User talk:Vsmith/Archive22

US Virgin Islands

Apologies. I reverted your edit on US Virgin Islands by accident. I have restored your version. Green Giant (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem - those things happen, thanks for the note. Vsmith (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Permian–Triassic extinction event

I have deleted "By contrast the CO2 ppm vs. pre-Industrial vs. todays" because this insinuates a hysterical and unproven hypothesis that todays global warming event has something to do with this event; or that the CO2 levels caused by this event may cause a similar event today. Though it is true the CO2 levels caused by this event increased 2000 ppm, it remained high throughout the Triassic, Jurassic and made a gradual decline beyond. Todays CO2 dispute has no business in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomboyloots (talk • contribs) 08:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... will think it over, meanwhile you might want to explain your edits at talk:Permian–Triassic extinction event rather than simply reverting. Vsmith (talk) 10:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome

Thank you for your welcome ... I guess my edits didn't go un-noticed after all, ha ha.

Also am "retired" geologist (UWestern Ontario, '76). Am collecting current info (most of my mineralogical texts are out-of-date), but occasionally I see a misleading entry and will correct. Not used to the ins and outs as a contributor, but will learn. Am thinking of establishing a web site or Wiki regarding mineral separation data using specific gravity for those who mess round (like me) with a small concentrating table mill to pass the time.

Also changed careers to education.

Anyway, just wanted to acknowledge your welcome.

Regards Wrbulmer (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Abiogenesis: arise or arose?

Hello, pls see my reason for present tense. Northfox (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources?... replied there. Vsmith (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for Added the link

Hi Vsmith,

I think I have added the link by mistake. I was in dilemna whether or not teflon filter helps in water purification. I am really sorry for that. Will take care in future to link with related wikipages for better reader's information.

Regards

Joseph Warrender — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosephWarrender (talk • contribs) 06:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem, we're all learning here :) Vsmith (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Microscopic derivation

I've noticed your edits to ideal gas law and I consider it is important to specify explicitly that the derivation of ideal gas law is microscopic and to distinguish between macroscopic laws and theoretical derivations involving microscopic considerations.

Also the macroscopic status of the ideal gas law is the same as that of, for example, the law of gravitation and can be taken as a primitive statement/law needing no macroscopic derivation. --188.26.22.131 (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome to specify explicitly with a reference noting such microscopic considerations. However, the derivation is mathematical and of itself doesn't depend on a microscope. Vsmith (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I've copied the above to Talk:Ideal gas law for more eyes... Vsmith (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

External Link Question

Hello,

I have recently tried to add a few external links to different wikipedia pages. For example, I tried adding a link to 'Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton' and 'Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune'. Both links were under the url basedirectory.com. I understand that the external links have to be kept to a minimum, but I feel that this site would be beneficial to the viewers of the page. They are most likely living there already or moving there, so they are on the page to look up general information about the base. This site that I suggest offers additional information about the bases, including USO information, local businesses, and other similar information.

The reason why it was declined was because I used 'we' in the edit summary, but I don't work at the website company that I am suggesting. (I don't know if that is why it was turned down or not) I also noticed a similar site listed under Camp Lejeune's external links (dodlodging.com) That site is also great for visitors to utilize, and basedirectory.com would just as useful in the same context.

Is there anyway to have these links reconsidered?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WojoDesign (talk • contribs) 16:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest asking on the talk pages of those articles. Your username along with the use of "we" suggested to me that you may have a conflict of interest. If not - OK, although I would suggest a username change - and avoid edits that may be mistaken for spam or coi. Vsmith (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Just letting you know that I've soft blocked the account because of the username. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Maya civilization

Besides removing citation notices, he's copy/pasting from other articles so I've made a wholesale revert. He won't be happy but he ignored my post to his talk page this am. He's probably done the same with other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 17:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

He's just new though. He's emailed me about the earlier comment I made on this talk page. He needs help I guess. Dougweller (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Been occupied elsewhere. Thanks for the note. Vsmith (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Marcellettim addition removed

Hello Vsmith,

My name is Mark Marcelletti and I am the owner of California Environmental Dewatering, creator of http://ced.biz and it's content. We are a specialty chemical company that has proven and verifiable science. I added non-copyrited content to Wikipedia to increase the accuracy of it's content and it was removed. Could you add my edits back in?

Kind Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcellettim (talk • contribs) 21:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:conflict of interest, we aren't here to promote or advertise. Your addition (at least in part) was copied directly from your website which has a copyright notice at the bottom. So - no, I won't re-add your copyrighted material nor add content which promotes your company. Vsmith (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Bizarre edit summary

Oops. Weird glitch. I meant to point out that the pretense tense indicates the current condition, so "is currently" is redundant. Thanks for your edit. Much better. Ground Zero | t 16:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem, oopses do happen. I've redone the lead sentence on all those mineral list articles. Your edit brought the "poor wording" to my attention. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Per your message

Yes, I understand completely. I would like to continue contributing to the site though, as I often see articles that lack new research/findings. However, to avoid COI, I will use the original journal abstracts or articles as references.

Thank you for bringing the COI to my attention.

- Joseph — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnordqvist (talk • contribs) 22:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad that you understand and hope to see more from you - we need more good content editors. Vsmith (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Forum Needed on Wikipedia

As far as I am concerned Wikipedia is full of Admins Generally that are fascist totalitarian truth oppressors that hinder the advancement of human knowledge the stated purpose of Wikipedia. Of course I know the real truth about Wikipedia and that it is a Governmental Intelligence Operation to gather Intelligence. If not then I suggest a major change or addition to Wikipedia that a "Forum" button be placed beside the "Talk" button where people can converse freely on the subject of the article without fear of thought police. 2602:306:C518:6C40:48D2:4370:819A:64A6 (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah - the "real truth". P'raps you should take your forum button idea to WP:Village pump ... or not. Please also read WP:No personal attacks. Vsmith (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

VSmith, your restraint is amazing, and shall serve as a model for me in the future. Wow! Just... wow! Riventree (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Sometimes when it gets to me - I walk away from the 'puter and grab my splitting maul and attack some recalcitrant oak logs in my woodpile... Cheers Vsmith (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your Welcome and would appreciate your guidance

Thank you for your welcome note and explaining why you made some changes to my edit on Francis Bacon. As you can see I'm very new to this. I would like your guidance on how to get this right. As a Psychologist (1st class honours - many years ago now - I'm 53) who has published in peer-reviewed journals I'm acutely aware of the standards of quality research, but not quite sure how this works in Wikipedia world. After reading Dr Blair-West's book on Francis Bacon and going over his website, I realised that the article on Bacon was lacking. To explain one point, while Blair-West's book is of the 'inspirational' genre he is a medical writer who has published in way more peer-reviewed journals than I have (I have heard him speak as well) and his two other books are non-fiction and well-researched. He previously held an academic appointment at the University of Qld and published research into depression and suicide.

Anyway, his book The Way of The Quest, follows the early childhood of Bacon in historically correct detail - as he says in the Foreword, Blair-West spent some time in the UK researching the life of Bacon. But it is the 28 page appendix he calls the 'Backstory' to be found at the back of the book that I am referencing here. Here he reviews the research into the Shakespeare authorship question and takes it further than I have seen done before. On his website he provides an excerpt from Dodd's book which gives more detail than other authors on what happened in Bacon's "fall from grace" see this page - http://www.thewayofthequest.com/francis-bacon.html If you wish to dismiss this information, can I respectfully suggest that I would think you should review it closely first? As one of the foremost modern authorities (as I would see it) on Francis Bacon, I have been in contact with Dr Blair-West and suggested that he should update aspects of the Bacon page (and the Mont St Michel page - where the book is set).

In terms of using the Amazon link to the book I assumed this would be the easiest for a Wikipedia reader in terms of looking into the reference directly without having to then go and find the book. Would it be better to just reference the book publication with no hyperlink? Or use a link to the author's website?

Is there any other guidance you can give me around any other aspect of the edits I made that would make them acceptable to you please? Pennylewis (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pennylewis, I know nothing about Blair-West's works. When your edit showed up on my watchlist (I've not edited the Francis Bacon page other than vandalism reverting ... as far as I remember) I noticed the Amazon link and followed it. The book is billed as an "inspirational novel" by Amazon which caused more concern. As for using the book as a reference, I'd be dubious - but suggest that you raise the issue on talk:Francis Bacon basically explaining your position there as you did above. Then wait to see what the "regular editors" there think about it. Or you could ask at WP:reliable sources noticeboard. Also as you had added what appeared to be a promotional bit about the book on Mont Saint-Michel ... my mental alarms went off and I thought "only edits .. promoting a book .. possible conflict of interest". I note above that you suggest the author "update aspects of the Bacon page", and there the conflict of interest problem gets more complex.

