User talk:Vsmith/Archive18

Classification of minerals - continued

News from the front. As I understand, IMA - Commission on New Minerals, Nomenclature and Classification (CNMNC) proposes following classes and subclasses: native elements, sulphides, sulphosalts, halides, oxides, hydroxides, arsenites (including antimonites, bismuthites, sulphites, selenites and tellurites), carbonates, nitrates, borates (neso-, soro-, cyclo-, ino-, phyllo- and tectoborates), sulphates, chromates, molybdates, tungstates, phosphates, arsenates, vanadates, silicates (neso-, soro-, cyclo-, ino-, phyllo- and tectosilicates) and organic compounds. (Stuart J. Mills, Frédéric Hatert, Ernest H. Nickel, and Giovanni Ferraris (2009). "The standardisation of mineral group hierarchies: application to recent nomenclature proposals" (PDF). Eur. J. Mineral. 21: 1073–1080. doi:10.1127/0935-1221/2009/0021-1994.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link))

But if u do it this way some old groupings cross classes. Using 01 Native Elements; 02 Sulfides and Sulfosalts (sulfides, selenides, tellurides; arsenides, antimonides, bismuthides; sulfarsenites, sulfantimonites, sulfbismuthites, etc.); 03 Halogenides; 04 Oxides (Hydroxides, V^[5,6] vanadates, arsenites, antimonites, bismuthites, sulfites, selenites, tellurites, iodates); 05 Carbonates and Nitrates; 06 Borates (neso-, soro-, cyclo-, ino-, phyllo- and tectoborates); 07 Sulfates, Selenates, Tellurates; 08 Phosphates, Arsenates, Vanadates; 09 Silicates and Germanates (neso-, soro-, cyclo-, ino-, phyllo- and tectosilicates); 10 Organic Compounds seems better to me. What do u think? I think that I have to avoid the proposed division. Otherwise I'll do too many mistakes, and without ref. for checking it is WP:OR. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You are doing good - stick with an established source or sources, it can be modified later if deemed necessary. Vsmith (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, thx. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

ancientlights.org

Lots of it about, I'm going through removing it. See [1] - self-published fringe stuff. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

plus other stuff by him, and ancientgreece-earlyamerica.com. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I see there was quite a bit more than I caught ... looks like promotion of the good drs. fringe ideas. guess he's convinced he's got it all figured out so why should we question? Vsmith (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Cambrian Explosion edit undo on 2nd Jan

Hi,

As I'm sure you have discerned I am a novice on Wikipedia and have obviously not met the basic standards in my article. Perhaps you would be kind enough to give me some help on what to do in order to get my idea out there. Do I need to find acceptable sources for refernces? With an idea like mine it is obviously hard to find evidence, perhaps Wikipedia is not the right place to present ideas like these?

Some help and advice would be greatly appreciated.

Regards Bernard Exley (UK)

p.s. You mention Vietnam in your profile, maybe you know Tom Evans from CA, he has a web site elcapreport.com, I met him last Sept when a freind and I climbed The Nose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancefax (talk • contribs) 23:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, we're all new at it when we start... just gotta stick with it and learn. Your edit to Cambrian explosion suffered from original research and synthesis (Please read those pages). You did cite references about the catastrophic Venusian events, but there were no references to connect all that with the panspermia comments. I haven't read your refs - do they imply anything about the panspermia stuff? Also the panspermia hypothesis is likely to be a tad controversial - so it would require rock solid published sources. If you can find those refs, then try again. You might want to discuss proposed additions on the article talk page to get input from experienced editors there.

And, no - haven't met a Tom Evans as far as I remember ... caveat: I spent some 30 yrs. trying to forget/ignore all that ... but have pretty much made peace with it now.

Vsmith (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

edit removal of changes to true polar wander

Hi I am new to editing wikipedia so I apologize for any technical errors that I have made. I have been doing some research on True Polar wander as I am currently editing for the geology journal www.ncgt.org. You removed a paragraph that I added to the article true polar wander siting the reasons as "Due and undue weight", "fringe theory" and "Identifying reliable sources".

I have just registered as Myopicmuppet so that I have a talk page, I am not certain as to the correct ways of making additions to wiki.

As the article itself is a little sparce, undue weight seems a little unfair. In terms of identifying reliable sources Peter James Bsc, Msc(eng) Phd, DIC making reference to calculations by Thomas Gold seems rather good to me. In terms of fringe theory..... polar wander itself causes some problems for plate tectonics if the rate of wander is greater than 1 degree every million years, it cant just be that figure because it is convenient to the current model of plate tectonics. In addition to this Paleomagnetic data and fossil records of geographic locations of corals make a compelling argument for polar wander so there is potential for additional knowledge to be added to this article, if only as an alternate theory.

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myopticmuppet (talk • contribs) 00:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The cited source is published by Polar Press. Looking at their website [2], I see four very non-mainstream fringe titles. That website alone simply shows their WP:fringe nature. The ref is not a WP:RS. Thomas Gold published several "interesting" hypotheses - but as I understand, those ideas have not had a sustained effect on mainstream geophysics. I'd suggest taking the topic to the talk page talk:True polar wander and see what response you get there. Without reliable sources the content doesn't belong on the article. I'm going to be busy and likely not on Wikipedia much for a short while.

It's good that you now have a Wikipedia identity, it makes communicating much easier. And I wish you well in your Wiki experience. Vsmith (talk) 12:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Article: Life

When I added a section in the lede about life in fiction, I was completing the pattern of physical life, life "in philosophy and religion,...", and life in speculative fiction. You undid the change because "the lead summarizes the article and nothing about fiction exists in article body." But nothing about "in philosophy and religion" exists in the article body also. Should the paragraph beginning "in philosophy and religion" also be deleted? Or should a section be added to the article to address life in philosophy, religion, and speculative fiction? Or should a hatnote direct the reader to other articles on life? Or is a hatnote to life (disambiguation) sufficient? Obankston (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The simplest solution is a hatnote "This article is about biological life. For other uses, see life (disambiguation) or life form." Obankston (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems this should be discussed at talk:Life. Also perhaps you should "flesh out" the life forms list using good refs prior to promoting it. Vsmith (talk) 13:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue with the good refs in life form arose after life was edited. The issue with the good refs in life form has been resolved. Obankston (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

New user using two almost identical usernames

Hi Vsmith, from the edits to Ramapo Fault, I noticed that a new editor appears to be using two accounts, probably by mistake, User:Alan kafka and User:Alan Kafka. I have suggested on User talk:Alan kafka that he get an admin to help sort this out and mentioned your name, hope that was OK. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Commented on user's talk. Fixing it requires bureaucrat action. Vsmith (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

And I thought that you were omnipotent - thanks for pointing him in the right direction. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Buckland and the King's Heart

There's an informative leaflet from the Oxford University Museum of Natural History about Buckland here, which mentions his dietary explorations. Enjoy! DuncanHill (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, refs are good ... enjoyed your link :) Vsmith (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll look over the article more closely over the next few days if I get the time. Between the ODNB article (do you have access? If not, I can email articles to you if you like and don't mind giving me an email address) and the Oxford pamphlet, and a few books of mine I think it could be improved. I've had a fondness for the chap ever since I was a geology undergraduate - his scatological sense of humour (and willingness to make use of live hyenas to test his theories) appealed to me and to many of my lecturers. DuncanHill (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorting out my two accounts

Hi, I was told that you can help me to sort out my two accounts, one of which I created by mistake.

