User talk:Vsmith/archive3

Category:Rocks

Hello, well my idea is basically to get List of Rocks into Category:Rocks which is dynamically generated and therefore more reliable than the list itself. I believe all the lists should either be replaced using categories or wikipedia needs a new function allowing not only categorizing but also something like classification. conserning the double entry of rocks and its subcategory, i believe it is quite adequate to have a double reference for two reasons. If I am looking for a rock I dont know anything but its name i want to look it up in the rocks category. if i also know the specific type of rock i can search in the subset. It is not redundant to point to the next closest subcategory as well as to the main category.

Summary: From an neural net / computer scientist point of view it is good to reference the type (rock) as well as an common attribute (rock type e.g. sedimentary ie. sedimentary rock)

I ll cease categorizing while waiting for your opinion (and i m gone for dinner too ;-) ) Iancarter 00:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your line of thought. And with the Category:Rocks currently at < 100 members it is not really a problem. However, if the pop. goes over 200 wikipedia category limitations force the results into two pages (seems absurd to me, but that's the way they do it) - and the two page listing is problematic - some may not notice the second page. Anyway that seems to be the rationale for subcats. Someone looking for a specific rock would simply try the 3 subcats until finding it or just search on the name (assuming no spelling glitches). Also as mentioned on your talk, someone will come along and undo what you are doing as most editors working on categories prefer a reduction in redundancy. I've also commented re: your posts to Talk:List of rocks and Category talk:Types of rock Vsmith 01:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rocks Category

OK, the limitation of categories doesnt really make sense. I guess my approach to wikipedia is a bit more formal than is possible here. Iancarter 03:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CFD

Hello. Maybe you will be interested to vote on the CFD for that "Oceanic trenches by depth (km)" category. Just go here. - Darwinek 12:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seismic Links

Hello Vsmith - I removed the link to Purdue because the contributor was adding links to that site from multiple pages across Wikipedia. I realise it was relevant content, but adding many links from multiple pages seemed liked it might against Wikipedia policy. If you check the contribution log, you'll see what I mean. Thoughts? Cheers. --PhilipO 16:23, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the user log and it looked like a spam attack. However, the link is a valid information link (not commercial spam) - so I re-inserted it at seismic wave. Perhaps later in other articles? Agreed that just adding external links to a bunch of articles is a bit dodgey - as editors we should add content. Anyway, I wasn't starting out to undo your removals, just thought it fit on that page. Vsmith 16:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sodalite

Hi, Please review your edits to sodalite. I tested wikipedia by reversing "Opaque to very seldom transparent" in the old version with usually transparent. You seem to have accept this and reworded it in the new version. I personally love wikipedia, but this test hasn't turned out very well for the wikipedia community. So please change the article back to "Opaque to very seldom transparent" or however you want to word that.
Above added by User:202.182.65.206.

Hmm... a vandal test that backfired? Your test prompted me to check the facts. So I changed the article to reflect what the references say. So - I'd say Wikipedia survived your vandalism quite well. If you are confused, check the reference links. Now I'm in a quandry - should I thank or block the vandal? :-) Vsmith 01:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits

You do nice job, Sir.

)

Guess who?

Hi V. Check out this [1]... now how does that remind you of? Now check that IPs contribs [2]... hmmm... climate change and automobiles... who does that remind you of? For example, on Mars, this [3].

I've added this to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change_dispute#The_return_of_JonGwynne?

William M. Connolley 09:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

No doubt about it. He is editing just a bit short of his 3 month ban ending and editing climate pages also - ignoring the 6 month ban there. Now what... I'd just do a block (Power :-)), but as I was involved a bit in the case it would perhaps be inappropriate. Maybe your note on the Rfa talk page will get someone's attention or else contact the arbcom members. I'm thinking about it ... Vsmith 20:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Talk Pages'

Hi, Thanks for that information, and i also thank you for making the alterations to my work.

I am however confused by the fact of 'sign your post on talk pages'

I would be grateful if you could help me with what that means.

