. Stratigraphic principles are founded on the rocks’ appearances. But Stenon’s reference was not to rocks; he wrote: “strata owe their existence to sediments in a fluid”. It was these words which led me do the laboratory experiments. I worked alone at first, and then with qualified engineers, using flumes in which sediments transported by a current at varying velocities could be observed. In the deposit, all the characters of stratification could be seen; graded bedding, surface erosion, crusty surfaces and bedding planes due to desiccation. The stratification consisting of superposed strata prograded in the direction of the current. In such circumstances there was no question of the principles applying, nor was there any element of “inconsistencies”.

The question was to know how these experimental results could be applied to sedimentary rocks. It should be recalled that the results were coherent with Walther’s law, i.e. with modern sequential stratigraphy where the “systems tracts” are recognized as diachronic. Therefore, the results could be applied to transgressive and regressive phases in a series.

You will see on the website, I give as an example the Tonto Group (Lithology and Mineral Resources October 2004) using Rubin’s data concerning the relation between velocity of current and size of particles. The determination of the paleohydraulic conditions upon which sedimentary cinematic and time of deposit depend requires ascertaining experimentally the erosion of rocks in a powerful current. For this purpose I have just signed an experimental research contract with the Russian Institute of Hydraulics in St Petersburg. The results will enable a team of Russian sedimentologists with whom I operate to determine with greater accuracy the paleohydraulic conditions.

The problem has been that Stenon interpreted his observations to fit what he saw. Not having the laboratory equipment he was unable to test them and they looked so eminently reasonable that nobody else did either.

Guy Berthault (March 7, 2007)

Hurricane link "spam"

Hi, I submitted the www.geocities.com/tropicwx link to the "Cyclones" listing on Wikipedia. Just to let you know, although this site is hosted on Geocities, it is far from spam. I'm the creator of the site, and it features real-time satellite and radar imagery of current storm systems during the tropical system. And, as storms bear down on a particular coast/region/city, I add local/regional live radar for that area. The imaging is sourced/linked from off-site, so it does not run into bandwidth problems. Other than the embedded Geocities ads, the site is completely commercial-free and provided as a public service. Thanks for your dilligence in maintaining a page on a subject which I hold very dear to heart. I started the geocities page when I lived in New Orleans about five years ago, and have maintained it after I moved to Texas. My family in Louisiana was directly impacted by Katrina..so, more than ever, it's not a task I take lightly.

Many thanks,

Jay Vise jayvise@gmail.com Austin, Texas —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.112.129.61 (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Please see WP:SPAM. If you are promoting your own site, it is spam - simple as that. Vsmith 16:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Selenite article

Hi, VSmith - thank you also for your editing on the selenite article that I posted yesterday - didn't look in detail for what you edited and what zzuuzz edited - I've made some changes to formatting today - plus I re-kind-of-wrote some of the wording - and added a couple of clarifying-type things. Hopefully, the article is better now. AshleyAshleyWitchcrafter 17:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Overdoing volcano project?

I've replied at length on my talk page. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Mammoth-reversion of my contribution

Hello Vsmith,
I'm new at this, but I'm interested in knowing why you reverted my contribution. Perhaps a suggestion to make it more appropriate? A culture has developed, which is quite popular, to display fauna of the northern climes during holiday seasons. A demonstration of a Mammoth in that context is entirely appropriate under a heading of "Mammoths in Popular Culture." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by William Wingstedt (talk • contribs) 13:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Seemed to be quite unencyclopedic to me as well as unsourced. I would add vanity, as you inluded you own name "Seasonal Mammoth display by [[William Wingstedt]]" plus the unformatted image totally messed up the endmatter of the article. Did you even look at the finished product after you submitted it? Vsmith 13:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Stratigraphy - Stenon's principles

Unable to gete a reply from you to my messages. Is there a reason?

Guy Berthault

Replied on Talk:Stratigraphy for wider audience. Sorry 'bout the delay. Vsmith 01:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Defender of the Wiki

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I hereby award you the Defender of the Wiki Barnstar for reverting press test vandalism at Rocky Mountains. See the CNEWS article. mav 12:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting - I remember that stange bit of vandalism. And, hey, I got in the news ... Anyway thanks for the star. Vsmith 17:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Clifton Hill

Dear Vsmith,

For a time there was a large section relating to Clifton Hill on the main "Niagara Falls" page which was suddenly removed. This content wrapped around the large photo of Clifton Hill which still remains. The textual content was a few paragraphs which did a great job of describing Clifton Hill, Niagara Falls largest tourist area. For some terrible reason, someone deleted this section. Subsequently the link was removed as well. It seemed that when everything was in-tact the official Clifton Hill link was allowed to be placed in the external link section. Maybe you can explain why the 3-5 paragraphs about Clifton Hill were deleted, and suggest a way to reinstate this information and the external link. I appologize for trying to resubmit the link, I am new to this process.

