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 0.png
1st 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

Murchison River (Western Australia)[edit]

Hello, V - I was just reading Murchison River (Western Australia), and I made a few copy-edits. I noticed the term "gigalitre" in the lead, and since I didn't know what it was, I did a search, and it led to a section in the article on Litre. I tried to put in a conversion template to gallons, but it didn't work, so I just put in a link to the section in the Litre article. Does it make sense (for American readers) to give an equivalent in gallons? If so, how would one do that? Also, since this is a measure of flow, isn't flow expressed in volume per time unit (minute, hour, day, etc.)? I don't see a per time unit.  – Corinne (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Corinne: try {{convert|217|Gl}} and {{convert|1806|Gl}}, which emit 217 gigalitres (7.7×109 cu ft) and 1,806 gigalitres (6.38×1010 cu ft) respectively. I expect that you tried to use {{convert|217|gl}} - unit abbreviations are case-sensitive (for the simple reason that "m" (milli) and "M" (mega) are so very different in scale). The convert template does however permit a capital L for litre, for clarity, even though it's supposed to be a small l (because of confusion with a capital I not to mention the figure 1 in some fonts), so |GL may be used instead of |Gl as in {{convert|217|GL}} → 217 gigalitres (7.7×109 cu ft)
As an aside, for large volumes, the term "cubic metre" is normally preferred - 1 m3 is approximately equal to 1000 litres or 1 kilolitre, so one gigalitre is one million cubic metres. But if your source uses the term "gigalitre", stick with that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for jumping in ... I was busy last night and didn't check here. Vsmith (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Admin mop.PNG Administrator changes

Gnome-colors-list-add.svg AmortiasDeckillerBU Rob13
Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg RonnotelIslanderChamal NIsomorphicKeeper76Lord VoldemortSherethBdeshamPjacobi

Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

Octicons-tools.svg Technical news

  • A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
  • Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
  • A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The Doe Run Company[edit]

Hello! I'm an employee of The Doe Run Company and I'm seeking to update the company's article on Wikipedia as it has become outdated. I see you've edited the article in the past, so I was wondering if you'd be able to review a handful of edits I suggested on the article Talk page here. I know I shouldn't make any changes myself. Thanks! TS at Doe Run (talk) 14:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Well ... seems while I was sleeping ... another editor took action on this ... thanks for your work. Vsmith (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
They did. Thanks so much for your time! TS at Doe Run (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

42nd parallel north[edit]

Until an editor added a link to 42nd parallel north to the article I had just finished copy-editing today, Dire wolf, I didn't know there were articles on latitude lines. I looked at the map of the world with the red latitude line going around the world, and I was surprised to see that while most of the U.S. is below the 42nd parallel, most of Europe, and in fact most of Asia, is above it. In thinking about the area of the U.S. that is below the 42nd parallel, I realized that much of it gets a lot of snow and very cold temperatures in the winter, but the areas below the 42nd parallel in southern Europe and southeast Asia, except for the high mountains, have a generally warm to hot climate. Do you know anything that would explain this difference? It probably has something to do with geography, but what?  – Corinne (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Gulf Stream and North Atlantic Drift ... :) Vsmith (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
And Mississippi Basin and Hudson Bay. The Great Lakes are colder than the Mediterranean Sea. Things get different if you empty the Great Lakes and get California under water. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Some weeks ago I saw a story somewhere about a prediction that global warming eventually will diminish or end the Gulf Stream, resulting in a much colder Europe. Can't come up with a citation, though. Sca (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
See Scientific American article and Yale: Environment 360. Vsmith (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Ot the Cold Blob ... Vsmith (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Aha. Thanks. This may be the story I saw. Sca (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

you forgot to warn a vandal at Mechanism of sonoluminescence[edit]

Hey vSmith, someone edited the article Mechanism of sonoluminescence and added 3 external links in the body. You reverted it using twinkle but forgot to warn him. I noticed this while I was warning him for another article where he did the same thing! I've issued a warning for using external links in the body but I thought you would want to warn him for self promotion (as you said) as well! Regards Yashovardhan (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Seems I left the user a note with a link to follow ... as for a warning template or some such - naw just a note :) Vsmith (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, my apologies! Didn't realize! Yashovardhan (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

