User talk:Vsmith/archive6

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


Can U check out my James Reasoner article?

Can U check out my James Reasoner article? I made a James Reasoner Civil War Series article too. They don't exactly look as gfood as other articles yet. Thx. Thanks so much. Looks much more professional. The nuances are hard to get down, thx again. :)AaronCBurke 03:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Why did you delete my hard work?

According to the history, you went in and removed all my specific gravity testing stuff. Why would you remove such a detailed and helpful area that could be used by many? Gemology. Given other comments here, I am hoping you have a good reason because i find it rather insulting that my hard work goes poof at some guy's whim... Lance.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 03:05, 17 August 2006
The part removed was basically a how to guide. If you check out the Manual of style or what Wikipedia isn't - you'lll find that how to... stuff doesn't belong. Thanks and read up on Wiki rules and practices. Vsmith 03:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I'll say that I did find the refererence you are referring to; however, you did send me on one hell of a wild goose chase. The policy bit you are refering to is NOT in the Manual of Style. It is actually in the Policies and Guidelines. However, if you are not too high on your chair, I would like to make a suggestion. Instead of simply deleting information that was worked hard on, why not move it to the right area. In this case Wikipedia has a place called "Wikihow" Think about it. You wouldnt want your hours of work simply deleted into obvilion... Where I live it is called common courtesy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 06:46, 18 August 2006

Sorry 'bout the wild geese - I should've taken the time to give better directions. This is a learning experience for us all. Note - if you click on history tab you will see older versions and your hard work is there for you. Another note, to sign your talk page edits just place four tildes at the end and wiki will automatically display your sig and time. Enjoy, Vsmith 12:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit of page "science" under the heading "philosophy of science"


I am writing to find out why the portions on the Wikipedia page "science" were reverted to an earlier version. The particular section that was edited - philosophy of science - had words that many scientists would argue are not true. For instance, the paragraph starting with, "Resting on reason and logic..." (the third paragraph in the section), the first 13 words are actually arguably outside the definition and in fact lead to the wrong conclusions about what science encompasses. Science does not rest on reason nor logic, but in fact only currently uses tools like Mathematics as a means to describe models in a form that other people can use. Fundamentally, we don't know whether or not the universe actually uses such tools itself (math), but it is currently our best way to describe what is observable. In the end, this is all science both can and should do - describe what we can measure.

This section, I believe is misleading, and should be changed.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 22:02, 17 August 2006
Hmm... I was always under the impression that scientists do measure and describe AND THEN use logic and reason to develope an hypothesis or theory to explain the measured and described phenomena. Logic, reasoning and mathematics are all an important part of the scientific process. Data are collected - then a theory (explanation) is produced through logic and reason and math. Then more data is collected in the testing phase to verify or refute the proposed explanation. They are all an integral part of science. Where did your odd ideas of science come from? If you want a wider audience, you should post this on the article talk page. Cheers, Vsmith 22:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


How can I make a new article on cyprine? Neptunekh

Deleting "String Theory" from "Pseudo-science"

String people have been dominant insiders of "physics" for decades and have done a great PR job, but science is the pursuit of verifiable/falsifiable truth and no amount of math sugarcoating can change that. When, after 30 years, everyone inside and outside of the string community agrees that String Theory cannot and will not make falsifiable predictions, how can it not be included on a list of pseudo-sciences? Do you have a valid counter argument? "My physics professor says so" does not cut it any more than "my president says so". Or, maybe you are a supporter of Intelligent Design as well?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
How about you read my notr on Talk:Pseudoscience and the comments following it. That is the place for you to discuss this. And, please don't insult me with that ID bit, thank you, Vsmith 17:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. See my reply there. You obviously do not know String Theory beyond the common propaganda put out by the likes of Brian Green. Please refrain from taking a stand that is stronger than your knowledge.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 13:05, 22 August 2006
Obviously??? Cheers, Vsmith 13:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Block of User talk:

How can you justify this block? It is a shared IP for at least one campus of QUT and has only had 6 edits in the last 4 days. Ansell 03:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Anon only block. Looks like the sixth block this year, I have little patience with childish vandalism - sorry 'bot that.Vsmith 10:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

you are wrong

I did not add a link to 'MY' webpage I added a link to a good webpage with tons of really good pictures of the Black Hills! sorry I tried to contribute, I wont do so anymore.

Granite dome

Granite dome survived without any disasters. Thanks for cluing me on; those gentlemen (and women) of the school who are actually polite are appreciated.

dino 21:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 19:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"consensus science" deletion vote

Sorry for the late notice, but I have recently nominated the "consensus science" page for deletion. For my arguments on this, please see that article's discussion page and its deletion page. Deletion policy says that I should tell frequent contributors to the page about the proposed deletion, and I only just saw this today.

Sorry for any inconvenience. Dicksonlaprade 15:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Geography wikipedia project

I thought you might be interested in helping Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geography If so, just add your name to the page. Thanks AlexD 00:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer article

The Bobby Fischer article contained a bunch of profanity, so I removed it. Was this correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AaronCBurke (talkcontribs) 21:06, 2 September 2006

Hmm... I know nothing about Bobby Fischer, and really have no interest in the seemingly unbalanced rhetoric. I don't think Wikipedia needs to wallow in that kind of tabloid journalism garbage and don't see such inflammatory speech as appropriate or relevant to the article. In other words - "so what", therefore I'd say the quotes have no place here. The geocities site is rather a poor source and I tend to regard such websites as not trustworthy or worthy of quoting anything. However others will probably disagree with my assessment, Cheers, Vsmith 23:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thx. AaronCBurke 00:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


Why the **** have I been banned for vandalism??? Virenque wasn't even IN the 2001, so how the heck was he 'bested'?É

Oh, and btw - Virenque has raced for Festina since 1993, not 1994 - get your facts staright bud. I only changed pieces of information that were incorrect, now i'm a 'vandal' LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 19:46, 6 September 2006

Sorry - I have no clue who you are or who this Virenque character is. Perhaps there's been a bit of confusion here. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith 22:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Michael Mann (scientist) and POV tag

