This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Vsmith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

the Moon
Moon phase 3.png
2nd quarter,


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 :-)


Archive list

Anglo-Ashanti Wars[edit]

I was just looking at the latest edit to Anglo-Ashanti Wars, and while the latest edit (removing "invading") seemed all right, the one before it seems odd. It left a kind of reference written out at the beginning of a section, and it doesn't look right. Can you fix it?  – Corinne (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Chopped it as incomplete / confused ... No clue what the ip was wanting to say there. Vsmith (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


have a look [1]. thx. (talk) 12:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Geography of Australia[edit]

Just revert this, or something else? [2]  – Corinne (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks like Mike got it already ... while I was out enjoying a warm winter day ... :) Vsmith (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


Hi Vsmith,

I've been working on expanding this article, but most of what I know is from a historical/metallurgical standpoint. Since it is a geology-related article too, I thought of you. If you or any of your stalkers have anything to add from a geology standpoint it would be appreciated. Zaereth (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Fiddled with the wording a bit ... more later - maybe :) Vsmith (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. If not you then I'm sure someone someday will come along. My knowledge is limited to smithing and smelting, but prospecting is a bit out of my field. Zaereth (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Eastern South Asia[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Eastern South Asia has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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.

Kensington, Liverpool[edit]

The protection ran out and the Vandal returned.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

done. Vsmith (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
ta--Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Poor attitude[edit]

Hello, V – Can you keep an eye on the IP editor who has left angry posts at William Harris? See [3] and nearby edits.  – Corinne (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


See Talk:Thulium#Who did the 15,000 recrystallizations of thulium bromate to obtain pure thulium?.  – Corinne (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


Hello, V – What do you think of this edit to Bog? The article title is Sphagnum, but "Sphagnum moss" redirects to it. Perhaps "Sphagnum" is technically correct, but isn't it more commonly known as "Sphagnum moss"?  – Corinne (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but perhaps this may be relevant. I know from raising Venus flytraps that there is also sphagnum peat, which is more or less decayed moss. Holds a lot of water yet has almost no nutritional value for plants (perfect for flytraps). I know from experience that Alaskan spruce-bogs are full of both. Zaereth (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Seems I'm more used to sphagnum moss, but as it is a redirect and as you say technically correct - don't see a problem with it either way. Vsmith (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
O.K. Thanks to both of you.  – Corinne (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


Hello, V – You probably have Ore on your watchlist, but just in case, I thought I'd ask you to take a look at this edit and the one just previous to it by an IP. I don't think "portion" is better than "type", but I also wonder about the phrase "sufficient minerals", which was there prior to his/her edits. Sufficient for what? Perhaps you can figure out the optimum wording here.  – Corinne (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Fiddled with it. Should dig out my copy of Guilbert & Park to check ... John Guilbert was my thesis advisor at the U of Az way back when. Vsmith (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I held onto my geology textbooks for a long time, but I think I finally got rid of them.  – Corinne (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Landscape design[edit]

Hello, V – Is this edit, and the one previous to it, to Landscape design promotional, or is it O.K.?  – Corinne (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Removed as promotion of a commercial enterprise. Vsmith (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on Geology of Malta[edit]


Really appreciate your input improving the article! :) Beckettnoti (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Happy to help, learned a bit along the way. I see Mike was also working on it - he's the guy with access to good refs. Vsmith (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
There lies the joy - I can safely say I hadn't knowingly encountered honeycomb weathering, globigerina, or corallian limestone ever before! :) Beckettnoti (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Once you have met Globigerina bulloides ... you cannot return ... Vsmith (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

actually -- misunderstood Suggestion[edit]

re the ethics section. So my edit summary will not make a lot of sense. I thought you were talking about the page someone split off because they don't want anything messy like like genocide on the page (and which needs to have its better parts merged back in). Anyway. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Do me a favor though please and go look up an interlanguage link before you cite MOS at me again, k? I am putting it back it. It is information that somepeople will be able to use even if you seem unfamiliar with the concept. Elinruby (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm quite aware of "interlanguage links" - simply don't see the need for a link to an obscure Austrian journalist. How does that link help the page? Vsmith (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

re: Columbian troops -- I kinda think it was actually, but I'll double check that later ;) I haven't had a chance to look at the rest, but constructive edits=good. Right now phó is calling. Elinruby (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

