User talk:Vsmith/archive1

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

Hello Vsmith/archive1 and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck!

HTML colors

I noticed your comment on ammonia. I had thought three-character color codes (#rgb) were accepted equally well as six-character codes (#rrggbb). Which version of which browser do you use? --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 03:15, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Opera 7.23 - I don't think three character codes are standard HTML. Not everyone uses IE or Netscape so it is best to stick with standards.

Vsmith 03:25, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

MoS violation

American spelling is the international standard according to whom? English, unlike other languages, has no central authority on proper usage. There are several organizations, such as IUPAC, the OED, and others that attempt to set rules but there is no reason we must follow them. Even many scientific periodicals and journals do not follow the convention you mention, much less encyclopedias. Most UK scientific journals still seem to use British spelling, as any database search will show. - SimonP 17:39, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

According to IUPAC and as my quote indicated according to Wikipedia policy. Standards are important for consistency and clarity. In science articles the standards should be used with notes for common names and spellings where needed. I'm not used to the standard for aluminium, and often forget in common usage, but I intend to use the standards and will support Darrien to standardize usage in Wikipedia science articles.

Vsmith 22:56, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikiproject rocks & minerals

I started this project shortly after I joined wikipedia (months ago), and soon discovered that decisions & discussions about what really belonged in the infobox & how to phrase things were way beyond my ancient & rudimentary experience. I haven't been involved in this project since then, and I have no idea whether anyone else has picked it up and started solidifying the standard infobox & terminology & applying it to articles. (I've abandoned rocks for the dog breeds project :-) .) I would be thrilled if someon else were to take the initiative on this project & work on establishing some suggested standards to help ensure consistency. It's always a challenging thing to do, but IMHO needs doing--in a cooperative and encouraging way, of course. Have fun, in between torturing high school students! And I'd be delighted to answer questions about what we've done in the dog project over time, too, as a parallel. Elf | Talk 16:06, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I noted that activity had been almost nil and was wondering. Don't know if I want to take over, but will work on it when I have time and maybe develop it more. Torturing teenagers keeps me occupied:) Don't know much about dogs though, just have one old mutt.
-Vsmith 01:08, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Those are usually the best kinds of dogs! Elf | Talk 03:55, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Thanks very much for your efforts on concentration. The article is much, much better for your input! -- FirstPrinciples 09:06, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks - there is more I plan to do, but now I have chemistry tests to grade. Gotta keep torturing them teenagers:) -Vsmith 16:18, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


So far, I like the direction your edits are taking; you are sharpening the viewpoint; if I might suggest an addition, at the epoch of the big bang at the instant of the first timestep, the physical constants may not have yet stabilized toward the current set we are enjoying now. What I am pointing out is that at the event of the big bang, in the infinity of cosmological decades (in the sense of 10^^-N years or seconds), just at the edge of the first Planck time, we could have been in a different version of the multiverse (one which would not have settled on our specific universe yet). Thus the current set of physical constants determined our version of the multiverse, our universe. I say timestep because before the first Planck timestep, we cannot really talk about the continuous variable time. My viewpoint is that we really cannot talk about t=0. Regards, Ancheta Wis 23:42, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Done. Plus a bit more. Time = 0 ...hmm. How about time < 0 from our universe perspective? Refers to the previous big crunch? I don't really want to think about that either. Implies time as independent of space or spacetime. I'm just rambling and its time to go to bed. -Vsmith 03:55, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Intrusive Rock

Hi there! I like the work you've done on the geology\minerals articles. I was hoping for a suggestion. There are lots of links to intrusive rock and I am wondering how to link this. Pluton links back to Batholith. I was thinking of an article like Intrusion (geology), where I could list Batholith, Laccolith, stock, sill etc. Then intrusive rock could link to there. But perhaps that's overkill? You know of any articles out there I'm overlooking that would make a good link? The geoogy catagories seem a bit juggled too; many articles are in several cats within cats. I want to move a lot of stuff under Earth Science category to Geology, But will fish around for comments first. Just looking for any suggestions; I love discussing geology. Thanks! --DanielCD 21:32, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Done. Link away & enjoy:-) Intrude away. I had been planning on making that a working link for a while now - you provided the spark. I did it off the top of my head so edit, correct and add to it. Now to make some redirects and/or modify those red links. I've been playing with the categories under geology - plan to make these a classification system of sorts, been working with mineral categories lately. Lots to do there. You've been doing some good work, keep at it. -Vsmith 23:53, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Archive 11

My apologies, both for apparently misplacing some of the discusion on chemical names when I archived and for not answering sooner. I thought I had, but I must have pressed the wrong button.

I agree that the discussion seems to have died out; that's why I archived it. I didn't follow along and so don't know how close you were to a consensus. If you were close, you might want to state your current proposal and see if there are any objections. If you're far from consensus, you might want to put it aside for the time being. If the discussion was somewhere in between, you might want to try a straw poll.

Good luck. I'm not sure how helpful this is. I've been on Wikipedia less than two months myself.