Im presuming it is like a sign of your work, but im not sure

Thanks

Sam

Edit: Is it just for talk pages doing stuff like this?

Reedy Boy 17:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks for your help. I posted on my page, if you want to view it there. Reedy Boy 17:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cayman Trough

Interested in your thoughts at Talk:Cayman Trough. -- Kbh3rd 16:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

University of Würzburg link spam

I noticed you're doing a fine job removing the external links to the University of Würzburg made throughout several earth science articles by 132.187.57.127. and more recently Triops. Well, it looks like 84.170.76.29 is doing the same - starting with the Taphonomy article. Do you think it's worth trying to reason with them / him / her? It's starting to bug me! NickW 16:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Solar variation / footnote3

Hi. Saw your edit... thanks. Don't quite know what SEW was up to with his last. Are you interested in taking a position on this whole footnote thing? William M. Connolley 20:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Hi - I'm not sure what SEW was trying to prove with the duplication bit either, seems it would have been much easier to make the ref in question #1 on his footnote list - hmm... I also felt his edit summary was or at least close to a personal attack (a JG style attack) and totally uncalled for. I take it there is a debate ongoing about footnote3 :-) - I had experimented with it (or was footnote2?) a while back (don't even remember which article) and found it rather cumbersome as well as a high maintenance style, prefer inline refs w/ list at the end. I suppose I could look into the debate and cast my vote or whatever. Vsmith 21:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1911 EB Geology

Hey. I created a spacial page for science subjects from the 1911 EB here: Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopedia topics/15. There is even a special section for Minerals/Geology stuff! Anyway, I thought you might like to give it a peak. I figured that by concentrating the science stuff in one area, I might be able to attract more help with it. Anyway, cheers! --DanielCD 19:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion reason?

May I ask why did you delete the 'Statamerican' article? --Andrelvis 03:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1: While it's origins are not English, it is still a translation to English of a word. The usage is not derogatory actually, it is used by those who are against calling citizens of the USA Americans because that usage should be applied to all of the people living in the continent of America, just as all of the people of Europe are called Europeans. 2: I know the use is not widespread, but it does exist. 3: About the fully-bold print, I am sorry for that, as it was not intended at all, actually it was an error in my writing. But I do understand and accept your reasons for deleting it, since it's a rarely used word. But perhaps a redirect to United States of America or something similar should be put in? --Andrelvis 04:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Engineering Wiki

Engineering Wiki is a wiki entirely dedicated to collecting information about Engineering. I invite you to join this wiki.

Please help Chech Wikipedia!

Good evening (or whatever phase of day may be in your place), I'd like to beg of you for further explanation of following sentence. Please use easier words, if possible. My knowledges of English aren't so good.
Thank you very much
Milhaus, czech wikipedia ---

The red light can be caught by the streamers of falling precipitation, while aloft winds push the bottom ends of the virga so it falls at an angle, making the clouds appear to have commas attached.

Hi Milhaus,

It was not my line, but:

The streamers of rain below the cloud at sunset are visible because of the setting sun. Air movements (wind currents) below the clouds push the streamers to one side in an arcuate pattern resembling a comma below the cloud. The streamers of precipitation evaporate some distance below the clouds, typically creating an irregular whispy lower edge to the streamers of precipitation, or virga.

Hope that helps - Vsmith 02:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help. I hope, that I understood. Milhaus

Help requested

I started out researching the history of my local railway lines, but ill-advisedly added notes to Totley and Cowburn Tunnels. I say this because I immediately got asked about the geology involved. This led me to write about ganister and when I checked the link I found it less than helpful. I also was led to wonder what a seatearth is, which led me to fireclay and firebrick. I've added to these pages, but I'm not a geologist. I wonder if you would check them. Chevin 12:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits look reasonable to me. I will take another look at the articles later and see if I can expand a bit. I had not heard of the term ganister previously. Vsmith 15:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

