User talk:Vsmith/Archive20

Yogo pre-FAC review

We have someone looking at this for FAC preparation. Casliber is commenting on the article talk page. Here's a comment about the mineralogy section you may want to look at. PumpkinSky talk 12:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Casliber's edit PumpkinSky talk 12:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Casliber's edits re-organizing the content there look good to me. Vsmith (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Follow up on old discussion: Schneider, Waterman, jewelry designers

Hi Vsmith. Happy New Year. Please view older discussion of September 2011 on your page. I just checked the comments on my request for deletion: no comments whatsoever in 3 months. Furthermore I checked the page Mark Schneider (designer) and it was not only edited by one person, it was recently edited by a specific user named SchneiderDesign. So I think there can be little ambiguity the whole page has been set up from the start as a self promotional page. How to deal with this? I furthermore see that cathy waterman has ALSO recently been edited (more or less same dates) by an anonymous user who only edited this page and nothing else. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/74.109.30.77. So it seems to me there's sufficient ammo to argue that the three pages I mentioned a few months ago have in fact been self-promotional pages? Gem-fanat (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Chopped a bit from the Schneider page as promotional and either unsourced or poorly sourced. If user:SchneiderDesign returns it will be dealt with. Haven't looked at the other pages yet. Vsmith (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You know...

How occassionally you may think a word means one thing, but it really means another?

I've been calling provinces providences for years now...jeez. Thanks for fixing my errors, haha. What Wikipedia will teach you. ResMar 03:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I've had a few of those neural wiring glitches over the years - fun times, Vsmith (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

(",)

• Thank you for your contribution of Glory (optical phenomenon) at Talk:Meteorology#not sure where is may go. 99.181.147.68 (talk) 09:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Didn't know about glory so I did a WP search and there she was, learn a lot around here. Also, thanks for the short subject header (",)  :) Vsmith (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible new article

See User:PumpkinSky/Sandbox. Links are about the [{Evanston Formation]], well not new, but only a couple lines in it. Seems to be lots of info on this. But I cannot find a free image of anything I know for sure is one of its outcroppings. Are you in terested in working together on this? PumpkinSky talk 01:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Just added some links to the article. Will check your image links & see. Vsmith (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not real motivated right now. I'm an embarrassment.PumpkinSky talk 01:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Understood. Take a break and don't take things personal on the Yogo article. Maybe some research and work on a different article will help.

The current Evanston fmtn stub is in need of some tlc. It's a confusing geological subject based on a quick scan of your refs which are highly technical. The formation dates from the late Cretaceous to the Paleocene with both dino and mammal fossils - spanning the K-T extinction boundary. Not sure I'm ready for a major rewrite - maybe just act as a "consulting geology guy" ... my much neglected to-do list gets bigger all the time :) Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

IP warned

FYI, I warned the IP who made the edit that you reverted recently at Speed of Light with subst:uw-disruptive1. I tried to find a better warning template but there doesn't seem to be a template specifically for warning someone for inserting inappropriate content in references. If you can think of a better template to use then please let me know. Thanks! Pine^talk 08:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Wilson Butte Cave

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Neenach Volcano, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coastal Range (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yogo reshoot

Your attention is requested here: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Reshoot_of_Yogo_sapphires. PumpkinSky talk 23:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there something you can do with item 3 here: User_talk:PumpkinSky#pre_FAC_review PumpkinSky talk 01:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yogo reshoot 2

Pls see Talk:Yogo_sapphire#Round_2_of_reshoot for new ones. These are much better if I can say so myself. Input appreciated.

Another Protection request please

Please have a look at the edit history on this page for Ana_de_Mendonça. This is becoming an ongoing unproductive edit war. Everything I enter is taken from sources yet mr Davide1941 sees it his job to re vert everything I touch. I am getting ready to walk away from editing here a tall, but who will protect the articles from such uninformed edits?Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Best if you post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection where others can review the situation. Vsmith (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Jemez Lineament

Hello Vsmith, greetings in 2012 ;) Could you move Raton hotspot to Jemez Lineament, please. Or do you think Raton hotspot trail would be a better title? Peter W. Lipman (p. 166) says that there is no systematic progression of age, ruling out a hotspot origin (Continental tectonics: Studies in geophysics: Study of Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems; authors: Assembly of Mathematical and Physical Sciences (U.S.). Geophysics Study Committee, National Research Council (U.S.). Geophysics Study Committee, 1980, pp. 197; Chapter 14: Cenozoic Volcanism in the Western United States: Implications for Continetal Tectonics, Peter W. Lipman [1]). Thx --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Renamed and removed the hotspot map. You might want to play with the wording a bit. Cheers! Vsmith (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thx ;) If you mean that: "the right step in the Rio Grande rift zone that juxtaposes the San Luis Basin against the Picuris Mountains", I got it from the reference, it's geographical position, so most of the time you aren't able to change it. And actually I don't understand this english, sorry :[ Just as a note, I think the Colorado River in Utah and the Colorado Mineral Belt are the same kind of faults caused by the movement of the North American craton and Basin and Range Province extension. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to the last paragraph on the Yellowstone hotspot, but no problem really - will do some thinking about it. The "right step" part may need some clarification - now that you focus my attention on it :) - all I can see is the abstract of that paper, would be nice to see the details also. Vsmith (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, let's hope that at least the article is clear. If you want the PDF file of the article, send me an e-mail. I'll send you then the file to your e-mail address. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

As a volcano writer i think its important for people to Access info on volcanoes (historically active volcanoes are my Forte)i have written many articles of the past years.

• Turfan
• Zubair Group
• Tor Zawar
• Manda Hararo
• Waiowa
• Chacana
• Sumaco

This is just a thankyou, to say thanks for your help in my articles on volcanoes.

Regards, Noble Fan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noble fan (talk • contribs) 10:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome, and I'll take a look at the others ... later. Vsmith (talk) 11:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noble fan (talk • contribs) 13:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

My Latest page.

Kunlun Volcanic Group

Also, thanks for looking through my pages and contributing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noble fan (talk • contribs) 16:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Kogarkoite (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sublimate

Yucamane (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Crater

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

ANI

[2] Your recent actions have been reported to ANI. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Commented there, although I try to avoid that dramafest as much as possible. Vsmith (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me know if I can help, Vsmith.PumpkinSky talk 21:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but seems to be no problem. Never know how stuff will fall over there though. And we're all getting blocked for 24 - whee! What're the WP-junkies gonna do for a day? Cheers! Vsmith (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll probably watch Maggie Q in episodes of Nikita on Netflix. PumpkinSky talk 22:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Did the 48 hour block include an allowance for the SOPA blackout? Nobody Ent 00:35, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Basically, I was considering the incivility bit along with blatant 3rr vio ... then thought, no 1st block = 24 hrs. Then the fact that we're all getting a 24 hour vacation ... just made it 48 to compensate, sorta. Why should a revert warrier benefit from "our" blackout, and seems somewhere I read that maybe things like admin actions shouldn't be set to expire during the blackout. Is that a problem? (Other than some drama jabbering on ani). Cheers and happy vacation. Vsmith (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem, makes perfect sense. I was just wondering if you could do the block tweak thing I've seen sometimes to document in the block log that the block was made longer due to the SOPA (in case someone is reviewing in the future when we've forgotten that we went black that day). Nobody Ent 02:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Changed block, same expiry, added SOPA note. Vsmith (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Nobody Ent 02:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Latest pear and purple Yogo sapphire photos

See Talk:Yogo_sapphire#Latest_pear_and_purple_photos. Hope you think they're better, and just in time for the Great Wiki Blackout of jan 2012! PumpkinSky talk 01:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

PS...any more tech info to add to the Yogo article? PumpkinSky talk 01:12, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Those images are much better. As for "tech info" ... been busy elsewhere (chasing grandkids, woodchoppin' - we've had a bit of a January warm spell) plus other distracting WP stuff. It is still on my to do list ... when ?? Maybe I'll read that MS thesis while on WP vacation. Enjoy, Vsmith (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Solution

I actually like [3] this image better than the previous, because of natural colors (without that artificial blueishness). It is said to be sugar, but I guess the caption can be changed. Thoughts? Materialscientist (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Either would work with the caption fixed to match. The only problem with the new picture as I see it is the rather distracting blue embossing on the glass. But, if the caption is corrected to match, no real objection. What are your thoughts on the new pumice image - now labeled "commercial pumice"? The image bothers me - don't know much about "commercial" pumice. Vsmith (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

(posting provisional replies, will return to this when sort out my backlogs). Agree on solubility image. To me it is a choice between the distracting embossing and the inferior image quality + blue color in the current image. My policy is to be patient with newcomers who make own quality images. Here the troubling part is substitution of valid images (and some WP:OR and quality/composition concerns). I surely saw commercial pumice sponges, but will have to look how the're actually made. They are called pumice [4], and this can just be colored and shaped mineral (usually not, but natural pumice is so cheap). Anyway, we'll have to deal with this product in pumice, as it is sold everywhere. China produces a lot. I'm sure they use the mineral, and it is quite possible that pumice in the image is of Chinese origin. Materialscientist (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Todorokite, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carinthia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Yogo questions

in edit mode..."These rhombohedrons are almost always less than 1 mm in thickness and appear like striations. --and this matters because...?" and " en echelon segments. --do we know what an en echelon segment is? Can't find anything on wiki..." Can you answer these? PumpkinSky talk 04:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: the rhombohedrons - don't have access to the ref, but assume it means the rhombohedral crystal planes appear as parallel fine lines (striations) on other crystal faces. Seems it would matter to the person doing the "cutting" of a crystal, but without some amplification clarifying that - or some more detailed crystallographic description, I don't see it as needed. A gemmologist might have a different view.