By the way, I worked for a year at a high school in Tempe, Arizona. Maurreen 06:48, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Hey, do you think this article is better under Stratum or Rock strata? I saw your comment, but I thought Stratum would work better. But now I'm not so sure; Rock strata seems more intelligible to the layman. Just letting you know I didn't just brush your suggestion aside. They can always be switched. --DanielCD 16:14, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fine either way. I initially preferred Rock strata, but stratum had more direct links to it. Doesn't make much difference to me. Thanks. -Vsmith 16:18, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the rock/mineral articles. I've moved several from the 1911 ency. and intend to work on updating/clarifying the info as I'm able. Some of the names may be outdated as well, so if you see any outdated stuff, zap it or LMK. Really appreciate the help! --DanielCD 14:59, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I rewrote a bit in alunite last night, I worked on a mountain of the stuff in Arizona back in the '70s. Also just changed a link in mafic to Silicate minerals which is my current mineral classification project. Plan to make pges for each mineral group (carbonates sufides etc.) and link them from a master Minerals list classified or something like that. You are welcome to take a look and fix any errors you find there. -Vsmith 16:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Geologic time

Hey, I am having a hard time finding any policy on capitalizing sub-words that go with geologic ages, such as "Late" Paleozoic and Permian "Period" (as opposed to late Paleozoic and Permain period). Outside info says to capitalize these, but I don't know what to do here. I would like to follow the standard and capitalize them. You have an opinion ? --DanielCD 19:44, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Capitalize 'em, at least the periods, eras, etc when used with the time. Not so sure about the late & early, may depend on context - I hadn't thought about that very much. Do it the way it seems right and don't fret, others may change - probably not worth an edit war - discuss it with 'em if they do. -Vsmith 00:42, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


I saw you are standardizing some mineral formulas. I've done quite a few lately, and may have left some messes because I need to research more and the 1911 formulas often translate badly. Geology could use some standardization in dates also. Someone commented in the talk at the Gondwana article that the dates didn't add up. Almost afraid to tackle that one because dates vary so much. Just letting you know; I'm working on it and always like to fish for comments/suggestions. Especially when I fins someone who appreciates rocks! --DanielCD 14:35, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is quite a job, the amphiboles and chlorites were a real mess. Some day I'll tackle the clays... I use the refs. listed at Silicate minerals, the websites are quite comprehensive - although they disagree on some formulas. Some of the 1911 names and data are quite dated. I haven't looked at the Gondwana dates closely. Think I'll let that one be for a while. Keep up the good work and enjoy {B-)} Vsmith 20:33, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:


Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

thanks for ...

... addition to "Niagara Falls". This is up as one of the Featured article candidates if you are interested in supporting (or ... gulp ... objecting to) it.Sfahey 18:54, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your vote. Did you think the geo. section was incomplete, or were there errors in it? I like to learn things from the (someimes arduous) process of getting an article through the FAC gauntlet. Also, I noticed you are/were a geologist, and presumably have done serious scientific writing. Do you see any problem in wikipedia asking "us" to agree to that public licensing agreement that "Ram-bot" just sent to frequent contributors? Sfahey 03:22, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You are welcome. It is a good article. The geo section was a bit incomplete and Pollinator did a pretty good job of filling it in. I'm still thinking about the escarpment and the dip of the strata toward the Appalachian basin to the south and the effect of that on the falls, but not sure of the local dip or how to include without getting too technical. Also the bit about the erosion of the underlying soft shale and its relation to the development of the falls is fuzzy.
I've added that dual licensing disclaimer to my user page - seems OK to me although I'm not totally clear about the details. -Vsmith 04:43, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

... and for your recent vigilance on "Niagara Falls". It's interesting how different folks pick up on different types of items, (usually) for the betterment of the whole enterprise. BTW, I just now noticed your reply (above) to my long-past query. D'ya know if the convention is to reply on this page, as you did, or to the originator's "mailbox"? You must have enjoyed a bump in classroom attentiveness since the tsunami.Sfahey 01:49, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks

See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Your reply to my comment was a personal insult, and did not address what I had to say. Guettarda 18:52, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I did address a part of your post. There was no insult intended, sorry if you took it that way. It was a comment on a common problem in academia along with an attempt at humor. Vsmith 21:22, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

'The Boomer Bible' vs. 'Boomer bible'

Dear Vsmith,

I only moved the contents for the enty, 'Boomer bible' to an appropriate entry title of, 'The Boomer Bible.' The book being described is, in fact, The Boomer Bible by R. F. Laird, (New York, NY: Workman Publishing, 1991) and I thought it would be appropriate to have it under the correct title.

There was a link that pointed people that had used 'Boomer bible' to the new destination of 'The Boomer Bible' for the convenience of other users.

Please reconsider your decision to undo my edits.

Thank you for your kind consideration.



Hi - you seem to have had a rough start :-)
The article Boomer bible was quite adequate as it was, and yes, it was about the R.F. Laird book - I just added bibliographic info to that page and deleted some redundant and commercial external links. If you felt that it was mis-named, the proper edit would have been a move rather than a copy and paste job which just made a near duplicate article and left the article history with the old one. A move moves the article and its history and talk page - important info that needs to go with an article. See the help pages for details.
I am in complete agreement with jpgordon and the others who have reverted your various promotional edits. Note: your efforts have been reported on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. Wikipedia is not for product or website promotion - proceed with caution - explore and learn the Wiki way. And, no I won't reconsider my decision. Vsmith 05:02, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(above copied from my talk BalowStar)
Dear Vsmith,

Thanks for taking the time to get me up to speed. I certainly intend no vandalism to your site. The edits made as to content and external links are certainly appropriate within your context and that is what jpgordon and I were discussing.

