User talk:Vsmith/archive7

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

A DB-Nonsense Article....

Hello Vsmith, this db-nonsense article is highly inappropriate and still has not been removed yet. Could you take a look at it please? Thank you.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Done, gone. Vsmith 15:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The recently added "Analysis section" in the Combustion article


I feel that the entire new "Analyis section" is just a jumble of data graphs with no explanations and no references. I think it should be deleted until the editor-author:

  • Reduces all the white space in each of the images and frames them so that at least some of them could be placed two abreast.
  • Uses a more easily legible text in the images.. Some of the text is so small, that it is difficult to read.
  • Converts the images from .gif format to .png format.
  • Adds some discussion of and explanation of the various images, as well as references to the source of the data.

Much of that data (for example, the enthalpy versus temperature graph and the two heating value plots) is readily available it the NIST online website as well as in many textbooks and handbooks.

What do you think? Please commenton the Talk:Combustion page. - mbeychok 06:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Update ...

Hi there:

I am new to Wikipedia and its environment.

Thanks for creating a work area for me.

I have to admit that in a hurry I tried to contribute to the Combustion area.

I have started reworking my original input. This time I will go with tables instead of plots -- more efficient and less time consuming.

At this point, I need to add more text to it.

When I get done, I will ask you to take a look at it before I try to get it moved back to the Combustion area.


Gordan -- Engware 05:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Engware

Einstein Edits

Alright, let me explain to you the logic of this, when it comes to flow of article.

I agree that embellishment and such should have no place in scientific articles in general, however I disagree with your ideas here.

You are being narrow minded. Read the 2 paragraphs pertaining to his education and performance in school. The reason why I included the additional information is to end that section with "Einstein only excelled in the subjects he deemed relevant to his scientific career."

This is THE TRUTH. Alright, i can take out the "presume" and "deduce" bit, if need be, however, I STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT THIS VITAL INFORMATION AS TO THE thinking of Albert Einstein, or his perception of education in general as a reflection of his own experiences through high school, is VERY IMPORTANT AND RELEVANT to this article. It's not just the flow of the entire paragraph, its a concluding sentence, which is important in any academic essay.

I am not sure about your level of understanding of these subtle ideas. But JUST FOR YOU, i will take out the "presume" and "deduce" bit, even though it is blatantly obvious, I was being pragmatic by using those 2 verbs to suggest that there might have been more to Einstein than what's on paper.

Fine, i'll take it out, but I am going to include the concluding sentence, and if you still have a problem with it, let's take it up with higher personell.

Regards, --Emperor 03:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Emperor ?? where'd that come from? OK Peter (as you first signed the above post), but I'd suggest taking the issue to the Einstein talk page rather than some higher personell - whoever you're referring to there. As I obviously cannot argue with THE TRUTH with my limited level of understanding of these subtle ideas.
"Einstein only excelled in the subjects he deemed relevant to his scientific career." -- hmm, or was he more normal and excelled in subjects that he was interested in? Do we have a reference that states his career oriented focus? or just that he was following his interests as many very bright teens have done throughout history. Vsmith 03:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Copying this to talk:Albert Einstein - please respond there wher all of the higher personell guys can watch. Vsmith 03:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The key idea here, is this "Let us return to Nature, which upholds the principle of getting the maximum amount of effect from the minimum effort, whereas the matriculation test does exactly the opposite." Einstein clearly emphasizes how "Nature", (as in, Natural Sciences), is what is important (and relevant for his career), and even goes so far as to say that other courses should be abolished, as their use is limited. Not only do i partially agree with him, but this is clearly far deeper than the "average" half-wit who just wants to study what interests him. Einstein is a deep man and that quote clearly shows it. You can sit there philosophizing all you want. But if you want to be a philosopher, move away from Science. Philosophers aren't Scientists, and as Einstein would say, should be abolished. ;-)

As far as I am concerned, this topic is closed. There is only so much time I can invest on what seems to be a minor malfunction.

I wish you a good day, sir. --Emperor 04:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... now you are insulting my bright teen students - they are not "average" half-wits, so why do you want to pass blanket judgement on these potential future science geniuses. They are the future.
As for your key issue quote - that quote dates from ~1920, long after the fact, and does not support your relevant for his career bit as a bright teen 20+ years previously.
Who's philosophizing?
Vsmith 15:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

removal of my addition to the article on Banded Iron Formations

Hello, You removed a valuable detail about how the Earth came to be as it now is. The thing is you have at this time no mention of the process that starts as magma and results in landmass,calcite,BIF & other details about the surface of Earth now being studied. You say there are some errors in my statement and that I won't argue about except to say you statement also has error as I'm sure you will also admit. Where do you think all the CO2 not locked up in rocks came from? The major factor that changed during the past 4by is the locking up of CO2 by chemical reactions. Nothing else is on the scale of this single process. The evolution of the biosphere is a direct of this process. The rise of the landmass is a result of this process. Anyway, if you would be so inclined, it would be helpful if you pointed out the errors in my addition. thanks, Jim —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimhmeyer (talkcontribs) 00:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Hi Jim, I've replied on Talk:Banded iron formation. Vsmith 02:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

venus prokaryotes

why did you erase my contribution about prokarite like organisms on venus in the prokaryote article ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crocadog (talkcontribs) 02:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

