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 :-)

Archive1 7/7/2004 - 6/15/2005
Archive2 6/15/2005 - 9/6/2005
Archive3 9/6/2005 - 1/01/2006

Hey Vsmith Thanks

Thank you for your helpful comments. My students are going to write lots of stuff for the chemistry area.Smokefoot 03:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Talk:Plate_tectonics#refs

I replied to your comment on Talk:Plate_tectonics#refs. Please see. Thanks for all your work on the 'pedia! JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion on the storm cost extrapolation graph

So that I might better understand your opposition to my graph, I want to ask you:

Does increased carbon dioxide lead to increased atmospheric energy resulting in increased temperature?

Does increased temperature result in increased evaportation and transpiration?

Does increased evaporated water result in greater precipitation?

Does increased precipitation result in greater atmospheric laminar and turbulent flow?

Does such increased atmospheric energy, then, manifest itself as greater average windspeed and greater precipitation?

Does the recent historical record confirm that precipitation and windspeed are both increasing as greenhouse gas concentration has been?

Thank you for helping me understand your point of view. —James S. 05:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the graph(s) is, as I have clearly stated, simply that it is an extrapolation or interpretation from existing data and as such is original research. My feelings on the points listed above are irrelevant to that simple fact. If the graph and extrapolations are published in some peer reviewed format then simply provide the reference and it should be OK. Vsmith 05:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight. You don't have the integrity to take a stand on the basic science on which you are making editing decisions? Instead, you hide behind borderline problems, excluding anything which is too original for your delicate sensibilities after your years of proud service to the number one fossil fuel-burning organization in the world, but not original enough to make into a peer-reviewed climate journal. You are just like so many overconsumers in denial. How's your SUV? Does it feel good giving all that money to Osama's folks every time you squeeze your gas pump? —James S. 06:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Chill out mate, where did that diatribe come from? Good day. Vsmith 06:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just expected that a science teacher would be interested in actually discussing science instead of weaselism and buck-passing. I guess not here in the USA -- we've evolved past that. Let me tell you something. I was born on an Army base right next to where the Nuremberg trials were held, and I know a thing or two about how the military conducts its business. Our pathetic squabbles for the remaining oil supply is a waste of time and money. But people like you don't want to talk about the science, you just want to squabble over arcane rule distinctions. What a classic load of buck-passing bs. —James S. 06:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - I thought I was bad, back in the day ;-) - Guettarda 01:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, gotta have a laugh and roll on :-) His comments are quite revealing re: his POV. He did miss-guess a couple things - actually I have two SUVs. But then, you have to consider the secluded valley I call home. Have you noticed the posts of our resident astrologer - below, that also is good for a laugh - check out Theo7's edits. Enjoy, Vsmith 01:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And his user page! Guettarda 01:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

Suggest that you refrain from negative POV on the Science and Saturn page that goes against your preconceived views. Saturn's north pole has been photographed and you should take a look at the hexagon image. Also, would appreciate it if you would not attempt to rewrite history by avoiding the historical fact that mathematics was invented by astrologers - and that it is a science. If you have questions then use the Talk Page before reverting based on your personal POV. Thanks.Theo 04:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your civil suggestions. But I don't think that I'm rewriting history and I'll be sure to watch for that negative POV. Now, if you make rather questionable claims to science articles please provide peer reviewd references. Cheers, Vsmith 04:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that the peer-reviewed articles will be forthcoming. I've been asking him to name a living leading scientist in any real field of science who believes in astrology, but...well...no answer except, it seems, that I'm supposed to prove that there are none. (He gets mixed up on that whole "he who asserts must prove" thing -- too complex, I guess). Jim62sch 23:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiter & Saturn - fix pipe problems in Jim's links - hpoefully they'll work now :-))

Thanks. Jim62sch 00:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, the Bad astronomy site (and related) is one of my favorite resources. I just last night added a ref to Saturn about the atmospheric hexagonal standing wave around the north pole. Theo's blather sparked my curiosity. Hadn't heard of that one before - learning continues unabated... Cheers, Vsmith 01:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anon rant

You don't know much for a know it all do ya? You just copy don't ya? So you think you are science editor, ha. Never any original idea.--218.232.104.29 03:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now what brought that on? We are in a good mood aren't we :-) - please see Wikipedia:Civility.