The only item I am asking you to re-consider is the title of the entry itself. You can see that the entry for 'Moby-Dick' is not 'Moby dick.' The entry for 'War and Peace' is not 'War and peace.' The entry for 'Charlotte's Web' is not 'Charlotte's web.' Nor do we find an entry for 'Brothers karamazov,' but, more appropriately, 'The Brothers Karamazov.' It just seems that the entry 'Boomer bible' should be 'The Boomer Bible,' as the actual title of the book -- a point made directly regarding the lesser known 'Moby-Dick' title format. Of course, with re-directs from the prior entry name.

Due to my inexperience here, I had made a new entry for 'The Boomer Bible' and incorrectly copied the entry from the adequate 'Boomer bible' entry. I now understand that this should have been a move to the newly titled entry to preserve the history from the original 'Boomer bible' entry. I apologize for violating the community's policies and spirit.

I will not proceed until you tell me that you think it is the appropriate action to take regarding the title of the entry for The Boomer Bible.

Kindest Regards,

BalowStar sounds well-intentioned, and he may have a point about moving this page.

Shall we list it on Wikipedia:Requested moves? Would that be the best way to proceed?

Jonathunder 19:02, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

Not sure about the intentions - there was quite a bit of promotional spamming involved by BalowStar And the email address is telling ( Hopefully a lesson was learned as a result of all the reverts. I became aware of it thru a suspicious link added to Albert Einstein.
Given that; I agree that the name should be either Boomer Bible or The Boomer Bible, I'd prefer the former. As those both exist with a bit of history I guess it will require an admin to accomplish the deed. Boomer Bible has essentially no content in its history, just botched redirects, could an admin simply delete that and move the article there? I don't know much about all this. -Vsmith 23:34, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I would only add for your consideration that the entry title for 'The Brothers Karamazov' is not 'Brothers Karamazov.' Thanks for your help. BalowStar 19:20, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Aerosol pic

(William M. Connolley 10:14, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Hi. You added a nice pic to the aerosol article, but... to me it doesn't necessarily look like pollution. It looks rather more like cloud from the mountains. Could you add a link back to the NASA source so I/we can check NASA's description? Thanks.

Done. Should have added the link last night. Vsmith 12:51, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 14:49, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Thanks. No question but you have labelled it correctly from the NASA description. I still feel ever-so-slightly dubious about NASAs description but they are probably right and are obviously more of an Authority than me.

slag / slut

I note you've moved the alternate definition of the former to the same page as the latter. As the definitions and applications thereof are, however, very different I believe it would be better to leave them in seperate locations (and expand the former), it also being bad practice to point from a term to different term in this way. Slag (slang) is now at slag --Vamp:Willow 10:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That works. I put the disamb. at the top, but didn't have enough info on the slang to create a decent stub, so included it with slut. Slag (slang) makes a neat phrase :-) Vsmith 14:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thanks re comment about quotation; looked in my own install of Opera (same version) and it was fine so I think it is probably an issue of what language / codepage you have set; the items after each entry are just using the charcodes for tick and cross. btw, although it seems odd, most people tend to put replies to comments back on the sender's page so that they see them (ie I wouldn't have looked for the response I see just above here so have only seen it by accident!) --Vamp:Willow 20:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Hey, could you peek at the liquefaction article and see my edits. I think I am getting in a beef with the creationists, though I don't want to (believe me, I stay away from the debate like the plague!). But I need an opinion. If I can't put scientific stuff on the Flood geology page, why should there be stuff like that on a science page? Maybe I'm getting Wikistress or something. But I don't think all fossils formed by sinking into the ground and I don't know of any published studies on this. I also removed a statement that claimed all strata were laid down at one time under water by precipitation. I don't want to offend anyone though; I just want to work on geology stuff. An opinion would be appreciated. --DanielCD 16:14, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi - I removed that section and it was promptly put back in. Seems Ungtss is intent on spreading the word. His earlier edits to the liquifaction page appear to be a stage setting to work in the flood stuff. I also checked his work on Wave loading and found the same stage setting ploy without references to support his verbosity. I have listed that page as needing attention and peer review as well as no sources cited. I'm with you on this, but these characters are stubborn :-) Vsmith 16:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sedimentary rocks

I am surprised to see that in your template of sedimentary rocks you go for "clastic" vs "precipitate". It seems to me that even when you add "biogenic or chemical" this falls a bit short for carbonates. What do you do with a cross bedded grainstone for example? I would like to suggest that carbonates be kept into a subcategory of their own. I realise this is a discussion that could go on for ever but I am not trying to pick a fight..this is just meant as a friendly point of view/suggestion. Carole a 13:24, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi, glad to have some input. I created those very preliminary templates a while back planning to get more organized with them - but have been off chasing other dreams for awhile. Maybe clastics, evaporites, and carbonates. With further subdiv. under each esp. the carbonates. And realizing that there is always going to be something that doesn't fit or fits in more than one category. Maybe this will spur me to get it more organized and move them from my personal workspace to the rock & mineral group page. Your suggestions are welcome and you can edit them, even tho they are currently in my user space. Vsmith 16:18, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh good, you didn't take it badly. The all thing about rock classification is that, you are right, it is never going to be perfect. Coal, for one will always mess you up and chalk is another killer if you get to the nitty gritty of it. I am not a regular wikipedian, so I don't want to promise too much, but I'll try to help with the rock project every now and then. I am out of country right now, away from my books and don't want to do too much stuff from the top of my head. I'll make sure that I take a couple of my favourite petrography texts next time I leave home. Carole a 04:48, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Water hardness