24.60.218.22 vermont guide book articles

Hi, I was trying to figure out if I could delete it as spam/advertising. I didn't see anything in WP:CSD but think there should be. Is this a general rule or is there an actual policy on it? Thanks. ∞Who ?¿? 16:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I thought there was something there on blatant adv., but don't see it now - and there should be. Perhaps I was a bit quick on the trigger. Maybe a note on WP:CSD talk is in order. Vsmith 16:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this was the second case I seen today, and didn't want to waste AfD on it :) ∞Who ?¿? 16:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Has been discussed see [4] Vsmith 16:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiSort Project

Hey, the WikiSort Project has begun! Come on over and check it out!the1physicist 02:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tickled by rock

A pet rock, a pinch of salt, and a penny for your thoughts.

OK, that [5] tickled me. (SEWilco 03:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Glad to lighten your day. The salt picture gave me a chuckle, as I'd just finished writing Sylvite to rescue it from a salty redirect. Enjoy. Vsmith 03:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I need help

Hello VSmith, Femto, Iain.mcclatchie, Skatebiker and Ultramarine. I need help with regards to the damage(in my opinion) done by user Theo Pardilla. Please look at his contribution page, and in the history of some the articles he contributed to, please look at my contributions, under Sillybilly. What is the correct way to proceed in such cases? I'm fairly new to wikipedia, and not well versed in the control methods, if there are any.

Sillybilly 01:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Environment and Category:Environemntalism

I note that you had voted against ther move of Category:Environment to Category:Environmentalism. I have suggested that it is to be moved back. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 30. Now is your chance to get your way! I would also like to welcome you to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment. Alan Liefting 07:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done - where were you last August? Vsmith 00:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was busy studying so I had to take a break from Wikipedia. Alan Liefting 05:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

I want to thank you for voting in my RFA even though u opposed me I understand why. Thanks Again --JAranda | watz sup 23:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank-you for expressing your confidence in me at my recent Request for Adminship. The final result was 40/0/0, and my "superpowers" have now been activated. I look forward to helping out with the development of the encyclopedia. Physchim62 (talk · contribs)

Vandalism thanks!

Ta muchly for this edit, which though accurate (he was right, I don't like people who edit...blah blah blah) was rather irritating. Cheers! ;) Peeper 14:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Magnesium - Precautions

I'm contacting you in response to your removal of my edit on the Magnesium page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnesium). I am curious as to why you removed my correct information in favor of false information. Magnesium does not, in fact, react spontaneously with water or oxygen (air). I removed this information on november fifth and you reverted the incorrect data not 30 minutes later. I have roughly 3 feet of magnesium ribbon sitting on top of my bookshelf right now, and it has been there almost a week. It has yet to react with the surrounding air, and i even tested it in water with no results whatsoever. If you would like to come see it you are very much welcome to do so. I am a Chemical Engineering major at Virginia Commonwelth University, and I would appreciate it if you and Antandrus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Antandrus) would let me remove the false information on this page. You can contact me at headmm@vcu.edu if you so choose.

Thank you very much in advance, Mike Head

Hi Mike, if you review your edits you will note that much more was deleted - the whole precaution section which Antandrus reverted, and less that I later reverted. The edit I reverted deleted considerably more than you imply above (and in your current edit) and included a misspelling - clues that Antandrus and I interpreted as simple vandal deletion. We deal with multiple vandalism incidents daily and your edit seemed to fit. If you sign up for a user name and edit with it you will find other advantages beyond avoiding our semi-automatic vandalism responses. Sorry about the confusion.

Now, as for Mg - I have a small roll of ribbon in my desk drawer from which I clip off a chunk (1 - 2 cm) to use as a good demo of the high flammability of the substance - so am very aware of the dangers of magnesium metal and air in the presence of some ignition energy source. As to the water part, I simply haven't tried it - might be an interesting addition to immerse the very brightly burning ribbon in a bit of water to see the result, will have to try it next time. As for the reaction

Mg_(s) + 2 H₂O_(l) → Mg(OH)₂_(aq) + H₂_(g)

that you also deleted - it probably needs checking to verify it - just don't know right off. See [6] and [7] And I might add that you need to be cautious with that ribbon on your bookshelf - don't light a candle close to it. It is a hazardous substance and should be handled properly - perhaps the fire marshall at Virginia Commonwelth University should be notified of you possession of a dangerous material. Take care. Vsmith 04:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, ta!