The issue of the link to Amazon is more straight-forward - we simply don't promote any commercial website or business. The way to reference a book is to provide the publication details along with a valid ISBN. Anyone can then use the ISBN number to find information about the book via the publisher, Amazon, Barnes & Noble or other such sites.

With your background, you know what good references are -- the best are peer reviewed journals. Same goes for references on Wikipedia - use the best available. See WP:reliable sources for more nitty gritty advice. :)

Anyway - after you digest the above links re: the workings of Wikipedia - I hope you stick around - there are lots of articles needing improvement. Vsmith (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining all that. Now I understand the policy more clearly I will do you as you suggest. In terms of the author updating the page, I'm simply suggesting that given that he has researched the subject extensively he should contribute to the WP page. I will use the ISBN in The Mont St Michel page and review this inline with what you have said - I have to balance out respecting and admiring a work from promoting it! Pennylewis (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Oxyhydrogen ...

I am not intentionally warring on the Hydroxy page. I am adding factual, historical applications and original names, dates, and intent of the owner of the name Hydroxy e.g., TR Knudtson . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julian Mark Wayne House (talk • contribs) 03:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems others view that differently. When your block expires, please discuss your concerns on the talk pages of the articles. Vsmith (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

ISASMELT

Hello Vsmith. I wonder if I could ask you to check out the ISASMELT edit history and related talk page. It looks like the author wrote a marketing article but got it through the approval process. I am insufficiently experienced to know what to do (if anything); If all is well, just tell me to STFU :) 71.109.219.35 (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems User:ChrisFountain has explained thing on the article talk. The article is well written and referenced and seems ok - could probably use a tweak or two - and maybe some criticism if sources are available. I've put it on me watchlist. Vsmith (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit war

An edit war is developing at Galileo affair. As User:Darouet is registered, massive protection is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.64.117 (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Sandbox category removal

Thanks for removing those category and stub links from my sandbox. It won't happen again. Cheers. tsherryUSA(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure

I am not sure that you have the experience to edit the article on the Galileo affair. Your edit restored a number of untrue remarks on points of fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.202.208 (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Hello. I dont understand? I created those articles the same way as any other? Why is it a problem now? Other people do exactly the same!--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Copying content from copyrighted material, either print or web based, has always been "a problem". I posted on your talk "now" because your edits just came to my attention. If "other people do exactly the same" - then they too are in violation. Have you read the WP:Copyvio page? If not, then read the second paragraph carefully. Do you not understand the seriousness of the problem? What other pages have you added content in violation of copyright? I will be checking further as time allows and if further violations are found that will also be removed. Or, you could go back and rewrite and copied content that you may have added to other articles to avoid the problem. Any future violations will be treated differently, as you now know the rules. Vsmith (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that, but you can save your rude tone for someone else, because I do not appreciate it. I've already starting rewriting the Sasco article, I hope it doesn't anger you as much as my last questions have. (I can see why your students must have felt tortured by you. [Your words, not mine]) Thanks for serving, by the way. And to answer your question "What other pages have you added content in violation of copyright?" Probably a lot, but if you want to worry about it, thats up to you.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

And it is not necessary to respond, because I wont read it. As soon as someone is rude to me I feel absolutely no reason to ever speak with them again--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if my reply came accross as rude, such was not intended. Simply trying to provide a serious message and explain the problem. And you are welcome. Vsmith (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

External Links to GIA Gem Encyclopedia

Hi Vsmith Sincere apologies if my edit seemed promotional. The external link to GIA Gem Encyclopedia was added to provide an additional external resource, as per External Links on other Wikipedia pages (links to mindat.org, as an example) . In my edit summary, I disclosed who I work for, as per the Amended Terms of Use wikipedia is proposing. It was not intended to be promotional, just full disclosure. This is my first attempt at editing, and very much appreciate whatever guidance you can provide regarding best practices.

Kind regards, Vivianne Vdelsign (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It was good to acknowledge your employer and possible COI. You are most welcome to edit Wikipedia articles to add content, fix errors, ... However, simply adding external links to webpages related to your employment was problematic and appeared promotional. Please find articles that need improvement or subjects lacking Wiki articles and add/improve content. Back your edits with WP:reliable sources and all is well. Vsmith (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

This link is a external link with more detail about the Gold Rush History mapped out on a singe global google map. Not affiliate or my link. Just a fan of the forum. This is legit please refer to the wiki rules. SilverGoldForum (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that you get a new username - one that doesn't suggest a WP:conflict of interest. Or simply avoid edits that suggest a coi - specifically adding external links to said forum. Vsmith (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

RevDel Request

On WP:AIV they seemed to forgot this. --///EuroCarGT 04:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems it's been done. Vsmith (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Panspermia

I thought you would like to read what our friend User:BSmith821 wrote about us (Wikipedia) and our work on "his" Panspermia article: https://astrobiologyfuture.org/resources/76/download/Complete_8865-26.pdf He is the WP editor that was sanitizing the Chandra Wickramasinghe article in order to postulate him for the "highest British honor." Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. Vsmith (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

GIA links

Hello. I'm writing in regards to you removing the educational resources links from the pages that I edited. I read all the links that you provided by I'm still not clear why you removed the links. The links I posted to www.gia.edu do not contain any advertising and it is all linking to a non-profit educational resource. The pages on each gemstone on gia.edu have a lot of important research information and photos and videos that just can't be added to the Wikipedia pages. Can you please let me know why you feel these links shouldn't be added, and how the links I added are any different from the other links that have been added to the External Links section? Thank you. Kgiordan (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The links aren't "bad". However, when a new user only adds links to the same website's pages it begins to look like promotion. You are welcome to add verifiable content to WP articles, but just adding external links isn't really that helpful. Please also read WP:COI and if you have a connection to GIA consider that as we aren't here to promote our own work or that of any website/organization. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

An edit by me was reverted by you

What does a copy/paste copyvio count as? I paraphrased the source of where I got my information from on Sales tax token. Sleepinabanana (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Here is one instance:

Your first two sentences to the history section:

In 1933, eleven states passed legislation for sales tax. By 1940 over 30 states had enacted legislation and systems for sales tax collection due to the success of the early programs at generating revenue for the state that used the sales tax token.

The sentence from the reference:

In 1933 eleven states passed legislation for sales tax and by 1940 over 30 states had enacted legislation and systems for sales tax collection due to the success of the early programs at generating revenue for the state.

How is that paraphrasing? The rest is the same - too close for even "WP:close paraphrasing". Vsmith (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting

You are repeatedly putting false statements in the article on the Galileo affair. It will be interesting to see you prove that Galileo was in "Arcetri" when he was actually in Siena and Florence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.168.153.124 (talk) 08:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Prove? Not interested. Vsmith (talk) 10:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Why are you removing external links

Did you look at the links before removing them - they go to informational pages on heat pipes, with no sales message in the main text.

Please look at the links before saying that they can't be used.

BillAnderson71 (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I looked at them. Informational pages which contain sales/promotional links are not needed. We aren't here to promote commercial websites. (You don't need to copy my comments from your user talk page -- simply reply there.) Vsmith (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

American Expeditionary Forces -- a question

Hello Vsmith:

I know this isn't your particular field, but you're a quick and decisive administrator. I need your advice on a small editing issue. If you visit the page American Expeditionary Force, you'll see that an editor has changed it from the original plural to a singular. He changed the title as well as references to it in the text. He has also gone through Wikipedia changing the name from plural to singular in multiple articles. This is simply incorrect. On the talk page I give evidence that it should be "American Expeditionary Forces" in the plural as this is the historical and official designation. I was waiting for a response from other editors on that article, but there is none.

My question of you: is this issue too small to fight over? And if we do change it back to the original, I don't know how to rename the article.