As you know, there is currently a dispute as to whether the Michael Mann (scientist) should have an external link to (a link which has been there for almost a year). Not only have you removed the link, you have also removed the POV tag on the article. The POV tag should remain until the dispute is resolved and its removal amounts to vandalism. 00:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... remove the link and the POV problem is gone - quite simple. Now, I do not appreciate a revert warring anon, who hides behind at least three different IPs, lecturing me about what is or is not proper on Wikipedia, you have violated WP:3RR, but because you hide you seem to consider yourself immune to wiki rules. Get a username and take responsibility for you actions. I dislike talking to a number. Vsmith 01:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

That long time ago

Thanks for your comments, Vsmith. It is good to know someone remembers. It is especially important to remember, at a time in history when the principles for which so many of our friends gave their lives, are threatened by domestic tyranny. Take care and be well. Doctor Faust 21:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


I'm following the Einstein article with interest. Your contribution would be welcomed on the Wikipedia_talk:Expert_Retention. Dbuckner 07:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Aluminum

What does the IUPAC accepted spelling have to do with anything; Aluminum is also even a IUPAC accepted spelling. The common spelling is Aluminum and that is what should be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 02:28, 10 September 2006

This spelling difference has been resolved by a rather long discussion and consensus is that the spelling used in Wikipedia articles is the IUPAC preferred aluminium. The aluminum spelling is the common spelling in the US, I'll agree with you that far. But, that is irrelevant now - this is an international encyclopedia project. I am well aware of the situation - I teach chemistry here in the US and all of the textbooks I use have the US spelling. However, if you persist in your edit warring over this trivial spelling issue - you will be blocked from editing. Vsmith 02:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If you change the content of my warning message to you again, I can and will block you for that also. Vsmith 02:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Whatever wikiking.

Crystal - You Deleted My Link

Hi, If you get this message twice, please delete one of them :) I am a little confused about how this works, but I did figure out how to add my link to the page about Crystals. My website has a directory of Crystals with pictures and metaphysical properties. It relates to the article. I added my link and then you deleted it. Could you please advise me as to why it was deleted, or what I can do to keep it up? Thanks for your time, Marin —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReikiEssentials (talkcontribs) 17:20, 13 September 2006

Hi, the addition of your personal website as an external link to Wikipedia articles is against policy, see: WP:Spam. Vsmith 22:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:GUS and deleted users

As you may have followed, the German Userbox Solution seems to be gaining in popularity. The only problem is when the user gets blocked and all their user subpages get deleted! Is it possible to recover the code of the userboxes in question? I would happily host it in my own userspace. The user is question is User:nathanrdotcom and the userboxes in particular in question are:

Thanks VSmith! Mr Minchin Canada 19:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't use the boxes and know nothing about WP:GUS. Vsmith 22:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


Barnstar of Reversion2.png The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Because good guys deserve a pat on the back! RedRollerskate 00:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Vsmith 01:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for your prompt response. Cambridge Weather Bay was concerned about my site because he thought it was Spam because my user name is identical to the site name. I am not a spam artist as I have never even created a site before this one, and am only trying to get my information about crystals out for people to read about. If I had known, I wouldn't have made my username the same as my website. My website is informative about crystals, how to care for crystals, and metaphysical properties. I offer information that I think other people will find useful. I would really appreciate being able to have a link on the page because my website offers information about crystals that is not included in the WIKI page. Another user (Cambridge Bay Weather) had said that i should run it by all of you (although to be honest I don't know who else to talk to about this). Please consider this and let me know your decision. I won't bother you again about it, I just really hope that you understand what my objective is, and understand that I am not trying to be spam. Thank you, Marin

Marin - from

Not to beat a dead horse...but the last line in this Wiki Page (Crystals) is: 'Crystals also figure or figured prominently as healing tools in a number of mythologies [1].'

By clicking on the '[1]' link you are taken to a Mythology website that offers a few paragraphs of info - and then has a store to sell crystals. I guess I don't see the different between my site www.ReikiEssentials/crystals.html and that person's site...aside from the fact that my site offers tons more information on crystals. Why is it that my link keeps being knocked off - when there is a similar link *with less info than I provide* on this page...

Additionally, it is not uncommon that people use crystals for their metaphysical properties. Why is it not okay to provide that information on Wiki? I am really confused about this because I don't know where you are coming from. The site that the [1] link takes you to sells crystals and provides very little information on them. Please explain to me what is wrong with my site and offering this information thru Wiki.

Thanks for your time, Marin

Thanks - removed two spam links. Wikipedia is not for the promotion of your own website, it is as simple as that. Read WP:Spam carefully. If you put the link back, you will be subject to a block. Vsmith 21:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what you think I am promoting. I am not proclaiming to own or invent anything. I have valid information about crystals that is relevent to the topic. There is no other source for this information through this Wiki page. I read the spam rules. I don't see how my website qualifies for any category or explanation listed. I am contributing information about the subject, just as every other link does. Including the one that is linked in the last line of the page [1]. I am seeking a moderator because I don't mean to cause trouble, but you really haven't given me a valid explanation and I have legitimate information on a topic that isnt covered on this wiki page. I'm sorry if you think I am trying to sell something, but I think that its fair to give the public as much information on a subject as possible. I really don't understand the problem here.

From Wikipedia:External links:
See: Links normally to be avoided #3
A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link.
Vsmith 23:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Albert Einstein reversion

I am curious about your recent reversion of edits by It seems to me that all three edits were small stylistic improvements. Did you perhaps assume was User:Licorne? The edits don’t seem to me to be Licorne-like (aside from the somewhat similar IP)—it’s not like they credit GR to Grossman or Hilbert. --teb728 00:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it seemed at the moment like a more subtle Licorne type edit. May have reacted too fast though. Hmm...? Vsmith 00:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Another anon reverted the page.

here Inquiring as to your opinion as the blocking admin is it acceptable for me to revert and/or block? Your comment on the 3RR report page seemed to imply that. JoshuaZ 02:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Quite acceptable to me - that's just what I meant to imply, sorry it was not clear. Vsmith 02:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

3rr on Indigo children

I noticed that you blocked Mycats (talkcontribs) for 3RR on Indigo children. I was going to ask that he be unblocked, since he had not edited since warning. He is now, however, editing as an anon, (talkcontribs). Any chance you could have a word with him? Thanks, --TeaDrinker 02:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No to unblocking, JoshuaZ had warned him earlier - see earlier in his talk page. Vsmith 02:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Yep, he just pointed that out, my mistake. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 02:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Global Warming - an alteritive hypothesis

Dear vsmith. I respect the value that WIKIPEDIA adds to society and respect you and the finality of your decision because of your sincere efforts to maintain the consistency of this endeavour [Wikepedia].