Thanks for the thanks... vandal hunting can be pretty thankless at the best of times, so it has made my day to be noticed! I agree about the very odd combination that one picked (I spent some minutes trying to work out what a scientist and Dolly Parton would have in common, but other than a general interest in the properties of gravity, I'm at a complete loss :) Again, thanks for noticing and saying so. A Very Bouyed-Up ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How to Create Archive Talk/Discussion Pages

Hi, Can you tell me how to Create Archive Talk/Discussion Pages?

Cheers

Reedy Boy 11:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me!

Reedy Boy 10:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sup & small tags

Re: Your comment - Yes, I am ashamed to say, my sig was formatted improperly. I just went through all of my comments on talk pages since they disabled tidy (as discussed on WP:AN), which was a pain, but I deserved it for being slack with my nesting! Thanks for the heads up. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 00:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Deletion Ore Formation Au.

Dear Mr. Smith .

Your presentation and articles on the element AU are professional and interesting and as well highly technical in the subject of modern extraction techniques. I was planning on editing this area to dumb down it's high technical requirements by offering an overview of past metrologies used historically, as a lead in to current technology processes.

However I see you have altered this subject somewhat to be more comprehensible.

As to your deletion of my poorly formatted and worded theory on AU ore bodies formation.

I’ll defer to your wisdom on this.

Perhaps 25 years of field work and concentrated research on the subject is insufficient to have formed valid opinions as of yet, therefore I will attend to my studies more diligently until the label “nonsense” of any articles I may write in the future, can no longer be applied .

Thank You for your exhaustive consideration of the merits of said theory , May I say; I’m looking forward to seeing a factual article from you on this subject.

Regards

James I

Above post by User:24.89.199.34

Hi James. I'm sure that you have information and experience that could enhance the article. However, the section that I deleted was not really encyclopedaic as it was in part a first person essay, original research, and as you say a bit "poorly worded" with factual inacuracies. Examples of inaccuracies: Quartz is melted silica sand... and Once upon a time, this earth of ours it was one heck of a lot more tectonically active then today. - both a bit of a stretch (i.e. wrong). The concluding line sealed the case, Anyway that’s one theory. Original and mine based on years of study. That original and mine is your assertion of original research and that is not what Wikipedia is about, so it wouldn't fly - even if it were factually correct. I would suggest that you register for a user name, spend some time familiarizing yourself with the ways of Wikipedia, and then give it another go.

Now, am I going to write a section on gold deposit origin? Maybe someday with some research and references to base it on. I am a geologist and know a bit about gold orebodies, but not enough to write the needed section off the top of my head. Thanks, Vsmith 03:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Periodic table links

I noticed you went through and clipped out a dozen periodic tables from the links section. Probably necessary, but I think you might've grazed a few important ones. Google is absolutely brilliant at finding which are important and if you'll have a look at page 1 of the results for "periodic table" you'll find--pretty much in desending order of importance--the periodic tables that have been on the web some 8 years or more, with WebElements being the most prominent, useful, and authoritative. --Lucent 05:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, as I said in the edit comment, put back the good ones - no problem. Vsmith 16:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FN/Kyoto thanks

Thanks for intervening in the Great FN war. Who knows where this may lead? William M. Connolley 15:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah, something needed to be done, I'll do the same thing at global cooling later. Though I expect SEW to revert, he doesn't like anyone messing with his toy :-). As mentioned in talk there talk:Kyoto Protocol, we do need a ref section and I much prefer the Harvard system of ref links over the numbered footnotes. Let me know what you think, and do you have the full ref for the Nature articles mentioned - need them in the ref section too. Vsmith 16:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for welcome!

