User talk:Vsmith/archive9

Urantia

Hi Vsmith, your comments/advice would be appreciated regarding links to this book; discussion is at Talk:Pangaea. Thanks - Geologyguy 17:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist, quiet for the moment - will see how much he wants to push that pseudoscience bit. Vsmith 00:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

VSmith & Geologyguy please explain how this is pseudoscience in your pov. The further development of the theory of continental drift is reviewed by I. W. D. Dalziel in Scientific American 272 (1) 28 (1995). The date proposed for the commencement of break-up of the first supercontinent is now estimated as 750 million years ago—the same as is given in The Urantia Book. 1934/1955 REFERENCES: The Urantia Book, p. 663; Scientific American 250 (2), 41, 1984; Scientific American 256 (4), 84, 1887; H.E. Le Grand, Drifting Continents and Shifting Theories, 1988. (Cambridge University Press).

You must think you are some kind of an authority on what happened here 750 million years ago. LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majeston (talk • contribs) 19:34, 30 May 2007

Authority? No, just going by published accounts in the scientific literature rather than someone's fantasy stuff. Vsmith 20:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Good, then we can use the Rodinia version quoting Urantia from McMenamin, Mark A. S. (1998) Discovering the First Complex Life: The Garden of Ediacara. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. The following quotes coming from McMenamin's book followed upon that author having his attention drawn to The Urantia Book's content by book reader, J.J. Johnson: "The anonymous members of the Urantia Corps hit on some remarkable scientific revelations in the mid-1930's. They embraced continental drift at a time when it was decidedly out of vogue in the scientific community. They recognized the presence of a global super-continent (Rodinia) and superocean (Mirovia), in existence on Earth before Pangea...The concept of a billion year old supercontinent (the currently accepted age for the formation of Rodinia) that subsequently split apart, forming gradually widening ocean basins in which early marine life flourished, is unquestionably present in the book. "Orthodox scientific arguments for such a proposal did not appear until the late 1960's, and a pre-Pangea supercontinent was never described until Valentine and Moores made the attempt in 1970. The Urantia Corps not only had the age of formation of Rodinia approximately correct at 1 billion years, but they were the first to link breakup of Rodinia to the emergence of animals...One wonders how the Urantia Book authors arrived at the concept of a Proterozoic supercontinent and the link between the breakup of this supercontinent and the emergence of complex life in the ensuing rift oceans 30 years before most geologists accepted continental drift--and nearly four decades before any scientist had any inkling that Rodinia existed." Majeston 12:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

confusion regarding inappropriate links

Dear Vsmith, I am confused as to the Warning Messages I have received regarding the links I have established to the Map Center at the Boston Public Library website. Is it not relevant to create a link to our site in the External Links session of a page on Maps, or Map Collection, or Boston? I notice that there are several other (private, for profit) map collections with links on these very same pages. Please advise as I am not sure as to how to proceed. Best regards, Becky

As the note I left on your talk states Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) ... links to web sites with which you are affiliated .... You are obviously associated with those links - simple as that. Wikipedia is not just a list of links. And, yes many other external links obviously need chopping - someday. Vsmith 23:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Help

Dear sir, Thank you for helping me with my editing of the Tanzanite article. I have since posted to the talk areas as advised. Regards Scott Hemming Gemdealer 23:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

adding citations

thanks for the note....adding citiations to information which is not cited. Doing research paper for and documenting uncited material.

User imemminger - external links

The link you were referring to contains extensive and highly relevant content on the clinoptilolite zeolite and its effects on humans. The zeolite page mentions clinoptilolite several times, and has no external link to provide users with more information if needed. The link I posted was extremely relevant and the entire site is dedicated to zeolite and its uses. So why was it removed? Thanks.

Ian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.65 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 24 May 2007

Quite simply, the linked site is purely promotional - and Wikipedia is not here to advertize your stuff. I have also deleted your promotional Natural Cellular Defense page. If you insist on using Wikipedia for advertizing purposes your account and IP socks will be blocked. Vsmith 14:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Just in case this needs a second opinion: deletion endorsed. Also quote Geologyguy 13:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC) from the deleted talkpage: "This page looks like blatant advertising.". Natural Cellular Defense was created to promote a product. Full of unverified claims, no references other than the manufacturer and its marketing affiliates (who disclaims all responsibility for any medicinal statements), and links to sales sites. Femto 15:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Vsmith 01:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Tried using WP:TWINKLE?

