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 :-)

Mooihoekite

Hello Vsmith. I deleted some tags on Mooihoekite, now I need assistance :o) Could u read the Mooihoekite#Optical Properties section please? Thx. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - done :) Vsmith (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thx :) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for Optical dating

An article that you have been involved in editing, Optical dating, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — Wdfarmer (talk) 09:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aquifer / overdrafting

Dear Sir

Scientific research is as we know a continuous process of observation and innovation which is increasingly subject to the market paradigm where funding is key. I have neither the time, the inclination or the funding to pursue this idea so I thought I would put it out there and see if it would float. After all ideas are not created by thought but merely come to light when it is time and as such a good idea is liable to self-propagate despite market forces. As you are probably aware the avaritic interest groups seeking to permanently control the distribution of carbon dioxide (a naturally occurring gas essential for life which now has the status of pollutant!are strong and growing stronger. In a system as complex as Gaia forcing effects will be numerous and they should be considered and quantified - not to mention that the effects of a highly unsustainable drawdown are likely to be as potent as those climatic changes which drawdown helps to cause.

Please see latest edit.

Aquifer drawdown or overdrafting and the pumping of fossil water has led to increases in the total amount of water within the hydrosphere available to transpiration and evaporation processes. This has in turn led to increased water vapour and cloud cover which have the largest capacity to absorb infrared radiation in the earth's atmosphere. Adding water to the system must therefore have a forcing effect on the whole earth system which in turn changes reactively. An accurate estimate of the forcing effect due to this hydrogeological fact is yet to be quantified.

203.8.131.32 (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC) Peter Dew MSc(CE)[reply]

Sorry 'bout that, but unreferenced WP:OR doesn't belong here. If you can provide a reliable source or sources for your added content please provide such. Vsmith (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion

I've just proposed Independent scholar for deletion. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk

I have replied on my talk page. Volcanoguy 01:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minerals

Edit summaries: Xocomecatlite ‎("hmm - no tellurate min cat ... OK then under sulfate") and Xocomecatlite ("not a telluride, recat, plus a bit") If the people can't see a difference between tellurites & selenites (Nickel-Strunz Classification -04- Oxides), tellurates & selenates (Nickel-Strunz Classification -07- Sulfates) and tellurides & selenides (Nickel-Strunz Classification -02- Sulfides); should we give up and make a cat:Tellurium minerals and a cat:Selenium minerals instead ??? Or a category:Tellurite and selenite minerals (4), category:Tellurate and selenate minerals (4), category:Telluride minerals (19) and category:Selenide minerals (15) is better ??? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I had assumed category:Tellurium minerals existed, seems all the other element min cats do. But it sure isn't a telluride. As it is such a rare mineral, didn't feel up to making a new cat for it -- how many tellurate minerals exist? Your idea of combined tellurate - selenate min cats may be better, but even combined how many are there? Haven't counted :) Vsmith (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is how many minerals containing selenium and tellurium Wikipedia has. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the Category:Telluride and selenide minerals page as redundant now that you have fixed the selenide mineral cats. I assume you had no further plans for it. Vsmith (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. Cat:Telluride minerals has 20 items and cat:Selenide minerals has 15 items. They don't need to be merged. I assumed they were less. Cat:Tellurate and selenate minerals needs another stub :p, I'll try to make one on monday. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Selenite minerals should get a delete too. Thx --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nickel-Strunz 10 ed has 13 cat:Tellurate and selenate minerals, secondary minerals as a product of oxidation are rare. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Identification of Minerals

Is a sortable table as article allowed on Wikipedia? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen them used elsewhere and am not aware of any rule against their use. Vsmith (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See almost any list of earthquakes e.g. list of 20th century earthquakes and list of earthquakes in Greece. Mikenorton (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. What do you both think about it? It is just a test right now; c. 1,300 categories on commons, it'd need 2011. Is it something useful? A sortable table can be destroyed easily by vandalism... --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, however I have a concern that a list by properties for identification which includes the rare minerals is it sorta loses its usefulness - the end user gets lost in all the rare mineral details. Why not leave a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology for more input. Vsmith (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sysop ;) I'll do A, O, Y and Z lil by lil, and I'll see how it works. I'm orienting myself on Commons (c. 1,300 categories of minerals); my old booklet for identification of minerals has c. 500 minerals. It doesn't seem too bad for me. Afterwards, I'll ask WikiProject Geology for input... --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan Project

This user helped promote Manhattan Project to good article status.