We are more than happy to provide you interesting historical information on Niagara's early tourism activities, many of which were spent on or near Clifton Hill. Please advise how this can be done without the content being deleted again.

209.202.119.174 21:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I don't recall the section in the article nor do I know who removed it without a search through the article history. Wikipedia does have an article on Clifton Hill and a see also link to that article should be sufficient - or a brief mention and link within the article. The external link that you added was simply a spam link to a commercial tourist site and as such it was spam. Also, as you appear to be affiliated with the site there is the problem of conflict of interest. Please review the relevant policies and do not re-add the link. You could bring up the deleted section on Clifton Hill on the talk page: Talk:Niagara Falls to see what the feeling of the regular editors of the article is. Thanks, Vsmith 22:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Tourist trap

I understand, so long as you understand that if anyone slaps a "fact" tag on anything, the so-called "spam" is going back in. Wahkeenah 01:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems that a fact tag would be calling for a reference for calling a site a tourist trap - not for its existance - the associated Wiki article demonstrates that it is there. If someone wants a ref for the nature of the place, then a presumably independent source would be required and should be added as a proper citation rather than an inline link to some promotional site. I hope the distinction is clear. Vsmith 02:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You never know what editors will do. One will zap a fair use photo on the grounds that a free photo "could be" gotten somehow, then someone else will post a "we need a picture here" tag thanks to the other one having been deleted. It's nuts. Wahkeenah 07:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Nissonite

Hi, I created a page about a mineral called nissonite. I was wondering if you could clean up the article. Here's the link to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissonite. If any changes need to be made feel free to do so. Neptunekh 03:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"POV pushing"

I am not "POV pushing." All I am doing is stating evolution is the most likely way that all life was made and I have a source to support that. That is not POV pushing. Thanks for your time:) --James, La gloria è a dio 03:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Repeatedly adding the same statement against consensus of the other editors on that page seems like pov pushing to me, but perhaps I could have phrased that edit summary better. Anyway, when you re-insert the same material more than three times within a 24 hr. period, you take a vacation. Enjoy your wikibreak. Vsmith 03:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record I actualy believe in evolution. Have a nice week and god bless:) --James, La gloria è a dio 18:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Vsmith, SJP has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

hey

hey mr. smith I finaly got a wiki acount

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Guystout (talk • contribs) 04:05, 22 March 2007

Great - use it wisely. ;-) Vsmith 01:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Half Life

re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Half-life&oldid=117177294

It seems your desire is to show how to calculate the fraction remaining. I see value in that.

Let's remember that a person of sufficient mathematical sophistication does not need a table to know that after 7 half-lives a quantity is 1/128 or 1/2^7 as big. It is easy to lose sight of what is trivial to some, it is not trivial to others.

At the same time, a lay person would find it very interesting that in just 7 half lives, a quantity is less than 1% of its original value; and by the time it gets to 10, less than 0.1% It is also easier for such person to remember or quote "after 10 events, 1/10 of 1% remains" than to remember 1/1024 or 1/2^10.

I propose that a better table would show N, Formula (currently known as "As power of 2"), and %

0 1/2^0 100%

1 1/2^1 50%

2 1/2^2 25%

I am also open to 4 columns, but that might indeed be "less simple."

Considering the target audience, perhaps it would be wise to name the third column "Percentage remaining, rounded" and to limit it to 2 decimals.

Less reach consensus here before we do a final edit to the table Andy Rosa 16:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Consensus should be discussed on the article talk page. No, I don't desire to show how to calculate the fraction remaining - just to illustrate the beauty and simplicity of the relationship. Percentages ?? - seems anyone can do that simple arithmatic operation. Vsmith 18:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Acid Rain

I am totally mystified by the removal of the ISDN references - it wasn't even an external copy-edit . Anyway, many apologies, it was an unintened and unseen edit. I was however concerned to ensure that the very real impact of occult deposition which is evidentially most damaging for the very acidic upland soils we have in north Wales, was noted. Velela 16:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem - the word occult, however, seems to have a different general meaning - and should be qualified or defined in this specific usage. Vsmith 18:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have sinned!