Hi there again. I just made an article at Water hardness and would like to invite you to proofread/comment, if you are interested. None of the other water articles seemed to cover it in any depth. Later --DanielCD 15:51, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Took a quick look, fixed a couple IUPAC spellings and made a couple of links. Overall looking good. I will be back for a longer look later. -Vsmith 18:08, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Actually, right after I wrote the article it was brought to my attention that there was already an article at Hard water (who would have thought to look for it there, duh!) That's why I like to categorize things so much: it makes it easier to find things so you can know if an article is already floating around out there. My pre-research wasn't as thorough as I thought, but I think the two articles create a really succesful merged one. --DanielCD 19:34, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Kare Fog

I just read that Kare Fog page. The thing makes me cringe with how much more it's concerned with demonizing Lomborg than with disputing his work. Perhaps there is a better page that could be found to represent scientific critique of Lomborg's work? I also stumbled across this analysis of the Fog criticisms [1], which you should read all the way through if you have not yet, since it seems to be written from a more clear perspective. Cortonin | Talk 07:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wave Loading

Hi again. You know, I've been looking at that wave loading article and it just doesn't seem to make sense. I've tried researching it, but nothing is really clear on what it is or what its connection to liquefation is. In short, I can't find any reference material to verify anything this article is saying. Is it simply sediment suspended in water? Is it wave pressure pounding on one side of a structure? I'm just a little puzzled and was hoping you could help me decide what this is. Know of any references that might help?

Thanks for your time. --DanielCD 14:56, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

From what I can tell, it means pressure that waves themselves exert on a floating vessel or pressure placed on submerged structures. I don't think the sediment in the water has anything to do with it. I would like some input on possibly removing the wave loading reference from the liquefaction article. Nothing I find says anything about sediment in the water affecting the pressure the waves exert. Sure it may affect a centimeter's depth of sediment in very shallow water, but that's like using lunar gravity to explain the water movement in my bathtub. --DanielCD 15:14, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I listed wave loading on physics pages that need attention because it isn't really on track with the engineering topics I get w/Google. The writer was trying to build support for a creation science page I think, so I doubt it is verifiable. But don't know much about it. Yes, I agree the wave loading ref has no or minimal application to the liquifaction article - take it out. The cuurent wave loading article could be listed for deletion, unless you feel like doing a total re-write. Vsmith 16:26, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I doubt I could find enough info for a rewrite without some major research. I'm gonna look some more before I post for delete though. I will remove it from the liquefaction page. Thanks again, your responses are always helpful. --DanielCD 17:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I did it, but as you might guess, Unguss quickly reverted it. Ho hum. Check out liq. talk page for some laughs. And someone else "clarified" the def of wave loading at that article. Sorry to be a pest. Just LMK if you want no part of this. --DanielCD 19:22, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Figured that might happen :-). Looks like Cortonin is watching my talk page, Hello Cortonin, as fast as he added that clarification. It is a thickening plot - hmmm... methinks it'll maybe help me figure out some other relationships :-) -Vsmith 19:52, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
All I want to know is how wave loading is so darn important to liquifaction. The effect is really minor and it makes the article confusing. Why stop in the midst of things and describing how water moves sediment. It's already pretty obvious that water moves sediment. And besides, I put a link in the 'see also' section. The explaination at the w. loading article itself should suffice for anyone who is interested. --DanielCD 20:14, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Guilty as charged.  :) I was watching for you to reply to the Kare Fog comment above. Regarding wave loading, it seems some of those examples might need touching up as well. Somehow Ungtss seems to think that all wave loading is about sediment (where the only places I've ever seen that mentioned is on and in the abstract for one paper I am unable to access the full text of). Storms can break pipes just from traditional wave loads of waves or wind crashing into them. Cortonin | Talk 23:14, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hi Cortonin - that was an interesting little bit :) I did take a preliminary look at that doc on Kare Fog, but haven't had time yet to degest it all - I get sidetracked easily (so many pies and too few fingers :). And, yes the wave loading page needs some serious work from an engineers viewpoint. - Vsmith 23:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Hi again. I just posted a new article at Archaeopteris, a fossil tree. Don't know how much into paleo you are, but it's more my specialty and I think you might find it interesting. I think its pretty good, but could use some peer review. Once again, thanks for your time. --DanielCD 21:12, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It looks great to me. But, I'm no paleontologist - just one course, Invert. Paleo., in college way back when. So - I'm not much help on this one. Vsmith 00:25, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alfred Wegener

Nice cleanup of Alfred Wegener. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 12:46, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:requests for comment/

Hi again, it seems this is not our first mutual run in with nonsense and idiocy on wikipedia. Why do we keep meeting this way? :o) I see you've recently voted in the RNA world vote [2] (thank you). However creationist nutter just won't stop, he is continuing his revert wars and has also now begun inserting copyvios etc. Your input on Wikipedia:requests for comment/ would be very greatly appreciated. Thanks.--Deglr6328 19:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Caribbean Plate and Kick-'em-Jenny

The changes you made are great. Glad I could find something new for you to learn. -- Gruepig 07:40, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Consensus Science

Originally had a long rant here, but I decided to spare you.