Thanks for any wisdom you can impart! Wilson44691 (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Moved it back and asked the editor to join the discussion you started on talk per WP:BRD. As multiple units of the Army and Marines were involved it seems Pershing's Forces would be correct. Haven't done anything with all the links made to the singular title as they don't appear to be double redirects and can be fixed later pending the ensuing discussion. May not be my "field", but am interested as I had relatives involved in those forces. Vsmith (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Very effective action. I'll ignore the over-the-top reaction. (See where I went there? "Over the top"?). Cheers, Wilson44691 (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Machu Picchu & L. Ron Hubbard

I posted a section about Machu Picchu and L. Ron Hubbard, but you removed it. Can you please give me some clarification for its removal? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.55.53 (talk) 05:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Removed the paragraph about Hubbard now - as rather irrelevant to the article. More appropriate in Hubbard's biography methinks. Vsmith (talk) 12:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Bosnian pyramid stuff

You might want to see [1]. That's 2 new editors this month, this one showing up after the other got a 3RR warning. Not counting the IP of course. We are being threatened with more I see. Dougweller (talk) 06:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The vast opportunity for cruft promotion is such a temptation :) Vsmith (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Barringer crater

Hey man, just a heads up that I reverted one of your edits on the above article. I initially added Elugelab to the see also section of the barringer crater article and did not provide my rationale for doing so. I thought readers would realize the similarities, and understand why someone added it, but seen as you, a reader, did not get it. I wrote a short sentence about why they're similar, in a way. The explanation sentence in the see also section of the barringer crater article should now get readers to grasp that a "10 megaton" impact event (barringer crater) is not at all equivalent in results to an actual 10 megaton surface exploding nuclear bomb going off in the same place. Have a look. Do you get the relevance between the two events now? 86.46.180.56 (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

So I see ... and what WP:RS made the comparison to establish notability? Also seems Barringer should be capitalized. Vsmith (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Driehaus Architecture Prize nomination for "In the News"

Hi! I nominated today's Driehaus Architecture Prize laureate Pier Carlo Bontempi to be featured on the start page of Wikipedia at "In the News". It'd be great for the whole discipline if you could support this nomination.

Please go there: Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Driehaus Prize and add Support or Strong Support. Thank you! All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It'd be also very helpful if you could also support this request (click!), so the Driehaus Prize would be considered to be included at "In the News" every year. Thank you, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Mixing (Process Engineering)

Hello, I saw that you've made some recent edits to the high-shear mixer page, and I was wondering if you'd be willing to lend your skill and knowledge to the mixing (process engineering) page. Thanks!RSido (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Went there - made various minor fixes. Any specific problems? Vsmith (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Reverting my edit

Hi V - I put an additional note in the 'fine-tuning argument' article which you reverted because the references weren't good enough (I assume).

Thing is, the note is simply an observation of a logical inconsistency within the fine-tuning premise itself. I only put the references to prove it has indeed been mentioned by others, not as sources.

Like another edit where I pointed out the number of words in some song lyrics followed a particular 21, 12 pattern (the album is called 2112), the observation is self-evident. The source is what's already written on the page.

I don't want to just undo the revert, obviously. Please can you have another look at what I wrote, see if you agree?

Cheers, Mark82.69.89.101 (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but your "observation" falls into the range of WP:original research and needs solid references. Vsmith (talk) 02:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

JSTOR Survey (and an update)

Hi! Just a quick update that while JSTOR and The Wikipedia Library discuss expanding the partnership, they've gone ahead and extended the pilot access again, until May 31st. Thanks, JSTOR!

It would be really helpful for growing the program if you would fill out this short survey about your usage and experience with JSTOR:

SURVEY

Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

unintended copywrite

I was under the assumption that by citing the material it would not be considered copy write. Particularly since 2 clicks of followed links would clarify that it is a direct quote!

The shaman poet (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Please read the WP:Copyvio page. What you did was a simple cut and paste of content from the referenced website. What you need to do is rewrite the content in your own words rather than copying. Also, the galleries.com website fails WP:RS as it is a commercial site. You should be able to rewrite the content and support it with a valid non-commercial internet or mineralogy text reference. Vsmith (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

copy write deletion mistake

The following is the message provided by the site from which the copy paste was taken from to include in "epidote" section:

Unless otherwise noted, all mineral descriptions and images, plus the related descriptions on this server are the property of Amethyst Galleries, Inc., and may not be copied for commercial purposes. Permission to copy descriptions and images is granted for personal and educational use only. All such copies must include this copyright notice and explicit references to the URL http://www.galleries.com/.

Is Wikipedia not considered a non-commercial "educational use" website?

Did you miss the citation provided at the end of that quotation?

Do you have other reasons for deleting more than what you find troublesome? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The shaman poet (talk • contribs) 19:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia may be an educational resource, however content added to Wikipedia may be used elsewhere - even for non-educational purposes. Please read Wikipedia:Copy-paste as it covers this incident. Also read Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright for further info. As for the citation you added - that provides verification that you had a source to support your addition. Just providing that source does not justify blatant copy-paste copyright violation. The "personal and educational use" bit you quote above applies to use an educational setting and not for copying to a website such as Wikipedia. Vsmith (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

173.166.159.109

Hi, just wanted to give you a heads up that I've run a whois check on the above IP address and its an ISP, not a school. I've updated the page templates accordingly. Cheers, ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 16:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - I've change the block to anonblock w/"likely a school ...." Vsmith (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Zinc

I saw that you have made edits to Mining, so I thought I'd ask you about something in Zinc. You might also want to take a look at a question I left in a comment on User talk:Josh Parris's talk page earlier today on Molybdenum. He might not be as active recently on Wikipedia as I thought (and I know I am a bit impatient), so you might want to answer that question, too. I just started reading the article on Zinc. Right now I'm focusing on the second and third paragraphs of the lead/lede. It seems to me that the sentences are a bit out of chronological order. There may be some logic to the order that I haven't figured out yet, but I noticed that a sentence in the second paragraph seems to contradict a sentence at the beginning of the third paragraph:

• Second paragraph: The mines of Rajasthan have given definite evidence of zinc production going back to 6th century BC. To date, the oldest evidence of pure zinc comes from Zawar, Rajasthan as early as 9th century AD, when a distillation process was employed to make pure zinc.

• Third paragraph (second sentence): German chemist Andreas Sigismund Marggraf is normally given credit for discovering pure metallic zinc in 1746.

(I added the italics for emphasis.) Do these sentences contradict each other? If so, which is correct? CorinneSD (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are "cobbed" together by an uncoordinated gang of typically noncommunicative folks each "pushing" their own bias ... Anyway, the 3rd paragraph bit is from the typical "western viewpoint" which historically ignores other writings - not by "evil intent", just folks using resources available. Then along comes the editors with access (and interest) to works by other civilizations and they add the Chinese, Hindi, Muslim, ... view ... kersplat ... all too often in the lead sections of articles and no effort to coordinate the content. So, yes -- the zinc article has problems and does need a good wordsmith to smooth out the contradictions and choppiness. The quick fix: simply add in the western world between given credit and for discovering....

Sorry 'bout the rant :) Vsmith (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I think you described the way many articles are put together quite well. I added "in the western world" and will work on the order of information in that section later. (I might ask you for help with that when I get to it.) Thanks also for your reply to my question on the Molybdenum article. Now I have a question about sphalerite. New section below. CorinneSD (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Sphalerite

I just finished reading the article on Sphalerite. I don't see any problems with it, but I have one question. The word "zinc blende" is written as two words in the lede but as one word in the section on "Chemistry" (just below the lede). Which do you think it should be? (I'm guessing two words.)

Also, I had never heard the adjective "gemmy" used before, anywhere. I assumed it meant "gemlike", but it sounded a bit informal (like "sparkly"). I found it listed in Wiktionary, where it says it means "full of gems; bright, glittering", so I guess it is used in the article to mean "bright, glittering" (or gemlike). Had you heard that adjective used before? What do you think of its use here? Wouldn't "gemlike" be both more formal and more descriptive? Or should I just get used to a new word? CorinneSD (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

de:Sphalerit uses "Zinkblende", zinc blende is the english version of it. I guess that English rules apply. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Isn't "hornblende" a word? Or is it "hornblend"? That's one word. But for some reason, "zincblende" doesn't look right, and I prefer the two words, "zinc blende". Maybe we should look in a minerology textbook. CorinneSD (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It is hornblende (one word), however the old zinc blende for sphalerite derives from the blende: German for blind or deceiving - (sphalerite from Greek for treacherous) both old lead miners terms meaning no lead to quote/paraphrase Klein's Manual of Mineralogy 1985. And Klein uses the two word: zinc blende. Vsmith (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I prefer zincblende meself, but don't know which is "correct". As for the gemmy, I agree it is rather informal sounding and changed it to gem quality in the image caption. Vsmith (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Good move. CorinneSD (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Metalloid

I've been reading the article on Metalloid and have made a few minor copy edits. I have gotten to the section Metalloid#Periodic table territory, sub-section "Location", and have come across something that puzzles me. At the beginning of the third paragraph I read "Going along a period", and, in the middle of that paragraph, "Going down a main group". I had earlier skimmed the article on Periodic table and saw in the illustration of the periodic table the word "Period" with an arrow pointing down the first column and the word "Group" with an arrow pointing to the right in the first row. So why would it say, "Going along a period" and "Going down a main group" in the article on Metalloid? I understood "along" to mean "across", horizontally. Things seem to be reversed (unless "down" and "along" mean something different than their usual meanings). Can you explain this to me? CorinneSD (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Periods are the horizontal rows and groups are the vertical columns. The first image in the periodic table article has "Period" with an arrow pointing down, referring to the period numbers 1-7 below: the numbers of the horizontal rows; the arrow to the right "points out" the numbers 1-18 for the 18 groups or vertical columns. Vsmith (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. That shows you how much (that is, how little) I know. Can you see how those arrows might be confusing to an average, unscientific reader? Perhaps it should say "Groups" and "Periods" rather than "Group" and "Period", but there may not be room for that. I defer to your judgment on this. CorinneSD (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary

I've been reading the article on the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary. I have found very few errors. I noticed, however, that in the sections Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary#Alvarez impact hypothesis and Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary#Chicxulub Crater, chemicals are sometimes written with a subscript (small number) and sometimes not. Shouldn't these be consistent? CorinneSD (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes they should be consistent. I've rewritten the newly added material to fix that and other stuff that needed work. Hopefully better now. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Vsmith (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, iridium isn't radioactive so the background just refers to the normal concentration levels in crustal rocks. Fixed and tweaked a bit more there. Vsmith (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks for working on it. I had just gone to the disambiguation page for "background" and selected the item that I thought was the one meant, but I'm glad you corrected it. (I still don't understand why the word "background" is used to refer to normal concentration levels, though.) CorinneSD (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the dab page doesn't have it. In this usage it's nore background = normal. In geochemical prospecting the search is mostly looking for values above the normal or background. But, just because that is in my "background" doesn't mean anyone else understands it that way. So... there probably should be a bit about geochemical background on the dab page. Maybe sometime I'll work on that... Vsmith (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your kind reply. CorinneSD (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Went ahead and changed that to "average crustal content" for now. Vsmith (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess that's clearer. (I know "crustal" is an adjective referring to the earth's crust, but is that word really used in geology? Just curious.)

I have another question. In the first photo in the article, the caption says it shows the K-Pg boundary, but to the non-scientist reader it is not readily apparent where that boundary is in the hillside there. Is there any way a bit more information could be given in the caption to say precisely where that boundary is?

Also, in the second photo, a man is pointing to the boundary, but it appears that he is pointing to the boundary between a very light yellow-beige and a slightly darker yellow-beige. Is that really where the boundary is? Or is the boundary where the yellow (either lighter or darker) changes to a dark gray? CorinneSD (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... well crustal just seemed a natural fit, never really thought about it.

As for the specific boundary line is in the images - don't really know. Both of the users who uploaded the images (Glenlarson and Wilson44691) are still active ... maybe ask 'em. Vsmith (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the first photo again and changed my mind. I guess the dividing line is clear enough. It's light rock below and dark rock above. CorinneSD (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I was reading the article on Talc, and clicked on the link to Terrane, and in the first paragraph the word "crustal" is used at least twice. I should have known you were right. I had just never heard it used. CorinneSD (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Did you see the latest edit to Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary? An editor added a wiki link to "dinosaur". Would you consider that over linking per WP:OVERLINK, or not? CorinneSD (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't think that one link is problematic. I've fixed a bit of the lead - links and capitalization (period and era are capitalized when part of a formal name: such as Paleogene Period and Cenozoic Era). Vsmith (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

New article in userspace

Hi Vsmith, Milesjolly1997 here. Thought you'd like to read my first stab at an article. It's about a looney tunes cartoon from 1964 called Bartholomew Versus the Wheel. I'd just like to thank you for your warm welcome, it put me at ease and helped me to sort my Wikipedia affairs out. Here is the article if you want to read it. See User:Milesjolly1997/Bartholomew Versus the Wheel.

I've fixed a bit for you there. Vsmith (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Sorry to see that you are being trolled at various talk pages. I hope this cuppa will help to make up for it. Thanks for all your efforts here at WikiP. MarnetteD | Talk 21:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - this old dude just dozed off over a cup of strong coffee -- maybe some tea would help :) Vsmith (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

"Hoax"

Dear Vsmith, I did not post a hoax on Wikipedia. I am only writing what I know; and I know there is a micronation that claims Antarctica. Not having heard of it is no reason to assume it is fraudulent. I referenced it in the edit description. If necessary, I can take it down until the micronation's existence is proven. Unless somebody already removed it. Just letting you know.

Thanks, PresidentCooper (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Event horizon

If you have time, could you take a look at the latest edits to Event horizon? It's a minor addition, but since the writer misspelled relativity two times, perhaps the edit should be reviewed for content and appropriateness. CorinneSD (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems to have problems with spelling and punctuation, see the user's attempt at quark. I've removed the addition to event horizon as it linked to the disambiguation page and was rather trivial. Vsmith (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

AIV thanks

Thank you so much for your very rapid response wrt 12.183.57.66. I really appreciate it. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem, saw the AIV note - looked and zapped. Then signed off to go get the grandkids after school. :) Vsmith (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Sulfur

I've been reading the article on Sulfur and have come across something I'd like to ask you about. It is in the fourth paragraph in the section Sulfur#Natural occurrence. The sentence begins:

"Significant deposits of elemental sulfur, believed to have been (and are still being) synthesised by..."

I think that "believed to have been (and are still being)..." is rather silly and an awkward construction. I wonder if you think "believed to be synthesised by..." would be acceptable. CorinneSD (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Better yet reword and drop the silly "believed" bit. I just found several sources for the bio synthesis in sediments and/or assoc w/ salt domes. I'll take a stab at rewording that shortly and add some refs. Vsmith (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Great! CorinneSD (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Pony Express

Should a sentence about F. A. Bee be added to the Pony Express entry? http://books.google.com/books?id=t94HAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=FA+Bee+,WW+Finney+and+John+S+Jones&source=bl&ots=MzFu3d1zoZ&sig=u0MM9Ylcf0NoDwT8thOM7EwRdvM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BCZcU_rrPITJ8AH3vIDgAg&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=FA%20Bee%20%2CWW%20Finney%20and%20John%20S%20Jones&f=false I am trying to promote the Frederick A. Bee entry in Wikipedia. MC Potbelly (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Per that link he was involved - is that the only source? Also the relevant section in the Frederick Bee article is rather problematic - needs work to reword all those quoted bits. Vsmith (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Carbon

I'm reading the article on Carbon, and in the third paragraph in the lede, a sentence begins:

"Carbon forms more compounds than any other element,..."

Right after "element" is a "citation needed" tag. I just thought you might be able to find and add the citation so the tag can be removed. CorinneSD (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The "more" bit is supported by the lanl reference -- reworded a bit as the "theoretically possible" bit however, isn't in that ref. The lead really shouldn't have the refs - they belong in the sections the lead is summarizing ... ideally. Anyway -- keep on truckin' Vsmith (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Americium

Would you mind looking at the latest edit to Americium? An IP editor changed a reference. CorinneSD (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Appears to be just replacing a dead link, page now hosted elsewhere, biblio info seems OK. Vsmith (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Nickel

I have just finished reading the article on Nickel. (I skipped over the parts on chemistry, like "Compounds".) I made a number of minor edits. As I was reading, I came across a few places which I thought needed clarification. I thought I'd list them for you and perhaps when you have time you could look at them.

1) In the first paragraph in the lead, there is a "citation needed" tag. I thought you might be able to find a reference.

2) The second sentence in the third paragraph in the lead reads:

"Historically, this has led to its use for plating metals such as iron and brass, in chemical apparatus, and in certain alloys that retain a high silvery polish, such as German silver."

There is something wrong with the phrases following "for plating metals". First of all, they are not parallel in structure. I wonder if the comma after "iron and brass" should be removed so that it reads, "for plating metals such as iron and brass in chemical apparatus". If it doesn't mean that, then something needs to be done to clear this up.

3) Toward the end of the last paragraph in the section Nickel#History is the following sentence:

"Canada switched alloys again to plated steel during the Korean War, but was forced to stop making pure nickel "nickels" in 1981, reserving the pure 99.9% nickel alloy after 1968 only for its higher-value coins."

I was about to move the phrase "after 1968" to a place just a bit earlier in that phrase beginning "reserving" when I realized that something seemed wrong with the chronology of the whole sentence. It goes from the Korean War to "in 1981" to "after 1968". Also, both the phrase after "but was forced..." and the phrase beginning "reserving" are about pure nickel. Can you sort this out?

Reworded and chopped a bit along with a confused forum post used as a ref (nonWP:RS). All for now, maybe more later - zzz time. Vsmith (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

4) In the section Nickel#World production there is a table headed "Mine Production and Reserves". I have two questions:

1) I see "metric tons" at the bottom of the table, on the world totals line, but isn't there a way to indicate that the numbers are "metric tons, rounded" at the top of the table?

