User talk:Vsmith/archive16

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

Contents

Thanks for your welcome message[edit]

Thank you for your welcome message and useful references for creating pages.
Best wishes for 2010
Anthea Strickja (talk) 09:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Review Geology of the Rocky Mountains?[edit]

Hi, Vsmith. If you have the time and inclination, could you review my recent changes to Geology of the Rocky Mountains? I've added new material that makes the article less US-centric, but I'd like to make sure that I have not introduced any errors. Thanks for any help you can give! —hike395 (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Took a quick look and fixed a couple minor bits. Looks good with plenty of room for expansion. May take a closer look later ... Vsmith (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Those two redlinks, Frontrangia and Uncompahgria do need bluing. More for my to-do list. Don't wait for me though ... go for it. :-) Vsmith (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the edits! Please feel free to expand... In a quick look around USGS, I could not find any specifics on Frontrangia and Uncompahgria, so I'll leave those articles for you. —hike395 (talk)
You got me thinking ... (dang-it) so I dug out my copy of King's Evolution of North America (revised ed. - but still kinda dated) and King does provide good info on Frontrangia and Uncompahgra (uses different names tho'). So I'm now armed with a good source for those -- and tons of good info for expanding the current article. See what you've done :-) When will I do it? good question, but maybe I need a good project to keep me outa the drama over climate change... Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Re Germanite[edit]

- I believe that Z should be 1 and not 2, given the formula as cited, which is Cu26Ge4Fe4S32.
Z=2 is appropriate for the formula which is given in some sources, Cu13Ge2Fe2S16.
Otherwise the density comes out wrong (Molar mass 3192.216g and a=10.586 angstroms gives D=4.4677 with Z=1).
- Yes/No? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strickja (talkcontribs) 05:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems we have a disagreement in sources - or maybe just an error. The Handbook of Mineralogy states Z=2 (that's what I was using), whereas Mindat states Z=1 which agrees with your calculations - I've chenged it to Z=1 and cited to Mindat. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for sorting things out with those ignota versus incognita pages. See my talkpage, for my request that you fix things properly (a request you suggested that I could make).

Regards,–¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 13:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: See this section I have just added at Talk:Australia.–¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 23:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Energy storage[edit]

Where is the line between a reliable source showing applications of a technology and a commercial link? If there is no bright line, should we offer readers the benefit of the doubt? I'm not saying you accused me of spamming, but if one of these storage systems has the potential to radically alter the economics of non-demand sources like wind and daytime-only solar, shouldn't we show all we can to readers? 99.55.163.191 (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read reliable sources. A company website which exists to promote its product or service is not a reliable source for anything except an article on said company. If that company's storage systems has the potential to radically alter the economics of non-demand sources like wind and daytime-only solar - then it will be covered in a secondary source. And that secondary source would likely be a reliable source (assuming it's not just a blog post or some such). So, the bright line you mention is that primary source bit. Vsmith (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand that a primary source like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnQSURnzPHQ might be controversial for the statistic that it works with 80% of HVACs, but isn't it a reliable source that the technology exists? They are only once-removed from their implementation, but aren't they twice-removed from applications in general? 99.55.163.191 (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you read WP:RS? Who said anything about youtube? It's even worse than some random blog. But, I'd suggest taking it up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard - if you feel I'm being too strict or mis-interpreting here. Vsmith (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you are being too strict, but only 40% more strict than I think you should be than would make sense to take it to RSN. 99.55.163.191 (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Now that I see you have also scrubbed mention of even more application examples from the more specific article thermal energy storage which I referenced in a question, I think you have been about four times more strict than would warrant review on RSN and I ask that you please reconsider so it need not be reviewed by third parties there. Did you know I just asked a reference desk question referring to that article? I feel very disadvantaged now by your removals, whether they were commercial or otherwise. It seems that you feel the transition from ordinary to good article can work with a lot less cruft than in my experience seems to be optimal. Sure it's cruft, but most of the cells in our bodies aren't us. Why should that be any different for an article maturing from start to good? 99.55.163.191 (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Four times ... by all means seek another opinion, that's why I suggested RSN. Don't quite know what the cruft stuff was about? Vsmith (talk) 03:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I intend to take your advice and look for secondary peer reviewed sources on the question first. 99.55.163.191 (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

[1] and [2] are both very interesting. 76.254.70.144 (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

As are [3] and [4]. 99.25.112.22 (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry[edit]

I am deeply sorry for the bad judgment i have used. I will try to stop my actions of trouble so i can bring more peace to you. This is a very powerful website and its a disgrace have done what i did. yours forever in bed,

scholar33 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholar33 (talkcontribs) 03:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, glad you recognize the problem. Will be watching for some constructive edits. Vsmith (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Well that was a brief career, indef'd already ... Vsmith (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Macromonkey[edit]

You blocked him last April, he says he'd like to reform now. How do you feel? Daniel Case (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering the blatant personal attacks, harassment and multiple sockpuppetry this user has been involved in, I am not inclined to unblock. However, if another admin decides to unblock I would not object. If done, mentorship would be advised along with perhaps a ban from the controversial topics that he seems unable to edit peacefully. Vsmith (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Antelope Canyon[edit]

Why did you delete my contributions on the 'Antelope Canyon' Page???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sneezypixie21 (talkcontribs) 01:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It was unsourced and quite simply trivia. Put it in the Britney Spears article if you have a source, it is irrelevant to the Antelope Canyon article. Vsmith (talk) 02:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: socks[edit]

Re, your message, as far as I am aware, and how I have read things, this is how the situation looked, and still looks, to me:

  1. New editor comes to article spamming.
  2. Said editor meets opposition
  3. Realizing they are not going to win, the editor attempts to appear as someone else, signing their signature as if they are someone else.
  4. Realizing that such attempts wouldn't work because of signbot.. or perhaps some other reason, the editor brings in a sock in order to try and appear in the majority
  5. Another user(me) sees a pattern, and files a SPI case. The editor and his sock are subsequently blocked indefinitely
  6. An IP, obviously the blocked editor, subsequently appears, even announcing they were the blocked editor and erases all mention of the master account and sections of other editor's posts mentioning the master account

Long story short, the editor attempted to get their way, and tried lying to do so. They were caught red-handed, and proceeded to lie some more after their master and sock accounts were blocked. I don't see how it could have been handled any other way.

As to the archiving of the discussion, I kind of forgot my specific label, so instead I added in a resolved tag and an archive box, on top of your hat.— dαlus Contribs 02:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it all went rather fast - two days from my welcome note to indef. with not much helpful advice or explanations along the way. So it be... moving on.
Anyway your resolved tag looks good to me. Vsmith (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Lawrence Solomon[edit]

Beat me to it on that PA - thanks :). As I stated over there, I am not sure that the BLP concerns raised are sufficient to invoke the policy, but I am open to the article being reverted to a different Wrong Version if you think they are. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 19:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Will take another look at the BLP stuff. I just logged CoM's block at the sanctions page, probably be some complaints about it. Vsmith (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Seems the current "wrong version" contains some questionable sources, that seems to be the focus of the edit warring, - but the content added doesn't look negative toward the subject - so don't see sufficient BLP concerns to do a "wrong version" switch. Vsmith (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I had concluded that you were not invoking the probation, as I do not see where they were notified of it or are otherwise obviously aware. Certainly it is unnecessary to do so in this case, though, so I suppose no harm done. I also did not invoke the probation in blocking GoRight, but it got logged there anyway; I am ambivalent about whether it should be, but I suppose since much of the disruption occurred in the topic area I can see the sense for historical reference.
That was pretty much how I saw it - thank you for the sanity check. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't "invoking the probation", just noted that the article was under probation after the fact - so tho't it best to log it there. Hopefully that won't confuse things - or result in wikilawering or some such by others (oh wait, that user is also currently blocked). Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Upon finally reading the log, I think your reasoning and explanation are solid - good work.
As an aside, I think this may be the first time I have actually talked to you despite what seems like years of seeing you around on various physics articles. So, hi. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, hi! I've seen that odd sig of yours around a bit and when you jumped into the probation game, I thought "Now it gets wild!" Just took a look at your user page and followed to the climate change recent changes page ... dang it - added a few more to my bloated watchlist. Charge on... Vsmith (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Copied in total from tariq's talk by tariq[edit]

== Unblock courtesy ==

The courtesy of a note on my talk would have been nice. Vsmith (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

As it happens I had come to your talk page to remind you that, as the article is under a probation that specifically focuses on the kind of WP:BATTLE issues in play here, much stricter standards apply, and you should not overturn such a block without first discussing it with the blocking admin. --Tasty monster 16:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, please, guys. I don't care if the article is under probation, a fact which was already noted on the talk page; the double-standard in speech was obvious. Three admins agreed that Vsmith's characterization of ChildofMidnight's comments were a gross exaggeration. What else needs to be said?
The start of this thread speaks volumes about the firm grip on power admins feel so privileged to hold. Am I really getting a complaint that I didn't notify someone on their talk page that his action was undone, even though the matter was thoroughly contested on a page that that someone no doubt was watching? If you were interested in what happened after your action, you would have followed the page (as it appeared you did, as you saw what happened less than half an hour after the fact). If you weren't, you would not have done so. Yes, it would have been a courtesy, much like saying "thank you" to someone who held a door for you is a courtesy. It'd be great if I did that, but don't chase after me if I forget/choose not to. You look silly. And, more importantly here, it looks like you're a bit offended that someone undid your action. I'm not interested.
And this thing about the remark? So what? You (Tony, you modification added after my response below, vs) know as well as I do that both you and I have said worse things on better days on articles with similar restrictions. It's human nature, and no one cares except the person who is unhappy they were called out and the people who just want to get the oppportunity to brush off their block buttons. I get it. We're admins, and ChildofMidnight is not. But I am not going to sit around while petty, albeit snarky, comments like that are punished -- and that's what it was, punishment. If you still have a problem with the way I handled the situation -- perhaps for not notifying X, Y, and Z, or because it was I, not someone more heavy-handed, who handled the unblock request -- please post in further detail in someplace I can blissfully ignore you. -- tariqabjotu 17:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