I would suggest however that your decisions are subjective and as such, you should be a little kinder in your responses explaining your decision to move discussion. For example, a hyperlink that said something like “Further discussion on alternative hypothesis” would have shown more respect for your peers.

My response complemented the "Global Warming - an alterative hypothesis" discussion and that is why I added it. I left my full name and identification information to engage discussion in my community and to give the world the right of reply. It is something I believe in, and removing the anonymity takes courage.

There is a perspective that the “discussion” section is for discussion and the “article” section is for the best known view of the facts.

Your comments are subjective and unkind.

If your concern is that the discussion is becoming unwieldy, you should say so rather than using words like "rambling". Instead your tact was that of a "bully".

Beroccaboy 03:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that - no intention to be a bully. Your comments were not seen as relating to working on the article, rather as a personal essay. I understand your concerns and simply moved the essay to your talk and left a link to it. I see two editors have followed that link and commented there. Wikipedia is here to provide information, not to save the world. Cheers, Vsmith 12:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe you are sincere and it was a my misunderstanding. Bless you. To show that there are no hard feelings and that I do sincerely appreciate your efforts and that of your collegues I have donated AUD$100 to WIKIPEDIA. Thank you again. Byron :-)

Beroccaboy 05:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


Please consider my comments on Talk:Concentration

And thank you for removing my comment .. but then is is situated in the only country on this planet that does not use SI.,. It was indeed an inconvenient truth, wasn't it?


..Dutch, i.e. metric since 1816 and proud of it..

Re:citations missing template

Ah, the reason I thought it was necessary is that when Liberal Party (Utah) was recently delisted from FA status, inline citations where mentioned a few times. I personally much prefer articles with footnotes, because you can quickly verify where each piece of information came from, rather than searching through an entire book.

As far as the template being ugly, perhaps it would look better if placed in a Notes section. I see your point about the template, but I personally find it much more of a headache and much messier when I need to tag an article with 50 citation-needed tags. --Lethargy 01:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

RE: Note

Thanks, I took a look at the link you sent me. I'll be more careful next time I change a spelling; consistency is best, as they say! :)

Eric Lerner unprotect


Could you please unprotect my page? I've put the request on the unprotection page, but got no reply.

It has been protected for ten days. While admins have corrected one particular egregious flaw, it remains a very biased entry. Most of the article consists of extensive critical quotes. Two favorable quotes are listed deceptively under “criticisms of Lerner’s ideas”, which they clearly are not. This treatment is not at all consistent with other wiki entries on similarly controversial figures in astronomy, such as Halton Arp.

A glance at the discussion page will show that little or no progress is being made towards a “consensus” with two very biased editors, SceicneAplogist and JBKramer, both of whom will not be satisfied with anything other than a blanket condemnation of me. There has not even been any discussion for three days.

I have already agreed not to edit this page. I was in fact unaware of the policy against that.

I would propose that the page be unprotected. If another edit war ensues, I would propose that the disputes be submitted to arbitration.

Regards, Eric Lerner

Thanks for your comments, I am watching the talk page there and will give it a bit more time for some issues to be resolved. Your pledge to limit your editing of the page is a positive move. Of course other admins are free to unprotect if they deem it appropriate. Vsmith 01:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


What's wrong with the link to:

Petition Project, Letter from Frederick Seitz, Research Review of Global Warming Evidence

I have added to some of the articles and plan to add more.

Tanuki-Dori 01:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read the spam warning I placed on your page. The addition of external links to a number of pages constitutes spam. The addition of links to that petition page appears to be promotional or simple POV pushing on your part. The link seemed to have little relevance to several of the pages and was not a reference as you indicated in at least on addition. Vsmith 02:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I can read between the lines. The facts will pan out, one only need wait. I read the section on SPAM and POV ... Actually, Criticism of Wikipedia was far more helpful, specifically systemic bias, and group dynamics.Tanuki-Dori 03:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a question about the Viluite page

Hi. You seem to know alot about minerals. I would like to ask you how I can copy the photo of the Viluite from this page: And put it on the viluite page. Or could you do that? Thank you! Neptunekh 09:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The link you provide is a commercial site and the images are no doubt under copyright. So, simply stated, you can't put the images on any Wikipedia page. Unless you buy the mineral specimen from them and they release the images to you - then you could upload them as public domain images or some such, you would need verification that the company released copyright with the mineral purchase. Not much help though, sorry 'bout that. I also removed that link from the viluite page as spam. Vsmith 13:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Viluite Picture

I own a Viluite piece, but it is a jelwerly piece. How can I upload it as a picture and is a jewlery piece appectable for the wikipedia? The piece I own in wrapped in wire because I have it on a necklace. Neptunekh 09:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Assuming your image is in jpg or other acceptable format, simply click on that Upload file link in the toolbox on the left of any page (below the search box) and follow the directions. A jewelry piece of a gemstone is acceptable - assuming the image is focused on the gemstone (and assuming you have some verification that the stone is viluite). Experiment and learn - be sure to indicate a release license - GFDL (self made) - would be my guess. Vsmith 10:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Links = Spam?

Hi Vsmith, thanks for leaving your message on my talk page. Sorry for coming back to you so late, I have not looked at it since. First of all I am very sorry if I violated some rules of Wikipedia. I did not mean to spam with links to my site. I was more in the opinion that the travel reports that I wrote and the pictures taken are often things that are giving further detail to the repsective article such as images, but are not appropriate to be included 100%. It is a bit hard for me to understand what kind of external link is appropriate and what not, or if simply a certain amount of links to the same page, even thoug hall appropriate are considered spam. I assumed that if the link is not edited out, it is considered relevant by the main authors of the respective article. I tried to find a definition of good external links now, but could not find it. Any hint here is appreciated so I cna understand what I did wrong. Further, be assured that I never would re-insert things that got edited out by someone else. Rather the fact that I found out that my links got copied into other languages of Wikipedia made me believe that I did the right thing. Whatever it is, I want to contribute to Wikipedia and surely not Spam. So sorry again. Oliver aka tokyoahead 10:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't recall the details or links, but quite simply put - don't post links to your site on any wiki article. Your links to your travel reports or whatever are not notable and seem to be disigned to either increase you hit count or simply vanity. I don't edit wikis in other languages so cannot coment on them. And obviously there are a bunch of spam links existing on wiki articles, I don't watch them all. Now, you are welcome to add content to wikipedia articles - just be sure it is backed by verifiable sources and not your original research (that includes your personal accounts of your travel adventures, etc.) Cheers, Vsmith 02:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocking for spam

Re: User talk: You used wrong template after blocking this user. Adding spam is not vandalism. Besides, many "spammers" do not suspect they are spammers. They genuinely think they are helping wikipedia. Besides, it was only about two hours between warning in his talk page and your block.