heh, thought you were saying it must have been the police ;) you're right of course, it was spelled wrong. I lived too long in the District of Columbia apparently; that's a persistent mental stutter of mine when I haven't worked on Latin America in a while. So let's see, I wanted to thank you for the link fix too. I thought I got that one.
as to the obscure Austrian journalist, ok well, I am glad you know what an ILL is -- I was fooled by the fact that you called it a redlink :) I don't think he is all that obscure. German Wikipedia doesn't seem to think so, right? but more importantly he is saying that Bayer, a big company, did not respect international law and that's quite a statement, so the next question is who the hell is he? I personally would prefer to know there is a German page. Beyond my preferences though I talked to Huon about this, because I do a lot of this sort of cleanup and it comes up a lot. He says that if we do it that way it helps people notice that someone thinks he should have a page, and if/when someone makes one, it becomes a normal wikilink. And meanwhile it flags that there is information there for anyone who speaks German and/or is burning to know enough to break out the translation tools. That's how it helps the page. You broke the link when you put him on the dab page but I know how to fix that, so it's all good. It will end up being a bit better than what I had, so thanks. I have had close to enough of coltan for now but before I do away I am going to try to inject some more accuracy into the section about who has coltan reserves -- I see the page where he got that list and I normally would have accepted the CBC as RS also, so I am not sure what happened there. Maybe it's just out of date.
Anyway, ta, thanks for the help. I don't usually worry about what's first reference until I get done with the content work, because who knows, it probably wont be anymore when I get done. And in general, since I am not necessarily editing top to bottom, I usually err on the side of overlinking, while I see the possible link. Easier to unlink than find the article again, so I do that when done. But I digress. You helped me more than you annoyed me ;) I am not going to try to merge anything yet, as it looks like there have been some editors with opinions on the page so I'm going to give them a chance to notice I am talking about it. It may wind up being too long to merge anything back in, also... we'll see. I am still against [[List of controversies]] articles, especially when it feels like spin. But mañana for that. Elinruby (talk) 04:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

My failed try to edit.[edit]

Hey, I saw you deleted the work I tried to do. Please do not block me or anything it was an honest mess up this is just my other account. I was not vandalizing or anything. I just want to make that clear. I tried everything so I really wanted to tell you thanks and that I was not trying to ruin anything. I tried to copy and paste the whole article but that didn't work. I hope you understand and if you have any questions contact me at Thank you have a great day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savageaidensquirrel (talkcontribs) 23:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

More info please - what article were you editing? "Other account"?? Be careful there. And no - I'll not use your email. Vsmith (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The countries and territories by continent, I tried to delete South Georgia And The South Sandwich Islands, It was already listed under South America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savageaidensquirrel (talkcontribs) 01:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

OK - please be more careful with your edits. And now that you have a registered account, please use it and avoid making edits with you ip address. Vsmith (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Advice sought[edit]

I suspect that User:The Real Luke Skywalker is now editing logged-out as User: . User:The Real Luke Skywalker got into editing disputes over Grogan's Fault, Sequoia sempervirens, and Sequoiadendron giganteum and seems to have stopped performing logged-in edits as of December 26, 2017, while User: started editing the same articles as of December 28, 2017.

Back in February, I found that Grogan's Fault was in poor shape, with many references that either did not even mention the tree or were to unreliable sources. I dramatically trimmed the article. User: sort of reverted my dramatic edit, leaving duplicate paragraphs, a (now) incorrect warning template, and all of the previous problems with the article.

I would normally engage in standard discussion to resolve the dispute, but I am reluctant to engage with an IP that may simply be a bad hand account. I had previously left a sockpuppet warning message at User talk:The Real Luke Skywalker, and left a fresh warning message at User talk:, but haven't heard back.

What do you think I should do? I could engage the editor on the article's content (assuming good faith), or I could start a sockpuppet investigation, but I don't want to do both at the same time, because I don't want to be perceived as misusing Wikipedia process. Advice (or admin intervention) is welcome. —hike395 (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)le

After viewing this morning's edits, I think I will go to Sockpuppet investigation, we can leave Grogan's Fault in a broken state for a while. —hike395 (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Koppen climate classification[edit]

I've left a response concerning your last statement. Feel free to take a look G. Capo (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Neutral notice[edit]

A move request regarding / Deadline Hollywood, an article you have edited, is taking place at Talk:Deadline Hollywood#Requested move 11 March 2018. It is scheduled to end in seven days.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Light-emitting diode[edit]

Previous 24 hour protection has expired and an anon is at it again - could you protect it for a longer time? Thanks. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Done Vsmith (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