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to note my appreciation for being one of the people that helped to raise the quality of the Manhattan Project article. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on your reverted edits on Anthropization ...

Please comment on your reverted edits on Anthropization ... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthropization&diff=413477216&oldid=413380363 99.181.133.237 (talk) 05:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you comment or rather discuss your concerns on the talk page there? Or, better yet, why don't you get an account and cease edit warring on various articles as an ip hopper. Perhaps all those pages should be semi'd to give Arthur a break. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS, thanks Chris for fixing the formatting :) Vsmith (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yw, I did not get it 100% ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying 202.14.216.128

I noticed that you didn't use a blockage template when you blocked this IP I reported. I'm just wondering why.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

er... look again, what's the rush? Vsmith (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like problem solved! xD. Cheers.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What problem? Vsmith (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just concerned about the fact that WP policy requires admins to notify users of a block. However, the uw-vandal series of templates says blocking may occur w/o notice, so it's kind of a grey zone.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"just concerned..." Seems I saw a vandal reported, checked it out, blocked said vandal, left note to vandal w/in 'bout 3 minutes, and w/in said ~ 3 mins you decide to harass me for some perceived failure to follow some policy... or something like that. Irritated. Vsmith (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still learning. Sorry if you were bothered. I was assuming good faith.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Tea#February_2011 Thank you.

Wikipedia:Tea#February_2011 Thank you. 99.181.145.10 (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

composting toilet edit

dear vsmith:

Why have you deleted our company, Advanced Composting Systems, from the list of Makers on the composting toilet entry?? I do not understand why only certain manufactures are allowed to be listed and also allowed to have a wiki entry. We are probably the largest manufacturer of large composting systems in the US and we manufacture the best composting toilet in the world. Our web site is www.compostingtoilet.com. I too have an MA, in Physics, and would like to rewrite the entire composting toilet entry to me more scientifically correct but I am concerned that my efforts would be immediately deleted.

Thanks, Glenn Nelson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenn.g.n.nelson (talk • contribs) 13:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not here to promote our commercial interests. Please read conflict of interest. The article in question could use some help, but your stated COI is problematic. Ideally the composting toilet article and an article on your company would be improved by someone with no commercial connection. Vsmith (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please see User talk:Riednelson and please use only one account to edit.

You may note that I've removed the problematic List of makers from the article. Vsmith (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Western Sahara article is suffering vandalism from a User

Hello, Western Sahara article is suffering vandalism from a User Maurimanya [1] he is deleting some important information based on UN sources to replace it by some false information from a spanish non-neutral institute [[2]] Please can you take some measures againt this user ? h'is vandalizing also the discussion page, see this [3]

Thank you in advance --Yusuf ibn Tashfin (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Western Sahara article is suffering vandalism from a User:Yusuf ibn Tashfin

Hello, Western Sahara article is suffering vandalism from a User Yusuf ibn Tashfin [4] he is deleting some important information based on UN sources [5].

I hope to answer. MauriManya (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference that MauriManya is advancing [6] (UN resolution 1542) doesn't have any tie with the conflict of western sahara, in this reference the word "western sahara" does not appear anytime, this source is invalid. Moreover, this user is deleting a very useful UN reference which is Whitfield, Teresa. Friends Indeed?: The United Nations, Groups of Friends, and the Resolution of Conflict. 2007, page 191, this is a vandalism.

Please can you warn him please? Thanks in advance --Yusuf ibn Tashfin (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully you two can resolve your differences at Talk:Western Sahara now that the article is under full protection. Vsmith (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Level has stopped rising

The Sea Level has stopped rising. So it is quite stupid to have an article claiming it isn't based on data from the 1990's.

Yes ... I understand many AGW followers claim a 1000mm sea level rise will occur int he next 90 years.

But it has never come close to 11mm a year.

And in 2010, for the 2nd time in 5 years, the satellie record shows a drop.

Don't you feel even slightly guilty for misleading so many people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.12.154 (talk) 07:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to find a reliable source that states this and get consensus to add it to the current sea level rise article rather than ranting at other editors on their talk pages. Mikenorton (talk)

Talk:Current sea level rise is that away -- discuss there. Vsmith (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a William Connolly pseudonym?