Please be aware of WP:AWW before adding weasel words into articles as you've done to Global Warming. --Tjsynkral 16:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow - I have made a major sin! Weasels yet. And this gracious POV pushing newbie feels it his duty to remind us of our sins. My, my - will I never learn ... Forward to battle mates, stomp them weasels, push them povs. Cheers, Vsmith 18:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I owe you an apology

I was reported as having violated 3rr Here. This is my first known instance of policy violation. I feel badly about it. No action was taken but I still feel badly about it. I was cited as having reverted you 2007-03-25T15:49:51 here. I specifically apologize to you for the error and the angst. Though there was no action taken, I have voluntarily blocked myself from editing wikipedia articles and talk pages for 24 hours from the date that this notice was filed on the 3rr board. --Blue Tie 14:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Kythnos link deletion

I'm a real newbie at editing, so this is just a query to understand policy better. You deleted a link for the article on Kythnos, kythnos-island.com, I presume because it is considered to be commercial. However, it is the official website for the municipality of the island; that is, it is sponsored (I think, not absolutely sure) by the mayor's office. Is this considered to be too commercial? (P.S. I'm not the person who originally added the link there, but I was involved in much of the research and writing of the article itself. Hence my interest in the matter.) Kathy S 17:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Kathy S

Question

Found another of User:Ed_Poor's embryonic POV forks at Belief in global warming. As an admin-type person, do you think we should we go through AfD, or can you take care of it? Raymond Arritt 01:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I had just discovered it -- geesh what a piece of ****. Made it a redir to the controversy article. Probably should've just speedied it. Maybe should post a note on the arbcom enforcement page?? Ed surely should know better. Thanks for the note, Vsmith 01:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

'K, thanks. Wonder how many more of them are out there? Given that this was one of the behaviors specifically cited as leading to his probation it may be worth suggesting that he be enjoined from creating new pages. It's a bit sad; I think Ed is capable of being a constructive contributor, but that doesn't mean he is one. At some point the community has to say "enough". Raymond Arritt 02:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Amfipoli

Hi, I added a paragragraph in the article Amfipoli. Could you look at and maybe it edit? It's the last paragraph. Here's the link to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amfipoli Thanks! Neptunekh 07:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalizing a school page

Southeast High School (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma)'s page is being vandalized by students who can't stop putting ignorant stuff on it. Is there some way to protect the site where only the one who created it can edit it, and not anybody else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.58.72.108 (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

No, Wikipedia is open to editing by all, we don't restrict editing to only the one who created it can edit it. If vandalism is heavy the page could be semi-protected - or the vandal IP (I presume the school IP) could be blocked from editing for a time. If you are associated with the school then I'd suggest speaking to the administrators and encouraging closer supervision of student use of the internet. Don't know much about school blocks. Vsmith 02:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

School Blocks

Please inform me more on that

editing content

Hello,

I believe you left me a message not to post links to Wikipedia, and edited out a few links I had added to what I believe to be a genuinely useful tool that would be a contribution to the wikipedia community.

This seems at odds with the intent of the site. I'm sorry that I do not seem to understand the editorial policies of Wikipedia.

Yours —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avrau (talk • contribs) 01:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Please read the information on the WP:SPAM page I linked to on your talk. External links are not content. Other editors have also removed that CO2 clock link as it adds no useful info and has obvious accuracy problems - what was it, about 10 decimal places blinking needlessly away - whose idea of precision was that. If you are connected to that site, I'd suggest fixing it - as it is rather an embarrasment as is. If you continue to re-add the link to articles, you may be blocked. Vsmith 02:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

CAN YOU PLEASE DEFINE INAPPROPRIATE LINKS?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Avrau (talk • contribs) 03:34, 30 March 2007

Don't need to shout :)

In this case: a link that adds nothing of value to the articles involved. The "linear extrapolation of the previous two data points" is quite meaningless, especially to the supposed precision given. It is simply a gimmick and serves no purpose. Vsmith 11:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Quartz page

Hi Vsmith, thanks for catching the [] problem. Took me several edits to figure it out (duh!), but looks like I missed one. Kinda new at this, but poking around a lot of mineralogy and geology pages (BS geology, U of A '93). Olneya 14:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for your edits - always glad to see another geology type editor around here, lots to do. Cheers, Vsmith 02:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Milos

Dear Mr. Smith,

With all due respect, the additions of quality, ad and banner-free websites dedicated to Milos on the external links section of ~/wiki/Milos are not only relevant, but extremely useful to visitors.

Not all external links are SPAM, and they should not be summarily treated as such.