Consider protecting the talk page too since same sock is also trolling there.[4] D4iNa4 (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked the sock. Vsmith (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Removed sock gripes ... 'Twas a beautiful Spring day - so I took me chainsaw out in the woods and cut up some old logging tops and cull timber, great exercise and got a trailer load of wood for the old furnace in the woodshed. Lots more fun than dealing with idiots ... Sorry 'bout that :) Vsmith (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Move "Ice dam" to "Ice jam"?[edit]

There is a discussion at Talk:Ice dam#Move to "Ice jam" to move "Ice dam" to "Ice jam". You may be interested in offering your opinion. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Renaming of Columbia Plateau to Columbia Basin (region)[edit]

Hi, Vsmith. User:Howpper moved Columbia Plateau to Columbia Basin (region), but does not have consensus for that move. I am unable to move it back. Can you kindly revert the move, and we can discuss the best strategy for moving forward? Thanks! —hike395 (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you, could you also move Talk:Columbia Basin (region) to Talk:Columbia Plateau? Thanks! —hike395 (talk) 05:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


Sorry, I thought you were the vandal. There was someone who deleted almost the whole page and they were banned, I thought it was related to that. Please edit as you like especially the images which have gotten out-of-control. I did not want to remove a lot after what the page has been through in the last few days, but me and some of the regular editors on this page would welcome any help. I would say be careful of certain images which are linked to the surrounding text, which are more meaningful. I will go and trim some images now actually thanks. Fotaun (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Opinion request on geology categories[edit]

Vsmith, I see you have edited many geology articles so I would like to have your opinion on this renaming proposal: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_17#Magmatism_not_igneous_petrolog. Thank you! Mamayuco (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you for blocking me six months ago. I have since changed my immature ways, and have begun editing constructively. J.A.R.N.Y.🗣 19:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Meroe gallery[edit]

Thanks for the intervention but now the captions are wrong again. Titus Atomicus (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

OK now? Vsmith (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Yep. Actually it was easier than I thought. I've just discovered I forgot to close the tag. :-) Titus Atomicus (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


Thanks for reverting my edit about Tundra. I did not see the line: "Alpine tundra occurs in mountains worldwide" Cls14 (talk) 07:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Monte Verde[edit]

I removed this sentence from the Monte Verde article, "However, as of 2009 no archaeological evidence has been found of pre-Clovis humans using a coastal migration route." You immediately reverted it.

This sentence is significantly outdated, and wildly at odds with the modern consensus among anthropologists and archaeologists.

I am an archaeologist, and by definition, also an anthropologist. Please read my reasons for removing this sentence in the talk section.

This is the kind of thing which misleads students, and is the reason instructors disdain Wikipedia. This sentence has no place whatsoever in this article.

Please remove this sentence at your earliest convenience. There are heaping piles of peer-reviewed literature discussing evidence for at least one pre-Clovis coastal migration, and the consensus among 80%+ of the archaeological/anthropological community is that "Clovis First" is no longer accurate. Stating a decade-old opinion lifted from a textbook which is now overwhelmingly considered outdated serves no purpose whatsoever. In fact, I'm sure if you asked Meltzer if he would stand by this statement in 2018, his answer would be "no".

Of course, if one of my students includes this reference in a paper, at least I'll know where he got it.

Again, please read my reasoning in the "Meltzer Reference" section of the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:B809:336C:C1BB:9FBD (talk) 03:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The edit I reverted removed referenced content with no edit summary or reason provided. When content is removed with no edit summary in explanation - you should expect it to be re-instated. You are welcome to remove the content, but provide an edit summary explaining why. Quite simple - no ? even a college prof should be able to grasp that :) Vsmith (talk) 11:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Note: I've removed a long "personal attack" Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Note: the edit by ip in the history- was me on an unsecured public network while on a trip and not logged in. Vsmith (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Valorka Project Deleted[edit]

Dear, Vsmith

Our group has to carry out a project for university and the page you recently deleted may be similar to that of the page you referenced. However we are working with Valdimar the owner and founder of this company who had given us access to his files and allowed us to carry out the project. No other resources were available to us and thus this website was our only way to provide information regarding this Valorka project. Whilst the text may be similar we put it into our own words to the best of our ability but did not have that much flexibility. The owner of this company knows our project and been directing and we can provide his email if needed. I ask that you reconsider the deletion of the page. If there is still an issue if you could provide your email address we can provide an attachment which states we have permission to use this source closely.