Are you a William Connolly pseudonym? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.12.154 (talk) 07:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Had to laugh at this one, not a lot of similarities between you and WMC. Mikenorton (talk) 09:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudonym?? That is worth a chuckle. Vsmith (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this. Ho ho :-) But hello, Vsmith William M. Connolley (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WMC, I just considered it a ~~complement~~ compliment and rolled on down the road... Vsmith (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC) or maybe we do complement ... (Noun: A thing that completes or brings to perfection.... heh), thanks ATren for your hidden correction ... guess you're still watchin', just like old times :) Vsmith (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the son of an English teacher, I'll never leave a man, friend or foe, with an exposed usage error. ;-) ATren (talk) 10:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry - I'm new and couldn't find a place to exlain my changes. I felt that all of the changes were necessary improvements on the quality and reliability of the information, because some of the information is not at all accurate or reflective of the real situation. For example it has lists of historical 'critics' who were actually very well known astrologers and leading authorities on astrology. To present these historical names as opponents distorts history.

But I will make each change separately over time, with a reason for each one.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Costmary (talk • contribs) 17:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK, we've all been new at this at some time. Just make edits more slowly (especially on controversial subject) and state what you're doing with an edit summary. Major changes to established articles need to be discussed on article talk pages to determine consensus. Good luck with your editing, Vsmith (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

report removal

You removed a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Was there a reason for that?--Jojhutton (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Error - reverted an uncommented anon revert. Have blocked the user and anon for edit warring. Vsmith (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saw that. I assumed it was an error, but felt I had to follow up on it anyway--Jojhutton (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to get an external assesment of a destructive poster's behaviour?

Dear Vsmith

Could you tell me if there is a policy that allows an independent review when one poster continually undoes and reverts edits made by others, and argues a position against all the available evidence?

For example, the poster Kwami has been particularly destructive in the Wikipedia Astrology page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology - engaging in what he calls an 'edit war' and in which I sincerely doubt my sanity in continuing to waste time trying to correct inaccuracies on the page, when all my efforts are immediately and unthinkingly undorn by him. You can see what I mean if you read the discussion on the talk page headed: "Ironically not the stars" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Astrology#ironically_not_the_stars

Someone needs to step in because this person is just bullying the page, and preventing its development, retaining many inaccuracies despite being provided with reliable sources and a clear consensus of opinion against him.

Thank you for any help you can give me on this.Costmary (talk) 13:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Took a look, ugh - edit warring is bad - protected page for two weeks, work it out on the talk page. Re: your concerns about a specific user, see WP:Dispute resolution. I also note the appearance of a brand new user jumping into the edit war, doesn't look good. Sorry 'bout that - Vsmith (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the issue has already been thrashed out thoroughly on the talk page, with consensus reached, yet Kwami is ignoring all the discussion and acting as a law unto himself. Can you read through the discusssion that has already been placed in that section (Ironically not the stars) to see how bad the problem is? He has admitted to not knowing the subject very well, so we have to question why he is so reluctant to allow properly substantiated corrections. But please take a look because I think the discussion speaks for itself. And yes I do think that particular user is acting destructively to prevent the page from developing or allowing others to make an input. I've looked at the link you gave about dispute resolution and I'm confused by the mass of options. What is the appropriate next step in asking for the behaviour of this particular poster to be looked at, in the light of how aggresively and destructively he resists relevant facts that have clearly been sourced, referenced and substantiated? Thanks for your timeCostmary (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests or Wikipedia:Third opinion Vsmith (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you advise on how we move this forward? There is a clear consensus on a suggested change that only one editor objects to - see for latest discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Astrology#.28editing_break.29. We have been advised that this does not qualify for Third Opinion because there are many editors involved already, and the editor involved has refused requests for mediation. Is it possible to make the alteration on the page now? Surely one person's extreme hostily to the subject of the page shouldn't prevent improvements that have found consensus. If not can you clarify when the page will be open for amendments? There doesn't seem to be any point even trying to discuss this with the one editor any more - thousands of words have been written in discussion already but he is not open to any argument. Costmary (talk) 13:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My advice: find another article to edit for a while. I see at least three new WP:SPA's (please follow that link) as well as some old ones showing up. That in itself is troubling. Vsmith (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not qualified to edit other subjects because this is the subject I know most about. Why is it troubling to see that people are contributing to this when there is a recognised problem of one editor having dominated the content to suit his own POV? I am happy to withdraw from the discussion for a while but do want to put on record my belief that this section is in need of external mediation or arbitration, or the active engagement of its administrator. Costmary (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are able to read a reference source and write a legible summary of whatever subject ... then you are "qualified" to write about any subject. I understand that we as editors tend to follow our interests - just natural, but sometimes we need to broaden our editing interests to avoid conflict. As to "troubling" please read WP:sockpuppetry and WP:meatpuppets. An article doesn't have an administrator - admins are generalists, helping out when problems develop wherever. If you feel a specific editor is causing problems then a WP:rfc might be the way to go... You imply a user is POV pushing, whereas I see a user editing based on what reliable sources state - tread cautiously there. Vsmith (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well he is trying to insist on a definition of astrological practice that goes against the grain of all known knowledge of the subject and many reliable sources submitted, and the statement of the Chair of the British AA, who stepped in to assure him that what he was saying was wrong. But I have taken your advice and sent out a request for comment - I will drop out of this for a while, as I don't want to be seen to be dominating the view (and hope that he can do the same, because he definitely dominates what is allowed to be published on that page). Thanks for your timeCostmary (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - but could you please take a look at the page again - despite all the discussion the situation is exactly the same as it was before, only now with more calls that the disputes on the page go to arbitration.Costmary (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revision history of Mount Verd, Tennessee