Hi -- I just received your welcome message; thank you for that, and for the useful links.

I'm curious, though, as to what prompted the welcome; I've been editing articles for about a year and a half now. (I'm honestly curious, not being snide or sarcastic here.) Was it that I didn't sign my comment on the "Definition of planet" talk page? If so, apologies -- back in July (when I posted that) I was under the mistaken impression that posts were signed automatically. I've been meaning to learn more about talk-page etiquette and usage (and the links you provided will definitely help with that), but for now I mostly just avoid using the talk pages. Elysdir 19:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Email

I emailed you. Guettarda 15:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

I was going to bed I didn't have time to fill it out properly, with the Wiki being so slow. Jooler 07:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Sometimes it's best to get away from it for a bit anyway. Vsmith 16:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR and double block

No problem. Thanks for helping out. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

References

Hi V, SEWilco should not be doing this against consensus. The different ways of citing sources are basically (a) Harvard referencing, which is putting e.g. the author of a book and year of publication in parentheses after the sentence (Smith 2005) with a full citation in References; (b) embedded links, which is this [8] again with a full citation in the References section; and (c) footnotes. Wikipedia has no preference between these, except that most editors, myself included, tend to use embedded links for online stuff and Harvard referencing for books. Editors on any page can decide what system to use, and if they can't agree, they should defer to the first major contributor, as WP:MoS suggests in general where there is a dispute. Wikipedia:Cite sources#How to Cite Sources, which is the relevant guideline, says: "If contributors differ as to the appropriate style of citation, they should defer to the article's main content contributors in deciding the most suitable format for the presentation of references. If no agreement can be reached, the style used should be that of the first major contributor." And the first major contributor will usually be the first person to use a citation style. So basically whatever was used first is what should continue to be used, unless everyone on the page agrees otherwise. I hope this helps you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another reply for you at Wikipedia_talk:Cite_sources#Style_identification. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chemistry links

Vsmith, I notice you removed my Human Chemical Reaction link on the chemistry page 15 minutes after I placed it there; would you be so kind to tell me why? I don’t question your action, I assume you are a reasonable person; I’m just looking for a little insight into your reasoning. Thanks - --Wavesmikey 10:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simple - Wikipedia is not a list of links. The linked webpage was good for a laugh, but not much else. If you added it to other pages, it should also be removed as linkspam. Cheers - Vsmith 14:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vsmith,

Let me take a moment to comment on your last action:

I don’t appreciate the very derogatory language and presumed speculations directed towards me.
This is third millennium, the electronic age, time is a factor; instead of simply referencing article and books, as in olden days, we now in addition link directly to the articles and books, saving the reader a trip to the library.
Every page in wikipedia has links; (a) it certainly is a requirement of its contributors to use prudence in choosing the appropriate links, (b) links having to do with commerce, i.e. the exchange or buying and selling of commodities, should not be found on wikipedia pages, (c) a page should only contain the most relevant links, (d) the links should come from the foremost experts in those respective fields, and (e) there should be no fee whatsoever involved in traveling to a link; unless of course it is a famous article, as found in a well-respected journal being that there is no other route, electronically, to its procurement.

The link I connected to the chemistry article was a short researched debate, on both sides of the issue, between two engineers regarding the query “Is love a purely chemical reaction?”, a question asked by a six Chicago boy. As such, if a six-year-old has questions about the chemistry of love, a subject on which I have over 40 books in my home library, then I feel there certainly should be a full encyclopedia article available for those curious. I would certainly be more than capable of writing such an article, yet my interests and time are focused elsewhere presently. Thus, as we both noted, I attached a quick link to the chemistry page on such a subject.

My faults, I will admit, were: (a) the page I attached was only an anchored section in the middle of page that is just a general consensus on the polled opinion of love and should have been found as full stand alone article, (b) the page attached was only a short quick discussion, between two engineers, and certainly could have used many more footnotes, and (c) the links I attached to the other three pages (which you removed of course) were not really thought out actions on my part, my main interest is with the chemistry article, thus those actions were probably mistakes on my part.

