User talk:Vsmith: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:46, 23 December 2014

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 :-)

Investigated your edit by on site inspection 2014_0913.

You were correct. Thanks for correction and taking opportunity to update Wikipedia article. Gary Bollinger. Abraham Bartolommeo (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confederate States of America

The purpose of full protection is to allow editors to reach consensus on the discussion page. However, in this case, one editor (Texasreb) wants to add material that three editors (me, Rjensen, and TheVirginiaHistorian) object to. Both sides have stated their reasons but for over a month Texasreb continues to add the material back although four different editors have reverted him. He has been blocked once during this time, but a second effort to have him blocked was not acted on at all (see [1]); the only action was a statement by an administrator who said, "In my opinion, this is a repeat of the same violation for which I issued a block a couple of days ago. It looks like he will keep going indefinitely unless a further block is issued."

None of the dispute resolution scenarios apply when a single editor simply choses to ignore consensus. The wikipedia system is not working in this case. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vsmith. I would welcome any interest in this case by other admins. I refrained from a follow-up block only because I thought Some Other Admin should do it. (I didn't want to act twice in a row as the sole closer). My proposal at AN3 for a second block got no response. If you think Tom has a valid point here, you might discuss with Texasreb whether he has any intention of accepting consensus. There's a lengthy discussion on the article talk page but no actual RfC. The edit history shows nobody else supporting Texasreb's versions. So far in September Texasreb has reverted about 11 times though the other side has reverted as well. Texasreb thinks that being right justifies him continuing to revert: "Consensus is fine if it doesn't involve censorship of relevant info".

Here are the pagelinks and userlinks:

Confederate States of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Texasreb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The 3RR complaints were:

Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input here. I acted to stop an edit war. On further investigation I became more aware of the problems pointed out above - perhaps should have looked deeper prior to acting ... Should the user return to edit warring against consensus after the protection ends, then a lengthy block will be in order. Vsmith (talk) 02:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

Vandalism? Consistently? Really. Do you think the name of a book is really PraryErth? I changed it back to Prairie Earth! Only once, NOT consistently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happyned (talk • contribs) 19:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check it out - search for ISBN 0-395-48602-5 on Amazon or elsewhere. Vsmith (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

would you be of help

Hello Vsmith I am an environmental microbiologist in my country. I want to start a company that manages waste and am hoping you could help link with corporate companies who could assist in coming to invest with me in my country,Nigeria,She is not yet developed in terms of commercial waste management and am hoping I could get some international collaborators to start with. Do reply to my message my email is --. I will be greatly pleased to read from you. Thanks. Peju Sowunmi.Gleamber Company Limited — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.203.67.132 (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no relevant experience. Vsmith (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's some cold ass shit, bruh -Sincerely, Xerxes — Preceding unsigned comment added by HottStuffJames (talk • contribs) 23:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

eh? Vsmith (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UxUmbrella

Thought you should know that the notice you left on this user's talk page says they were blocked indefinitely when you only blocked him/her for a week. –Chase (talk / contribs) 15:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you've already fixed it. Never mind me. –Chase (talk / contribs) 15:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, grabbed the wrong d***** template. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Coinage Metals wiki page

Do you really feel the references to Metallium's element tokens was spam? I don't represent Metallium, but I have bought every single element coin they've made, so I am a very happy collector. I just thought it would be useful for people to know they exist.

If you want me to put back the stuff about Metallium, I can. Just email me at ---- if you want to talk about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.125.191 (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, spam. Put it back? No. 12:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I want people to know these exist. It's relevant to the topic. How about if I mention Metallium but don't include a link to their page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.59.124.2 (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Find some coverage of them in an independent reference (see WP:reliable source) which discusses the collectibles. However linking to a company website which exists to sell things is spam. We aren't here to promote or advertise. Vsmith (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how about this from Theodore Gray? He's a reliable source. http://periodictable.com/Elements/Source-hamric/index.html . I just want to make sure before I go to the trouble of rebuilding that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.126.37 (talk) 02:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

T. Gray's webpage seems ok. Word it in a non-promotional way. Vsmith (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP you blocked evading his block

See [2] and [3]. Both addresses also register to Montana (so it's at least meatpuppetry). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotected for a week. Vsmith (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