Hi,

I wanted to thank you for editing the listing for Mount Verd, Tennessee. I am on the board of elders for Trumpet of the Lord Ministries and am glad to see that the section is now cleaned up.

The original listing about the Trumpet of the Lord Ministry with in the Mount Verd listing is not spam, nor is it bogus. The editing of the listing by the user at 69.246.133.105 <redacted>. We have asked him to not edit the listing any longer as we have found that he has unintentionally been involved in what you call and edit war. Even though his meaning was good, he did not follow your TOS.

We have looked at the revision history and have traced and found the person who changed the listing information of Trumpet of the Lord so that it read with various slurs The Ip address of the person who changed the listing, so as to slur the ministry is 192.70.218.25 . This IP address is that of a person who has set out to malign Dr. Schmidt because of Political and Religious differences. We have determined that they changed the name of TOTLM to various things such as LARD and and Trumpet of the LARD Fake ministries...etc. <redacted>

We will be contacting Marathon Oil to complain about <redacted> harassing activities in relation to TOTLM while using their business network.

Earlier this week, we made a screen shots of the changes as they were done to the listing, as well as screen shots of the editing history of the listing.

Why is it that the IP Address 192.70.218.25 has been removed from the current revision history?

Because we would like your opinion and help with this issue, I have not edited the listing nor are we requesting that the complete listing be deleted.

We would also like the initial listing of TOTLM to be returned. this: "Mt. Verd Tennessee is also home of the Trumpet of the Lord Ministries" This is what we would like to be on there.

Thank you for all of help!!

Dr. Dan Payne TOTLM Board of Elders — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrDan777 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to clean up a mess and stop some edit warring. Note: please read WP:outing. Vsmith (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TGB GA review

There is an ongoing issue on the Temagami greenstone belt GA review on whether or not human habitation, flora and fauna should be added in the article. Malleus Fatuorum thinks they should be included to pass GA but I disagree because the Temagami greenstone belt is a geology feature and has nothing to do with human habitation, flora or fauna, which are part of geography, not geology. The Temagami greenstone belt is largely buried under soil, with the intrusions, volcanic rocks etc exposed mainly at mines and road cuts. So it also dosen't really have any human habitation, flora or fauna. If an article is about a geological feature it should be about that particular feature, not human habitation, flora, fauna or whatever else that is not related to it. Can you help with this issue? Thanks. Volcanoguy 17:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luck of the draw ... looks like you are up against a reviewer who is clueless about technical geological subjects and is insisting on a "my way or the highway" approach. Reviewers of technical articles should be required to have a rudimentary understanding of the science. To make matters worse, from talk page comments, the reviewer seems to be suffering from burn-out and is lashing out at the system ... not good - and pressuring him would likely not lead to a good result. Tough break methinks.