End of copy.
Nice. An admin who hasn't a clue what courtesy means. And no I don't believe I've said worse things on better days on articles with similar restrictions. If I have, please refresh my memory. And your comments above are quite incivil e.g.: ...and the people who just want to get the oppportunity to brush off their block buttons. And yes, you may blissfully ignore this. Vsmith (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Cave of the Crystals[edit]

Hey there, I met you a few moons ago and you seemed like a pretty nice guy. Yesterday my daughter told me about some...very huge crystals...and when I looked it up on wikipedia it 'bout blew my mind! I would like to expand the Cave of the Crystals wikipedia entry and would like a mentor. I am not a geologist, but usually have rocks in my pockets. I have added a "Discovery" section, and would like to do a "Geology" section next. As far as I have been able to find, there is very little information, so I'd like to stretch it out as much as possible, using basic crystal information. I'd also like to change the name of the article to the Spanish name. Can you help? Gandydancer (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The page is on my watchlist, so I had noted your edits. Don't know 'bout mentoring, but I'd be willing to check edits (before or after you make them live. Gotta be careful with the stretch it out part with an eye toward WP:SYN. Also note a couple of refs used are likely not reliable sources. Seems I chopped a bit of copyright vio stuff there last week. As to the name change - I'd suggest posting a note on talk and see if anyone objects. When I get a chance, I'll do some looking around for likely refs. Vsmith (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Quick search turned up an article from Geology: April 2007, v. 35; no. 4; p. 327–330; doi: 10.1130/G23393A.1; titled Formation of natural gypsum megacrystals in Naica, Mexico. Quite a bit of technical info and a ref list for more. I find it quite interesting as my thesis project way back when included anhydrite and gypsum veining of an ore deposit. One of the refs re: the mining district was by my thesis advisor, didn't know he was involved in that area. Also one of the refs included was to a 1927 article, The selenite caves of Naica, Mexico: American Mineralogist, v. 12, p. 252–256, so the deposit has been studied for quite awhile. So detailed technical stuff is available - just not as websites. I'm a member of GSA so have access to the Geology article if you want some mind numbing technical stuff. Vsmith (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest and information. As for the "stretching", I would like to briefly explain how the cavern may have been made and the crystals formed. Nothing technical. I'll read everything that the links provide and see what I can do. Most likely I will post it on the talk page for you to take a look at. Anything you come across would be great. Again, thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I thought you could help me if I put it on the talk page. Where is it now? Gandydancer (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Just left a note on your talk. User:Gandydancer/Naica. Vsmith (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, it will make it easy to work that way. About the questions, they were not to you, they were to myself, things to answer as I went along. Perhaps everything I write will not go in the article, however I DO LOVE GEOLOGY and I want to get as a complete picture for myself about just what went on all those years that those crystals were forming. On the other hand, I know that some people complain that something may be too indepth, but I don't look at it that way. I feel that if a person did not need to push their mind a little, that is not so good. Geology is a wonderful thing, it can give you x-ray vision and enable you to time-travel. Gandydancer (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'll put my comments/answers on the talk page there and leave the subpage as your time-travel experience :) Don't get lost in the Deep time. Vsmith (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Orogeny[edit]

Thanks for the help here and on Mountain building. Brews ohare (talk) 05:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome. Dang it, I was about to shut down a couple hours ago and get some sleep, then I saw your comments and work and ... wasn't planning on that, gotta sleep. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Density[edit]

Please take a second and follow the link to supermassive black holes. As you can see, it is well known and documented that the density of them can be similar to ear at sea level depending on size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikev (talkcontribs) 00:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"...can be similar...", methinks that is the key. Vsmith (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It can be more, it can be less. The formula is described in the link. It is simple multiplication. It can be similar, and it happens to be the same when the radius equal the solar system. Please calculate for yourself. It seems you fix abuses. I am puzzled why you want to erase this piece of interesting and well documented fact. I am not going to get into an editing war here. Anyway, I am an astronomer working on high energy physics, and in my field this stands up to peer review. Please leave the entry in, and if you disagree with the established radius, please provide your radius, and supporting documentation.Erikev (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

To be precise: The solar systems bowshock to interstellar wind is 200AU away, and the tail may extend 700EU. A black hole with radius 350EU will have a density of 1.2kg/m^3 and a mass of 18 billion suns. See black hole classification by mass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikev (talkcontribs) 04:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have read that article (Supermassive black hole). Seems the density is only discussed in the lede and is unsourced. A major problem (I assume it was a misstatement) was the Varies inversely with mass. bit, an obvious error. Now I'm not an astronomer (teaching it at the HS level does not make an expert :-) and I'm not going to base edits on my own calculations. I do know that density varies directly with mass. As this bit of info is unsourced and has been challenged, it would require a citation (and a bit of relevance) to be re-entered. Just because it may be "interesting" to some doesn't mean it belongs in the list. Yeah, the calculation would be an interesting exercise for astronomy students, but I'm not teaching now. What reliable source discusses the density of a supermassive black hole and the significance of the density of one with radius = radius of the Solar Syatem? Vsmith (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It is spelled out in multiple articles on Wikipedia, and I gave you the references. It should also be obvious from a concept as simple as Newtonian escape velocity (set Ve=c). OJ 287 happens to be 18 billion solar masses.

See also Monster Black Holes Soon to Collide

So now we have three separate Wikipedia articles as reference as well as Sky and telescope, as well as a simple high school do it yourself math. Did you even look at the references in the original edit before you deleted it? The reference was to Wikipedia own article with the formula in black and white. How much clearer can it be?

I copied the reference from black holes here so you dont have to click the link:

"Black holes are commonly classified according to their mass, independent of angular momentum . The size of a black hole, as determined by the radius of the event horizon, or Schwarzschild radius, is proportional to the mass through

where is the Schwarzschild radius and is the mass of the Sun. A black hole's size and mass are thus simply related."

I do not write this because I care about this edit. What I care about is the success of Wikipedia. You have 80000 edits. They day I stand corrected is the day I learn something new, but it takes character to accept one it wrong.Erikev (talk) 11:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Good morning, have you yet noted the error I mentioned above: Varies inversely with mass.?? And no, other Wikipedia articles are not references - read WP:RS. The Sky & Tele article doesn't mention density unless I've missed it (gotta get my first cup o caffeine finished). Don't rightly know what your character note is s'posed to be implying ... but I must have lots of it, been wrong quite a few times over the years and accepted lots of 'em. Vsmith (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The sky and telescope article gives m=18 billion suns and d=700 a.u. I quote: "Not to scale. In reality the large hole is 170 times the diameter of the small one, and even the large one (700 a.u. wide) is about the size of a pixel at the scale of their separation here."

and

"galaxy OJ 287 in Cancer is thought to have two supermassive black holes in its nucleus, one of them possibly the most massive such object known in the universe... 18 billion solar masses"

and Supermassive Black Holes where I quote "The average density of a supermassive black hole can be very low, and may actually be lower than the density of air. This is because the Schwarzschild radius is directly proportional to mass, while density is inversely proportional to the volume. Since the volume of a spherical object is directly proportional to the cube of the radius, and mass merely increases linearly, the volume increases at a greater rate than mass. Thus, average density decreases for increasingly larger radii of black holes."

It is about 223,000 articles found by google that includes "black hole" and "density less than air"

I will not discuss this further. Probably ten intelligent scientists would not be able to convince one ignorant person. Erikev (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA in regard to your last sentence above. And you are still ignoring my main objection: Density is not inversely proportional to mass. Why are you refusing to discuss or recognize that error? Vsmith (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
On a quick skim, I think that what Erikev was trying to say above is that:
Where is density, is mass, is Schwarzchild radius, and is volume.
Which actually puts it as proportional to the inverse square and not the inverse, so you've got me. In any case, to Erik: insults always reflect poorly on the giver, please be a gentleman. And if you would so kindly explain this business, or at least where I erred in my above assumptions, I at least would appreciate it. Awickert (talk) 07:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that. And I got that up above, basically my objection was the placing of density varies inversely with mass with no explanatory text in a basic list of densities. I was not successful in getting Erikev to see what I was objecting to. Seems he's left over it - which is too bad. Vsmith (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for telling you what you already knew :-). The placing-in-article-without-explanation thing is what I was going to get at if he replied. It is too bad if his behavior here was not characteristic of his behavior on Wikipedia. Ah, well, happy Friday! Awickert (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Collapsing[edit]

We both know your POV when it comes to climate change, but if you are going to label my edits as "personal attacks" for referring to his off-wiki activities then collapse the entire conversation - not just the part you don't want other people to read. If someone is going to put out Connolley's "expertise" as an excuse to violate wikipedia policy then I'm going to correct the record on what his expertise actually is. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It was a personal attack - belittling a user's former career that way was uncalled for. Most users don't identify their background ... simply anonymity. So when a user does discuss his off-wiki work, it is not far game for belittling comments. That part was a personal attack and not simply correct the record... and I would suggest that you refactor. Vsmith (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I didn't belittle anyone's career. I stated that he was a climate modeller, a computer programer, not a climatologist. This is certainly relevant when people are putting out his real-world activities as an excuse to justify his incivility and BLP violations. Funny how I never see you correcting/"suggesting" sanctions when diff's of Connolley's BLP violations and incivility are presented - now why is that? TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Why did you remove this video?[edit]

