User talk:Vsmith: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:19, 17 November 2013

Please note - rules of the game! I usually answer comments & questions on this page rather than on your talk (unless initiated there) to keep the conversation thread together. I am aware that some wikiers do things differently so let me know if you expect a reply on your page and maybe it'll happen :-)

A beer for you!

thank you for taking some of your time to help me. I promise it was my intention only to help. I did not know about the content rule. It is a bit difficult for new users to understand all the rules and and policies. I apologize for the trouble and promise that from now on will only use my own words. But I have a question, what if I know something perfectly but cant put a verifiable source source with it, can I post it in wikipedia?

I hope the honest mistake I made in my first day wont be held against me. Have a nice day. Jeheen (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Honest mistakes don't count against anyone ... they are part of the learning process. And I agree, there seems to be too many rules, but we don't have to learn 'em all at once (and there are many undoubtedly I don't know and I've been around here a while).

Wikipedia does require that we verify content with reliable sources especially for controversial content and biographical edits about living people. If you add content with no reference, it will likely be challenged. If it is important and non-trivial, you should be able to find a source for it. Happy editing ... Vsmith (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Grand Canyon geological mapping

The article Grand Canyon geological mapping has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fork of content already at Geology of the Grand Canyon. Content apparently uncritically copy-pasted from several public domain USGS webpages.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Per your original suggestion! Please second me with {{prod2}} if you wouldn't mind, and Tobias doesn't beat you to it. DanHobley (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Black carbon

Looks like ‎Aeth1980 is a new and unexperienced user. However, his/her new Aethalometer article in the sandbox looks quite good. I suggest to move it to a real article and then recreate the link from the Black carbon page again. RolfSander (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it a bit and moved to Aethalometer. Thanks for the suggestion - prompted me to take another look. Vsmith (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! RolfSander (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spam links on Cozumel page

Hi, thanks for removing many real spam links from the Cozumel page but just to let you know I added the links to thisiscozumel.com back in again, as the site is a reliable news and information source and was cited for a number of pieces of information. I hope you agree but feel free to contact me or add comments in the page's Talk if you need any other information. icampbell (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simply: your favorite promotional website fails WP:RS. If you feel otherwise you are welcome to take your concerns to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Vsmith (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Settling

You have deleted my External link to a free to use online calculator for settling velocity that works for all Reynolds numbers, not just very low ones for creeping flow. The External links section has another link to a different web site just providing settling velocity in that range, i.e. Stokes Law, whereas the one I provide covers all Reynolds numbers. Why remove mine but leave the other? The basis of the calculations are provided elsewhere on the external site, and the use of the data is illustrated in several other places on the site, for example: industrial thickener design for hindered settling and even filtration equipment selection by what is called an expert system. Hence, I would have thought that my external link is very relevant to WP users: providing both a more comprehensive online tool than the existing Stokes Law one, as well as examples of the use of the data obtained from settling. If you prefer, I will write a new section for the settling article based on the Heywood Table approach to settling velocity, which covers all the different Reynolds numbers and reference the online calculator, if you think that would be more in keeping with the spirit of WP? Regards Richard86.146.14.54 (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simply - we don't use Wikipedia to promote our own stuff. Adding content would be good, however it needs to be sourced to reliable sources and not to an online calculator website. Vsmith (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The added content would be a technique that works for all Particle Reynolds numbers (not just the very low ones that Stokes's Law is valid in - there is an External link for Stokes already). It would be referenced to Heywood's publications in the Transactions of The Institution of Chemical Engineers (UK) and possibly a text book that does have pages on this subject that can be downloaded. I would like to add the External Link to the online calculator website that uses Heywood's method after doing this, after cleaning up the linked site a bit. However, if my addition and link are going to be removed then it is not worth the effort. Hence, I am asking you if I should go ahead or if it will be deemed to be promoting my own stuff? Richard86.139.50.1 (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to add content backed up by WP:reliable sources. Verifiable well written content won't be deleted. As for an external link, if it is "cleaned up" as you say and added along with good content - would likely stay. Vsmith (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Smith - FAC

Hello Vsmith,

I have put the article on Joseph Smith up as a nominee for Featured Article Status! I think the article has come a long way, and has a very good chance of being featured this time around. I would personally appreciate it if you took a moment to review the article and vote for it (or against it, I suppose) at it's FAC.

