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 :-)

Citation Needed

Hi, At ENC Labs, we have tested many sea salts over the years and determined that this information is correct. How do you suggest I substantiate this statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enclabs (talk • contribs) 22:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By finding a published WP:reliable source that verifies the content. The ENC Labs website fails that policy. You have a WP:conflict of interest and your username is in violation of Wikipedia username policy as it is that of a commercial entity. Vsmith (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont

Vsmith, what do you think of this edit to Vermont? [1] The edit summary says, "probably", so the editor is guessing. I think it is very possible that the 72 delegates met in order to discuss the new name of the colony. I guess it all comes down to what's in the source. CorinneSD (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would have to see the wording in the source ... otherwise ?? Vsmith (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CorinneSD asked my opinion, but I don't have any Vermont history sources (I'm in N.H.). The "and adopted" wording implies that the decision was made at the same meeting; "to adopt" implies that it was the proposed action which led them to meet in the first place. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Muir

Hello, Vsmith! I was just looking at the latest edit to John Muir - [2] and I saw that this IP editor had made a lot of edits, some, if not all, of which look like vandalism. I couldn't figure out how far back to revert to. There's another edit by an unregistered (red user name) editor; don't know if that's all right. Can you look at this? CorinneSD (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)

DoneNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks NAEG. Looks like a batch of ips at Ocm Boces Technical School, Syracuse, NY were playing, I've tagged 'em all as school ips and re-instated one valid edit that got caught in the fix. Vsmith (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great; I saw that the redlinked ed had been blocked for DISRUPT so did not really examine this particular one of their edits. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, such are easy to miss :) Vsmith (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amer Fort

V, I just finished reading and copy-editing the article Amer Fort (which I got to from a nominated image at Featured pictures). The article had many errors, and needed a lot of fixing. There is one section, though, that I did not copy-edit because I wasn't sure it really belonged in the article, or belonged in the form it is now. I wonder if you would look at it and give me your opinion. If you think it's all right, I'll work on it, and see if I can improve it. It's Amer Fort#Wildlife Trafficking concerns and abuse of elephants. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved down to conservation, reworded and chopped a bit. Seemed a bit much - probably needs a bit more fixin'. Vsmith (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I worked on it a bit more. CorinneSD (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At least one may need to be blocked

Out of curiosity, I looked at this edit to another editor's user page: [3]. I believe it is not normally acceptable to edit another editor's user page, but in comparison, that's not nearly as bad as the edits just before it by another IP editor who really may need to be blocked or at least warned. CorinneSD (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted one and the purely disruptive stuff is no longer visible in the history. The Utah based ip had no other edits beyond adding and removing that one comment a month ago. Vsmith (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Well, thanks for seeing to this. CorinneSD (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plagioclase

V, do you agree with this edit to Plagioclase? [4] I know the earth's mineral content may not be significant when compared to the universe, but when compared to all minerals on earth, plagioclase might be said to be important. Even if "important" is not the right word, perhaps some word is needed there. Otherwise, it is a dull sentence. CorinneSD (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That edit summary was a bit absurd, but the importance is covered in the second paragraph and important doesn't say much there. Vsmith (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. CorinneSD (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edna Ferber

V, I reverted an edit to Edna Ferber yesterday. Today, it has been been put back. [5] See also User talk:CorinneSD#Edna Ferber for discussion. CorinneSD (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted based on no edit summary. Both ips are Comcast so likely same person(?). Vsmith (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion again

[6] Take a look. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help there, 'twas late - gotta sleep sometimes :) Vsmith (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, here's a question. I was looking at Michigan's global contributions and the same edits are often duplicated on foreign language wikipedia pages. Is that kosher, in other words can a long term abuse case avoid consequences just by moving the edit practice to foreign language pages? I mean admins at en aren't admins at fr, are they? Capitalismojo (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't aware of that, but not surprised given his frequent "expand from ___ article" edits. No, admins here have no "powers" on other wikis. Recently a problem editor was banned from the German wiki and migrated his pov pushing and problem editing here. As my language skills (Spanish, Viet, German) are far too rusty to be useful, I'd best not try editing there. Anyway, apologies for missing this last night - was helping/discussing with the student (below) and simply didn't see your post here. Vsmith (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hey there!

Thanks for your help on the Neomorphism page! Two others and I are currently working on the page as a group assignment for our communications course. Because you made some contributions to the page prior to the assignment's due date, it only seems appropriate that you are credited in our (students and I) upcoming class presentation of the page. Are you alright with Vsmith, or do you prefer another name?

Thanks again for your help! It makes my noviceness with using Wikipedia less noticeable, hahaha.
Kbraun94 (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. That's just the way Wikipedia works - see something that needs fixing and fix it. We were all newbies once - about ten years ago for me. And vsmith is me around here. Good luck with your presentation. Vsmith (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patience Wright

I was just looking at the latest edits to Patience Wright, and I saw that several sections of the article have no references. Should some "citation needed" tags be added? If so, where? CorinneSD (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On any unsourced sections. The biography section consists of several short sections - so maybe a ref improve tag on the biography section. Perhaps combine some of the sections to avoid the choppy appearance. Vsmith (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just did. One tagg, on top, this article needs additional refs use to be enough. Hafspajen (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Fault scarp

Thanks for cleaning up the terminology on Fault scarp. I thought that the previous edit looked a little odd, but I wasn't sure whether it was vandalism or an unsuccessful attempt at clarification. Cheers! --Cuppysfriend (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this comment and then went to read the article. I was puzzled by the caption for the first image, "A reverse-motion, fault-line scarp from Mongolia" I couldn't find anything to explain "reverse-motion" in the article. CorinneSD (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that description is a bit problematic - and I thought about "fixing" it ... but didn't follow through, hey it's Spring :) and I was sidetracked elsewhere (such important stuff as decorating my user page...)