Nope, don't know much. Nope, don't know it all. Nope, don't copy much. And seems to me Wikipedia is not the place for original research -- ah well, on to the next one, Vsmith 03:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Age_of_the_Earth

Ergbert is kind of hanging being the last one to post, if you could respond I would greatly appreciate it, as I doubt my response would be as straight forward and detailed as yours. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I added a response, doubt that it will convince him though as he appears to have no clue about scientific evidence and his truth bit. Also moved some ext links into the reference section in the article to better support the contested statement. Vsmith 04:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bisbee Blue

I'm just curious why you so heavily edited the Bisbee Blue entry, eliminating lots of informative and intriguing information, referring to it as "hype". What may only be hype to you may be someone elses treasure, especially those who are local to the area, or to someone planning to pass through the area, who are very interested in the inside story behind this rare turquoise.

Above unsigned question from User:Vista4u2

Hi, I waded into what appeared to me to be an unabashed sales pitch to make it hopefully more encyclopedaic - probably should take another look. Does it need more pruning? Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith 01:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry

I must have mistakenly put my minor change by default option on.

Template:SCOTWvoter

Thank you for the kind welcome. I was beginning to wonder whether most of this site was run by robots. Lady BlahDeBlah 19:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need you to look over something

Hi,

I'm taking steps to lodge a formal complaint against User:Theodore7 due to various reasons that I'm sure that you are aware of, or have experienced by now. Right now I have a rough draft of the complaint that I would like to have some people look over, add to, correct, and sign if they agree with it. I've never had to do anything like this before, so if you would please take some time to take a look at it and give me some feedback, suggestions, support, etc., then I would really appreciate it. It can be found here: [1] Thank you. --Chris Brennan 06:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking WestPac Cruise Connections (1965-1967)

>>Took a trip to 'nam aboard the USS Princeton (CV-37) in August '65 and flew back stateside June '67<<

Whose flagship was Princeton during your WestPac (1965-1967) cruises?
Was she ever home-ported in Yokosuka, Japan?

RJBurkhart 13:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I don't know much about the Princeton. We loaded MAG-36 helicopter group aboard at Long Beach in early August '65 then sailed across the pond, stopped at Subic for a couple days, then pulled into Vietnamese waters on Aug 31. I offloaded with the base squadron to establish a heli-port on the Ky Ha peninsula (just a bit north of the Chu Lai airbase) starting Sep 1 '65. After that I was playing in the paddies 'til June '67. Vsmith 18:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flood Geology

Starting with the Noah's Ark story, a trail of controversy is continuing, with users User:Codex_Sinaiticus and User:Rossnixon dragging up purported scientific evidence that many modern land formations such as the Grand Canyon were created in the Biblical Noah's Ark story. As a physicist, not a geologist, I can challenge some of their supposed citations to professional geologists espousing their views, and ostensible publications supporting them, but maybe you could add in some better comments based on your strengths?

