User talk:Vsmith

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 Happy New Year!

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		For your active work around mineral articles. Rhanyeia ♥♫ 12:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Spam Chop'

I will be instructing my solicitor refrence the printing of libelous material. I will remind you the onus is the on the person who printed the libelous material to prove what they said is true (without any doubt) and not vice versa. Should remedial action or suitable justification not be received promptly I will persue this case. I will be informing the owners of Wikipedia about said case also as this also involves them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biggilo (talk • contribs) 15:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see →Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threats_from_Spammer --Hu12 (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YW ;)--Hu12 (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global Warming

Hello Vsmith. Could you please justify your semi-protection of Global Warming on 2nd January, bearing in mind that pre-emptive semi-protection merely to prevent possible IP vandalism does not adhere to Wiki policy. Thanks, 86.31.45.177 (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aw gee - were you unable to vandalize the page or did you just want to push a pov? Get yourself a username and we can discuss further if need be. AGF?? yeah, bouncing Ripenet anons get little of that here. Sorry 'bout that, Vsmith (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your response suggests that you're not fit to be an admin. I'm going to look at the possibility of you being de-admined. 86.31.45.177 (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My response was the result of the fact that the majority of ip edits from Ripe are throwaway pov pushing or vandalism. Now, I see by your edits elsewhere that you do have a user id, but apparently are "collecting evidence" regarding treatment of ip editors. Hmm... seems to me that you are thus misrepresenting yourself and are simply trolling. Solution: use your damned user id to edit and cut the crap. Now, if you wish to discuss further, use your username and we can talk. Vsmith (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever been on the opposite of an disagreement with ScieceApologist

This user won't give up, even when he is wrong. Anthon01 (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith, I am quite aware of the editing "problems" there, either real or perceived. So, simply leave him alone for a while as he works out his wiki plans and de-stresses over it. Vsmith (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume AGF with SA, while I don't always agree with his tactics. Anthon01 (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Does style guideline mean that all PD-sourced content is best placed in quotes?

Is this RFCstyle listing the preferred way to handle this low level, slow-burn dispute about cite style?

User:Doncram is acting on a conviction that PD-source tags are tantamount to a representation of plagiarism. He has been engaged in discussion on several article talk pages, a template talk page, and a style guideline discussion page, listed at RFC. He has stopped blanking PD-sourced content, but continues to exhort editors, and revert their reverts, insisting that PD sourced content needs to be enclosed in quotes with intext cites to conform to Wikipedia style guidelines. --Paleorthid (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't really know where the best discussion forum for this is. I'm not fond of long pd text dumps, but am aware that a lot of the early article building was accomplished that way. And, I've clashed with SEWilco a time or two over it. We do need to re-write a lot of the outdated 1911 pd material, as time permits, but don't think the idea of large block quotes is a solution. Vsmith (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Job Vsmith!

Hi Vsmith,

I have been observing the entry Aristotle and I discovered that the day before yesterday you reverted Sunshinyness version:

(cur) (last) 13:39, 21 January 2008 Vsmith (Talk | contribs) m (61,677 bytes) (Reverted edits by Sunshinyness (talk) to last version by 129.67.115.253) (undo) (cur) (last) 11:42, 21 January 2008 Sunshinyness (Talk | contribs) (61,240 bytes) (undo)

For removing the following:

From the 3rd century to the 1500s, the dominant view held that the Earth was the center of the universe (geocentrism). This scientific concept, as proposed by Aristotle and Plato was later adopted as dogma by the Roman Catholic Church because it placed mankind at the center of the universe, and scientists who disagreed, such as Galileo, were considered heretics. This erroneous concept was eventually rejected.

Good Job!! It's thanks to people like you that wikipedia is becoming reliable!