"en echelon segments"; means the linear dike is not continuous, but is offset a short distance along strike, easier to explain w/ an illustration, sorta like:

—————_______

—————_______

Hope that helps. See En echelon veins for a small scale illustration. Could probably just say "three offset segments" there, don't know the offset distance or if its important in the article. It implies that the dike either intruded along pre-existing tensional fractures or was later offset by faults. Hope that all helps. Vsmith (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Ref 21, the 1mm stuff, is the same url as ref 20, just a diff chapter/pages. So I added the URL to the ref. Can you look at it and tweak the article accordingly? I sort of understand it, but you're the expert. I'll tweak the echelon thing. PumpkinSky talk 16:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

On re-reading it seems the flattened crystals with rhombohedral (triangular) crystal faces on the basal plane are somewhat unique to Yogos. The problem becomes: how to describe that without clarifying images/drawings as the crystallographic terminology gets rather heavy and unreadable to the average reader. It took careful reading of the Pratt ref along with repeatedly examining the drawings to understand the content; so I don't see how we can meaningfully summarize that with a one-liner for the average reader. So I've re-worded a bit and commented out the last sentence. Vsmith (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Cool, thanks!PumpkinSky talk 23:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcome message for first time Editing User

Thanks for your welcoming message. As a Vietnam veteran myself (1965), I appreciate your response. I am a little confused though. I made a change to a bibliography entry on the Extinction events page on 1/21. When I viewed the page today, that entry doesn't seem to be there. I don't know if I'm getting senile or if I did something wrong. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstheorist (talk • contribs) 16:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I served in country (Chu Lai area) from 9/65 to 6/67 - that was a loong time ago. What unit were you with?

Regarding the extinction event article. If you click on the "history" tab at the top of the page, you will see a history of edits to the article with latest at the top. I did some rearranging on that articles references and external links that day. First I put back the originally listed isbn as I assumed it was the one used as a ref in the article. Then I noted that it wasn't used or referred to in the article. Following that, I looked at the amazon.com listing for the book and see that it was published by Pangea Publications, LLC. I did a google search and the Pangea publisher appears to be a place to basically publish one's own work - which makes it problematic for Wikipedia use --- so I removed it. If I'm mistaken on that, please let me know. Self-published works simply don't qualify as reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. As Wiki editors we write based on material published in reliable sources. We don't use Wikipedia to promote our own stuff or non-mainstream ideas. Please read WP:COI and WP:RS. As we used to say sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

User_talk:65.51.4.17

Hi, After all the many prior warnings at this IP, especially the last warning given by another admin earlier this month, I am curious why you appear to have just given yet another warning, instead of imposing a rootin' tootin' schoolblock? As a former juvvie rehab Outward Bound instructor, I can tell you that when the kids hear "last" it must have teeth and it must stick, else you just dig a deeper hole and do the kids themselves a gross disservice. FYI, I am leaving a link to this question on the talk page of the admin who previously posted a "last" warning on that IP's talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Look closer - issued 18 month schoolblock, then after notifying I cleaned up a bit of nonsense at the top of user's talk page. Vsmith (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflict; I had just tried to post the following.... Nevermind, and I apologize. I belatedly realized that you did impose a rootin' tootin' schoolblock. I was confused by the template text "Due to persistent vandalism anonymous editing from your school, library, or educational institution's IP address might be disabled." (bold supplied) Being unfamiliar with the schoolblock concept, I erroneously read the word "might" to mean yet another warning, and I now realize my error. Thanks for giving this IP a well deserved softblock. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem, and yes that canned notice seems a bit vague. Vsmith (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Paralaurionite

Hi, can you expand this?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Added/fixed a bit, more later. Vsmith (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Kevin Trenberth - Climategate

Why did you undo my changes in the Kevin Trenberth article? Do you really believe that the Climategate scandal is an irrelevant detail of his life? Do you really believe that his famous E-mails don't deserve encyclopedic diffusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.36.31.114 (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

See edit summary there and see WP:Coatrackism. Vsmith (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I have seen all that and still do not agree. It would be too lengthy to explain. I have already lost my motivation to keep with this issue. Your attitude really discourages my will to keep editing. Thank you. If you have not noticed, this is plain censorship. The careful reader knows about the climategate and does not need to know by wikipedia public facts about Kevin Trenberth. But wikipedia is mainly aimed for the not so aware reader who will not know the truth (I insist, public facts), because of you. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.36.31.114 (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello Vsmith. Just wanted to say thank for the revert of the trolling on my talk page. I should have left this yesterday but a hectic weekend off wiki and on got in the way. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 22:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, life do get hectic at times :) Happy editing, Vsmith (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yogo

Hi Vsmith, we have a little trouble on the Yogo Sapphire article. PumpkinSky has quit over some of his other articles having a concern that he did some too-close paraphrasing from source material and they've now put everything he's written onto a list to be checked for copyright violations. As you are the only other person on the Yogo article with a hardcopy of Voynick, I think, I know it's a lot to ask, but can you check the pages cited in the article to see if we have too close a verbatim phrasing? If so, feel free to tweak, or -- as I DO NOT have a copy of the book-- I would be glad to do the fixes and have you check to be sure I didn't change the nuance. This article is too good to be tossed as a potential copyvio. I can also look to some of those other web sites for backup support of the Voynick sources if needed. I spent way too damn long on those photos to have this article get trashed and all the Voynick material thrown out for lack of backup verification. (sigh) Help!! Montanabw^(talk) 23:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm ... what a mess, just read thru the ANI bit. Been kinda busy lately, so not sure how much time I'll have in the near future. I do have a copy of the book and have read a bit of it. It seems to be the major ref for quite a bit of the content - so that may take a bit of checking. Seems I recall page numbers were provided, which will make it easier. So, yes - count me in to help as long as there's not too much of a rush. Vsmith (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Started. See here. More to follow. Vsmith (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Gerda reviewed it for anything blatent. I'm in no rush, let's do it right! Montanabw^(talk) 19:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, gone trough 'em all - problems noted. Back later to do some fixing. Vsmith (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey V, who was going to try and do up a map for us for the Yogo article? Montanabw^(talk) 15:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems User:Fallschirmjäger was talking to PumpkinSky about it back on Jan 24 onTalk:Yogo_sapphire#Yogo_map - but hasn't been active on en.Wiki for the past month. Vsmith (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

That's what I was afraid of. We seem to have gotten a lot of comments that a better map than one locating Fergus county is needed, but I'm a mapmaking noob so we do need some help. Montanabw^(talk) 20:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

New Sections

I know you are probably very busy but here are a few pages i've created.

• Akita-Yake-Yama
• Niigata-Yake-Yama
• Michoacan-Guanajuato
• Hiuchi
• Izu-Tobu

Noble Fan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noble fan (talk • contribs) 19:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Will take a look, made 'em links for me to follow... Vsmith (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Oil sand stuff

This edit comment was apparently a reference to your 2008 redirect from Tar sands. The IP's contribs are perhaps just trying to right wp:GREATWRONGS, but it's certainly annoying. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Heh... where's my $$$ cut? Oh, that's right, the oil co I worked for (hunting copper) back in the 70s is now defunct - such is the luck. Do I want to jump into that ... not really, but will take a look. Vsmith (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Water Ionizer

The page has been updated. Could you review the same. Ankaraman (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind spending some time to review the article? Many thnaks. Ankaraman (talk) 10:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Took a look, no recent activity - bit heavy om negs, but then - what is there besides fringe promotion? Couple of the refs on food are primary sources which is not preferred - need 2ndary sources there. Vsmith (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. It seems the content that was added earlier has been removed,no idea why? Can you review the same if its put in Sandbox before publishing? Let us know. Thanks Ankaraman (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Where's the sandbox? And who is "us"? Vsmith (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no sandbox as of now, the Question was this: Can you review the same if its put in Sandbox before publishing?. You are free to ask valid Question as long as that makes proper sense. Thanks Ankaraman (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Ronald Ryan

Why stop me telling the truth? Can you prove its not true or are you being bias? (178.63.32.109 (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC))

Reverting and such

Do you even read or look at what edits you revert? Or read the edit summaries? Because it seems like you don't.
You reverted my correction of a redlink with a summary of "no need for repeat of an image here." Alright then: I remove the image link as there is "no need for repeat". So now you tell me I should fixed it?? However, you "fixed" it in the wrong place.
Now, as far as I'm concerned, the redlink was removed so the article now is fine. But please reconsider your approach. Maxim_(talk) 20:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Take it easy mate. And thanks for getting me to take another look, I've fixed that jpeg to jpg also. Sorry 'bout the confusion there, cheers. Vsmith (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:ERA

See Talk:Cahokia and Talk:Native Americans in the United States. Dougweller (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems to have settled down, at least temporarily. Added Cahokia to my watchlist. Vsmith (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. His taking it to DRN was a brilliant move. :-) Dougweller (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Molybdenite

Sometime last year I found a molybdenium mine in Temagami (Barton Mine) and a rock there that has silvery grey mineralization on it. For some time I have been wondering if this might be molybdenite. From looking at it sideways it looks like it might have a layered structure (kind of hard to tell because it's broken) and it can be used for writing like graphite. I do not know too much about minerals so I am asking you because you are a geologist. Volcanoguy 21:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Your description does fit molybdenite ... so it's a definite maybe :) My MS thesis was on the Esperanza mine of southern Arizona and I became intimately familiar with moly there ... but that was a long time ago. Your described properties fit and the mine had a record of moly production, so likely that your sample is moly. You have an picture of it? Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No, but I could take a picture of it then upload it on Commons. Furthermore, it's along a small quartz vein. I am going to go back to the mine sometime in spring/summer to find the spot where I found the sample. The mine site has been completely overgrown over the last 100 years and this was one of the reasons I had a hard time finding it. I found out about this mine years ago here while I was searching mindat for mines in the Temagami area. I have a few pictures of the mine site but they are nothing very interesting. Two show a pipe sticking out of the ground in two locations, which I have no idea what they are marking (covered shafts?). I will let you know when I upload a picture of the sample. Volcanoguy 04:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Picture would be good along w/ your description above should make for a more positive "maybe" ...:) Vsmith (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

If you can tell me if it is actual molybdenite or something else it would be useful for the image caption because I might expand and rewrite the Barton Mine article sometime. Volcanoguy 22:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Tenmile Range

Hi Vsmith,

This is the first time I have tried to edit an article on Wikipedia and could use your help. The info in the Tenmile Range article is incorrect as to peak names and locations. The incorrect information appears in the article in two different places.