As to your specific point:

An article about a geological feature such as this should only mention flora if there is distinctive and notable effect on the plant communities growing on soils developed over the geologic feature -- such as over ultramafics or perhaps limestone glades -- which I'm not aware of for the Temagami area. Similar for human habitation or whatever -- only if mine development has had significant impact or some such.

The fact that the reviewer missed the viscous / vicious distinction is troubling. Yes, easy to miss perhaps ... but reviewers are s'posed to catch those basic wrong word problems.

I decided quite a while back to avoid the GA/FA process based on similar experiences. Don't mind doing a bit of clean-up and ref help, jes avoid the "process wonkery". Vsmith (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did not use "vicious" as a term for "thick" or "sticky", I used it to express the behaviour of the volcanic activity. For example, explosive eruptions can be vicious, meaning violent or wicked. For some reason, I seem to like going through the process. It just needs the right user to review it, such as one who is a member WP Volcanoes. What I should have done was ask one of those users to review it insted of someone that knows little about geology.

I am also plaining to create an article about mining in Temagami because the mining section of the Temagami greenstone belt article is large enough and there are other mines in Temagami not within the belt. It would also be appropiate to include stuff like the impacts mining has on flora and fauna because there are mines in Temagami that have environmental issues. The only mines that come in mind though are Sherman Mine near the town of Temagami and Northland Mine on the southwestern shore of James Lake, which apparently has done considerable damage to the southern end of the lake from acid mine drainge. Volcanoguy 09:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To me vicious implies behavior as in human action or even a vicious dog. An explosive volcanic eruption can seem vicious to humans affected by it, but the explosivity is just a natural result of volatile pressure buildup due to the viscosity of the magma. At the time of the eruption seems there would've been no observer around to think it wicked.

An article on the mining in the Temagami area would be interesting, I visited the area around Sudbury, Timmins and over to Noranda way back in 1974 on a geological field trip. It was my first detailed encounter with really old rocks. Vsmith (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. I am probably going to rewrite the TGB introduction sometime anyway - it's pretty small for a large article. By the way do you know what green water is from in open pits? There's a few pits in Temagami filled with green water, such as those at Sherman Mine, two pits at a small mine in Strathcona Township. Volcanoguy 00:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Algae [7] or just copper [8] ... or both, don't know really. Cheers Vsmith (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents: igneous rocks might get the water sour, u end up dissolving metals. Water like calcite is transparent, the light path gets enormous, water can have any color in the end. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of minerals

How about to review the List of minerals (complete): valid IMA/CNMNC minerals names, adding Nickel-Strunz code (Mindat.org) and Handbook of Mineralogy - Mineralogical Society of America ? Example:

X

--Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good - go for it. The list is overdue for an update. Vsmith (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, I had to ask as it is ur baby :D The idea is that the Handbook of Minerals got all 3,769 notable minerals, so we don't need to list the very rare ones (after May 2005). --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did u remove Unnamed (Cu-Fe-Zn-Ge sulphide), 02.CB.15c ? It's a valid mineral. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see it as needed - can be added when it gets a formal name. Also the Webmineral link didn't work (just went to the index). Feel free to put it back if you want. Vsmith (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also note, it's not mine ... User:Jolyonralph did the work on Mindat and I worked with him to import and create the WP list articles back in Apr '05. Vsmith (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ;D Just asking, trying to work on the same concept. What do you think about the synonyms? Quatrandorite and Andorite IV, Usonite and Uzonite, might be wrong to leave them on the list. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say remove the synonyms - the list is long enough w/out them. Vsmith (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, removing them and preserving them on List of minerals (notes)‎. I'm preserving the IMA number of the approved minerals too. I'm working first on I, J, O, Q, U, X, Y, and Z. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding Earth

Hello. About your revert in Expanding Earth : There is no ref removal in 418198714, and http://all-geo.org/highlyallochthonous/2009/01/supercontinent-cycles-3-expanding-earth-0/ work fine.

By the way, are you fluent in French language? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - my goof on the reference, sorry 'bout that - I've re-instated that and fixed the external link, you had two links there and the first failed.

No, the little French I learned in Viet Nam wouldn't count as fluency. Vsmith (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello,

Please let us know why you have deleted our company's external link in Gemstones page. Our site offers exclusive information on Gemstone healing which is a good resource for those who are interested in alternative healing. We are a site that offers well researched articles on alternative healing starting from Ayurveda to all kinds of natural cure methods.