By mistake, I created an account named "Alan kafka", but I meant to create an account named "Alan Kafka". After I created the second account, I mistakingly edited as both User:Alan kafka and User:Alan Kafka.

Can this be fixed so that all of my Wikipedia work will be under the name User:Alan Kafka?

Thanks,

~ Alan Kafka

Alan Kafka (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

See User talk:Alan kafka as I left some information for you there in response to Mike's note above. The process of merging user names requires bureaucrat help. Vsmith (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Could get a bit... Kafkaesque William M. Connolley (talk) 09:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Nualgi

Hi

I have added references to our product Nualgi on a few pages.

Nualgi is a revolutionary new invention.

It is perhaps the only Nano technology product to deliver micro nutrients to Diatom Algae and Plants.

Diatoms are very useful organisms, there are reports of a decline in Diatoms and this is paralleled by a decline in fish.

You may have noted the increase in news about dead zones, algal blooms and fish kills, this too may be due to decline in Diatoms.

Diatoms are the best good for vertebrate fish.

They are perhaps more efficient in use of sunlight and they consume less oxygen at night and they sink on death (other algae float).

These points and many others are very important and have not got the attention they deserve.

We are promoting the use of Diatoms to solve water pollution problems and perhaps global warming.

best regards

Bhaskar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaskarmv (talk • contribs) 15:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The key problem is highlited by your statement above: "our product Nualgi". Wikipedia is not here for product promotion, simple as that. So - stop. Vsmith (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Borates

Borate minerals redirects to Borate. Londonite and Rhodizite redirect to Borate mineral. weird. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Borate minerals now redirects to borate mineral. Lots of weird 'round here :) Vsmith (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thx, I just was not sure if u'd want to move Borate mineral to Borate minerals. Yup, Wikipedia is a weird bulding site ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah... I see, the plural form makes more sense to me - but seems I haven't been consistent in the past, see silicate mineral, oxide mineral, sulfate mineral ... Guess its time to address my inconsistency. Vsmith (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Consistencized a bit :) Vsmith (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Mineral regulations

Hi, You recently deleted above page. The same text has again be posted at Certified Authenticated Mineral Specimen Regulator and it certainly looks like a copyvio. But Google doesn't seem to turn up anything. So if you now where the text is from, go ahead and delete the delete the new page as well. Travelbird (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, looks like NawlinWiki got it already. Vsmith (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Jerrygibbsite

Having spent a few hours on the article myself, I was very pleased to see your extensive revisions. They have greatly improved the quality of the article. However, there are some things that you removed which may be of general interest, such as only 5 examples being known to exist. Perhaps it could be double-checked? Thanks for the great edit! Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Just trying to turn a school term paper into an article. If I "over-did" on removing stuff, feel free to re-add. Personally not sure the five sample bit is that notable - and likely to change, but if you feel it's important and reliably sourced then you are welcome to put it back. Reading over the Dunn paper, it states the samples were from old collection samples labeled leucophoenicite and not readily identifiable w/out X-ray diffraction ... so there are undoubtedly other as yet unidentified specimens sitting on collector's shelves or museum cabinets. Vsmith (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I must admit that is some good logic. Okay, so long as it is written to be rare (like it is in your revision) that is good enough for me. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Jack Ertle Oliver

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Kraisit Chaikaeo

Hi! My name Kraisit. I'm trying to create a page about myself because I'm a musician and a singer. Can you please help me. You can also email me at KraiChaikaeo@live.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kraichaikaeo (talk • contribs) 20:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Well ... looks like I missed the activities, sorry 'bout that. You need to read and follow Wikipedia policies. As to your specific question - the answer is simple: We don't use Wikipedia to promote ourselves or our work. Read conflict of interest. If you are notable as a musician then someone else may write your article. Go, make your music and let someone else do the article writing. Vsmith (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Protection of Amazon Rainforest

Are you willing to give pending changes a try? Either now or at the end of the current protection? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Will consider - hadn't heard much about it lately. Vsmith (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

What of Talk:Amazon Rainforest? 99.190.84.7 (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Mooihoekite

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

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

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

Merge discussion for Optical dating

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

Aquifer / overdrafting

Dear Sir

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

Please see latest edit.

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

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

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

Proposed deletion

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

Talk

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

Minerals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Identification of Minerals

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

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

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

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

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

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

Manhattan Project

This user helped promote Manhattan Project to good article status.

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

Please comment on your reverted edits on Anthropization ...

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

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

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

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

Notifying 202.14.216.128

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Tea#February_2011 Thank you.

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

composting toilet edit

dear vsmith:

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

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

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

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

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

Western Sahara article is suffering vandalism from a User

Hello, Western Sahara article is suffering vandalism from a User Maurimanya [3] he is deleting some important information based on UN sources to replace it by some false information from a spanish non-neutral institute [[4]] Please can you take some measures againt this user ? h'is vandalizing also the discussion page, see this [5]

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

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

Hello, Western Sahara article is suffering vandalism from a User Yusuf ibn Tashfin [6] he is deleting some important information based on UN sources [7].

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

The reference that MauriManya is advancing [8] (UN resolution 1542) doesn't have any tie with the conflict of western sahara, in this reference the word "western sahara" does not appear anytime, this source is invalid. Moreover, this user is deleting a very useful UN reference which is Whitfield, Teresa. Friends Indeed?: The United Nations, Groups of Friends, and the Resolution of Conflict. 2007, page 191, this is a vandalism.

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

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

Sea Level has stopped rising

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you a William Connolly pseudonym?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry

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

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

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

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

report removal

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

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

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

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

Dear Vsmith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revision history of Mount Verd, Tennessee

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for all of help!!

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

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

TGB GA review

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

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

As to your specific point:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Algae [9] or just copper [10] ... or both, don't know really. Cheers Vsmith (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

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

List of minerals

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

X

1. Xanthiosite, 08.AB.25 [11] [12] [13]
2. Xanthoxenite, 08.DH.40 [14] [15] [16]
3. Xenotime-(Yb), 08.AD.35 [17] [18] [19]
4. Xifengite, 01.BB.40 [20] [21] [22]
5. Xilingolite, 02.JB.40a [23] [24] [25]
6. Xocomecatlite, 07.BB.50 [26] [27] [28]
7. Xonotlite, 09.DG.35 [29] [30] [31]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expanding Earth

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

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

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

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

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

Hello

Hello,

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

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

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

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

heat pumps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spam blacklist

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

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

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

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

Article Deleted

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

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

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

Pentlandite

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

Mindat.org, streak: light bronze-brown; Webmineral.com, streak: greenish black; Handbook of Mineralogy, streak: pale bronze-brown, Mineralienatlas, streak: greenish black; Schumann, Walter (1991). Mineralien aus aller Welt (in German) (2 ed.)., streak: black. Our personal observations don't count, we are "anonymous" in the web. There is a discussion on [32] --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Mindat.org - forum: sometimes they know each other, and appear with foto and real name. Andrew G. Christy, Marco E. Ciriotti [33], and Jim Ferraiolo cites Ernie Nickel [34]. Could u check User:MaxWyss/Loss estimates in real time for earthquakes worldwide‎, he wants to move it to the main space, if u don't oppose than it can be done ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Loss estimates in real time for earthquakes worldwide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

clinohedrite

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

VAN method of predicting earthquakes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you would please, show the link to the "ANI" mentioned in Talk:Tipping_point_(climatology)#a_nice_argumentative_end under Off topic chatter (assuming it exists)? 99.181.147.10 (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be somewhere in the archives ("a few months back") - would have to do an archive search on some key word or username, there is a search link in the archive box (incidents) upper right on the page. Vsmith (talk) 12:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