I am a twenty five year resident of Dillon, Colorado and look right out on the Tenmile Range which I have hiked, biked, and skied extensively. The range is approximately ten miles long and has over a dozen peaks. The northernmost peak is Ten Mile peak. Next south are the numbered peaks, Peak One - Peak Ten. Quandary Peak is the southernmost peak and highest point at 14,265 feet.

This information may be verified in the following books (and many others): Colorado Atlas & Gazetteer, DeLorme Publishing, 1998, Yarmouth, ME ISBN 0-89933-265-X 19916 00285 Guide to the Colorado Mountains by Robert M. Ormes, pub by the Colo Mountain Club ISBN 1-55566-194-7 781555 661946

Can you help me get this information corrected? Thanks.Eztg9PmW (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I will take a look at your edits there again and try to sort it out, I don't have access to those books to check the data. Maybe I can help re-instate your edits. Vsmith (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've replaced your references where I think you intended and cleaned up some of the wording. The article needs more work. Maybe I can access USGS topo sheets and do more later. Vsmith (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

New Pages

3 New Pages i've created.

• Unnamed Syrian Volcanic Field
• Jabal Yar
• Picos Volcanic System

I'm probably getting on your nerves, but you can look through them if you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noble fan (talk • contribs) 15:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Will take a look. On my nerves - no always happy to see and learn something new :) A suggestion for you: look at the changes and fixes others make to your work and learn, for example: add links, make the references "clickable", correct spelling and capitalization glitches, add coordinates, etc ... Vsmith (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks will do, Noble Fan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noble fan (talk • contribs) 11:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

3rr at Turquoise

Yes, there is an edit war there - but look at the background. In the shape of User:Bjmullan we have someone who identifies articles containing the words British Isles then fact tags that usage so that he can return at a later date to delete it. Yes, stuff must be verifiable and referenced, but when such a need is used to "game the system" as is were, then the encyclopedia is the worse for it. There are many types of usage I would prefer not to see, but to go around fact tagging them would be just irresponsible. I note you've taken out the disputed sentence; all well and good. It was finally referenced and I'll read up on this to see whether it might be appropriate to reinstate it; it could be, I don't know. CommonPAS (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed as it was about a colored glaze and I didn't see a direct connection to the article. Vsmith (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could also cast your eye over Falkirk Old Parish Church where this SPA seems hell bend on keeping the term. I don't want to get into another edit war so your input would be welcomed. Thanks. Bjmullan (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Vsmith,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't think so ... Vsmith (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge Tag Thanks

Thanks for the reminder about the merge tag. Who knows when I would have realized that myself. ZybthRanger ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Geologic(al) units: capitalisation

Hi Vsmith Wondered why you had capitalised 'era' to 'Era' at Tertiary. Isn't the standard approach to keep the nouns in lower case ie era, eon, period, epoch etc rather than Era, Eon, Period, Epoch? thanks Geopersona (talk) 07:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Geo time units eon, era, period, epoch are part of a formal name when following the specific name: Phanerozoic Eon, Cenozoic Era, Neogene Period, Pliocene Epoch, are formal names and therefore capitalized. It's like rock unit names, formation, etc which are capitalized when used with the specific formal name e.g. Mesa Verde Formation or Mancos Shale. Unless they've gone and changed the rules? I see quite a bit of inconsistency across WP articles and have been reverted by someone citing some general science editing handbook written for journalists. Vsmith (talk) 10:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I've no strong feelings either way on this matter but consistency in this would be an advantage across Wikipedia - I'm unaware of any rules having been agreed and set down in the MoS. It would be good to get consensus on this matter don't you think, so that it can be set out as a guideline for the wider wikipedia editorship. Personally I've spent quite a bit of time capitalising 'formation', 'group' etc where they appear within specific formal names. cheers Geopersona (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably should search MOS stuff for an established rule or guideline on this - don't recall seeing such ... but maybe it's already done :) Anyway the International Stratigraphic Guide, Chapter 9. Chronostratigraphic Units puts it this way

A formal chronostratigraphic unit is given a binomial designation - a proper name plus a term-word - and the initial letters of both are capitalized. Its geochronologic equivalent uses the same proper name combined with the equivalent geochronologic term, e.g., Cretaceous System - Cretaceous Period.

- which is what I've been following. Vsmith (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Vsmith - I had searched MoS but was surprised to find no guidance - what you've pointed me towards is very helpful and could form the basis for developing just the guidance that's needed. cheers Geopersona (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Paleoclimatology

Not only poorly formatted but also plagiarized. SpinningSpark 00:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I suspected as much, just hadn't got around to doing a search. Thanks for the info and for giving the ip a warning. Vsmith (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory

The article Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

tagged for cleanup and sources for more than a year. Recently tagged as original research. No improvement seems likely to ever occur.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Caithness Flagstone Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lacustrine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Vsmith,

Thanks a lot for taking the time to revert KUB's edit on my user page! It seems KUB doesn't like me any more, I'm so very sad about it:)

God, this guy is a real pain! Anyway, thanks again, and see you around! Next time is on me! ConradMayhew (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome. When I first noticed the ip's strange edit to user:Materialscientist I really didn't know what to think. Then on checking the other edits by said ip, it became obvious - so stomped the t***l and reverted the remaining edits. Happy editing! Vsmith (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thx. First time you've encountered KUB then? You've obviously spotted a significant part of his usual territory: Neutron capture, Neutron moderator, Fukushima nuclear disaster, Radiation effects from Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. He's also a persistent nuisance on articles sites such as Odin and Yggdrasil (I've seen this picture of his several times, rather nice drawing actually). He's taken the habit of trying to introduce his refused edits into the talk pages (because they're almost never protected). CU around, ConradMayhew (talk) 10:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

No, not the first - see up the page early December (need to archive again:) and quite a bit earlier. Just hadn't seen/connected the image previously. Vsmith (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Teacher

Are you Mr. Smith?

I think you were my high school science teacher...

--MaxAMSC (talk) 21:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Never taught in Canada. Or, did you attend high school elsewhere? Vsmith (talk) 21:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

In the United-States of America, more precisely in Arizona...--MaxAMSC (talk) 23:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope, left Az in the 70s. Teaching career came later. Vsmith (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry then. Wrong Smith... --MaxAMSC (talk) 02:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Maunder Minimum

Thanks for removing my goof — my wife interrupted me. I agree with removal of trivia, as previously discussed on the talk page there. In light of Little Ice Age and Other observations, my intent was to add a new Significant concurrent events, starting with Lan_Xang#Latter_years where I have already put a link to the Maunder Minimum. In light of what's going on today, I think it important to link significant climatic events to articles on concurrent collapse of kingdoms and empires, and vice versa. In many articles, this has already been done. This is my first feeble attempt. I'll put a paraphrase of this at Maunder's talk and see what others say there. --Pawyilee (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome - we all make those goofs at times. It seems that your intent re: Significant concurrent events might be a bit of original research unless you can show that some WP:RS has made the connection between those concurrent events. I would advise caution there. Vsmith (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, thanks. Note at Maunder_Minimum_Talk that I dropped that hot potatoe. I'll leave the MM link in Lan_Xang#Latter days, and leave the sole survivor of The Age of Stupid to draw his own conclusions. —09:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Tor Zawar

Just a thank you for added info to the Tor Zawar page. I actually forgot to add the bit about the quake. I have actually produced my own study (PDF) of the volcano (using whatever i could find online and in books) called "Geology and Aspects of The 2010 Tor Zawar Eruption"

I can't send it to you unless i have your e-mail, but it dosn't matter.

Regards, Noble Fan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noble fan (talk • contribs) 15:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Zinnwaldite

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocks and minerals#Zinnwaldite is it ok? I personally don't like articles on discredited minerals. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Commented there - should we chop biotite ...? Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 12:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I prefer ur Chlorite group solution. To move biotite to biotite–phlogopite series and make redirects. There are so many construction sites open. We clear it lil by lil ... ;) Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I presume you meant Annite–phlogopite series? :) To me a shorter name is simpler to type also.