New IP[edit]

New Ip, old account?[1] Doug Weller talk 08:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

obviously not "new" ... Vsmith (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Dolomite (rock) or Dolostone[edit]

Hi VSmith

Regarding our lengthy discussion during early February this year, as found at your user talk page under the archived section No 26 on Dolostone. As indicated in the discussion, you were open to the idea of changing the title of the page to "Dolomite (rock)" which by all accounts is a more universally accepted term compared to "dolostone" which appears to be much more restricted (or localised) in its use. As previously mentioned, it would be far better that you facilitate the name change as you have far more expertise, experience and knowledge on how Wikipedia works than myself as a novice. I realise that we are all volunteers and that our time is precious. I am sure that you would be able to facilitate this page title change far quicker than myself. I am more than happy to make any wording changes within the page to reflect this title change and I would make sure that the word "Dolostone" remains in the first sentence as the alternative name which is in use. I am also happy to chase up more references etc to add to this page.

As far as I can see, I have honestly and truthfully answered all your queries/questions relating to this subject and hope that you are able to facilitate this transition. As specifically pointed out by others, on the Dolostone talk page the term dolostone is not the preferred term used internationally by geologists or speleologists. Dolomite (rock) is the best compromise to cover this mineral rock. Best regards Newcaves (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Seems that dolostone is perfectly valid title as it is a real term and avoids confusion and made up terminology. In other words I remain unconvinced that a change is needed. If it pains you to write it ... then simply use dolomite (rock) in your writing as clicking that automatically brings up the dolostone page which lets the reader learn about the rock while avoiding rock/mineral confusion. Vsmith (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi VSmith
For me the object of the whole exercise of explaining that the term 'dolostone' is not used internationally by geologists nor speleologists, was to clarify that the term 'dolomite' or 'dolomite rock' is most commonly used in conversation and internationally in scientific papers when referring to the rock form or karst areas or caves within it. Wikipedia is suppose to reflect the most universally accepted terms and that should include titles of pages. It is unfortunate that your comments now are contradictory to your previous comments, as this does not provide inspiration to new wiki editors (beginners) like myself to worry about trying to add to the wiki pages. I refer to your post 12th Feb 2017 where you state: "To me the rock is dolostone, but I know that it isn't universally accepted. So I would have no real problem with dolomite rock instead of dolostone - we just need to be clear and avoid using dolomite when referring to the rock." I know that you watch many pages closely (including the dolostone page) as you have edited a considerable amount to it over time. Hence, I suspect that even if I could prove 100% to you that 'dolomite' or 'dolomite rock' is the correct title for the page, it would be instantly reverted if I were to change it. My only motive is to do my little bit to help make wiki better for the lay person who does a quick search for info. I have the resources at hand for accurate info on subjects related to caves and speleology, hence just wanted to do my small and one may say insignificant bit for Wiki. Searching for 'dolomite' or 'dolomite rock' and being redirected to the 'dolostone' page is not the best option. This is like searching for the 'sun' and being directed to a page titled the 'nearest star' because a minority of people may use this term. Please don't take this as criticism, but I hope you see what I am getting at.Newcaves (talk) 05:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Yup - I see. Prefer clarity over confusion. Vsmith (talk) 11:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately your 7 word one liners don't equal clarity in this instance. Newcaves (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry 'bout that ... yeah, I could've posted a long bit of blather, but don't care for blatherin' ... keep on truckin'... Vsmith (talk) 12:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


Hello, V - Is this edit to Sanidine right?  – Corinne (talk) 02:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Nope - zapped. Vsmith (talk) 11:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Jayco, Inc.[edit]

What do you think of this edit to Jayco, Inc? (I have it on my watch list because I copy-edited it a long time ago.)  – Corinne (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

No clue - that article seems more advertising/promo than article. I tend to ignore those. Vsmith (talk) 11:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


V - ? [2]  – Corinne (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem - good change. Vsmith (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Who (pronoun)[edit]

Hello, V - Look at this edit to Who (pronoun), and then look at the vandalizing editor's talk page.  – Corinne (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocked - thanks. Vsmith (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Your revert on Atmospheric Methane[edit]