Hello. Prajjwal Gandharv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who you blocked for disruptive editing (unsourced inflation of numbers and generally disruptive editing) yesterday, for the second time in just a few days, is per WP:DUCK back, now as 117.219.116.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). With the same types of edits on the same articles. He previously also edited as 117.225.127.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), from the same ISP and with the same geolocation as the new IP, but the old IP is now probably autoblocked, forcing him to switch IP. Thomas.W ^talk 13:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you've probably noticed he's IP-hopping now. The latest IP is 117.224.51.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Thomas.W ^talk 14:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extended block a bit, blocked ip, semi-protected a couple of target articles for a week. Vsmith (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Thomas.W ^talk 14:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated removal of reliably-soured negative information in Shemer article

It's not neutral to remove criticism of living people, you know. --108.211.72.67 (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There exists a discussion: Talk:Michael_Shermer#Sexual_assault_allegations, please add your concerns/comments there and seek consensus. Vsmith (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback script

I was wondering whether you have a rollback script, similar to one of the three (of which only one is commented out, one does not work, and one works but only has the default edit summary) in my common.js, which includes "block evasion" as the reason. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, but after this mornings fun I'm considering it. Vsmith (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sky

Hello, Vsmith! I've been reading the article on Sky and have found many spots which I think would be unclear to the average reader. I have made a few edits in an attempt to make sentences clearer and flow better. I also added a few notes to editors (visible in Edit Mode), mostly in the first few paragraphs since I haven't read the whole article yet. I thought since you are a science teacher you might be able to clarify those sentences where I've left notes (and then remove the notes). CorinneSD (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you don't mind, could you help clarify something I raised with Rothorpe at User talk:Rothorpe#Sky? CorinneSD (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your edit. I think it's an improvement, but I wanted to point out that that "clarify me" tag was placed by someone else back in January. My tags are in the first section after the lead. CorinneSD (talk) 23:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I hadn't looked past the intro yet. Thanks for the punctuation fix :) Distracted by watching the news and some edits on my watchlist needed attention. Vsmith (talk) 23:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Going now to watch my two granddaughters perform in the school band. They are a higher priority than WP :) Later, Vsmith (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And He's Back

The anonymous original research vandal is back at Hell Creek Fauna.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nishapur

If and when you have time, could you review the edits just made by an IP editor to Nishapur? I figured you'd be a good judge of the edits. CorinneSD (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you made a few changes. I just wanted to be sure you saw the edits made at 08:28 on 18 October 2014 by that same editor. CorinneSD (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked a bit, but the main problem is lack of references. Don't know anything about the area. Vsmith (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. I see you added a citations needed tag. That's good. Thanks for looking at the article. CorinneSD (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert of the lowercasing of "era" in Paleozoic

What is ICS? Please note that era is commonly lowercased, including in Mesozoic and numerous other such articles about ages, periods, epochs, etc. I don't have any preference one way or another but the encyclopedia should be consistent. Why is it capitalized here but not elsewhere? Robert K S (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See here, e.g. [4] Robert K S (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Commission on Stratigraphy. Seems discussion should be at the WProject Chris links to below. To me "Mesozoic Era" is a formal name. Vsmith (talk) 11:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See here, e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology#Capitalization of divisions of geological time --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank U. ....sir. You made my work load lite.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.220.236.11 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Vsmith (talk) 11:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A project

Vsmith, thank you, again, for your responsiveness on the "back of the envelope" calculation at Earth. I see from you user page that you are a geologist, and, so, I'm wondering if you might turn some of your attention to the Earthquake prediction page. It is an important and interesting subject. It can also be controversial. Looking at the log of edits, quite a bit of heat has been generated. I'm guessing that getting experienced Earth-science types involved would help, even if, as I acknowledge, geology is not exactly the same as geophysics. If this can't fit into your schedule, perhaps you know other editors that might contribute. Looking after things, Grandma (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Schedule? I'm retired and don't have one of those :) ('cept when getting grandkids to school & such)

Yeah - I watched that talk page dissolve into chaos a few months ago ... and basically decided to avoid it (conflict is hard on the nerves). Plus the fact that I really don't know much ... except that planetary alignments are rather pseudo ... Home isn't too far from New Madrid. I may take a look again, but no promises. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership is a long-term problem at that page, so others getting involved might help.I also can't handle stress these days, so I understand. Just pass the word among potential editors. Thank you, Grandma (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expertise Welcome in the Discussion for Talk Page of Gornaya Shoria Megaliths

Hi, your expertise and comments would be appreciated in the current discussion taking place in the talk page for the Gornaya Shoria megaliths. Paul H. (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetite

I made some big changes in magnetite, basically moving most of the content related to the synthetic material to the chemistry article on Fe3O4. If you have any concerns, let me know. If you think my changes were counterproductive, go ahead and revert the lot. No problem. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement and have chopped the app section as irrelevant to natural magnetite or as you say SYN. Vsmith (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism-only accounts

Hello, Vsmith. I believe that both of the newly created accounts that worked on Kelly Golden were vandalism-only accounts. - Hoops gza (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your interest in clastic dikes?