2) In my screen, there seems to be an unnecessary space after the table and before the next section. Is that just in my screen (I have it set at 125% so it is easier for me to read), or is that in anyone's screen? If it is in anyone's screen, could a bit of that space after the table be removed?

5) In the section Nickel#Extraction and purification, the second sentence of the second paragraph reads as follows:

" Recent advances in hydrometallurgy have resulted in significant nickel purification using these processes."

I'm wondering whether the plural "processes" is needed. Isn't "hydrometallurgy" one process? Shouldn't it be "this process"? Even if it is a collection of several different processes, none of them have been mentioned, so "these processes" is confusing.

6) In the section Nickel#Electrorefining, there is a description of the Mond process. In the first paragraph are the following two sentences:

"If necessary, it may be separated by distillation. Dicobalt octacarbonyl is also formed in this process, but it decomposes to tetracobalt dodecacarbonyl at the reaction temperature to give a non-volatile solid."

To a scientist or engineer, this may be perfectly clear, but to me there are a few ambiguities:

1) In the first sentence, what is "it"? It's not clear to me.

2) In the second sentence, what is "this process". That's not clear to me, either.

Thanks in advance. CorinneSD (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I replied

User_talk:Anna_Frodesiak#The_Michigan_Kid

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Gemstones Production Maps

Hello,

I am a geographer and the one who pulished the maps of ruby, sapphir (...etc) production that you have deleted yesterday. I just would like to know why you deleted them (just to know a little bit better about the "wikipedia"'s rules).

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2EDA:E450:25EE:45BA:4CCA:DF2 (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The images were to small to read, then I opened them to read them and the wording was not in English. Would be fine for fr.wiki or wherever - but not en.wiki. Vsmith (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

fossil fuel phase out

Not a problem. I like the work you are doing on these articles. Keep it up. Plazak (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

K is radioactive

from potassium page: "Naturally occurring potassium is composed of three isotopes, one of which, 40K, is radioactive. Traces (0.012%) of this isotope are found in all potassium..."

So there's no need to make a distinction... K 40 or otherwise. Please refrain from editing things you don't understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The shaman poet (talk • contribs) 01:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand quite well, do you? Do you understand WP:reliable sources? If you do, then why don't you use them to support your edits as Wikipedia policy requires? Cheers. Vsmith (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You obviously do not even understand wiki's policy on sourcing with wiki links, while taking liberty in undoing material you don't understand even after sourced with links to other pages. Again, please leave the undoing part to someone who has a firm grasp on the subject. You are not being helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The shaman poet (talk • contribs) 03:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's see now...editor since 2004, administrator since 2005, more than 131,000 edits, advanced degree in geology, science teacher...versus editor since 2011, no information on user page, every item on talk page a warning or notification of some sort, doesn't know that other articles on Wikipedia are not considered sources....... I suggest that you approach your experience on Wikipedia with a different attitude and a mind OPEN to learning something new, a WHOLE NEW TYPE OF EXPERIENCE which is collaborating -- that is, working together in a cooperative manner to produce something of value -- with other editors in a RESPECTFUL way. If you are prepared to do this, your opinions and contributions will be taken seriously, you will be treated with respect, and you may even experience the satisfaction of making a positive difference in creating and improving Wikipedia articles. Start fresh. It's a whole new day today. CorinneSD (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Since you have seen my user page, then you should know that your hubris is of no value to me. Also, perhaps you would care to explain, at least to yourself, why is it that wiki is so in need of editing all that I have made contributions to, while most of what I see from you is eliminations and lack of additions. How is it that your "advanced degree in geology" has missed so much or made so little actual contribution? If other wiki articles are not considered sources, then by logic and default, neither you or wiki are of any value! You need to reconsider your logic. Respect is a two way street, sort o say, You need to first see past your contradictions before you can earn it. Every day 'is' a new day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The shaman poet (talk • contribs) 03:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

You are entitled to your views on Wikipedia's value, but if you wish to contribute here effectively you need to understand what is regarded as a 'reliable source' - the relevant guideline states "Although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy. Because Wikipedia forbids original research, there is nothing reliable in it that isn't citable with something else. Thus Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose." Also, I don't understand why you're accusing CorinneSD of hubris - she is obviously referring to Vsmith rather than herself. Mikenorton (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Article merge

Can the 2 article titles List_of_books_featuring_transgender_persons and List_of_transgender_characters_in_literature be merged into 1 article or can the title of article be redirected? Because there is no need for 2 separate articles with the same content.

Becuase I do not have the expertise education or time to understand reemerging....... Perhaps you could fix the template Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender fiction and merge the transgendered literature section together? I'm not computer savvy so I'm not sure...... Venustar84 (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems the second list has been deleted and the template now has a redlink. Perhaps post a question on the article and/or template talk page. Vsmith (talk) 11:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

phantom quartz

VSmith does phantom quartz come ever in a silver or grey colour and where can I buy it online? Venustar84 (talk) 01:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

See the external link on the phantom quartz page, it has a good discussion of phantoms. I don't give buying advice - just do a search w/ your fav search engine. Vsmith (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Not into buying advice but have you ever seen Phantom Quartz in a grey color vsmith?

Please tell if you have? And do you remember me when my username used to be neptunekh? 108.180.17.36 (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Had to refresh my memory wrt your username, but now I remember, and you started the phantom quartz page a while back. Hope all is well with you. Anyway re: grey phantom quartz, some of the shaded phantoms I recall from the Mt Ida area could be called grey - but not a distinct or dark grey. Seems smoky quartz phantoms could also be called grey. But then I'm no expert on quartz crystal variations. Vsmith (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Vsmith Can you be my mentor on wikipedia? because I'm not good at editing and I have been warned I could be blocked from editing? Please help me. Venustar84 (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Vsmith (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio

I had forgotten I'd discussed copyvio with this editor before. I just searched back and found [2] which is more material from [3]. That's not archived but there are other clues on the site that this is earlier then the same material in our article. This version before he started editing again after my revert[4] doesn't seem to have any of the sources from the blog, the version before you reverted seems to have all of them (although I haven't checked literally every one). I can't undo his edits but will try to manually remove them. Dougweller (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Done - do you mind warning him this time so he knows I'm not the only editor concerned? He's heading towards a block, maybe he should be blocked now, I'm not sure. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Warned - maybe shoulda blocked now rather than later... Keep on truckin' Vsmith (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I just "re"-added material yesterday which had been removed several weeks back, However I did reword it and added referenceses. I can see where you may think it was just a paraphrase and felt to remove it.

However ALL of the material prior to that was removed also. All the material prior to that was in my own words and was properly referenced.

Also If you are talking about copyright material from Dr. Ward's writings, I AM Dr. Ward.

Please explain, Thank you

CWatchman (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

OK...I have done a little study on this and from what I understand I first need to post the following on my blog : "The text of this website [or this page, or this section] is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)." After that is posted then I am free to use any portion of that material on Wikipedia. Is this correct? CWatchman (talk) 01:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Replied on Talk:Biblical Mount Sinai. Vsmith (talk) 03:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello please contact me as I am sitting on a vein of beryllium ore and am being persecuted for it need help also kimberlite pipe 8283415259 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.181.3.143 (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

No thanks, don't need mo hassles. Good lucl :) Vsmith (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Doorawarrah Station Edit

Doorawarrah station was managed by Brian Moore (Pompy) for nearly 30 years to 2009 when sold.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernest719 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Eh? I know nothing of that - all I did there was fix a coordinate error. Vsmith (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Boron

I don't know if you have Boron on your watch list, but there's an interesting question at Talk:Boron#Who discovered Boron? that you might be able to answer. CorinneSD (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The article is a bit confusing on the point. But without access to the refs I don't know how to resolve it at the moment. Thinkin' ... Vsmith (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Yukon

Hello, Vsmith -- Do you feel like writing an article on the geology of the Yukon? See my comment at User talk:Sminthopsis84#Yukon, his reply, and my comment at User talk:Wilson44691#Yukon and his reply. It seems that there is a need for an article on the geology of the Yukon. CorinneSD (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

"...feel like..." hmm. Sure why not - let's see (scrounges around in dark recesses of brain) ... er, don't know much ... oh yea gotta find refs ... well maybe I'll add it to my long list of Geology of ___ articles that need writing. 'twould be interesting ... someday :) Vsmith (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Well...I could try to help. We know there was gold there. That's a start. And anyway, who would write this article except you? ;) . CorinneSD (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Ganderbal

Hi I am uzair. The edits you made to article Ganderbal are statistics out of date ( 2001 census). I had editted the article according to census of 2011. Please justify your edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uzair ahmad shaikh (talk • contribs) 08:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

First: you changed the census number in the text, but not the infobox and left the 2001 census ref in place although you added a malformed reference attempt at the end of the demographics section. Second: you added pov commentary without capitalization, one example: "It is one of the beautiful places in kashmir valley having lofted mountains beneath which river sind flows." You need to provide correct sources and write with an encyclopedic style with proper nouns capitalized. Vsmith (talk) 10:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism on two pages by a user and his sock puppet ip. Please address at the earliest. Several reverts have taken place both ways.