I got curious and read what follows:

Who Geologist - MS, 1975, The University of Arizona. Currently a "torturer of teenagers" (high school science teacher) and a dabbler in almost anything scientific. {B-)}

[edit] Long, long time ago In what seems like another universe now, I was a U.S. Marine - spent almost two years in 'nam. Radio op with MAG-36, chopper outfit, mostly in and around Ky Ha copter pad north of the Chu Lai airbase. Took a trip to 'nam aboard the USS Princeton (CV-37) in August '65 and flew back stateside June '67. Just in case anyone from that universe is surfing around wiki. Damn, that was a long time ago!

I have been in the italian Navy long long time ago as well.

I would be interested in knowing you better... if you are a facebook user please poke me. I consider myself another dabbler in almost anything scientific. °O) I will be in the New York facebook network for a month.

Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 09:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Maurice, and thanks for the kind words. No, I don't have a facebook account and am a long way from NY. Happy editing (sorry for the delay replying - distracted for a bit) Vsmith (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number48

You may wish to review Number48 in light of your previous actions, specifically [1]. PouponOnToast (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for the "heads-up". I saw this note between classes, but didn't have time to investigate and act then (live physics students to torture :). Now I see 48 has been indef'd. A well deserved block. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you Vsmith for responding to my AN/I report with corrective action. Much appreciated! --MPerel 02:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. However, I made the block decision prior to seeing your ANI post as other events called his talk page to my attention. Vsmith (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment, I know I'm not a 3rd party to this, but I think that essentially telling another user to go kill himself [2] is hostile enough to merit a longer term or indefinite block. --Veritas (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering just that - I blocked for a week, but I or another admin may well extend the block. You are correct and I'd suggest posting a similar comment on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Morgan_Wright where I left it open for other admin review. Vsmith (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And another thank you for following up with the stronger indef block which is certainly warranted in this case. --MPerel 04:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Morgan is editing again as 67.189.204.157 (talk · contribs) since this IP is in the same location as the other and clearly has the same interests. --Veritas (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and has been given a 1 week block by User:Black Kite. Vsmith (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

Hey, I reverted an article due to some vandalism and saw the user's talk page where you blocked the user for previous vandalism. 162.40.102.209 (talk · contribs) is the target IP. Just letting you know he/she is at it again. Esoxid (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

about periodic table structure

from jc perez sorry, Dr Smith there is not a self promotion. I consider only that adding PREDICTIVE FORMULA paragraph increase a bit wikipedia periodic table knowledge and data... Thanks jc perez —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean-claude perez (talk • contribs) 07:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

predictive equation of periodic table: detailed data from jc perez

sorry for figures and graphics formula (I could send you a full text including them by email if you send me your email adress: jeanclaudeperez2@free.fr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean-claude perez (talk • contribs) 10:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Figure 1: Conventional Empiric Mendeleev’s Table and new “X“ and “K“ diamonds-like modelling structures.

“Are there NUMBERS in the NATURE?” The MENDELEEV’s Table Generic EQUATION.

At IBM initially, then with “geNum” biomathematics Lab. thereafter, we have studied the phenomena of self-organization and global structures emergence such as “Fractal Chaos” for more than 25 years1. Particularly, we have then, since the end of the Eighties, make basic research about hypothetical mathematical structures of DNA and genomes 2 3. Our main question remains: “Are there Numbers in the Nature?” Let us take the example of the famous table of Mendeleev4, no one never had the idea to seek a possible mathematical law which would organize the information and the structure of "the most heterogeneous table of Science". We discovered this law: the equation of the table of Mendeleev. Here is a short summary: We discovered a simple equation which generates and predicts the structure of the table of Mendeleev. This equation predicts the number of elements of any layer of period "p" in the table according to the only value of this period "p". Beyond this mathematical modeling of the periodic table of the Elements, -This equation underlines, in its formulation, the " trace" of the 4 fundamental quantum Numbers. -This modeling predicts the structure of the hypothetical extensions of the table of Mendeleev towards possible Eléments (real) unknown which would be located beyond the last known radioactive Elements5. -This modeling also makes it possible to imagine an infinity of other Elements (virtual) which one could however predict positioning towards the low layers of the table, like their quantum properties. To summarize, if: -c(p) a horizontal layer of elements of the table of Mendeleev, -"p" the period associated with this c(p) layer such as p = [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 … ], -Int(v) the whole part of the numerical value "v". exp: if v=2.35, then Int(2.35)=2. Then, one obtains c(p), the number of elements contained in the c(p) layer of order p, by applying the formula:

Examples : If p=1 è c(1)=2 If p=2 è c(2)=8 If p=3 è c(3)=8 If p=4 è c(4)=18 If p=5 è c(5)=18 If p=6 è c(6)=32 If p=7 è c(7)=32 If p=8 è c(8)=50 If p=9 è c(9)=50 …/… If p=16è c(16)=162 Generic and predictive natures of the equation: Can one extrapolate this law beyond the periods for which it is checked (periods 1 to 7)? Which would be the properties of a hypothetical period 8? Researchers predict the existence of hypothetical Eléments 126 and even 164 78. If these elements existed, they would belong to a "eighth period" (since periods 1 to 7 can contain only 118 Elements). However, the quantum theory "predicts" that such a period 8 "should" contain 50 Elements. Effectively, to the 32 Elements corresponding to layer 7 would come to associate an additional long block of 18 elements, the "octadécanides". As we will see it, it would correspond to the quantum block "g", which contains 9 orbital (m = [ +4, +3, +2, +1, 0, -1, -2, -3, -4 ], these 9 states, compounds with the 2 states of the "spin", lead well to 2x9 = 18 additional Elements). It is exactly what our equation predicts (see details in WEB supplementary information). Graphical structures overview: This equation makes it possible to propose new graphic designs of the Mendeleev’s table6: -« 2-dimensions conventional table » : it is the usual representation in which lanthanides were reintegrated in their place. This table extends by bottom when p increases. -« 3-dimensions X diamonds-like » : this structure underlines the double symmetry of growth of the crystal-like table. It is made of 4 regular pyramids with square bases forming "XX" for face view, "X" for side view, and 2 squares adjacent by an angle in sights of top and below. When p grows, the extension is done alternatively by bottom and the top. -« 3-dimensions K diamonds-like » : This structure is most realistic: it amalgamates alignments by columns of the traditional table with the 3-dimensional structure. We have 4 orthogonal pyramids with square bases. Please visit WEB supplementary information for details. Strong Relationships between the 4 Quantum Numbers and Mendeleev’s Table Equation : Niels Bohr established the relation between the position of each Element in the periodic table and its electronic structure. The chemical properties of each Element are thus totally determined by the distribution of the electrons of this Element. The properties and positionings of these electrons, themselves, are determined by the laws of Quantum Physics. It is related to the wave equation of Schrödinger which establishes these distributions of probabilities of energies of the electron. These waves functions name the " orbitals ". Thus, with any electron identifiers are associated: they are the 4 Quantum Numbers. One successively defines “n”, “l”, “m”, and “s”, the 4 quantum numbers. We show in additional WEB supplementary information that our Mendeleev’s Equation includes strong links with the 4 quantum numbers: One thus finds, in this new concise writing of the generic equation, the explicit trace of 2 among the 4 quantum Numbers: "n" and "m":

= 2 = 2 where m and n are the magnetic and principal quantum numbers of index p.