The bit removed:
And also two scientists at the university of texas suggested that some levels of the atmosphere of venus may be hospitable for prokaryote like organisims to exist and evolve.
  1. that it is seriously in need of a source or published reference.
  2. - what two scientists and how about capitalizing, that would make it more "respectable" and less prone to reverting.
  3. - "some levels", how about a bit more specificity?
Now, if you care to clean it up and provide a verifiable reference, I'd say you will be most welcome to add the information into that section of the article as a separate paragraph following the Martian bit. If you need help with formatting the reference, just ask. Cheers, Vsmith 02:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Edits by anon

I really dont see what i have done wrong... I have only posted facts on this site, so please inform me about what I did wrong.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 03:12, 10 December 2006

sorry i didnt realise that I was logged off, but I still want to know what I have done wrong, as I said: I have only posted facts on this site.

Can you see my user-Id now? Christian0907 03:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The edit that resulted in my note to the anon ip can be seen here: [1]. I'd say that was vandalism by anon Wouldn't you agree? Also, when I look at your edit history - the only edits I see are to this talk page. Now, I'm going to assume good faith on your part, but the only prior edits from that ip were vandalism about 45 minutes prior to your question here and you seem to be quite familiar with wiki editing considering your first edit was only about 15 minutes ago. Vsmith 03:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


someone already called me on that... maybe you should try looking at new things rather than last week's news —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 05:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Geology of the Rocky Mountains

Hi, Vsmith. Thanks for the correction -- I'm cobbling together info from multiple sources (including other WP articles), and I'm not 100% sure they are all correct. If you see anything else weird in the article (or if you'd like to add more information), I would appreciate you adding your expertise. Thanks! hike395 18:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up spam

Was just about to launch into this and was glad to see you had already cleaned up this user's spam. Keep up the good work! Calltech 20:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it's an ongoing challenge. Cheers! Vsmith 16:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Addition of two books to Mississippi River Content Page

Dear Mr. Smith,

What would constitute a non-spam listing of two new books about the Mississippi River: 1) Dreaming the Mississippi by Katherine Fischer and 2) Treasures of the Mississippi: Panoramas and Poetic Reflections by Dr. Abdul K. Sinno. May I include these books under the references section without external links to their websites? There are more books on the Mississippi River; however, I only see two books listed in the WIKI at this point in time.

Second, I see links to two external sites regarding the Mississippi River. As the editor, would you please provide me with some guidelines regarding how you determine what sites can or cannot be included?

Best Regards,


user id: Raficsinno

Hi, the links I removed qualified as spam in my view. The book listing of itself would probably been accepted, however the addition of a promotional weblink selling the book made it spam. The external link removed seems to be a commercial site providing panorama images for sale, as such it is definitely spam. Now, if you have no connection to the book, there is probably no problem with adding a simple link to it However this is an encyclopedia, our job is to add content, not just to add your favorite weblinks or to promote a book which may or may not be relevant to the article content. Cheers, Vsmith 16:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. Would I be allowed to add both books mentioned above without links to their respective websites? For other books about the Mississippi River, what procedure should I follow in submitting information to the Mississippi River WIKI? Is there a way to send the information to you for review prior to posting the information on the WIKI? My intention is to post qualified and applicable information not to spam, so any guidance you could provide would be helpful. Best Regards, Rafic.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 21:16, 13 December 2006
Please add content rather than just listing a book as further reading. If you have information missing in the article, please feel free to add it along with a reference to support the material added. If you are uncertain about the information or about your writing skills - then you could place the information on the talk page of the article ask for input from other editors there. I am an admin, but no one owns any page. My main input into the page has been reverting vandalism, etc. - I caught your aparant spam simply because the page is on my watchlist (along with some 5000 other pages), So, jump in and add to the article - just don't be over-offended if some other editor adds minor to drastic modification. If your information is sourced and notable it should survive the scrutiny of the other editors there. Enjoy, Vsmith 23:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to respond. As far as spam is concerned, we are strong opponents to spamming in any form. Would you please let me know (privately) what "watch list" the site is on as there is a possibility that the web address might be spoofed. My intention in linking the site to the WIKI was to share panoramic views of the Mississippi River. I apologize as I would have never attempted to even link the site in the first place knowing what I now know of your definition of spam. Please know, I respect your views regarding this issue. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raficsinno (talkcontribs) 05:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
Er... nothing mysterious about that watchlist, you can have one too. When you save an edit (while logged in) just check that "Watch this page" box before you save an edit and walla you have a watchlist. Look up top and there, between "My preferences" and "My contributions" is your watchlist. Just an easy way to keep track of Wikipedia articles you are interested in. Also, you can sign your edits to talk pages by just typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your edit. Cheers, Vsmith 23:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Clear enough. Thank you for the information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Why do you hate me?