Hello, maybe you can recall having interacted with me before last year, I wish to bring to your attention two pages on which consistent reverts of well-referenced and righteous assertions have been taking place over the last two days. Kindly take a look at the two pages - Anti-Pakistan sentiment and Pro-Pakistan sentiment. In the respective edit histories - [[5]] and [[6]] - you would find my edits (and reverts) interspersed with those those of User:Smsarmad and his sock puppet ip 81.157.192.230. I must admit here though that I made two reverts that you shall see from an ip 117.194.* once each on each one of the two pages which I apologize for. I had already logged out meanwhile, after making those edits under my Username, and seeing those reverts in a bit of fit re-reverted.

My point being though that - in case of the former page, I have provided the results of the Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/161159/americans-least-favorable-toward-iran.aspx) that is taken early every year. It gave positive ratings to a few countries with Canada obviously being the best-favored followed by India somewhere around 6 while almost analogously pakistan was among the bottom 6. This editor has been reverting my edits where I have cited this poll as proof of an antipathy towards pakistan in the US for reasons you can easily see. Similarly in the latter poll, he uses some article released by the pakistani embassy of all the entities available, as proof of a perceived "pro-pakistan" sentiment in the Kashmir region.

I do not wish you to get caught up in this nickel-diming (nor get enmeshed in it myself). But if you would just glance at the references in the corresponding India pages you would be able to see what vague and far-fetched references have been passed (either way) so as to carry on a propaganda vilifying India. If they are valid then I am sure these are far more so. The user probably wants to please himself with a most ridiculous impression that pakistan is seem favorably by the US. Kindly do something with the user or at least the page concerned at the earliest. Regards SumerianPrince (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not wish you to get caught up in this nickel-diming (nor get enmeshed in it myself). But if you would just glance at the references in the corresponding India pages you would be able to see what vague and far-fetched references have been passed (either way) so as to carry on a propaganda vilifying India. If they are valid then I am sure these are far more so. The user probably wants to please himself with a most ridiculous impression that pakistan is seem favorably by the US. Kindly do something with the user or at least the page concerned at the earliest. SumerianPrince (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Indian nationalist above

The above user is a Indian nationalist who has been spreading falsifying data from sources to fit his Indian nationalist agenda the Gallup polls NEVER mention any anti-sentiment for any nation this ridiculous falsification of sources is obvious original research at best. Where does the Gallup poll suggest that the poll indicates any anti-pakistani sentiment? he is typical angry Indian pov warrior who is obsessed with Pakistan. Furthermore the above user is using his sock ips 117 based in India to vandalize the pages he will be reverted wherever I see his vandalism. Maharashtra1 (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

He has been using the ip starting 117 [7] and hops ips to vandalize pages he sees as "anti-Indian" Maharashtra1 (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi protected the Pro and anti Pakistan sentiment pages. Settle the dispute on talk pages rather than edit warring. Vsmith (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Acceleration

In the article Acceleration, an editor changed "whence" to "hence". While "hence" might make more sense, I noticed that the word "hence" appears again just a little below this. Stylistically, it would be better, don't you think, to use a different word for one of them? Perhaps "thus" or "therefore". If not, that's fine. Just thought I'd point it out. CorinneSD (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Dropped both "hences" ... perhaps could be tweaked further. Vsmith (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Both of your edits are an improvement. CorinneSD (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

IP Vandalism

Looks like this IP: Special:Contributions/86.188.180.46 is back vandalizing. His latest edit: [8]Jayakumar RG (talk) 10:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked school ip. Vsmith (talk) 11:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Jan Oort

Would you mind reviewing the recent edits to Jan Oort? Since it's about a scientist, I think you would be better able to judge the changes to content than I would. Also, I do not understand the single close parenthesis. CorinneSD (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

There be problems -- no time now. Vsmith (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Strange editing

As you might have some interaction with this anon, I thought I would as you what is your take on this? An anon (who's current incarnation is 99.109.124.79 (talk · contribs)) seems to be doing some rather strange editing. The anon will go through a number of articles, usually adding a single link, often which imo is an overlink.For instance, here, the anon links Burma, but not Russia nor Japan. The edits seem to be done one every few minutes like clockwork. The next day, the anon seems to repeat with a different IP.

I noticed that an edit you removed from Bering Land Bridge National Preserve "block evasion" was clandestinely undone here by 99.109.124.79. Cusk-eels history shows a number of interlanguage links added by different IPs including 99.109.124.79, seems likely the same individual.

What is the anon up to? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it is The Michigan Kid. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Anna is right, see here for some insight into the 2012-13 history. See this recent interaction for further insight. Several blocks have been applied to various ips in the range as recently as last month - so further edits are subject to reversion as block evasion. Vsmith (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Any suggestions if I see TMK again? Jim1138 (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

If the edits are non-constructive, simply undo with an explanatory note. If you do revert several you might note the block evasion with perhaps a link to AR's list of ips. The edits usually occur after I call it a day, but he hits pages on my watchlist often enough that I usually see the pattern. Vsmith (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

RE: Plasma Cosmology/Revert

Hello!

Thank you for reverting the contribution to the article on Plasma Cosmology. The revert was very much appreciated.

I have decided not to revert the article myself without discussion in Talk beforehand.217.208.57.69 (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome. Too bad that you decided to continue reverting there - I see you've been blocked for edit warring. I guess you decided to ignore my note re: 3rr on your talk. Vsmith (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

geology
Thank you for polishing this gem with your profound geological knowledge, as part of more the 100.000 valuable edits to the project, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 146th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

For blocking that user with multiple accounts who was attacking me. BollyJeff | talk 02:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is one more sock of that person: User:Knotbread | User talk:Knotbread. BollyJeff | talk 02:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome and zapped. Vsmith (talk) 11:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

what follows the number 4?184.33.56.52 (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

5 (?) Vsmith (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Revilal90's new accounts

Can you create Sockpuppet Investigations for Revilal90? I found his/her new accounts. 183.171.172.219 (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

??? No, not w/out evidence. Also no time - nor inclination for such now. Sorry 'bot that. Vsmith (talk) 01:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Painite and Sapphire

Why are you deleting my edits to Painite and Sapphire?

Guinness World Records' website shows that the type, weight, ownership and world record are valid via the reference provided.

An explanation of your deletion would be appreciated.

Update: You've now deleted everything I've edited today. I think a clear explanation is needed here. I am not operating with a conflict of interest when I'm simply posting what is on the Guinness World Record site and stating type, size, ownership and the fact that Guinness has awarded a world record. Is this jealousy at work? I only ask because the Tanzanite reference to the Ophir world record is incomplete according to the reference and is misleading in that the 2nd part of the compound sentence could be misconstrued that the 2nd stone is the sentence is recognized by Guinness but is not. So I must then question your motives...

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/6000/largest-faceted-sapphire

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/6000/largest-cut-painite — Preceding unsigned comment added by OphirCollection (talk • contribs) 01:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

First, as I noted on your talk, your username indicates a WP:COI especially as you are adding info and links related to Ophir Collection, LLC . I consider the guinessworldrecords website to be lacking as a valid reference.

What you need to do is to avoid adding links and content which promote in any way the organisation related to your username. Second, you need solid references - and the Guiness website is dubious. Vsmith (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The rules are clear about allowing editing when a conflict of interest arises. This looks like overreach. Stating that "the Guinness website is dubious" is a "personal view" which is not a reason for deletion of edits. This is simply not a true statement regarding Guinness. Guinness World Records has its own wikipedia page, and the references for myriad other entries in Wikipedia have far less authoritative or well researched institutions as references for content of all kinds. Your editing is dubious based on personal views and this from an administrator causes me to question Wikipedia as a source for anything.