We are particularly interested in creating Acupressure page in Wikipedia shortly. Wikipedia already has information on Acupuncture but not on Acupressure. kindly let us know the reasons for the deletion.

Diya.Diyasp (talk) 09:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SPAM and WP:COI. "We" don't use Wikipedia to promote our own stuff. Vsmith (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

heat pumps

I keep trying to post info on heat pumps and it keeps getting deleted.

Your name appears on my discussions. Do you know why my posting keep "disappearing"?

Here is the post (under the heat source section) Solar Assisted Heat Pumps use thermal waste energy from water source heating and cooling systems as "fuel" for a Thermal HVAC system. This is a new technology called TRIEA which uses the energy from the water in holding tanks and a patent pending refrigerant to water heat exchange system. The tanks serve as thermal flywheels and thermal buffers, as needed. The energy in the tanks exists as a result of the patent pending heat exchange process within the TRIEA System. In this configuration, the water in the middle tank serves as the “fuel” for The TRIEA System. This fuel is pumped into the cold heat exchanger where the heat in the water is extracted and transferred to warm up the cold refrigerant. The cold water is then pumped into the cold tank. On the opposite side, the hot water is heated by way of the hot heat exchanger and the heated water is put back into the hot tank to either be rejected or used further in other heat exchange processes. In most cases water returns from the zone where work is being done to the neutral tank .

Thanks, Rick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick.banning (talk • contribs) 18:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems have a purely advertisement-like tone and is not sourced.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What Jasper said, looks like pure promotion. If you want to add the information - write it in a non-promotional manner and provide solid reliable sources in support. Vsmith (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed company references and added the source as you requested. How does it look now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick.banning (talk • contribs) 00:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its tone is still like an ad, like the "patent pending" thing.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed company references and added the source as you requested. How does it look now?

Solar Assisted Heat Pumps use thermal waste energy from water source heating and cooling systems as "fuel" for a Thermal HVAC system. This is a new technology which uses the energy from the water in holding tanks and a refrigerant to water heat exchange system. The tanks serve as thermal flywheels and thermal buffers, as needed. In this configuration, the water in the middle tank serves as the “fuel” for the system. This fuel is pumped into the cold heat exchanger where the heat in the water is extracted and transferred to warm up the cold refrigerant. The cold water is then pumped into the cold tank. On the opposite side, the hot water is heated by way of the hot heat exchanger and the heated water is put back into the hot tank to either be rejected or used further in other heat exchange processes. In most cases water returns from the zone where work is being done to the neutral tank . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick.banning (talk • contribs) 00:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the references you talked about?Jasper Deng (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I still disapprove of its tone, as it sounds like a product sheet.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<ref>Jim O'brien - Inventor, Triea Systems</ref> is not a valid reference - and the content is still promotional. Please read reliable sources and conflict of interest policy pages. What you are doing is promoting a commercial product/system - if you have any connection to Triea Systems or related commercial interest, please step away from the subject. Vsmith (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spam blacklist

Hi, With regard to the 50+ spamlink edits placed by Shaggy Alonso yesterday and his subsequent blocking. I have just noted that the spamlink used:- 'www.peakdistrict-nationalpark.com' has been inserted into a multitude of other pages as both external links and references, as per the one I've just removed from Great Longstone (from which Warofdreams had just removed the spamlink from) and Odin Mine. In addition there are dead links using 'www.peakdistrict-nationalpark.info'. Although these can eventually be sorted by visually checking all Peak District related articles I wonder if having those two web addresses added to the blacklist would work a lot quicker and also cure the potential problem of having the links re-inserted by anon IP's? Richard Harvey (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering his talk page comments following the block I'd agree that should be brought to the attention of those handling WP:Blacklist - go for it. I had removed several links after blocking, but got sidetracked by other things. Vsmith (talk) 11:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I've put the link in the proposals section here:- MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#peakdistrict-nationalpark.com. Could you please check it and ensure I've done the request correctly. Richard Harvey (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me - I've little experience there. Vsmith (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article Deleted