Why do you hate this IP Adress I'm trying to edit incorrect articles and I'm get blocked. SO I repeat why do you hate me?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by KyleLent (talkcontribs) 17:44, 13 December 2006
No hate involved - no clue what IP you refer to. I see no problem, simply log in and an ip block shouldn't affect you. Cheers, Vsmith 23:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Help with 3RR violator

I see that you blocked IP for 3RR violations last week. The user is still deleting content from the page List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts without discussing it on the talk page and reverting repeatedly. I don't know how to fill out the 3RR violation form at the admin noticeboard and am wondering if you might be able to help. MKoltnow 20:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Just an update: we have a report now. — coelacan talk — 21:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
And that has been dealt with by WMC. Gee - Wikipedia rolls on even when I'm offline :-) Vsmith 23:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Aye, sorry for not being clearer, my intention was to let you know that you didn't have to deal with it yourself. Peace, — coelacan talk — 18:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

im sorry :(

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 23:59, 14 December 2006
OK, apology accepted. Be good now :-) Vsmith 00:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Mormons4Justice is an investigative journal. Non-profit, not interested in money. The stories are documented and relate to the areas that are linked.

Hope this helps.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mormons4Justice (talkcontribs) 01:25, 15 December 2006
Thanks, but -- adding links to your own website is considered spam whether or not it is for profit. Please read WP:SPAM and WP:COI carefully. Vsmith 01:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush revert

Thanks for moving it. I tried to revert the vandalism by Railer 760, but my revert didn't move the page back to George W. Bush. The tag that you used, is that only for admins or can anyone use it? Valley2city 01:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

To move a page back over an existing page (in this case a redirect made by the previous move) requires the deletion of that previous page. Page deletion normaly requires admin capabilities although in this case there was no second step to delete the redir so you probably could have just moved it back. I haven't had to do that much so am not sure of the details. Seems that the page should be protected against such moves. Thanks for your vigilance and efforts. Vsmith 01:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


how do you become an admin? i am finding so much vandalism...

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkrasner (talkcontribs) 18:34, 15 December 2006
Hi - you don't have to be an admin to revert vandalism. If you are interested in becomming an administrator - simply make good solid edits, engage in talk page discussions, be civil at all times, learn the ropes - that is study and become familiar with the various Wiki policy pages and ... after 6 to 12 months and a few thousand good edits you may be nominated for adminship or nominate yourself when you feel ready. The community then scrutinizes your edit history and interactive behavior and votes either for or against. For now just watch for vandalism & revert it - place warings on vandal talk pages and enjoy adding content to Wikipedia. Cheers, Vsmith 00:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Water Vapor Article

Hey, I know you do a lot of editing on the Water vapor article, if you have any good article references could you put them in sections that need it? Thanks, Hard Raspy Sci 14:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Volcanic Arc

Looks good, i hope it helps someone. Thanks.

Douglas Myers 07:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

My Userpage

Could You help me make some changes to my userpage? Thanks!== Neptunekh 23:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Would need something more specific here ... ? Vsmith 11:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

GEmology and Jewelry Wikiproject

Hi, I have just recently begun the groundwork for a wikiproject on Gems and Jewelry. Have not put it up for proposal yet, but would you be interested in working on this? My start page is at my user space - here. Feel free to start editing the page as you see fit. If not interested - cheers! SauliH 05:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

My main interest lies with geology and mineralogy, not too involved with the gem and jewelry end of it. I do have a number of gemston pages on my watchlist as they are often targets for commercial spammers. Will keep an eye on your project and perhaps help here and there, but not get very involved. User:Hadal would be a natural for your project, but seems to be inactive since last summer. Good luck, Vsmith 11:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Guadalupe Mountains National Park


I just checked back to the article on The Guadalupe Mountains National Park. I'm not sure, but it seems that you may have removed the external link to my website with many pictures of the park with the comment "rmv spam". I'm not sure why you would think that links to pictures of the subject of the article are spam. Can you please let me know, or please do not remove the link again? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 20:36, 25 December 2006

Hi Jake, please see WP:SPAM for information. Adding a link to your own website is spam as well as adding links to commercial sites. Wikipedia is not for promotion of your website. Please add verifiable sourced content rather than outside links. Thank you, Vsmith 22:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I checked the spam link you provided and still cannot understand why you insist on removing a link to a website with only photos of the subject at hand. I'm not selling anything and there are zero ads on my webstie. Also, you continue to leave a link to someone else's website there. I would like to request that you stop removing a valid, non-spam external link.
From the "What_should_be_linked" under Wikipedia:External links:

What should be linked

  • 1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.
  • 2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.
  • 3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
  • 4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

I would say my huge collection of pictures qualifies under #3.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 22:40, 26 December 2006
No, quite simply a link promoting your works or your website is spam. And I'll check re that other website you mention, maybe I've missed something there, thank you. Vsmith 01:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to check the "other" website link? It is a story, with pictures about the Guadalupe Mountains. My website is many pictures, with stories, about the Guadalupe Mountains. Why do you instist on treating my website as somehow different?