It was a good interview. TheGoodLocust (talk) 09:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS - WP:ELNO Vsmith (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
When a youtube link is added with no edit summary I remove it. The site is rampant with copyvio/problematic stuff. Vsmith (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
That is the official AlJazeera English channel - there is no copy violation. Additionally, I could find nothing in ELNO that prohibits interviews, indeed, in the "rich media" section it lists an interview as an example. And Al Jazeera is a respected news source - it is obviously reliable and it is obviously Pachauri being interviewed. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What was the WP:BLP Consern?[edit]

You deleted Pachaurigate. A term with a WP:RS sourced (see [5]) article After Climategate, Pachaurigate and Glaciergate: Amazongate connected to it. It was created to help people reading this (millions reader of this blog, and other pieces) to get to the right article at Wikipedia. Can you please specify where the WP:BLP is broken? Nsaa (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's see... A blogger invents a derogatory word using a living person's name. OK, bloggers probably blather on that way a lot. Then you decide this catchy non-notable word invention should be on Wikipedia. And you make it a re-direct to that living person's wiki-biography, and you don't see the problem? Please read WP:BLP. We don't need to make derogatory comments about living people or use derogatory terms used by some blogger. Using that word as a redirect to anywhere is a BLP problem, using it as a redirect to the living person's biography is absurdly obvious as a BLP vio. Vsmith (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Can you please raise it at WP:BLP/N as appropriate. We strongly disagree. Nsaa (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
You are quite welcome to take it there if you feel it necessary. Vsmith (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Finding vandalism[edit]

Hi Vsmith.
I looked at your contributions, and I saw that you have pages and pages of reverting vandalism, mostly to science-related articles. S I was wondering: do you have any automated tools to help you find and revert vandalism? Thanks. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing automated. I've got a rather large watchlist (13K+) and I scan my watchlist for recent changes a couple times a day - check most anon and new account edits and zap when needed. Vsmith (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
How many pages do you have on your watchlist? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Currently 13,112 - mostly science related. Need to go through and weed out some stuff, dormant user talk pages etc. A lot of them are seldom edited, obscure mineral pages and such. I basically ignore pop culture topics - unless I catch vandalism while checking other edits by vandals. Usually check other edits by ips I revert - leads to more vandalism to zap. Vsmith (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Orogeny and Mountain building: generally accepted geology?[edit]

Hi, Vsmith. User:Brews ohare has drawn a distinction between orogeny and mountain building, and has a set of references to back this distinction up. This seems odd to me, and conflicts with what I know, but I am not a professional geologist. Is this distinction generally accepted, or is it a minority view? If the latter, should we open a discussion? Thanks for your advice! —hike395 (talk) 07:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there seems to be a potential problem. I've cautioned him on one reference and he seems to be relying on geomorphologists works that may not fully represent current thinking in structural geology and tectonics. Kinda reminiscent of the conflicts back in 1968 when I first "got involved" in geology. Watching, and I am not a professional geologist now either. Vsmith (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing my little blurburs today. I've been editing in little gaps of free time, and as a result, not being as cautious as I should be. Thank you! Awickert (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
No problem. Glad to see you tackling the job :-) I discovered the Epeirogenic movement page while trying to link epeirogenesis (real spelling challenge there, just don't look right). And now I see Brews has now found it also ... my link got results, it was in need of work. Gotta look at it again now. While I hesitate & waffle others charge in. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Trust me, I've been squinting at the spelling every time I write it. Glad Brews found that page; he has a lot of drive! I'll do my best, but I really should get back to helping Black Tusk with his FAC... or doing my real work! Awickert (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

An old friend[edit]

Re[6], Mr. 70.6. is Scibaby, as is User:Jeff K. Halle (CU evidence "likely", behavioral evidence "sigh, not again"). Can you do that adminly thing all over them? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup, how 'bout Kornwallis? Vsmith (talk) 13:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Magic 8 Ball sez "Most likely" Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Missouri[edit]

Flag of Missouri.svg

There hasn't been much activity at WikiProject Missouri or any of its child projects lately, and I saw your name on the list of active participants. If you are willing to jump in again, please consider helping to revive the project:

If you know anyone who might be interested in Missouri (its history, culture, sports, people, places, architecture, etc.), please pass this message along to them! If you are still interested in the project but aren't currently active, please add yourself to the list of inactive participants at the bottom of this list. Thanks!

On behalf of the project,  fetchcomms 23:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Adenosine triphosphate[edit]

Is a typical student topic which is eternally IP vandalized by unhappy students. Would you consider sprotecting it and give us all a rest? SBHarris 00:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I see only 6 anon edits in the last month plus the recent new user edits - the one you warned. Not really that serious a problem as long as several are watching the article. Yes, I would rather zero vandal edits ... or in other words, no ip edits allowed anywhere. But that isn't likely given the popularity of the "anyone can edit" mindset. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for the letter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebe123 (talkcontribs) 11:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Province of BC IP range[edit]

I noticed you blocked 142.23.73.8 for vandalism. That is an IP in a range owned by the Province of BC. From the juvenile style and some of the content of the vandalism I believe it's a school, perhaps Vernon Secondary School[7] in School District 22 Vernon (IP:143.23.74.7). I have seen many instances of vandalism from IPs in the range 142.23.73.1-13 over the last few months (the most recent was 142.23.73.13 today). There are a few constructive edits also. I do not know what the policy is or the procedure, if any, for reporting this. What I would like to do would be to tag the talk pages with the school name if we could find it out. Jojalozzo 01:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, most likely school ips - tag 'em if you can verify that. I blocked that one for a week - anonblock, but persistent vandalism from school ips usually get zapped for much longer. You might try e-mailing the contact person listed on the WHOIS report with a friendly request. Vsmith (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


Bias[edit]

click this please.....below.....and see on the bottom of that page what I said to this editor applies to you as well.   thank you.

click: User talk:LexCorp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetpoet (talkcontribs) 13:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Psychic[edit]

Oops, sorry, tried editing from a mobile device..... no idea what happened. Thanks for notifying me Macromonkey (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I figured some kind of glitch had occurred. Vsmith (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"Also note WP:AGF and comment on the issues - not on other editors." Excuse me but AGF applies to you guys as well. Connelly accused me of "anon whitwwashing" and you obviously haven't examined the material I removed from a BLP. Works both ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.50.156 (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit hacking incident[edit]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that you indefinitely protected the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. Instead of locking the entire article, why not simply warn or ban those editors who were doing the edit-warring? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Correction: protected for 3 days. Work it out. Vsmith (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I see that you changed the protection to 3 days. That's better, but it doesn't address my question. You say to "work it out" but I wasn't one of the editors who was engaging in edit-warring; I know better than that. Why not warn or ban the problem editors instead of blocking everyone? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Didn't change it, only protected once. Who are the "problem editors"? And I wasn't meaning to imply wrongdoing on your part - that "work it out" was a general admonition to everyone involved. Vsmith (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • It's interesting how these articles almost always get protected in the wrong version that favors those on one side of the discussion. Interesting, but not surprising. Scottaka UnitAnode 19:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, forgive me if I make any mistakes regarding the specifics of how edit-warring is defined, but I'll give you an honest effort.
As far I can see, Grundle2600 was the first editor to add this content to the article.[8] This edit is fine as we assume good faith.
Scjessey then reverted the edit.[9] This is fine, too, as again we assume good faith.
After this point, there should be no further reverts, correct? We're supposed to discuss this on the talk page until consensus has been reached. Any further reverts is edit-warring, correct?
Well, this content was reverted an additional 9 times:
  • Unitanode reverts.[10]
  • HaeB reverts.[11]
  • Grundle2600 reverts.[12]
  • Nsaa reverts.[13]
  • William M. Connolley reverts.[14]
  • Arzel reverts.[15]
  • Tony Sidaway reverts.[16]
  • Unitanode reverts.[17]
  • ChrisO reverts.[18]
As far I understand the situation, it appears that Unitanode, HaeB, Grundle2600, Nsaa, William M. Connolley, Arzel, Tony Sidaway, Unitanode and ChrisO all engaged in edit-warring. These editors are well aware that this article is on probation. They have no excuse as far as I can see. In fact, many have already been warned and sanctioned for previous violations on this vary same article. By placing the article on protection, you block everyone. Why not go after the editors who are actually causing the problem? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Or, better yet, why not "go after" the editors who have hunkered so far down in their bunkers that whatever is proposed that they think might benefit the "other side" is simply obstructed? I've rarely seen obstructionism on this level in my 3+ years on Wikipedia. Scottaka UnitAnode 19:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) to AQFK, So you're saying that I should have blocked 9 editors? (wait Unitanode's there twice...) Or maybe just those who reverted twice. Seemed simpler to lock it for a bit and let those 9 or so involved come to terms on talk. Such is the fun of it. Vsmith (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it - why are you two rather than jabbering here, go convince those other "hunkered down" folks of your enlightened ways. I don't even know specifically what the dispute was about. Vsmith (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