Hi VS, I noticed last night someone section-blanked this section in the atmospheric Methane article with the comment that he was an expert on the subject. I googles his name, "O W Wingenter" and that appears to be true. I also looked at the reference for the section and wonder if it is correct, normally the ref would be considered a self-published blog. Not asking you to revert yourself but suggest we tag the section for rewrite or ??? Gotta go to work now but will look into this more later. (I'm NOT an expert on the subject of Atmospheric Methane but am very interested in the danger of a huge arctic methane release due to global warming.) Oh, last night I also noticed that the section in question was added to the article shortly after the article was written by a major contributor to the article, i.e., probably NOT the author of the reference. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I left a note on User talk:OWWingenter regarding the removal and the need for solid refs. Vsmith (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Red lead is a better name[edit]

I think that your administrative authority would allow you to move lead(II,IV) oxide (a term I never heard used outside of Wikipedia) to "red lead", which is currently a redirect. Just a thought. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

hmm ... never thought about it. Assumed it was an accepted IUPAC name (?). Vsmith (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll just poll editors and see where we get consensus-wise. IUPAC thing is possibly secondary. Possibly no one is interested esp as there are few inorganic editors.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Palo Duro Canyon[edit]

I am reinstating the quotation from composer Samuel Jones about his "Palo Duro" symphony, and am sourcing a quotation from Larry McMurtry's Dead Man's Walk. There is more to a canyon than geology; cultural associations also matter. NicholasNotabene (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

You need to find a secondary source for that - rather than your reading. See WP:Primary. Vsmith (talk) 03:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

"Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages. "

Apparently you lack two of the qualities needed to decided what sources are appropriate. The question is whether Larry McMurtry, a Pulitzer Prize-winning novelist, makes a significant reference to the Palo Duro Canyon in his work. No secondary source is needed to verify that fact. Quote: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source."

19:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicholasNotabene (talkcontribs)

"Apparently you lack.." Gee thanks for the compliment :) And where have you discussed this on the article talk? And I would say that yes a secondary source is needed for the significance of a novelist's comments in his book to that canyon. Vsmith (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you tell me what YOU want for YOUR article on the Palo Duro Canyon, instead of being a jerk and reverting my edits wholesale. I have responded to your monosyllablic complaints and gotten no response.

19:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicholasNotabene (talkcontribs)

My - and now you rush to insult. Geez ... Vsmith (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Some baklava for you![edit]

Baklava - Turkish special, 80-ply.JPEG Thanks for your warm welcome! Baklava is my favorite desert and I would like to share with you! :)

Have a good day Sir! Dr InorgChem (talk) 08:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

added TheDJ
removed XnualaCJOldelpasoBerean HunterJimbo WalesAndrew cKaranacsModemacScott

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
  • The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
  • An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
  • After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

  • After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
  • Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


I just saw that Isambard Kingdom had placed the "Retired" banner on his/her user page on April 14, 2017. I was sorry to see this. I haven't followed his/her edits closely, but I have never had any problems with this editor, and s/he has always been cordial in replies. I was curious about the note that appears below the "Retired" banner. I don't know what led up to this. Out of curiosity, I looked at the revision history for the user page, and I see a pattern of people leaving silly comments, and even the entire article on the real Isambard Kingdom Brunel, on the user page. There are some really strange comments, including [3]. Also see the edit on 15 September '15. I wonder if this editor has been subjected to harassment or outing. Is there anything you can do to persuade this editor to continue with the project?  – Corinne (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


I recently got an email that you reverted the part of an article on Crystal Healing I edited. I'd be grateful to know the reason for that ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeridotWitch (talkcontribs) 13:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Email? Seems I reverted an ip edit for blatant promotion of pseudoscience. And did the same for your recent edit. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).