To conclude : -1- The periodic table of the Elements is modélisable. It is structured by a numerical structure of whole numbers. -2- This structure is deterministic and predictive, then, for any period p, it can be calculated by applying "the generic equation of Mendeleev" which we discovered. -3- The generic equation is completely controlled by the four quantum Numbers. -4-This generic equation makes it possible to check the regularity of the common table of Mendeleev, but it can also "predict" and anticipate the existence of hypothetical Eléments now unknown, of which it makes it possible to determine the quantum properties, then electronic and chemical hypothetical properties. Jean-claude Perez #£

genEthics foundation : 7 av de terre-rouge F33127 Martignas France

Email : jeanclaudeperez2@free.fr £ geNum inc : 1134, chemin Saint Louis Sillery Quebec G1S 1E5 Canada References: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean-claude perez (talk • contribs) 10:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belongs on article talk page. Vsmith (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

break

stop deleting what i wrote!!!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Neogotchi (talk • contribs) 07:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry 'bout that - but no. Vsmith (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mole (unit) - and others

I am the user that provided visionlearning modules as external links on some articles a few weeks back. I would like to include a link to relevant material on those topics for teachers and students on the Visionlearning website, an open-source, federally funded science teaching initiative, nearly ten years old. Visionlearning contains peer-reviewed, and freely available teaching resources in science and math written specifically for educators and students. I believe the link to this material will enhance the wiki content as it provides a means for teachers and students to access further information on a topic, and since it is written specifically for an educational audience, will help legitimize the content on wiki in these circles. Also, may I point out that Visionlearning is completely non-profit. oking83

And you are associated with this great site? Enhancing Wikipedia means adding good solid sourced content, not just a link to your favorite great site. Vsmith (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not affiliated with Visionlearning, besides using it regularly in my classes. I am a college professor, and I use web-based teaching methods as much as I can, including Wikipedia. My students routinely encounter Visionlearning modules in our internet searches (often near the top of a Google search for some science terms, along with Wiki), and these two sources seem to complement each other well, but with very different goals. Visionlearning can be used in the formal "My classroom" relationship as I do, or just as a good, reliable source of sound information written by experts but in understandable language, like Wiki. Either way, I think that Visionlearning as an external link on some of the Wikipedia pages does indeed enhance the Wiki experience for many of the very people that would have ended up on that page, and that was why I added them. Oking83 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

College prof. - good, then you have access to a library and journal sources ... so why not add content rather than just adding external links - that's what this project is all about. Did you discuss this with User:JoshuaZ or just remove his comment on your talk page with no discussion? Please read WP:EL as he recommended. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Vsmith, IP address 192.203.136.252 is registered to a public library! 66.99.216.2 (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and... your point is? Vsmith (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Link

You recently removed an external link to Enviromentality (http://environment-policy.info) I added to the entry for political ecology and stated that "links to web sites with which you are affiliated" are not appropriate. I read the guidelines for external links before adding this one and I did not see this rule so I am asking whether mere association with a web site is grounds for removal if the web site is otherwise a worthwhile link. I am not deriving any financial reward from generating external link traffic. Since that time I have also moved from anonymous to being a named user as that may have aroused some suspicion. Otherwise I thank you for keeping Wiki clean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cherson (talk • contribs) 21:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, as I see it, if you are associated in any way with the site - you don't link to it. You may bring this up on the article talk page and see if someone not related to the site feels a link is needed. Vsmith (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block of Hyperbole

His edits don't look like edit warring to me, and I don't see what the issue is (other than some of his strong language regarding the article's content, not any contributors). He's requesting unblock ... have you anything to add? Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend an unblock if the first reference is restored. Quack Guru 03:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Hyperbole_reported_by_User:Orangemarlin_.28Result:_24_hrs.29, the case was initially declined by User:TigerShark based on his interpretation. The additional reverts noted by User:QuackGuru there were considered. Yes, he was editing to improve the article based on his perception - but was fully aware of the 3rr case as he had removed a warning note by User:Orangemarlin from his talk page. Please review the details, if you feel an unblock is in order I would appreciate a note indicating your findings. Vsmith (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After the reverts Hyperbole did some great editing. Unblock please! Quack Guru 03:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. He should not only be blocked for 24 hours, but I think a month-long block will cut out his edit warring. He has a POV, and he won't stop. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QG - he cannot restore the first reference, he is blocked - and now you want him unblocked because he did some great editing ... The block was for 3rr and edit warring, not for great editing.
OM - ease off a bit and don't antagonize him further on his talk. If you have evidence to support a longer block - for whatever reason - then take it to the proper place. Saying that He has a POV, and he won't stop. is rather odd - we all have a pov, you included, will you stop? Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consciousness causes collapse