Yes, the Eugenics example was masterfully funny if nothing else. Wanna place a bet on how long the Creation example will stay if I put it back? --DanielCD 15:21, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I just re-inserted it ;-). Also note the discussion at the end of Talk:Scientific consensus. Our friend Ungtss just now discovered consensus science. Should be interesting to hear his reaction.;-) With him looking around there the half-life will be quite brief, I'll bet. -Vsmith 16:40, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at Talk:Deluge (mythology). I made a few small changes and it's sparked a storm of BS. If only they could take they highpowered, anal need to diagram every word of a person's reponse and turn it toward the creation articles. --DanielCD 19:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It irks me to no end to see these guys using "Flood geology" in articles like Deluge (mythology). It is not a legitimate field of study and I don't think it should be stated as such because the term makes it sound as if it's real geology. I took it out and put creation science in its place, but they changed it back. I'd like to remove it again, but I know these guys will have a fit. What do you think? --DanielCD 14:18, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Looks like Ungtss quit Wiki. I think I'm gonna lay off the debate stuff for a while. I am getting a little too nitpicky I think. I hate to see him leave, he was actually a really even-tempered debater. Never saw him rant like some of the others. Oh well. --DanielCD 17:10, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... he was a very persistent debator, but like you say rational (considering ;-). Sorry I hadn't responded earlier, been occupied with some climate article wrangles. Vsmith 17:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for your comment on my discussion page. Unfortunately I have very little time at the moment to get really involved into things. I just finished my comment for the ArbCom. Probably you know about that already, but nevertheless here is the link: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne. best regards -- mkrohn 02:14, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

3RR and 172

The block only prevents the "Save Page" function. Admins can still (un)block/protect/delete pages while they are blocked. Even the one-click page rollback function still works (and looks to other users like regular edits). Rollbacks of course are not permitted on the disputed page, but may be used during Recent Changes patrol against vandalism. I could live without these can-do-while-blocked features, but so far there were very little problems in that respect with admins. Hope this answers your questions. -- Chris 73 Talk 08:18, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)


Hey, at the agate article, there is this: "Mexican agate, showing only a single eye, has received the name of cyclops." This apparently came out of the 1911 encyclopedia. I typed in "mexican cyclops agate" in Yahoo, and it looks like this same reference is all over the web. I dunno about any "cyclops" agate; I know about Mexical crazy lace though. I'm trying to veryfy what this is, got any ideas? Do you know of any good resource that gives detail of agate formation?

Also, a picture popped into the fossil article captioned "fossil plants" that I think is a dendrite and not a fossil. Give it a peek if you get the chance. Thanks. --DanielCD 19:43, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Don't know anything about cyclops agate so I'm no help there. I see you have improved the agate article - good. As for the plant fossil, I agree that it appears to be a dendritic manganese mineral form rater than a plant. Maybe the one pictured about midway down this page? Surely there's a better plant fossil image available. Also looks like wiki could use an article on dendritic crystalization or minerals - from frost on a window, to Mn, Cu & Ag, and on to NASA micrograv experiments and metal crystallization. One more for my todo list. :-) Vsmith 03:15, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I didn't think to do it earlier, but I clicked on the Cyclops link and it goes to Cyclops (rock). Guess's the same stuff! Frankly, I think that article needs to be deleted because it's unverified and already at the Agate article. Interesting that someone saw the need for an article of its own though. --DanielCD 14:34, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I'll start Dendrite (rock) here in a bit, unless you have a better name. --DanielCD 16:56, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maybe dendrite (crystal) - thinking of the NASA stuff that fits and frost ... I added a source to cyclops. Found an interesting link for you, from RV Dietrich - enjoy. Vsmith 17:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dendrite (crystal) has been launched. No new info yet, just moved the old stuff over. --DanielCD 14:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Norman L. Bowen

Hi. If re-writing a copyvio, please use the temporary page as indicated in the copyvio text. Updating the original article text causes more work for administrators because the copyvio must still be deleted from the article's history. By using the Temp page for the re-write, the original article with the copyvio in it's history can be deleted and the Temp re-write can replace it. In that way, no copyvio in the history. It just makes life easier for admins if the copyvio process is followed as explained. Nothing really get messed up but the page history doesn't accurately reflect the article's edit history. That's why I copied it to the talk page before deleting it. RedWolf 04:09, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)


Hey, I added a pic to Hematite. I think I might need to crop it some though now that I see it on the page. Know anything about doing pics? I'm just venturing into the world of wikiimages. My first one was better, at Asaphus kowalewski. Also check out Schist. LMK what ya think. --DanielCD 13:26, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Looks good, I'd say crop it a bit and re-upload, don't know any way to crop a pic that's already there. Neat picture, are the yellow spots light reflection or something on the hematite? Vsmith 16:11, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The yellow spots are the reflection of the lighting lamp I was using. I don't know why it came out so blurry, it should be sharper. I may try to take another. I had better luck with the red backdrop and the trilobite. --DanielCD 19:32, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Solar greenhouse (technical)

Just working through the page history. It's hilarious. Will try and make some sense of what is really going on after class. Guettarda 17:24, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yea, you wouldn't think a lil' green shack for growing flowers would be so controversial. --DanielCD 14:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 12:18, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Faced with Cortonins intransigence, I've reverted back to my original version. I would rather have your compromise version and no edit war, though. But since C just seems to keep edging back to his version, I'm not sure what to do to keep the peace. Hope the arbcomm moves rapidly, perhaps (thanks for your comment there).