/* Loss estimates in real time for earthquakes worldwide */

I am unhappy about the low rating this article received. I am used to deliver top quality work and am certain that the info in this article is top quality and of interest to the public. For example, I have been interviewed by newspapers numerous times on this topic and have been featured in a TV science show. I would appreciate it, if you could tell me how this article is shortcoming. In particular, the comparison of this article with other articles regarding seismology places this article an order of magnitude above the other ones I have read, which contain errors and very marginal references.MaxWyss (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)MaxWyss

It's still early days, there are some issues but please note that the assessment was added by User:Chris.urs-o not Vsmith as far as I can see. Such assessments are nothing to get too concerned about, more important to address any concerns related to Wikipedia's policies. Also note that now that it's out of your userspace, anyone can and will edit it, so be prepared for that. I've still failed to look through this properly myself to see what I feel about the OR and SYNTH that Vsmith has identified, I hope to do this over the weekend. Mikenorton (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Great if you, or anyone, can give me concrete information about what seems to be lacking. I am becoming more aware as I go on contributing that I must write as if I knew nothing about these topics. I endeavor to do that, but may not succeed in the eyes of others. So, I need hints to be able to deliver what is needed in wikipedia.MaxWyss (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)MaxWyss

Sorry MaxWyss. I just do low by default, and I wait somebody more experienced to disagree and change it. As I understand, the low importance isn't about the article itself, but the importance as sensed by the users, the traffic. The important articles were written in the beginning of Wikipedia already. High importance is just a maintenance priority, as I understand. One example of popular pages: Wikipedia:WikiProject Volcanoes/Popular pages. "Loss estimates in real time for earthquakes worldwide" isn't in the college textbooks, so I don't think that it'll get a high importance, I'm afraid. I never applied an article to the feature class or good class review, but your English is better than mine ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like this has been addressed. I'd say it's far better than a "start class" considering the quality of most new articles, but really don't pay much attention to those templates. I see them mainly there to get noticed by the project participants. As to my earlier comments re: OR and Synth, it seems that is being addressed through the addition of further references - and that is the intended result of my quick early assessment. And, yes Wikipedia works in strange and sometimes inconsistent ways to be expected from a gaggle of volunteers - takes a bit to get used to ... keep on truckin'. Vsmith (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment and explanation. OK, I'll work on getting used to it, and on finding more refs.MaxWyss (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)MaxWyss

User:Volcanoguy copyvios

Hi Vsmith,

I just noticed that you posted about a Sherman Mine copyvio on Volcanoguy's talk page 3 weeks ago. You may or may not be aware that there are literally hundreds of such blatant copyvio edits in Volcanoguy's past (formerly edited as User:Black_Tusk and User:Duggie_roy), and I'm not sure what to do about it. While discussing another copyvio with him a few months ago (maybe a year or more now), I asked Volcanoguy if he would like me to open a Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations case about this, since that appears to be the only way to completely remove the numerous copyvios -- he said no don't do it, he doesn't copy anymore. I have little grounds to believe him on that, other than WP:AGF.

However, opening a CCI would certainly result in Volcanoguy getting banned from Wikipedia (because of the huge number and scope of violations), so I'm hesitant to do so. Plus Volcanoguy has a strong personal dislike of and conflict with me, all because I stated on some talk page many years ago that "he sounds like a well-meaning schoolkid", in reference to one of his many copyvio edits that we were trying to fix -- Volcanoguy misconstrued those words as a personal attack.

Anyway, in light of that, I'm not sure that I'm the best person to open a CCI case on him, I don't want it to look like anything personal. It's obviously not personal on my side, else I would have opened the CCI long ago, and not bent over backwards to continue giving Volcanoguy the benefit of the doubt all these years. But something has to be done, especially in light of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilpower volcano chain a few days ago, which unearthed a series of 8 articles written by Volcanoguy in 2009 on a nonexistent volcano chain, based on no reliable sources except a single hoax website.

Volcanoguy has often stated that he "doesn't give a f---" about Wikipedia core policies, especially WP:NPOV which he really dislikes, but also clearly WP:V and WP:NOR based on those AfD articles. The editnotice on his talk page (User_talk:Volcanoguy/Editnotice) makes this clear if anyone had doubts. This type of mess is the obvious result of that.

So what should we do? He's a good contributor in many ways, but even a small number of copyvios and hoaxes are very damaging to Wikipedia, and outweigh thousands of good edits. I'm not sure how many other ill-sourced or hoax-based articles he may have created, but of the copyvios there is no doubt: hundreds of his edits have been blatant copyvios, many since found and removed, but others no doubt hiding in various articles, obscured by 4-5 years of subsequent edits.

Thanks for any guidance you can provide in resolving this potentially volatile and damaging situation in the the best way possible. --Seattle Skier (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I was not aware of the Wilpower volcano chain mess, not good. His don't remember reply on the Sherman mine incident struck me as rather lame - but let it slide as I was not aware of other problems. If you have evidence of other such problems then I'd say report them to get them cleaned up. Regarding his rather hostile attitude toward any criticism, which I have been aware of in the past - simply ignore and proceed on with cleanup. I'm short on time this weekend - may check further later. Vsmith (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I opposed to open a Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations case because I thought I would end up getting banned like you said Seattle Skier, which I do not need. To me it seems like you are trying to pull another "personal attack" on my editing here. How was I supposed to know the "Wilpower volcano chain" was a hoax? Other than that, I am not aware of creating articles with "hoax" sources because for Canadian volcanoes I use the Natural Resources Canada website and geologic papers. In fact, it was stated in the "Wilpower" sources that the webpages were created by someone of University of Manitoba and that he had an experience in geology. And surely not every Wikipedian gives a f--- about Wikipedia - I am also not censored. There are many other users on Wikipedia that don't or haven't sourced articles well. Everyone makes mistakes. I was mostly a beginner on Wikipedia when I added the copyvios and did not know and understand why I couldn't copy and paste copyrighted material on Wikipedia. I also didn't even know Wikipedia well. Like give it a break. You, Seattle Skier, are making it sound like I am the main user on Wikipedia that has done such a thing. Do you have any idea how many people vandalize Wikipedia every day? That is a lot worse than what I have done by copying copyrighted material onto Wikipedia. Me having a personal dislike of and conflict with you is not only because you attacked me by stating "he sounds like a well-meaning schoolkid", but you also made me feel like an idiot, especially with the large number of users on Wikipedia that might have seen it. I actually don't really have any problems with WP:V and WP:NOR because I prefer to source my work and word it myself. Volcanoguy 06:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