Hi Vsmith,

Please review the recent changes that commenced when SA returned from his recent 72 hour block, and I'd request that you restore the previous stable version as it existed prior to these massive and undiscussed changes. This is a repeatedly problematic behaviour from this particular user, see here for starters. I will post additional diffs as needed in support of this request. Thanks, WNDL42 (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry 'bout that, we're s'posed to protect the wrong version :-). The diffs provided on 3rr do indicate you were in violation and looking at the page history SA may have been also. As others were involved in the reverting - the situation seemed to me to merit a protect rather than blocking anyone at this point. Please settle on the article talk page. Vsmith (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sexcuse me, sir...

I was wondering how one would get a "wiki bot". Google's not helping me one bit. Vael Victus (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try Ebay, everything for sale there :-) Vsmith (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarification on links...

Vsmith,

Thanks for the clarification on adding links to websites members are affiliated with, my bad.

- Wholebrainer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wholebrainer (talk • contribs) 05:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Vsmith (talk) 02:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Since you were able to come to a decision to block me, could you explain to me why BLP policy - Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals - does not apply in my case. Thanks.Momento (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see it that way. What I do see is an apparent single purpose editor who has edited the Prem Rawat and related pages something like 400 to 500 times since Jan 1. Do you have a conflict of interest here. Also I observed an admin with a conflict of interest in the matter improperly stalling a simple 3rr report. My suggestion to you - go edit some other article for a while and take a break on the subject. Could be that I've misinterpreted things, but I call 'em as I see 'em. Now, I usually avoid cult articles - but I'll be watching that one for a bit considering the edit warring in progress there. Further edit warring on your part could lead to a longer block. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It goes without saying that editors only edit articles they have an interest in.Momento (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

insult

So far I have been accused of spamming and conflict of interest. In the future I will, give no personal references to any entry - no matter how relevalent. I am a Korean War veteran and don't need the hassle. Don Mattox —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mattox (talk • contribs) 03:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Don, and thanks for your edits. The notices I and others have left on your talk page were not meant as insults, rather we were trying to communicate and inform you of Wikipedia policies - I apologize if the notes seemed insulting. Wikipedia needs expert input from those like yourself with academic and real world expertise. I hope you can recognise the potential problems of an anyone can edit encyclopedia when individuals try to use it as "free advertising" or "free promotion of their wacko ideas". Because of that reality, Wikipedia has instituted rather strict policies on external links and self promotion and I hope you can recognize the potential problem. I do hope you continue to share your expertise with us, mindful of the relevant policies - we need editors like you. Also please note that I replaced a page Society of Vacuum Coaters of yours which had been speedily deleted by another admin - we now need to add content to improve it and establish it's notability within Wiki guidelines. I know little about your field of engineering - I'm a science teacher with a geological background, but am willing to work with you to improve those articles and learn something along the way.

And... please accept my thanks and gratitude for your sevice to our country in that often "forgotten war" - sincerely, Vsmith (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility and cooperation

Vsmith, please Wikipedia:avoid personal remarks such as this.

The Washington Times Foundation is not the same thing as The Washington Times. If you had checked, you would have seen that there is no mention of it in the article to which you redirected the page I started.

What I need help with is not "how to do it"; having been around here longer than you, I'm well aware of technique. I was hoping someone would join me in the research and writing. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry 'bout that, but starting a substub w/out bolding the title or getting the stub tag right or categorizing ... seemed rather newbieish to me. Making a mess and expecting someone else to clean it up seems quite inconsiderate. ...been around here longer than you... ?? - then start acting like it, civility also includes not leaving messes for others to clean. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoover dam edit

Good move!! I kept wondering "who cares?" but not enough to actually do anything. - Denimadept (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I expect to hear howls of protest from the movie trivia crowd. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please expand on your message?