The latest item is that Ross Nixon refers to this page: [2] as a "professional" page showing that the Grand Canyon is young. Most of the references cited are to presentations in unrefereed bulletins or house organs of fundamentalist colleges such as Loma Linda College (run by 7th Day Adventists), but a few refer to refereed journals such as The Journal of Geology, Paleontology and so on. Frankly, I can't decipher how the refereed works support or do not support the Creationist claims. If you can help - thanks Carrionluggage 06:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful Comments on the Astronomy & Related Pages to Stop Instant Reverting by You, Thanks

Dear V. Smith. Would suggest you please cite what is POV before your instant reverts on the Astronomy and related pages. If you are to assert POV - then respectfully suggest that you explain yourself point-by-point. That would be very helpful, considering your constant reverts. Perhaps some helpful comments on the Talk Pages would suffice? Please inform me what you consider POV, as I can also cite many sources in the article. Thanks.Theo 14:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Been there, done that. Please consider your rfc. Thanks, Vsmith 14:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a very helpful answer. It does not assume good faith, nor is a good explaination of POV - "been there, done that" does not suffice. I would suggest you stick to using the Talk Page, and avoid such comments, as this assumes that you have some sort of "claim" on the pages you instantly revert. Again, if you must do so, then suggest that you provide a more cogent response. This would be helpful since the rfc is not the point regarding your reverts. As a new Wikipedian, I can also edit, and would be more than interested in hearing your reverts based on your claims of "POV-pushing". Thanks.Theo 14:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thanks for supporting my Rfa, Vsmith! I appreciate your trust. The puppy is now an Admin (final tally 58/7/2) Please let me know if there is anything I can ever do to assist you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for welcome!

I've just realized the power of Wikipedia, and started doing some typo editing, but soon got into factual editing where I could contribute. It's fun (and somewhat addicting...)! SvenskaJohannes 06:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for sorting them out. I've checked the required code to do the picture thumbnail and will be able to do that next time. Cheers Jonty68 21:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:68.153.36.3

User:68.153.36.3 has been engaging in vandalism again. I would ask you to check his/her edit history for today and consider another ban. I'm not an admin so I can't do it myself. Thank you. --kingboyk 20:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done Vsmith 21:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For the heads up. Guettarda 03:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth asking for a sock check (though, of course, I don't know if there is any IP info on JG remaining). Guettarda 03:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal twinning literature

Hi Vsmith,

I just read your contributions to crystal twinning, especially the part that there are three modes of formation of twinned crystals. Do you happen to have the name of the literature where you have got that information from? I'm writing a literature review about magnesium, but so far, wikipedia is the only source I have found which says that there are three specific modes..... and I fear my supervisor won't agree when I put wikipedia as a source of information,... :-(....

Furthermore, I would like to put this text on the Dutch wikipedia too (nl:Tweeling), so I hope your source can provide some more information about twinning than is already put into the English article.

Please let me know.

Regards, SietskeEN 09:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - the source was the ref listed: Hurlbut, Cornelius S.; Klein, Cornelis, 1985, Manual of Mineralogy, 20th ed., ISBN 0471805807 and that particular bit is from pp 147-149. Hurlbut lists Buerger, M. J., 1945, The Genesis of Twin Crystals, American Mineralogist, v. 30 pp469-482, as their primary source for that part. Basically any good mineralogy or crystallography text should provide more info, Hurlbut was just the mineralogy book I have handily available. Hope this helps, Vsmith 12:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! SietskeEN 12:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The great law of superposition

my computer had a problem, and my many edits, had to be re-entered, but it only took about 20 minutes. Steno must have been an interesting fellow. For those of us who have been given some "secrets" of our " Fantastic Planet ", that was a movie in the 50's a cartoon; anyway I have read some of Darwin's words, the letters to and from A. Russel Wallace. Great stuff.

I particularly like the Prickly pear cacti on the Galapagos that have to have stalks like 6 ft tall to get away from the tortoise. Natural selection, how wonderful. There is a major replacement of a good scientific word in the Evolution article. Every body babbles on so endlessly in the article, which should be about "biological evolution", that they miss the error. The word is used near the top of the article then replaced later, and nobody catches it. They aren't really reading the article. I had to go back and find it after I read the error. Anyway thanks for coming on right behind me on the Law of superposition article. As I stated, I didn't change a lot of words, just made it readable, with some wikis etc....MichaelMcAnnisYumaAZ--Mmcannis 06:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images in French

Hey Vsmith,

I recently discovered the wonder of Userboxes so I've added perhaps too many to my user page, but I wanted to add a few to my page in French, but I found that many of the one I just tried like that didn't exist go I just made them. I went to make a "From Canada" one and it worked well until I went to link the image. Is there a way to import the image used here Template:User_canada to the French version?