I added Colin Renfrew's books some time ago. Is this "book SPAM"?

I added/corrected village names even earlier. Is that "Village SPAM"?

If yes, then by the same, stretched logic, your own prolific edits could be deemed "Edit SPAM", lol!

Seriously, I am an authority on Milos, and a native of the island, and would appreciate letting me contribute to the wikipedia Milos listing without the hassle of tit-for-tat deletions. Thank you.

- Andreas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.254.176 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 31 March 2007

Sorry 'bout that, I see no evidence of that in your IP edit history. The addition of a batch of external links to an article is WP:SPAM. Vsmith 02:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

-Batch of listings-

The reason why you do not see it in my IP edit history is because my IP changes very often.

A "batch of web sites" doesn't not make any sense to me, whatsoever. I understand things with common sense, not atherosclerotic, blanket rules, the wikipedia article you referred to seems to support my opinion:

"...is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception."

Therefore, common sense suggests that if someone adds several URLs such as "ebonyhornybabes4u.com" and the like in the Milos listing, that's obviously SPAM. But when someone like me, a native of Milos, adds the 4 most relevant, Milos-dedicated, Milos-specific, ad- & banner-free websites in the external links section, it is a no-brainer that the contribution(s) should be accepted. After all, that's what "external links" is for. Or should I add the URLs one at a time, over a course of 4-5 days, as opposed to all 4 at the same time? That would be pointless and silly, to say the least.

- Andreas —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.74.254.176 (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

IP edit history

85.74.254.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
85.74.121.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
85.75.72.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
85.75.43.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
87.203.221.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
62.1.230.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
212.205.213.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
212.205.213.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 07:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

-Discussion on External links-

> Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia.

I most certainly did not. Of course, the term "inappropriate" seems to be quite subjective. I added only Milos-relevant links in the Milos external links. In fact, my contributions were four of the most relevant Milos links available on the net today. On the other hand, in the Milos wikipedia listing I'd define as inappropriate and irrelevant links such as "hornygaymales.com". However, you seem to believe that my Milos-specific, ad- & banner-free websites were inappropriate for Milos, even though oddly, the mapquest link was deemed appropriate.

> Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links

I know that, duh! My external links as well as all previous edits of mine were meant to add value to the wikipedia listing of my native island, and did not reduce it to a mere directory, not by a long shot. To even suggest something like that, would be totally ludicrous.

> nor should it be used for advertising or promotion.

That's interesting. By definition, every single website is used for advertising or promotion in one way or another, be it for a product, service, place, concept or idea, person, project, cause, or whatever, so this statement is both contradictory and renders the "rule" unenforceable.

> Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product.

Then this includes the BULK of the external links on wikipedia. Which Harvard MBA, Phi-Betta-Kappa, MENSA honorary member thought of that all-encompassing, self-contradictory, unenforceable and utterly nonsensical rule?

> See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate.

I've read them. Even as they are, full of contradictions and nonsensical statements, the wikipedia guidelines still call for common sense to be applied in enforcing the rules.

> If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it.

That would be great, but I have made my contributions and feel I have no more time available to waste with ungrateful organizations or websites. From what I read from several other people as well, Wikipedia is becoming an overmoderated website with so much nonsensical contradiction within their own rules, they are headed toward implosion. It is sad that what I'd consider fringe websites such as urbandictionary.com are so much more open-minded and receptive to contributors and thus fast becoming increasingly useful to the net, while others, such as wikipedia, are fast becoming irrelevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.74.254.176 (talk) 06:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Unfortunately the External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked, which is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines. milos-island.com is an empty domain iframeing "hxxp://groups.yahoo.com/group/milos-island/", and the others (milos-hotels.org, milosisforlovers.com, welcometomilos.com and iMilos.com) are all registered to you Andreas B. [4]. hope that helps clears things up.--Hu12 07:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Hu12 - perfectly clear. Vsmith 12:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

-Milos domains-

The domains are not empty. I use the URL frame (not iFrame) redirect method in a perfectly legitimate way. It allows me to use domains with short, manageable URLs instead of lengthy, unwieldy ones to the benefit of my audience, and I feel I shouldn't have to explain the self-explanatory.

Yes, they are registered to me. What is the problem with that? So, if I could get a 3rd person to post the same links (i.e., my girlfriend) that would be OK, but I, myself, am not allowed to do so? Honestly, does this make any sense to you?