We were all new users at one point and new users make mistakes. You appear to not understand the seriousness of WP:Copyvio - please carefully study that policy and work now to make sure any possible violations you may have made as a new user are corrected as I see you have done at Heart Peaks. Lashing out at someone who points out possible problems with your early edits is not productive. Refusing to comply with Wikipedia policies can result in serious problems for you - and WP:Ignore all rules does not trump other policies. Vsmith (talk) 13:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You can be against me too if you want Vsmith, but I am not going to tolerate it. I have read WP:Copyvio several times, but just seems like a bunch of opinionated stuff to me, even though I rather write stuff in my own words. It is also not productive to harass other users, as Seattle Skier has in the past or even in this discussion. I was not the one that started the harassment nonsense as I did not insult him until after I got insulted by him calling me a schoolkid. It also seemed like he was stalking me in my early days of editing Wikipedia. Being an administrator on Wikipedia does not make that user special. Volcanoguy 16:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Err... this is not about harassment or anyone being against you. It is about copyright violation - which you tacitly admit to with your recent removal of content from the Heart Peaks article. What you need to do now is to go through your other early contributions and either remove or repair and source any copyright violations that still remain. Vsmith (talk) 03:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Um, folks, one doesn't get banned because of extensive past copyvios ... in fact, if you're willing to help clean them up, the copyvio people will embrace you. On the other hand, they won't be happy if you don't tell them where they might have occurred, and help clean them up. Lots of editors have mistakes in their past. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I will remove copyvios if I find any. Either way I am still willing to "backup" my end whatever else Seattle Skier comes up with about me - always something like every year whether it's about WP:V or WP:NOR. He also likes to disturb me with WP:UNDUE about the Cascades and other volcanological articles. Either way I am willing to just ignore him as I mainly work in certain areas of igneous petrology. Before I expanded the Canadian Cascade Arc article months ago he complained there was more information about the Canadian Cascades than the American Cascades because the Canadian portion is relatively minor and insignificant than the American portion. But guess what? I expanded the Canadian Cascades even further anyway. He should be happy to see that there is now even more information about the Canadian Cascades than the American Cascades.

Since Seattle Skier mentioned WP:V and WP:NOR, this user has not given any reliable sources for all the Cascade Arc volcanoes he added in Template:Cascade volcanoes, which would be OR? I have added the Franklin Glacier complex in this template a few times but this user keeps deleting it as he considers Franklin a minor volcano. According to the Geological Survey of Canada website, the Franklin complex is 20 km long and 6 km wide, which is quite large. I have also seen it described as a large volcano on a volcano map somewhere. Volcanoguy 12:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

VAN method

Hello again: You are right when you say there was a whole issue on VAN, and more. I'll take care of this. The main thing is how to find a balance between detail and not to give this too much exposure. I will have at least a dozen refs.MaxWyss (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)MaxWyss

Please remove semi-protection you placed on Alfred Russel Wallace

You semi-protected Alfred Russel Wallace because of an anonymous IP user who was editing against consensus. However the dispute on the talk page has seemed to calm down after a compromise edit was made. This article has traditionally not been semi-protected and I don't think there is any need for it to be semi-protected at this time. Thanks. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Vsmith (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Climate change

Why would User:Arthur Rubin write in Talk:Climate change User:Vsmith seems to agree with me, at least at Talk:Global warming. as you did not show interaction? Just curious, since I saw the edits to the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_change&diff=422134442&oldid=422094965 ... 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Mind reading perhaps? I would strongly suggest that you focus on content rather than contributors. Vsmith (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The cat's out of the bag perhaps? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

That is confusing, I thought there was a rule against Talk outside of wp-land ... No matter, just curious as to what you have hidden: I must have been attracted to the drama. Happy wp-ing. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

What cat? What rules? What's hidden? What drama? ... no clue. Vsmith (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Mieminger Chain

Hi Vsmith. Please could you cast your eye over the Geology section of this recently translated article to see if it makes sense. I am a translator, not a geologist, so would appreciate your expertise! Cheers. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Messed a bit with it - hopefully improved. Vsmith (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Birefringence Use in Art

With all due respect, your reversion of a brief discussion of the use of birefringence in visual art is uncalled for. The citations are not "unreliable" as you assert. A published book about the artist I cited, written by a respected museum curator was cited, as well as several museum exhibitions. Not all content in scientific oriented articles must be purely scientific. Nor is all references to an artist "promotional." As a patent attorney, I come upon many valid and important uses for relatively esoteric technological or scientific concepts, some of which improve our human environment in ways only art or music can. I believe the sources I gave meet the requirement of being reliable. So, I ask you to revisit your reversion. As for your suggestion that I write a separate article about this artist: perhaps I will when I have some time. But, pray tell, how does putting the very same information in a separate article make it any more "reliable"? Nvpatentlawyer (talk)

Mineral CSA

I am an employee of Harsco Minerals, the producer of the product Mineral CSA which page you flagged as a "Conflict of Interest." I created the page for Mineral CSA simply for informational purposes, and am not intending it as a promotion for the product. I must admit, I was not fully aware of all Conflict of Interest policies and found the “frequently asked questions for organizations” very helpful. Thank you for directing me to that.

On that note, I am wondering if there is anything that can be done to the Mineral CSA page to make it acceptable. Perhaps if all mention of the product and company were to be removed and the tone of the article were to be more straight forward and factual, the article could simply become an information page for the use of calcium silicate in the remediation of acid mine drainage? Also, you removed all information I posted on the acid mine drainage, revegetation, calcium silicate, and mine reclamation pages. I understand how that information could have been taken as “promotion” but it was not intended in that way. Calcium silicate feedstock is a viable option for acid mine drainage remediation and I especially feel it should be included on the acid mine drainage page under treatment methods (I do, however, understand the reasoning for leaving out the product/company name). How would you suggest I go about getting this information included on the page? The same goes for the calcium silicate page. I feel this is important information to be included.

I appreciate any help/suggestions you can give me about this. I am a new user and I do wish to follow all Wikipedia “best practices.” Harscominerals (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As Mineral CSA seems to be a brand name for calcium silicate, the article needs to be redirected to calcium silicate and any pertinent non-promotional info added to that article. Some of the info in the article may be added to other articles (the ones I deleted your additions from) without the promotional slant. If that is not acceptable to you - the article should be simply deleted. I would strongly suggest, if you intend to stay around to help us build the encyclopedia (and I hope you do), that you request a change of username and avoid WP:COI problems in the future. Vsmith (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Vsmith. I am requesting a change of username and plan to take careful steps in the future to avoid WP:COI. I appreciate your help and understanding. Harscominerals (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, again. This is Harscominerals. I've made quite a few changes to the page Mineral CSA. I'd hate to have it deleted, so I thought I would work on creating a factual, focused, and unbiased article about the product, and see if I could pull it off. Could you take a look at it and let me know what you think? Am I headed in the right direction? Do more changes need to be made? Thanks. Ritter17055 (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking much better now. Will take a closer look later - gotta get the kids from school now - grandpa's duties ... :) later, Vsmith (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, looked closer and commented on the talk page. I think you need to leave it for now and wait for further comments by others - the tags should attract some attention. I'd suggest moving on to other areas to get some editing experience and learn the ropes around here. Vsmith (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a thanks

Just a thanks for removing the "For a simpler description" addition to the polarization page lead. I should have removed it myself when I seen it, but I choked. I need to grow some.. Dave3457 (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Polarized Light in Art

Vsmith: Your perfunctory removal of a section dealing with the use of polarized light in art, like your reversion under "birefringence" is unacceptable. That material has been in its present form on nthat page for several years and has been reviewed and re-reviewed by many editors. Telling me that "if the artist is so prominent, write an article about her" implies that only prominent people can have any mention in Wikipedia. Moreover, as I said in regard to your reversion under "birefringence", writing a separate article does not make the sources that you question any more reliable. In fact, who the particular artist is is irrelevant. What she does is the reason the information was originally included. The material is based on reliable sources and the description of the use of polarized light to create figurative art is of great interest to artists, educators and art history researchers. Just because you are not interested on art does not give you license to violate the rules of this organization and deprive its users of valuable and reliable information. SInce you have given no reason for this removal, it is improper and, in my opinion, done in bad faith. Nvpatentlawyer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC).