You sent me a polite (thank you), but not very specific message. It read:

"Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. 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. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. 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."

I admit I may not have been as judicious as necessary, but I was adding links to benefit the wikipedia community at large. I'm not sure which links you took issue with, but I've been making edits, usually sparingly, for a couple years now and never received such a message, so it was somewhat of a personal affront. Could you please reference the links I added that you disliked, and further could you please tell me why; this information would help me greatly in my future (i.e., with regard to staying within community guidelines). I'm a fan of wikipedia on many levels, and want not for wikipedia to become a non-fan of me!

In short, I added links that brought further insight to the specific pages they were added to. My links, from what I recall, ranged from adding appropriate TED Talks, some germane blogs, and a few external generic websites with useful information (e.g., university of chicago biographies of people mentioned in the article, a Daylife page from the CEO of Denuo, one site about what exactly communication means).

I work for a law firm in Salt Lake City, and that I know of have never once linked to our firm, cases prosecuted by our firm, or anything involving our clients, which would be wholly controversial.

Thanks for your time VSmith, I look forward to your specificity.

Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skishoo2 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, looking at your contribution history, I see that the last eight or so edits in a row (all of your edits in Feb.) have been simply adding external links. That, rather than any one link, was what prompted the canned message I left on your talk page. Please read to guidelines on WP:EL - Wikipedia is not a list of links. I meant no offense with that note, but, please add sourced content rather than just helpful links. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits reversed in Huygens page

Hello Vsmith,

I noticed you have reverted my recent edits on the "Huygens probe" page. I made those edits anonymous (134.76.235.93), because I thought they were a minor correction and I didn't have my password at hand.

Apparently, my "corrections" are controversial. Let me explain my rationale. I would like to substitute the possessive >>Huygens's<< to >>Huygens'<< because:

1. I think it is ugly and looks rather silly, maybe because...

2. In the Dutch language, which also uses the possessive apostrophe, it is plainly wrong (and Huygens is a Dutch name)

3. I have never encountered this form in the scientific and popular Huygens literature (and I've read dozens of papers), except on this Wikipage

4. I have never HEARD anyone use this form (which should be pronounced "Huygenses"), including many American and British scientists. This would be the rational for using this form, according to the Wikipage on the possessive apostrophe

So, >>Huygens'<< is (also) correct, and I feel BETTER than >>Huygens's<<. Maybe you felt I was vandalizing the page (editing anonymously), but I was merely trying to improve the page's readability. I ask now you to allow my previous edits. Admittedly, I am inexperienced in editing, so if you do not agree, should I take it to the "discussion" page?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozric13 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry 'bout that - your edits got caught in a vandalism sweep - guess I saw the nowiki bits and just assumed... I've reverted myself, Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who you are, But I know who I am.

I am Rodney Smith, I was born in Bisbee, and many years ago I decided to create a few Bisbee webpages giving my perspective of Bisbee as a person that grew up there and still views himself as a resident. I am no more a spamer than you are a resident of Bisbee. My walking tour and website are real and not spam. In a given year I provided about 10 walking tours and make no money from them. But I do satisfy visitors to Bisbee with history and exercise. Before you cut my link again come on a 2 hour walking tour with me.

My page is just as relavent as the Bisbee observer page which no longer give news on line.

Please leave my link alone.

By the way, Bisbee.net is not commercial in any great quantity either. Charlie also grew up in Bisbee too. Years ago when he started his website, there were a few pay customers, but now like so many things in Bisbee, his is a work of love.

I have to admit that I took out the cattle ranch link, which I consider about as Bisbee as Wilcox is a mining town.