Not to be belittling to you and not to claim that I am by any means an expert, I am going to reason that a chemical engineer knows more about chemistry than a geologist. Thus, down the road, in a few months I may attach a better, more logical and sourced full-article, , written from an objective point of view, on this subject to the chemistry page for the sake of those young six-year old people out there who may wish to research such a topic from both sides of the argument. I will certainly inform you when I make this action (if I do); whereby if there stands to be a general consensus that it is a bad link than I will oblige according.

Thanks again: --Wavesmikey 19:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

pardon

I ask a pardon for the delivered inconveniences. Some links is a good addition to content imho. I shall follow to your advice - concerning "stop"

solarcoast 17:23, 27 Nov. 2005 (GMT+04)

Ammonium sulfate

Hi, you didn't have to tell me that's ok. I did it in reponse to this [9], what apparently what the author couldn't do, and he seemed pleased [10]. Was just trying to help another user. Thanks for fixing it.--Dakota ^t ^e 23:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

meander

Thanks for that excellent work! Tedernst | talk 16:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions of the link to DinoData

I restored the link twice before I noted the pattern. You seem to have deleted all of the links to this site by User:82.171.19.157. I haven't restored the link beyond the two I did, but the linked site looked accurate. Why the wholesale deletions? --Wetman 19:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - the anon [[11]] had launched an apparent spam attack adding ~ 100 ext links to his website. I reverted the recent ones and have invited him to join us and add content see User talk:82.171.19.157. I agree that the site is not commercial, but was reacting to an obvious linkspammer - reverting the wholesale additions. Hopefully he will take me up on my offer and join us, as he obviously has quite a bit to offer on our dino pages. Vsmith 19:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the situation. --Wetman 19:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed this conversation going on & thought I'd comment. As I've kinda taken the Dinosaur article under my wing to bring it up to FA status. Basically it's a pet project of mine. However, to get the article to FA status, one must appease the masses. In a past FA nomination, it was turned down by a number of things, most of which I have remedied. But one was the extensive external link section. So I would appreciate to not allow this user to place 3 additional links on the page, whether he's allowed to or not, unless his site is the be all & end all of dinosaur sites. Just a friendly reminder that some additions could be detrimental (hope that's how you spell it) to the Dinosaur article, but his site should be welcome on others. Spawn Man 21:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC) BTW, I think he's going under the name Triceratops now... So no longer an anon user...[reply]

Hi - yes, I noted that he had taken at least part of my invitation/advice to register and add content. I would suggest that one of you two maybe should welcome him and help turn him into a good contributor. I'd give him a welcome message, but don't want him to think that I run the joint :-). Vsmith 00:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unlock of Redshift

If you found my protection of Redshift to be questionable, I would have had appreciated a comment in my talk page about it. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 01:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not contacting you first. However, admins applying page protection are not supposed to be involved with any ongoing dispute. Your revert immediately prior to protecting implies that you were perhaps too close to the debate. Protection is supposed to be applied without comment as to version protected - i. e. always the wrong version. The only exception would be in cases of blatant vandalism. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith 03:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not involved in that dispute. I reverted blanking and protected the page. I would kindly request that you refactor your comment at WP:RPP. Thanks. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 04:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and request removed - as per the directions on that page for fulfilled requests. Vsmith 04:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change

Thanks. My mistake. Hope all is well with you. Guettarda 00:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

block

For a brand-new account whose only edits are nasty personal-attack vandalism, sure, why not block it indefinitely. -- Curps 04:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V citations

You may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Citation format poll: Format of citations and WP:V examples, and WP:FN. (SEWilco 08:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I will look