  • There won't be any coming to terms, as the goal of those who want it out is to simply obstruct any change they perceive as remotely damaging to their cause. As I said, the level of obstructionism from the pro-AGW side is the highest I've seen in my 3 years here. Scottaka UnitAnode 20:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Please take your rants elsewhere and attacks on other users are not welcome on my talk. Vsmith (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I'm saying that these 9 editors should be warned/blocked. Anyway, I'm sorry if you inadvertently got involved in a bad situation. I accept that you made a good faith attempt to address the problem. As far as I can tell, this problem has been going on for years, and no one seems to be doing anything about it. So as not to take up too much of your time (unless you want to), I've decided to take up my concern here.[19]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. That is a far better place for this discussion, and yes a warning for each would be a good idea. I just got back in from a couple hours in the woods with my chain saw cleaning up tornado damage -- exercise is always good for stress. Vsmith (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Sweetpoet[edit]

Hi Vsmith. I'm sorry to have to bother you with this, but my actions may have led (in part) to editor Sweetpoet getting blocked. I misunderstood what the editor was doing and reverted edits they were making at evolution (see also here). I still think that the edit they were trying to make is questionable, but I originally mistook it as creationism-smuggling and inaccurately described it as such. Anyway, I just wanted to make this clear since my actions seem to have precipitated an edit war that's left Sweetpoet 3RR blocked. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 15:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Per user unblock request and your comments I've unblocked and cautioned Sweetpoet recommending article talk page discussion of their concerns. It wasn't the clear open and shut case that I first thought. Vsmith (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Sweetpoet did still edit war and push themselves over 3RR, but they were in part prompted by my erroneous characterisation of their edits. Anyway, sorry for essentially starting this. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 16:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Biofuels move back[edit]

Thanks for performing the move which I was attempting (possibly concurrently), I'm sure my attempts were ham-fisted if not completely incorrect (beginner editor) but you seem to have done the job :) Jebus989 21:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem (I don't think :) Yes, Wiki rules and methods can be daunting even for those who've been here awhile. Vsmith (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Mariana Trench[edit]

Hello, I was wondering if you know if the proper name for the Mariana Trench is Mariana or Marianas? Why the two names? I found your name on the talk page. I'll wait for a reply here on your page as per your preference. Thanks, Malke2010 05:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

personally no preference. However Google scholar search returns more w/out the "s", 808 for "Marianas Trench" and 2390 for "Mariana Trench". Vsmith (talk) 13:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do you keep on insisting that the content I added to Junk Jewelry page is spam. I added the missing "junk jewelry" section, and explained what it was. For that I added a reference. What is "spammy" about adding good content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafiseddiqi (talkcontribs) 17:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

OK - I looked again and found your addition to be a blatant copyright violation of the blog entry you used as a reference. Removed again. Vsmith (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Protected[edit]

Excuse me, but how do you protect a article?Do you have to be a administrator? - Nascar1996 23:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, article protection requires an admin. You can request protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, just provide a good reason and follow the directions there. Vsmith (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help.[edit]

I appreciate the help you gave me!! I wrote the Rove region article and am in the process of writing articles based on the redlinks in Rove.

Rove region - Fetchcomms suggested I add hyperlinks to the lead section. I hadn't because I didn't want to "clutter" the lead section. I have noticed that most (if not all) articles do put hyperlinks in the lead, so thanks for taking care of that for me. (Preparing an article for peer review is a LOT more work than I thought it would be - it's a real learning experience. I'm learning from all the comments and edits; succeeding articles should be better!!) Yes, I can see where earthquake and tsunami should have pluralized.

Vaalbara - Rewording that second sentence makes it flow better AND it combines with the first paragraph, which I didn't think it did before. I see you caught a spelling typo. Thank you for the hyperlinks in the lead.

Saganagan Orogeny - Thanks for adding categories. I have added some categories on articles, but I do need to become more comfortable with what categories are available.

Again, thank you for your thoughtful and helpful fixes. I do appreciate them. My goal is to present feature-article quality products. Bettymnz4 (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, just fixed some convert template problems and changed categories on Rove Formation. Seems the article kinda wanders a bit given the new name. The Rove is a specific stratigraphic argillite formation, whereas the article seems to be more about the region as it was originally titled. May need tightening a bit. Vsmith (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I saw that someone had worked on the conversion templates and   notations. I finished them. Thank for showing me how they look.
I'll look at tightening the article up. Before the renaming someone else wondered about the Human history section and the Flora section. Bettymnz4 (talk) 02:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Fixed the Sudbury ejecta section a bit. The debrisite lies below the Rove on the Gunflint per the Geology article. Fixed and adjusted the conversions in that section - range, abbr=on, put metric 1st. Vsmith (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for keeping an eye on the Rove Formation article. I believe I finished it last night. I had put it aside for a while; with Fetchcomms' coming up with a better title a day ago my enthusiasm was rekindled so I was able to finish it. I did print the article out and will do the final read through today. As I've mentioned before, my goal is to write a feature article; do you think this is worthy of applying for FA?

Again, thank you for your help and attention to this article. Bettymnz4 (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't pay much attention to FA - just focus on valid content. I would suggest that File:Great Lakes Tectonic Zone map.PNG might be replaced with a more "professional" appearing version as I'm sure the FA nitpickers would object :-) I'll maybe take a closer look at the article again later ... right now springtime, gardening and mushroom hunting have priority, cheers. Vsmith (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Don't be concerned about my question about the FA since that wasn't your focus. I agree about the map; I spent a lot of time just finding a map I could sketch from that showed the entire GLTZ (not just the portion in Minnesota). Go outside and have fun. ;) Our spring is two months early here on the North Shore of Lake Superior, so I've been out some too. Bettymnz4 (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Page deletion[edit]

Hello, I am new to wikipedia and was trying to add a page indpendence bioproducts, I was editing when you deleted me? pPlease let me know why? I see lots of other cmpany pages on here, Sorry for any problems. IBP Project —Preceding unsigned comment added by IBP Project (talkcontribs) 16:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

As I noted on your talk page, Wikipedia is not here to promote your business. Vsmith (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Tropism[edit]

Why did you revert my changes to tropism? You can't believe the state that you've left the article is better. For a start the paragraph has been copied and pasted twice, so repeats directly in the same article. The second time it's been pasted in, it was even put inappropriately into a summary list (without removing the original summary). You've even left the word "[edit]" in there. I don't think that paragraph should be in the article at all, and should be left in the separate ecotropism from where it was copied and pasted in the first place, as this article is very clearly about its biological use. 131.111.186.95 (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that. I've undone my revert. Had you added an edit summary I would likely have looked closer at the time. During vandalism patrol, an edit by an ip with no edit summary is quite suspect and I reverted it as removal of content with no edit summary in explanation. Obviously I should have checked closer -- maybe I needed a break or a cup of coffee... Please use edit summaries in the future to avoid this kind of problem. Vsmith (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok! Edit summaries from now on. 131.111.186.95 (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

vandal in sulfur cycle[edit]

please chane it back to normal i hope the person who change it would have conscience —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.11.67 (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

SCIRS[edit]

I have made a stab at adapting WP:MEDRS for more general scientific topics at User:2over0/SCIRS. For reasons I may or may not be able to recall at the moment, you crossed my mind when I was considering other editors who might be interested in working on such a thing. The page is strictly preliminary for now, but this invitation to take a look and offer suggestions, comments, and improvements is open to everyone. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

A barnstar[edit]

Admin Barnstar.png The Admin's Barnstar
For being such an excellent admin. Keep it up, The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Vsmith (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for helping with my Saganagan Orogeny article.[edit]

Did you think the lead was too close in content to the first section?

I essentially did copy and paste, and then removed some material. The article as a whole is not shaping up too well. Volcanopele directed me to a site that looks valuable, so maybe I'll be able to flesh the article out.

I have another question for you: On the Vaalbara article I had combined my information with pre-existing information and then edited it to a cohesive whole. Anyway, I thought I had missed changed a Ga to Bya.

Did you make that change to the Ga? Is that the preferred labelling for billions of years ago? If so, I'll go back into my articles to make those changes.

Thank you so much for your help. I do appreciate it; you can probably tell I'm still on the steep learning curve! I hope to reach the crest soon. Bettymnz4 (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the first section was basically a repeat of the lead ... don't need that. In a longer article the lead supposedly summarizes the articl, but in such a short stub ... well not much to summarize yet.
The class notes and lecture notes you use for references are not really proper refs., not much available on google, however google books gives some leads (seems basically all w/out preview ... so if you have access to a good library go for it.
I prefer Ga to Bya and don't think the Bya is used much as billion has different meanings for some folks.
You are welcome, although I haven't taken time to really offer much for you yet, maybe I'll get 'round to looking at those articles again in a day or so. And, as to the learning curve bit, I've been climbing that curve since 2004 and haven't found the crest yet :-) Vsmith (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Again, thanks!! I thought I had caught all of the era and put in eon. I didn't know about that template. Thanks. I printed it off so I can study it. Bettymnz4 (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Thought you would find that template interesting - have fun with it. Vsmith (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Mindat[edit]

I just went on Commons and saw that Robert Lavinsky of mindat.org donated his entire database of ~29,000 pictures to Wikimedia commons. You can read about it at Commons:Commons:Robert Lavinsky. Since you did much of the work on the mineral articles, I thought you might be interested. Awickert (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Heh - just might be... Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. It was a jaw-drop moment for me... Awickert (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
That's quite a gift. Guettarda (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Mineral Formulae[edit]

Does Wikipedia have a standard reference for mineral formulae? I tend to use those from the IMA mineral list at http://rruff.info/ima, even though it sometimes gives non-integral indices which I do not find very satisfying. For instance, they give digenite as Cu1.8S instead of the alternative Cu9S5. Of course a change in the formula changes the molar mass, and the value of Z must be changed accordingly to give the correct calculated density. Guidance please. Strickja (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No, there is no standard in use - probably should work on that. I tend to go with the Handbook of Mineralogy, Mindat, and Webmineral and report different formula as they are reported, see Nagyagite as an example which I recently edited. I tend to ignore molar mass - don't see it as important. Z, if reported, should of course correlate with density values given, but typically measured density is reported. Vsmith (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Mineral Formulae[edit]

Noted, thanks.