Thanks! --Trevdna (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your claim of copyright violation

Since you did not yet replied to my comment in response to your entry on my user talk page and following your actions of reverting a month old wikipedia entry i ask you now to reply and re-assess your judgement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Prokaryotes#Copyright_violation Prokaryotes (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there. Vsmith (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image can be used on Wikipeda according to the Terms and to an email i had with Nature Education, as long the copyright is in place and a citation to the source. Please re-add the image. Prokaryotes (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the copy/paste copyvio of the caption of that image which you added as text referring to the image. I also removed the image link from the page as it (the image) also seemed to have copyright problems. Following that someone else deleted the image. Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions I'd say that no one there supports your view. I have no intention to re-add the caption text which was a copyvio back to the article. As for the image itself, you would need to discuss that with the deleting admin. Vsmith (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mariana Trench

The first thing the article should say is "Mariana Trench is an oceanic trench" and not "the deepest part of the oceans", because the Challenger Deep has its own article while this one is for the trench itself. 84.250.184.108 18:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but all I did was to restore the reference tag to its correct position. Please be more careful with your edits. Vsmith (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CO2 in atmosphere

hi - What did I do wrong? Thanks, Marc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc Salvisberg (talk • contribs) 02:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the article history you will see that you deleted a large chunk of the article. I'm assuming it was an error. Vsmith (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiIndaba and Wikipedian in Residence Notice

Dear Vsmith

As a Wikipedian interested in African subjects and specifically Malawi, I would like you to be aware of the following two opportunities:

1. Wikimedia South Africa and WikiAfrica are organising an WikiIndaba for February 2014 – a continental meeting for Africa-based Wikipedians to get together, discuss challenges and drive the agenda for Wikipedia from Africa. If you support this initiative, then please sign up on this site: http://wikiindaba.net – we also want to hear what you want the Wiki Indaba to achieve. What are your expectations? What does it need to include? Who and what do you want to see happen at WikiIndaba? What is your area of interest? Languages? Data? Please share your ideas and thoughts on the Community Portal

2. WikiAfrica is looking for a Wikipedian in Residence from Malawi. This might be a position that you would consider. Or it could be the perfect opportunity for someone you know from Malawi, please spread the word! For more details, please look at this page: http://www.wikiafrica.net/wikipedian-in-residence-malawi

If you have any questions about either of the above, please contact isla on isla [at] wikiafrica [dot] net : Isla Haddow (talk)

Look dude

I built about 70% of that article (the refs, the content, the pictures, all that shit). If there was a dupe link, fine, I can straighten that out. And we've had 2 external links for over a YEAR in that article. You can't get any grasp for the chemistry without SEEING it. And you are totally wasting a chance for legitimate coolness. So at least let's go back to the original 2 links (periodic table of videos and the caesium reaction).

71.127.131.41 (talk) 03:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"legitimate coolness" ... bull**** Vsmith (talk) 14:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's your opinion

I'm interested in improving the style guide for wiki project mining. I left a suggestion on the talk page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mining#An_addition_to_the_style_guide. I was wondering what you thought about it. thanks. John Mortimore Message Me 18:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary removal

Hello! Could you remove all edit summaries/edits on User:58.107.0.49 contributions. They include racial slurs, bad words and etc. Thanks! ///EuroCarGT 03:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zapped user page insults. Vsmith (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor blade

Pls see Talk:Doctor blade Gravuritas (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there. Vsmith (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please Remove the Choctaw wikipedia, until the Choctaws from all four corners of the continent of Northa America are made inclusive as far as each Choctaw Nation historical lands, culture, and locations are included. Somehow Choctaws from different place in North American are being deleted or written out of historical content. It is not a wise thing to do nor to ignore.

Choctaws must be represented in wiki writing and not some groups but all Choctaw groups regardless of federal or non-federal. It does not change the fact they are Choctaw when they dont have federal acknowledgement.

An beaurocracy agency has been making bad decision including fraud and discrimination tantamount to genocide against Choctaws outside of the U.S. in there Sovereign lands. These groups of Choctaws are not de-factos but legitimate Aboriginal Choctaw People.

We are requesting in our humble places that you remove or make inclusive all Choctaws legitimate and de-factos.in Wikipedia writings. Let the Choctaws from all walks of life help you get at the truth and disregard revisionism. Thank you kind Sirs!choctaw street people Choctaw Street People (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

?Eh? No clue. I'd suggest you follow NawlinWiki's advise on your talk page. Vsmith (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awww...