Simple logic dictates that external links of non-commercial, relevant to Milos websites must be appropriate. That's what extrenal links are for: for relevant links on a topic. My ad- & banner-free websites plus one Yahoo! group are relevant, non-commercial, cannot be considered SPAM, and I *strongly* resent the accusation!

Like I said earlier, people, relevancy and common sense should be the criteria here, not some atherosclerotic, self-contradictory rules. If you were to follow all nonsensical, contradictory rules in the wikipedia guidelines to the letter, not a single external link would appear on wikipedia.

If you do insist on removing links with the nonsensical criteria that seem to be in effect, then on the Milos page you ought to also immediately remove *all* external links such as mapquest, mappoint, google, (they all link to commercial websites, btw - mine do not) as well as the links to Prof. Renfrew's books. Isn't it blatant "book" spam, after all? [rolling eyes...] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.74.254.176 (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Hi [rolling eyes...], why not get a user name? - I dislike talking to a number :-) Anyway, please take your concerns with policy to the policy talk pages as this is not the place for such a discussion. Meanwhile, simply stop promoting your own stuff - clear and simple. Vsmith 13:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

-Deletions-

Get a user name? Why bother?

I dislike having my contributions deleted more than you dislike talking to a number. Besides, you already know my name. You took the time to find out and even posted it here.

All I wanted was to contribute to wikipedia but hit a wall of anal retentiveness. I will not get drawn into pointless discussions on wikipedia policy especially since I have no control over it. It'd be like talking to a tree, and I have better use for my time. I've expended too much of my energy already explaining the self-explanatory.

Re: Promoting my own stuff: Let me ask the question again: If a 3rd party posted these same links, would that be deemed appropriate? If yes, I could have my girlfriend or a friend from across the ocean post external links instead. Am I the only one here who senses the absurdity that permeates this kind of thinking?

In any case, some of us take pride in our work and wish to share it when appropriate. There is absolutely nothing inappropriate with the -relevant, non-commercial- external links I provided, plain and simple. To put me and my contributions in the same class as the vandals and spammers whose garbage is summarily and justifiably deleted, is an abomination and an insult.

It seems that trying to communicate with a voice of reason on fikipedia is a hopelessly lost cause.— 85.74.254.176 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Andreas, Moved discussion to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam a more apropriate place for this discussion see WikiProject_Spam Case--Hu12 18:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hyalite

Vsmith, I added some new info to the Hyalite aritcle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyalite. Could you look at it one more time? Thanks! Neptunekh 15:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Took a look, not impressed. Considering merging a bit of this into opal and making the hyalite article a redirect there. Vsmith 01:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

180degree expedition

I noticed that you deleted my addition of the sentence and link regarding the current attempt of James Hopper and Rob Gaunlett to travel under human power from the North Magnetic Pole to the South Magnetic Pole as well as the previously existing sentence regarding the earliest expedition to the Geomagnetic North Pole. I accept that both my entry and the previous information may not have been appropriate here, but would they not have been appropriate under the "Expeditions" heading? Would the link to the expediton Web site perhaps have been appropriate at the end of the article with the other links? Also, would you please explain why the entry was "nonsense". I'm sure the two lads currently dog sledding to their starting point don't view it as such. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.113.169.140 (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Removed as promotional hoopla - just another word for nonsense. Took a look at the flashy website - pure promotional glitz. What is the purpose of this "expedition" - seems just a non-notable adventure by a couple of glory seekers to me. But, I could be wrong - Cheers, Vsmith 01:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I concur with your assessment, but isn't that why Hilary climbed Everest and Peary trekked to the geographic north pole? Seriously, I do appreciate your clarifying what was meant by nonsense. 207.35.67.130 22:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Esker

Hello. Could you look at what is going on with this article, especially the April 1 move/change of name? (Could the calendar have anything to do with this?) Regards, Kablammo 03:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Done - thanks for bringing it to my attention. Vsmith 15:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hyalite

What did I do wong with the Hyalite Article? Neptunekh 06:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

To quote a part of your addition:It is si o4 silicon dioxide and water , water is an important part of opal as only in recent times it was discovered what makes the colour in precious opal , that islight passing thru microsopic voids between water molecules.