Vsmith, I have kept most of your version around, but have simply tried to make sure that the physics is correctly described within it. See the lengthy description under "Approaches to a question" on the talk page for an explanation of why this is necessary. Cortonin | Talk 19:22, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Sorry about Norite - thanks for fixing it. I was a bit afraid it was too much of a composite to be called a mineral, but I did not find it anywhere in Wikipedia and didn't know where to put it. I ran into the minerals list on "random" viewing. Pdn 16:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No problem. You provided the spark to get me to write a stub on norite that was on the backburner of my todo list. Now if I can get around to improving it - break out the books - as that was mostly an off the top of the head production. Someday... Cheers! Vsmith 17:11, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Hi, I've notived you seem to monitor similar pages to me (eg. geomorphology). Would you like to purposefully collaborate at fleshing some of the lesser entries out? Cheers, Daniel Collins 03:52, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Line Breaks

I was going to yell at you for reformatting my multiline paragraph into a single line paragraph. But having read Don't use line breaks I now understand it's more complicated than making editing easier. But, having said that: why do you collapse multi-line paragraphs into single-line paragraphs? Josh Parris 03:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... never gave it a thought, just seemed the thing to do while I was fixing other bits & pieces. Still don't see any need for single line breaks - makes comparing difficult to my eyes. Very seldom are line breaks needed or useful in my view - such that I didn't even think about it, just got rid of 'em, as they seem useless holdovers from somewhere? Guess maybe in a pre html world :-) On rare occaisions when I want a hard single line break for whatever reason, I use a BR tag.
which doesn't mess up the indent result like

this does... Vsmith 03:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The reason I started doing it is because I read somewhere that it makes doing diffs easier rather than harder. I don't know what the answer is, but until I went looking for the definitive answer I thought there was one (a definitive answer). Anyways, perhaps in the future we should treat them like farm gates - leave them the way we find them. That will minimize the diffs immediately after our edits.


Just wondering if you might not want to tone down your comments just a tad. I know I shouldn't talk (given our first conversation, and the fact that I went straight to Ed's talk page)...Ed appears to be a lost cause, his true colours have come out...but I suspect that other readers might give your comments more weight if they were just a little more measured. I think it's important to say what you said, I just feel like the tone was a little stronger than it had to be in a few places. Feel free to ignore this, btw - I don't actually know what I am talking about when it comes to the whole "people" question. Guettarda 00:30, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are probably right. Usually when I'm irritated I compose a "hot" response and then just delete rather than save - cool down time :-). Then usually never get back to any response. This time irritation won. Oh well, maybe Ed will get us both banned along with WMC. The people thing is one of my weak spots, probably should just stick with editing rock & mineral articles - less controversy there. But then taking Ed's line of thought - that's where I shouldn't edit because of my expert's bias (not that I'm an expert at all)... Best stop, I'm rambling again. -Vsmith 02:00, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Need to start making friends in the arbcom :) Anyway, I've been keeping bad company recently - I nominated a socialist for adminship ;) I ended up not heeding my own advice and laying it on some more in reply to Cortonin's comments - on the other hand, I found some common ground with Silverback (he seemed to think Ed went overboard too). It was actually a huge relief to see you and Silverback post - they could ban the lot of us, but I hope there are a few senior people who would stand up for us...maybe we could petition Anthere. Guettarda 02:29, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


(William M. Connolley 22:33, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Hi. I've just read the Horticern paper and commented on the solar greenhouse page. I don't think it supports C's POV, and I don't even think he has understood it. I am more than ever convinced that he is simply pushing his own personal research, probably out of a combination of dislike for anything I say combined with embarassment at being corrected by me right at the start of this. I doubt he will do anything other than post a lot more words there. On the assumption that he has nothing useful to say:

My proposal is: that the GHE page goes back to what it was before this: stating that the GHE is a misnomer, with a few refs (inc the Weart one, which I consider quite reliable). I'm asking you because the sub-page was your attempt at consensus. I think we can leave the sub-page for a while, unlinked from the GHE page. Will you support me in this?

To Cortonin: yes, I know you'll read this. Please don't place intrusive comments or I'll just take this discussion onto personal mail.

Yes, C's summary of the Horticern research basically indicates that they are working from the "given" of isolation from convection as do all the glazing researchers - ignoring the basic importance of convection blockage.
I would go with re-insertion of a much shortened "real greenhouse" section, seems reasonable sort of as a disclaimer about the name without much detail about greenhouses themselves. My attempt at defusing the situation sorta flopped :-) Hey, that's OK - I learned quite a bit in the process.
I think the technical page is worth keeping - if we can get the controversy out of it, maybe just a brief mention there of the global effect. There is lots of room for expansion about the agricultural usage and the high-tech glazings C is so fond of. The Solar greenhouse (technical) page should exist as a sub-page (sort of) for the greenhouse page and be independant of greenhouse effect (climate). Of course C probably won't agree with all this given his insistance on getting the physics right.
Vsmith 23:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 09:10, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)) The Great Revert War has restarted; do feel free to join in...