In this cases I would advise to block a person with message, kind of: "The account is temporarily blocked. Please respond in your talk page User talk:" You don't have to hit with a sledgehammer at once. `'mikka (t) 15:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Block/warn request: User:

Would you please warn/block user address Someone from that address vandalized the Aeschylus article. 21:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Should I request adminship?

You were one of the first admins I ever came across when I was a "baby" Wikipedian. I have not had any real dealings with you, however, so I feel you will be neutral -- neither biased toward or against me. (Actually I don't think much of anyone is biased against me, but you never know.) I am writing to ask your honest opinion, yea or nay -- am I ready to request adminship? I am seriously considering this request because I am getting to the point where not having these tools is a real hindrance to RC patrol and anti-vandalism work. I have been in very few disputes because I have a non-confrontational (though also strongly non-compromising when it comes to policy) approach. Feel free to ask me any questions or make any suggestions, and thank you very much in advance. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 20:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, some background to save you some research: My first edit was 13 Feb 2006 [1]. Besides contributing content primarily (but not exclusively) to the topics mentioned on my user page, my contributions include the following:
  • Uploading GFDL-licensed images
  • Activity on the Science Reference Desk
  • Welcoming and assisting new editors
  • Hosting userboxes per the German Userbox Solution
  • Housekeeping tasks, which have included the following:
    • Wikifying articles and other assorted cleanup
    • Participating in AfD
    • Creating redirects to assist navigation
    • RC and vandalism patrol, of course

Ginkgo100 (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log) 20:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. I see no problem with your edit history, and the mop makes routine things easier. So, if you're ready for the RFA scrutiny - jump in! Vsmith 02:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Viluite Picture

Could a use this page a an example link so people can see what viluite looks like: It's not a commerical site. Neptunekh 21:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Umr.gif

An image that you uploaded, Image:Umr.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

SEWilco 04:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about the status, I modified the image in Sep 05 for clarity. Vsmith 10:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


Hi user at ip is on a vandalism spree (see [2] [3] etc) Noticed that you'd warned 'em before, so thought you might be the person to take things the next step. Cheers--Saganaki- 13:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


This is a high school building. The kid doing mega64 is stupid and i think he does drugs. I apologize for any inconveniences. Please do not completely block this isp from being able to acess the website because we use wikipedia for almost all our information! is a Wikimedia Foundation IP address

Specifically, it's from See the whois. Alright, technically its says is's IP address, but it's probably a range of IPs.

Fortunately, the autoblocker didn't kick in, or else I wouldn't be able to leave this message on your talk page, as I am editing through I only found out when I tried to edit after my login cookie expired. Of course I was suprised to see an IP address other than my own - although my IP address is dynamic, it doesn't change that often, and it should still stay in a certain range.

Anyways, I hope you are as amused as I am. : )

Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.. yeah, that does strike me as funny - I blocked Wikipedia for vandalism, maybe a range block next... :-) Vsmith 01:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Moss Agate

Hi Vsmith! I was wondering what you could tell me about Moss Agate. I would like to add more information to the article. Thank you! Neptunekh 04:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't know much about it - just an agate with green inclusions. The article could use a bit of fixing - I just chopped one commercial (spam) link, first time I'd looked at it as I recall. Use a good gemstone/mineral text as a reference and edit away. Note most web sites are commercial sites trying to promote their product & get your $$$. Vsmith 13:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Viluite Picture

Could a use this page a an example link so people can see what viluite looks like: It's not a commerical site. Neptunekh 21:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather not - just removed it and Google image search link. Irrelevant page content. Vsmith 21:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll remove the Google image search if you let me keep this: What's wrong with? It's bacislly the only non-commercial website that has a picture of Viluite. Neptunekh 01:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ocean Jasper

Hi Vsmith. Could you do me a small favour. Could a take a look at the Ocean Jasper page I created this month and maybe edit it. You're so good at editting mineral pages. Here it is: Thank you! Neptunekh 01:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved to orbicular jasper (ocean jasper appears to be just a commercial trade name) and rewrote to avoid commercial hype and use non-commercial sources. Vsmith 10:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Topaz information

Hey, I noticed you deleted some information that I wrote in the "Topaz" article. I was just wondering why you did. If it didn't belong under that subheading, then couldn't have you made a new one?

No hard fealings or anything, I know you were only trying to ke wikipedia better, but I was just a little cheeses off that my work just got deleted.

cheers, Danger Al —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danger Al (talkcontribs) 06:59, 16 October 2006

Sorry 'bout that. The addition of unsourced beliefs has no place in the article. There exists an article crystal power - try putting it there with source info. Cheers. Vsmith 09:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


- why was I blocked? you provied me with no explnation or warning when you decided to do that. I am totally anti-vandalism and have saved articles in the past from such things. My entries in the newton article were legitimate and reasonable claims based on lots of opinions in the scientific community.

- hope you can get back to me soon. I 'll make no new entries till you do so.

