This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Vsmith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
the Moon
Moon phase 4.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

Homo Sapiens[edit]

Perhaps we can discuss the matter before you revert. Especially considering your choice of reasoning. I don't think you grasp what a personal comment is, or a language barrier was the culprit. Rather than remove a citation that has largely been debunked I added a statement showing that the cited study doesn't explain a key problem with its own theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estarski (talkcontribs) 21:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

And the statement you added is your opinion? Or do you have a reference that indicates that "key problem" and objection has been published. The comment appeared rather trivial to me - and perhaps irrelevant. Please enlighten me on your thinking. Thank you. Vsmith (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
It isn't an opinion. The study sought to explain where Neanderthal DNA in modern humans come from without mentioning that not all modern humans have Neanderthal DNA. The relevance of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans is a very important puzzle piece in the pursuit of human origins.
A quick Google search nets : "Everyone living outside of Africa today has a small amount of Neanderthal in them, carried as a living relic of these ancient encounters. A team of scientists comparing the full genomes of the two species concluded that most Europeans and Asians have between 1 to 4 percent Neanderthal DNA. Indigenous sub-Saharan Africans have no Neanderthal DNA because their ancestors did not migrate through Eurasia."
The problem with the cited study is it doesn't even address the main question it was supposed to be answering. Normally, I would have removed reference to the study altogether, but elected to add an addendum instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estarski (talkcontribs) 22:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Hmm - the Nat Geo bit you note states: "Everyone living outside of Africa today has a small amount of Neanderthal in them, ". Given that, I'd say you could cite the Nat Geo bit as a ref for the lack of Neandertal DNA in sub-Saharan Africa. You word it as you wish, but cite it rather than simply adding unsourced comentary w/in article space. Vsmith (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)



First: don't shout (all caps = shouting). Second: learn to sign your talk page comments.
Last January I did remove a rather misplaced and unsourced addition to Category:Man-made disasters. The content you added would have been appropriate in the article Man made disasters (its red ...see Anthropogenic hazard) if properly referenced, but not in the category page.
So ... get some solid references and edit the article - not the category. Vsmith (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Seems I told you that back in January - check your talk page. Vsmith (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Makran Trench[edit]

Hello, V -- I hope you are enjoying the summer. I just came across the article on the Makran Trench. I noticed that there is no map showing where the trench is. I thought I'd mention it in case you might be able to find a map.  – Corinne (talk) 04:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Figure 25A–3 on page 4 of this USGS publication would be ideal as it locates several of the relevant geologic features mentioned in the article. As a USGS publication it is public domain - could be used as is or modified. Vsmith (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Wow! That's a pretty good map. Thanks for finding it. However, I don't know how to upload it and separate it from the surrounding text. Maybe Checkingfax could help.
On another issue, I was reading the Makran Trench article, and looking at linked articles, and I came across this one: Zagros fold and thrust belt. I saw that there was a tag at the top of the article that has been there since 2013 requesting that the article be written in a somewhat less technical way. I thought about linking words such as "oblique" to the "Types of angles" section in the Angle article, and the word "orthogonal" to the Orthogonality article, but I think a geology expert would be best at simplifying the language (if indeed it does need simplifying). I noticed, by the way, that in the Orthogonality article, there is no section on geology, mineralogy, or crystallography. Just thought I'd mention it in case you're in need of a project. ;)  – Corinne (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Corinne. I used GIMP to crop the PDF then exported it as a .png file and uploaded it to the Commons. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks - I've been lazy lately :) Vsmith (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Merger of hexagonal and trigonal crystal systems[edit]

Hello. Would like your input here. Thank you! --Officer781 (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Alaskan Earthquake[edit]

My Uncle just turned 90 He lived in Anchorage, 1964 and has amazing slides of The clocks stopped, Penney's damaged building, fissure wirh house still standing. He was young enough but Worked for government and one of few allowed back in area of damaged buildings. Amazing pictures — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Murder of Helen McCourt[edit]

I wonder whether this article needs protecting or the IP editor(s) need a warning. See [1] and the edits just prior to it.  – Corinne (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Geography of Russia[edit]

Hello, V -- I was just looking at the latest edit to Geography of Russia. This last edit, changing 6,000 km to 6 km is clearly vandalism, so I was about to revert, but when I looked at the edit just previous to it, that one didn't look so good, either. I don't know about the one before that. How far back should the revert go?  – Corinne (talk) 00:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

All about Volcanos listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect All about Volcanos. Since you had some involvement with the All about Volcanos redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, Vsmith. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Help with a geology map?[edit]

I saw your editing on a geological article, and was wondering if you can explain a geological map for me for another article? Crock81 (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

hmm ... just stopped by following a bit o a wikibreak. But, I see the you have been given the boot for some stuff ... so will just move on for now :) Vsmith (talk) 12:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


Hello Vsmith. I notice your wikibreak. I changed a lil bit the template:infobox mineral, I hope that you do not mind. is not being updated, is a bit better. I think that with this layout I am able to administrate the crystal system easier.
I am still trying to list the most important minerals. An easier list would have been: all solid solutions, all homologous series, all ore minerals and all minerals with images.
If you do not mind. Eveslogite has a copyright violation template since December 2013. Regards, welcome back. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Chris, not sure how active I'll be for a while. Will take a closer look at eveslogite ... maybe tomorrow, time for sleep now :) Vsmith (talk) 02:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)