Sorry 'bout that, but the info is rather undue weight in the science articles. Please read WP:Notability and if your artist passes, then first write the article about her and her works based on reliable references (note plural). Then, assuming the article is accepted, add references to the art technique in relevant art related articles. Then perhaps a brief note would be appropriate in the various science articles with valid references indicating the notability of the techniques specifically to the science topic. If you do it that way, or something akin to that, then the additions to the science pages would likely not trip the "promotional reflex". And please WP:AGF and avoid the negative comments. Vsmith (talk) 00:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Revert, not explained

On the page for comminution, a page noted to be a stub and in need of assistance, I'm wondering why you removed the reference to the medical definition of comminution which is not entirely compatible with the industrial definition? Without comment or notation on the talk page. If the reference was not adequate, would it not have been better to note that? Or maybe find a better one?

I have just started editing here and am genuinely curious. This subject matter is important in my field and very poorly written here. Getting reverted without explanation is . . . discouraging.

John G Eggert (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I've commented on talk:comminution. Sorry 'bout my unexplained revert last October, that was not adequate for the situation. Vsmith (talk) 11:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Took a look, the first question appeared repeated a half dozen times with different response sets - not impressed and couldn't see the remainder without committing time to first page ... so no thanks. Also, you say you are a Wikipedian - how many content edits have you made? What does "I am a Wikipedian" mean to you? Vsmith (talk) 02:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Geologist

You know, I do try to be nice. But when I get crap like this, I may as well be a cranky old curmudgeon! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Gotta ignore the crap, laugh at all the stupidity around us and charge on like good little curmudgeons. Else just wander off and join a commune and forget reality ... wait that was 60s-70s soulution. Vsmith (talk) 03:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC) ps: that extra u was a typo, but when I saw it in preview I liked it ... Vsmith (talk) 03:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Soulution fits with the 70's. My recollection of the 70's has something to do with awful disco music.  :( OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Awful? That sounds like revisionism to me. Everyone knows you had the white suit, and Travola actually stole the moves from you! :) Guettarda (talk) 04:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

"Awful" - whatever fills one with awe... I rather ignored disco stuff, was more into Waylon & Willie. Was thinking more of Peter, Paul & Mary. Mid-sixties is a cultural blank as I was involved in a mind-altering commune then. Vsmith (talk) 13:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering whether you were talking about your own experiences when you mentioned the "60s-70s soulution". That does put a rather different spin on your advice to OM... Guettarda (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Subduction

Thanks once again for cleaning up my messes for me, often before I even realize that I made them. Failed to "preview" and realize what I was doing, and since I was editing in multiple windows at once, I didn't post-view until you'd already taken care of everything. Thank you! Awickert (talk) 03:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem ... was a bit concerned that I might have caused an edit conflict in case you were still at it. Applying the "fringe hat" to the talk page was quite overdue - well done. Vsmith (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I had almost entirely forgotten that exchange. I think I look stupid even arguing there :). But anyway, I like to hat things that aren't aimed at improving a page.

Hope things have been well with you; the list of things I wanted to do here built my drive enough to pop in and do some of it; I expect to lie low again for some time, but I hope to get to write more this summer. Awickert (talk) 05:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

User talk:MaxWyss

User:MaxWyss got problems with his or Wapmeer's (World Agency for Planetary Monitoring and Earthquake Risk Reduction) fair-use images. Can you help ? Possibly an hint or two ? I personally don't like this deletion policy. If I remember it right, Rio Grande rift got a similar problem some time ago. Zyzzy2 or Rasterraster edited by Wikipedia, uploaded an image from their educational body, and Commons paste a deletion note and they don't watch their talk pages or don't have time or don't know what to do. At the same time the Foudation wants that experts review some articles. These kind of stuff puts me down. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Granite emplacement

Not aware of any papers on the form of the Bathurst Granite . . . I have used published 250,000 map sheets to compare plan views of the outcrop with Flinders Ranges diapirs. I fully acknowledge prior work on dyke mechanisms for granites etc, but my purpose was to emphasise(some)granite emplacement as permitted intrusions in planes parallel to principal stress directions, under thick overburden, so pull-apart is normal to S1, and to emphasise that the host rocks were brittle (or semi-plastic). These are complex fat dykes, not like Gulf Coast salt domes.203.3.232.28 (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Your "complex fat dykes" are interesting, but without some published reference I don't see what we can do with those observations in the granite article. See WP:RS for Wikipedias policy on sourcing for article content. Vsmith (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Cosmology and Physical cosmology

Hi Vsmith. The same IP who was spamming Cosmology has also popped up at Physical cosmology with the same link. Just FYI if you want to keep an eye on it. Bm gub2 (formerly User:Bm_gub) 03:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Physical cosmology wasn't on my watchlist ... is now, thanks. Vsmith (talk) 03:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Flourmill Cone

Hey. I was thinking to rename the Flourmill Cone article to Flourmill Volcanoes but I can't because it redirects to the Flourmill Cone article, which it probably shouldn't have in the first place because Flourmill Cone is only one of the Flourmill Volcanoes. Can you help with this issue? I was going to move Flourmill Cone to Flourmill Volcanoes insted of creating a new page because the Flourmill Cone one is at least a year older than the redirect and there is no good reason for there to be two different pages for each cone associated with the Flourmill Volcanoes because they are just small cinder cones with little information. It would also displace the article history. Volcanoguy 09:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Done, I'll leave the post move clean-up to you, doesn't look like it will need much. Vsmith (talk) 11:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. I have also added the names of the two cones. Volcanoguy 13:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Physical Cosmology

Hi. You are ad hoc saying an IP address from University here is spamming a solution of Einstein General Relativity bookmarked within Nature Network Connotea? First of all, you should show some respect to the Scientists over here, alumni and to the Science, as well to the network from which the link was found and to the Journal within which the source was obtained. Are you a Physicist? Do you know the relevance of this source? You are accusing me, hence the University of spam. Do you know, Vsmith, the lawfull obligations you have concerning your accusation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.162.246.170 (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Legal threats are a no go on Wikipedia !!! Cool down, please... --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia policy is being violated? (150.162.246.170 (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources & Wikipedia:No legal threats --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The source seems very reliable, since the Nature Network shares it. Furthermore, the source is stored within an american university, University of New Mexico. Legal threat? I asked Mr/Mrs Vsmith, just it. The Physical Cosmology edition I performed did not violate anything, I strongly guess. 150.162.246.170 (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