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strickja (talkcontribs) 04:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Duluth Complex[edit]

Hello V. The map on the new article on the Rove Formation suggests that the intrusions there are not part of the Duluth Complex. I had thought that Pigeon Point was part of the Duluth Complex, and the article suggests that. I am still looking where I found that. Could you look at this, and let me know your thoughts? Thanks. Kablammo (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Which map? Anyway the North Shore volcanics and associated intrusives of the Pigeon Point date to 1109-1096 mya whereas the Duluth dates at 1102 mya and after ... so seems they are all part of the same "event", don't see a problem. Or am I missing something? Vsmith (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
No, I see that I misread the map and text. Thanks for looking at this. The article is a valuable addition; Betty did a good job and you were very helpful to her. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

User/IP that you previously admonished vandalized another page[edit]

Here is that page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_standards

I undid his revisions after a couple of missteps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliteramen (talkcontribs) 17:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Earthquakes[edit]

Hi. Do you happen to be an expert of WikiProjects Earthquakes and perhaps Disaster management? Do you mind checking the following tsunami aricles for factual accuracy and other issues?

Thanks! --Twinsday 05:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, not an expert on tsunami stuff. The teletsunami article has serious problems ... I'd be inclined to just delete it, but I'll just ignore it. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

drdewlittle.com reference link[edit]

Hi, It seems that you deleted the drdewlittle.com link I had placed under dewpoint, moisture & humidity. I thought that it would be useful for anyone interested in understanding dewpoint/moisture measurement to see the links on our website to government agencies, historical moisture measurement inventions and commercial products being used. The DrDewLittle website is not interested in getting traffic, we do not have any advertising, nor do we promote any products. We are simply a forum for people to discuss moisture measurement, and to look up the current knowledge base of moisture measurement. We operate this website in our spare time to promote knowledge on this one specific largely misunderstood topic.. I hoped it would be helpful to your readers, but if you do not feel that way then there is no reason to provide that link. Thank you Drdewlittle (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)DrDewLittle

Please read conflict of interest. Quite simply - we don't promote our own stuff. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistent changes to chemical formulas of minerals[edit]

Thank you for your message. I stopped the bot and I will fix the prolem. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 22:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Followup: there were few additional rare cases. I created a script to systematically found any affected article. Then I fixed them, and I improved the ability of the script to avoid chemical formulas. It should work better now. Thank you. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 11:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Vsmith (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Anhydrite: a question on the removal of the "See also" section[edit]

Hello, Vsmith, I observed that you removed the "See also" section on the Anhydrite page, as you do sometimes for other ones. I would be pleased to discuss this question with you. I agree that a page should not contain superflous and useless information and that concision is essential to write effective pages. In the WP good practice, it is recommended to be cautious with the "See also" section and to avoid to repeat meaningless information. However, a merit of the "See also" section is to offer to the WP reader a convenient way to "quickly switch" between pages dealing with related subjects, or to link to less visited pages which could benefit from further editions. For instance, in my opinion, the framework of anhydrite is much larger than the only mineralogy topic and can also embrace chemistry and materials science. That is the reason why, yesterday I completed this section when reading across very different fields. Now that you removed it, the page perhaps gained in concision, but now the ease of navigation is reduced and unexpected links do not longer appear. Perhaps that your last cleanup went beyond your intentions. I would suggest to be more careful when envisaging such cleanup, and I realise that many viewpoint can coexist and that they may contradict. I think that all is a question of adequate balance and equilibrium. I would appreciate your answer here on your discussion page. In advance, Thank you, Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Gypsum and calcium sulfate are linked within the body of the article and therefore redundant. Alabaster and selenite are varieties of gypsum and not really relevant here. Phosphogypsum and gypsum plaster are commercial products/byproducts and not relevant to a mineralogical article. Vsmith (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

PbO2[edit]

Hi Remember the copper(II) sulfides business. The case at hand is PbO2. I am unsure how to undo his changes, but I will try to re-rerename. But your help may be required. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you got it done. Vsmith (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Could you please say something to Flushing258? This editor is fairly new and refuses to discuss matters, prefering revert-warring over names vs discussion. Who knows what's going on, but the editor needs to open up. Thanks, --Smokefoot (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Looks like he was heading for a 3rr block, so I move protected the page for a week and suggested that he discuss his concerns on the talk page. Restored to the long-standing name pending the outcome of a consensus for change. Vsmith (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Geological input needed[edit]

I'm faced with a major conundrum: if the Flood created the observed stratigraphy (including features like the Grand Canyon), and yet Pangaea had to split up and drift apart post-Flood, shouldn't that leave a huge mark on the presumably poorly consolidated Flood deposits? Your wisdom is needed on my talk page. :) Guettarda (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It'd be all mush ... wait what's that rock .. turbidite. Yeah, all mush. Vsmith (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Death valley stuff[edit]

So, pray tell Vsmith, my "vandalism" when I have provided true knowledge appropriate to the sections that have been posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.137.181 (talkcontribs) 19:41, 12 April 2010

See: the details of this edit. Vsmith (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have the time[edit]

Hi Vsmith,

Ceranthor, Carcharoth, and I brought the article on David A. Johnston, the volcanologist who died in the Mount St. Helens eruption, to FAC. We're hoping that if we get enough reviews to get it through FAC in a reasonable amount of time that it can be the featured article of the day on May 18, the 30th anniversary of the eruption.

If you have the time, could you please look through it and review it? (And if you don't have the time, don't worry.) Thanks! Awickert (talk) 04:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Took a quick look and fixed a couple spelling/wording/link bits, may take a longer look later. Vsmith (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I saw - thanks very much! And if you could leave a note on the FAC page (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/David A. Johnston/archive1) along with a support or oppose (and if the latter, a list of improvements you'd like to see made), I'd appreciate it very much!
As of tomorrow night, my internet will become spotty (traveling), so consider this a thanks-in-advance. Awickert (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your review and help; it was recently promoted. Awickert (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I noticed it had and you're welcome, but I didn't do much. Is it going to make the main page on the 18th? Vsmith (talk) 01:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Not sure yet. That's what we're working on right now. Would be very neat if it did! Awickert (talk) 02:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, Carcharoth just put it up on Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests, so I guess we'll just see what happens. Awickert (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead dioxide to Lead(IV) Oxide[edit]

I have a problem with this name is because this chemical is an ionic compound not a molecular compound. The prefix "di" shouldn't be used to name ionic compound. Plus, the ion lead has multiple charges. The correct name should be "Lead(IV) Oxide" I use the roman numeral (IV) means that the lead ion has a +4 charge. --Flushing258 (talk) 04:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have a time[edit]

Here's the article The geological history of Point Lobos I created today. Maybe you could fix my English and... If you have no time, that's OK. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed a bit - more later, gotta go get the grandkids now. Vsmith (talk) 09:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much!--Mbz1 (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
No problem, I enjoy learning new stuff - guess I should read the refs now, to make sure my fixes haven't changed the meanings :-) Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it will be a good idea to read the refs, and make sure that I did it right. Of course I much more doubt about me than about you :) I would like to ask you about the gallery. The thing is that I have few more images, which show different features of the rocks, not the ones that are in the article now. Would you mind, if I am to put them to gallery? I have not uploaded them yet, but I hope to upload them in the next few days.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I removed the gallery simply because it seemed unneeded for only one image and I'd rather see images used in relevant sections. However, I would have no objection to putting a gallery back with a number of images. Vsmith (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand. I will upload few more images, and put them to the gallery, and let you to decide to keep or remove it. BTW, if you enjoy learning new stuff, and if you have a time, could you please take a look at another article I wrote few days ago Looming, Towering, Stooping, and Sinking. It was nominated for deletion, but I hope it will be kept. If you are interested in the subject, maybe you could fix my English. If you do not, that's OK. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Cobaltite[edit]

In November 2007 you added an infobox to cobaltite which said - among other things - that it's magnetic after heating. This seems off to me (although WebMineral.com supports it, I'm still wondering about the Curie point?) and to an anon on the talk page. Mind addressing it? DS (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, can't find any discussion of it other than that line on Webmin, so removed it. Vsmith (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

my links[edit]

how do I talk to you about some links I made and you seem to have deleted?

aloha

Sam Low www.samlow.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owl1 (talkcontribs) 19:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You're talkin'. Please read WP:COI and WP:SPAM, we don't use Wikipedia to promote our own stuff. Vsmith (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Links[edit]

sorry - but My question regarding links which you removed seem not to have been filed?

let me know if you get this and we can discuss them. I believe that all of them have merit.

aloha

Owl1 (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Owl1

Links - ok got it[edit]

when you say promote our own stuff - what did you object to?

an example - I posted a link on the Sea Education Association web site to an article I wrote about sailing on a SEA vessel. Is this self promotion? The article was published, is relevant to the SEA mission, is well written etc.

Is it self promotion if you link to your own web site de facto? If so, fine. What is to present another person from suggesting such a link? (I have found links to my articles that I did not make, for example.)

I have tried to correct the crew lists for two voyages aboard Hokule'a on which I was a crew member. How do I do this so as not to have it erased? Is there a higher authority to appeal to?