VSmith, I'd like to talk to you more about clastic dikes. Can I contact you directly, outside Wikipedia? -Skye C. at Boise State — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northisle (talk • contribs) 18:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My email is active - see the link up top left. However I have little personal knowledge of the subject. I have the page on my watchlist - and do a bit of tweaking on occasion. Vsmith (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bangor Daily News is a local newspaper and is not a blog. I do not see how the sources were not reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshsully05 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Er... it says right up top left in green BDM Maine Blog. Vsmith (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enantiomer

I was just looking at the latest edits to Enantiomer. I can't judge either the correctness or the appropriateness of the material, but I can judge the writing, so I thought I'd mention my concerns here. The middle lines of the added material are:

He observed two ammonium salt crystals: one dextrorotatory (optically active) and a racemic mixture (optically inactive). Observing the latter at a microscope, he luckily realized it was made of two crystals.

Regarding the first sentence, there is a lack of parallel structure. On one side of "and" is an adjective ("dextrorotatory") and on the other side is a noun phrase ("a racemic mixture"). For good writing, the two structures on either side of a conjunction should be in the same form -- two adjectives, two noun phrases, etc.

Regarding the second sentence, I wonder about the phrase "at a microscope". Maybe that's British English, I don't know, but I think "through a microscope" makes more sense. Well, that's all. CorinneSD (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded a bit and fixed reference details. Hopefully better now - the original was written by an editor for whom English was not friendly. Vsmith (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's much better than it was. Thank you. I hope you don't mind, but I made a few small edits. I wanted to ask you about the last sentence. It begins:

He resolved the racemic mixture manually...

I suppose only a scientist or student of science would be reading this article to begin with, but for me, a non-scientist, "He resolved the...mixture" is not clear. I don't know what it means to resolve a mixture (and long ago I did take a few college science classes; I guess I don't remember this; I avoided chemistry, though). Should it stand, assuming most readers will understand it? CorinneSD (talk) 02:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to separated as he did it with tweezers. Resolved wasn't incorrect, just a bit jargony. Added a couple links also... Vsmith (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frit

I wonder if you would mind looking at the latest edit to Frit in which an editor re-worded a sentence in order to incorporate a wiki-link. While I normally would support the addition of a useful link, I prefer the previous wording, which uses the verb, "...to sinter...". If you think the link is useful and appropriate, is there a way to use the previous wording but also add the link in an appropriate place?

Also, I notice that, aside from a photo of a building, there are no images in this article. I think it would be nice to add one or two images to illustrate the actual frit and the process of making it. Do you know where such images could be found? CorinneSD (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked a bit. Also fixed a couple of refs - more needed there. As for images ... I'm of no help there. Vsmith (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaiin and the Ring of Fire,,, My Mistake, thanks for the correction

I have been editing a bunch of countries, and thanks for catching the error on my part Cheers and have a great day

David Adam Kess (talk) 9:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome and 'twas no problem ... keep on truckin...

and you need to sign with four tildes ~~~~ rather than pasting a signature as you did above (resulted in an erroneous timestamp). Vsmith (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vesuvianite

Hi I cleaned up the Vesuvianite gemstone article a bit. Can you wikify or edit it more? Thank you. 174.7.167.7 (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request attention

I recently have tried to do some editing at the Western Culture article, after finding example after example of books cited without page numbers, URLs appearing as sources, etc. Then on text review, I found near entire sections (and certainly entire subsections) without any citation whatsoever. (The point of visiting the article was to assess it, for use as a reference in online and printed teaching materials that I am helping develop.) After adding a reasonably conservative set of tags to to this article to address these issues—added to a preexisting OR tag, from 2013—I was reverted, in entirety, without explanation (no Talk or Edit Summary), by editor User:Jobas.