Administrator changes

added KaranacsBerean HunterGoldenRingDlohcierekim
removed GdrTyreniusJYolkowskiLonghairMaster Thief GarrettAaron BrennemanLaser brainJzGDragons flight

Guideline and policy news

Technical news


  • Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


Hi Vsmith, with reference to [[User talk:Jsamwrites#May 2017]]), What do you suggest for galleries added in some articles, for example: Volcanoes of Kamchatka? After taking a look at description of each image, (File:Volcanoes of Kamchatka-113321.jpg, for example), it is difficult to find a correct caption. It is sad that some of the above mentioned reverted articles have no gallery and the images added gave different points of view (as required by WP:Galleries and were not repetitive). I would like to get your feedback before making any similar future edits. Jsamwrites (talk) 08:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Stalactite page[edit]

Hi VSmith There is a need to briefly indicate that the chemistry shown on this page can be substantially different if the pH changes. I think my short note was very appropriate. I take your point that at the top is section there is a link to the main Calthemite page, however if readers just see the basic chemistry there is no indication that there is additional chemistry which can come into play. I would much appreciate it if you would revert your deletion OR write something short in your own words to indicate that there is additional chemistry which can come into play if the pH changes. Regards, NewcavesNewcaves (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Seems the "See main" link at the section top should be adequate for those interested in more detail re: cathemite formation & chemistry. Any interested reader should be aware of that link ... and if not, well we don't need to hold their hand. Just assume your readers have some basic smarts. :) Vsmith (talk) 02:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately many readers don't know the finer quirks of wikipedia and wouldn't even have an indication that there is so much more to the chemistry. I short note to say the chemistry can change with pH and where to find it, is very appropriate.Newcaves (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Anyone curious about the details and savvy enough to know what ph is, should be expected to be aware of that link up top as it would be obvious that "more in depth" coverage would be found there. Such "More in-depth chemistry ..." commentary is not needed. Vsmith (talk) 02:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
As pH is not mentioned in the existing section, then it should be. As you say, this will indicate that readers will have to search further a field - i.e. back to the main page, to find the additional chemistry. Hence, I will add a few words to include pH influencing chemistryNewcaves (talk) 06:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Thankyou VSmith- appreciate your latest edit - Good idea to link these words to other pages. RegardsNewcaves (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Greenhouse page[edit]

Hi VSmith Thanks for your message. It seems a bit harsh to delete my sentence about greenhouses though. I linked to the product guide of a website that explained the difference between timber-framed and aluminium-framed greenhouses - it is not a 'shop' page. There are plenty of links to commercial website elsewhere in Wikipedia that have been left alone - eg. which is blatantly trying to sell windows. Any chance you could reconsider? Regards, DIY Dinah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DIY Dinah (talkcontribs) 13:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Not likely, and see WP:Other stuff - I'm quite aware that there are other commercial promo links on other articles. And ... maybe I'll take a look at your other example ... or not. Vsmith (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
and... looking at your editing history, I see you have a "habit" of using promotional/commercial websites as sources. I'd strongly suggest that you stop. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent Editing on Buried Valley Page[edit]

Hello Vsmith,

My name is Dustin, and as a part of a final project for my Geomorphology class at Humboldt State University we are each required to turn a Geomorph stub into an article. I saw that you have deleted my edit, and responded that it was a mess. I was wondering if you would be willing to look over my writing and help me organize it a bit more? If my article is not published I receive a zero for our final project. I understand my writing on geomorphology may not be the best, as I am not a geology major and am taking this class as an upper division elective to fulfill a general education requirement. If you would be willing to help me out it would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

Dustin Wallis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drw298 (talkcontribs) 01:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Replied on Drw298's talk. Vsmith (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Endorheic basin[edit]

Hello, V - What do you think of this page move? I kind of like the title "Endorheic basin".  – Corinne (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Moved it back. Thanks for the note. Vsmith (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome. What do you think of the last sentence of the lead in Aral Sea? It reads a bit awkwardly to me, but I'm not sure how it could be improved.  – Corinne (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Made a stab at it ... better? :) Vsmith (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is better. Thanks.  – Corinne (talk) 03:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Caverns of Sonora[edit]

Good Morning, I am new to submitting to Wikipedia. I tried to put in references appropriately with no success. I also obviously had some other issues that I need to correct before submitting. I am hoping you have the ability to retrieve the corrections that were made yesterday, 05/16/17 and hopefully email them back to me. I had the opportunity to speak in person with Jim Papadakis who opened the cave to the public. He suffers from Parkinson's and it took a painstaking couple of hours to get the corrections in about Caverns of Sonora while I was interviewing him. My lesson - write it out first and do not use the original as a " rough draft". So I am praying/hoping I can get a copy of what was done yesterday. I did not have access to a printer. Lessons learned. Thank you for your time and efforts. With Gratitude, Kathy SloanKathy Sloan (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