Yup, did - removed - different? No, a link promoting your own website is spam. Vsmith 00:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism and Censorship to the Breast Article!

Ongoing vandalism and censorship to the breast article is ridiculous. It is time to start handing out vandalism warnings. Please revert edit back to Mother Amy's Edit. Thanks. I am not logged in right now to protect our private conversation. 20:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we seem to have a bit of edit warring there. If it continues the page may need protection - but as I've been involved it would be inappropriate for me to protect it. I don't really see why you think you need to log out to post a comment here?? Vsmith 01:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


I'm not sure what was inappropriate about adding links to articles on Yes, it's "my" site, but it is not by any means a personal site - it's a collaborative site with trail reviews and photos, of which I happen to be the webmaster and largest contributor. Would those additions have been appropriate if they had been done by somebody other than myself? I've used Wikipedia for a long time, but prior to this, my edits have been chiefly confined to correcting typos ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkasoff (talkcontribs) 00:20, 27 December 2006

Links promoting your work or website are quite simply spam. Adding links to the same site on multiple wiki pages is spam. If you persist you may be blocked. Clear enough? Now we welcome addition of content to wikipedia articles and thank you for your work in typo correcting, those minor edits are most needed and welcome. Vsmith 01:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


Hello Vsmith, A couple of month ago, you were the one that cleaned up the formatting on a new page I created on pictorial maps. It was much appreciated. I tried to figure out how I can get the following words; Panoramic maps, Illustrated maps, bird's-eye-view maps and geopictorial maps to be rerouted to the page Pictorial maps. I simply cant figure it out on the help line. Since you seem to be the only other person who ever came to my page, I thought I would ask you how to do it. Thanks JLR-mapman —Preceding unsigned comment added by JLR-mapman (talkcontribs) 03:05, 27 December 2006

Just did a redirect of Panoramic maps for you and I see Geopictorial maps has been redirected by another user. Simply take a look at the edit page of either of those. Vsmith 03:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


Thanks V, I just figured it out. Ohhh my first page this is exciting!JLR-mapman 03:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

New info boxes on geologic time pages

Hi Vsmith - first I have been wanting to just thank you for all your really good work; I appreciate both your scientific knowledge and "wikipedabilities". I'm still a newbie but I wanted to say thanks!

Second, I put a note on the talk page of User:AMK152 about the new user boxes on the geologic time pages. Just wondered what you thought of them, as a more experienced editor. Many thanks, and happy new year. Cheers, Geologyguy 17:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


i need help with an article i just created. i dont know whats wrong with it but it looks weird and only goes on one line.... its Time Over Target —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thuglas (talkcontribs) 22:56, 28 December 2006

OK now, you had started the first line with a space - and that simply doesn't work w/ Wikipedia. I removed the space and bolded the title words per convention. Now you need to add a category or two and some sources/references. Vsmith 03:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I had actually just moved someone elses information around from the TOT page to create a new page... I did some research and its supposed to be Time on Target... im going to move it...thuglastalk|edits 12:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah i really need help, i dont understand why my redirection to the time on target article in artillery isnt working. sorry about this! im learning!thuglastalk|edits 13:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Just checked and it seems to be working fine. Vsmith 00:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

alright thanks for everything. thuglastalk|edits 17:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Guadalupe Mountains National Park


I have been trying to contact you to explain that I do not believe my link on the Guadalupe Mountains page is spam. The link I have placed there points to the largest online collection of images of the Guadalupe Mountains. There are no ads on the site. I only wish to share a lot of picutres and information with other users of wikipedia. I have read the spam guidelines as well as the external links guidelines and my site clearly qualifies. Please stop removing the link or explain to me exactly why you deem my link to be spam.

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Hmm... sorry you couldn't contact me as fast as you wanted. Seems I've been out of the house all day. :-) Now, please be civil - your recent addition (reverted by someone else) to the article and the edit summary were quite simply insulting. I would suggest that you sign up for a username and get involved with some serious editing rather than just promoting your work. Explained above. Cheers, Vsmith 00:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Help Prevent Article Deletion: Religious Perspectives on Dinosaurs

Hello, I'm leaving you this message because I notice you've made at least one edit to the Wikipedia article Religious perspectives on dinosaurs. The article has recently been nominated for deletion from Wikipedia, and there is considerable support for that position.

I'm hoping you'll help me support the continued existence of the Religious perspectives on dinosaurs article by registering a keep vote on the article's request for deletion page. The article contains some good information, and represents an unobtrusive way to present notable minority viewpoints about dinosaurs that cannot reasonably be elaborated on in the parent article. It shouldn't be deleted simply because the viewpoints it presents aren't "scientific."

Thanks! Killdevil 03:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete the fork. Sorry 'bout that. Cheers, Vsmith 12:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Strange edit to the breast Images?