Anyway, fault planes are seldom vertical and typically in a normal fault the hanging wall (rock above the fault plane) moves down due to tensional forces and gravity. However, if the region is under compression forces the hanging wall is forced up along the fault plane resulting in the reverse-motion. As for the fault scarp image, the reverse-motion bit is rather irrelevant. In the image the fault scarp is likely exposed due to differential erosion on the softer rock above the more resistant rock of the footwall (or the fault gouge itself). But, that is all WP:OR - just me evaluating a photo and the image file gives no more info. So ... best to just remove the non-essential reverse-motion bit. Vsmith (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. CorinneSD (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Corinth

Can you deal with this edit to Ancient Corinth [7] and those just previous to it by the same editor? CorinneSD (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Vsmith (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lost City

Hello, I admit it was not the best quality photo, but the truth is that it is a factual photo relating to an interesting topic that is not yet covered at all. Definitely, a page needs to be created for hammer stones. Getting a higher quality photo is not a problem. I only live an hour away from the man who owns the meteorite. It was night and he didn't have much light in his kitchen. The reference I made is really the only site available right now, since this is a relatively "new" topic/term used to discuss this type of event. Sincerely, GEOGOZZGEOGOZZ (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the webpage you cited - again please read WP:reliable sources. If there are no reliable sources discussing the subject of "hammer stones", then we don't discuss them either. Vsmith (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pliocene boundaries

Hello, I notice that you reverted my edit to the Pliocene lead. Unfortunately the final bit of that lead is both dodgily written and inaccurate (and unsourced, too). It makes no sense at all to have "relatively cooler Pleistocene" in that slot; the Miocene and Pleistocene were not contiguous and the later boundary towards the Pleistocene gets attempted in the next sentence. I added a section at the talk page to explain the issues within those two sentences. 83.254.154.164 (talk) 06:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct and I was in error there, thanks. Vsmith (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

V, could you please help me? I am at a loss for what to do. I thought I had done what this unregistered user asked me to do, but apparently not. What have I done wrong? I just copied the entire discussion (but changed the heading) from my talk page to the talk page of the article, and now the editor wants me to undo my edit. [8] CorinneSD (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also see the recently added [9] CorinneSD (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moving or copying discussion from user talk to article talk is perfectly OK. I would suggest the in your lead sentence for that copied material The following discussion has been transferred from my talk page so that it can be continued here: you should either sign it or state whose talk page was being copied. Material under discussion ideally belongs on the article talk.

I would also add the just because someone was assigned to Army Intelligence Headquarters does not make them a spy. Most likely their position in intelligence was because of their knowledge of the region and not that they would work as clandestine spies. But I haven't read the source. Vsmith (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CorinneSD reposted, verbatim, the entire content of a section of her talk page, including off-topic material, onto the article talk page - and did it after I had already reposted my on-topic material from her talk page to that article talk page [10]. We were doing this at almost the same time - but I got there first by a minute or so. So her post duplicated material already there and added some material that didn't contribute to the edit discussion. That is why I asked her to remove it. Nor did I ask CorinneSD to do that copying - I just asked for her to put her edit reasoning on the article talk page and take any additional discussion to the article's talk page. I am at a loss to see what there is to see in the diff she posted [11]. Nor am I an unregistered user! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and merged the two sections since they duplicate each other. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my latest comment at User talk:Rothorpe#Gertrude Bell. CorinneSD (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, V, in response to your comment, above, "I would suggest the in your lead sentence for that copied material The following discussion has been transferred from my talk page so that it can be continued here: you should either sign it or state whose talk page was being copied," I did write that. See [12] If I say "copied from my talk page", and the comment is signed by me, it should be clear enough. Tiptoe changed my comment:

The following discussion has been transferred from my talk page so that it can be continued here,

unnecessarily I think, to

The following has been transferred by CorinneSD from CorinneSD's talk page so that it can be continued here (removing the word "discussion"). See: [13]. I thought editors were not supposed to change other editor's remarks on talk pages. CorinneSD (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Been busy offwiki. Hopefully you-all can reach concensus on the article talk. Also, we simply don't alter other users talk page posts ... have left a friendly reminder about that where needed. Vsmith (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I considered making a comment on this page after reading CorinneSD's post here, but I decided against it since I did not want to make more excuses for drama creation. But you have gone ahead and done it. My very minor change to the intro of CorinneSD's post, made after I merged the duplicated sections, and made simply to clarify who exactly the "my" in "my talk page" was, did not alter the meaning or purpose of what followed on from that intro in the slightest. Maybe you should also place a friendly reminder on CorinneSD's talk page that editors are not meant to copy other person's posts and paste them into pages unrelated to the subject of those posts (my post about reverting unreferenced content deletions was a comment made just for CorrineSD's talk page and was off topic for the Gertrude Bell talk page). But I just deleted the off-topic repost, I didn't start making drama about unimportant things. "Friendly reminders" risk being seen as unfriendly when they concern issues as utterly minor as this. Let's move on.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Idaho