( 22:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC))

Hi, check this edit [4] (note the diff below line 32 in which you left a sentence fragment and blanked a couple of paragraphs). This had followed a string of edits to that article. As to your other edits - I see a bit of revert warring, but no real vandalism. So, sorry if that one edit - error or whatever - triggered the block a bit prematurely. Please use caution in your edits - preview and check the results if this was a simple error. Cheers, Vsmith 22:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent Link

Thanks for the link you added to the "Brittle-ductile transition zone" article, much better than anything that I'd been able to find. I know that I'm creating quite a few stubs, but I do intend to expand them when I get the chance. Cheers Mikenorton 14:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Help and ideas needed


Sorry you've been spammed, but I hope you'll find for a good reason . I've noticed you are active around the recent changes arena (normally having beaten me to a revert), and I'm currently looking for help with a new project. I would like to harmonise all the warnings and templates we issue, with goal to creating a standard look, format and content to the messages. Even if you use VP, VS or any of the other vandal tools out there, I still feel this is worthwhile. Please visit here for further information, and leave me a message if you're interested or tell me to get lost ;) if you haven't the time. Khukri (talk . contribs) 13:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I don't monitor the recent changes page, just have over 4600 items on my watchlist. Mostly science related stuff that I've edited or created. Many short stubs that no one cares about, but also a variety of hot topics for vandalism like evolution, global warming and such. I just try to monitor the changes to my watchlist on a daily basis & zap any vandalism & POV pushing I find - also try to check out the other pages a vandal has been editing on and rv whatever needs reverting. I see no real problem with the warning templates, but will be interested in the results of your efforts. I'd rather be writing and expanding articles and view the anon vandalism epidemic as a serious waste of effort -- would like to see some curtailment of anon editing. Anyway, good luck and keep on keeping on... Vsmith 01:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

periodic table external link

you removed my "external link" on the periodic table page which pointed to several other periodic tables are listed there and the one to which i pointed i think would be an excellent addition to those already listed. obviously, this isn't just a random link added to an unrelated subject but rather it is to a page whose topic is directly related to the wikipedia page on which it was put and which offers information and ability that is not included with any of the other links. i believe that it meets all the requirements for appropriateness and non-promotion of a product. the only reason i can imagine you had for removing it is one that i don't know how you could even know, that i'm the creator of the page. nonetheless, i think that my periodic table has tremendous advantage over many of the other pages that are currently listed in the external links. perhaps you didn't have an opportunity to see its features and capabilities. i am new to wikipedia and didn't know that you aren't supposed to add links to web pages to which you are affiliated. perhaps if you consider the content of the page, you would consider adding it yourself. if not, then maybe you could tell me a more specific reason as to why it should not be included.


Hello Brian: You have identified the reason - it is your page. Why should Wikipedia promote your work or be used to increase your hit count? Cheers, Vsmith 16:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I removed it first, don't you steal my thunder. :)
How could we even know? Your only two contributions were to repeat adding a link. Usually a dead giveaway. See WP:EL, interactive Flash based sites are not very high on the list of pages that should be linked, and there are literally thousands other sites about the periodic table that could be—but shouldn't be—linked from the article either. Femto 19:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Watch out!

On pH you reverted vandalism... unfortunantely, the two prior anonymous authors had also vandalized the article, so you'd left it in a vandalized state! Be careful about this trickery. Thanks! — Edward Z. Yang(Talk) 23:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)



I am the anonymous contributor who added to the Kombucha page. I understand you have removed my edit for the link I added to the bottom of the page? This is the first time I have contributed to the Wiki and was not aware that links like mine (linking to an example of the Kombucha Continuous Fermentation Jar or Astragalus) were not allowed. Because there were other commercial links I thought that would not be a problem. I have no problem with the link being removed if it contravenes the rules... thanks for the link discussing them.

However, I do not understand why you removed my edits about the continuous fermentation process... as it is legitimate and it not discussed at all in the page. Would I be allowed to add that information back into the page?


Richard Vaughan

P.S I will be registering when I work out how!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 14:27, 24 October 2006
It seems that you were adding external links to several articles. As the links were of a commercial nature, they were reverted as WP:Spam. If you wish to add sourced information to the article, that will be fine, but please no more external links to commercial sites. Thanks, Vsmith 15:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


Barnstar of Reversion2.png The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you for keeping Biotechnology vandal free. --Victor 01:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


Vsmith, I'm sorry I "vandalized" your page, I was going to see if my science teacher would give me any extra credit for it. You see, (being a science teacher you probably already know) in my school we celebrate mole day (10/23 from 6:02AM-6:02PM) in celebration of Avogadro's number. Tomorrow's extra credit assignment was to bring in a little known Avogadro fact. He agreed to give us more if we led astray slackers who didn't do it, and brought in a lie about Avogadro because they took our word rather than doing the work themselves. Though I knew it was wrong to mislead others, I was just attempting at some possible extra credit in my AP Chem class, and for that I am sorry. Seeing as you seem to know a lot about Avogadro, could you give me a litle known fact about Avogadro, thus helping get extra credit without "vandalism"? If you could, I would be very appreciative.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 02:37, 25 October 2006
Hey, it's not my page, but continue with the vandalism and you'll be blocked. Sorry, you'll have to do your own homework - why not write a summary of your efforts to deceive your fellow students by vandalizing an encyclopedia. Who knows, maybe your teacher would have a warped sense of humor ... if it was me I'd just give you an F. Cheers, Vsmith 02:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


I apoligize for editing that. I thought that was 0.6 ferinheight

Kirra Greece

Could you please take a look at the page Kirra Greece that I've created? And could you please edit it? Thank you! Neptunekh 22:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the help in Creek people. I don't know why we're under attack all the time. As you can see from my profile, I'm also a science teacher! Nice to meet you. -- Bruce H. McCosar 12:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


Hi. Thanks for your help. Its been an odd few days on the PSC page... William M. Connolley 15:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use policy

I'm not very sure about passing an amendment to fair use policy concerning fair use in portals, Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Amendment/Fair use images in portals. I would like to ask if 1)It's possible to close it on the 31st, and 2)Is it feasible? Thanks for your input ahead of time. Ddcc 19:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for your recent attention on the Mole (unit) article. In future, though, please note that it's much more helpful to the encyclopedia to add a [citation needed] tag, or--better still!--find a reference yourself, rather than snipping anything unverified. It took me all of 3 minutes to find a reference in Metrologia supporting the sentence you removed. Ckerr 04:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

PSC talk page

I expressed an opinion on a talk page, and you removed it. Please stop attempting to suppress freedom of speech and opinion on Wikipedia. I leave the users of wikipedia to discern what they will from the talk pages, not attempt to dry up the arena for discourse by reverting talk pages. If you disagree then say so, don't be an authoritarian that deletes what they will without warning or good reason.-- 17:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I see no edit of that talk page by I reverted the incivil comments and personal attacks posted there by an AOL ip-hopping vandal. Are you that same vandal, I see you're hiding behind an AOL ip. I would post a warning on the ip talk page, but what good would it do? As for the personal attack in your note above, I have removed it - I don't tolerate such attacks on talk pages. I would reccommend that you get a user name and edit responsibly with it, then we can discuss things further. Discussions with ip hopping anons is usually a waste of time. Cheers, Vsmith 01:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Block request