The chlorite group was not a simple binary group, but rather more complicated. Vsmith (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

...and chlorite was in use elsewhere. Vsmith (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Option A: biotite–phlogopite series, biotite redirect, mindat.org version

Option B: annite–phlogopite series, biotite redirect, Chris.urs-o version

Option C: biotite, annite–phlogopite series redirect, Vsmith version

The name biotite is obsolete, we copy and paste, so shorter name doesn't matter, more or less. I got a feeling that the series name is more correct. Maybe biotite-phlogopite series is a Mindat typo. The key of a good databank, are correct names n titles. Don't know where we're heading, really, really (",) Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Biotite may be obsolete to mineralogists, but as a field petrology term it sure is handy. Who would say annite–phlogopite granite? And as for typing, where is that en dash thingy (–) on my keyboard? And yeah, where are we heading? Toward a general encyclopedia used by regular people or to a technical ref for mineralogy researchers? We need an article on biotite which discusses the dark mica in general and leads to the various end-member species and their specialized occurrence. Same for zinnwaldite - except it's not as common a mineral. I see the biotite article refers to the siderophylite endmember... so should we have an annite-phlogopite-siderophyllite-polylithionite series article? Point is, if there is a common name for an intermediate mineral in a series then use it - even if discredited by some official body. Vsmith (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thought it wrongly, sorry. Biotite is an accepted name for the dark mica series, so name n title don't change. Zinnwaldite is obsolete, this name should be an redirect and not a title. As for the dash thingy, we make one redirect with hyphen. But, when in doubt, don't change page's title and its categorization on Wikipedia. (",) Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Referenced material and edit summaries

Cheers for that, sorry about deleting those references. DaHuzyBru (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the geology rewrite - Yule Marlbe

Hi Vsmith. Wanted to say thanks for rewriting the geology development of Yule Marble. A vast improvement to the article. I originally inserted the USGS section into the article because a rewrite was beyond my knowledge. I also removed the 24 hour clock from the timeline and the line with homo sapien developmentOneHistoryGuy (talk) 03:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Orbicular Granite contribution

Hi Vsmith, Wow! that was fast!!I am mega impressed with the way volunteers peruse and check new contributions so meticulously.In answer to your question concerning my second reference: "Aspects of the history of Copper mining in Namaqualand" by John M Smalberger. That reference was intended to apply to the Stub , Concordia, one of the 2 places in SA where Orbicular Granite occurrs. I intend to expand the stub on this obscure little town listed below the article as one of the few places where this rare type of rock occurrs. Because I am a "Wiki virgin" , you will have to excuse me still getting to grips with how to edit efficiently. Glad to make your aquaintence and thanks for bringing my attention to this error.Look forward to further interaction in the future. Have a good day trying to get Teenagers interessted in anything at all besides gaming! (laughing) Warm regards--Gregoryclivedunn (talk) 11:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Was on my watchlist, so thought I'd help a bit. Just worked a bit on the Concordia, Northern Cape article, let me know if I've misread something. Vsmith (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Transitional Fossil GA review

An article you have made significant contributions to, (transitional fossil), is up for Talk:Transitional fossil/GA1GA review. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi Vsmith, I am currently a student at Clemson University and I am taking English 103. Our current assignment is to write a Wikipedia article, and I was wondering if you could take some time to read what I have started and give me some feedback! http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Petrifaction Thanks! Ajdu93 (talk) 03:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

You have worked to improve a poor article - off to a good start. However:

First - the text needs wikification, you need to add links within the text - need blue links.

Second and perhaps more important - your Processes section contains only one: Permineralization which is divided into subprocesses. The article previously stated Petrification is not the same as permineralization. So ... what gives? I haven't yet looked at your references ... and perhaps the terminology confusion is there. Anyway, if there is only one process then perhaps this should just redirect there. Or we need to define/distinguish the subject better as supported by good refs.

Keep on working, hopefully you're not finished as work remains to be done. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for your input! Your help is very much appreciated. I do want to let you know that what I have written so far is only about half of the assignment. I'll be finishing this week, which is why there is currently only one process under the "Processes" section. As for the terminology confusion, based on my research, petrification is comprised of two processes, one of which is permineralization. I checked the source the previous author used for that statement and found that the author did not include everything and the source does indeed say that petrification includes two subprocesses. Again I want to thank you for your time and input! Ajdu93 (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Good to hear that you plan further work. A caution, working on it live as you are doing may cause conflicts as others not aware of your plans may jump in and "fix" things making your finishing work more difficult. Keep on truckin' ... :) Vsmith (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

List of mines in Temagami

Just thought you would like to see the new list I made for the Temagami mines. The see also section on all Temagami mine articles was getting long so I removed all of the mines and replaced them with the list. More organized IMO. I still need to do some work on the list and make an article for the 1906 Priest Mine on Cross Lake (an inclined shaft also goes under the lake). Volcanoguy 08:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Good move - limit those see alsos :) Just noticed as I was archivin old stuff: did you ever upload that molybdenite image we were discussing 'bout a month ago? If so I missed it somewhere. Vsmith (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

No I haven't. I still have the sample but I don't have a great camera for taking close up photos. Volcanoguy 16:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way since you mentioned our molybdenite discussion I forgot there is another rock (most likely diorite) I found at Hermiston-McCauley Mine awhile back with a quartz vein in it. I looked in the quartz vein to see if there was anything in it and there is a small speck of something that I have been trying to find out what it is. Since I found it I have been thinking it may be gold because Hermiston-McCauley is a gold mine (has been idle since the early 1940s) and it dosen't look like pyrite. If I get my hands on a camera that is good for taking close up photos I will take a photo of the molybdenite and the Hermiston-McCauley diorite/quartz sample. Volcanoguy 06:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't know much 'bout gold, but hey I'll take a look ... or if it's a big gold chunk, I'll give you my shipping address and ... ;) Have fun, Vsmith (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Chris.urs-o

Hystrix asked me on the April 1st to candidate for Admin on Commons. I'd like to hear one or two advices from u. Thx n cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 02:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't keep track of such stuff on Commons, but around here if one actively uses the buttons it just leads to drahma and piles of arguing. As I dislike all that I don't use the tools much 'cept for stompin' vandals. However, it does make it easier to stop vandalism nonsense. So if you've got the patience for it - go for it, I'm sure there is a need there. Good luck whichever way you decide. Vsmith (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thx for remembering me. I hate filibusting too. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

100,000 edits

		100,000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100,000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have accomplished. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work! – From: Northamerica1000(talk) 20:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but it seems I got one of those 100K thingys a few months ago. Cheers! Vsmith (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

(:D) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Electromagnetic radiation DRN thread

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Electromagnetic radiation". Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Syamsu on Free Will

Hi Vsmith,

I am wondering if, as an administrator, you can be of any further help in resolving the issue with User:Syamsu at Free will, besides just helping revert his war edits as you have this morning.

He has been pushing this edit for over three years, and editing almost nothing else, ever; almost every time he surfaces to pick up the war, he repeatedly violates 3RR; he has been warned for 3RR violations at least four times recently on his talk page; temporarily blocked twice for them; created a sock puppet which was also blocked; and now today, after the last block expired, immediately picked up the war again (six reverts so far today, even after another 3RR warning); and now flatly refuses to address concerns on talk, insisting that he has "said enough to build consensus" and that every other editor of that article, who unanimously disagree with his edits, must be banned for not going along with him.

It's becoming a real farce, and I think some kind of administrative intervention or something is required at this point. He's entirely recalcitrant and I don't know that even another temporary block will help, given his non-response to the recent ones.

Any ideas for how to address this problem?

Thanks, --Pfhorrest (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

3rr report filed. As I've reverted the disputed content, I'd be considered "involved". Vsmith (talk) 00:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

And now indef'd for disruptive editing. Sockwatch alert! :) Vsmith (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! Would it be appropriate to notify you here if I see suspected sockpuppets? Filing full wiki reports at AN and such is always quite intimidating to me. --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

That would be OK, I dislike "jumping through those hoops" as well. I do expect to see more of that character, given his history. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me add my thanks as well for both the admin help and the welcome you set up on my talk page. Garamond Lethe (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Lund and WRV

Thanks for your assist. . . Is it the standard to put book references in the external links section? I, at least edited the link title to reflect the full text version of the title instead of the abbreviated version.

Thanks again Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.22.138 (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I moved the links from the artocle text to an external link as you had added it more as a "see here for more info" rather than a reference for specifics in the article. If you do use the webbook as a reference to support added or existing text, then you can make a reflink <ref>url and book title</ref> following the relevant text and it'll show up in the reference section. Vsmith (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

No ° used w/ Kelvins?

So that's really the convention? Guess I've been doing it wrong for 50 years! Oh, well.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, seems kinda picky 'though, comes from teaching chemistry for a few years. Thought about changing the "K" to "C" for consistency with previous paragraphs ... probably would've been better. Vsmith (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It's there 'cos that's what the authors used, but I'm fine with consistency. This is supposed to be for general readers, and it's plenty confusing already.... Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Done, but anyone who gets past the intro without developing a blank stare can't be a "general reader" :) Vsmith (talk) 01:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yup. That one needs work.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Whoops

Excuse me. Why did you undo absolutely everything I added to the Nicaragua page even though it was all solid? --Horhey420 (talk) 10:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that, but your last edit there deleted 157K of text. If that was an error - then restore the previous content, it's still there in the history. Vsmith (talk) 10:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Restored your edits previous to the blanking edit mentioned above. Please use caution. Vsmith (talk) 11:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed. I apolagize. Should've figured it had something to do with that ref error. --Horhey420 (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yogo checks

Many thanks for both the technical expertise you gave on the geology parts of this and the paraphrasing checks. I do appreciate it. PumpkinSky talk 20:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome, glad to help a bit ... and learn a bit :) Glad to see you back, Vsmith (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Would love to have your continued help there.PumpkinSky talk 20:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

External Link Deletion

TFX Associates is a non-commercial independent collaborative of 16 senior scientists and engineers. The external links that you disabled are to informational webpages. The objective of TFX Associates is to inform and engage like minded researchers in an active discussion on topics of mutual interest. Please cease and desist. Wikipedia dispute resolution has been informed. Thank you.