Thanks in advance --Mr Minchin 06:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could upload it to the commons site, since it's public domain it's alright to do so. Janizary 22:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have never used those & don't have a clue re: the image for it. Quite out of my range here :-) Vsmith 23:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Earth

Yes, I gave you the source. Could you stop messing with things that you don't understand? No wonder that wiki is such a mess. ati3414

Please read the discussion at Talk:Age of the Earth, you seem to be ignoring what everyone else is saying. Thank you, Vsmith 16:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Permeability (geology)

Sorry about the revert error. I got confused. No Guru 19:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - I also goofed and had to revert further back, it happens. Cheers, Vsmith 19:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

196.25.255.242

Please unblock user 196.25.255.242 because it is a SAIX proxy gateway and all internet users from southern africa use it including me--Jcw69 19:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have been unblocked along with many others --Jcw69 19:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry me again, it looks like my IP address switches every now and again to 196.25.255.242 which seems to be still blocked. I just click edit again and I have a different IP which is not blocked. This has never happened before as once a SAIX IP address is blocked many people are blocked at the same time as WP is cached at that IP --Jcw69 20:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I unblocked your IP shortly after reading your first post here. And the IP doesn' show up on List of currently blocked IP addresses and usernames. so I don't know what the problem is now. Vsmith 21:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:205.213.6.3

Hi, I saw that you blocked User:205.213.6.3 on Feb 1... I guess it was a short block because they were back vandalizing on Feb 2. Since this appears to be a middle school with a regular history of vandalism, doesn't it make sense to block it permanently? It seems likely that the vandalism will continue indefinitely, and overshadow any possible useful contributions from the 12-and-13-year-olds that use this address? Just a suggestion. Herostratus 07:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your rv

Why? What point is there in keeping this particular discussion? Others need keeping; why this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADark_matter&diff=38367550&oldid=38356598 Did you read my edit summary?

Barnstar Cluster

WIKIPEDIAN
CERTIFICATE
Vsmith
15:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shape and cut: Star polygon

Measurement of arguments: Excellent

Weight: No undue weight

Proportions: Keeps minority views in proportion

Finish: Sparkling prose

Clarity: Clear thinking

Colour: Vibrant Wikipedian

This Wikipedian was graded by:
RoyBoy, Guettarda, KillerChihuahua,
WAS 4.250, Jim62sch, Samsara, Dragons flight and Ec5618.

You're quite welcome, if you would like to vote/participate in awarding other science contributors, check out my meta. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than welcome, you deserve it! We had fun creating this for you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It's well-deserved. And thank those two for being the creative minds behind the design. Guettarda 03:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reports Vandals

Hi, Where would you report frequent vandals?

As i've found http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=209.80.133.240 is doing it a lot

Cheers

Sam

Regarding Ceasium to Cesium Edits

I changed it this way because of the discussion on the talk page of Cesium. The majority of users seemed to approve the Cesium spelling vs the Caesium spelling. I also would like to comment that just because something is a standard doesn't mean it is correct. I also use the google evidence to support why I did this. Wikipedia should be accepting change and adapting to meet the leading edge and not holding onto old traditions.

Thanks

Thank you for the welcome Vsmith! I have been using Wikipedia for a while, but am just now finding the time to do some editing. I find that I am slowly getting more and more comfortable with the editing process, and have some projects in mind.