To use your interview as a reference, it must be published in a WP:Reliable source. Your interview notes do not qualify. First - get it published. As for the material you added the other day, simply click on the page history link and you can access any previous version of the article. Vsmith (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Heinz Pagels[edit]

Hello, V - I have to ask you about this edit to Heinz Pagels. I don't understand the reason for the addition of the "Fact" tag or the edit summary. The text only says the cause of Pagels' death is similar to a dream he had. Why does "the similarity" have to be sourced separately from the sources of the real cause and the dream? I don't see reference numbers, but I believe the sources are there. Both the report of the accident and the dream are in the New York Times obituary, which is in one of the external links.  – Corinne (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't really know, maybe the "Eerily, the accident is disturbingly similar ..." is in question. Who says the disturbingly similar bit or the Eerily, ... I'm clueless here :). The edit summary used seems to indicate just that. Vsmith (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, I think this edit to Elaine Pagels is strange. I think it is true that she is best known for her writing on the Gnostic Gospels.  – Corinne (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the Best known bothers someone ... omit the "best"? As the edit had no summary - just revert and ask for a reason in your edit summary. Vsmith (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

St. Peter Sandstone[edit]

Are you sure? It's listed in the state's geological survey stratigraphic column. Abyssal (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Not surprising, however the article text is all about the St Peter in the midwest with no mention of WV or other occurrences in the subsurface. Vsmith (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like the article needs expansion rather than my additions being removed. Abyssal (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Go for it. But please avoid such an obvious disconnect between the article text and infobox data. Vsmith (talk)

Plate tectonics[edit]

I was just looking at the latest edit to Plate tectonics. I wanted to be sure the change from "also" to "therefore" was correct, so I read the entire section. I was making a few small copy-edits as I went along, and then I thought maybe the last sentence (the one in which the edit was made) really belongs (minus the word "therefore") earlier in the paragraph (right before "Average oceanic lithosphere") as a kind of introduction to the discussion on differences in thickness of the two types of crust, oceanic and continental. I was about to save my edit when I saw that that last sentence gave two thickness figures that were not anywhere near the thickness figures given earlier in the paragraph , so I didn't save my edit. Do you think that last sentence really belongs at the end of the paragraph, or would be better placed before the thickness discussion, or should not be there at all? The paragraph starts by mentioning "two types of crustal material". This last sentence says "two types of crust". Is there something I'm not understanding?  – Corinne (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Took it out - seems that contradiction has been there for 8 years or so. Vsmith (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

A question relating to a block[edit]

There is an unblock request at User talk:IEatpeople4Fun, relating to a block which you imposed. I have posted there asking the editor for further assurances about likely future editing to help decide whether unblocking would be suitable. However, I also see that you imposed an indefinite block for one perfectly ordinary childish vandalism edit. Normal practice in such a situation is to give the editor a gentle warning, and to reserve a block as a possible response if the editor continues in the same way after adequate warnings. Do you have any comment to make about the reasons for this particular block? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

That one edit combined with the choice of username was ample evidence that the individual was not here to write an encyclopedia. I would have no objection to an unblock (although the choice of "future edits" are not encouraging) although it seems a username change should be required as one condition. That offensive username does not inspire trust. Vsmith (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. To a large extent I agree with what you say, and I see the suggested edits in the unblock request as reducing, rather than increasing, the likelihood of unblocking, so that my invitation for further comment was more in the spirit of "well, I'll give you a chance to persuade me if you can", rather than "I am almost persuaded". However, the one point where I really don't see eye to eye with you is the user name. To me, it reads as just a jokey name, and I don't understand why anyone would be offended by it. However, it seems from comments on the editor's talk page that consensus is on your side on that issue, so I will accept that. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding external links related to Simien Mountains National Park[edit]