"Connotea", the site linked to, is not a journal or a news web page or any such thing. It's an open-access link-sharing site where anyone can upload and share references. It is an unacceptable source under WP:SPS no matter whose servers it is on. Bm gub2 (formerly User:Bm_gub) 15:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Chris & Bm gub2 for replying here, my internet crashed for a bit. The anon needs to log in to their account to discuss. I don't care to talk to a number. Vsmith (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Vsmith scribed... So, why do you permit content from numbers? I am really convinced there are a lot of contradictions here. Have a nice day! 150.162.246.170 (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Quod erat demonstrandum. 150.162.246.170 (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does permit editing from anyone. In many cases this is good, as it lowers the bar for new users to decide to contribute. However, Wikipedia's conflict resolution rules all involve discussion, and it's hard to discuss with an IP address (which may change at any time). For example, which of these are your edits, and which are someone else's? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/150.162.246.170 , or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/150.162.246.201 , or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/150.162.246.64, or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/189.101.214.80 or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/177.24.195.178 ? There is also a reason YOU may want to create an account. Your IP address makes it obvious that you are, yourself, logged in from UFSC.br and violating Wikipedia policy on conflict of interest or meatpuppetry. Bm gub2 (formerly User:Bm_gub) 18:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sir administrator, regarding the source generated all this stress, I woul like to show another source:

http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=abstract&id=750839&recNo=15&toc=1&uiLanguage=en http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=openurl&genre=journal&issn=15555534&volume=2&issue=&date=2011&uiLanguage=en

but you insist the source is not reliable, even within the Nature network bookmark (Bm_gub2 seems to insist we are bad people, bandits of science trying to promote...). Think about of this alternative side: We are trying to contribute to the human knowledge, trying to show an important work to Wikipedia readers. What is wrong with that? Asnwering to Bm gub2, this source cannot be inserted by someone. The paper is published and continuously growing regarding references. We do not want promote a person, but an important scientific work. Please, think if you are not being unfair regarding reliability, continuously deleting the content proposal. Best regards from here to all of you valuable people. 150.162.246.113 (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

"we..." seems obvious block evasion, blocked this ip also. Vsmith (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to inform you, the author has alumni. Is it wrong? Classes in Theoretical Physics and Electromagnetic Theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.162.246.167 (talk) 00:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry - meatpuppetry ... semi for a bit rather than even thinking rangeblock. Go do something constructive. Vsmith (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

YGM

 Chzz  ►  20:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Read and thanks. Vsmith (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Zirconia dioxide edits

Thank you for educating about posting links and articles! Makes me a better contributor. Thank you again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Singforlife (talk • contribs) 05:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Ozone Hole Recovery Research

thanks for the correction, is taken and effected, something else not with the link is being posted since the page is already index on google after a few hours online.

the research has been seen by some space agencies and have been applauded so it something workable and need further review, not for fame for me but for solution to a better world.

<self-promo stuff removed>

Regards

Stephen Twitter: @davrq Stephaz (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

So your "solution" is just to re-add the info without your website - please read WP:OR as well as WP:COI carefully. I've also removed your self-promotion attempt above. Vsmith (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Vsmith what do you advise I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephaz (talk • contribs) 12:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Read the relevant Wikipedia policies and don't promote your own stuff. Vsmith (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Roy Spencer's comment on Climatology and the IPCC

Was your problem that Roy Spencer is just "one guy" or that he self-published the comment?

• All blogging mediums are equal — If an individual meets the criteria, the site or method from by which they choose to blog should not matter. Bill Gates' opinion on Linux would be equally valuable whether he posted it blog style to a part of the Microsoft website or whether he made it known he had a livejournal and posted the same thing there (see: Wikipedia:Citing self-published blogs)

Not sure why you reverted my edit. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Both, but mainly the self-pub'd bit. However, if he's the only qualified scientist making that criticism then it's rather undue wt. Vsmith (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Addenda: especially for a section on the general climatology article. Spencer's comments might be more applicable to an article more focused on those he's attacking (and he is making some serious allegations there). Vsmith (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This is Roy Spencer the creationist, right? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you telepathic Boris? Was just thinking 'bout seeking your wisdom here :) And yeah that Spencer ... but there are others of like delusion about... Seriously, have his his allegations been challenged - or just ignored? Vsmith (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC) And that does throw a new light on my use of "qualified" above :) Vsmith (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Does this mean you feel that Roy Spencer's remarks are representative of the views of other IPCC critics? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

No. Don't really know the views of other IPCC critics, who are they? (The notable and qualified ones that is) Vsmith (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Jack Green

Dear Vsmith -- Thanks so much for the pointers. It may take awhile, but do look for a Wikipedia page on Jack Green in the near future. Best WishesThe san gabriel mountains (talk) 03:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll be watching for it - he sounds like an interesting character and I think I recall hearing about him years ago in relation to the Apollo missions or something. Vsmith (talk) 03:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Microwave Engineering....

Hey Thanks a lot for assisting me with my article.. "Microwave Engineering".. I had written an article about Microwave Engineering with the contents like measurement of frequency power, impedance etc of microwaves as i couldnt find it in the Microwave article..But as soon as i had finished it and saved the page my article was removed and a link to another Micriwave article was shown there...So i thought that my article must have been covered already.So i went to the Microwave article itself and added a few of the missing content there.. But now again.. that content has been removed. Avionix1 (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Anything to stop User:Arthur Rubin from deleting other's User Talk?

Anything to stop User:Arthur Rubin from deleting other's User Talk? User:Arthur Rubin (wp:Arthur Rubin) continues to hide other's Talk, this time on User Talk:Zodon ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zodon&diff=429845197&oldid=429841834) ... on March 30th 2011 it was User talk:Granitethighs ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Granitethighs&diff=prev&oldid=421531277 ) and User talk:OhanaUnited ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OhanaUnited&diff=421531280&oldid=421528249 ) 99.181.128.158 (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:Canvas. Vsmith (talk) 10:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Mind-reading perhaps, as in User_talk:Vsmith#Talk:Climate_change? 99.190.85.26 (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Not Spam

I am sorry that with this edit you removed links to panoramic maps identifying the contents of the view from the summit of Pikes Peak. I am sorry about your reference to these as "spam". I realise that they are on my site and it would therefore breach etiquette for me to restore them, but these and similar links have been on Wikipedia for a long time, provide interesting information about the view, and and have no commercial content whatsoever. Viewfinder (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that your site got axed in that spam chop, but spam just kinda grows... and one weeding doesn't keep the garden clean for long. You are correct in one sense -- we don't promote our own stuff here. Vsmith (talk) 11:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

When these panorama links were first posted - by another Wikipedian without my knowledge, they were deleted as spam, but following a discussion at User_talk:Gillean666#Spam_reverting, I admit that I reinstated some of them myself. Since then they have been stable for more than five years and are therefore not generally considered to be spam by Wikipedians with a specific interest in mountains, and have become accepted on many mountain pages, especially in the UK. Please Vsmith: a link to information about what can be seen from a the summit of a mountain, on a page about that mounatin, is not spam. Of course, if better panoramic maps become available from another source, then links to that source should replace links to my site. Viewfinder (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:COI, quite simply - we don't promote our own stuff on Wikipedia. Your persistence here raises concerns, perhaps the website needs to be added to the WP:blacklist. Vsmith (talk) 02:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry to have antagonised you. As a passionate supporter of the Wikimedia foundation, I would be very upset if any part of it were to blacklist my site. Whether or not the panorama links benefit me or my site is irrelevant; the issue is whether or not they improve Wikipedia. As far as I was aware, there was consensus in support of them, but as they are quite numerous, they should probably be reviewed, and, if appropriate, deleted. Would you agree that the right place to do this would be at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mountains? I do not think WP:COI prohibits me from contributing to the defence of these links in such a discussion, provided that I declare my interest. Viewfinder (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Project talk sounds like a good place to discuss. Vsmith (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Just curious why you considered the external link I added to the Pikes Peak page spam

Vsmith,

I am wondering why you removed the link that I added to the Pikes Peak page with the 'chop spam' action?