(William M. Connolley 09:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Thanks for your help. Sorry I was little use, my "24" hour ban seems to have been a bit extended, for obscure reasons.

(William M. Connolley 14:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Errm, but I think I ought to aplogise for reverting your version to mine. The reason was that it appeared to be so compromised as to be near meaningless.

No problem - we do need to find some way of finding some kind of compromise in hopes of ending this, I must admit to being pessimstic about that though, seems C has to have the last word; he's maybe even stubburner than someone else around here :-). I just re-did the spelling thingy. Let's see how C deals with it :-). Note, I'm watching the clock more carefuly now as C would probably like to slap a 3rr on me, too. I see atlast... woke up again for his weekly foray into nonsenseland on the RFA. Vsmith 16:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 18:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Yeeeesss... compromise is tricky though, this is not too dissimilar to flat-earthism or creationism. If we can agree, then C will have to compromise... or widen the war. Who knows, we can hope for sense. Meanwhile: ALA: yes indeed. I'm assuming his rants do "his side" more harm than good :-). There is a weather-vs-climate thingy somewhere on wiki, I know cos I wrote some of it, but *where* is it...


Don't worry about it. I'm glad you caught the vandalism I missed. Thanks for the note, though. Dave (talk)


Hey, is liquefaction the "process by which sediments are transformed into suspension by water pressure from beneath" ? There's a new article at liquify. I haven't been following the "Liq." articles, but a lot of moving going on. How does water pressure come from beneath and then suspend sediments in water above? It would have to be a spring or something, eh?, and as such, a very minor thing. --DanielCD 16:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I changed it a bit. I'm not so sure these articles needed to be split up. --DanielCD 16:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good change to liquify. It seems Ungt was rather obsessed with the flow from beneath idea - an important force in his creation geology nonsense to explain many rock features or some such. Ungt and a user Zeizmic are both creating pages on liquefaction and each claiming to own the issue of sorts. I helped Ungt fix a move mess he made in the process. Watching & waiting for more nonsense to surface :-) Vsmith 02:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There's also a bit of funnyness at Second law of thermodynamics. I kind of hastily reverted a paragraph there. Perhaps I need a cyberslap to remind me how much I hate getting into it with these guys. --DanielCD 15:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Evidence, not Talk

Looks like everyone forgot what page they were on. [3] (SEWilco 16:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC))

There's been quite a bit of that and yes I'm guilty too. Vsmith 16:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your crumpet

Your crumpet

For your tireless efforts to defend the integrity of the science articles on Wikipedia, I hereby award you this buttered crumpet.

Don't let it get stale, don't feet it to your students, and don't eat it all in one sitting. Otherwise, enjoy! --DanielCD 20:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Ah, I see. Well, if he does it a lot and is in the wrong, there will be plenty of other opportunities to block him, or whatever. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedia minerals

Thanks for tidying some of my new mineral articles including essexite. I'm no geologist; these come from the project to cover all the ground of Britannica (Wikipedia:2004_Encyclopedia_topics) and I realized some of these articles were low-hanging fruit. Er, rocks. Feel free to jump in and find other rocky red links on those 28 pages. I also created ferricrete, ferrierite, ferrohortonolite (so far). David Brooks 05:06, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


A new gem/mineral article that looks a little fishy (a copyvio?). Definitely needs some focusing/pruning. Just thought you might like to take a look as minerals seem to be your prime area. --DanielCD 04:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've been watching it develop. As the anon seems to have signed up now, I'll give him a chance to finish working. Don't have a copy of the book he's using, so am not sure about copyvio. It is heavy on superlatives - pushing a rare gemstone. Does need wikifying and perhaps reorganizing for consistency with other articles of the type. It has prompted me to think about a Humite group article or some such. Later though - it's finals time now, lots of grading to do :-) Vsmith 02:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your message! (I didn't have gemstone on my watchlist, for some odd reason.) I've done a major refactoring and expansion of the article, and included the infobox and three more references in the process. Most of the bare facts were correct, at least those pertaining to the actual mineral. However, the bulk of the article seemed to be tangential background information about the historical and geological history of the Pamir region, which IMO didn't belong in the article. I axed most of the text explaining the humite group; this could be moved into a new article on the subject, but I'm not prepared to do that if its copyright status is in question. Judging from the colour of the imaged stone, it would pass as climohumite; then again, it could easily be its cousin chondrodite (which is apparently better known for its garnet-like colour). It's certainly a very large specimen (I've got stone envy). Judging by the generic file name, it's likely this user's own digital image. I'll ask him to provide source and licensing information, of course. After that's established I'll probably crop and re-upload it to the Commons.

I regret that Arem's book is one of the few (English) gemmological texts I don't own. It isn't a recommended text, as it's a bit dated (I own only one gem reference book whose edition predates my birth, but it's an exceptional monograph on synthetics); however, if Arem goes into this much detail on clinohumite of all things, I think I better find myself a copy. You see, clinohumite is one of those ridiculously rare gemstones that isn't even included in the secondary (optional) British course syllabus. I have several thousand dollars' worth of reference books, and only one (Webster's Gems, the "gemmologist's bible") mentions clinohumite, in a rather terse single paragraph. Webster doesn't mention Youngman or van Dyk, nor does he corroborate their observations. A recent (2000) Journal of Gemmology article did establish that Pamir is not the sole source of gem-quality material, and I've included this (along with Webster and Mindat's entry) within the references.