Check this out. It seems all the images have been distorted. Most are too small and a few are too big. The images are a mess. An experineced editor neds to step in. Thanks. --MotherAmy 20:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The images have been set to the default thumb size which is 180 or 200px. That way your preferences will size them as you wish (all the same, that is). I have my preferences for thumbnail size (under files) set at 250px so all default thumbs render at 250px on my screen. So, there has been no distortion. Check out the options available under that my preferences tag at the top of the wiki screen. Vsmith 21:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate Links

Sorry about that, I see your point. I'm new at Wikipedia. Ex Marine here too, only very long ago.

Charles D. Hayes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autpress (talkcontribs) 21:25, 30 December 2006

No problem, we're all learning here. Time does fly when you're having fun :-) Cheers, Vsmith 22:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Amfipoli, Greece

Hi. I made added some and some external links on a page about a town called Amfipoli in Greece. Could You check it out and maybe it edit please? Thank you! Neptunekh 22:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


Hello there,

I found that my uploaded picture was removed from the page. Could you please tell me or direct me to a web page about the policy of displaying pictures? Looks like tourist pictures are not allowed? But I did see uploaded tourist pictures on other pages?

Thank you and wish you a Happy New Year.

Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadecolour (talkcontribs) 17:27, 1 January 2007

The image was removed basically because it was a snapshot - the table and roof in the right foreground was the problem. A good image would not have that distraction - simply take the photo from the other side of the table. Cheers, Vsmith 17:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Petrology, External links

Dear Vsmith,

currently I set a link to "Links for Mineralogists" at the end of the "petrology" article, hoping it will be appropriate.

Best regards

Klaus-Peter Kelber Institute of Mineralogy University of Wuerzburg Am Hubland D-97074 Wuerzburg phone: 0931 / 888 5416 e-mail: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Sorry, but that link qualified as spam. Please add content rather than just external links. Vsmith 16:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologizes

Although I am not the one editing articles, please accept my apology.

I am part of Elizabeth High School's student body. I will try to get the administration’s attention on this issue, if you agree. I have no problem with it. Although I, nor anyone else, would truly mind if you permanently disable the ability to edit articles.

Most of the students in this school are just..., not being able to think of a better word, "dicks."

- RA

P.S. If you would, please pass this "message" to the other admins. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Rift (disambig)

Hi. Thanks for fixing that. Your solution seems more sensible; sorry for causing any trouble. fraggle 00:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


I didn't edit that page, another student in my class edited it while I was using the restroom. But, there is a student editing Adolf Hitler, making his name Adolf Elizebeth Hitler. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TantTant (talkcontribs) 18:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

OK, then the solution is quite simple: don't leave your computer while you are logged in. Vsmith 23:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Why Block Me?

Hey, man! Don't be blocking me for no reason or at least leave me a message telling me why you did so. Waaaaaay uncool! Also you coulld leave a message before blocking me for no apparant reason. I really feel like calling you some bad names, but you might block me! PS. You and your friends probably shouldn't be calling your students "dicks" on a public website.

--Vhugon11 23:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No clue what you're talking about - I see no evidence that you've been blocked - no block history. Cheers, Vsmith 23:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Howel Williams

Thanks for adding him! One of my old professors, in Guatemala. Cheers, Pete Tillman 18:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Spam References in Mineral Categories

Greetings to VSmith:

I would like to talk about this - and I am sure we can all keep it fully civil - this is not some personal thing. I don’t want to argue, but I would like to discuss it. I am actually kind of surprised at your response - before I touched anything, I looked and saw that you have historically removed many spam references in the past (by the way, thanks for your efforts to keep wiki a quality site). The sites I removed did vary somewhat in commercial content, but I was surprised you specifically supported the Mineral Gallery pages. Many of the Mineral Gallery (AKA Amethyst Gallery) contained perhaps two or three hundred words of the most very basic info, copied out of a handy reference book of which there are many, much of which simply repeated what was already in the Wiki page like the chemical formula, SG, RI, crystal habit, streak color, etc. Fully 2/3 of the page was ads, with multiple links to products for sale, company logos, Google Adsense blocks and other commercial stuff. Although they contained some valid data, these pages were very glaringly commercial, and clearly placed to advertise and promote sales. I honestly cannot see how you could possibly support those pages as not being overly commercial. Its true that some of the Mineral Gallery pages were maybe only 2/3 content and 1/3 ads, but the company logos, Google Adsense blocks, links to stuff for sale, and strong commercial promotion was still exactly the same. They were the most commercial of all the several sites that were prevalent on a large number of the mineral pages. Webmineral was better, but still very commercial. I took a look at the Webmineral link on the current page for Zoisite (I did not change or disturb it) and found 20 commercial links to the web pages of folks who sell mineral specimens and related items, including a big banner ad at right at the top of the page, the very first thing the user sees. Are 20 commercial links including a banner ad at the top of the page acceptable?

I understand that placement of commercial web pages with advertising on Wikipedia can be controversial, and folks disagree on how much advertising is OK. I do stand by my earlier statement that in spite of having a little bit of genuine data, these links are largely commercial and fall under the definition of spam. Almost all these same Wiki mineral pages also have a link to - a non commercial site with exactly the same basic mineralogical info. I also know even some places like GIA are in business to make money and do provide services and products for sale (and I did not touch their links). I'll also admit I've seen some links that seem to have worse commercialism in other areas of wiki, but did not remove them as these places were not in my area of expertise and I did not feel comfortable to do so.