High Vsmith you deleted all my article without giving me a notice or tell me why, I worked hardly on it for two days, deleting it was so disappointing for me. Anyways, I have no problem with the big bang it is the main key for all cosmology discoveries and other theories. I know Wikipedia always keen to give its readers the most perfect information they need and that what encouraged me to write those informations. Trying to show the exact interpretation of Quran to the big bang. It is not my intention to show that the big bang is wrong, it is the most perfect today and I spent years of research mostly on it and the related theories. Years of research I found out that the verse you lately deleted has differences than the big bang basis. First it says matter and energy existed before the bang, while the big bang says it was only energy, it is closer to Dr.Alan Guth theory of inflation than the idea that it is an explosion. so many other reasons shows differences which I tried to clarify in the paragraphs I wrote. One little thing more, I am an engineer, scientific minded, researched the cosmos theories for years and I am strong in arabic language, so when I learnt about the scientific evidences I could understand the verses without interpretations. offcourse I have sources but I preferred to hide them because my research is not done yet. Please dont take what I added in the article against you personaly or I am against the big bang. I am not going to add anything more on this website as I see it there is much sensitivity. I have all the respect to the website admins and you personally, the science and other religions, please dont take me wrong and sorry for the inconvenience. universe56 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universe56 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was it original research? Was it sourced? Was it written from a neutral point of view? If it is a work in progress, I reccomend you create a subpage of your userpage as a temporary location for it, but it must still follow these guidelines.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory has serious problems. The material removed -- not just your addition -- was mainly quotes from religious texts concerning "beginnings" and not about the scientific theory referred to as the Big Bang. Such religious origin myths are not about the Big Bang as a scientific theory or hypothesis. The article in question should be restricted to religious reactions to the theory published after the development of the theory. In other words: how modern religious leaders have reacted to the theory following its development. Quotes from religious texts would only belong if the material was used by modern religious writers as a part of their published reaction to the scientific theory. Vsmith (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pentlandite

Hey, I'm interested in what sources you found the streak colour for Pentlandite. I have multiple and conflicting sources, that either have it greenish black - black (webmineral.com, Wenk & Bulakh (2004)), or light brown - bronze (Manual of Mineral Science, 23rd Ed., Klein and Dutrow). I switched it based on personal observation, in accordance with the previous sources, which *aren't* as old as the hills - the second is very widely sourced, and probably pulled that particular info sometime at the turn of the [last] century. Who knows when it might have been checked/updated. Would you mind looking into this? 06:48, 28 March 2011 Cronanius

Mindat.org, streak: light bronze-brown; Webmineral.com, streak: greenish black; Handbook of Mineralogy, streak: pale bronze-brown, Mineralienatlas, streak: greenish black; Schumann, Walter (1991). Mineralien aus aller Welt (in German) (2 ed.)., streak: black. Our personal observations don't count, we are "anonymous" in the web. There is a discussion on [30] --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I simply went with the majority of the sources I posted, but giving two different with sources as Chris did is better ... however the Mindat forum probably wouldn't count as an RS, although it is interesting as it illustrates the identification problems. Vsmith (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nickel-Strunz 02.BB.15, streak and color on Webmineral:
- Argentopentlandite: streak, reddish brown; color: bronze brown
- Cobaltpentlandite: streak, unknown; color: yellow
- Geffroyite: streak, unknown; color: bronze brown
- Godlevskite: streak, gray; color: bronze brown
- Kharaelakhite: streak, unknown; color: bronze brown
- Manganoshadlunite: streak, unknown; color: yellow
- Shadlunite: streak, unknown; color: bronze
- Sugakiite: streak, unknown; color: reddish yellow. It doesn't help much :[ --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mindat.org - forum: sometimes they know each other, and appear with foto and real name. Andrew G. Christy, Marco E. Ciriotti [31], and Jim Ferraiolo cites Ernie Nickel [32]. Could u check User:MaxWyss/Loss estimates in real time for earthquakes worldwide‎, he wants to move it to the main space, if u don't oppose than it can be done ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Loss estimates in real time for earthquakes worldwide

Your deletion of my citation of wikipedia as a source of information people use in my trade seems bizar to me. I'm new to wikipedia, but cannot imagine why should keep it a secrete that people use wikipedia. Besides you complain that I do not give enough references (something I cannot understand either) and then you remove one.