Best regards and I hope to hear from you soon.

Aimee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aimeeaecp1234 (talkcontribs) 12:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that, seems the page was in violation of copyright and was tagged for deletion by another editor. I have no interest in discussing further. Simply be very careful to avoid such problems in the future. And note: we aren't here to promote any "company". Vsmith (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you![edit]

Erdbeerteller01.jpg I'm sorry VSmith, I didn't mean to mess things up. I just wanted to change "smokey" to smoky. I did not realize changing the image link would be bad. Seacolor88 (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks - it seems I took another look, and changed the "smokey" bit in the sidebar header for consistency. Seems I hadn't noticed that when I reverted the change in the image name. Keep on truckin' ... and learnin' :) Vsmith (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Sea salt[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Your Edit summary when reverting User:Carlthechemist's contribution to Sea salt was quite useless. Carlthechemist's contribution was completely accurate, and addressed what I see as a core problem with the article. Why DID you revert it? And why didn't you actually tell us in the Edit summary? HiLo48 (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The edit rather destroyed the lead of the article replacing it with unsourced and unlinked commentary. Was my action a bit harsh ... probably so. And I did "tell you" in my edit summary. So cool down and rewrite the article to include the users points supported with good references. Vsmith (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
One really doesn't need references to say salt comes from the sea. That's blue sky stuff. That article has had an appalling structure for years, with its slant seemingly designed to help those selling "sea salt" as something special. I have tried before to get a discussion on this going on the Talk page of the article, but as is sadly so common in Wikipedia, nobody seems to look there. HiLo48 (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but even saying the sky is blue rather needs referencing ... and yes you do need a reference for any bits on the origin of salt. What appears blindingly obvious to you & me perhaps, doesn't seem obvious to others who may lack any background in geology or even science in general. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, I am by no means an expert on this, so correct me if I'm wrong, but "why is the ocean salty" was one of those childhood questions that always intrigued me. The first thing I had to understand is that salt is not a primordial ingredient of the Earth, but a secondary compound formed as the leftover after dissolving a base with an acid (often a metal dissolved by an acid). I've seen a lot of competing theories; some say the primordial ocean was even saltier than it is now and others that say (due to indicators like salt content in certain clays but absence in others) that the ocean wasn't always salty, but these salts were absorbed from the rocks and washed down from lakes and streams into the ocean, a likely source of magnesium salts. Another source of salts are volcanoes and volcanic vents under the ocean, which are usually very acidic and high in sulfur and other catalysts of salt production. Then you have salt samples pulled up from deep oil-drilling, in which these ancient salt beds show no signs whatsoever of any other marine components (indicating that they may have never been in the ocean). Some theories I've read attribute a lot of this salt as being a byproduct of life, given off in the form of urines and saltpeter, from the oxygenation of the atmosphere (during first billion years or so of which most of that oxygen was consumed producing ferrous and ferric salts from iron, before finally filling the atmosphere), primordial acid-rains, or as a result of acids produced from ancient peat as it was compressed into coal.
The point is that the origin of salt on Earth is a complex one, and I think it's a bit disingenuous to say that it all simply "comes from the ocean." If the point is to say that the sodium chloride found in the ocean is the same as found everywhere else, then that is pretty "blue sky" obvious, but mined salts often do not contain the bromines and epsoms and other minerals that sea salt often does, so I am not sure that sea salt is necessarily 100% sodium-chloride salt either. (Of course that doesn't give it any special powers either.) Zaereth (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Another thing to consider is that the ocean loses hundreds of thousands if not millions of tons of salt each year through natural processes (not counting mining) such as through plate subduction, for instance. One would think that through these processes, over time, the salinity of the oceans would either increase or decrease. However, history seems to suggest that both have occurred at different intervals. It has really only been since the Precambrian that that salinity and acidity of the ocean has stabilized, so the input of salt matches the output, and that its chemistry has remained relatively unchanged during the last 200 million years or so. Zaereth (talk) 05:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
References - that's all it takes, get some good ones and go to work ... Vsmith (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Off the top of my head, Earth, a Cradle for Life, On the Strata of the Earth, The Origin of Earth, Origins of Life on Earth and in the Cosmos, The Origin of Salt, Gypsum and Petroleum, Chemical Evolution and the Origins of Life, Igneous Rock and their Origin, The Origin of Continents and Oceans. There are probably upwards of 50 others, but I would have to go back to the library and look them up. Unfortunately, this is just something that interests me, but I have no direct experience nor expertise in geology, so I doubt I will be working on the article anytime soon. (I typically only work on subjects where I do have expertise and direct experience with the subject.) Zaereth (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
So - no action, just gripping. Time to hat this. Vsmith (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