Surely you can see the lazy typing errors in that. You slap something together and expect someone else to fix it for you? In addition, it is totally unreferenced, with just acouple of ext. links. One of those links is a gem dealer site, basic info, but not reliable as it is a commercial site. The Mindat link is OK, but only says that it is a variety of opal. A Google search returns lots ofcommercial sites hyping the stuff, but virtually no legitimate refs. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith 15:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hyalite Imformation

I didn't copy the information from google. I ask e-mailed someone who was an expert on opals and that was imformation he gave me. Neptunekh 17:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that you copied anything. Please note that a personal e-mail from an expert does not qualify as a verifiable source. Vsmith 23:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Missouri's edit-wars

Thanks for your protection of the Missouri page. I'm guilty of edit-warring with the anonymous user so I may not be the person to point this out but I thought I'd let someone know: The anon ip 69.150.147.138 and Enorton08 are pretty obviously the same person. I don't know if this qualifies as sock-puppetry or not but it come pretty darn close and I'm not really sure how to deal with it. Then again I could be wrong, but I'm sure I'm not. The grammar, arguments used, style, and capitalization is all the same. He pretty much uses the same arguments without even rephrasing them. This can be seen on the first two sections of Missouri's talk page. Thanks. Grey Wanderer | Talk 14:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I should have looked up stuff myself before I went asking for help. I've opened a case at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, the evidence is strong enough to block him, but I've listed it under suspected since I'm so closely involved in one of his hot issues. Thanks again. Grey Wanderer | Talk 16:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Tim Patterson article

Another creation of this article - i have little (read:no) experience in how to nominate for AfD - aparently you've already deleted an article on Patterson before Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Tim_Patterson - basis: he is not notable. --Kim D. Petersen 22:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... It has been deleted three times as non-notable. Now that he's supposedly credited in the The Great Global Warming Swindle, I s'pose some would think he's notable. Thinking about it, thanks, Vsmith 23:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually he is not 'credited' in the usual sense - in the TGGWS he is in the "thanks to" list - but not anywhere else. --Kim D. Petersen 23:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC) (Add: Personally i suspect that the people credited with "with thanks" here, is people who have written stuff that was used in the research - Chris Landsea is for instance also mentioned here - --Kim D. Petersen 00:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC))

Probably for his Tech Central article. Anyway after doing a bit of poking around, I think that maybe he is notable enough for a wiki article considering his 100+ articles in refereed journals (from TCS and Carleton). I'd think the article is in need of a bit of work to emphasize his Quaternary geology and paleoclimatology stuff and de-emphasize the skeptic bit and remove that pseudo-documentary credit. The skeptic crowd probably will object though. Still thinking, Cheers, Vsmith 03:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on "spam" image credit

Dear Vmith:

I appreciate your comments regarding outside links, thank you. I added a photo credit to my image because I saw the same thing done with an adjacent image (NASA) credit. I am a known science writer and photographer and it appeared I was following protcol based on other images I saw on the site.

If policy is not to have image links, I am happy to remove it, but then shouldn't credit links to other images on the same page be removed?

You mentioned that there was an image tagging error on the larger version of the image. If you'd be kind enough to clarify, I'd like to fix that and get it up to specs.

Any advice much appreciated.

Thanks,

Geoking42 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoking42 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 7 April 2007

Hi, I hadn't noticed the NASA credits - but, NASA material is in the public domain with no commercial implications, so that would seem to put them in a different category - I may be wrong though. The credit that you included was to your (I presume) commercial website which offers meteorites for sale and thus brings up conflict of interest problems. I hope you can see the logic I'm using here, Wikipedia is not for promotional or advertizing purposes. As for your images Image:Meteorcrater-rim.jpg and Image:Canyon-diablo-meteorite.jpg please see the pink speedy deletion notice on each and revise the copyright tags, see the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags page for information. You have added a couple of excellent images and I would rather they weren't deleted unless you simply cannot comply with the required licensing. Thank you, Vsmith 02:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Meteorite Images and Copyright Issue

Dear Vsmith:

Good evening, and many thanks for your very speedy reply. Thanks also for the compliments on my meteorite photographs. My website is primarly educational in nature (meteorite photography gallery, book reviews, science articles, etc.). We sell a few meteorites as a sideline, but it's not technically a commercial site. Anyway, certainly understood regarding the image link, no problem.

I would be delighted to comply with Wikipedia's copyright requests. I'm trying to figure out how to do that and which is the best copyright to use. Things seem to have changed quite a bit since I last uploaded photos. I'm working on it, and am happy to grant a free license for all my images.

Thanks again for your suggestions. Sorry for my gaff with the links.

Best wishes,

Geoking42

stratigraphy

Hello Did you receive my last message of March 16?