If you look it up, you'll see that the people of Idaho are also called potato's. 108.33.159.120 (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a WP:reliable source. Vsmith (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to contradict, but I don't see a ref saying that people who live in Idaho are called Idahoans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.33.159.120 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 14 April 2015

Here you go: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Idahoan . The suffix "-an" or "-ian" turns a noun into an adjective or a noun, meaning, "of," "from," "resembling," or "in the nature of." In regional names, particularly, it means "a person from the land of." (That's opposed to -ite, which is "a resident of," usually referring to cities, as in Pocatellite or Meridianite.) That's just common knowledge of the English language, so it is not usually necessary to provide a source that says people from America are Americans or people from Alaska are called Alaskans. What we would need is a source that says people from Alaska are called "Sourdoughs" and people not from Alaska are "Cheechakos." That's local knowledge, not common. Zaereth (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ore

What do you think about this set of edits to Ore? [14] I believe these are image files, and I don't think anything in an image file should be changed. CorinneSD (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC) No, forget that. I see it's the caption part. I suppose lower-case "X" is better than capital "X", but you're a better judge of that than I am. CorinneSD (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the x was changed to the math symbol for times × (available on math and logic edit option menu). Vsmith (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. CorinneSD (talk) 12:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cake

This is minor, but a bit puzzling. At Talk:Cake, an editor undid some silly edits by an IP editor, but what it reverted to looks a bit silly, too. [15] CorinneSD (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Twas due to a bit of old vandalism - fixed. Vsmith (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Muir 2

I saw this edit to John Muir, [16], and since I've seen similar edits elsewhere now and then, I wanted to ask you whether there was some rule or policy on WP that stipulates one cannot use the adjective "American" to refer to anything in, or about, the United States. I find this kind of edit annoying. CorinneSD (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen anything in policy about it, but I may be mistaken. Even the MOS uses the term "American" in its descriptions. Perhaps Vsmith will have a clue. (Policy is vast, and often a little common sense will cover most details.) For me, the choice is often best decided by context. In most cases, people will know that "American" refers to "US American," but sometimes it is ambiguous. (I know many Canadians who consider themselves "American.") It all depends on how the meaning can be inferred from context. In that particular edit, I would say the context makes it pretty clear what the meaning is. Zaereth (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll wait to see what Vsmith has to say. CorinneSD (talk) 00:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've no knowledge of any policy against using American in that context. See Americans and American (word). Vsmith (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vsmith (I'm pinging you because you may not see this since it's in an old section.) Recently, I've noticed that editors have been adding schools named after John Muir to his article. Now I see an edit adding seven or eight schools at once. [17] Pretty soon, I guess we'll have every school in the country that's named after him. I'm wondering what you think about that. CorinneSD (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thought ... and chopped. Vsmith (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tuckaleechee Caverns

Well thanks for the edit. I just don't understand why the site can't be a reliable source. What if the information was from a university? Could the university promote oneself? The rules on this aspect should be checked and reworked if needed. Thanks! Doubledogdare610 (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As stated, carefully read WP:reliable sources. Vsmith (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with an article on explaining why a company is significant/notable.

Draft: Ten-Tec Link in case i did not type the wikilink correctly: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Ten-Tec&redirect=no

Doubledogdare610 (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again reliable sources which indicate notability are needed. The link you used in the draft doesn't work. Vsmith (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History of Psychology

Hello, V -- Can you look at this edit to History of Psychology [18] and the one right before it by the same editor? I see several typographical errors and I don't see any sources. CorinneSD (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the edits due to lack of references esp. for the included direct quotes. Left a brief note on the ip's talk requesting they redo with valid sources. Vsmith (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Good. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorite image

Yes, I will. Thank you for bringing it to my attention! GEOGOZZGEOGOZZ (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a bit better, still needs location and date info. Vsmith (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zosimus

I was reading the article on Zosimus when it occurred to me that the language of the article was perfect academic writing, so I used Earwig's Copivio Detector [19] (for the first time) and found a high probability of copy-vio. See [20] What do you recommend? CorinneSD (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hermeticism

Though this may not be an area of interest for you, I'm going to ask you anyway. I read and copyedited the article on Hermeticism yesterday. I had a few questions and posted them for Cplakidas at User talk:Cplakidas#Hermeticism because s/he knows Greek and Mediterranean history. You will see that s/he has answered my questions. I was about to make the first two changes (changing "Thrice-Great" to "Thrice-Greatest" and "Thomas of Aquinas" to "Thomas Aquinas") when I thought that it is possible that the author in the source used "Thrice-Great" and, if so, it shouldn't be changed. I see a reference there for Churton, p. 4. I looked in the list of References at the end of the article and saw only "Churton" (why isn't there a title there?) Then I saw the name of the work by Churton in the Bibliography. However, there is no link. (a) Do you think it is important to check the source before changing "Thrice-Great" to "Thrice-Greatest"? and (b) If so, how can I access that source? By the way, I also notice "Thrice-Great" in the third paragraph of the lead, but I think that's wrong, also. See the first sentence in Emerald Tablet#Textual history as well as Cplakidas' statement that "Trismegistus" in Hermes Trismegistus means "Hermes the Thrice-Greatest". CorinneSD (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article uses a mix of citation styles, the Churton, p. 4 is a Harvard style ref w/ details below which is acceptable. The phrase appears in quote marks ... so it may reflect the source. So ... either check the source ... or just make the change and if someone objects ... discuss. To access the source: try google books, or a good library or ask at WP:WRE. Vsmith (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 04:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quadi

I just read the article on Quadi and made a few minor copy-edits. I noticed that there were no references. I was thinking about adding a "citations needed" template, but Wikipedia:Citation templates says that editors should not add "citations needed" templates without reaching a consensus. (Why?) Also, I'm reading the article Chaldean Oracles and I see only four references for the entire article. Perhaps it needs more. Can you look at these and add the templates if you think they are needed? Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 23:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CTT for articles w/ lack of refs. An article with no refs should be tagged as {{unreferenced}}. WP:Citation templates is for using templates for citations or changing citation styles. For the article with too few refs, use {{refimprove}} or section tags.