Did you visit the link? Incredible pictures of Pikes Peak - taken once a day for nearly a year. A very interesting project. I do not know the gentleman who is doing this project, but he does live nearby. His story has been reported on all of the local news outlets. I heard about his effort and photos from a friend.

Before I added it, I visited the other external links to see what type of content was already there. I also looked at the Wikipedia rules for this type of thing. I don't edit many pages. I think the last time I did was probably 4 or 5 years ago when I read a book that was about the explorer Von Humboldt and Gauss and I added a reference to this book on the Amie Bonpland page (who traveled with Von Humboldt and documented his discovery of flora and fauna along their way through South America).

Back to the Pikes Peak page. Once I looked at other items in the article, their references and external links, it sure seemed like this one was much more useful to readers than some of the other links, for example this one that is still on the page:

http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?874033

So, I'm just curious what criteria you used in making your judgment.

Best Regards, Rockstar not —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstar not (talk • contribs) 13:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The site seems to be a collection of images on a personal webpage and was removed as a general external links spam removal. As for the old fiction bit - didn't notice it then, but have cut it now as trivia. Vsmith (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The site is absolutely a collection of images, of Pikes Peak, taken by a single individual - one shot a day, every day, for an entire year. I believe that it is instructive to those wanting to know more about Pikes Peak's varied climate zones as well as 'personality' that those of us that live nearby have the pleasure of experiencing. I'm not sure that anyone else has ever attempted that before. Is that spam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstar not (talk • contribs) 04:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Ocean acidification

See my explanation and wp articles for Ocean acidification and "Inorganic carbon cycle" please. Avoid mind-reading before you understand the articles and my comments please, per User_talk:Vsmith#Talk:Climate_change. 99.181.134.22 (talk) 06:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Bull-crappin' & fartin' → organic C-C & C-H
• Bull-respiratin' → inorganic C-O
• Bull-thinkin' → ?? argh ... mo' caffeine required
• Cheers ... Vsmith (talk) 10:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Any comments on Chicago-related Talk:Effects of global warming?

Any comments on Chicago-related Talk:Effects of global warming, specifically ... Talk:Effects_of_global_warming#Add_Specific_Cities_subsection_example_Chicago.3B_with_New_York_Times_starter_info_.22A_City_Prepares_for_a_Warm_Long-Term_Forecast.22? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC) As related to Talk:Regional_effects_of_global_warming, specifically Talk:Regional_effects_of_global_warming#Add_Specific_Cities_subsection_example_Chicago.3B_with_New_York_Times_starter_info_.22A_City_Prepares_for_a_Warm_Long-Term_Forecast.22. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems I commented somewhere on that -- something 'bout empty sections... So, get yourself an account and add some content. No tea thanks, just strong coffee. Vsmith (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Deleted contribs

Sorry if I wasn't clear about what I wrote. Your reply,

Ed, if you're accusing me of some improper action, please provide a link so others can view the horrendous act. Otherwise it's simply a personal attack.

makes me think that I didn't make enough effort to get my point across. When I said

I'd like to know what the policy is, so that I don't waste people's time when I find an interesting quote - and someone like Vsmith immediately deletes it on the grounds that the author of the quote is too far removed from mainstream science, or something like that.

I meant just this: I don't want to waste people's time by putting in something which they have to take out again because (at least from their point of view) it violates policy.

I want to know what the policy is, so I don't take up the time of users (like yourself) whose contributions I respect tremendously.

I was expressing (if anything) my consternation at not knowing how (or where) to put in remarks from scientists and others who disagree with the mainstream. I meant no personal criticism of you at all, and I am frankly puzzled as to why you might regard my policy query as a personal attack.

Isn't someone like Vsmith immediately deletes it on the grounds that the author of the quote is too far removed from mainstream science a fair description of what happened about a week ago after I added a critical comment by Spencer at Climatology, and it was deleted by you with the edit comment one guys blog?

I don't have anything against you at all. I respect your work, I refuse to edit war with you, and I am seeking clarification on Wikipedia policy about adding ideas about controversial issues to article about those issues. That is all. It's not about you, and I have no objections to any of your edits, although I did write Stop ignoring the fact that I am focusing on the article, or I'll have to bring this matter to dispute resolution but as I should have said that meant content mediation - nothing about you personally.

Fair enough? --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I know what you were referring to - the discussion is still up above. However, when you make a vague reference on a policy talk page to me deleting something "immediately" with a clear implication that it was improper, but you still don't feel it necessary to provide the specific link for others to judge? That link would provide specific context for your question there rather than vague generalities. Either provide the link or redact the comment, thank you. Vsmith (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, my, that's not what I meant at all. *sigh* If only we were talking face to face, it would be easier to get my point across.

I meant only that I had an editorial objection to your immediate deletion, rather than a rules-based objection, let alone any hint of impropriety.

What I wanted to discuss was the grounds on which a quote could be inserted (or must be deleted), based on the author's proximity to or distance from mainstream science. Is my question getting clearer now? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... you created a new section "Issues concerning scientific integrity" in the general climatology article which consisted solely of a cherry-picked quote from the blog of a guy supporting your POV. The quote is harshly critical - basically accusing all climate scientists of misconduct. There was nothing more than a bare quote. Were you thinking "maybe nobody will notice"? or "throw this garp in and let someone else do the cleanup or add balance"? Why not just quote all of Merchants of Doubt instead as that covers the integrity business more completely. But then I don't suppose you've read that. Nah, too easy to do a copy/paste from some guys blog - no need for any work or thought.

Yeah, my mood is rather caustic -- what day is this? Sorry 'bout that ... Vsmith (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) I don't have a POV, in the sense of a "point of view which someone pushes to the detriment of an article's neutrality".

The author I quoted, however, does have a viewpoint, but it's not "cherry-picked". Quite a large number of scientists and others have expressed the idea that a group of people with an agenda and a POV have been cherry-picking the science of global warming and suppressing contrary findings. I didn't feel this quote was charging all climate scientists of misconduct, as Roy Spencer did not say that. Rather he said, "... most climate research now being funded is for the purpose of supporting the IPCC’s politics, not to find out how nature works." (emphasis added for WP discussion)

I'm not sure what garp is, but the reason I added Spencer's "harsh" criticism was for balance. His view is representative of several world-class climate scientists who feel that the IPCC (and government-funded research in general) has been much too one-sided.