Guy Berthault —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.43.204.215 (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

mineral.galleries.com links

Hello Vsmith. I would like to invite you to a conversation over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#mineral.galleries.com about the mineral.galleries.com external link that is found in many Wikipedia rock-related articles. We have dilemma and we seek your opinion. Thank you. (Requestion 00:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC))

Egyptain Jasper and Greek Agate

Hi! I created too small articles called Egyptian Jasper and Greek Agate. Here are the links to those page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_agate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_jasper Would you mind looking at them and cleaning or editing them. Thanks! Neptunekh 18:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

They should be redirected to jasper and agate respectively - with a merge of any useful info. Not notable enough for separate articles. Vsmith 02:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism message

I received a message from you taking me to task for vandalizing a Wikipedia article, but I have done no such thing... what gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.211.63 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 14 April 2007

These two edits from your IP address: [5] and [6] from March 15. Vsmith 02:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oreski

I am not sure you looked at the talk page before your last edit. I think that there is something seriously wrong with the Science Mag article take a look at what I said. --Blue Tie 04:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If you disagree with the editors of Science re: the Oreskes article then I suggest you write a letter to Science and straighten them out. Your interpretations of statistics and your personal internet research don't work here. As I said on talk there, the Oreskes study may not be the best citation as used, but the Oregon petition number and cite were totally out of place. Vsmith 04:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not think its the editors I would be disagreeing with but rather that one author. And how could I "straighten" her out unless I could see her data and investigated the matter of sample selection, etc. Its really not something I am interested in doing anyway. But it is a very odd result she came up with. No reasonable person would ever expect perfection in a sample or study. Its simply too perfect. Surely you can see that this is odd. I certainly do not know that the Oregon Petition is worse. For example, at least there you can actually see and count the names... even if you don't really know who they are. But in the Oreskes study, the list of papers.. her data is not presented. In both cases you are talking someone's word for it but the Oregon Petition is a bit more transparent and a bit more "binary" in that Oreskes had to use her judgment to determine agreement or not. But thanks for the civil approach.--Blue Tie 05:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope to upgrade some of the entries here in mineralogy and gemology. I am currently working on "Spodumene" - would appreciate you looking at the revised entry and opining at your earliest convenience.

Stichtite and Augustus Choate Hamlin next :)

--Gemology 03:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the quick revert on my userpage! It is greatly appreciated. --TeaDrinker 03:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking 213.42.2.24, used solely for the purpose of vandalism or disguising vandalism, as far as I can tell. I reverted a series of their edits with no complaints from anyone, and I plan to revert all the most recent edits that haven't been done already. For example someone already reverted their very legitimate-looking edit to Air Canada writing "not true" - that was no surprise to me. From a minor edit and a pattern of edits having to do with Dubai, I suspect this IP address is used by high school student(s) in Dubai.

Geology of the Pacific Northwest

I just added a large amount of material to Geology of the Pacific Northwest. If you have a chance, I would welcome your expert feedback. Thanks! hike395 13:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good on first quick read, will look closer later. Vsmith 03:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hiddenite

Thanks for all the input and guidance on the spodumene page. Always nice to know that the efforts of a new contributor are carefully considered and critiqued. --Gemology 12:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You're most welcome :-) -- Content moved to hiddenite. Comment left on your talk, Vsmith 03:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Spamming ??

Hi, whilst editing a jewelry page on Jig (Jewellery) I came across a multitude of links to a company called WigJig.com. At first I thought they were references directly from the page itself instead of at the bottom's "external links' (don't like it.. but is it against the rules?). Then I discovered this guy had added around 10 links inside this page alone. When further checking out this editor I found a number of other pages where he had placed links to the wigjig company. The other pages at least look like normal pages, but the Jig (Jewellery) page is a completely promotional page in my opinion and that is why I stopped editing it. What is the best thing to do ?

Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jig_%28jewellery%29 User: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset=&limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=GaryHelwig&namespace=

Gem-fanat 08:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Chopped a bunch of promotional stuff. Feel free to re-write and include some from page history if you like. I don't know much about the topic - so jump right in. Cheers, Vsmith 14:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Great Thanks.. happy Sunday ! Gem-fanat 16:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, VSmith: Thank you again for fixing things on the selenite article - but am slightly confused about your last edit of removing the copyright info on photographs. I thought I was supposed to have that on photographs - 'coz was supposed to ask that when getting gnu permission. So, what am I missing when reading the tutorials and help. Please and thanks, Ashley WitchcrafterAshleyWitchcrafter 18:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Images released underWP:GFDL are free to use and modify. The attribution is noted on the image pages that you uploaded. Wikipedia doesn't typically place irrelevant info on images as used in articles, just a short description. Further info is available on the image page itself. Vsmith 23:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Okie dokies and Thanks, Ashley WitchcrafterAshleyWitchcrafter 01:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Earth

I love to read the wikipedia, and glad to found your account to talk to seeing you're a teacher.