Since you have experience with this editor (recall your entry, his talk page), I would ask you keep an eye, over the next day or so, on the article mentioned, and support the reversions of his effort, in support of the idea that there are minimal acceptable standards for referencing WP articles, i.e., that it is in our duty as editors both (a) to move articles in the direction of quality sourcing, and (b) to call attention to the facts of the matter when articles are distant from this ideal, and stagnated at that distance. Note, I am also a logged editor, and you will see me re-address this via log-in, but since the discourse and disagreement began with me coming, while on the road, via IP (which should, per WP policy, make no difference), I am continuing this discussion for the time being, as the original IP from which I did the article edit. Cheers, have a look if your time permits. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the editor involved has self-reverted and apologized. Always good to be patient and give the other guy a bit of time :)

And, yes the article in question has some problems - please do follow up there with a bit of fixing. Vsmith (talk) 14:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgmanite

Hi Vsmith. Is it possible to move silicate perovskite to bridgmanite (IMA 2014-017)? Thx --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about a move - is all silicate perovskite = to bridgmanite? The article mentions calcium silicate also, but is lacking details. Perhaps better to just start a new bridgmanite article? Vsmith (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you are right. There is bridgmanite (Mg-Si-perovskite), calcium-silicate-perovskite and minor others. The same is under discussion on German Wikipedia. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming

I was surprised to see User:I'm your Grandma. blocked for edit warring at Global warming. I looked at the edit history and did not see any violation of 3RR. She was so exasperated by the block and the warning (on her talk page) that she said she's retiring from WP. I think it is regrettable that WP would lose this editor. She attended Harvard, has had a career in editing, and is quite knowledgeable in science. Can you look into this and see whether the block was warranted or not? CorinneSD (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately edit warring in an area under arbcom sanctions is risky business. Edit warring doesn't require 3rr, that's just a "bright line" rule. Ordinarily a first block would be for 24 hours and I assume the initial 48 was due to the topic and/or for other reasons. The blocking admin mentions previous accounts, but gave no details. Experience elsewhere does not guarantee success here. Vsmith (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I learned yesterday that there is a lot more to this case than meets the eye. CorinneSD (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seems always more... in wikiland drama. Vsmith (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extractive metallurgy

I found an article that needs work: Extractive metallurgy. I thought I'd let you know in case you found yourself with nothing to do. ;) CorinneSD (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That has been on my watchlist for years - along with thousands of other needful articles. ...nothing to do... eh?? alien concept :) Vsmith (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clay

I have just read the article on Clay. I made a few minor copy-edits, but I have a few questions for you:

1) The last few sentences in the section Clay#Formation are as follows:

Clay deposits may form in place as residual deposits in soil, but thick deposits usually form as the result of a secondary sedimentary deposition process after they have been eroded and transported from their original location. Primary clays, also known as kaolins, are located at the site of formation. Secondary clay deposits have been moved by erosion and water from their primary location.[2] Clay deposits are typically associated with very low energy depositional environments such as large lakes and marine basins.

You'll see that I moved the two sentences beginning "primary clays" and "secondary clays" so that they immediately follow the sentence that explains the two ways clay deposits may form (the first sentence).

I was going to ask you whether the sentences beginning "primary clays" and "secondary clays" were really written correctly since they were defining those two types of clays but were not worded as definitions. I was going to suggest adding words so they would sound more like definitions:

Primary clays, also known as kaolins, are clays that have remained at the site of formation.

Secondary clays are those clays that have been moved by erosion and water from their primary location.

But then I realized that the first sentence already explains most of that. I wonder if it would be all right to include the names of these two types of clay in that first sentence:

There are two types of clay deposits: primary and secondary. Primary clays, also known as kaolins, form as residual deposits in soil and have remained at the site of formation. Secondary clays are those clays that have been moved by erosion and water in a secondary sedimentary deposition process and transported from their original location. Clay deposits are typically associated...(etc.)

I think I got all the information into fewer words. What do you think?

2) In the second paragraph in the section Clays#Grouping is the following sentence:

When glacial lakes form, their water moves very little, and these eroded soils settle on the lake bed.

The only problem with this sentence is that no eroded soils have been mentioned before this, so it's not clear what "these eroded soils" refers to. Do you have any ideas as to how to fix this?

3) This next one may sound like nitpicking, but I really like to make sure things are clear. The second through fourth sentences in the first paragraph in the section Clays#Historical and modern uses are the following:

(1) When dry, clay becomes firm and when fired in a kiln, permanent physical and chemical changes occur. (2) These reactions, among other changes, convert the clay into a ceramic material. (3) Because of these properties, clay is used for making pottery, both utilitarian and decorative, and construction products, such as bricks, wall and floor tiles.