Please explain, I need to learn how wikipedia works, and how it is possible that completely incompetent article can be found for which criticism is lackingMaxwyss (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)MaxWyss[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source per WP:RS and we don't cite Wikipedia articles. If you have a reliable source which states that people use Wikipedia as a resource, that would be fine - cite that source. If you or I just "know" that they do - well that is original research, please read that linked page carefully to understand policy there. Wikipedia ways may seem strange to a subject matter expert, but our personal expertise by itself doesn't cut it, we must provide reliable published evidence to support what we as editors here state. I have taken the time to look at your user page and follow the links there and I know from that that you have expertise in the field, and I respect that and personally trust your statements ... it's just that Wikipedia policies require more - in the form of published reliable sources.

Regarding some "completely incompetent article can be found for which criticism is lacking" - what article? - I'm well aware that many "incompetent articles" are likely out there among the millions that exist, but if you are referring to a specific science related article, state which one and I'll take a look and maybe get it fixed. Vsmith (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Vsmith: He's complaining about Earthquake prediction‎, I suppose. He wants to review it.

@MaxWyss: Wikipedia evolved, the new articles are being reviewed, the old ones have to wait for it a longer time. We just cite at each section end the ref used again and everything is ok ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Issue 1: Citing encyclopedias. Thanks for explaining. I guess, I must learn never to cite an encyclopedia. In the case at hand, it would also be useless to cite a computer code manual to which only people with user name and password have access.

Issue 2: Original research. In my proposed article, I thought I simply conveyed facts and gave references. In the Wikipedia explanations you told me to read, I saw that the difference is subtle. In my own article, I cannot see it, perhaps because I am very familiar with all that is in it. I do not know how to repair it.

Issue 3: Errors in articles: In the few articles on seismology I have looked at so far there have been errors. Someone who is not a seismologist would not know that these are errors. I am correcting them as I come across them.

Issue 4: Earthquake prediction: Thanks Vsmith for offering to help with repairing this article. Up to now, I have added about 2 dozen references and removed the lead figure, which was not demonstrating earthquake prediction. (The information in it violated the definition of "prediction" given correctly later in the article). I will re-write the entire article; there is no other way to get it straight. I will replace parts step by step, consulting leading experts in each sub-field, before offering new text for a paragraph. Your help would be most useful after I have made the changes that address the technical content; not before because I intend to change the text. Would that be a way to proceed? (I will replace the summary within the hour)MaxWyss (talk) 06:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)MaxWyss[reply]

Re issue 1: Other notable encyclopedias are valid sources - however Wikipedia isn't because it "can be edited by anyone" and so it fails the reliability standard.

Issue 2: Yes original research is a bit tricky in part because as an expert or someone knowledgeable in a particular field something "obviously simple or straightforward" may or will be questioned by others new to the subject. So it's always best (and required by policy) to provide citations supporting what we state in an article especially if subject to controversy. Anything not cited may be removed by others editors - although probably won't be unless controversial.

Issue 3: Great, we need more subject experts reviewing articles & correcting errors.

Issue 4: That article is on my watchlist so I'll try to help out with Wiki details (formatting ... etc.) as you proceed. Vsmith (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

clinohedrite

Vsmith - left a response to your questions concerning the clinohedrite photo in my "talk" space, please let me know if I responded correctly, and in the right place! (JAVanfleet (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

VAN method of predicting earthquakes

I have stumbled across another article re. seismology that needs help. I added text and references to the article about VAN, this time constantly reminding myself that I must write as if I knew nothing about this and had read it in the references given. Please forgive me: I have forgotten to fill out the "reasons for the change" window: Just adding information and references was the reason)

Please look at the last two paragraphs. I have not written them. Neither contains references.MaxWyss (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)MaxWyss[reply]

Since I looked: VAN method William M. Connolley (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a vague memory that there was an entire RoG on this but can't now find it William M. Connolley (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's an "RoG"? Vsmith (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews of Geophysics. Everyone knows that. But I might have meant GRL, anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GRL ...Graffiti Research Lab or Georgia Rugby League? :) Vsmith (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)You did, Volume 23 Issue 11 from 1996. Mikenorton (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added citation needed tags to those paragraphs, fixed a bit of formatting and removed one sentence. Thanks for the note - that article wasn't on my watchlist. Vsmith (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is an "ANI"? Per Talk:Tipping point (climatology).

What is an "ANI"? Per Talk:Tipping point (climatology). 99.181.128.253 (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Vsmith (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll look at it. Also there is a question on Talk:Planetary boundaries for you. 99.181.128.253 (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archives