I recently watched a video about how the Earth is growing. Very interested, I watched this video this scientist put together and brings up some very good claims. All I ask is you give me your input on what you think of it, and if you think it's credible, you could possibly edit the Earth page and bring up this theory along with it alongside the Pangaea theory. The world is a interesting place and I'd like to have a talk with you about it seeing I'm a eighteen year-old who loves nothing more than knowing random stuff, and you're a very good source! I'll provide you with a link to the video. Please watch it, as I'm a person who is always welcoming opinions and new theory's, and the wikipedia is a great place to spread knowledge!

The link is: http://www.maniacworld.com/Conspiracy-of-Science.html

I'd like to hear your side especially since you're a Geologist at a university. Please email me back! My email is: plethoraofblood@msn.com

Sincerely,

 Harley

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.88.13.186 (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

A snazzy vid does not a reasonable theory make. 3 questions at first glance: mechanism? evidence? and how can that explain compressional tectonics? Vsmith 00:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

% w/v editting? "Concentration" entry table needs fixing

Can you edit the table in the Wikipedia entry "Concentration"? The w/v information is wrong, but I don't know how to edit the graphics in the table. Decisiondoctor 18:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

OK now? That is a dumb pseudo-% Vsmith 00:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Geology of Minnesota

Vsmith-- If you can spare any time from torturing teenagers students and vigorous vandal-vanquishing, could you look at this article? I'm not asking you to edit it (but feel free, or course) just honest criticism and suggestions (on its talk page) Thanks. Kablammo 02:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Took a brief look - have been watching it develop. Looks good overall, may come back to quibble w/ some details ... later. Good job. Vsmith 15:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Feel free to quibble anytime. New articles on Glacial River Warren and Traverse Gap could also a critique; drop by them if you wish. Kablammo 22:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

NCSU

As part of a graduate level course grad students at NCSU are writing articles about various classes of minerals and structure types on NCSU's own wiki (WolfWiki). I had created a link to one of those pages that you removed as spam. The truth is that these pages contain a lot of information that wikipedia lacks. By depriving your reader of this info and instead of using the info to update wikipedia you are the vandal here not me 152.1.193.137 14:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Contributed my two cents worth on this issue at the talk page of Spinel. Cheers Geologyguy 14:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I am in agreement w/ Geologyguy. My suggestion is to add the content as a new article Spinel structure (currently a redirect to spinel). The current spinel article focuses on general mineralogy and the new info from your students work would be an important addition. Now, what are the copyright restrictions on your WolfWiki? Can we directly import the info into a Wikipedia article. I would welcome the addition of your spinel structure content as a replacement for the current redirect there. What say? Add it and we'll wikify it - or if your wiki is under gfdl guidlines, we can just add the material. Vsmith 15:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Benitoite information updating

Greetings Vsmith, Was there a particular problem with the recent updates to the Benitoite section? I added those references because they were otherwise lacking, and because I believe they are appropriate. As part of Three Rocks Research, I conduct extensive cultural and scientific research in the area of the Gem Mine. One of our public presentations is the pichaco.org website.

Regards, Ray Iddings Three Rocks Research ray@3rocks.org —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Idria Quicksilver (talk • contribs) 02:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Two problems: first see WP:SPAM and second see WP:COI (that's conflict of interest - or you appear to be promoting your own stuff). Cheers, Vsmith 03:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the courtesy of a reply. Now according to the policy as you seem of enforce it then you should also remove all of your reference links.

[edit] References Mineral Resources, California Geologic Survey. Accessed December 31, 2005 WebMineral Listing MinDat Listing Mineral Galleries Friends of Mineralogy review of benitoite

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Idria Quicksilver (talk • contribs) 16:17, 9 May 2007

Remove all - don't really think so. If those were added by someone associated with the sites, perhaps so. But, I have no evidence to that effect. Will take a closer look at a couple of them. Vsmith 21:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Your definition of SPAM and my definition of content are quite a bit different. You have convinced me that Wikipedia is a rather hostile format and not one I want to continue in. Don't bother responding on Wikipedia to this. I won't be returning.

Sincerely, Gary Helwig gary@wigjig.com

Persistent vandal

This person has previously been blocked by you, but doesn't seem to learn:

• Special:Contributions/74.92.20.5

-- Fyslee/talk 16:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)