Just thought you might benefit from using it when reverting things -- I've used it for quite a while now and it works a treat. Just a thought! ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 16:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Will check it out further - don't know if I want to use it or not, yet. Thanks for the note, Vsmith 01:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Egyptian Jasper

Hi Vsmith. Do you remember that Egyptian Jasper article I created? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_jasper Well I added more to that article and I was wondering if you could please take a look at it? Thanks! Neptunekh 22:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Took a look - wikified it a bit, Vsmith 01:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Smile

GreaterWikiholic has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Brazilian_agate

Hi Vsmith. I created another article called Brazilian agate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_agate Could you please look at it and do the usual? Thanks! Neptunekh 02:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As you had added the exact same info to the agate article, I simply made it a redirect to agate. You need to work on wikifying the stuff you add - it's really not difficult. Vsmith 02:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Septarian_nodule

--Septarian nodule-- Hi Vsmith! I created an about Septarian nodules. Septarian nodule
Would you mind looking at it and wikifying thanks! Neptunekh 18:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Made redirect to concretion as there was little useable info and the geocities site was not a reliable source. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith 03:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Timeline Geological Timescale

hi vsmith, can you please re-format the Template:Timeline Geological Timescale. i mean its very bulky. it is very difficult to read the text. thanks Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 08:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... It seems that the addition of the Precambrian supereon and/or the Quaternary back in April caused the scrunching of the text - not sure why. Also noted that the links don't work when accessing using the secure servor: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Template:Timeline_Geological_Timescale - will do some checking. Vsmith 11:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Who needs the telly?

Who needs the telly for a giggle with stuff like this popping up on one's watchlist? Cheers. Gwen Gale 20:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Midcontinent Rift

I have now climbed out of this crevasse and will leave the article to you geologists for a while. Edit at will. Regards, Kablammo 21:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

help pleaes

I notice you may have knowledge/interest in the following; perhaps you can help out or point me to a discussion location. Currently, I find that the articles and categories involving 'environment of foo', 'geography of foo', natural history of foo' and 'geology of foo' may be confused. The current structure in some foo countries is

foo country => environment of foo => natural history of foo => geology

and

foo country => geography of foo => geology

For other countries it is just:

foo country => environment of foo => natural history of foo => geology

Many countries (and states of the US) lack several of these categories. I have questions on which category structure or another may be correct/most helpful. The main articles involved are unhelpful in giving this structure.

Also, in which categories should certain articles go? Examples: a prehistoric lake; a prehistoric flood; a prehistoric volcanic eruption.

I am trying to some of these categories to places where they are missing (such as US states) and running into some objections and counter proposals that would even reverse the current country-level category structure.

Thanks Hmains 04:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

First: where is this discussion taking place?

Geologic history of an area is a part of the natural history of that area and the geology is a part of the environment, so...?

Your Category:Geology of the United States by state seems redundant, why not just categorize Category:Geology of California under Category:Geology of the United States and forget the by state stuff - simplify rather than obfusticate.

Cheers, Vsmith 13:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If I may comment also: I recently have begun to organize Wikimedia commons images the same way (e.g. Geology -> Geology by country -> Geology of the United States -> Geology of [state name]). If VSmith's suggestion is adopted (which I support) then the organization of the two projects would be consistent. Kablammo 15:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Geological history of Earth- GAC

Hi Vsmith, I have nominated the page for GAC. Can you kindly review the following article. Please its a request. thanks, Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 14:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Dimension Stone Wikipedia article

VSmith:

On your "US Centric" comment: In principle we agree. However, of the major producing nations, IMMCarrara hasn't had a breakout for production of marble and granite (let alone others) for Italy since 2002. The latest Brazilian Minerals Yearbook has 2004 statistics riddled with obvious errors. The latest Indian Minerals Yearbook has 2003-04 statistics (3 quarters of 2003 and the First Quarter 2004), and some major producing states have not reported. China-nothing!! It wasn't until quite recently that I felt comfortable in saying "Xiamen is an important dimension stone fabricating/finishing center (a bare statement, no details: no mention of how many plants, what stones they process into what products, any nearby quarries)" in my book on the more important nations for dimension stone production and finishing (now in technical review).

I feel that it is better to light a candle (U.S. statistics and data) than curse the darkness (little or no foreign statistics and data. Even the U.S. has very limited data with lots of deficiencies; one must constantly dance around the U.S. gaps.

And I still do not understand why you deleted those statements in each application about the stone used being mostly imported or domestic; that is certainly world-oriented.

I hope we will be able to work together. Bmhtayl 02:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia and the wording I changed or removed clearly implied that a US audience was assumed. I appreciate the problem with lack of statistics for various other countries, but we still need to keep the content globally focused as much as possible. And write for a global audience - imported or domestic where?

Always welcome subject matter experts to Wikipedia - just keep the audience in mind. I look forward to working with you - and good luck on your book.