Go after the real spammers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bisbeewall (talk • contribs) 04:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:COI, WP:SPAM and WP:EL. Adding your websites to Wikipedia articles seems to violate all three of those policies. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for reverting the edits to Talk:Coal made recently by 163.153.240.250. The school district has found the students involved and have taken appropriate action. --NERIC-Security (talk) 12:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link

Hi. This is regarding the link to http://www.shopgemstones.com/31.html on the emerald page. This is an important link to this section because there is no other information like this there on how to value emeralds. The site does not sell anything. I think you should look through the information on the site and make sure it does not benefit wikipedia users before deleting the link.

QG

The accusations of vandalism by Mr. Guru ring hollow; and is not supported by the evidence. On the contrary, however, Mr. Guru has already been banned within the last month for canvassing and disruptive editing, in particular to the chiropractic article. Given the fact that Mr. Guru is a recidivist, would a long block not be more appropriate, Vsmith? Thanks in advance! (PS: I apologize for posting this on the wrong page; thanks for the heads up). EBDCM (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing it here rather than kicking him while he's down...

Anyway, the block was preventative and not intended to be punitive in any way. I am aware of the block history of both editors involved. If you feel further action is needed, I'd suggest an editor rfc or other procedures. I would also suggest that you refactor your recent comment on Talk:Scientific investigation of chiropractic and keep the focus on the edits rather than on commenting on QG's record and editing style. Your comments there do not help the situation and could be seen as a personal attack. Vsmith (talk) 02:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, my interaction with most editors here is civil and pleasant; however given QGs tactics and history of recidivism my fuse sometimes runs short with him. He also continuously inserts (repeatedly with many editors reverting him) his personal piece despite numerous attempts by the community to discuss it on Talk (which we did and the article was a candidate for deletion) yet he persists despite consensus. Furthermore, his attempts to try and discredit many other editors who do not share his vitriol of chiropractic is beginning to wear thin. I am not familiar with procedural protocols with respect how to deal with this appropriately and I would appreciate some guidance. EBDCM (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Note carefully the rules on the Request comment on users section. Consider possible implications and gather your evidence to be presented as diffs. You should discuss the problem behavior with others and definetly do not use the rfc as an attack platform. As I've never filed an rfc, just commented and endorced a few, I'm probably not your best bet as an advisor. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-Atlantic ridge

On the subject of Mid-Atlantic ridge. You flagged my ip address for ip hopping. I like to call it leaving the office and going home. You jump to conclusions too fast. The theory I posted is valid and I've defended it several times on user's deleting the theory from the page. On no grounds is the theory not relevant. The theory has been discussed on national TV and has sufficient scientific backing as much as Wegener's theory. Wegener's theory is a little over 50 years old. It isn't the end of the discussion, but the beginning of the discussion. Re-post the theory or I'll assume you're politically and secularly motivated and and disturbing the peace on this forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.251.40.176 (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Scientific backing" -- that's plain hilarious. Yes, Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark. 1993. Grizzly Adams Production is obviously a WP:Reliable source and a bastion of peer-reviewed science. Geesh, get real... And you're ordering me to repost this crap - not a chance mate, and you may assume whatever you wish. Please read WP:NPA, and WP:FRINGE and be advised that this is not a forum, it is an encyclopedia. If you insist on including it somewhere, then try creation science - who knows it may already be noted there. Wegener's theory is approaching 100 yrs and was most definitely not the end of the discussion. However Grizzly Adams TV show was not even a footnote to the story. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wegener's theory has only been mainstream since the 1960's and whether 50 or 100 years has elapsed, the theory is not consecrated in the world's mind and could be debunked at any moment to be forgotten 10 years from now and replaced by a new fleeting theory. The optimal word in play here is "theory." Not fact. Neither Wegener or the theory I'm endorsing is fact. I will admit though that the theory must have some scientific community backing to be considered relevant on this website. Here is further evidence:[3]

Repost the info any which way you want, but the theory deserves a space on the page because it is part of the evolving discussion on the Mid-Atlatic Ridge. And you're wrong, Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia. It's a living encyclopedia which incorporates matters such as these. According to wp: fringe theory: "Creation science — The overwhelming majority of scientists consider this to be pseudoscience and say that it should not be taught in elementary public education. However the very existence of this strong opinion, and vigorous discussion regarding it amongst groups such as scientists, scientific journals, educational institutions, political institutions, and even the United States Supreme Court, give the idea itself more than adequate notability to have articles about it on Wikipedia."

wp:NPOV "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one."--68.251.40.176 (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please respect other Wiki-members contrbutions to content.