Getting back to my original question, how close does Roy Spencer have to be to the climatology community, for his views to be important enough to insert into an article on climatology? --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course you don't have a POV -- and of course you haven't been pushing it for the past 6+ years 'round here. How many young Americans died to give us the freedom to make absurd statements and promote our POV? That's what day it is. Good day. Vsmith (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This Roy Spencer (scientist)? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Grammes

Re: this, grammes is pretty much normal in British English. DuncanHill (talk) 11:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

hmm ... mebe so, just seems rather archaic to me. Vsmith (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thiospinels

Hi Vsmith,

Any idea why e.g. Cadmoindite states 4/m -3 m as symmetry instead of 4/d? I thought all spinels were Fd3m not Fm3m,

Greetings Jcwf (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I suppose because it gives the apparent crystal symmetry rather than the actual space group. Confusing for a solid state chemist like me... That is kind of a general problem with these pages: there are two subsubsubdialects of the scientific language: the mineralogical one and the solid state science one. I find it hard to integrate the info. Somehow I do not think that we should play apartheid and have two separate pages like for CuS and covallite. The substance really does not know whether it as formed in the bowels of the earth rather than a lab. Ideas? Jcwf (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the different approaches and terminology used by different fields do get confusing. The mineralogy articles are written using mineralogy references and terminology, however I agree that a link to the chemistry/materials science article for the compound should be included if it exists. Does CdIn₂S₄ have an article? I've added the space group for cadmoindite by the way (I need to be more consistent with this). I started the thiospinel group stub after getting a redlink while editing one of the mineral articles. It likely needs more detail as to the structure and analogy with spinels - thanks for adding to it. Vsmith (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

PS: @Jcwf, as far as I know, mineralogy (IMA database) uses the actual space group and not the apparent space group. But, some minerals got the wrong space group in the past. MgIn₂S₄, CaIn₂S₄, HgIn₂S₄, MnIn₂S₄, CdIn₂S₄ (Cadmoindite) and FeIn₂S₄ (Indite) are still referenced as F d3m. American Mineralogist Crystal Structure Database: [35]; RRUFF Project: [36]; Webmineral: [37] [38]. The Jmol 3D applet doesn't help, I suppose.

Cadmoindite, Mindat.org: Crystal System - Isometric; Class (H-M) - m3m (4/m 3 2/m), Hexoctahedral; Space Group - Fd3m {F41/d 3 2/m}. Space group#Table of space groups in 3 dimensions: Hermann-Mauguin, Point group - m3m; Space groups (international short symbol), Pm3m, Pn3n, Pm3n, Pn3m, Fm3m, Fm3c, Fd3m, Fd3c, Im3m, Ia3d

There are 244 minerals from the H-M Class Isometric - Hexoctahedral (4/m 3 2/m) on Webmineral.com: [39], some of them are F d3m, some F m3m ... There is no 4/d Hermann-Maugin Symbol: [40] --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The full space group has -I believe- F 4₁/d 3 2/m. Reduced to the point group (which is the macroscopic symmetry of the crystal) that falls under m3m, but when distinguishing one solid phase from another the full symmetry of its structure is a much more precise descriptor. E.g. solid solutions are typically only possible between two end members that have the same space group. (unless there is a second order transition, but that is rare and also imposes restrictions of the two symmetries involved).

Jcwf (talk) 00:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

1rr violation onScientific opinion on climate change

I had a look at the place noted on the top of the talk page about 1rr and I was unable to find the sanction you talked about. Where is it listed please? Dmcq (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation - the warning shows up at the top of the page when you edit the article. Vsmith (talk) 12:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see it now. It would have been better near the summary as it would disappear almost immediately as I move down to the edit region. Thanks. Dmcq (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the notice is easily missed 'up there' - I've no intention of creating drama over this - just wanted to let you know, as others do enjoy drama :) Vsmith (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I'll raise something about it at the proposals page on the village pump because what I'd have done is press revert, so I wouldn't have seen that notice anyway. Dmcq (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Crick

Hi "Vsmith", this was a truly historic event: four future Nobel Prize winners meeting! It is only correctly recorded in Robert Olby's "Francis Crick: Hunter of Life's Secrets" (detailed reference to follow). Have you read it, and if so, what do you think of it? I was the U.K. researcher for the book and contacted Dunitz and Oughton to support this. I hope you agree it remains? Martin 213.120.97.230 (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No - haven't read it. Still seems rather trivia for Crick's bio. Do you have a WP:COI on this? Vsmith (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Vsmith, I can assure you it is not "rather trivia" as there so many different (incorrect) versions of this 1953 event, including unfortunately the subsequent CSHL Press biography of Sydney Brenner which got it badly wrong last year. Which would you prefer the 'reference' to Olby's book or the original e-mail from Jack Dunitz to me? The only thing I could not discover was the make and model of the car which made the journey from Oxford to Cambridge, it should have been an "Austin" of course as they were visiting the Austin Wing of the Cavendish Laboratory, but it was probably a Morris. How so many authors produced so many different versions of April 1953 is a source of amazement to me - but Errol Friedberg should have known better and had it all at his fingertips! 213.120.97.230 (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

An e-mail wouldn't satisfy WP:RS - so I presume the book should work. I see the same blurb concerning the "who was there.." trivia has been added to the other bios as well, do you plan on adding a reference for those as well? Don't see why you chose to add the make and model of the car... bit above, except p'raps as an example of utter trivia?? Vsmith (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Will add to them all 213.120.97.230 (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Mission accomplished Vsmith! Thanks for your co-operation which is much appreciated. Martin 2.27.125.148 (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

OK - I've fleshed 'em out a bit, added isbn, publisher, date. Vsmith (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks VSmith, Martin Packer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.97.230 (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a second time; "Orgel also later worked at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies" added to the Crick article only! Martin213.120.97.230 (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of including Beryl Oughton's middle initial (M.) as that was the name her papers were published under! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.97.230 (talk) 12:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Referring to your vigilant reverting of the juvenile vandalism on my "User" page: Thanks, mate! – IVAN3MAN (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for helping with lodestone. Vsmith (talk) 01:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Minerals

Hello. I made a sketch, a list of important minerals: User:Chris.urs-o/Sandbox#Important minerals. I want to use it as a section of minerals. Any additions? Actually, I don't know which minerals were known at the bronze age. I'll revise it later on. Cheers. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a good start, need to find some good refs - maybe a history of mining book? The cave paintings indicate use of ochers, iron and manganese oxides ... stone age? Also the use of native metals, esp gold, and various gemstones and mineral pigments.... Vsmith (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Oooh ... Thx, let's see that I can do ;) At least, I can qualify these minerals as of high importance. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Talk:Ozone layer formation

Talk:Ozone layer formation, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Ozone layer formation and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Ozone layer formation during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jimcham17 (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Precognition

Can you remove all the tags? I think I'd be in technical violation of 3RR if I did, though, to me, it's plainly vandalism. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Never mind.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the ip zapped it before I got the prot done and NW is faster than I am. Cheers. Vsmith (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

precognition prejudice

re the precognition page, you have chosen to protect the unfounded edits of Orange-maniac against credited edits, thus showing yourself to be only as hysterical and irrational as he - please be in future guided not so much by your cerebral shortcomings and reflex thoughts than by the cited and edified contributions of editors with WP readers truly in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.20.9.221 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 27 June 2011

Classic :) must be preserved for future generations ... unless the maniac objects. I should have pre-cognited this post :) Vsmith (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm offended. I pride myself on being the most irrational and hysterical editor on Wikipedia. I'm sorry Vsmith, but you aren't even close! Too funny. Cerebral shortcomings is now going to be in my vocabulary of insults. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)