I know little about the supply and demand of dimension stone and the quarry industry. The crushed marble bit in your recent addition was a bit surprising to me - is that for true marble, or all carbonate rocks? The commercial blurring of the word marble grates on the geologist in me. My personal experience with dimension stone consists of digging sandstone flagstones out of my own creek and bluffs for use in patios, hearthstones and retaining walls. Vsmith 02:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Missouri tributary question

The Missouri River should actually continue to the Gulf at St Louis. The Mississippi River is a tributary of the Missouri. It is simply an oddity due to the historical naming of the Mississippi River. This is noted in literature, Coast Guard documents, etc. It isn't a new thing though is does sound odd. It is true. Look up oddities of the Mississippi River on a search engine and you should see it repeated many times.

I undid your revert and added a note in the discussion about it where it is talked about but not the tributary part.

If you need more proof please look it up. You will find it. At the very least it could be stated in the article that both rivers are considered tributaries and there is disagreement until a good source of proof is shown. (I just don't have time for that as it means going to the ship Chandery (sp?)to get a copy of the info. 12.214.61.17 02:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I added an edit about the question of the Missouri being a tributary in a way that I think balances the issue until a citation can be found to back this up. I didn't know how to put the citation needed thing in there though. 12.214.61.17 02:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... don't want a revert war here :-) I look at any map and I see this river that starts at Lake Itaska in Minn. and ends in a delta in Louisiana and it's called the Mississippi. Don't ever recall seeing the Mississippi stop at St. Louis - er, that way the Mississippi would never touch Mississippi - whatever would we call it then? I've never seen that stretch of river between St. Lou and the gulf called the Missouri, have you? I suppose there are some geography nitpickers out there who want to rename things - historical precident be damned - or whatever. Now, if and when you find that reference to support your version of truth, please bring it to the table for discussion. If your citation is valid we'll help put it in correctly. Vsmith 03:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, not into revert wars.  :) Could you leave the question about it in there though. I put it in but it could be worded better. I will get citations. What exactly do you all need? Photo copies of government documents or map mailed, emailed, or linked? I will get them but it will take time. I hardly ever leave the house. It is just an historical oddity about the river. Maybe it could be put in that way. Anyway, I will look it up. It may take weeks, days, or I may forget about it. Never know.  :) 12.214.61.17 03:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Island blogspam

Hello,

The site www.privateislandsblog.com is not spam. It is a non commercial site updated daily with information about private islands around the world. I am the author and also an Island owner and offer information for anyone interested in islands.

Kind Regards,

Mark Amhurst —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markamherst (talk • contribs) 20:24, 16 June 2007

Please read WP:SPAM. Vsmith 20:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Geological history of Earth

Ummhhh... well i also agree with you. can you please lend me some time to improve this article then. Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 05:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

can you please pin out the stuff which i need to cover in the article. Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 05:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

you have termed this redunduncy but what i was wishing to do was to summaries the related topics. Okay Vsmith, do answer this question- then what is the need of the article- Solar System. it also redunduncy. same repeated information regarding planets and kupier belt. this article is recently created. Hey Vsmith, your knowledge regarding geology is outstanding, no doubt! so why don't you try to improve this article with me. I am a 15 years kid you see and truely speaking geology is not my field. Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 11:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Replied on Talk:Geological history of Earth Vsmith 14:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It might take some time. thanks for the guidance. And yes one more thing, on your userpage you mentioned that you are the torturers of children. I don't know why but from this statement and the way you have designed your Userpage it seems that you are very friendly and genrous personality. Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 05:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No need to hurry, we've got lots of time. As for the torturer bit. I teach physics and chemistry at the high school level - most of my students are 16 - 17 year old kids and I emphasize problem solving and application of the algebra (that they want to forget). Many of them have a difficult time with it - so I say I'm torturing them by making them think and work. I've had many come back from college later and thank me for making it tough on them - they later see the value of the torture I made 'em go through. Vsmith 02:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That ok, but thinking is not torture. though from the child's point of view it might be torture. just kiding. Hahaha! Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 08:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Environmental Record Task Force

You are being recruited by the Environmental Record Task Force, a collaborative project committed to accurately and consistently representing the environmental impact of policymakers, corporations, and institutions throughout the encyclopedia. Join us!

Hi Vsmith,
We're looking for people with solid science knowledge and interest in environmental issues--your edits indicate you might fit this bill? I hope you'll consider lending a hand!
cheers, Cyrusc 22:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, but I'm streched a bit thin and not ready to commit to a project now. I do have many environmental articles on my (way too big) watchlist. Good luck with the project. Vsmith 03:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

spam message

Hi Vsmith, I'll just send you the message i posted for ohnoitsjamie... ==Brice One== Hey Jamie, you sent me a message a spam message. Sorry but I'm just getting my feet wet and sort of running through my interest area by bookmarks and subjects. Not ideal, I guess. Let me get to through Science and start Food and Literature. Thanks.