You have repeatedly removed SUBJECT-RELATED content from pages dealing with Magnet Cove, Arkansas & the geological related anomaly there. These pages are only stubs & one of them even has a REQUEST on it for Wiki-members familar with the area to add more content.....I have, several times, only to have it constantly reverted back by you into a very generalized stub. You do not OWN these pages...neither do I. I'm trying to provide further information on the subject, you are trying to keep them just like they were...using "spam" as an excuse for your actions & even going as far as to temporarily ban me. This further hampered my attempt to even discuss with you anything about WHY you feel that subject-related content shouldn't be included.

If you do not desire to discuss the matter, that's fine. But in that case, then let those of us who know something about the site (I've studied it for several years) add information to the page which may be of interest to others who study it also. Hampering the efforts of others to make the articles better, simply because you have nothing more detailed to add to them, is not very constructive to Wikipedia.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.215.240 (talk) 11:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user talk. Vsmith (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thundereggs

Hi. For some reason you have deleated the external link i provided to a gallery of thunderegg images - and somehow the term 'spamlink' floated into revision history. Now - i may be quite new here, but i would like to point out that the image gallery in question is a non-commercial one. I have no issues concerning getting in customers. It doesnt even feature any ad content. It's just a page about thungereggs and the ONLY reason i am here and putting this link on the wiki page is because i was trying to help and to liven up a VERY poor page. Providing links to relavent info does not sound like spam to me, and i hope not to people who actually want to find out a bit about thundereggs. Your other changes, i have no problem accepting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eibonvale (talk • contribs) 05:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion of WP:COI problems on user talk. Vsmith (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's continually doing the same thing to the Magnet Cove articles. They are stubs & I have been adding an external link to the articles, following the same format as "External Links" found on over 1/2 of other Wiki-pages. The link leads to a site with some verified history behind Magnet Cove, plus images of all known minerals found there. He's taken it upon himself to be the Wiki-Master of all geology content I suppose & simply deletes any other persons addition of content to the page.

He's done it to my edits multiple times, now to yours, & I've noticed several other instances that he has reverted geology related pages to "his" desire. Sad way to be a Wikipedian. This is one of the reasons why Wiki has a less than desirable reputation with many internet users. I initially thought about letting him play his game....but decided to try one last time, with predictable results.

So, anyone wanting info on Magnet Cove minerals...it's not on Wiki. Ask his guy, he knows everything about the place evidently.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.215.240 (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Muirhead

Change the details in the article about me again and I'll start changing the details on here about you. I'm FED UP with it. So be told. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickmuirhead (talk • contribs) 15:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er... beg pardon. Seems I reverted the deletion of content to an article which appeared to be vandalism - and now you are threatening to vandalize my userpage or talk page. Take note, I take vandalism and threats quite seriously. Now, if you feel the article about you is inaccurate or simply non-notable, then the approach would be to politely request a review or article deletion. Vsmith (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the Big Bang.

Hi, I just rephrased the support for the Big Bang that you took for criticism because of words like "the main objection" however it has been a past objection, of old physicists, who as Einstein and Feynman, believed in the principle of conservation of energy. The new physicists are already trained to ignore this principle as not having any valid application in cosmology. E.g. in my university all physicists are told that the Big Bang proves that the energy is not conserved. Jim (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rawlins

Dennis Rawlins' autobiography is almost totally made of references to his own site, www.dioi.org It should be banned as a vanity page.

Archives