I'm a contributor to Bicycle brake systems which has been getting vandalized by a few times over the last week. I saw your name in its block log and thought I'd pop on by. A really long block would be nice as, out of its 50+ edits, I could only a single meaningful contribution. --Adamrush 18:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Checked it out - yup, he's back at the same old nonsense. Reblocked 1 month as return blatant vandal. Vsmith 01:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


How very interesting, where do you teach? Do you teach Chemistry?, it seems from you very imformative, and from what else i have researched, factually perfect articles

big network

if you'll permanently block us from wikipedia alot of kids at this school will be unable to edit to fix wikipedia. these are school computers, not an individual person vandalizing.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 14:14, 2 November 2006

...or unable to vandalise ... Vsmith 18:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Schmittner Karl-Erich and Giresse Pierre

I reverted your work at Calcite. My reasoning is that it wasn't used to support the content, it qualifies as further reading at best. The original editor re-inserted and I haved headed it as further reading. Several anon IPs have been adding Schmittner Karl-Erich and Giresse Pierre references in the last 24 hours, and my view is that is a form of spam. I am particularly persuaded by the fact that no content was added in conjunction with the refs being added. Last night I reverted 5 instances (1- 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 ) and offered to discuss, but today, my reversions are being reverted by a different anon IP without discussion. I have zero stomach for an edit war. Hope you have some sage advice for me! -- Paleorthid 19:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The IPs resolve to - Dutch equiv of AOL or whatever. The anon. seems to not want to discuss, just continues pushing the ref. Latest additions have included small addtions to articles, I guess to justify the ref inclusion. Likely to qualify as spam if we assume the anon is one of the authors - or a relative. Hmm... will sleep on it and think some more tomorrow. Vsmith 03:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

PSC page

I was trying to fix the page, to only include information that is verifiable and from reputable sources. Wikipedia is not a place for original research and is certainly not a place for opinion of any kind. Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. --BlakesDad 03:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The information that you seem to want to revert out of the article is valid (EPA and WMO), sourced and accessible. Therefore it stays in. If you have specific objections, take it to the talk page. Vsmith 03:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

excuse me but?

You left me a message about vandalism... what is this about please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 23:58, 5 November 2006

This edit [5] by someone using your IP address. Vsmith 00:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Article about Wikipedia Users


I am a freelance writer working on an article about the wide array of people who make Wikipedia their life, their passion, their pastime. Wikipedia “addicts” if you will. I’m looking for people just willing to tell their story of how they got sucked into the intellectual whirlwind that is Wikipedia, how you got started editing, how the obsession grew, and what you spend your time focusing on these days? Do you write articles from scratch? Is your main push toward one particular type of article? Do you patrol for typos and errors, or spend your time diligently fixing vandalism? Do you take part in the “social aspects” of Wikipedia; engaging in animated discussions or decorating your user page with all sorts of internet memes? Have you forced yourself to take a “Wikipedia break”? If so, what’s your 20/20 hindsight on the obsession? Basically I’m just trying to get an idea of what it’s like for various Wikipedia “addicts.” If you are interested in participating, please email me at brianrhodges _

If anybody else, other than this user is interested in participating, feel free to email me as well. This article is intended to be a light informational piece, nothing too heavy or controversial, just merely introducing readers to a subculture that they likely had no idea existed. So please don’t email me with your conspiracy theories, or your grudge against the Wikipedia hierarchy… unless it directly applies to your overall experience with the site. This article is about the USERS, not about the pros and cons of the site itself.


Brian68.39.158.205 19:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Brian, Why don't you get yourself a Wikipedia username/account with an email contact through wiki, and set up a questionier on a user subpage for potential interviewees to look at and a place for them to respond. You could do a better job of explaining your project and introduce yourself there. Some wiki experience on your part would, I think, be a pre-requisite for your proposed writing project. Besides, I don't really want to respond by e-mail to someone unknown to me. Cheers, Vsmith 04:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


Hi there

I am a theoretical physicist (by education) and a member of several serious mineral collecting and gemstone-interest groups in America as well as in Europe.

In response to your comments, my colleagues and I have found and had numerous discussions about how often people incorrectly state facts and stories. Many of the wikipedia pages do not have references, i.e. allowing people to expand on their knowledge, check facts/stories, and/or read more. In my opinion, it is best to correct errors and then offer published and credible resources for those who wish to know more in-depth information when it pertains to a topic that interests them.

Would it be better to add paragraphs and then references as footnotes to these new and also to existing paragraphs? References would then be made to the specific pages inside a particular book, or to more recent work of the gem-laboratories as well as those of other organisations?

I have spoken to the German Gemmological Society (the leading European Gemmological Organization). They will permit me to use their latest articles but the problem is many are in German and I have not had the time to translate them (yet).

Best regards


—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gem-fanat (talkcontribs) 10:03, 9 November 2006

Hello Harold, please add information to the mineral/gemstone articles that are in need of improving. Of course it is always important to provide references for the information that you add. The problem I saw, was that you were adding ext. links or refs without adding content. The links you were adding were to old gem/mineralogy texts that were made available on the Farlang site. The Farlang site seems to be a commercial gem seller that provides the online texts as a service.
On the actinolite article, which had 4 existing references which I had added a while back - the Farlang link that you added was to a dated 1892 text and the link it brought up did not mention actinolite. On the Anatase article your link was entitled On the Occurrence of Adularia ...', which seemed like a bit of carelessness. Now, I'll agree the anatase article is badly in need of a re-write to replace the outdated 1911 Britannica language and info, but your 1898 text by Streeter was no better - we need modern references. So please add information sourced by modern texts and or websites.
You mention photos above - they would be most welcome, but must meet Wikipedia's strict copyright rules. Information from your German sources is most welcome - but please don't just copy or translate verbatum. Note I use the German database routinely as a reference. Thank you, Vsmith 03:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Vsmith, I love Mindat which is a great reference. I will request a specific copyright release for wikipedia use before adding any images. Thanks for the feedback, Harold.

Your comments on adding references

I did not see the Subject/headline for my comments posted right above this one, so I am adding a subject line "after the fact".