Just trying to use the encyclopedia...

aloha

Owl1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owl1 (talkcontribs) 20:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, adding links to your own websites on multiple articles is blatant self promotion. If other links have been added by non-associated editors - no problem.
As for the crew list corrections - no problem if cited to a reliable source, if you have done that and they were removed with my spam removal sweep - sorry 'bout that. I'd say you may re-add those corrections - again if properly sourced. Vsmith (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

links - I will stop after this[edit]

Self-promotion

Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates.

Examples of these types of material include:

  1. Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links).
  2. Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages.
  3. Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article.

OK - I still do not get it. The wording is "obscure individuals" pointing to their web pages. I have written extensively about Hokule'a - have sailed aboard her for 7,000 miles, have made a movie about her, have a Ph.D. in anthropology from Harvard - am qualified, I think, to include relevant articles on the subject in the external links.

What do you think?

aloha

Owl1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owl1 (talkcontribs) 20:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

How about peer reviewed articles? Sorry, I have no intention to doubt your credentials - however your red-linked user name doesn't give any indication of credentials, just another anonymous user. So for starters, create a userpage establishing a bit of who you are (you don't need to give out real life identity) - just give your fellow editors here something to work with. And even so self promotion via article external links is something we don't do. Vsmith (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Whenever I see you have been at an article, I know everything is under control. Thanks for your tireless efforts to make sure that radiometric dating is no longer really confusing. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that radiometric dating bit was a while back. Vsmith (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
My bad, I meant very confusing. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
OK... I was only mildly confused :) Vsmith (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Desert[edit]

Hi thanks for spotting that my revert was incomplete, I didn't notice the slight difference in IP addresses. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No prob. Two buddies in a computer lab having fun. Easy to slip by under the radar. Vsmith (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Volcanoes_by_Volcanic_Explosivity_Index[edit]

Hi Vsmith,

You are a geologist, and I assume you have an interest in Volcanic Explosivity Index. You may be interested in contributing at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_22#Category:Volcanoes_by_Volcanic_Explosivity_Index. Could you comment on this? It is User:94.196.237.72's idea, his only contribution :s --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

blocking bug?[edit]

[20] It looks like you blocked this user for a month four days ago, and yet despite no unblock in the log they continue to vandalize. I don't get it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like my block was back on Feb 22 :) Vsmith (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
And the "duh" award for the day goes to... me. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the improvements you made to the Laterite article.[edit]

Thanks so much!! I appreciate the thoughtful corrections/additions you make to "my" pages.

The lead is definitely better with out the namer's infor. I wasn't able to 'see past his significant contribution' about the naming and description of laterite to separate him from the soil.

Other corrections and additions have made it a stronger article. I don't hyperlink as much as you do; I'm concerned about overlinking. (That said, I'm leaving yours.)

Is aluminium the preferred spelling?

Again, thank you;) Bettymnz4 (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. You did a good rewrite of the article, I just "patched a bit". As to links: if you think someone might be unfamiliar with a term or may just want to follow the wiki-trail - leave a link.
And yes, aluminium is the preferred spelling per IUPAC and wiki standard. It took me awhile to adjust - teaching HS chemistry for 25 years using US texts, but I've managed to "shift my brain". Back 5-6 years ago there were plenty of raging edit wars over aluminum/ium and sulf/phur - but we agreed to go with the IUPAC approved aluminium, sulfur and caesium in science articles.
Keep up the good work, Vsmith (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words. I am a former chemistry teacher, also. I'll have to brush up on the IUPAC rules!!Bettymnz4 (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Again, thank you for strengthening my article. I did list it for a PR and Ruhrfisch has kindly taken this article on for a PR. My recent changes are in response to his comments. Between you two, I should have a GA!!!Bettymnz4 (talk) 00:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I was just editing the article, and here you are :) I've changed the rather odd calciums to carbonates. Don't have access to the ref you are using, but calciums is not a standard term in my experience -- and the listed minerals are carbonates (magnesite has no calcium). Also at the reducing and acidic conditions required for bauxite formation, calcite seems a bit misplaced. As bauxite is a rock, obviously residual silica phases and maybe even carbonates could persist - but for "pure" bauxites the Eh/pH conditions make silica and iron soluble. Don't know that we want to get into Eh/pH discussions in the article though. I've also removed the "Mineral Mine" website as not a WP:RS, sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, again, for being bold and taking care of the calciums to carbonates. Although I have a double teaching major in chemistry and math, it's been over 35 years since I've taught. (Subbing in those subjects hardly counts !! lol) Because I didn't check out the chemical formulas, I missed out on that. Why isn't "Mineral Mine" a WP:RS? Is it because it's a commercial site? (If that's the case, then I imagine the American Kennel Club, et al, that I used on my recent rewrite of the Greater Swiss Mountain Dog wouldn't be WP:RS?) If you need to take time to research the answer about reliable sources, please don't take time.
Thanks for the cookie. Yeah, I just retired last year... The Eh/pH stuff maybe more for the bauxite page. That said a good Eh vs pH diagram relates directly to the varieties of laterites - iron stability, silica stability and alumina stability regions with varying Eh/pH. hmm... again.
As to the website and RS. For science related articles academic sites are preferred to commercial sites. Don't know 'bout dog breed stuff. And as I recall the "Mineral Mine" referred to bauxite as a mineral ... yeah picky of me, no?. And for the percentage data, there are better sources, seems the petrology book and/or the ore deposit book on the shelf beside me had % data ... and don't feel up to digging in to the mountain dog now, so will pass on that one. Vsmith (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
That's fine on the dog info; I asked in case you knew "off the top of your head".

Is metavolcanic rock a type of volcanic rock?[edit]

I'm having a discussion with User:Black Tusk about this. If you'd like to enlighten us, please feel free to do so at User talk:Black Tusk#Metavolcanic rock. Thanks!! —hike395 (talk) 04:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


Paper number[edit]

I format the references of the back-arc basin using {{cite journal}} template but I don't know how to put the parameter for Paper number 2000GC000106. Could you please help me show this parameter? Regards --Tranletuhan (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm.. Don't know right off the top of my head, and I don't use that template much. May check it out later ... no time right now. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I sincerely hope it's okay to jump in on this question ;) If I understand the question, use "cite paper|title=blahblah|other items|number=2000GC000106|any additional items". Hope that answers your question AND I hope my answering this isn't considered rude. (I've had many a question that VSmith and others have helped me with.) Bettymnz4 (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for "jumping in" - I was out of time at the moment, had to go babyset my 2 yr old grandson. Vsmith (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Fun!!

Template:Chemical formula[edit]

Hi there. I replied here. Cheers, Waldir talk 07:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Please remove Schulz's too[edit]

Vsmith, Stephan is obviously not involved -- please move his if you're going to move mine. Your snide remark about meddling is also not appreciated -- it was not snide, it was true. ATren (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Stephan's "involvement" in climate articles is a known. Your involvement is also a "known" and you are not an admin. Simple as that. I was in the process of leaving you a comment on your talk, but my connection is rather slow today ... and here you are. I'd suggest finding some other topic to constructively apply your editing talents. Vsmith (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Vsmith, the section is for uninvolveds. Stephan is involved, as you freely admit above. My non-admin status does not make my comment any less appropriate than Stephan's, yet you removed mine and not his. Please move his comment as you did mine. ATren (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Heh ... Stephan is involved in climate science articles (productive editing), maybe that's one strike. Atren is involved in climate articles (at least making noise about climate articles) and not an admin, that's two ± strikes. So I moved the worst "offending" comment. Read the heading note for that section. Vsmith (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I didn't realize that "one strike" was OK in that section but two is forbidden -- that's an interesting interpretation. Also interesting that my comment in the uninvolved admin section was NOT about the case, but rather about Stephan's involvement; whereas Stephan was commenting directly on the case -- yet that apparently didn't factor into your heuristic determination of who should comment there. In any case, Lar removed it so I'm dropping the matter. ATren (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Naming/Renaming Articles[edit]

There is a very brief article on Vauxite. I have prepared a longer one in my userspace, user:strickja/Vauxite New. It would seem appropriate to rename my article "Vauxite" and delete the other one. May I? How? Strickja (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

First, as a stub already exists you will need to merge your content in the existing article to preserve the article history of the existing stub. Simply copy and paste your content with an edit summary indicating what you're doing. I'd say the existing one-liner could be preserved as the first line of your intro paragraph which yours needs anyway before discussing mineral groups. Also note and keep the existing categories and language links.
Before doing that you need to do some cleanup on your version. Replace the <H2></H2> header stuff with standard headers (== Xxx == and === Xxx yy ===) and lose a bunch of <br/> tags. You also need to add ref tags to the article content paragraphs and so on ... Vsmith (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Strickja (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Silica[edit]

The text states "The risk of dementia was higher for subjects with a high daily aluminum intake (for intake 0.1 mg/day, adjusted relative risk (RR) = 2.26, P = 0.049; model 5, Table 4). Conversely, an increase of 10 mg/day in silica intake was associated with a reduced risk of dementia (adjusted RR = 0.89, P = 0.036; model 5). No tendency toward a dose response effect for aluminum was apparent (likelihood ratio statistic = 3.52 (3 df), P = 0.32; model 7, Table 4), even though a significant linear relation between aluminum and dementia was obtained in model 6 (for an increase of 0.1 mg/day, adjusted RR for aluminum = 1.28; P = 0.017). Model 6, with aluminum entered as a continuous variable, was slightly better than model 5, in which aluminum was divided into 2 classes (difference in Akaike’s Information Criterion = 1.1). There was no significant interaction between aluminum and silica concentrations." (see text. I have adapted Silica accordingly, I hope the wording is now less dubious. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That was fast, thanks for the link to the article - as my well-water comes from a good sandstone aquifer my dementia worries are gone :) Vsmith (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Great Smoky Mountains[edit]

Sorry about that... My writing skills don't allow me to do the page justice... BUT somebody needs to correct that page.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HDRider420 (talkcontribs) 15:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

New sources of blue amber[edit]

Hello Vsmith.