Busy weekend around here ... grandkids have priority. Maybe I'll address the points above ... later. Vsmith (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re Quadi, I just found one reference. It's in the second paragraph of the section Quadi#2nd century AD. I guess the article cannot be said to have no references, so I should use the refimprove template. CorinneSD (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Vsmith (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User page design center

the Moon

2nd quarter, 76%

V, I was looking at the page Wikipedia:User page design center/Style, and I came across something that puzzled me. It's the moon phases template at Wikipedia:User page design center/Style#Templates. It seems to mention two different templates, at the right, but I only see one. CorinneSD (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored Dbachman's moon there and removed the non-working one. Added the moon phase here. Vsmith (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! CorinneSD (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont 2

I was just looking at the latest edits to Vermont when I saw this edit: [21] I know that, in general, foreign language words are put into italics, but I wonder whether a state motto needs to be in italics. I looked at a few other states' infoboxes. I saw a few mottoes that were in English, which didn't help, but I saw that the motto of Missouri is in Latin and is not in italics. Do you know the guideline for this? CorinneSD (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Itallics seems OK to me - but, no I don't know any guideline on that ... Vsmith (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked the MOS but, if there is a guideline, that's where it should be. In writing classes we are taught that there are three functions for italics: They serve to apply distinct emphasis to certain words or phrases. (This is the written version of a slightly elevated voice, although people often use all-caps instead, without knowing any better.) They are also used for titles, such as books, movies, plays, newspapers, magazines, encyclopedias, etc... Finally, they are used for foreign-language words, phrases or quotes, making clear that they are not English words that the reader simply may not know. I would say that the above-linked edit was correct. Zaereth (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gneiss

Would you look at this edit to Gneiss [22]? Some material has been deleted, but it left a dangling "mi". Also see the subsequent edit. CorinneSD (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simple vandalism, zapped. Vsmith (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asteroid Belt

Hello Vsmith, I was wondering if you could clear something up for me. Well, I am a relatively new “Wikipedian” and I am enjoying adding my scientific insights to “Wiki.” It seems as if you are well-versed in this. Have you been doing this long? My point is this: Who has the final say so? Who’s the boss? Are you like a general, colonel, sergeant…? For example, I had two images removed in as many days by JorisvS. This person even trumped you after you made a fine edit of my caption about the meteorites in the asteroid belt section. Now, can you override his/her “Veto?” is this person the “king?” Please, inform me of my rights as a “Wikipedia” citizen! Thank you, Geo GozzGEOGOZZ (talk) 11:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Geo Gozz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Yes, I've been editing here for a while - details here. As for "Who's the boss" ... we are. Wikipedia works by consensus - when there is a disagreement, we discuss. Some of us are administrators, which means we can remove inappropriate content, block vandals and help settle disputes. I would strongly suggest that you read some or most of those links in the welcome message another user left on your talk page - and yes, that is a lot of reading :) Pay particular attention to WP:no original research, WP:reliable sources and WP:what Wikipedia is not.

As fo specifics: we aren't here to promote our own stuff. And your edits adding your own images with rather "promotional" comments violate that. As User:JorisvS noted in his/her reply to your questions, the addition of an image of random meteorites doesn't belong on the asteroid page and especially your comment re:"dandruff". Your use of "fanciful names" such as Australia shaped and superman meteorite are quite out of place in any article. Base your edits on reliably published articles rather than on your own observations. You have an interest in meteorites, great - but your own work must be published elswhere, we don't publish original research. Vsmith (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vsmith, thank you for clearing that up for me. I read your comment to another user about being a “newbie” and that you were one 10 years ago. And that is obvious, because you do know you’re stuff. It is people like you who keep guys like us on our toes! Yes, I have a tendency to write “fanciful.” After working on a book series for the past 10 years, it just goes with the proverbial territory. As far as the Asteroid Belt section, the reason why I felt as though meteorites would fit finely right there is due to the fact that meteorites are discussed in that particular section. To me, asteroids and meteorites go hand in hand. They’re family, if you will. In the section above the meteorite section, it mentions collisions and how those collisions spawn meteorites. Well, I am partial to meteorites, as you have already discovered for yourself, but I won’t flog a dead horse. I respect your decision and JorisvS who removed it. However, if there is some modification to that point, I would be happy to research it and improvise. Anyway, thanks again and I will work on the inclusions that I feel caused the fracturing in the many “fragments” I have discovered. When you look at the sides of some of the fractures, you can see a reforming of a fusion crust. So, they broke apart at an altitude high enough to begin the fusion crust process a second time. I’ve looked into the melting and boiling points of iron and silicates and the iron melts first and then probably reaches a high enough vapor pressure to sheer the meteorite into fragments. It does mention that right in the metallurgy section where that meteorite was positioned. That why I mentioned that, because it was already there.