This is getting really off-putting. Contribute? Only if you're part of the "in-crowd". This feels like high school again. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brice one (talk • contribs) 14:38, 20 June 2007

You are more than welcome to contribute content. However, simply adding external links to a site amounts to WP:SPAM. Please read that policy page. Vsmith 14:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Have/had done. And still decided to just test the waters slowly. Forget it and thanks.

I am starting my work with geological history of earth.

this is a separate message posted by Sushant gupta.
hi, currently i am preparing a draft for geological history of earth. this time i am focusing just on tectonics. is that okay. Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 09:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That's fine - always good to focus on one aspect at a time. Good luck with it. Vsmith 17:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Steno stuff again

Sir,

My last note to you goes make several months. I sent a reminder but there was no response:

Here is the note:

Thank you for your response. You say my work applies to sedimentology, but as our experiments are all concerned with the formation of strata I am unable to agree with you: 1. they show that lamination is a mechanical property of heterogranular mixtures instead of successive layers. 2. The experiments in Colorado show that variation of current velocity is responsible for stratified beds which prograde in the direction of the current; they do not succeed each other. 3. Temporary variations of velocity create erosion surfaces. 4. Desiccation produces bed plane partings.

Overall, the current is really the agent of stratification of aqueous deposits. This knowledge is a major tool in paleohydraulic analysis of sedimentary rocks and particularly in determining the time taken for them to form. To me as an experimenter, this provides a much more viable approach than chronostratigraphy.

My second Russian article explaining the formation of the Tonto Group shows the application of the experiments to the large picture and how they modify the standard stratigraphic interpretation. Insufficient data on erosion, however, prevented me from giving a more accurate interpretation of the boulders at the base of the Tapeats Sandstone eroded by a massive current.

I think Wikipedia readers will recognise that this research challenging the principles of superposition represents new knowledge and merits a place in an encyclopedia.

Guy Berthault

I should add that since that time experiments to provide massing erosion data have got underway with the Russian naval laboratory in St. Petersburg. My website gives details: www.sedimentology.fr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.209.69.233 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 24 June 2007

I do not care to argue the point with you. Quite simply your website contains too many simplifications and errors and appears to be subtly pushing a "flood geology" viewpoint. That debate doesn't belong here. Further, you seem to want to argue with Steno - who is of a different age and long gone. Instead, take your arguement to modern stratigraphers in their journals and meeting discussions rather than a general encyclopedia. Good day, Vsmith 17:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hadeon- eon- section for geological history of earth

hi vsmith, is the following section appropriate for the article-

Hadean- The early Earth, during the very early Hadean eon, was very different from the world known today. There were no oceans and no oxygen in the atmosphere. It was bombarded by planetoids and other material left over from the formation of the solar system. This bombardment, combined with heat from radioactive breakdown, residual heat, and heat from the pressure of contraction, caused the planet at this stage to be fully molten. Heavier elements sank to the center while lighter ones rose to the surface, producing Earth's various layers (see "Structure of the Earth"). Earth's early atmosphere would have comprised surrounding material from the solar nebula, especially light gases such as hydrogen and helium, but the solar wind and Earth's own heat would have driven off this atmosphere. This changed when Earth was about 40% its present radius, and gravitational attraction allowed the retention of an atmosphere which included water. Temperatures plummeted and the crust of the planet was accumulated on a solid surface, with areas melted by large impacts on the scale of decades to hundreds of years between impact. Large impacts would have caused localized melting and partial differentiation, with some lighter elements on the surface or released to the moist atmosphere. The surface cooled quickly, forming the solid crust within 150 million years (around 12:45 a.m. on our clock); although new research suggests that the actual number is 100 million years based on the level of hafnium found in the geology at Jack hills in Western Australia. From 4 to 3.8 billion years ago (around 3 to 4 a.m.), Earth underwent a period of heavy asteroidal bombardment. Steam escaped from the crust while more gases were released by volcanoes, completing the second atmosphere. Additional water was imported by bolide collisions, probably from asteroids ejected from the outer asteroid belt under the influence of Jupiter's gravity. The planet cooled. Clouds formed. Rain gave rise to the oceans within 750 million years (3.8 billion years ago, around 4:00 a.m. on our clock), but probably earlier. Recent evidence suggests the oceans may have begun forming by 4.2 billion years ago (1:50 a.m. on our clock). Volcanic activity was intense and, without an ozone layer to hinder its entry, ultraviolet radiation flooded the surface.

Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 06:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
no need now its fine. Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 06:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Materials Forum

Apparently I can't add that sort of thing. I've just set it up and am trying to establish it as a forum for students to help each other etc. Any idea on the best way to publicise it?