...look they're so cute...they're a couple! [1], [2] Drmies (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Siamese twins ? Vsmith (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey admin, care to have a look at the history of 58.96.125.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who's redirecting without discussion? I warned them, but they persist. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I blocked them for 48 hours for disruption. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darn ... missed the fun - took a look, but got side-tracked by bearded granddaughters on facebook. Vsmith (talk) 02:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think I missed the fun. But let's hope I don't get granddaughters in the near future, like the next two decades. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 04:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Atacama Desert link

Hi. I noticed a series of edits on Atacama Desert that struck me a little odd. A link to a professional photographer's site (which seems like a pretty legitimate resource for photos of the desert, even though they happen to by copyrighted and can't be included here on WP) that had gone dead, was updated by an anon to the new, working link. A little later, you deleted the link entirely as spam. I would tend to disagree with that edit. I think the site (which I am not at all affiliated with and had never seen before 5 minutes ago) is a valid external link, because it adds to the understanding of the topic. It's a gallery of photos of the Atacama Desert. I was not hit in the face with ads, solicitations to purchase, or anything else spammy. I imagine that photos are available for purchase, but that doesn't make the site spam. I don't feel strongly enough about this to revert your edit, but I would ask you to consider the facts and maybe do so yourself. If you feel I'm wrong, fair enough. Thanks for your time and consideration. :-) —Willscrlt ( Talk | com | b:en | meta ) 20:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage protection?

Hi, Vsmith. You semi-protected my userpage twice in the past, and I have since been hit by User:137.216.184.5 twice in the last month or so. Since the person rotates through different South Dakota State University IPs, blocking isn't really effective. Would you be willing to semi-protect it again? Chris857 (talk) 21:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Vsmith (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colloidal Gold Reversion

I noticed you removed valid synthesis methods from the colloidal gold article, but no reasons were given so I reverted. The methods include valid citations and appear to be suitable to the page. Please don't remove correctly cited knowledge from the wiki. Also, "Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work".

NanoProf (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vsmith, note my edit summary in which I tried to set things straight. The above editor has a tendency to come out strong, as you can see, but in essence they're right (that's not saying anything about the content, of course). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the follow-up, I apologize for coming across strongly. I started a section on the article 'talk' page, if anyone wants to contribute to a discussion of how to limit synthesis methods for nanomaterials. NanoProf (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure thing. I understand you were ticked off the first time. The IP who removed that stuff never came back and I don't expect them to. Good luck finding more gold, Drmies (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following edit conflicts --- No problem, Simply saw an apparent ip edit war - should've checked closer before jumping in. And I now see discussion has begun on talk. Vsmith (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And we all live happily after. Drmies (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SALTON SEA

Why do you keep on removing the information about the video game GTA V and it's relation to the Salton Sea in the popular culture section it has a reliable source. Do you have anything against video games? This is just like another article about a city in a video game where a user tried to delete it becuase it was related to a video game. Why don't you want to include it into the pop culture section, is a video game not pop culture? You're so scared that this is going to continue that you had to protect the page, if you didn't have anything against video games this would not be happening. You continued to say that the sources were dubious, you didn't even read the source from Palm Springs, that was NOT a dubiuous source, read it before you say anything. To call what happened on the Salton Sea page, sock puppetry is absurd! (121.214.63.232 (talk) 09:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I see discussion has started on the article talk, that is good. When several ips, most from the same geographical locations, make the essentialy the same edit ... Anyway discussion belongs on article talk. Vsmith (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Er er er

Could you produce more intelligent edit summaries than "er no"? This is meaninglessness followed by an assertion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.48.136 (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Er ... did, 'twas about the "belief" bit. Vsmith (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kicking them while they're down

I approve of this. Perfect way to hammer the message home! ;) m.o.p 17:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hmm... seems I had a delaying glitch when notifying there ... guess the dup message won't hurt. Vsmith (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TiO2

Discussion continued. -Tom2K (who left his login info elsewhere)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Titanium_dioxide#Health_and_safety

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

,/,

so youre giving me a warning a thanks i learned now not to vandalize matha facka — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tank2499 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inner core