Edward Bigelow PhD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.244.140 (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

External Links Deleted

Ref. links. Plasma acceleration, Remote sensing, Reconfigurable computing, Sniping — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.244.140 (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd say simply: we don't use Wikipedia to promote our own stuff. Vsmith (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Made links of the above, also Directed-energy weapon was involved ... for future reference :) Vsmith (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Similar conversation on my talk page, fwiw.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Noted that, thanks. Vsmith (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

I am humbled (and thankful) for the hours of work you've expended to help make the Algoman orogeny article a GA. Bettymnz4 (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You are most welcome, but I didn't really spend very many hours... Anyway, jump in and write some more.

And thanks Chris for the fixin' here :) Vsmith (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm just about ready to jump in again! Of course, it's been so long I need to review almost everything; but, I do need the intellectual stimulation.Bettymnz4 (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yogo sapphire

I've answered all the inline questions. Pls review for further improvement.PumpkinSky talk 22:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks ok, I removed one fragment you missed :) Seems most of those were added by Montanabw in response to some of my earlier comments. My Voynick analysis work comments are still here if you're interested and haven't already seen it. Vsmith (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you strikeout (or something) those on that work subpage that don't need looked at?PumpkinSky talk 23:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain the problematic ones have been addressed by either Montanabw or my fixes back in Feb. This dif shows the changes from 2 - 10 Feb. Basically either all fixed or hidden comments left. So ... address any hidden comments remaining (if there are any now) which you've been doing and all should be ok. If you have specific concerns, I'll address them ... but I've no interest in going over that all again. Vsmith (talk) 00:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

So with what you two did and I did tonight, it's essentially done. Cool. Thanks.PumpkinSky talk 01:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you ever get a copy of the thesis on Yogo sapphires from Univ of British Columbia? I can email it to you if you didn't. Is the thesis something we can/should add as a ref to the article?PumpkinSky talk 11:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Have the Gauthier thesis stored somewhere (my download folder is a mess :) but haven't read it in detail. There is another by Dahy in 1988 and a Guidebook article by him from 1991 (see: Talk:Yogo_sapphire#Yogo_map 00:56, 24 January), but was not able to find an online version of those. Seems Voynick refers to Dahy's work. Vsmith (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I can email the Gauthier one if you like. There is a cite thesis template. There is a book version of Gauthier too.PumpkinSky talk 13:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Molybdenite

Here is a pic of the sample I found at Barton Mine. Volcanoguy 19:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like moly to me - even with the focus problems :) If it "feels" like it looks and other tests re: phy properties fit, it must be moly. Vsmith (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

That picture was taken on an angle to show more of the molybdenite. Hopefully I can find better samples later this year. Volcanoguy 01:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yogo status

Are any further improvements needed to Yogo sapphire? PumpkinSky talk 22:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hydrophilite

Hello. Hydrophilite (Y: 1813, discredited IMA 2006) isn't IMA/CNMNC approved, discredited as its description is incomplete. It's existence is questioned. It's probably identical with antarcticite (a redirect to calcium chloride, IMA 1965-015, CaCl₂·6H₂O) or sinjarite (too a redirect to calcium chloride, IMA 1979-041, CaCl₂·2H₂O). What do you think? Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd say move/rename to antarcticite with a rewrite and note about the "old name" then change the sinjarite to redirect to it. Antarcticite seems more widely identified and more interesting. Will do it a bit later ... if I don't get too distracted elsewhere :) Vsmith (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Antarcticite :) Vsmith (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for moving the TOC at the bottom of List of geologists - I don't know why I didn't notice that. Mikenorton (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem, just noticed when I went to see who the Z guy was :) Vsmith (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

See discussion ... Talk:Christianity and environmentalism

Talk:Christianity and environmentalism#User talk:97.87.29.188.23May 2012 ... 141.218.36.85 (talk) 02:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Why? No discussion there, just a link to an ip talk page. Vsmith (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tweak on Pyrite

It's a much better link. I swear, between you and MaterialScientist these articles are improving by leaps and bounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riventree (talk • contribs) 09:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Tweakin's the game :) And now I've spent part of my Saturday morning because I followed you to Experimental archaeometallurgy ... and there was a bit o tweakin to do there; the refs there need more... or redoing, but a nice cool spring morning awaits outside. Vsmith (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully I'm helping more than I'm hurting. :) If you have any advice, I'm listening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riventree (talk • contribs) 01:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

WP Geology in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Geology for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

YOGO PR

Pls see User:Wehwalt/Sandbox6, it'll be part of the PR. Can you help with the "alluvial" comment? PumpkinSky talk 22:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Reworded a bit, fixed a punctuation error and made caps on "mya" consistent. Vsmith (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Question for you. See the line with "perhaps VSmith...". Thoughts? PumpkinSky talk 23:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Commented there. Vsmith (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

'Abiogenic petroleum origin

Dear VSmith, Please consult with me prior to annulling many hours of my work! I made it clear that Citation was necessary, and will add more refs. as I find them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magazine1212 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It is best to find the supporting references prior to adding the material. The petrobas site is a commercial website and not a WP:RS and that Pre-salt info doesn't belong in the lead section - even if you find a source to relate it to the article. Vsmith (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Yogo sapphire at FAC

I just wanted to let you know this article is now at WP:FAC. Link at: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yogo sapphire/archive1. Thank you so much for helping get it there. Improvements welcome. PumpkinSky talk 00:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you please address this edit summary: "Mineralogy and geology: do you have modal percentages for the mineralogy of the lamprophyre?)", 0057UTC, 2 Jun. Thank you. PumpkinSky talk 01:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

This summary and its inline question too "minor wording change; comment out dodgy sentence (see inline comment))"PumpkinSky talk 01:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Modal percentages (at least range values) are available, but would seem to be unneeded technical detail for this article.

Commented via inline comment as Voynick does support the statement, but it is rather unclear and confusing - certainly not cumulate ... so I'd say leave it out. Vsmith (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thank you again.PumpkinSky talk 02:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

(two of them). PumpkinSky talk 01:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Got 'em. Vsmith (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yogo cooling...note the ref says "speculates" and the article "possibly", ref stmt by Montana mining engineer. Since we don't say it's a fact, we may be ok. PumpkinSky talk 02:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yogo thesi & stuff

Do you have access to this article Keith A. Mychaluk, 1995, The Yogo Sapphire Deposit, Gems & Gemology all I can see is the abstract.
Also it seems the other MS thesis is the one I've seen referenced. James P. Dahy, 1988 The Geology and Igneous Rocks of the Yogo Sapphire Deposit and the Surrounding Area, Little Belt Mountains, Judith Basin County, Montana, Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology, Butte, but haven't found an online version. The Gems & Gemology article above references it.
Also see [5] referring to a guidebook article on the Yogo dist. by Dahy and more stuff. The guidebook article (I think) Dahy article here (item #4)
In case anyone has access to those. Vsmith (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Or can send me the $25 to buy the 1991 Special pub 100 :) Vsmith (talk) 04:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

And Keith A. Mychaluk, Geology of the Vortex Sapphire Mine, Utica, Montana, University of Calgary, Dept. of Geology and Geophysics, 1992 ... Vsmith (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The thesis was written by a woman: User_talk:Risker#Guylaine, and based on google images, an attractive one.PumpkinSky talk 10:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any of those. Sigh.PumpkinSky talk 11:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I do :)

Back on track ... the reaction rim stuff discussed on that Friends of Mineralogy board is most interesting as it indicates the Yogos were not in chemical equilibrium with the dike magma and suggests a xenolith origin (or an evolving magma) which makes the "dodgy sentence" bit p'raps more dodgy - mining engineers ain't geologists :) Still thinkin', Vsmith (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

At the FAC the Gauthier theses is being asked to meet SCHOLARSHIP. Can you help?PumpkinSky talk

The next to last item by truthkeeper is too technical for me. Can you take care of it? (just search for your name). PumpkinSky talk 23:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yup, just say dark rock, was hot and has other rock chunks so as to not scare away the masses. Heh, and Maxim just the other day requested more technical jargon in the form of mineral modes. Sorry, no time right now and I'm in a rather grumpy mood :) so I'd best hold off for a bit. How come that FAC page has no sections? Vsmith (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

They generally don't have sections. Yea, the conflicting requests are a drag. I can't do justice to the geology section without you. Hope you feel better.PumpkinSky talk 02:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I think all we need is something between what's there now and "dark, hot rock" phrasing (grin). When you have a chance, we appreciate all ya can do! Montanabw^(talk) 20:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

"Something between" done. Vsmith (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Big Dan Mine peer review

Just checking to see if you can help with some of the comments in the peer review. The most problemic is the one about the gossan distorting mineralization potental. Volcanoguy 05:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that "single sentence" doesn't do much and if the source doesn't expand on it ... hmm. From my memory, assuming the gold was in or assoc with the arsenopyrite and pyrite, then as the sulfides oxidize the immobile gold would be concentrated in the Fe-oxides and quartz of the gossan and hence the hypogene ore in the shear zone below the gossan would be lower grade. That's off the top o the head - studied geochem prospecting under the gossan god, T. S. Lovering, back in 1973. As for a source - hmm, and one specific to Big Dan - bigger hmm, especially if that's all your source states. Vsmith (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I just deleted the vague sentence. Volcanoguy 03:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Mis-attrbution of bad edit

On the Acid Mine Drainage page, you attribute the bogus change in question to Woohookitty, but they appear to be the anonymous edit following WHK's changes. I am not WHK, so I have no dog in this fight, I just noticed the log entry when I was following up on some of my previous edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riventree (talk • contribs) 07:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

What fight? Please read the edit summary again: "(Reverted to revision 491750437 by Woohookitty: ..." Vsmith (talk) 09:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Zultanite

Hello there. Would like to address your concerns about the Zultanite page (also some of this on Talk page Talk:Zultanite).