Why did you remove Indonesia as a new source of Blue Amber? That is not promotional hype as no names or companies were mentioned.

Irwan Holmes (talk) 09:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It appeared to be written as a "sales pitch" promoting your own interests and was unsourced. Your recent addition to opal was removed for the same reasons. Vsmith (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion[edit]

Please retract the final sentence of your first part here[21]. In the present environment it is best to keep all responses utterly bland. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Redacted ... you're correct blandness rules, thanks. Vsmith (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

YEC fear[edit]

There is a certain user who is worrying me about their YEC-led edits to geology articles... I am no admin, but is there anything constructive we can do to temper the user? Or am I just overreacting/paranoid? I am afraid of him slipping some veiled YEC propaganda in an article under our noses. I only come to you because you seem to be one of the heavy hitters in geology on Wikipedia. Qfl247 (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my 3rr warning and suggestion that he discuss his concerns seem to have had an effect as he's talking rather than reverting. I see Awickert has engaged him in discussions. Awickert is more patient than I am under such circumstances. People like him drop in quite often, determined to "enhance" their favorite religious, fringe or pseudoscience beliefs. The honest ones can be reasoned with and often guided to understand Wiki policies and consensus standards. Others are more problematic - resorting to socking etc. Basically constant vigilance and patience are required. Stay cool and keep up the good editing. Vsmith (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I am somewhat new to this whole thing, I am working to become as good a geology asset as you and Awickert... my first need is more patients with &*!%#$ like you know who. I was worried that he was not going to give up on the main Geology page, and someone like you would have to semi-protect it, but hopefully, it does not come to that. Thanks again! Qfl247 (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, though Gniniv is incorrect about a good many things, it seems that he/she is a reasonable individual and takes hints instantly, which was a nice breath of fresh air in this sort of endeavor. Also, thanks for your comments at AN/I and my talk; I seem to be getting into all sorts of trouble lately. Awickert (talk) 03:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Animikie Group[edit]

I was hoping you'd see that I had posted a new article and would weigh in. Thank you. As I'm researching and writing an aricle, I massage and massage AND massage the text to make it more readable. I can count on you helping. I do sincerely thank you. In particular, after your changes regarding the granites in the lakes area make the text sooooo much more readable. Earlier today I saw that you had caught a missing space where I had added an Animikie Group reference so I could hyperlink it to "my" aricle. Bettymnz4 (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm finally getting back to WP after Memorial Day weekend with our daughter and her Greater Swiss Mountain dog visiting, yard work and repainting the bathroom. I was going to go through the Animikie Group article to recap the stratigraphic unit names and saw that you had done most of them. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. I'll need to go back to Great Lakes tectonic zone to recap Rift and System (from Midcontinent Rift System). Is this considered a stratigraphic unit? (I went through my articles a couple of weeks ago because I had AWickert go through ONE section of the History of the Rove Formation to see how ready it was for FA, and he mentioned orogeny is not capped. I extrapolated that to mean NONE of the units were capped! A little knowledge is dangerous!!) Bettymnz4 (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Glad you had a good vacation. The Midcontinent Rift is not really a strat unit, however it seems to be capitalized most places I've checked. When the word rift is part of a proper name I'd say caps are ok. The basin in Animikie Basin would, to me, also be capp'ed as part of a proper name - just did a google search and it seems most book & journal hits do capitalize it, though not all. Charge on ... and have fun! Vsmith (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Post in the wrong place[edit]

Please move your post in the uninvolved admin section of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Lar and/or Polargeo... unless you are an uninvolved admin it does not belong there. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 19:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

If another admin there feels my post is misplaced, I'm willing to listen to their concerns and reasoning. However, as the post and that section was about you and your interpretation/actions, I don't feel you are the one to request this. Vsmith (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Moved up per LHVU's comment there. Vsmith (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
You still needed to remove the placeholder, last I checked. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 01:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I left it there so LHvU's reply to it would make sense. If he wishes to move that part of his reply which refers to my post (and remove the "placeholder") that'd be fine with me. Vsmith (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
And amusingly enough, any admin that did that would probably get banned from the RfE just like this enforcement request is attempting to do to Lar because he moved the comments of another involved admin. You people constantly break the rules and then when people call you out on your crap you ban them. I hope the members of Arbcom are watching this typical display of your shenanigans. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
The above comment is, potentialy, a vio of your ban, which has already been extended once William M. Connolley (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Editing Sierra Nevada (U.S.)?[edit]

Hi, Vsmith. Thanks for semi-protecting the article. I'd like your opinion on how to proceed. I believe that, in a quest to make the article less "redundant" and "trivial", the Anon Editor damaged the article and removed useful information. I could be bold and try and fix the article. However, this could be interpreted as unfairly exploiting the semi-prot and/or continuing the edit war. Should I leave it alone for some amount of time and wait for others to fix it, or should I do the edits? —hike395 (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead, edit the article and explain your reasoning on talk. The anon can discuss his concerns and seek consensus on talk. The anon has been uncivil and needs to comply with Wiki rules. Vsmith (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, again. I think there may be a case of WP:SOCK here, but I'm not sure and I want to get your advice. On my watchlist, I've noticed that User:US40AL-01 is editing mountain range articles in a very similar manner to User:71.219.171.61 that caused a stir at Sierra Nevada (U.S.). Namely, User:US40AL-01 uses HTML comments to comment out parent categories, uses UPPERCASE WORDS in HTML comments, removes content from the body of articles and places them into Infoboxes, and spends time editing articles related to the Lahontan region. The contributions for User:US40AL-01 ceased right before the incivility at Sierra Nevada (U.S.), but then resumed afterwards.
The way I read WP:SOCK is that using an IP account to avoid WP:SCRUTINY is considered using a sockpuppet. I did notice that User:71.219.171.61 had a suspiciously high level of WP skills for a complete newbie. However, it might be a innocent mistake, where User:US40AL-01 just forgot to log in. Although doing that for 4 days and dozens of edits sounds unlikely.
What do you think the right thing to do is? Given I had an very unpleasant engagement with User:71.219.171.61, I would appreciate third party/admin advice on this. Thanks in advance! —hike395 (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The more I poke around, the more it seems like WP:SOCK. For example, User:US40AL-01, User:67.136.182.50, and User:174.24.34.102 all edited Tule Valley with apparently the same goal of undoing User:Qfl247's edits. User:174.24.34.102 referred to User:US40AL-01 in the third person in an edit summary. You finally had to protect Tule Valley to stop the edit war. And, User:71.219.171.61, User:67.136.182.50, and User:174.24.34.102 all geolocate to Colorado (User:71.219.171.61 and User:174.24.34.102 specifically to Colorado Springs). Seems very fishy to me.
Should we proceed to a sockpuppet investigation? Or am I being too suspicious? (I've never initiated a sockpuppet investigation before). —hike395 (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd say you have accumulated plenty of evidence to file an SPI. I've never been involved in that either, but will if you are not comfortable with doing it. Just lay out the evidence you have gathered and let those with experience do their thing. Vsmith (talk) 11:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I've been busy off-WP: if I don't get to it this weekend, would you mind? —hike395 (talk) 04:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi again. Reading over Wikipedia:Signs_of_sock_puppetry#IP_sock_puppetry again, I don't think an SPI would be productive now. The only problematic editing (in relation to socking) was the Tule Valley episode. I don't see the editor or any of the ips using talk pages for discussion - instead they use hidden comments. They are prone to accuse vandalism in edit summaries, which can be considered an incivility problem, and they tend to edit war - but know to stop at the magic 3. I don't know just yet how to convince them to use talk pages to address their concerns. When an article is semiprotected, they just drop it instead. The large ip range used and the large number of (mostly) Western US articles and categories affected presents a problem. Still not sure of a good approach here, but not ready for an spi yet. Maybe for now simple vigilance and continue to attempt a dialog with them. Vsmith (talk) 04:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
OK. I was torn about it, so it's probably for the best. —hike395 (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

External link removal - Colorado River Aqueduct[edit]

Vsmith, just to get some clarification before going away. The external links I provided are to my website. Clearly I made no attempt to hide my identity as the owner of the material. They were links to vary topic specific images added to the External Links section of three subjects that had no other photo references listed. My goal was not to spam Wikipedia. Did you view the page links provided? The imagery represented is high quality and detailed supporting information is included for each image. I felt it was adding value to the specific Wikipedia entries they were added to and yes ultimately I would like my site represented within Wikipedia. I’m sure this topic has been rehashed endlessly in the past so at this point I’ll sign off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RandyMorse (talkcontribs) 00:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

We don't promote our own stuff on Wikipedia -- simple as that. Read the links I left on your talk. Vsmith (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

GeologicalStoneBarnstar.png The Geology Barnstar
For tireless work maintaining and improving Geology articles. Thanks, Pete Tillman 01:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


Thanks Pete, I like that one. Vsmith (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ripples vs. Ripple Marks[edit]

After exploring the ripple marks entry, I would very much like to see the title and terminology changed from "ripple mark" to "ripple" to conform to modern usage. Although the two words are considered synonyms by some, the formal definition of the word (Jackson, 1997) indicates that tha the word "ripple" refers to the actual bedform and "ripple mark" for a surface that has a texture attributed to ripples. Using the word for the bedform would be preferable, because the terminology could then be parallel for all bedform entries (something I would like to work on): ripples, dunes, upper plane beds, antidunes, chutes and pools, etc. For example, there are dunes (bedform) and cross-beds (sedimentary structure), but no such thing as "dune marks."