“The term "inclusion" is also used in the context of metallurgy and metals processing. During the melt stage of processing hard particles such as oxides can enter or form in the liquid metal which are subsequently trapped when the melt solidifies. The term is usually used negatively such as when the particle could act as a fatigue crack nucleator or and area of high stress intensity.”

Sure, heat and pressure are part of the equation here, but the metal inclusions act as the catalyst. What do you think??? Do you know of any research grants that I could get to prove this theory out??? LOL! Seriously, though, I think there is something to it. When I worked in the research dept of a major specialty gas company, something relatively similar came up and I got a patent for the company. Since I have found gazillions of these particular meteorites, and no one seems to have any answers, I have had to logically theorize to find out WHY!!! Have a great day, GEOGOZZGEOGOZZ (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have mail

Hello, Vsmith. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Geogene (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo-warning (I mean heads up)

Dear Vsmith, Please stop deleting data you deem irrelevant on the Desert articles without evidence. Seriously, editors put the information in there to inform the public on the influences these locations exerted on popular media. Deleting this information really doesn't make the article more informative, and it insults the public considering they were the ones that remember. Don't insult the veterans either, please.

Thank you for understanding.

Sincerely, Dandtiks69 (talk) 08:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know I'm referring to the game Fallout: New Vegas, right?Dandtiks69 (talk) 08:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The influences ... on popular media, eh? Any such influences would be appropriate in the article on the game if supported by published WP:reliable sources, but irrelevant on the various geographic locations. And what veterans have I insulted? Vsmith (talk) 11:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, veterans of the Great War of 2077. Kuru (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, you caught that, Kuru, but if it were to be a popular source like that one with little secondary sources how does one cite that? I'm not saying I'm going to interfere with the Desert articles anymore.Dandtiks69 (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are constrained by what is covered in reliable sources, preferably independent of the primary material; if there are none, then it may be a good indicator that this is non-notable trivia. Trivia and "in popular culture" sections come and go in articles; they almost always start to attract every single possible mention of a topic, and it just gets messy. Editorial constraint is advised. Kuru (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So editors may place only secondary and later sources in Wikipedia? What if it was a speech (say the Gettysburg Address)?Dandtiks69 (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can find many, many secondary-sources that talk about and cover the Gettysburg Address. That is a good indicator that it is a notable subject. You may wish to read some of the policies, such as WP:Notability, WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable sources, WP:Secondary sources, and WP:Primary sources. I know it is a lot of reading, but these should help to clarify the dos and don'ts. Primary sources should only be used when there are reliable secondary-sources to back them up, otherwise we open them to interpretation by every "expert" who happens to come along (then chaos would ensue). Zaereth (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. However, that brings up another question: my professors extensively analyze works of art (literature, paintings, etc.) that they consider extremely well known, however they barely receive any attention in the internet or are very difficult to locate analyzed. I learn a lot from the professor about what such and such work of art communicates to its audience (and they're not subjective interpretations either) but in the internet its information is unavailable. For example, the USA Trilogy, by John Dos Passos, English teachers frequently bring up as excellent historical fiction but the internet barely recognizes it (and instead Homestuck information comes up) and so I find it difficult to cite. Even my other friend on Wikipedia, an English major, finds wonderful classic literature difficult to cite secondarily in the sources, because they're not there.

So how can I cite these obscure works? Dandtiks69 (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the U.S.A. Trilogy, I find numerous sources from just a quick scan of Google Books, such as the Encyclopedia of the Novel, Mourning Modernity, The Suburb of Dissent, Modernist Fiction and News, and Talking U.S.A.: Interpreting Free Indirect Discourse in Dos Passos's U.S.A. Trilogy. I would say this subject is notable enough to warrant its own article, although it is rather poorly sourced right now. Discourse from the classroom, however, is not acceptable as a source (however good the discussions may be) because others need to be able to verify that the information is correct. Therefore, we need published sources that others can look up. In many cases, it is simply a matter of searching a little harder.

One of the most valuable things Wikipedia provides is not the information, but the list of references at the end of an article. These are the things actual researchers will look up when studying a subject. The article itself provides more of an introduction to the sources.

For works of fiction, in particular, the actual work can be used to source certain aspects, such as the plot. Things like reviews, backgrounds, history, interpretations, etc., require a secondary source. If no such source is available, then it usually fails the notability guideline. For things like video games, it may simply be too new. (Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so we don't have to be in a rush to document everything as soon as possible.) Often a little waiting will produce some sources. Sometimes, if no source can be found, we simply have to leave the information out. (For example, I know from first-hand experience that the soft-iron core of a katana does not increase the toughness of the sword any more that the pearlite skin already does. Instead, it stops vibration and ringing, like an inhomogeneous bell, which reduces shock in the hand and redirects the lost energy into the cut, similar to a "dead-blow hammer." Unfortunately, I can find no sources to back that up, so it stays out of the Japanese swordsmithing article until I can locate such a source. My personal experience in the subject is of no relevance to Wikipedia.) Zaereth (talk) 07:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. It's just that it bothered me to see so little information on U.S.A. Trilogy but when I looked for sources I found few and they merely covered the bare basics of the book. And the legitimate information I found was from blogs, an illegitimate source. And that book is old! So waiting longer probably isn't going to produce more sources. Well, thank you all for your help. Dandtiks69 (talk) 04:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorites

Hello Vsmith, I invite you to my talk page to read a discussion that I had with Geogene. Since you were nice enough to allow my meteorites to be uploaded.... GEOGOZZGEOGOZZ (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed wording and legend of maps

Vsmith, I changed the legend and wording of my map in the American Imperialism and Empire entries so they are completely neutral now. I reincluded it in the articles. comment added by Nagihuin (talk • contribs) 23:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That caption change is an improvement, however with that last edit you are in violation of WP:3rr and may be blocked from editing. Stop and discuss your desired changes on the talk pages of the articles. Vsmith (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editing disagreement re: Triadization

I see, Vsmith you're following an abusive policy against my work and you're sort of taking it personally for some reason. A map showing military and economic treaties involving the USA (1), Europe (2) and Asia-Pacific (3) theaters is the perfect image for a Triadization concept. I understand an edition or a talk/consensus by the original editor, but this has no sense, I demand further explanations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagihuin (talk • contribs) 13:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tone down the rhetoric please. No, such an image with a big US flag is "not" the perfect image there. The proper action would be to post a comment on talk:Triadization explaining your concerns. Vsmith (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The proper action would have been NOT editing the map out of American_Imperialism, but this does not concern you or Mlpearc, both of you are conducting an agressive and destructing policy against my work. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia protocols, so don't hide behind them. Thanks.Nagihuin (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has everything to do with "Wikipedia protocols", please read up on those protocols. You have uploaded an image, thank you, but the image is now Wikipedia's image. Wikipedia works by WP:consensus which is attained by talk page discussion. We aren't here to promote our own work, but to write an encyclopedia. So, calm down the accusations and seek consensus on article talk pages. Vsmith (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wetland

An editor has made quite a number of edits to the Wetland article. The last one as of this writing is [23]. The editor seems to be knowledgeable and the edits seem reasonable – you'll be a better judge of them than I am – but you might want to look at the formatting of the Wetlands#Uses of wetlands section. Some of the sub-sections are not formatted in the usual way. The style may fit the breakdown of the topic all right, but there is inconsistency with regarding to capitalization, and a period is used after a number of the sub-section headings. Also, perhaps "Human-Impact" should be "Human impact". CorinneSD (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did a bit o decappin', links, ... Vsmith (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leachate

What do you think of this edit to Leachate? [24] CorinneSD (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan IP?

[25] I think ? Capitalismojo (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Vsmith (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir

May I ask why you have deleted my input in the Imperalism article? 77.166.30.3 (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in my edit summary - it was a WP:Copyright violation from the about.com article you cited. Vsmith (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I used the text on the main article of the Ottoman Empire to avoid Copright violation, the Ottoman Empire was an imperial state so it should be listed in the Imperalism article, kind regards Redman19 (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Vsmith (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Sorry Guv, it was me. I thought a bit of kindly advice would calm things down. Wasn't to be ,so I'll just go hunt a few 'roo with that thingy stick I fling around. Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem - enjoy the hunt. Vsmith (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppetry

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#I_claim_Nagihuin_is_subject_to_Wikihounding_and_under_pressure_by_Meatpuppetry

LadyBeth (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Belarusian

I was looking at the latest edit to Igor Grabar, and I was puzzled by the change. Here is the edit: [26]. I typed "Belarusian Baroque" into the search bar and it said there was no article on that. Then I typed "Belarussian" just to see where it led. It led to a page with a list of articles, and at the top it says, "There is a page named "Belarussian" on Wikipedia." However, there isn't one. It leads to a redirect to "Belarusian", so why would it say that? But even on the disambiguation page for "Belarusian", there is nothing for "Belarusian baroque". CorinneSD (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know... but likely has to do with the demise of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent establishment of Belarus. Perhaps the ss was too Russian for the folks of Belarus and became politically incorrect. As to why WP pages are messy there - well that's the result of an uncoordinated gaggle of writers. As to Belarusian Baroque ... no clue, but googling it returns plenty of hits. Vsmith (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Walleye

Should the "stuff" that this editor did at Walleye be reverted? [27] See also this editor's previous edit. CorinneSD (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zapped the vandalism or whatever. Vsmith (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Australian plate

I was just reading the article on the Indo-Australian plate. Toward the end of the article it mentions a new plate, the Capricorn plate. The term is red-linked, which I guess means there is no article on it. It sounds interesting. Do you feel like finding some sources? I could help with paraphrasing if you don't want to do it. CorinneSD (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC) See also this recent edit to the article. It sounds like the editor knows the material. [28] CorinneSD (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did some googling of Capricorn plate and it looks interesting. Likely worth an article ... sometime :) Vsmith (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adam's Bridge

I know from the talk page that there have been repeated requests to change the name of the article from Adam's Bridge to Ram Setu's bridge, or something like that, and that the requests have consistently been denied. However, I just noticed the name Ramsetu in the caption of a diagram in the section Adam's Bridge#Sethusamudram shipping canal project. I don't know how long it has been there. While you're there, you can also take a look at the most recent edits, including [29] and the ones just before that. CorinneSD (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aligned with article title. That is a constant problem there and the reason it is semi-protected. Editors from the region don't like the English name. Vsmith (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flax

See this at Flax: [30] The reference seems interesting, but it does not seem to accompany any text, and it resulted in a note [1] at the very beginning of the article. CorinneSD (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has been reverted already. I guess I need to become bolder. CorinneSD (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, bold is fun :) Vsmith (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental

So in the climate change page I believe there should be a section showing how the USA public generally disagrees over that issue endangering the world, for political reasons, much like in the global warming page. Also, I suggest upgrading the statistics in global warming regarding the USA consensus in 2015 to show how or how not the public sees no concern in this huge issue. Is this agreeable? Dandtiks69 (talk) 05:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps such would be needed. I would advise starting a section on the article talk pages first and be sure you have solid WP:reliable sources to support any edits there. Those articles have been subjected to controversy for quite some time, so proceed with caution. Vsmith (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's where the problem is: administrators with political agendas. Even if the source is as reliable as it is, if it doesn't fit their political agenda editors will do everything in their power to purposefully misinterpret or ignore the facts of the world, even those with broad scientific consensus. Land development, expansion, and imperialism interprets environmentalism as a conspiracy invented by wacko scientists willing to ruin the economy, the ultimate importance of this country. Do you have any suggestions on how to carefully approach this subject, besides using reliable sources? I don't want to get in trouble with administrators again just because I don't follow their ideology. Dandtiks69 (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...a conspiracy invented by wacko scientists...

Sorry, based on your attitude above, I have no advice to offer. Vsmith (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, wait, I was being sarcastic! What I meant to say is if there is any way to avoid admins with that attitude towards environmentalism. I'm sure there has to be a handful of them in Wikipedia to balance out the arguments. I don't try to fit facts to my ideology, I fit my ideology to the facts! In fact, Rush Limbaugh refers to environmentalists as wackos (just like it says here in Wikipedia on his page, he believes there are more trees now than there were in Colombus's arrival! How did he come up with that?) Dandtiks69 (talk) 01:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be more direct next time to avoid confusion. Dandtiks69 (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and another thing, can you answer back in my talk page? Dandtiks69 (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Rush Limbaugh? ... seems Al Franken's book sorta clarified things there. Read the note up top - you ask here, I answer here. Vsmith (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be politically biased.

So all I gotta do is ask in my page, refer to you, and then maybe you'll answer back? Dandtiks69 (talk) 01:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Basically - that and your talk is now on my watchlist. Vsmith (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good, now we can stay in contact more frequently! But I don't have anything now, except I'm trying to gather my sources for Denmark having the happiest population in the world (if not just being on top of the world). I also have to learn a bit of the language to enable myself to understand the sources. Dandtiks69 (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it relates to the environment I will put my part in it, and Denmark having the happiest population in the world sets the example for the world on how to live life. Sort of: it promotes for the most part environmental sustainability without over consumption. Dandtiks69 (talk) 06:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Polite enquiry

Regarding your revert: I completely support you addressing a block evasion, but ...
At first evaluation, this edit appears to have been useful. Am I missing something? Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may re-instate that expand Vietnamese making it your edit. See the policy at WP:Block evasion. That block evader makes many, mostly trivial, edits in a short period of time and I don't take the time to fully evaluate each. Vsmith (talk) 10:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

global warming.

Hello. You don't think the Daily Mail is a reliable source? (and the reason I said some scientists was because the mail article said some scientists believed that oceanic cycles since 1900 have cause global warming, but didn't specify which – not my fault). The Daily Mail has broken a lot of huge stories. HydrocityFerocity (talk) 03:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the Daily Mail is broken. See here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Boris. Vsmith (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It's me again!

It seems that people have already started editing and correcting the global warming section, and that's great, so I will continue instead with climate change and "Tragedy of the Commons." However, I wanted to ask this: for the "Modern Commons" section of the page "Tragedy of the Commons," would it clarify the subject if I added a few more elaborations of the commons? I actually have a book to cite for this one, called Thinking in Systems, by Donella Meadows. Please respond on my talk page. If not that's still okay. Dandtiks69 (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know much about that. Perhaps you coul ask on the talk page there. Vsmith (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Volgograd

Yesterday I glanced at the article on Volgograd (in the process of fixing a link at Ferdynand Antoni Ossendowski to the old name of Volgograd), and I noticed in the infobox a long list of postal codes. I don't remember seeing such a list in other articles. Is that appropriate? CorinneSD (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a long list ... I've been bold and collapsed it w/ {{cot}}...{{cob}} (see Template:Collapse top) as I see no need for such a long list there. Vsmith (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It looks better now. I was just looking at the edits just previous to yours, when I saw this: [31]. Isn't "transshipment" a word? What does "transport shipment" mean, and do you think it's an improvement? CorinneSD (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restored and linked. Vsmith (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zeolite medica use

Hello Vsmith, I have added a paragraph on zeolite medical use yesterday and I see that you removed it. I tried to make a balanced short paragraph - not one promoting use of zeolite but rather one telling readers that zeolite use is not supported by mainstream medicine. Many readers are interested in this and this is what wikipedia is about: answering questions of the readers. Now I have opened a discussion on this in Zeolite talk page (see under medica use) and I kindly ask you to add your view. Thanks. I do not have a wiki account yet but will open one now. 31.15.180.165 (talk) 09:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning and thanks for your note. I will consider your comment at talk:zeolite later -- need more caffeine, tree pollen is clogging my head now. Vsmith (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About battery

Hi Vsmith,

I was confused by the conventions that anode is positive and cathode is negative in other electronic devices and that is the reason I made that edit. Now I understood that in case of battery it is in the reverse order. Sorry for the wrong edit... Thanks!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chand3994 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the differing usage is problematic. Vsmith (talk) 02:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Baikal