• True, some of the content was from Diaspore page, but only the stuff that pertains to Zultanite. There were several changes, especially to the sidebar, and also a new image was added.
• Zultanite has a trademark on its name for use in commerce, but this is not different from Tanzanite.
• Being one form of Diaspore, is similar to the gemstone Tsavorite being a form of Grossular, whereas Viluite is a non-recognized variety (or non-gemstone-named variety).
• You mentioned a copy-and-paste from some other source, but I can't find that using copyscape. Could you let me know where that is from and I can change or seek permission to use the source?

Appreciate your help in this. --Jeffmcneill (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The infobox data was copied from the diaspore page with only a couple changes to pleochroism, see WP:COPYWITHIN. The body of your text had no WP:reliable sources (the trademark filing page doesn't qualify). The text appeared to be promoting an "excludive" gemstone occurrence. You will note that I suggested a possible source to use if an article is needed. As a quick google search shows the stuff is widely hyped and an article here would need to avoid all that and focus on what reliable sources provide. We're not here to sell stuff for ebay sellers etc. Vsmith (talk) 09:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Precious

	geology
	Thank you for polishing this gem with your profound geological knowledge, as part of more the 100.000 valuable edits to the project, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome, but profound ... that's a bit rich :) Vsmith (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Today's good story (hidden message: "open mind"), - you awesome Wikipedian of 7 June 2012 ;) - I tried to translate to German, but gave up on the specific language in your field, help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Eh? riddles ... :) No sprechen Deutch. Did take a course in reading German way back 'bout '72, but is long gone. Cheers Vsmith (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, just peek at Saphir (Yogo), I wanted to avoid the geology, but they wanted it - being so good! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Peeked - neat. And you separated mineralogy and geology into sep sections -- had considered that on the en page, but never got 'round to it. Vsmith (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It was another helpful user there (actually the "they" who wanted the geology) who separated the sections. We still struggle how to say "etched, pitted, and rounded nature of the surfaces" in German, can you say what it means in other words? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... followed the link to Roll-stone's talk (with google translate as an aid) and yes, the sapphires reacted with the enclosing magma, they are considered as foreign inclusions (xenocrysts) and not in chemical equilibrium and the surface reacts with the corrosive magma much like a metal surface can be etched (pitted and unevenly dissolved) by an acid. This surface dissolution would be most effective on projections or "corners" of the crystal, leading to the rounding - rather than "rounding" due to motion (physical tumbling) within the ascending fluid magma. The pitted and partially dissolved (or etched) surface would be the optimal site for crystallisation of spinel crystals which form from the dissolved constituents of the corundum with the addition of magnesium from the magma. I've rambled a bit & don't know if I've really answered your question :) Vsmith (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, it's all a bit too much for me, but perhaps the other end can understand it. - Please look (with the translate aid) if you can live with what is now in the article? It seems that the fluidity of the magma might appear more clearly, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Bentonite

Hi,

Can you please explain why you have removed the part about Prevalin containing Bentonite? If you need proof that it does contain Bentonite, then that can be found here: http://www.boots.com/wcsstore/cmsassets/Boots/Content/Products/Allergy%20Hayfever%20-%20CAT:%20A00000586/10124276.P/Prevalin%20Allergy.pdf

Would this link be ok? http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/allergy-and-asthma/medicines/prevalin-allergy.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexyjw (talk • contribs) 08:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems a shame to have a medical section about Bentonite with a glaring omission.

Thanks

John - in no way affiliated with Prevalin, apart from having been squirting it up my nose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexyjw (talk • contribs) 08:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that, removed it as it was sourced to a promotional website. Please read WP:RS and especially WP:MEDRS as I'm doubtful about the above links as well. Vsmith (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

fyi

You are mentioned on Talk:Christianity and environmentalism. 99.181.140.207 (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For your outstanding support and dedication in getting Yogo sapphire from a new article to DYK to GA to FA and FOUR. The team effort of the uncountable people involved in getting this unique article to FA is a textbook case of teamwork in article improvement, ie, what Wikipedia should be, not what it all too often is. I can never thank everyone enough. PumpkinSky talk 23:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject assessment tags for talk pages

Thank you for your recent articles, including Narsarsukite. When you create a new article, can you add the WikiProject assessment templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like {{WikiProject Keyword}} to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject (ex. if it's a biography article, you would use WikiProject Biography; if it's a United States article, you would use WikiProject United States, and so on). You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow them to start tracking the articles through Wikipedia:Article alerts and other tools. This can help you too, as the WikiProject members will often defend your work from deletion and try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Philip227: Difference between revisions

Dear Sir,

I have added just two links to each of two Wiki articles, each link being to a relevant page that gives further information on the topic concerned.

This is in accordance with what I have been given to understand is an acceptable practice that enhances Wikipedia.

Please advise if you consider this to be unacceptable and why.

Philip227 (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)Philip GeganPhilip227 (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read the spam link I left on your talk page. Repeatedly adding a bare external link to an apparent commercial website is WP:SPAM and, should you have a connection to that website -- please read WP:COI. Vsmith (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Diatoms

Very glad to have your input on various topics around Diatoms. There is a wholesale lack of ecological/ scientific awareness with one notable editor whose CV suggests he may have trained as an accountant. Your support is much appreciated.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Glad to help a bit, don't know much about 'em. Maybe an accountant trying to balance the books w/ a bit o promotion ... just feed them little critters with (blah, blah). Vsmith (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Diatom's contribution to primary production

You had deleted the citation to D Mann's 1999 paper on the share of diatoms to primary production in oceans. So I emailed Dr Mann and asked him and his reply is given below. He has also marked this email to Diatom-l list.

David Mann <removed address> 2:48 PM (58 minutes ago)

to diatom-l, me Dear Bhaskar (copied to diatom-l, in case anyone else has been bothered by the same question).

Thanks for your enquiry. You are quite correct: Field et al. do not give the 40-45% figure. However, the passage in Mann 1999 is, as you will have seen:

“Recent estimates of global net primary production suggest an overall total of 105 Pg (105 X 10^15 g) of carbon fixed per year, of which 46% is oceanic and 54% is terrestrial (Field et at. 1998). Of the oceanic component, approximately one-quarter takes place in oligotrophic regions where diatoms account for no more than 25-30% of primary production (Nelson et at. 1995) ; but in highly productive areas, diatoms predominate. Overall, therefore, it might not be unreasonable to estimate that diatoms could account for between 40 and 45% of oceanic production, producing perhaps 20 Pg of carbon per year, making them more productive than all the world's tropical rainforests (Field et al. 1998).”

The statement “it might not be unreasonable to estimate” was not meant to be linked to Field et al.: the final reference to Field et al. refers to the productivity of tropical rainforests, not to the calculation for diatoms. There’s no doubt that I should have been more careful in explaining and referencing the calculations and I clarify this below. However, if I had meant that Field et al. had made the 40-45% estimate, I hope I would have given the Field et al. reference after “oceanic production”, or 20 Pg C per year.

I have noticed that, in several papers on diatoms, the 40-45% figure, or the simple derivative, that diatoms account for c. 40–45/46% = c. 20% of total global primary production, is referenced to Field et al. and Nelson et al., whereas in fact neither of these papers give this figure: it is possible that the people citing these papers have not actually read them, or have not read them carefully and are instead relying on other people, who have also not read them. Field et al. do not separate the diatom contribution. Nelson et al. do separate it (the focus of their paper is the silica cycle), but, as far as I can remember and I have just checked again, Nelson et al. never give an overall percentage contribution of diatoms to total oceanic C production (see their p. 361): the only 40-45% figure they give (on p. 364) is for net export of biogenic silica. However, even though one is not supplied by Nelson et al, a % figure for the proportion of total oceanic C production is easily obtained from their paper, since they estimate 26 Gt C yr-1 for the diatom contribution to the 60 Gt C yr-1 that they assumed for all oceanic primary production, i.e. 26/60= 43.3%.

Field et al. gave new estimates for the total global productivities of land and ocean, and of the different regions/biomes on land and in the sea. These overall totals were thought to be more accurate than the previous estimates (e.g. revising the overall estimate of 60 Gt C yr-1 for oceanic production used by Nelson et al.). Hence it was necessary to recalculate the diatom contribution to global C production, using the new Field et al. totals . There seemed no reason to doubt the calculations of the *relative* contribution of diatoms in different oceanic zones made by Nelson et al., but unfortunately the classification of the oceans used by Field et al (oligotrophic, mesotrophic and eutrophic) did not correspond to the classification by Nelson et al. (oligotrophic vs coastal + nutrient-rich). So, to use Nelson et al.’s data for calculating the diatom contribution to the overall productivities estimated by Field et al., I made some simple rough recalculations (‘guesstimates’) for Mann 1999, resulting in the sentence “Overall, therefore, it might not be unreasonable to estimate that diatoms could account for between 40 and 45% of oceanic production”.

Please see “Global significance” at http://www.tolweb.org/Diatoms/21810 for a further explanation.

I think I sent something similar about this to Diatom-L in the early 2000s…

Best wishes, David Mann

Senior Principal Research Scientist Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh

<removed address> websites http://rbg-web2.rbge.org.uk/algae/ http://rbg-web2.rbge.org.uk/DIADIST/ http://rbg-web2.rbge.org.uk/ADIAC/ http://www.rbge.org.uk/rbge/web/science/research/crypto/index.jsp

From: Bhaskar M V <removed address> Sent: 27 June 2012 08:33 To: David Mann Subject: Diatom algae

Dear Dr Mann

I read your 1999 paper 'Species concept in Diatoms'. This says that 40 to 45 % of the primary production in oceans is by diatoms, and Field et. al. 1998 is cited.