Thanks for the tips. --Fisheye 03:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vengeful and illegal editing

May I ask you why are you so dutiful in removing my example from all the external links? According to wiki, it is perfectly within the rules to add such a contribution under the external links.Ati3414 05:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... vengeful and illegal! Don't think so. Your simple calculatins were removed fro Age of the Earth by a consensus finding that they were misleading, irrelevant, and/or personal research. Several of your comments regarding that were simple personal attacks. Your attempted forking of the calculations to an independent article met with similar consensus defeat at afd. You then resorted to adding links to a PDF page you posted on another site as external links in Age of the Earth and Uranium-uranium dating, these were removed by a consensus of editors, although you engaged in edit warring against several editors there. The links to half-life and Radioactive decay were viewed by me as more of the same as well as of questionable copyright status. The link to that pdf is not needed, Wikipedia is not a link repository and we don't make links to our own work. I see you have reverted back. Vsmith 16:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No , there was no consensus. And you are hounding me down, so please cease and desist or I will ask for wiki arbitration. The external links are precisely for ponting to outside work as are the reference links. Don't turn wiki into a Gestapo.

see the message for the subject

>User talk:212.202.169.253 >From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia > >Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please >use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would >like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Vsmith 00:04, 7 February 2006 >(UTC) >

Please add the articles you meant

Salt in General

Everything I posted in the three Articles Edible_Salt, Sodium_Chloride and Halite is true. Perhaps You should do some research about Salt. If You are offended by the Truth ignore it. But don't censor it.

What about an explanation why You do reverted the changes. (this is something You should do)

In due respect

Jan Girke jangirke@gmx.net

Hi Jan, I see Truth is the issue - my, my. Your edits were Health Food Store advertizing style POV and simply did not add encyclopedaic information to the article(s). Halite is about the mineral, sodium chloride is about the chemical compound; neither are about your truth. Now edible salt just might have room for part of it(?), but not as blatant POV pushing Truth. Cheers, Vsmith 14:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minerals on WP

Hi, Vsmith. Just wanted to ask if you're OK with the direction I'm going on the mineral pages I've edited. I've started mostly with rares I personally like, to get some procedures in place. I was hoping to expand my efforts a bit (even if slowly), and you seem to be the most active in working on the mineral pages, so I would appreciate your input. Thank you! Baryonyx 04:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rvv

Hey, I was just going to rollback some vandalism on CO2, paused a moment to reply elsewhere, and you sneaked in ahead of me :-). Anyway, I thought I'd use this as an excuse for a friendly hello, not having had cause to talk for a while... which in itself is sort-of a good thing! William M. Connolley 14:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Coal page edit on wiki

Heya, nice to meet you.

Can I ask, how should I pose difference of theories on the coal page so that the edit is retained.

Thanks,

Sam

Coal speculations

Nice edit, thx. There is more supporting information regarding creation of black coal - it appears to be that Russia is relying heavily on this new information and is using it with success, however I'd like to hear from a Russian geologist their views on the topic to verify these articles aren't based on conjecture...

http://www.red-ice.net/specialreports/2005/09sep/oilnotfossil.html

http://www.borderlands.com/archives/arch/endfos.html

Request for mediation

See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#External link regarding the age of the Earth. --Smack (talk) 07:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial crystals photo

NOTE: I initally posted this request on User:Hadal's talk page, then I noticed that he seems to be on a WikiVacation, so I'm reposting my request here in verbatim.
Hi, I've recently been in the process of uploading various photos of minerals I took at the Natural History Museum in London, (see User:Aramgutang/Gallery) and while for all the other pictures I took, I made notes on what mineral it was and what the museum caption said, there is one image that I can't find my notes for. The image is in Commons at [3]. The only thing I can remember is that they were artificially grown. I was wondering if you could identify the crystal habit of the crystals and place the image in an appropriate article, as well as change its description accordingly. While it's unfortunate that it's probably impossible to identify what the mineral is from the photo, I think it is still a good illustration of an interesting crystal habit. From looking at your user page and contributions I assumed you're the best person to ask about this. Thanks. --Aramգուտանգ 02:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]