I guess you should delete this entire wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_person Since the only way to add people to the page, according to the wikipedia page, that grow very old is by having them recognized by Guinness World Records, the "dubious website". — Preceding unsigned comment added by OphirCollection (talk • contribs) 14:30, 18 June 2014

Guinness World Records, the published reference book would be a valid reference, however the website is rather different - but you could ask at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard ... p'raps the folks there would see it differently. Vsmith (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Guinness_World_Records_website_a_valid_reference.3F OphirCollection (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)--OphirCollection (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The noticeboard is on my watchlist. Vsmith (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to say, I think the removal was justified, but on slightly different verifiabilty grounds than you provided. The reason we mention Guinness on things like "World's Oldest Person" is because it's the type of Guinness record that other reliable secondary sources report on and generally co-validate. We have reliable sources that say Guinness is a generally good source for this high-profile designation and Guinness is an RS that it gave the award. This combination is not true of many of the 40,000 unreported and otherwise unnoticed Guinness records. Looking at the site, some records are given to the first person who thinks to ask for them, in a completely non-neutral fashion. Regardless of whether something is verifiably in the book or the website, there is a inclusion issue. I think it's even more difficult to get consensus that it's a neutral and clear improvement to the article with COI concerns thrown into the mix__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and clarification, I had referred the user to the noticeboard for further input as he seemed reluctant to listen to me. I also see the user has been blocked per username problems which I was also considering. Vsmith (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

User 'Incrediblehappenings01'

Hi Vsmith.  Looks like a duck to me
Just letting you know that Incrediblehappenings01 (talk · contribs) who you blocked may be connected to banned editor Vwegba4real (talk · contribs). See WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Vwegba4real/Archive. See also User talk:JohnCD#Another 'Prophet', Hallelujah!.--220 of ^Borg 11:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - was not aware of all that quacking. Vsmith (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Why did you revert change to Magnetic field?

In replacing the inaccurate claim that I deleted, you failed to supply any supporting citation as I demanded when I deleted it. If you do not do so fairly smartly I shall delete it again or at least edit it, and I suspect that you will fail to find any such citation concerning cosmic rays anyway. JonRichfield (talk) 15:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

"Smartly"? Anyway, the edit was to the lead section and the statement appears to be supported by the Importance section and the Magnetosphere section - 4th paragraph. From Cosmic ray: Composed primarily of high-energy protons and atomic nuclei. So p'raps you should fix more :) Vsmith (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@JonRichfield:, excuse me for interrupting, but I have a question and a comment to make:

1) What did you mean by "smartly"? Did you mean "quickly, soon" or "intelligently"? If you meant "intelligently", that suggests that you think Vsmith would edit in any way other than intelligently, so it's a bit of an insult. If you meant "quickly, soon", what is the rush? If you're working collaboratively with other editors, you need to give them time to get to an article or a comment and think about it.

2) I'm only judging from your comment, above. Overall, your tone to Vsmith is peremptory and demanding, not the best tone to use in order to forge a collegial, collaborative relationship with other editors. I think you will find that a gentler, more respectful tone will be more effective, and then you and your ideas will also be respected. CorinneSD (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	You have great contributions! Macman(252) (My edits!!!!!) 18:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Undid your edit...

Hi mate. Just thought I'd let you know I've undone your edit to Gambling in China (though I used the "undo" function so you would get a ping). You were absolutely right to undo edits by a block-evading editor but that particular edit seemed okay to me. The paragraph makes a specific distinction between mainland Chinese law and Hong Kong-specific law; basically exactly what the Mainland Chinese article focuses on. Keep up the great anti-vandal work! St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the note. Vsmith (talk) 09:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Richard Proenneke

Would you mind looking at the latest edit to Richard Proenneke? An editor removed "Continental US" from a link so that only "contiguous US" shows up, but I think the "continental US" is the way most Americans would say going from Alaska to the other states (not including Hawaii). (I don't think "continental" needs to be capitalized, though, do you?) CorinneSD (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... "contiguous US" seems odd to me, my choice would be "lower 48", but I'd ask: What do the sources use? No strong preference, and yes the "c" in "continental" would be lower case. Vsmith (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

"(C)ontinental US" would be more appropriate, as "contiguous US" is a more arcane/archaic version.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Good. I agree. I think that's why it sounded odd. I think the word "contiguous" is more commonly used when referring to specific states. Do you want to go ahead an make the edit? CorinneSD (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I hope you will forgive me for chiming in. I noticed your conversation and checked the edit. Please understand that "continental US" refers to the 49 states on the North American Continent. "contiguous US" refers to the 48 states all of which share a border with at least one other state. It is not an archaic or arcane term and is in common usage in news reports, earth science shows like Nova on PBS and in documentaries produced for both TV (like the program Alone in the Wilderness, also on PBS, mentioned in the article) and movie theaters. The only people who use "lower 48" are those that live in Alaska (though there are exceptions to every rule) and Alaska is never referred to as the "upper one" - a bad joke I know but I wanted to inject some humor as I'm afraid that I am offending all three of you and that is not my intention. The sentence in question in the article is referring to the fact that he physically left Alaska to be with his family and, as I said in my edit summary, if you use "Continental" it means that he might have visited family in Alaska. I feel fairly sure that the term is being used because the program did not mention where his family lived - but that is just a guess on my part. All three of you are very good editors that help improve WikiP every day so, if you still don't like the way it reads you might remove the term entirely. One reasoning being - since where the family lived isn't mentioned - the distinction isn't necessary. One other note - per WP:RS/IMDB you should consider removing the mention of the shows rating at IMDb. Those votes are entirely reader/user driven. In other words they are fan polls and have no critical or scholarly basis. I know I am repeating myself but if I have "upset the apple cart" that was not my intention. Cheers to each of you and enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 04:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Well rats. As I reread my post I sound like I am lecturing you and you don't need that. I did want to add that, in the context of the article the term lower 48 makes perfect sense and guess what - it redirects to "contiguous US" :-) I lived in Alaska many years ago and the various terms could cause frictions in a conversation. As a Cheechako I tried to avoid that. MarnetteD|Talk 04:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Juneau, that "upper one" isn't that bad of a joke. My mother likes state puns, too, so Alaska and see if she likes your joke, MarnetteD.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Marnette, your comment was informative and necessary. I, for one, learned something. I really like that phrase "the upper one", too. I don't think you have to be too concerned about offending any of us. I know'm a bit serious at times, too. I noticed that the sentence includes "when he left to go home for a time". If we can discover where "home" was, and add it, we can leave out "contiguous". CorinneSD (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your messages and for taking the time to reply. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 17:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Nobody noticed my pun? "Know'm"...Nome. (I couldn't spell it Nome. I find it hard to leave things misspelled.) CorinneSD (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I missed it but it is excellent. 1890s gold seekers would have used that without batting an eyelid. I also missed "Juneau" Mr Fink - another fun pun. Well done all. MarnetteD|Talk 22:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Kyle

Hello I am the person who originally added "kyle" as a synonym for "strait". You removed it and I just put it back. I first came across the definition when researching the meaning of some famous Scottish place names containing "kyle" - for example the Kyle of Lochalsh and the Kyle of Sutherland. I eventually found the meaning of kyle as "strait" in Wikipedia's own disambiguation page for the term Kyle. I thought it would be consistent to add it as a synonym in the Strait page. Camerojo (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, learned a new factoid. I've reworded a bit as firth and kyle are rather local terms - or are they used elsewhere besides Scotland? Vsmith (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Not sure - I've only seen those terms used in Scotland - so I think your rewording is good. Camerojo (talk) 12:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Qumran

For what it's worth, there is discussion in my talk archives at [9]. Dougweller (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

and my edits have already been reverted ... roll on :) Vsmith (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Happy 4th

Hi Vsmith! I just wanted to wish you and yours a happy 4th of July! Thanks again for all you do around here, and I hope you have a great holiday weekend! Zaereth (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, have a happy :) Vsmith (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Integrated geography

Thanks for moving the above-referenced page to its current home. Could you do that for the associated talk page, as well, please? Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Done, thought I'd moved that with the page. Vsmith (talk) 00:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

John Alexander Reina Newlands

HI, I think an early entry is part of vandalism

(cur | prev) 14:19, 8 November 2005‎ 169.150.128.50 (talk)‎ . . (1,728 bytes) (+64)‎ . . (undo)

It says he had a son in 1894 named Christopher Maddocks Newlands. Given that his wife would have been nearly 60 at that time and there is a 20 year gap between the other children born in 1863, 1864 and 1873 I am most doubtful. I can find no record of CMN apart from the many web pages that quote directly from Wikipedia. That IP address has been blocked for Vandalism making me even more suspicious...

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjlanc (talk • contribs) 17:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Removed as misplaced, unsourced and dubious. Google search returns basically WP copies. Vsmith (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

KellyKinkade

Thank you for your understanding.

Wikipedia is still a little overwhelming and not intuitive to me yet. I will go over all your links, thank you.

It is not my intent to promote. So I will not link to websites in the future. It is just an exciting idea to me that someone might be trying to put into practice the great ideas about hydrogen. But I will take a while of wikipedia, because I didn't mean to step on a bunch of toes.

I am not a scientist. But I do care about our planet.

Thank you for being kind in your message to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KellyKinkade (talk • contribs) 21:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Vsmith,

I wanted to learn about the Wikipedia community. And I am grateful.