User:Zotter's text does look like a copyvio, especially due to his/her mention of the USSR in present-tense. I don't know how I'll broach the subject of possible copyright violation, because I don't want to be accused of "biting the newcomer". Anyway, how does the article look now? :) -- Hadal 07:00, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I somehow missed both the creation of those impressive lists and the VfD listing of! It's great to see mindat's webmaster is now a Wikipedian (Jolyon actually answered one of my questions on the mindat message board recently, and followed up on another by rectifying the image issue at marcasite), and the species import scheme is commendable. (As someone noted on the VfD vote, it's too bad mindat's images are copyrighted.) I like the way each listing has links to mindat and webmineral, too. It seems I'm a bit late to the party (as it were), but seeing as we're both part of the same WikiProject, please let me know if there's anything I can help with.
Thanks for apprising me, and for all the work you've done on geology/mineralogy-related articles. I've felt much more confident in the veracity of these articles since you've arrived. Case in point, the thoughtful work and feedback you contributed to the FAs turquoise, ammolite, and diamond. I'm grateful. -- Hadal 09:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Serial comma

Hello. In the past, you've spoken in favor of the serial comma in the WP Manual of Style. Currently, two or three users have been taking out all guidance on that in favor of a statement that the MoS takes no position. They've said they reached a consensus on the talk page. Would you care to comment there? Jonathunder 22:06, 2005 May 9 (UTC)


Hi! Why you deleted discussion on diamond talk page? The talk is continued [here ]

p. s. thanks for correction of Udachnaya pipe. I Hope for successful cooperation. Stepanovas 03:13, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi - I didn't delete the discussion, simply moved it down to near the bottom of the page to be in chronological order as is standard for wiki talk page format [4]. Both I and Jolyonralph have been and continue digging into the issue. My further searching and thinking is now more in agreement with you as Mg-Cr-garnet would be more compatable with peridotite source conditions. Thanks for noting the error and bringing it to our attention. Note - moved comment to bottom in chron. order. Vsmith 11:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Hallow ! I understood later what happened :))
I am beginner in wiki and do not know the local rules.
You should remember that diamonds originate from two mantle rocks: eclogite and peridotite. Garnets from peridotites - purple and red, contain high Cr. Eclogitic garnets - orange and contain low Cr because eclogite is basalt metamorphosed under high pressure. Both this garnets types are contain high MgO and are ndicator mineral for kimberlites adn diamonds.
Stepanovas 07:46, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes - it takes a bit to learn the various ways things get done around here. I see User:Hadal has modified the diamond page to better show the various garnet indicators - seems my uvarovite info was in error. Hadal is a gemmologist and an admin around here, good person to go to for questions. Great editor and if you have questions or need help with editing just drop either of us a note. Vsmith 16:06, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with edites. Best wishes. Stepanovas 20:16, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Trilobote pic

HI there Vsmith. I put a new picture in at Trilobite and I was hoping I could get your opinion on it. Do you think it's too dark? I'm kind of scratching my head as to whether I should try to lighten it. It looks fine on my monitor, but on another I saw it was really dark. It's the Cyphaspis tafilalet pic. Perhaps some of the folks who frequent your talk page will take a peek too. --DanielCD 01:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The Skeptical Environmentalist

Hi Vsimth. You reverted my attempt to delete the quote in TSE and replace it by a summary. While I don't think my summary was the best ever, I do think that the TSE page is - in general - plagued by excessive quotes. I don't think that encyclopedic articles should contain that much quotes, esp. since they could easily be summarised. Would you mind joining the discussion I started on this topic on the TSE Talk page? Thanks! Luis rib 20:06, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: Theory

Thanks, I've put it on watch and will try to help. Joe D (t) 01:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

galena (mineral) / lead sulfide

That was the result of an database artefact from me trying to action the request on WP:RM to move Lead Sulfide to lead sulfide. I saw that the history of lead sulfide pretty much terminated when galena (mineral) was created, and that the two were essentially identical at that time - that is, apparently a cut and paste move some time last year.

To merge the page histories, I had to delete galena (mineral) so I could move lead sulfide on top and then undelete the historical edits for galena (mineral). Somewhat bizarrely, when you undelete, you can end up with an older edit later in the edit history than more recent edits, so I had to "revert" an edit from (IIRC) April 2005 to end up with the most recent version of the page from May 2005! Strange but true. Once "reverted", the database seems to catch up with itself, so it looks like I reverted an edit that was never there.

You may also have noticed that I screwed up in making the page move - I managed to send lead sulfide to "galena (mineral)" (note the spurious quotes) and had to play around with more moves and deletes to sort it out. Sigh. Perhaps I should leave this stuff to violetriga! -- ALoan (Talk) 00:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: That was fast!!

Hee. :) I just happened to see the article's creation on a random reload of Recentchages, and I thought it was the least I could do. I've been rather lazy lately in that I haven't written/expanded any articles since mid May, and no rock/mineral articles (save for diamond) since.. I don't remember. I'll try to remedy that once this sticky heat wave is over. (Promises, promises.) By the way, those were great edits to diamond! The section is much more precise now, and reads better too. I hope Stepanovas has been appeased. :) -- Hadal 04:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)