I will look into Magnesium in biological systems. --JWSchmidt 02:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. The info looks reasonable. Sadly I am not familiar enough with this material to easily catch the omissions or the presence of non-mainstream material. But what I wonder about more is context - how do you tie this to existing material. But it's definitely better than dealing with trolls over at intelligent design ;) Guettarda 02:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, take a troll break for your nerves. :-) Vsmith 02:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The refs look fine from a quick database check, and there was nothing that I could detect as being pseudoscienfitic. Seems to be a good place to fork from the main magnesium article. So I'd say it's all pretty good.--nixie 02:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That echoes my feelings on it. I asked several experienced editors to take a look because I think we have a potential new good editor here and thought others might add comments and help her/him learn the ropes. Thanks, Vsmith 03:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

Could be. Actually I blocked him as well - including the reincarnation that came right back with another IP. I don't know if it was him - seemed slow to find new articles. Guettarda 03:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And he's back as User talk:69.39.100.4 - will block for block evasion. Guettarda 03:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Teen admins rule! - if only. :) Guettarda 04:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He looks to have run out of accts. Might as well either ignore his blanking of the talk page, or lock the page. Guettarda 04:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slowed some - I locked User talk:68.98.10.80's talk to stop the blanking and edit summary attacks there. Will unlock in the morning. Hey, I kinda like that Teen admins rule bit - gotta have a chuckle now & then. Vsmith 04:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eco geo

No problems re: hydrothermal. I'm also trawling through the isotope geology parts, some is pretty narrow and inaccurate. I know some U.S. geologists are good with ore, but most of the young'uns i meet online know far more than I do about mammoths and Yellowstone, and know next to nothing about ore deposits. Over here, we have less fossils and dinosaurs to distract geologists into palaeontology, so Aussies specialise more readily into economic geology, hydrogeology, etc. So, as a general rule, we suck at fossils, you suck at pretties. :P I couldn't I.D. a radiolarian to save my life... Rolinator

SEWilco bot

Hi, I've asked the arbcom to reconsider its proposed decision about this at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change_dispute_2/Workshop#Request_to_reconsider_proposed_decision_regarding_SEWilco_bot. It would be appreciated if you could add your own view. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your message to me

I was not clear why you sent a message to me on welcome to Wikipedia.

Dover PA

Yeah, I heard the news - it was good to hear, although seeing bits of the transcripts and the judge's questions, it wasn't a surprise. I saw a nice talk by Eugenie Scott a few months back in which she pointed out that ID is actualy less scientific than creation "science" because at least CS puts forward actual hypotheses (kooky as they may be). Trying to keep the ID article "honest" and dealing with the people it attracts has been the bane of my existence recently ;). And thanks for the link to the blog - I have no intention of reading all 139 pages of the decision, so I need to read some analyses of it.

All the best for the holidays. We're off to Michigan in a day or two, get to see some real snow. Hope you have a good Christmas. Guettarda 05:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ozarks? Arkansas or Missouri? I didn't realise you were that close by. Guettarda 14:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mo - ~60 mi. SE of Springfield - well that's alsmost in Arkansas. Vsmith 20:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'll be in your "neighbourhood" (I-44) tomorrow - Guettarda 20:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks very much for the welcome and for the etiquette tip (sorry about that). I'm happy to hear that you like my contributions too.

Merry Christmas

I would like to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas. Have fun not torturing teenagers for a few days. All the best - Guettarda 15:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for the welcome and the instruction, I had forgotten how to do it but I think I have it worked out. I probably won't be creating many new articles but I hope to help out in disputes as I am very capable of being open minded. Thanks again Duke nemmerle 14:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

self promotion

Have you been to the sites referenced? I think you'll find their addition is not self promotion, but educational.

A company spamming a series of articles with links to its products whether educational or not is self-promotional. Please sign your comments. Vsmith 03:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removing metaphysical of hematite

Various cultures believed that there were spiritual properties associated with different rocks and metals. I think it is helpful to know what these are when researching. What if someone was trying to figure out why an ancient civilization used a specific rock or metal when making burial jewelry and it had nothing to do with anything scientific?

Sincerly Mark Harmon