I can see that I am not so good at writing about great ideas. Wikipedia is not for me :)

I do better at volunteering with groups that find ways to bring the ideas about. I don't have anything to do with the website I linked to. I just thought it would prove that a group was doing what I said. Thanks for being respectful despite my misplaced efforts.

KellyKinkade (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

It does take a bit get used to the various Wikipedia policies and customs. I do understand and welcome your desire to help by adding new content. However, new content must be supported by reliable sources. Some group promoting ideas and philosophy via a website typically fails that criteria. The website you used, altho interesting, would not be a reliable source.

As for editing here - please stick around and learn, we need more intelligent people willing to work to improve Wikipedia articles. Vsmith (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

How to delete account

I can't find how to delete my Wikipedia account. Is there a simple way to do it? KellyKinkade (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Never Mind

Never mind. I got it. You can't. You just have to shut up KellyKinkade (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

That's about it, however see [10] - altho that's probably a bit much. Maybe you'll change your mind and stick around to improve some obscure article -- always hoping. :) Vsmith (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Event horizon

Hello, Vsmith! I don't know if you are watching Event horizon, but would you mind taking a look at the last few edits to the article? As I recall, you may have worked on this very sentence a few months ago. I don't know if you approve the changes. CorinneSD (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The article is about event horizon in general and the anon edits tried to make the lead focus only on black holes - so reverted. Vsmith (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

O.K. CorinneSD (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/187.153.64.39

I think he/she is continued disruptive editing. Can you block him/her? 183.171.170.137 (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

No edits for ~ 36 hrs and no warnings on their talk ... so no. Vsmith (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

WATER CYCLE

Hello dear, You have just removed my contribution to this article. Namely: "Some scientists believe, that the back-bone of rivers is another hidden water cycle, that runs for 24-hours daily, all over the mountain globe. They believe that this cycle takes its water from sea at levels 3-4 km below surface. The water at that level penetrates deep into continent hot-soil voids. With temperatures above boiling point, the water evaporates and leaves its salts behind. The vapor ascending high mountains (above 1500 meters) cold-soil voids, condenses. It flows back to sea (in hiding), making its own fresh-water reservoirs, rivers, tunnels and caves. Under the ground, it interacts with the known apparent cycle." I wonder why? Regards salmanalkasimi wed14350911-20140709 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salmanalkasimi (talk • contribs) 19:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Quite simple: you did not provide a WP:reliable source to support your edit. If, as you state: "Some scientists believe ..." all that - then you would need to specifically provide sources that show who these "some scientists" are. Vsmith (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello dear. Thanks for your prompt response. My references are: 1. Al-Kasimi, S. M. (1998). "Underground Rain & Rivers: Theory of Existence and Means of Detection". The Engineer (Riyadh) issue no.9 pp 57. 2. Al-Kasimi, S. M. (2002). "Existence of Ground Vapor-Flux Up-Flow: Proof & Utilization in Planting The Desert Using Reflective Carpet". Proceedings of the Saudi Sixth Engineering Conference. vol.3, Dahran, pp.105-119. 3. Al-Kasimi, S. M. (2003). "Evolution of Sand and Dune Creep-Stopping by Planting The Desert". Proceedings of the International Conference on Dune-Creep into Rail Roads and Cure Methods. Dammam, Saudi Arabia: Arabian Union for Rail Roads & Saudi Rail.

Please, re-consider returning my edited portion. Thanks and regards. salmanalkasimi wed14350911-20140709 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salmanalkasimi (talk • contribs) 19:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted your contribution again as it lacks a source and appears to be controversial - such edits always need a good source and normally the work of more than one scientist would be expected to back this. Mikenorton (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Done some digging as this seemed familiar. See Talk:Ground Rain and Talk:Ground rivers. Vsmith (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Sulawesi

If you have time, would you review the latest edits to Sulawesi, all having to do with geology. Even if correct and sourced, what do you think of the style of expression -- not too technical? CorinneSD (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems it is a copy of content from the reference - which is under a creative commons licence ... I'm no expert on that, but sorta seems like cheating :) Methinks it do need a rewrite - for clarity and any copy problems. Vsmith (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I detect Shakespearean English in "Methinks" and ghetto in "it do", reflecting a kind of split personality, or maybe Shakespeare was ghetto. :) I hope you'll take care of the rewrite. CorinneSD (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Jest polluted hillbilly ... and yeah, it'll nag me 'til ... but Vera Cruz, Missouri is red! Vsmith (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

IP

Hello Vsmith, please check the recent edits from ‎70.90.138.158 ... nvm i noticed you just did that, thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 00:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That duck sure was quacking :) Vsmith (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

"Block evasion"

Regarding your recent undoing of an edit of mine, you specified that I was reverting a block. I have never been blocked under this or any other account. Please be more careful in the future. Lost on Belmont ^3200N (talk) 12:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that, I was reverting the ip and didn't see your edit after the ip. I see you have restored it. Vsmith (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Block evasion is not a valid reason to undo constructive edits

I've reverted your edit to Demiurge, per WP:PRESERVE. There's nothing in our encyclopedic information preservation policy which allows for removing constructive edits simply because a user has been blocked. Wikipedia is not a vendetta. Please be more careful in the future. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kendrick7: See WP:BANREVERT, among others. WP:PRESERVE clearly does not apply; the edit is not reverted because it is faulty, but because it should not ever have been. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Kendrick7, if you feel any edits made by the blocked ip were good - then you are welcome to re-instate those edits and make them your edits. I always try to be "more careful", however edit conflicts etc happen, see the above section. As for the blocked ip, there is no "vendetta" - for further insight I'd suggest this. Vsmith (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• @Kendrick7:, the policy is certainly VERY clear - block evasion IS a valid reason to undo any edit the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Please fill out your JSTOR email

As one of the original 100 JSTOR account recipients, please fill out the very short email form you received just recently in order to renew your access. Even though you signed up before with WMF, we need you to sign up again with The Wikipedia Library for privacy reasons and because your prior access expired on July 15th. We do not have your email addresses now; we just used the Special:EmailUser feature, so if you didn't receive an email just contact me directly at jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks, and we're working as quickly as possible to get you your new access! Jake (Ocaasi) 19:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

IP 114.31.218.104 has again reverted on Good Luck Flag, including the personal attack that was suppressed last time

Dear Vsmith,

I have been involved in editing Good Luck Flag and have watched with increasing distress the ongoing efforts of IP 114.31.218.104 to replace sourced content in that article with negative unsourced content. You were instrumental in suppressing the IP's last revert that included an unsourced personal attack, so I wanted to bring to your attention the fact that the IP has reverted again and has again included the personal attack. Is there any way to make this stop permanently? It seems clear that the IP will continue to revert and to engage in personal attacks as long as he/she is permitted to edit. I feel that it is especially important to make sure that the personal attack does not spread further on the internet, so the sooner this is resolved, the better. Many thanks! Ailemadrah (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I see the ip has been blocked for a month and the content restored. Vsmith (talk) 10:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Basaluminite

Hello Vsmith. It's me again :o)

Basaluminite (article) is an invalid name, felsőbányaite (redirect) is the approved name.

How do you feel about it? Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

As the basaluminite page contained copyvio problems, I've written brief content for felsőbányaite and redirected the basaluminite page to it. Vsmith (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thx ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

??

Hello Vsmith. You reverted a recent post by an anonymous IP on Great Tit with the comment "Block evasion". Checking the IP's posts for July 30, they all appear to be valid edits, but I guess you have your reasons! Can I at least list the publication the IP posted as one for those of us who are working on the article to check? Or does that violate some Wikipedia rule? MeegsC (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

See the ip's talk page. As for the specific edit - you are more than welcome to make the change suggested by the ip ... make it your edit. Vsmith (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do that. By the way, looking through the various things on Arthur Rubin's list, I see that this IP was blocked for including external links on talk pages. Now I obviously didn't look at them all, but in the (many) edits I checked, the IP listed things that could be included in the article on the article's talk pages (all appropriate to the articles in question, by the way) and linked to reliable sources. How is this a problem? I get that this user is now "evading a block", but I'm wondering why the block was put there in the first place! Oh well, this is why I would never want to be involved with the administration of this nut house. :) MeegsC (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The case developed over a couple of years. I worked with the ip in an attempt to change behavior - with little luck. I didn't issue the block but was involved in the discussion leading up to it. The ip has been told how to address the problem and perhaps get the block removed, but refuses to cooperate or modify behavior. I'll agree that many of his edits are not problematic - but most are rather trivial. The rapid fire edits - 100 or so edits in about an hour - appear to be just playing with the system. And yes, admining can be a pain - I try to avoid the dramafests :} Keep up the good work with the bird articles! Vsmith (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)