CO2 stuff[edit]

Hi, I noticed a chapter about carbon dioxide solubility in seawater which does not bring any convincing proof of the effect of CO2 on seawater temperature. According to Henry’s law, CO2 solubility in seawater decreases with temperature, there is no proof that an increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will lead to a rise in temperature of seawater. The GHG concept is an old theory that the great Maxwell disproved at the end of the 19th century. Global warming an GHG theories are continuously disproved by facts, it would be wise to quietly remove the CO2 solubility section, the rest of the page not showing the same kind of weekness. —— — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

How about that .. :) Vsmith (talk) 02:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hiding tables[edit]

Hi Vsmith,

In an effort to clean up County pages of various States in the US, I have been hiding the complex tables of Presidental elections that were added in 2017 by User:ElectionsGeek. I note that, in July, you made similar edits to county pages in the state of Missouri. Although I have received various "Thanks" for this effort, one reader stating that "...(hiding the table) will greatly help the accessibility / navigability / readability of the articles. Thanks very much indeed....", other readers have chosen to revert the "hidden table edit"--one stating "Please let this table be visible as it is. There is no indication for hiding it by default." These opposing views seem to be based solely on reader preference rather than a specific WP:MOS style or format. Are you aware of a valid counterpoint argument for hiding these complex tables versus allowing them to be visible by default? Regards. Woodlot (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The tables caused some rather messy results on various pages and seemed to be of limited use overall - so I hid them for a cleaner presentation in a couple of states. The data is still there - with a simple click for those (political junkies :) interested. Basically, find a mess - clean it up philosophy. Vsmith (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with you. Thanks. Woodlot (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


Just noticed IPs adding record lows and highs with no sources, should they be removed? Doug Weller talk 16:40, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd say definitely - no source, no go. Seems another user has reverted, same for Ft Lauderdale. Vsmith (talk) 19:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Good. I met someone while walking my dog in chilly Derbyshire who couldn't understand why I'd give up the wonderful Miami climate. Doug Weller talk 18:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

might not be your cup of tea[edit]

But hey I thought I'd ask - WikiProject_Mining/Articles_for_Verification and the talk page Wikipedia:WikiProject Mining/Articles for Verification - might not be up your alley, but I think there is a massive issue from 2013 sitting on top of all that - any thoughts? JarrahTree 00:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Please be specific. Vsmith (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
No problems at all - there is a massive collection of articles that were suspect on the distinction between being reported in 2013 single source items that were conflating mineral prospects with actual working mines. Also on the talk page the weasel phrase repeatedly 'largest in world and largest in russia' for quite a few articles. I was wondering whether in your travels in the information about such things as whether there is a contemporary information source that could clarify the suspected items as being verifiable in the contemporary context. I felt there were many more questions going begging just from the large list, but maybe what I have asked so far is closer to my thought for the moment, apart from expressing exasperation at the breadth of the possible problems arising. JarrahTree 00:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
As you havent replied, sorry to have bothered - cheers anyways! JarrahTree 12:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
The need for sleep overpowered me last night :) Sorry 'bout that. May take a closer look later today depending on priorities & whims. Vsmith (talk) 12:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I am not in the slightest concerned if you have a look and decide its not worth the effort... it is a torturous nightmare which seems to descend into really weird Afd's and other things... I just needed to vent at yet again finding another set of articles that are open to question, but the size of it is daunting... I mean there are other areas of wikipedia where massive lists of dubious edits from untraceable sources are uncovered, not a pleasant experience with or without sleep. JarrahTree 13:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring (and cavalier removal of large blocks of text)[edit]

Yes, if you make the same edit twice in quick succession (especially if the edit is the removal of large blocks of text), then that is edit-warring. Please stop doing this.

I also urge you to please be less cavalier about removing large blocks of content (unless it is obvious garbage/vandalism, added just recently). Please remember that someone (a real person) spent a lot of time and effort writing this. From their point of view, it's rude to have their work simply removed (after being there for several months), without a good reason. It's better to add "citation needed" (etc.) tags, or bring it up on the Talk page first, before just deleting it. Ross Finlayson (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

and it takes two to have a jolly good edit war - so please admit your guilt there. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 03:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)