New category needed?

Organic minerals. This can include jet (lignite), vitrinite and other macerals (technically) as well as the rarer nitrate, phosphate and carbonaceous minerals of organic origins;

Etc. Rolinator 02:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Already exists - Category:Organic minerals. Maybe it needs a subcat for organic mineraloids as jet, vitrinite and amber. Lignite is cat'd there although it doesn't qualify ... hmm, do jet & vitrinite? Cheers, Vsmith 03:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Spam links

I have absolutely no idea who you are, but I can gurantee I'm not leaving links to inappropriate pages in Wiki entries. The only links I've added today are ones I found for National Park pictures on other National Park entries, only for the appropriate Park.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by JackiJinx (talkcontribs) 18:13, 12 November 2006
I don't reckon that I know you either :-) But, the link you seem to be pushing is a commercial image supplier, i.e. they want to sell pictures. Therefore, adding the link constitutes WP:SPAM. If the companies links are on other park pages, the link should be removed (and I've done that on some). Wikipedia is not here to promote anyone's product. Cheers, Vsmith 18:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Alright, understandable. Just that there seem to be insufficient number of pictures for the sites listed, and that site showed pictures giving better look at the parks, without having to pay for the pictures. I have nothing to do with the site itself, so please don't insinuate as such, it aggrevates me, especially since I was merely trying to help out -_-


Hey I tried to edit a page the other day and realized I wasn't signed into my account when it said that I had been banned by you for "blatant vandalism". I was quite surprised by this? Why did you do it?

my ip that you banned

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 1130130 (talkcontribs) 22:15, 13 November 2006
Check out the edits by your IP to Albert Einstein just after midnight GMT on Nov. 11 and you'll see what triggered the block. It's a block, not a ban. And you seem to be able to edit with no problem while logged in, why would you want to edit from an IP when you have a user name? Cheers, Vsmith 22:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

10 minutes

my edit was removed after only 10 minutes! I hope you aren't planning to plageurize my theory because I have it protected. you should have left it i wanted people to think about the universe staying the same size on the outside and all matter shrinking but appearing the same size to us as we are comprised of matter. in 100 years the universe will have shrunk slightly including our bodies, think about it, since everything shrunk it'll look the same size.

anyway i don't want to battle you and keep editing to get some recognition here, maybe you'd like to talk though, i don't know... whatever!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 04:25, 15 November 2006
Sorry 'bout that. Please refer to WP:OR. Also please note that any material you add to Wikipedia is automatically avaiable to anyone under the WP:GFDL liscense (see the note under the edit screen window). That said, I have no intention to plageurize your theory, it was removed because it was your theory and therefore unverified by any external referece. Cheers, Vsmith 11:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

RE: Pseudo Science edit

Is it reasonable to state that Creationism is Pseudo Science? While is is not the only theory and while it is not the majority view, it is held by a significant number of people in the scientific community.

In the interest of being objective and not coming from a single point of view or bias, I believe classifying creationism as Pseudo Science is to discredit the theory that has not been disproven.

Please respond --Wfward 15:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Creationism is basically a religious belief system and as such is not strictly pseudoscience, however when creationism believers attempt to make scientific pronouncements or claim to have some kind of science authority to support their religious beliefs or delusions - then it becomes pseudoscience and is properly labelled as such. Vsmith 02:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding vandalism from User:

Good evening,

I recently became aware of the ban you placed on IP address, which is the public IP of the proxy server at Dr Challoner's Grammar School. I work at the school as an IT technician and can speak officially for them on this; having tonight perused the talk page for User: I will freely admit I'm slightly ashamed of the repeated vandalism from students on our school site, and support the reasons for the ban. Of course, I would rather the ban did not exist given the obvious educational benefits of being able to add content here, but agree that given the current situation, removal of the ban is not feasible and it will likely be continued to be renewed when it expires. I will therefore be shortly discussing with my manager (the network administrator for the school) the introduction of a policy to track down and punish students directly for using school systems to vandalise articles here; it is not only an abuse of your network but also of ours. I believe we keep detailed enough logs on our proxy server to identify perpetrators and I am confident I can convince my boss to allow me the small amount of time I believe this would take, and am hopeful I can help clean up our act a little.

Should this come into force, I would like to add a reasonably prominent statement to that effect to the User: talk page to act as both a heads-up to admins and as a deterrent to would-be vandals. I'm fairly new to editing pages myself and don't want to overstep my mark in asserting myself on the talk page, so I would appreciate your advice on the best place to add such a notice and how to format it, along with any other advice you have on the issue.

Thank you in advance for your time.

Jay Schlackman 23:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and explanation, and good luck on dealing with potential vandalism in the future. If teachers are supervising students as they work on the web (and if they aren't they are simply negligent) then it seems a simple call for them to require any student wanting to edit Wikipedia to have a user name and account. As you know user names are free and easy to aquire - and if the students are doing editing for some class then it is much simpler for teacher control and accountability. I am a science teacher at a public high school and have noted very little in the way of vandal edits from our IP. This could change of course, but the key is close teacher supervision and little to no free unwatched surfing by students. Cheers, Vsmith 00:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I suspect much of the vandalism is actually occurring outside of supervised lesson time; the school has a fairly relaxed attitude to internet use and there is no restriction placed on it during free periods. Despite our status as a high-achieving school we do have the typical British state school problem with teacher workload and, as such, lunchtime computer labs are often under-supervised due to teachers being unwilling to give up their time to do so (though they normally have no problem with setting work for their classes that requires internet-based research). As much as I wish I was, I'm not in a position where I can change that, but hopefully I can work towards educating and deterring some of our more immature students. Jay Schlackman 08:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Second opinion on block length please?

I don't want to be the bad guy: 911922b (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log) removing the link at pearl. Had his chance because I prefer when people can associate themself with an account instead of an IP. Think it's time to treat this as spam/vandal only, if you agree you know what to do. Femto 12:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Done - reblocked w/same length. Hopefully user will take my invite to discuss. Cheers, Vsmith 14:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Spam edit

Hi VSmith,

Re your edit 23:04, 1 November 2006

Just to comment that an external link to legislation in support of a contribution is not, in my opinion, spam.