Hey! I thought I'd approach you since you might have a bit of an idea as to the context of this situation (sorry for the troubles by the way! I was reluctant to burden you with this, but it would be best if I got a third opinion since I inadvertently reverted an IP editor thrice on a page without confirming if my judgement was correct or not, which of course violates a WP policy). Recently, there had been an edit war over the external links on the pages Simien Mountains National Park and Semien Mountains. I looked into the matter as one of the participants involved in this contacted me on my talk page. I drew some conclusion based on what information I could find, which I have presented properly here. My initial motive was to leave the external links blank but once I found more information, I decided to take a bold step and re-add the link I found as being the true official website. After I made the change on the page Semien Mountains, they were reverted a few times without any attempt at communicating first. Do you think the step I took was correct? If so, would addition of the seemingly promotional link warrant a page protection (since multiple IP's are involved in this)? Thanks in advance! :) Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 20:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

First - see WP:3rr as you have three reverts there - a fourth could lead to a block - no problem that way, use caution. It seems that semi-protection might be an option for those two pages if the ip edits/reverts continue. Vsmith (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Would the three reverts still classify as edit warring if my attempts to communicate with the IPs had failed and they persisted on adding the promotional link? Because at that point, I think it could be considered blatant vandalism (under addition of spam links) and that's why I thought my reverts were justified. Of course, I'm not going to edit that page anymore, but I just wanted to know out of curiosity if I was in the wrong for making the judgement I made. Thanks for the the quick reply! Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 08:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Looks like the IPs have started communicating, which is a good sign. I strongly believe that disputes are best resolved with proper communication. I'm going to keep the 3rr issue on hold for now, till this mess has been resolved. Sorry for dragging you into this! Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 10:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017[edit]


News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

added Doug BellDennis BrownClpo13ONUnicorn
removed ThaddeusBYandmanBjarki SOldakQuillShyamJondelWorm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Precious five years![edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Garner Mo[edit]

Why did you delete my edit? My great grandmother Garber created the town.. I've been there many times and know alot of it's history.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Garner Mo[edit]

Why did you delete my edit? My great grandmother Garber created the town.. I've been there many times and know alot of it's history.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

See: WP:reliable sources. We support our edits with references - not what "we know". Vsmith (talk) 09:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Cold seep[edit]

Hello, V - I was just looking at the latest edits to Cold seep, and I have two questions:

1) In the edit to which I provided a link, there doesn't seem to be any source attached to the new information, but there wasn't any attached to what was there previous to the change, either; just thought I'd point it out.

2) The first sentence of the article reads:

  • A cold seep (sometimes called a cold vent) is an area of the ocean floor where hydrogen sulfide, methane and other hydrocarbon-rich fluid seepage occurs, often in the form of a brine pool.

The first two sentences of the section Cold seep#Comparison with other communities are:

  • Cold seeps and hydrothermal vents of deep oceans are communities that do not rely on photosynthesis for food and energy production. These systems are largely driven by chemosynthetic derived energy.

I've highlighted certain phrases. I don't know if it is clear enough between the first statement and the later statements to explain the shift from "A cold an area" to "Cold seeps...are communities", and then "systems". This shift might be confusing to readers. What do you think?  – Corinne (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

For #1 yeah a ref would be good ... for the other clarify as needed, not a big deal methinks. Vsmith (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

let's have some example[edit]

I see you recently somewhat edited Aqueduct (water supply). So let's take this for instance

Suppose you found the article with the beginning "An aqueduct is a pipeline constructed to pump seawater upland" (citing a source that precisely do NOT say that), with a big "rain" section including a big diagram of watershed on Earth. So you fix that to current state of the article, with some work. And then someone comes, revert to previous (false) state with a comment "don't play silly game" and NO message on any talk page why he did that.

So, according to you, this is no vandalism? what is it, then? normal behavior?

Just wondering (as i said elsewhere, the name of the inappropriate behavior, whether it is vandalism or some other sort, do not really matter) Gem fr (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Have you read the policy page WP:Vandalism especially the line Mislabeling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful.? Vsmith (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
you didn't answer my question. I answered yours elsewhere, where you must have seen it, but just in case: I DID assumed good faith on the first occurrence, it just seem silly to continue on the second. Gem fr (talk) 08:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Experiences exchange[edit]

Hello Do you have whattsapp account? I do have some valuable stones, i don't know some of them.Please contact me 00967714156720

Abdullah — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't even know what "whattsapp" is ... sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)