I could not find any reference to Diatoms in the paper cited - Christopher B. Field, et al. Primary Production of the Biosphere: Integrating Terrestrial and Oceanic Components Science 281, 237 (1998);

The wikipedia entry for Diatoms says - "They are especially important in oceans, where they are estimated to contribute up to 45% of the total oceanic primary production.[citation needed]"

Can you please clarify this point.

regards

Bhaskar www.nualgi.com/new — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diatom1 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I've removed address inf above. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bhaskarmv. Vsmith (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

International School of Gemology

Hi VSmith, may I ask you to have a look at the International School of Gemology page history? I need a second opinion on the latest edits by TParis, preferably from someone with a geology background. My well researched and verifiable article, albeit non-flattering for Robert James, the owner of the ISG, has been wiped off the wiki.Rock-o-solid (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Took a look ... wow, that was not a WP:article, let's see: seems it was a fluff promo thingy which was turned into an attack thingy by a "couple of editors". Agree with TParis that afd is the proper road to take. And why did you decide to ask me 'bout this? Why is Gemwise hiding behind platitudes? Something fishy going down. Vsmith (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi VSmith, I contacted you cause you were the editor who stopped the fluff in the first place and because you have a rock background. This topic gets technical at points and an admin who can distinguish science from from non-science will do a better job at judging the content. To address your second question: I can't speak for Gemwise, nor do I care much about his edits but my original article is not an 'attack thingy'; it's a set of rather unfortunate truths containing well-researched and completely verifiable facts. Forum posts that are signed by known entities within the gemological world should hold as much weight as quotations in established magazines or other paper sources in my opinion. Anyway, all other facts, verified by other sources, have been deemed unworthy as well in one go and I received a level 3 straight away. Once one goes beyond fluff things just become very ugly very quick on this topic. I regret this but do feel that this information should be out there. I tried to write down the facts as dry as I could and realize that its very inconvenient for the owner of the school but he will have to face responsibilities for his actions like any other human, one of which is that when you lie you look bad when that is pointed out in public. Rock-o-solid (talk) 10:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. I see TP has given you lots of good advise re: WP rules stuff and I'll watch your workspace article development. Looking at the article history I see several new accounts chiming in ... so I assume p'raps they were showing up because of discussions on blogs etc. rather than socks. I don't follow gemstone forums as not my geocup o' tea. Vsmith (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

International School of Gemology: more

VSmith,

The edits you mention describe the controversy around Mr. James. Yes, I wrote a blog post back in 08 on the subject. I am a major writer in the field. It was a balanced article that quoted a number of the most highly respected experts in the gemological community on copper diffusion in tourmaline, topaz and garnet. In writing about a controversy, balance is the best one can hope to achieve. There have been a few other edits, some to expand and some to contract the issue. It seems to me that what constitutes "disruptive editing" depends to a large degree on whether you want the controversy discussed or deleted. Mr. James and his partisans desire the latter, a couple of other editors, the former.

I read the "Reliable Source" section in Wikipedia and see no barrier to quoting from blogs, please correct me if I am wrong by directing me to the appropriate section of the article.

I also add quotes and references to articles by GIA Bangkok, as you know, no more recognized expert in the field than GIA. I note that another administrator removed another article reference that is to an article written by Mr. James himself. If you review the bibliography of the GIA Bangkok article you will find my blog referenced along with three articles by James with links that lead nowhere. This is standard op. for Mr. James. Prove him wrong and he tries to remove the evidence. In this case the article was preserved on a website critical of Mr. James. The whole thing is quite convoluted. Perhaps deletion of the page makes the most sense. It is far better than having wikipedia serve as a promotional billboard for ISG.

I decided to change my handle from GemWise to Platitude. Choosing a name is allowed on Wikipedia, why is platitude phoney and gemwise not? Sorry, always forget to sign.

Platitude 19:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

RWW — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemwise (talk • contribs) 19:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

For info on using blogs read Wikipedia:USERG#Self-published sources online and paper. For user name change see Wikipedia:Changing username and/or Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing your signature to use a new sig while retaining original username. As you see, just typing in "platitude" doesn't work and the signbot or some user like me will add your "official sig" and mabe gripe at you :) Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

contest of edit deletion

I indeed know alot about machinery, and some manufactures. But, I edited for viki not standing for any group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loney tulip (talk • contribs) 05:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. But you need to address the concerns noted on your talk:

• Wikipedia is not a "How to..."
• Your edits appeared promotional
• Your references were incomplete and the isbns posted appeared invalid.

Vsmith (talk) 10:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

(",)

Thank you for your contributions to Pine Island Glacier. Please see wp:Tea.

Were you wp:MEAT on Religion and environmentalism and Christianity and environmentalism?  ;-| 99.181.159.214 (talk) 02:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

:-)

• Thank you for your contributions to Climate change denial. 99.181.143.128 (talk) 03:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject Gemology and Jewelry "stuff"

I wish I knew what this is about; see the history of Moussaieff Red Diamond, and the version of the article that constitutes the current editor's talkpage. I am frankly bewildered. I've tried starting a section on the article talkpage, which is "unavailable" in no way I can discern. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems someone is trying to promote a pet theory or hoax. I've left a note on their talk. Vsmith (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

question

On Talk:Current sea level rise#Add legislation? 108.73.115.187 (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Per your edit

On Evangelical environmentalism you stated not to included a link within at reference title, but this happened when Climate change policy of the United States was wikilinked to explain by Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin. Did you not intend to have the link outside the title? 108.73.115.187 (talk) 06:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Apples & oranges. How 'bout you write some unbiased content based on WP:RS rather than constantly pushing a POV through e-links and see alsos? Vsmith (talk) 11:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hellow

You have erased my own personal information from my accounts Talk page?? If that doesn't constitute as "talk" I suggest you admit Wikipedia is the largest content of useless public information.

Please reinsert the information to "my" talk page.

If you Brits and your Jews do not wish to give whats mine that is on you, but remember at the end of this you have no history due to your false claims of sovereign capability.

Quote this:

"I have a Bob (bobby) and I have a Traynor (trainer). So.... I Know you "

No more bullshit, just hand it over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emplorio (talk • contribs) 19:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

'l I be. Please see your talk page history ... it's still available. We don't store article content on our talk pages. And please read WP:Civil and avoid threats ... or whatever that was supposed to be. Vsmith (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

References and sources

Dear Vsmith,

Thank you for alerting me to some improper edits I made to the article on the Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny on Wikipedia. I have now added a number of references and sources for the material. Could you kindly remove the boxed message at the top of the page, which indicates the contrary? Thanks.

Benirschke-Perkins (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Improved -- changed to more sources needed template, as the history section and people lists need more. Need to replace those inline links to external sites with reference tags in the organization and activities sections. Try to avoid the "sales pitch" presentation -- what do other sources say about the center? What the article needs are secondary sources - critical or "praising". Vsmith (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Radium Girls

Thanks for sorting out the reflist there, this is to show my appreciation. ツ Jenova20 (email) 12:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome, noticed the change on my watchlist and took a look -- saw the links to sites selling stuff and fixed while removing that spam. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I really didn't notice them so i'm glad you did. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme

Hi, I hope you can help - I received a message saying you had deleted the page referring to the IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme due to the addition of copyrighted material - the update I performed simply updated the infromation that reflects the IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme whom I work for. As the page has now been deleted I can't view it to see what the disputed material was, can you clarify the situation for me? Many thanks! IEAGHG (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Your recent addition to the page was or included a direct copy of material from the program website. So I reverted it to the earlier version as a copyright violation. Then, as the previous version also had no references I began to check that and found it also to be essentialy a copy of content from the website with minor changes added by other unsuspecting editors who were trying to improve it. The original had been created in August 2007 by User:Andrealacey and appears to have been their only edits to Wikipedia. As I noted on your talk page, you are free to start a new article based on reliable sources and free from copyright violations. If you choose to do so, please consider your WP:conflict of interest, read WP:COPYVIO and strive to write an objective article. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Aerosol

Its been a while, but I have finally got back to looking at the Aerosol article. Nearly seven years ago (! WTF!) I was proposing a merger with particulates. Most of the last 4 years on Wikipedia have been spent ploughing a lonely furrow on Cullompton which was my new home 5 years ago.

I have now decided to concentrate on making this article an overview of all aspects of aerosol science and technology. I'd appreciate your thoughts though on where I am taking the article. Note that most of sections 3 and 4 are at present the remainder of a merger from another stub article and will be rewritten with proper sources in due course. It's a bit lonely there so sny comments would be welcome.--NHSavage (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It has been awhile ... time flies. Took a quick look, seems good. More later ... maybe :) Vsmith (talk) 01:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

kernite molweight

the molweight 290.28 first mentioned on the page was indeed taken from http://webmineral.com/data/Kernite.shtml, the first ref. on the http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Kernite page. However, this molweight corresponds with the formula Na2B4O6(OH)3·3(H2O), in which (OH)3 is wrong, it should be (OH)2. Unfortunately, both (OH)2 and (OH)3 can be found on the webmineral kernite page, which seems strange... Using standard chemical tables I calculated that for Na2B4O6(OH)2·3(H2O) the molweight is 273.22. I noticed that in the past the text box was introduced on 11th June 2009, with a formula containing (OH)3 and a molweight of 290.28 (this molweight indeed corresponds with (OH)3). This was repaired by you on 19th July 2009, and the (OH)3 was changed into (OH)2; however, unfortunately the molweight was not changed then. Wjchardon (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. I've copied this to talk:Kernite for others to see as well. Thanks for the explanation. I usually ignore the molwt bit as it's not very relevant to the mineral description and neither Mindat.org or the Handbook of Mineralogy list it either. Vsmith (talk) 12:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Michigan IP ANI case