Dear Vsmith, My comment that you deleted, concerning the osmiridium sphere of 85km radius at the centre of the Earth, arose from two considerations: (i) to answer the popularly posed question: 'What is at the centre of the Earth?' and (ii) the availability of a reliable source, P.A.Cox "The Elements" (OUP 1997) which, from a simple calculation, could give a reasonable answer to this question. On p.185 of Cox, there is a table of whole Earth elemental abundances. Os and Ir are the two heaviest elements, of almost indistinguishable density at 22.6 g/cc, which one could reasonably surmise would gravitate to the Earth's centre. The aforesaid abundances in μg/kg, together with the weight of the Earth (6x10^24kg) yields the total mass of osmiridium in the Earth. From the density and V=4πr³/3, the 85km-radius sphere follows. My comment was explicitly framed as a tentative, if speculative, suggestion. Yet it is an eminently reasonable hypothesis and would stimulate debate and curiosity in the subject. I think it a pity you deleted it. ¬¬¬¬JohnMarks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmarks (talk • contribs) 21:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might be interesting speculation ... but does the Cox book make that speculation? Or was it simple WP:OR? Eminently reasonable.. well - maybe not. Vsmith (talk) 00:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on 'Talk:Greenhouse effect.'

I'm curious about the recent closure of a discussion from the stand point of Wiki policy. For example, did you close this as an Admin. executive action?

I was interested in the discussion and it seemed very relevant to me because it related to the occurrence of the Greenhouse effect on other planets, Mars and Venus for example.

Best regards. --Damorbel (talk) 08:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not likely to result in any article edits as noted by others. It is hatted - guess comments could still be added within the hat... Why not discuss the ideas with others on their talk pages. Vsmith (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Username change request

Hey again Vsmith. Can you please change my username to Nguyễn Việt Quốc? Thanks Nguyen1310 (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I don't have that ability - gotta be a Bureaucrat. See Wikipedia:Changing username and file a request there under simple as I don't see that username already in use. Vsmith (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sea salt ANI

You might be interested in adding your views to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive818#Sea salt. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm...

Did you notice what you restored here?--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, and just now removed the blp bit. Vsmith (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The claims you kept in the article are potentially libelous and have no place there without very solid sourcing.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I observed an edit war with possible socking occurring and reverted due to that. On closer checking I did observe the most obvious blp problem and removed it - just before your revert. I care nothing about the unsourced stub itself, just didn't like what appeared to be sock or meat puppetry. Patience mate. Vsmith (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't blame them whatsoever for joining together to remove the blatant BLP violations and potentially libelous material from the article (one of the accounts even noted that the content was "defamatory" in their edit summaries). The patience you speak of should have come by one of the four editors reverting taking a moment to review whether there was any substance to the claim as opposed to blindly restoring the completely inappropriate content. There is a reason that blanking in situations like these are covered in WP:NOTVAND. What's done is done, but it never should have happened in the first place. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Erie

I realize you're having a good time chopping this article to bits, but please realize that I and others worked hard to make it interesting, well-referenced, and informative, and what had been a highly readable and accurate article is, in my view, rapidly becoming a sterile piece of junk. My sense is you're deleting the best material, those great quotes which make the whole story come to life. Please remember Lake Erie is not simply about water and geology but about many other aspects to it too.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Quotefarm comes to mind. Quite a bit of what I've removed was simply tourist hype - including many of the excess quotes. Seems this is an encyclopedia and not a tourist brochure. And how wasalthough it can get "pretty darned cold on those piers" good encyclopedia language? (- just to list one minor item as an example). Vsmith (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have trouble seeing how anybody could see this article as a tourist brochure; cited quotes are a legitimate way of conveying information. My concern is that you're butchering a well-referenced and interesting article and turning it into a dry slab of boring prose. The words "pretty darned cold on those piers" is what somebody said, and said in a way which is highly informative and readable; it is much more descriptive than simply saying the lake was just cold. The article used to have terrific descriptions of wind turbines that could make "mincemeat of things airborne" that looked like "giant aliens invading farmers' fields". Now, they're just turbines. Snore. There was a photo showing beach erosion; now there's none. You chopped it. There was a terrific photo of the snakehead fish that could "bite your entire hand off" and that could move across land "gulping air". You chopped that. There was colorful stuff about difficulties with crossing the lake, dealing with passport issues; chopped. The quote about the walleye limit was chopped. Fish that looks ugly but tastes great -- similarly interesting stuff. The excellent story about the ice fishermen being stranded on a large chunk of ice -- this is great stuff, interesting, referenced, important for ice fishermen to know lest it happen to them again. The quote about the diving community considering Lake Erie to be "world class" -- divers would like to know this stuff. You took out the turtle-crossing sign. The Put-in-Bay crowds with "red bucket hats" -- why did you take that out? The quote from the NYTimes reporter about a pretty town in Ontario you removed. Seems like the BEST STUFF you've been chopping willy nilly, chopping with their references too, and leaving in pretty much all the boring stuff which we have to keep in, as if you deliberately would not like people to learn about and read about Lake Erie.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copying to talk page of Lake Erie.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's where such belongs and I've already posted there. Vsmith (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking?