Regarding the last sentence, since no properties were mentioned before this, it's not clear what "these properties" refers to. "Reactions" were mentioned, and it was explained that those reactions convert clay into ceramic, but no specific properties were mentioned. I guess it means both clay becoming firm when dry and the changes that occur when it is fired. Perhaps it would be clearer if it said, "Because of both of these properties", or "Because of these two properties"

Regarding the second sentence, it's not really clear what "these reactions" refers to. If it refers just to the "permanent and chemical changes" that occur upon firing, then I think it would be clearer to use "these changes" instead of "these reactions".

4) I moved a sentence from the end of the first paragraph in Clay#Historical and modern uses because I didn't think it belonged there. I put it at the end of the first paragraph in the lead. Here is the sentence:

Depending on the content of the soil, clay can appear in various colors, from a dull gray to a deep orange-red.

Do you see any other place for that sentence? CorinneSD (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re your #1: yes that works better - however I've cut the "also known as kaolins," bit as simply false. Many kaolin deposits are primary (result from deep in situ weathering), but not all residual or "primary" clays are kaolin. Will look at the rest tomorrow as right now I'm falling asleep -- been a long, busy day. Vsmith (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked a bit more ... :) Vsmith (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working on it. It's much better. CorinneSD (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Landscape

In the process of looking for the article Landscape painting, I stumbled upon the article on Landscape. I haven't read it yet, but I noticed something wrong at the very end of the article. It's at the end of the section Landscape#Etymology (huge section!). There appear some non-English characters. Also, just above that, in the middle of the paragraph that begins "The dictionary definition of aesthetic...", I see "15Aesthetics". I'm not sure what that is. CorinneSD (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've chopped some old vandalism and those old pre <ref></ref> reference numbers. Plus some minor tweaking.Vsmith (talk) 12:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind me butting in, but etymology is an interest of mine so I decided to take a look. Wow, you weren't kidding! The article is almost entirely about the etymology and evolution of the word and its various meanings, but almost nothing about the subject itself. I'm not even sure which subject it is about, as it seems to concentrate on the various meanings that the word can have, but not on any specific thing.

My personal opinion is that etymology is usually unnecessary in an encyclopedia. Etymology is about words, which makes it more suited to a dictionary, but encyclopedias are about things. Therefore, they rarely need to cover etymology at all, unless it's particularly notable (the etymology of moose, for example). In this case, the entire article seems to be devoted to etymology without having a real thing (subject) to focus on.

Aside from that, it's written in 2d person academic style rather than 3rd person encyclopedic, and is filled with a lot of unattributed opinions (about the word, not the subject) which are difficult to distinguish between the opinions of the sources, of the author, or of the notable people it mentions. (And why it goes into the etymology of "aesthetic" is beyond me.)Zaereth (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mind at all — and quite agree, way too much etymology detail and quibbling. Seems most of that was added back in 2010 by a now inactive user and modified in 2013 by another. Due for some serious chopping, jump right in :) Vsmith (talk) 12:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zaereth and Vsmith, I agree completely. I'm sorry I didn't see this before I spent some time fixing punctuation, etc., as I read the article a few minutes ago. I thought it was horrible. Zaereth, you described it well. I think a lot should be removed from this article -- maybe 80 percent of it -- and replaced with some more down-to-earth, interesting material. If there is an article at all, how about something like having brief sections on:

landscape in (or and) geography
landscape in geology
landscape in agriculture
landscape in history
landscape in military history
landscape in painting
landscape in photography
landscape in architecture/landscape architecture
landscape in literature.

Just an idea. CorinneSD (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say this, someone put a lot of work into it, but you're right, most of the article is in pretty bad shape. The etymology of this word is really not much different from any other word. I found the info interesting, but mostly out of place and far too detailed. I think reducing that section down to a simple paragraph would be sufficient.

In its most general sense, a landscape is everything within a person's sphere of perception. This is all dependent on where that person is, but it could be a desert landscape (desertscape), city landscape (cityscape), tundra landscape, warehouse landscape, etc... It can even refer to non-terrestrial landscapes such as the landscape of the moon or the landscape of the galaxy. Not to mention mental landscapes. Of course, landscape also refers to paintings and photos (which often contain a skyline) or work performed to alter the landscape.