Cracks at Sunrise on Sea

Hi, I have read your note on my discussion page and I shall send you more info and pictures. Sunrise on Sea is east of Gonubie and East London. The cracks caught my eye too, just when I was out for some morning exercise, and the tides were where they were at that moment..Gregorydavid 16:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to improve an article

Electromagnetic therapy needs help to explain or source some of the statements made. I hope that you could give a peek-a-boo at it. I saw that you had contributed to another physics related article, that's why I'm bothering you... Oldspammer 00:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Electrolysis_of_water

I would like to add AC to your most recent edit to the article. AC power is also a common source. Noah Seidman 03:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Common source? I've only used battery or DC power supplies. Hmm... doesn't alternating mean a switching of + and - thus the anode & cathode ... result no separation of O2 and H2 into diff containers or have I misunderstood something here? Always ready to modify my assumptions and learn :-) Vsmith 03:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

AC can perform electrolysis although the reaction intensity is diminished because of the nature of sinusoidal power signals canceling out at certain time intervals. DC performs electrolysis much better than AC, although pulsed DC is also utilized (absolute value of a square wave). AC is typically used in situations where high power is required, more-so than can be supplied by batteries; modification of the sinusoidal signal is typical.

Ehhh, I'll let the article sit for a while to think about the best way of saying things. Your right that DC (battery) is the most common power source for standard demonstrations. Noah Seidman 03:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Help!

Hi vsmith, can you please make corrections in the following content.

In the very beginning of geologic history, the Earth was a giant, red hot, magma ocean. The heat had been generated by the repeated high speed collisions of smaller bodies of space rocks that continually clumped together. As the collisions tapered off the earth began to cool, forming a thin layer of crust on its surface. As the cooling continued, water vapour began to condense in the earth's atmosphere. Clouds formed and storms raged, raining more and more water down on the primitive earth, cooling the surface further until it was flooded with water, forming the seas. It is theorized that the true age of the earth is about 4.6 billion years old, formed at about the same time as the rest of the solar system. The oldest rocks geologists have been able to find are 3.9 billion years old. Using radiometric dating methods to determine the age of rocks means scientists have to rely on when the rock was initially formed (as in - when its internal minerals first cooled). Since we can only measure as far back in time as we had solid rock on this planet, we are limited in how we can measure the real age of the earth. Due to the forces of plate tectonics, our planet is also a very dynamic one; new mountains forming, old ones wearing down, volcanoes melting and reshaping new crust. The continual changing and reshaping of the earth's surface that involves the melting down and reconstructing of old rock has pretty much eliminated most of the original rocks that came with earth when it was newly formed. So the age is a theoretical age. no need its fine now. Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 04:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

---

geological history of earth
can i write a short paragraph on evolution of life on Earth in order to make it more encyclopedic. Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 08:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Article completely re-rewritten

Well now the article focuses only on tectonics. within a week i would be nominating it for FAC. i am still trying to improve it. thanks, Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 06:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking good. Need more citations prior to FAC. I've formatted a bit - easier to edit smaller sections. And in reference to your question above, yes - a short paragraph and link would be fine, sorry I hadn't answered previously. Keep up the good work. Vsmith 14:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

ummhhh... Hydrochloric acid is a featured article. don't you think that it also needs more citation.

Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 14:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it does - it made featured status over two years ago and I see the process as more stringent now, although I haven't been involved much in FAC for a while now. Vsmith 15:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

if you want me to cite any statement then do tell me. Sushant gupta 15:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Lake Powell page

Hello VSmith,

I feel that the link to the Lake Powell water data page should not be allowed, according to this rule:

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product.

That website is advertising and promoting itself, and is a personal website for its creator, David Fordham. I would have edited it out myself, but found I could not do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiffmapel (talk • contribs) 16:13, 8 July 2007

OK, I've replaced that spam hidden as a reference and removed your spam link again. Don't add your link again without discussion. Thank you. Vsmith 16:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

sorry mate

sorry about the editing my bad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.11.178 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 11 July 2007

Eagle Project

VSmith, I whole heatedly agree about the sulfide mining page, the only thing I have done is try to keep the articles relating to Eagle\mining as neutral as possible (maybe not the best idea). Its a big topic right now in Northern Michigan\Wisconsin (rampant NIMBYism). I'm not the best at making changes on Wiki, new user, if you want to make the changes, I vote go for it! Cheers, Joe Dase Djoeyd114 17:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote, Kelapstick beat me to it when I was at lunch, LOL. I did make some additions, if you could look them over I would greatly appreciate it! Cheers, Joe Djoeyd114 20:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

VSmith, I just wanted to let you know about a petition for a new Wiki Project: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Mining I figured you might be interested in it. Cheers Djoeyd114 17:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a number of mining and related pages on my (bloated) watchlist and will help when I can. But, at the moment I'm way too overextended to put my fingers deeply in more pies. Good luck with it. Vsmith 02:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Quickmap

Sorry.

Absolutely no intention to spam.

I see many links added by small organisations like mine.

Now very confused over what's allowable.

Andrew

Quickmap—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quickmap (talk • contribs) 15:08, 13 July 2007.

Neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, this seems to be a WP:COI issue. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. see Advertising and conflicts of interest guidelines.--Hu12 15:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sulfur hexafluoride

Thank you for experimenting with the page Sulfur hexafluoride on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Bambinn^?!? 23:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Whee - ain't this fun? No, I wasn't experimenting - thanks for the chuckle, Vsmith 00:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Comment!

Thanks! I don't know how much I'll write, studying for the SAT and AP's pretty much takes up my time, but I'm looking forward to looking around the talk pages and hopefully helping influence some changes. Cronos2546 23:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Cronos2546 ;)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Geological history of Earth

hi vsmith, kindly leave your expert comments on Geological histoy of Earth FAC. eagerly waiting for your comments. Sushant gupta 01:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: Edit Silver Page

User talk:91.104.141.54 Says: I appreciate your efforts in maintaining the stature and quality of wikipedia however the link which was placed was neither malacious or spam and was by no means placed to detract from the quality of the page. It was added for informational purposes only to further illustrate the uses of silver which seemed to be rather limited on the existing page. rather than waste valuable space on the site it was felt this was best served by a link to a non-affiliated external page to highlight this. Your feelings were taken on board and to keep the flow of the page the link was moved to the end of the line to keep readability. It would be appreciated if you leave the change as it is, if another individual decides under their own steam to make an edit then it will be left, unless there is another unsolicited complaint it is felt that it adds to the usefulness of the page on silver. thanks for your time. keep up the good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.141.54 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 19 July 2007

Seems another vigilant editor has already reverted your last spam addition. Please read WP:SPAM. Vsmith 13:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

J-M Reef

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from J-M Reef, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! I didn't remove the {{COI2}} tag - Silverbach has the right to contest the PROD, but not the COI2 tag. Od Mishehu 06:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Vsmith 13:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

External links...

Thank you very much for bringing to my attention the Wikipedia policy on external links. I am a new contributor, first noticed a topic that already had a section labeled companies and added my company link to that list. I then added it to two other comparable topics which i now understand is wrong.

I appreciate you bringing this to my attention and i will not transgress again. I really enjoy this resource and will do my part to be a good citizen.

Steve Roon - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveroon (talk • contribs) 16:38, 20 July 2007

---

Well, I have to tell the truth thank you very much. USA's food is junk and simple/plain/boring. It's culture is sinful/immoral: sex, money, drugs and alcohol, simple/plain/boring, disgraceful, dishonourable, fake, arrogant, superficial/materialistic, and did I mention: ARROGANT!!! It's history is short and unethical. It's government is corrupt, tainted and poisoned. It's presidents, only two have ever been successful and they are Abrahan Lincoln and John F. Kennedy, and by successful, I mean: true, pure, intelligent but most important, wise people. Well need I say more...If I do, I can go for ages.

And by the way, there are just too much biased information depicting positivity for USA, whereas it's different for other countries, like China. Look at the movie Kundun, the PROC never ever did/said/thought anything even close to what the creators depicted. That was a complete disgrace to China.

USA believes they're the best in the world, thinking everybody else is beneath them. And if you don't follow them, you're primitive. I think it's the other way around, because USA is definitely not a wise country.

Peace to all wise and moral people!
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tosfan4ever (talk • contribs) 04:16, 26 July 2007

Greek Agate

Ok I rewrote the Greek Agate article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_agate Can you please look at it and edit it? I change alot of the words. Thanks! Neptunekh 21:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Census for Marine Life and Holocene extinction articles

Hi- I just wanted to let you know that I made distinct efforts to not directly copy from the source articles when I was referencing them in the wikipedia articles. If you feel the information was not relevant that is a subjective argument which is valid, though I disagree. Just for the record, the data was same, but the syntax was completely different. Martha p 18:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the phrases I googled were word for word copyvios. Please be more careful in the future. Vsmith 01:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

WTF?

can you explain why since yesterday I have about 12 messages telling me i'm a vandal and i might be banned? Is it because im on a school network and have a shared IP? I have done nothing but good for wikipedia and im going to create an account soon. please send me a message since i wont find your page again otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.27.231.250 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 1 August 2007

You have the solution - get an account id and your problems should be over. Vsmith 01:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Geology of solar terrestrial planets

I recently created this page (4th August 2007), do you think that it meets FAC criteria. if it needs some add ups then do tell me. thanks, Sushant gupta 12:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion unnecessary

any reason for your deletion of a good link in Medieval warm period. It looks like a good link to me! Peterlewis 16:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw little useful information there and the site was mainly an appeal for contributions for a pov pushing group. Vsmith 13:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Your suppression of opposing points of view