Are ya blocking Collingwood for that, or do I need to login to my admin account and do it? ES &L 01:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it if you wish. I'm assuming it was an angry reaction to the situation.Have given the user a warning. Vsmith (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ionic bonding

Hi Vsmith,

I moved the story and gave it a good scrub, hopefully to your liking. Jcwf (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, there is a lot more of this crap. Take e.g. Intramolecular force. Are ionic and metallic bonding really 'intramolecular', i.e. inside-molecules? Most substances with those two types of bonding do not exhibit molecules at all.... And a metallic bond does not exist any more than an ionic one. It reminds me of taking a walk in a forest consisting of one tree. You must be a squirrel to do so. The same problem is visible in the template with 'chemical bonds'. It refers to 'ionic bonding' but to 'metallic bonds', both under the header of 'intramolecular forces'. What popicock... Jcwf (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One nice thing about this place : there's always something to fix. I've moved metallic bond as there was nothing but ancient redirects there and the article already embraced the ...ing bit. Have fun. Vsmith (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Vsmith

Help me build my first wikipedia article, thanks again (4371663nuclear (talk) 09:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Ultraviral (blueprint album)

(4371663nuclear (talk) 12:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I've just deleted it as a rather blatant WP:Copyvio. Don't do that. Vsmith (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this is banned User:Horizontal Law. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comanche

Thanks for your note. All that done while I lay dreaming :) I don't doubt that some 19th century settler wrote "White Eye" because they simply couldn't bring themselves around to writing "Coyote Pussy" (the real implication of the name, although not suitable for the Wikipedia article). isa 'coyote' + ta'i 'vagina' in Comanche. "White Eye" would be tosa 'white' + puih 'eye'--tosavui(h) (depending on whether the recorder heard that "h" or not). Cheers. --Taivo (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Isa-tai I can see that "Coyote Pussy" might be a more apt phrasing, but would likely attract more "delete before checking" edits. My lame excuse ... "'twas early and me brain was deficient in caffeine". Anyway, perhaps a hidden edit note after the "coyote vagina" would alert other bleary eyed reverters. Vsmith (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attack page found, deletion pending

Can you possibly delete this page? It serves as an attack page for the topic "psychiatry".

The_History_of_Psychiatry

Tritario (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone. Vsmith (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attack page

Thanks for deleting the last page....

Here is one more I flagged earlier for vandalism, and it might fit under attack pages as well...

Iben_munch_thomsen

Tritario (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderstorm page

Ross McLean here, and greetings. My recent changes to the thunderstorm page was to introduce to a larger audience the thunderstorm prediction model. the images and work are entirely my own and from a proprietry body. it is unfortunate that wiki chose to give me the username of coastwise nav based on my email address of coastwise_nav@yahoo.com i'm new to wiki editting, and if I left a copyright logo on an image I appologise. can you help me get the model published? Can I change my user name? Cheers, Ross, (also a teacher). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coastwisenav (talk • contribs) 01:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, we don't use Wikipedia to promote our own stuff - see WP:conflict of interest. Also read WP:reliable sources as I'm rather doubtful about your sources. The images, as I've noted on your talk are a problem as they contain a copyright notice embedded within and should be removed from commons. Usernames can be changed - see Wikipedia:Changing username. One more thing, please read WP:edit warring and WP:BRD and discuss your desired edits on the article talk page. Vsmith (talk) 05:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laterite article

Thank you! Bettymnz4 (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 336: / Line 336: @@
 :First, we don't use Wikipedia to promote our own stuff - see [[WP:conflict of interest]]. Also read [[WP:reliable sources]] as I'm rather doubtful about your sources. The images, as I've noted on your talk are a problem as they contain a copyright notice embedded within and should be removed from commons. Usernames can be changed - see [[Wikipedia:Changing username]]. One more thing, please read [[WP:edit warring]] and [[WP:BRD]] and discuss your desired edits on the article talk page. [[User:Vsmith|Vsmith]] ([[User talk:Vsmith#top|talk]]) 05:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
+== Laterite article ==
+Thank you! [[User:Bettymnz4|Bettymnz4]] ([[User talk:Bettymnz4|talk]]) 18:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)