Your idea of expanding the article into small sections on the various types of landscapes is sort of inline with what I was thinking; basically turning the article into a "parent article." We could start out describing what a landscape is, and then add in various sections describing how it relates to other things like photos. Pretty much just like you said, Corinne. I don't have a lot of spare time at the moment. The very-mild winter here has been keeping my workload high, plus with the holidays and all, I probably won't be able to get back to this myself for a few weeks, but will support any change you want to make in the meantime. Perhaps posting this discussion on its talk page may show if there'll be any objection. Zaereth (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We could use your ideas, mine, and anyone else's ideas. Vsmith, do you agree that this discussion should be copied to the article's talk page? If so, do you want to do that since this is your talk page? CorinneSD (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Vsmith (talk) 02:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heligoland

I'm in the process of reading the article on Heligoland. I'm at the section on Heligoland#Geology, and I saw the word "Bunter" and, because I had never seen that word, clicked on the link. It led to an article on Bunter. I did a search for the word "Bunter" in the Bunter article to see if it is capitalized throughout the article and was surprised to find that it is. I read that it comes from a German word, and German nouns are capitalized, but I don't see why the word has to be capitalized in English. CorinneSD (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Buntsandstein or Bunter Sandstone is a formally named geological formation or group. As a formal name it should be capitalized. I see the sandstone part of the name isn't capped and there is some inconsistency about that in geological literature. There is a merge proposal to combine into the German Buntsandstein - undecided on that, but the Bunter (geology) article which focuses on occurrences in England is needing work and refs. The link in the Heligoland should be to the referenced Buntsandstein article (which has an image of the Heligoland outcrop). Vsmith (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., thanks. I have a few other questions for you:

1) The date at the beginning of the second paragraph in Heligoland#Explosion is all numbers. Can we assume that it is 20 December 1950?

I would assume that.

2) In the section Heligoland#Modern day, in the second paragraph, the name of the German rescue service is translated into English. Don't you think that, in the third paragraph, the name of the German ornithology group should also be translated into English?

Yes.

3) In the section Heligoland#Energy supply:

(a) "GROWIAN" is a red link. Do you think it should remain that way?

No, likely delink.

(b) Right after that, the second sentence of the second paragraph starts, "In 1990, a 1,2 MW turbine...." Shouldn't the number be "1.2", with a period rather than a comma?

Yes 1.2

(4) In the section Heligoland#Road restrictions, first paragraph, it says:

There is a special section...in the German traffic regulations...prohibiting the use of automobiles and bicycles on the island.

The next sentence says:

No other region in Germany has any exceptions to the general regulations in the StVO, although other North Sea islands, such as Baltrum, have also banned the public from using cars and motor-bikes.

The last paragraph says:

The area received its first police car on 17 January 2006. Until then the island's policemen moved around on foot and by bicycle (being exempt from the bicycle ban).

Do you really think bicycles are banned on the island? I can't imagine why. Or is it motor-bikes that are banned? If it is bicycles, then the second sentence doesn't make sense. CorinneSD (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No clue. Peobably need to read the (Straßenverkehrsordnung) ref'd ... and I.ve forgotten all the German I was s'posed to have learned in that "reading German" class back in ~1972. Vsmith (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine stuff

Hello I noticed you reverted my changes as well as a news source without explaining why. The fact you removed is true. If you type ukraine refugees in siberia you will find hundreds of articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russiaball (talk • contribs) 01:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and I've undone another of your edits. Please support your edits with WP:reliable sources and learn to capitalize properly. Vsmith (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vacuum Forming Article

Hi there, I noticed you removed a couple of links I added to the vacuum forming article, to explanations of the 'roller cutting' and 'press cutting' processes on the Toolcraft Plastics company website. I do work for Toolcraft and so I guess there may be a conflict of interest; however, the pages I link to are two impartial background information pages which I believe wikipedia users will find useful. Will the links be acceptable if I add a disclosure on the article talk page ? And sorry, I should have done that before but I've only just become aware that that is necessary. SvanLeeuwen (talk) 11:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 357: / Line 357: @@
 : and I've undone another of your edits. Please support your edits with [[WP:reliable sources]] and learn to capitalize properly. [[User:Vsmith|Vsmith]] ([[User talk:Vsmith#top|talk]]) 01:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
+== Vacuum Forming Article ==
+Hi there, I noticed you removed a couple of links I added to the vacuum forming article, to explanations of the 'roller cutting' and 'press cutting' processes on the Toolcraft Plastics company website. I do work for Toolcraft and so I guess there may be a conflict of interest; however, the pages I link to are two impartial background information pages which I believe wikipedia users will find useful. Will the links be acceptable if I add a disclosure on the article talk page ? And sorry, I should have done that before but I've only just become aware that that is necessary. [[User:SvanLeeuwen|SvanLeeuwen]] ([[User talk:SvanLeeuwen|talk]]) 11:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)