Global warming appears to be a pet issue of yours. This does not justify your systematic deletions of NPOV sections, with sources, that touch upon that subject. Wikipedia is not the proper place for administrators to censor points of view they do not agree with, without comment, leaving their own POV behind, leading to an article with POV issues. Your reverts have been abusive, as they have not been used to revert vandalism, but instead to blank information you do not agree with. As an administrator, you should be setting a positive example, not deleting content that does not agree with your POV. You need to stop. - MSTCrow 23:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Whee - ain't we having fun. What a pile of bullcrap from a blatant pov pusher. I'll set a positive example by continuing to battle vandals and pov pushers, thank you. Vsmith 13:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

'speed of light' light cone image

we seem to have different views on the 'speed of light' light cone image. With 'thumb' I see nothing in the box, but with 'right' it shows up fine. I've checked it now on Linux and Windows using both Firefox and Internet Explorer. Why did you change it back? (And why did you not put any comments on the discussion page?)

Johnmuir 16:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

replied on Talk:Speed of light. Will leave as is for now. Vsmith 02:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Great that you fixed the image captions so fast. :) I made my reply to the IP editor's message on a Hematite article talk page. Would you advice me to leave links to it from those other talk pages, that would help someone who finds the comments later to know where the discussion is? Best regards Rhanyeia 11:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the one (more?) I missed. A note to that effect might be useful, if you wish & have the time. I don't know how to reach future image contributors to request scale information. Thanks, Vsmith 11:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I think I will leave short notes. To reach future editors, would it help if something was written on Commons here? Many people probably upload pictures without reading it, but it could still help some. I got an idea of a sentence which is not especially about minerals: "If you have detailed information about the image, for example the size of the object or where it is from, please add it." :) How is this idea, or would it be better to write about minerals somewhere? Best regards Rhanyeia 12:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Good. I have started requesting regular mineral image uploaders to add scale info in the captions. Vsmith 01:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. Here is a link to the conversation on Commons. :) Wikipedia:Uploading images could have some instructions too, even a couple of sentences from Commons, because some users may not read Commons? Best regards Rhanyeia 08:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

With a kind help from Digon3 there is now something on Commons (with also a brief explicit mention about mineral sizes), and I added a little instruction to Wikipedia too. A message to the Hematite article talk page saying that we did something would be good. Do you think you could leave it please? Best regards Rhanyeia 10:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope it's fine that I left the message on the Hematite talk now. I asked for you because I thought you may want to leave it, you having been around those articles long. Thank you for your work and help. :) Best regards Rhanyeia 11:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Image size/scale

• Could you tell me which images you are concerning about scale? I have just added sizes to several image description pages, so hopefully I got the one you are talking about. --Digon3 ^talk 15:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, the native copper and pyrolusite images were the ones I was looking at. I've added the size to the captions. The tourmaline image could also use some size information. Ideally some indication of size in the caption or scale in the image should be included in most all mineral and rock images. Thanks, Vsmith 15:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick

Is there anyway we can prevent false signatures? This happened to me (well, someone was misrepresented on my talk page) I informed her, but I was wondering if there is anything else I should do? I could not find anything by searching 'false' on the signature page. Thanks, Brusegadi 22:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the anon claims to be ICarriere (another edit on my talk.) However, I went back to ICarriere's talk page and the message I had left there had been removed by the legitimate owner of the page (ICarriere) This is sneaky thought. I thought an admin should know about it. Even if it is he is the legit owner, that amounts to suckpuppetry. Ciao, Brusegadi 22:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOCK

You wrote,

Please read WP:SOCK and refrain from editing from your user id and your non logged in ip address. Thanking yourself on the ip talk User talk:67.185.221.175 seems rather deceptive. Please avoid deceptive editing practices and comments. If you continue you are likely to be blocked from editing. Vsmith 01:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The issue at hand is a simple misunderstanding. I have been working to prevent vandalism to a page I created. Because the vandals who are using Sock Puppets (I've checked the IPs) were constantly watching my edit/contribution history, I felt the need to log out to ask another person for help. I didn't want the vandals to know that I was asking for assistance.

While, I was logged out, I had to revert vandalism to the page in question. So I accidentally did this using my IP address. Again, this was not intentional. I agree, the cute little note where I thank myself was deceptive, but for good reason. I didn't want the vandals to see my IP address and put two and two together. A person's IP Address can be easily hacked. Which is why I plan on renewing it shortly.

Unfortunately, I made the mistake of asking for help from Brusegadi. Brusegadi became immediately hostile, claiming that I had violated the WP:SOCK policy.

Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy states,

"A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who already has one or more accounts. The Wikipedian who uses a sock puppet may be called a sock puppeteer. Use of sock puppets is discouraged in most cases.

The reason for discouraging sock puppets is to prevent abuses such as a person voting more than once in a poll, or using multiple accounts to circumvent Wikipedia policies or cause disruption. Some people feel that second accounts should not be used at all; others feel it is harmless if the accounts are behaving acceptably."