You are right that I should have gone back to handle the one dangling link in the zeolite pages. However, simply because a commercial link is incorporated into a reference does not make it any better. You would know better than I, but I think it is Wiki policy that web pages are not in themselves considered "authoritative" as a reference. I also cut out several broken links that went nowhere and apparently had not been checked in a while.

Anyway, to wind up all of my long-winded response, I would like to hear more of your thoughts on this. I promise to do nothing further without discussion and the formation of some sort of consensus.

I actually would like to continue contributing here - you can check my contributions. I see that the web link was the only thing you cut - I also posted a picture to the turquoise page as well. I do have formal training, including a bachelors degree from the Mackey school of Mines here in Reno, experience in the mining industry, and more than 25 years experience field collecting minerals of various types.

Reno Chris Reno Chris 07:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC) PS - I didn't know if you wanted to continue this on my page or yours, so I did both for now, but if you'd prefer one or other, let me know and we'll do that.

Replied on Reno's page Vsmith 03:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

pH edit - sorry

We seem to have both tried to revert the pOH section of the pH article at the same time. Sorry that the history shows your edit as reverted! —Długosz January 11, 2007

No problem - stuff happens. Cheers, Vsmith 19:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Fact Tags

Point taken. I disagree with you however, on the notion that the article is well cited. Many parts of the article have no easy way of werifying the information, and the reader (those especially who using wikipedia take what they read with a grain a salt) needs some way of confirming the facts stated. I am almost certain that some parts of the article are in fact dubious, or information was added because of a dubious source. BTW are you interested in helping out with the WP? SauliH 21:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree that there has been quite a bit of edit creep since the FA a couple years ago. The notes/footnotes thingy wasn't developed then as I recall. A fact tag is appropriate for any of those dubious bits, sorry if I was a bit harsh in my comments. As for the gem/jewelry project, I currently have a bunch (most?) of the gemstone articles on my watchlist - I'm more interested in the mineralogical/geological aspects. Do monitor some jewelry articles, mostly spamwatch. Not ready for more involvement - too many fingers in too many pies already - will be watching though. Cheers, Vsmith 02:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Please throw any constructive input in when you see it needs it - WP that is. You are probably a good sounding board for articles that will share commonality with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocks and minerals project. BTW - is that WP still active? I have had it on my watchlist for a little while, and it seems to have faltered. What's with the project lead sentence being This WikiProject's goal is to define a standard infobox for using in rock and mineral entries? Seems a little odd. SauliH 06:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The rock and mineral project never was very active - I just kinda do my own thing. A new mineral infobox has recently been created by ?? (can't remember) doin' his own thing :-). Never was done for rock types - 'though I did some fiddling with it back when.
Sounding board - yeah, bounce stuff at me. Just fiddled with Lapis lazuli a bit - scratched some copyvio and even tossed in a fact tag gee that was fun :-) Cheers, Vsmith 21:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I threw this question at Gem-fanat, and he was disinclined to do a merge with that project. Are you of the same mind? SauliH 02:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced data

You say: The above calculations by User:JustToHelp would appear to have WP:OR problems

You are right, those calculations are with WP:OR problems, As the data in your pages have it as well, I posted those figures more than a year ago: Revision as of 20:00, 13 October 2005 by That information has been revisited and evaluated by numerous people in more than a year of revisions. They have stand the test of time. That information have been regarded as -relevant- at least to the subject covered by that article. Nobody has contradicted or negated the facts. Becaused those were derived from data available in the internet and reflect the true. They are not opinion, just mere facts. You could draw your own conclusions, like or dislike them, but the facts remain true and valid. I have to accept that the writing, style, used at that time was lacking, but very quickly people revisited the page and improved, corrected and proof reading, you were one of them, thanks for that. I didnt knew at that time how rewarding it is to see your work published and to be evaluated by the public. As today is shorter and cleaner, and never the less, many readers have beeen helped by having such info in the page. This was my initial intention, as now. To help other Just a bit. That was the reason for the alias i use.

If those figures were acepted why this revision is not? You should take a decision, either both are wrong and must be erased or both could stand the proof of time.

I felt very happy at the time, because anyone could improve and expand the wikipedia. I felt that this is a formidable idea. Now i am not as happy, as other people have deleted, rejected, stop any improvement that could be made, instead of what happened then, people helped to correct not to stop. I also tried to publish the original formulas and data on which this conclusions where based, and they were erase regarded as vandalism. Sorry folks, you are taking the fun out of this.