The suggested change would bring the entry in line with the terminology used in:

  • Jackson, J.A., 1997, Glossary of Geology (4th ed), American Geological Institute, Alexandria, VA, 769 p.
  • Prothero, D.R., and Schwab, F., 2004, Sedimentary Geology (2nd Ed.), Freeman, New York, 557 p.
  • Boggs, S., 2006, Principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy (4th Ed.),Pearson, New York, 662 p.

Rygel, M.C. (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

In my experience they've always been "ripple marks" - but maybe that's just me. Maybe it would be the way to go, however you should post your comments and supporting refs to the article talk page Talk:Sedimentary structures or Talk:Ripple marks for other geologically inclined editors to comment on. And perhaps a note to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology. Vsmith (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


My apologies for failing to follow protocol - thanks for the suggestions and directions! Rygel, M.C. (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No apology needed. I fully understand - it takes time to learn all the routes and back alleys around here. I just felt that more eyes should see this and it seems a couple of other geo savvy editors agree with you. No problem there, I learned a bit of sed geology back in the late 60s and haven't really kept up with the details there. Happy editing, Vsmith (talk) 03:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

New article[edit]

Our watchlists seem to intersect a lot, so I'm inviting you to add another article to watch and, perhaps, to lend a professional touch to. It's just a stub, but was referenced in a number of different places, so more than a redirect was in order. Thanks. --Kbh3rdtalk 17:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I had intended to start that page - just never got 'round to it. Will have to get out my copy of King (Evolution of North America) and see what I can add. Maybe it'll help me avoid/ignore some of the drama below. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change[edit]

An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop.

Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:

  • The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
  • Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
  • Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
    • "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
    • "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
    • "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
    • "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"
The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.
  • All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
  • Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
  • The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
  • All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
  • Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
  • Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
  • Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (utc) 00:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Continental drift[edit]

Hi Vsmith. You improved my contribution to continental drift (May 28, 2010), thx. J. Johnson (JJ) says I'm floudering... :s I do not agree, of course. I had to change the wording because of the copyright protection. If you have time, could you read the two quotes at the end of User:Chris.urs-o/Sandbox.008 and so check if my contribution was ok? Thx. I'd like a reassurance that the idea came across nicely. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Bit short on Wikitime right now, hope to take a better look later. Vsmith (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok. thx --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

More sockpuppetry?[edit]

Hi, Vsmith. I see that you are coping with User:71.219.186.230 at Promontory Mountains, Raft River Mountains, and Silver Island Range, Utah. I believe that user in engaged in classic good-hand bad-hand behavior with their user account, one of the symptoms of sockpuppetry. As an IP editor with shifting addresses, he/she refuses to engage in discussion on Talk pages. However, from Talk:Owens River, it's clear that User:US40AL-01 is willing to engage on Talk pages, without identifying themselves as the same IP editor.

Given the activities over the past week, do you believe that SPI is now better justified? Or is there something else that can be done (i.e., do you think warning on User talk:US40AL-01 would do any good at all?) —hike395 (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably so ... thinking. Vsmith (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As the user USAL40-01 doesn't exist, I changed the name to the presumed US40AL-01. I hope I didn't mess it up. By the way, if it acts like a duck, it could be a duck. A check user could help u two. US40AL-01 (live since 4 June 2010), User:71.219.186.230 (live since 12 June 2010), User:71.219.177.7 (live since 14 June 2010, "vandalous User:Vsmith" ó.0) and User:71.219.172.174 (live since 7 June 2010, "vandalizing User:CL" ó.0) look similar. I think, I never cited WP abbreviations on my edit summaries. I did not use templates n categories on the first two months either. I hate my way or highway behaviour. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


Hi Vsmith. I seem to be having some similar problems with User:71.219.172.174 as per your post & edit warring notification on their talk page, and post here in "More sockpuppetry?." Possible new address being used now, User:71.219.169.105 - ? Their undo edits 'seem uncanny' in now adding to 'old' ongoing rvt. concern @ Salton Sink article - by hitting approx. 6 new unrelated articles with new address. Uses SAME "Parent-Grandparent Category rvt. reason" (sometimes also calling my previous revert "vandalism") in edit box with both User:71.219.172.174 & User:71.219.169.105 addresses. Has always refused to respond on or use Talk:Salton Sink discussion page. Have asked them to "please do so" there & on their User talk:71.219.172.174 page (above your post there). Paste-in below of my reply on User talk:71.219.172.174 just posted there (under yours). If I can help you with this editor sockpuppetry problem please ask! Sorry I don't know correct wiki-terms, paste in warning codes, or how to report to Admin.- yet (would like to learn). ----Thank you, -Look2See1 t a l k → 16:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"Thank you User:Vsmith and User:Stan for reporting issues here (at User talk:71.219.172.174) and filing reports on User:71.219.172.174 edit warring. I have also been having repetitive revert problems with 71.219.172.174. Today they were done on some similar subject--topic type articles, but by editor using address of 71.219.169.105. However others were done on articles only related by my 'editor activity pages' and not by topic or geographic proximity. Possibly not 'good faith edits' but 'edit warring' by 'history ledger stalking'? - may be same editor as here (or not) ? No talk page enabled at that 'new' address. User:71.219.172.174 &/or User:71.219.169.105 concerns continue.----Look2See1 t a l k → 15:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)"
P.S. - just saw your 'Vsmith adds' to Talk:Salton Sink - so perhaps more likely User:71.219.169.105 is their new access address? Please let me know if need links to other articles by that address that needed my reverts today. Concerned that any article my 'little-wiki gardening' efforts done on is vulnerable. Is there a way to slow down this '? seemingly malicious or vindictive ?' address activity? Thanks again----Look2See1 t a l k → 16:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Vsmith, Seems more concerns in others' experiences with User:71.219.172.174 (User talk:71.219.172.174); who is now "protecting" Owens River (& locking out Category:Northern Mojave-Mono Lake region & any other edits). Discussions about this action, the editor, & other IPs used @ Talk:Owens River & @ User talk:Shannon1--Owens River section. Hope this all can be 'closed down' so focus on articles can resume. Thanks,---Look2See1 t a l k → 18:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - watching ... no time now. Vsmith (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Vsmith, received your message, will rvt note on articles. Have read wiki-info on sockpuppet reports and definitions and do not understand how to file a report. It was why notification was put in articles, in good faith alert for other editors expressing problems with editor of those #s. Never experienced this problem before, and sorry for misdirected effort. Thanks again, ---Look2See1 t a l k → 21:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
P.S. rvts. done, the IP-#s may include: 71.219.172. 174; 71.219.169.105; 71.219.251.248; 71.219.165.25; US40AL-01 - ?
Hi Vsmith, understanding it's a busy period for you with "no wiki-time." Sorry if pushy with posting a lot here! Intent hereon is just post info for whenever-if ever it's worth your review. Please let me know if this not the place/time "to share the IP #s" in question.
At Panamint Range & Owens Valley; Same in edit box wording as 'old User:71.219.172.174' by 'new User:71.219.184.69' on another serial rvt with no talk-page entry. Onwards--Thank you,---Look2See1 t a l k → 01:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Looks like the anon (User talk:71.219.184.69) was blocked for 24 hr. May show up with different ip - if so it can be blocked as block evasion. Vsmith (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

See - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/US40AL-01/Archive, sockmaster blocked indef. Thanks to Chris.urs-o for acting while I stalled. Vsmith (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Chromite[edit]

Hi, after you reverted to move of Chromite to Chromite (mineral), the original talk page was left at Talk:Chromite (mineral). I've merged the original contents back to the current Talk:Chromite, but now I realized that the original page histories aren't merged. I'm not sure how this can be done. Could you help? Thanks.—Tetracube (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thought I had moved the talk also ... anyway fixed now, I hope. Thanks for the note. Vsmith (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


Plate tectonics[edit]

I saw u made 209 edits from 2004 to 2010 !!! :p ;) :p

What does Plate tectonics need to get a good article status? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

209 ... Anyway I haven't checked good article requirements in awhile. Seems the most obvious need is a lack of refs for some sections ... but I see you are actively working to improve refs. Will look it over later - or forget (seems to be a habit of mine lately). Right now gotta finish my morning coffee then grab my chainsaw and get a bit of work done before it gets too hot & muggy. Keep up the good work. Vsmith (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sugar Bear[edit]

Hello, Vsmith. I just wanted your opinion on the recent block of User:Sugar Bear. Don't you think you it should be longer than 31 hours? If a whole week didn't stop him from breaking 3RR then why would a 31 hour block change his mind? I believe this block should be longer, your thoughts? RG (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I put it to ANI for a second opinion, fyi. S.G.(GH) ping! 22:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Great job with the more appropiate one month block. I can't thank you enough. RG (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Some users just don't learn ... and I've tried twice to post on ANI, edit conflicts...just let it go :) Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Sugar Bear recently tried to evade his block. Do you think we should increase the length of the block again? RG (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I noted that, and see the ip has been blocked for a month. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe Sugar Bear is at it again. See this IP. I'm going to start another sock investigation on this. RG (talk) 04:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)