The request for help from Brusegadi was a harmless act. Moreover, the comment to myself on my own user page was a harmless act. - ICarriere 02:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have moved this disussion to my talk page per your above instructions. If you prefer, you can remove it from this section. Also, I would appreciate your feedback on both items as I do not believe I have violated any policies. - ICarriere 04:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Erin Burnett Protection

Thank you for protecting Erin Burnett. Seems the only way it will be resolved. statsone 03:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I would second that, but I did have a question. Where might I find information on the dispute process? Specifically, how are these disputes resolved on Wikipedia? - ICarriere 04:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. It starts with civil discussion on the article talk page. Vsmith 04:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way you can unprotect the page before the set expiration date? There's already been a solid consensus on the talk page for inclusion of the quote under the 'controversy' section, but a whole week of protection is way too long. -- J.R. Hercules 13:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Enjoy! :-) Vsmith 02:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Oil shale

Hi Vsmith. As i see from the article history, you have made lot of good edits to the Oil shale article. As the whole article grew too big, recently we created several spin-off articles, including Oil shale geology. I wonder, if you could be interested assisting to improve this article, and also create appropriate summary for the geology section of the main article. As there is plan to nominate these articles for GA, I would like to ask if you are interested to assist for adding inline citation for all hard data and facts. There are some tags where references are needed. Thank you in advance. Beagel 09:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I listed Oil shale for the new peer review and related spin-off articles (Oil shale extraction, Oil shale geology, Oil shale industry, History of the oil shale industry, Oil shale reserves, Oil shale economics, and Environmental effects of oil shale industry) for the peer review. Your comments and edits will be most welcome.Beagel 17:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Erin Burnett

I know we got off to a bad start, and I'm really sorry about that. Thank you for protecting the page during the edit war. I know that parties haven't come to any firm agreements, but I hope the compromise I added to the page will end the problem. Again, Thank you. - ICarriere 03:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No doubt there will be others working on that page to improve the presentation based on their perceptions. Be flexible and watch out for WP:OWN. I would reccommend diverifying - don't focus all your attention to that one page (others may see it as a conflict of interest). You have good writing skills - there are lots of poorly written articles just waitng for your talents, as well as those red links needing a blueing. Cheers, Vsmith 03:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

God

God I made a mestake I was usin my AIM and accedently typed it on the wikipedia. You guys should really bring it down a noch not everyone is here to sabatoch th9is thing.And you don't have to delete me for not knowing how to spell. Do something constructive! Thanks - Yobllz —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yobllz (talk • contribs) 03:01, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

KT

Catastrophism has a specific meaning, especially to geologists, basically as an antonym to gradualism (see catastrophism). It's by no means universally agreed in the geological community that the KT "event" was sudden and short-lived; some think the pattern of extinctions represents gradual change over a long time period (e.g. millions of years). Do I have your permission to change the wording to reflect this? Badgerpatrol 02:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The catastrophism/gradualism debate is rather ancient history to geologists. Catastrophic events are recognized as a part of geologic history. Catastrophies occur today and are a part of "the present is the key to the past". Now, I recognize that certain religious groups like to pretend that such old debates have relevance - but such IDiots don't have a clue about science. Given all that, the word under discussion is catastrophic not catastrophism. And, whether abrupt or drawn-out, the KT event was quite catastrophic to life of the time. If you find the word objectionable - feel free to replace with a suitable synonym regarding the drastic changes of the KT event. Vsmith 03:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I can categorically attest that the catastrophism/gradualism debate, particularly with regard to mass extinctions, is not just ancient history to geologists - we are still arguing about it even today. "Catastrophic" is derived from the concept of "catastrophism" and obviously implies a sudden, shocking "event" - e.g. with a temporal duration of days to weeks, or even less. By no means everybody agrees that that was the case at the KTB. I'll have a look at it and try and come up with a suitable alternative. I understand from reading the news that there is some debate between religious groups and scientists over such issues in certain parts of the world - these debates have no relevance in my country and I know very little about it. I certainly do not edit from a religious perspective. Badgerpatrol 11:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Jarosite

I agree with your shift of "other use" down in the Jarosite article, but I do not think disambig is needed. Humanist505 16:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

You are being recruited by the Money and Politics Task Force, a collaborative project committed to ensuring that links between government officials and private-sector resources are accurately displayed in relevant entries. Join us!

Cyrusc 15:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Mining

Hi Vsmith, I see that you add a lot of material to Mining mining articles. I am currently trying to start a wikiproject on mining if you would be interested in contributing. Thanks! --Kelapstick 13:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Greek Agate and Egyptian Jasper

Hi Vsmith! Would you mind merging the Egyptian Jasper article and the Greek Agate article to the Agate article and the Jasper? Thanks! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_agate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_jasper Neptunekh 19:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)