JustToHelp —Preceding unsigned comment added by JustToHelp (talkcontribs) 07:45, 14 January 2007

Thanks for the info. I just checked that Oct 05 edit and I see what you refer to - the information was accepted and modified as you say. However, Wikipedia has changed in the last 15 months. There is now a much more strict emphasis on verifiability - we have to have a source, and your calculations didn't. As you may note, I have replaced your numbers with those referenced to a standard textbook. Your new calculations that were rejected were simply too precise (too many decimal places) as is the 99.99997 figure currently there (but, it is from a published source). Anyway, thanks for your input and don't give up on wiki yet - altho' it's more restrictive to have to back up one's contributions with sources, it is still rewarding. Vsmith 21:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you please take a look to NRLMSISE-00 and/or Percent Pressure.png and start talking about facts. Not your opinion that this data are mere "fantasies" of mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JustToHelp (talkcontribs) 03:57, 16 January 2007

Facts/fantasies? Hmm... don't recall saying anything about fantasy. The data behind your graph are facts - your graph is simply a representation based on your calculations or playing with the data and the numbers you want to include indicate far too much precision - please read up on significant figures and precision. Cheers, Vsmith 12:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Topic: new article: Evolution (Earth history)

Hellooooo...... I have yet to figure out if there is a GOOD article in wikipedia for "Evolution of Earth", totally focussed on Geology, Ocean basins, Continental formation, O2 atmosphere Evolution. I did finally realize how totally misguided the titled article Evolution is when the first sentence is: About "Biological evolution". My answer on Talk:Evolution: It is by consensus that the evolution Article: is "Biological Evolution", or "Evolution of Life". I doubt the present article accomplishes its goal. ....Hmmm?

So my question is .... should a 'Great' article be started which talks about "Earth evolution". You recently RV that "stuff"("fun stuff") on Dendrochronology and I looked at your latest Contributions, and you seem like someone who might have a cogent answer. YOU, probably know that Earth evolution: is Chemistry, Geology, biology-Plants, oceanic organisms,etc", oriented, .... But after taking a course on: "Planets", the Evolution of Earth, is also "Time-line dependent" in one direction, everything built on former events. That is why there is a Law of Superposition, and a Law of faunal succession(and Tectonics). But things like K(Potassium) was recently removed from the oceans(I took Oceanography-101), by rock formation in the trenches. I think it took 200 Million years(Na was left). And you probably know that the oldest seafloor is only 200 million years old.

Anyhow I'll be curious what you think. I think the dumb, debates, and discussions on the Evolution article should be attended to(And "article Title" should go with "First Sentence")by a New Outline for the article: (Far less fat, All religious stuff referred elsewhere, and a consensus outline agreed to before a New Article for it proposed). And it should be retitled: Biological Evolution, or something else. But my question is about an article about the Evolution of the Planet, and a good article that defers Most of the biological elsewhere, except where it has to talk about O2 atmosphere, or Banded Iron Formation, or Soil Development, etc. anyhow.... your thoughts? ..(from the SonoranDesert ofArizona-YumaAZ.. -Mmcannis 21:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that none of the Yahoo's on the Evolution article want to make an "Evolution of Earth" article is quite puzzling to me(But I expect that of focussed passionate, opinioned people(like myself)). I had to get someone to remove a dumb reference on the article when a similar 'scientific' word was inserted. Nobody caught it; All too busy reading beyond the sentence in front of them... Mmcannis 21:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a new article would cause the Cleanup of the "Evolution" article(as a byproduct). -Mmcannis 21:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoa ... everybody's talkin' at me ... I'll take some time to digest all that and get back to you. Cheers, Vsmith 21:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This would be more like a book than an article. Would need to start with a good outline. Geodoc 06:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the point is: ....If the Evolution article was turned into its correct name: "Biological evolution" or (Evolution of biological life), a "Bunch' of Sub-life Evolution articles could then start. And all the religious stuff put off into their own discussion areas. Michael from the (SonoranDesert, extreme SWesternArizona) And then a good article on Continents, oceans, mtn building, atmosphere evolution (all leadig to their own eventualal articles)(for Evolution (Earth history)) -Mmcannis 15:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be so slow responding. I think the article or series of articles would best start with History of the Earth - which is now more a history of life on Earth and perhaps should be so named. As Geodoc points out, this would be a lengthy topic for a single article - the groundwork - so to speak - is present in the individual articles on the various geologic periods, eras, etc, and much could be done there regarding the physical - chemical evolution of the Earth's crust/mantle.
The main evolution article should retain its current focus as that is what most people have in mind when looking for info on evolution - at least that is my viewpoint and I doubt you could get a consensus for re-naming it. The current Geologic time article contains quite a bit of history as well, again focused largely on fauna & flora. I'm not really interested in writing long survey articles such as you are considering. Cheers, Vsmith 17:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You still hate me...