If you have time, would you look at this edit to Lake Baikal? Two images were added. One is of ice. Unless it illustrates something special about the ice of Lake Baikal, it is just a picture of ice and maybe doesn't add much to the article. The other one is more interesting, but I don't know about the placement in the article. Also, look at the user name, Hydrofoil-7. Isn't a hydrofoil another word for a hovercraft? CorinneSD (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the images and left the user a note explaining the need for relevance. Seems the user has had problems previously regarding a promotional article. Vsmith (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Out of curiosity I looked at that editor's contributions but found only that one edit. Are you able to see other previous edits? You don't have to tell me how, or where. CorinneSD (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my magic glasses make deleted edits visible :) Vsmith (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bass (fish)

Would you say this link is appropriate or an instance of overlinking? [32] CorinneSD (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could be ... should be obvious, but not problem enough to quibble about. Vsmith (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses

I know this is not exactly your field, but it is tangentially related to geology, and you're so knowledgeable I think you might be able to answer my question. I've just started reading the article Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses, and I've already found a few things that I think need improving. I've left a note on Kwamikagami's talk page about the second sentence of the lede; there's something about it that is unclear, and Kwami is an expert in linguistics. Now I'm in the third paragraph of the lede. I'm going to copy the entire paragraph here:

The Kurgan hypothesis was formulated by Marija Gimbutas in the 1950s, and gained mainstream currency beginning in the 1970s. The primary competitor is the Anatolian hypothesis, which proposes that the dispersal of Indo-Europeans originated in Neolithic Anatolia, as part of the expansion during the Neolithic revolution during the seventh and sixth millennia BC. The Anatolian hypothesis was first advanced by Colin Renfrew in 1987. Renfrew’s theory has been popular among archeologists[citation needed], but linguists have by and large preferred the pastoralist model.

(1) In the second sentence, I'm going to change the second "during" to "in" to avoid two instances of the word "during" in close proximity.

(2) My question is about the third and fourth sentences. I was going to reword the third sentence so that I could join the third and fourth sentences, but I noticed that the third sentence uses "Anatolian hypothesis" (repeating what's in the second sentence) while the fourth sentence uses "Renfrew's theory". How did it evolve from a hypthothesis to a theory in such a short span of years, and is it important to make the distinction? If not, it would make it easier to join the sentences. I'll show you how I was going to join them:

First advanced by Colin Renfrew in 1987, the Anatolian hypothesis/theory has been popular among archaeologists ("a" added), but linguists have by and large preferred the pastoralist model.

Any thoughts?

(3) Also, and this is a separate issue, I guess the phrase "pastoralist model" refers to the Kurgan hypothesis described in the second paragraph of the lede, but will the average reader make the connection? The only two things that could suggest "pastoralist" are "grasslands" and "domestication of the horse". CorinneSD (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree w/ 1 & 2. Seems Kurgan's pastoralist model would clarify #3. Vsmith (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. (but it would be "Kurgan pastoralist model" since "Kurgan" is not a person). I've made those changes. In the section Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses#Genetics, the block quote starts, "if...". Shouldn't a block quote start with a capital letter? CorinneSD (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good - as you said "it ain't my field" :) As to the blockquotes, it seems if the first words aren't the beginning of a sentence in the original then the quotes should start w/ "..." - would have to check the sources to see. Vsmith (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Well, I'm amending my comment. Marija Gimbutas, who developed the Kurgan hypothesis, named the people "the Kurgans" after their burial mounds, which were called "kurgans". See Marija Gimbutas#Kurgan hypothesis. P.S. You seem to be interested in more than just geology (and I know geology is a pretty big field in itself). CorinneSD (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the Gimbutas article, I found two external links in the middle of the article and I don't know what to do with them. One is in the third paragraph in Marija Gimbutas#Early life and the other is in the last paragraph in Marija Gimbutas#Late archaeology. CorinneSD (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the first either a redlink or link to the Lithuanian article (Jonas Puzinas) - there is a way to link direct (see Template:Interlanguage link) lt [Jonas Puzinas] (clicking on the blue lt brings up the Lithuanian article for your translation pleasure). For the 2nd - I'd likely delete ... Vsmith (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the first one to the link you provided. I'm afraid to delete the second one; I don't know what edit summary to give, and someone might get upset. Can you do it? CorinneSD (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the second to link to the specific section in the Pacifica article. Vsmith (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also changed the Puzinas link to an interwiki link - it is red, but maybe someone will translate after clicking the blue lt and viewing the Lithuanian page? Vsmith (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Reiner Grundmann

The article Reiner Grundmann has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability is not established, poorly cited, most cites link to self published blog posts, issues have been pointed out a year ago, nothing has improved.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. prokaryotes (talk) 10:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now in AfD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reiner_Grundmann prokaryotes (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Watching. Chopped the most recent bit o puff. Vsmith (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrich Zimmer

In the article Heinrich Zimmer, in the Quotes section, there is one block quote (so maybe it should say "Quote"). I noticed that the source information for the quote is right after the block quote. I was thinking, wouldn't the quote look better if the source information were shorter? Couldn't that information be put into a reference section? CorinneSD (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formatted as blockquote and the reference in ref format. Vsmith (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

Can you further explain what you meant to do here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution&type=revision&diff=661826846&oldid=661826108 Thanks Eulalefty (talk) 12:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archives