I hope you might agree. 23:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

How 'bout a bit more info, maybe the article name or a link? I have no clue what you are referring to and have no intention of searching 3 weeks back to find what you're talking about. Vsmith 00:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. I'm not too familiar with what wiki does automatically and what not. The comment referred to Fertilizer - External Links: link to UK Fertilisers Regulations 1990 in support of the conversion factors contributed for the elemental content of fertilizers. Hope that covers it. Would be interested to hear your take. 00:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

That helps a lot. The deleted link [6] (deleted with five other mostly commercial links) was probably not true spam, but rather considered to be un-needed as not global. Reviewing the link, along with the tagline of For conversions to elemental content, it seems to just give simple mass % conversions that are already covered in the article (except maybe for MgO). So, doesn't seem to have added much. But, feel free to re-add the link if you feel strongly about it along with a better justifying tagline. Cheers, Vsmith 01:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused here. The link was supposed to be more of a citation than to add to the discussion. Although the link is not "global" (?), it is a verifiable source and it does support the contribution. Does wiki want citations or not? Have I put the link in the wrong place (better in References perhaps)? I would find some guidance useful. 02:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

OK... after searching the Fertilizer history, I see the link was added as an inline reference link at 15:13, 23 September 2006 by anon and subsequently moved to the ext links section 2 hours later by anon (were these both your edits?). The move to ext. links was an error as it should have either remained as an inline link (perfectly accepable) or been moved to the reference section. I've put it back as a reference. Vsmith 02:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they were my edits; I was confused about the proper place to put the link. Many thanks for sorting it out for me and the info for future reference. 03:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't destroyin' no work of others. I was making a point that some teachers are offended by mechanical pencils.

How important are trees (compared to oceans)

Dear mr Smith,

Thank you for a very interesting page on the oxygen cycle. The reason to read it lies for me in the fact that my son at school is taught that trees are the most important source of atmospheric oxygen in this world, whereas I once told him that the oceans are much more important. The reason was that I had read about a dr [Sally Chisholm] ( see: ) who discovered an organism Prochlorococcus which seems to dwarf the work of trees. My son is now pressured at school to accept the 'official'tree-version because in the teachers mind admitting that trees are not the most important source of oxygen amounts to consenting with global deforestation. Of course that is nonsense, i simply want my son to be taught the right things, and your page still leaves some questions which I hope you will answer. I am a journalist (see ) and though I have searched quite a lot, I havent found much in the scientific literature about the oxygen cycle ( an interesting exception being 'Redfield revisited 2. What regulates the oxygen content of the atmosphere? Global biochemical cycles, vol 14 no 1; 249-268 march 2000'.

That is why I refer for instance to this popularly written page .

On this page the author says that algae produce 330 billion tons of oxygen yearly. Now that contrasts rather with the 13,500 times 10(10)kg that you say comes out of the oceans. You attribute 45% of the worlds oxygen production to the oceans, this mr Hall talks about 70-80%. In Halls text the microbes are prominently there, in your text they seem less important. What do you think of these differences?

And one point of criticism: you being a teacher in a time when about every newsmedium screams about the importance of trees for our oxygen production, wouldnt it be a good idea to spent some words on that and explain their relative importance?

I look out for your answer and thank you for your time,


Theo Richel

Hi, and thanks - but it's not my article. Up until a few minutes ago I think my only input to it was occaisonal vandal reverting. However, your comments caused me to take a closer look - and I saw some things that were screaming for attention and fixing, so I fixed a bit and included your Sci Am article as a reference. As for the number discrepancies you mention, that will take a bit more looking into - the source given in the article for the tabulated data is rather dated and I don't have access to the book to verify it. The page you linked to is most interesting, but not a good reference in itself. I'd suggest that you might get more results (from those more knowledgeable than I) if you post your comments/questions on the Talk:Oxygen cycle page. If I find time to get around to it I may take another whack at the page (but, there are a lot of them to'its vying for my attention).
As for the state of education and teacher problems you mention, yes all too often school teachers rely on perhaps incorrect or incomplete textbook assertions and don't consider different answers.
I love trees (own my own 120+ acre forest in the Ozarks), but am well aware that they aren't the only game in the arena. Just like most popular ecology soundbites, the the giant oak like the panda and tiger get more than their share of attention - we can't see or identify with microbes and phytoplankton. Gonna stop rambling now, Cheers, Vsmith 02:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

"Emissions from coal-fired power plants represent the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions, which are believed to be a primary cause of global warming." to

"Emissions from coal-fired power plants represent the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions, which have been implicated as the primary cause of global warming." was a good revision, thanks. Absolutes just don't sit well with me. ^>^ScienceJunky

Lakota pictures defaced again

Sorry, I don't know how to undo this, and you seem to be the last editor of the lakota article, so maybe you can help. The first picture in the article on Lakota Indians has been filled in with a picture of bunnies making wise-acre remarks. It does link back to the right picture when clicked on. Can you fix this?

user cuvtixo, not logged in

now logged in Cuvtixo 04:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Cuvtixo 04:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

thank you

thank you im sorry i wont do it again im a moron im sorry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xxxxzickxxxx (talkcontribs) 14:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

it said on my computer that i was vandeizing things on this page on the davey havok page but the guy doesn't have a message thingy but yea ahh i didn't do any vandelizing and i couldn't go on cause of that person and this is a school computer and all of the ip adress's are the same so yea u shouldnt block a school from doing that cuase u could make them get a bad grade or something so i think that u should research who u are blocking and make sure that they aren't a school

Sorry 'bout that. But, since you brought it to my attention again - I took another look at the edits from your IP and saw nothing but vandalism - so blocked it again. Cheers, Vsmith 22:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


I wasn't trying to promote any particular site. I just put up the links I found that seemed to have the most relevant information, I wasn't trying to point anyone to a merchant.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stripedsnake (talkcontribs) 18:10, 30 November 2006
Seems that you are trying to hype larimar in general. Also it would seem the images that you have uploaded are most likely under copyright from the source you cite and I don't think fair use applies. Or do you have a connection to Quebec Stones? Vsmith 18:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk:

Could you take a quick look at your block of the above please? Im a pretty tough blocker, yet Im inclined to think this a tard harsh?  Glen  19:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like it may have been a botched repair attempt of the previous vandal's work - 14 minutes earlier. This users talk indicates a history of vandalism, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt on looking it over and rescind the block. Vsmith 19:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)