I wondering what I have done to be the target of specific and unbaised hate. Just because I am "special" doesn't give you the right to hate me. I hope you think on this matter and appoligize for your hateful ways. PS: Kyle Lent —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KyleLent (talkcontribs) 18:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Hmm... still have no clue what you are referring to?? Vsmith 22:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


According to the palotologist Jack Horner was the bigest T-rex 14 meters. I´am just teling the truth. All information i have put in this website is corect even if i don´t are good in spelling. The creator of L.P. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 20:16, 17 January 2007

The change from 12 to 14 m was not the problem - it was the deletion of about 75% of the article that prompted my warning message to you. Now, I assume you didn't intend to delete all that, but you must be more careful when editing. As for the 12 versus 14 meters, simply provide a reference - where did Jack Horner write about that? Cheers, Vsmith 23:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


Cyprine, the blue variety of Vesuvianite, was not first found at Franklin NJ. It predates Shannon's 1922 interpretation by a goodly number of years, and was referred to by Berzelius in 1821.

You will even find a mention of cyprine in this on-line version of Dana's 4th Ed. (1850's),M1

Pete Dunn's phraseology is the source of the confusion. Shannon didn't "name" cyprine... he simply assigned the name "cyprine" to the blue vesuvianite he observed at Franklin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 20:21, 17 January 2007

OK. redid that a bit. Feel free to add more info. Thanks, Vsmith 01:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Diamond "External Link"

Hi Vsmith, I don't understand why you delete always my website into the "External link" of the "Diamond" page?

My website is a rough and polished tutorial, there is more informations about geology, mining, producer country, mines, cutting, rough diamond and polished diamonds. There is the biggest list of famous diamonds on the web, a photo gallery, a diamond quiz, education and training, a website directory, a microphotography of diamonds, there is the only free online diamond prices calculator on the web, etc... Do you know an other website about diamond like it with all these free informations for the netsurfers?


Bruno —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 11:22, 18 January 2007

It's really quite simple Bruno: it's your website. See WP:SPAM, Wikipedia is not for the promotion of your own work or for your advertizing. Cheers, Vsmith 11:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Change on my userpage

Would you mind putting on my user page saying that I'm a WIkipedian of Enlish ancestry. I would like the box that says this user has enlish ancestry: I would like to be under a catogery of English Wikipedians becuase of my heritage. Thanks! Neptunekh 21:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


It is true, what I have done is vandalism. But, can there possibly be someone in the world that doesn't have a sense of humor? Seriously, Keith Richards noted as a living fossil is pretty humorous. I do apologize, but, can't you see the sarcastic comedy that I have displayed? Trust me, I won't do it again.

Your Friend,

Contributions to Wikipedia.

Hello V Smith,

It appears that I might be doing something out of line with my additions (links) to various pages and would appreciate some guidance please.

There are certain pages on the Wikipedia site that I have an interest in and consider that certain links would be of educational value to viewers.

I am aware of the policy regarding 'ethics' of authors and their contributions, but was of the understanding that if the articles were of a complimentary nature to the Wikipedia article they would be accepted. It appears I have erred, and apologize for any inconvenience that I may have caused.

I have a web site that has recently been uploaded. <> The site's primary aim is to help people become aware of Namibia.

I would appreciate your advice and guidance over this matter.

I thank you and send my greetings from a warm and sunny Swakopmund

Keith Irwin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keith Irwin (talkcontribs) 13:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

I have looked over your Namibia info pages, looks well done. However, the problem remains that the site is your site and adding links to your own site on Wikipedia articles is quite simply promotional spam. I have just reverted your most recent spam links. If you persist you will be blocked from editing. Now, why not add content to the articles rather than just linkspamming. You are most knowledgeable about the region and could no doubt add sourced information (not sourced by your own website) to the articles. Cheers, Vsmith 14:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

What? Arrogance Got Your Tongue?

As you might have seen, I have left you a message titled, "Response." That message included my apology for vandalism, but, it also included a question for you. A question you never answered. I can infer that you thought my message was a childish and that it wasn't worth answering. Well, I want you to answer, so please do that, it would be very appreciated.

Not Giving Up,

Arrogance? Whatever... No, I don't see your dumb joke vandalism as funny - and I see someone else has picked up on the dumb joke bit and further vandalised the page - or was that you also? probably, as both were from the same IP range (Optimum Online (Cablevision Systems)). You get no respect when you hide behind an ip and vandalize, but that is typical of most vandals. Get yourself a user ID and we'll discuss the possible humor of your joke. Vsmith 22:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

My Apologies

Vsmith, I want to personally apologize for the wrongs that have happened. As it turns out, my roommate used my Wiki profile to vandalize pages and write you angry messages. I have changed the password on my computer so it won't happen again, I will make sure that I will be a positive contributor to the Wiki community. I am very disappionted in my roommate and will have a good talk with him about what he has done. I am very sorry for anything my roommate might or has done.

Sincerely, Chris (The Real


For taking care of that vandal. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 23:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Herkimer diamond

I don't know if you have taken a look at this article yet, but it seems a lot like a spam article, with possible WP:COI issues. What do you think? SauliH 19:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I hadn't seen that one before. Just chopped a couple of spam links and toned the hype just a bit. The only non-commercial link I located w/ a quick google was the Mindat link, not much there. I don't have any good references to use in a more thorough cleanup at the moment. If you have a valid reference that discusses these quartz crystals feel free to redo the content. Cheers, Vsmith 00:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)