Hi V, thanks for your input. FYI, the example you posted was an edit warring example. The basis of my complaint is external link spamming and block evasion. I'd like to suggest that it might help the admins who review the case to see your comment broken out with a sub heading, and have it clearly spelled out that you're raising a different problem behavior from that user. Thanks for your interest. I don't edit as much when I have to wade thru that junk on my watchlist NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe so, but if you check that talk page you'll see the same link spamming behavior ... so not so different except the ip also edit warred there while pushing a different pov. Thinkin bout it... Vsmith (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh good point! Indeed, that page is examples of both. I was just thinking that when you said an example of the edit warring etc etc.... that could confuse an admin trying to make sense of the claims, since I was not talking about edit warring. Just tossing out an idea here.... what about modifying your remark to say one example article of what NAEG is saying is X, and in addition to NAEG's reasons for a range block, at least on this example article the IP also engages in edit warring? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Just stopping by to thank you for your continued interest in trying to reform this IP's behavior. FYI, on Aug 23 the primary IP at the library was soft blocked (if soft is the word) for a year and the soft range block for what I infer is their home was extended to Nov 23. Thanks again for caring. Its sort of ironic since I've often been interested in the news stories they post and share their POV. Sure wish we could get them to interested in meaningful NPOV editing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I had noted that. Vsmith (talk) 12:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring concern

Hi, my concern is that why only myself is reported for edit warring, when the other user Zeraful has also engaged in edit warring, who has been deleting content from that article, and when I reinstated those deleted content items, that user kept undoing my edits, like around 5 times. It seems quite unfair that I'm being penalized for edit warring only, when clearly 2 editors are engaged in the same act. And, I was the one who actually made the compromise edits on the article, several of them, while Zeraful didn't, and after finding a compromise resolution on the article, with input by the other user, i'm the only one who gets reported for edit warring. The Battle of Khe Sanh article had the same problem involving the same user. I'm believing that Shrigley is unfairly, and in a biased way, penalizing me for edit warring, who conflicted with me a long time ago on the Paracel and Spratly Islands article, and may be penalizing me for my position on that territorial dispute.

Oh, by the way i was only kidding about the tieng Viet thing, i knew that you weren't Vietnamese and that you tried to write it as best you can, and i wouldn't take offense over something negligible like that, so you didn't need to apologize for that, and i hoped that you would pick up the sarcasm i placed at the end of my edit summary, but unfortunately you missed it. I will provide a review for that link as soon as i can, but i have to go back to my work now... Anyways, I'll look forward to hearing from you soon about the concern i have about this whole edit warring thing. Nguyen1310 (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

When your username showed up on the edit warring board I took a look. On reviewing the article I noted that the two of you were both over 3rr - so rather than blocking both, I protected the article as I found it for three days. Yes, the reporting user should have included both editors. In the future, simply stop before reaching 3 reverts and discuss. And yes it is frustrating when other users "just won't agree with me" ... :)

No problem regarding the language bit. My crash course in Vietnamese back then was focused on spoken and not written language. Our teacher was an ARVN sergeant and we learned a bit -- but long time gone. Vsmith (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

As well, can you please revert the last 2 edits that Zeraful has made on the North Vietnam article, that user has added those items in without any consensus or agreement with me, where i have explicitly rejected the edit in the article's talk page (the edit regarding the Vietcong attempting to invade the South). As well, the name DRV violates the common naming policy, and should be changed back to the name North Vietnam, as very few people who read this article know what DRV means, and its the user's attempt to legitimize the North, which is POV. What this user did is against what the whole concept of consensus-building stands for. Thanks again. Nguyen1310 (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry it was protected "on the wrong edit", but that's the way it works. An admin action is supposed to be neutral and protect "as we find it" is the rule. You are welcome to build your case on the talk page. Vsmith (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Comercial links at Flux (metallurgy) and Wave soldering

Elizabethnorton (talk · contribs) reverted your reverts of their commercial links at the above two articles. After checking the contents of the links and confirming they were primarily commercial in nature, I reverted to your version and left a note on their talk page. Given that they've now been warned by two editors, and gave "removed promotional links" as their rationale for material removal at Solder (showing that they're aware of policy), it should be safe to impose sanctions if they edit-war on this further.

I hope I'm wrong about the likelihood of them doing so, but they're showing all of the hallmarks of being a single-purpose account promoting a company's interests. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The Urantia Book

Dropped off my watchlist until I saw it pop up at WP:COIN. Dougweller (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. Seems ~5-6 years ago a user visited my talk pushing that stuff ... don't recall doing more than taking a brief look. But, yes there be some pushing goin down there, not pennies ... much bigger coins. Hmm... ? Vsmith (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Roger A. Pielke, Jr.‎

Many thanks for the semi-protection at Roger A. Pielke, Jr.‎. Much appreciated. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome, we don't need ip edit warring on a BLP with no discussion. The page is on my watchlist - so will monitor activity in 10 days. If I miss something (got a huge watchlist), just alert me :) Vsmith (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I should have studied more before making changes to this article, thanks for your quick correction and description. Sorryasshere154 (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Longship numbers

Thanks for the help with the metric numbers in the longship article!Big ups from kiwi land!1% — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.36.191 (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome. Please provide references to support your additions to the article. Vsmith (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

My bad! I meant thickness not width.Captain 1% — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.36.191 (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

User:BrightStarSky - copyright violations again

Please see: User talk:BrightStarSky#Copyright violations, again

We've both warned the user. In fact, this user has been warned many times and persists. Please advise. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Seems to have continued even while talking to you on their talk page. Vsmith (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

There were only two since: [6] and [7]. Neither looks like a copyvio.

Since I last warned him, he has made about 2,000 edits, almost all of which are similar in nature: a sentence or two with a ref. My guess is that the vast majority contain copy paste.

This is my fault. I've really let the community down. I could have prevented this. I should have kept an eye on him. I let almost two months go by without spot checking. I really don't want to dump this on Moonriddengirl and the crew at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations. They'll have my guts for garters. I'm so sorry. :( Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the good news is, a spot check shows only about 10% copy paste. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Guts for garters, that creates quite an image ... :)

I've reverted the last series of edits to Minorities in Pakistan as it contained quite a bit. The user seems to cut n paste something from a newspaper into a WP article followed by minor wording changes... problematic not only for copyvio, but somewhere it says WP is not a newspaper ... or something like that. The current clamor to get & keep new warm bodies, well, leads to this kind of problem. Were you "officially" mentoring here? The copyvio crew should be delighted - 2000 seems a drop in the copyvio bucket. Vsmith (talk) 13:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a terrible shame because the editor was really doing a lot of work. The trouble is that, yes, a lot was also newsy, and he couldn't resist the eas of the copy-paste-change-a-few-words technique.

Perhaps he will request unblock, and agree to spend some time checking over his own edits or something. Then maybe he can go forward with editing in a fashion that fits the encyclopedia, under a few watchful eyes, of course.

And no, I was not a mentor in any way. Search "frodesiak" at his talk and you will see the sum total of my interaction with him.

As for the copyvio bucket, I would love to see this stay off their books. I can't imaging them receiving it with delight. Besides, it may only turn out to be a hundred or so, with the added complication of the appropriateness of the newsiness, and whether that should be removed.

What do you think of the idea of a few blind rollbacks of recent edits before they get buried? Of course, a few good edits would be lost in the action.

Sorry for the long reply. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Blind reverts - the idea seems counter wiki, but considering the scope of the problem and the general newsy nature of editing here, I would support - followed by a double check afterward to perhaps re-add valid material. Vsmith (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not even sure I'm comfortable with it. I was just throwing it out there. What would you say to unblocking on condition that he cleans up his mess? I think we got his attention now. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Considering that the user has basically ignored multiple warnings over the past two months and continues adding copyvio material, I quite simply am dubious about competence here. If the user can place a valid unblock request and demonstrate a real understanding of the problematic nature of his editing - then I won't stand in the way of an unblock by another admin. If unblocked, close supervision or mentoring should be required. Vsmith (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree. But a speech at unblock wouldn't convince me, personally. Talk has been pretty cheap. I am trying to get the editor to actually demonstrate that he can edit. My big worry is that these copy pastes have been concealing competency issues. Continuing to copyvio doesn't worry me, as close monitoring would stop that quickly. I'm worried about this editor's English. I suggest allowing him display some skills at his talk. Then we will see. What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Care to offer feedback on his interpretation? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Med rpts

Thanks for the feedback on the anecdotal medical reports. I see you are or have been in Arizona, so you might want to take a crack at reporting the medical benefits of your weather there...if you can find some studies!

Regards, Charley in San Francisco NRN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charley sf (talk • contribs) 13:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Haven't lived in Az for quite a while and know nothing about supposed med benefits of the weather there. And seems the weather/air pollution conditions would depend more on "where in Az" ... conditions in Phoenix are quite different than Patagonia down south or Flag up north. Vsmith (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts

Hello Vsmith

I thinking loudly on a handbook of minerals on en.wikibooks, based on Mineral Identification Key II (MSA)

Any comments? Are u available as consultant n more? ;) Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Never done anything on wikibooks - where have you been "thinking loudly" (link needed)? The MSA id key looks good - maybe use it ... seems someone a while back started a mineral id article here.

Consultant?? clarify please ... Vsmith (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, found it: Mineral tests ... needs some help. Vsmith (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking loudly here ;) Well, questions & answers, frequently asked questions (FAQ), some cleaning stuff? You are a geologist, like minerals and you have practice. It's a brain storming, don't know which problems would turn up on such a challenge. The mineral systematic got me enchanted. But I don't have the editing capacity at the moment. I think ... --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Ask away, maybe I can provide coherent answers :) Just added the MSA link to that poor mineral tests article. Vsmith (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

In order to determine a mineral you have to count. So without a laboratory for determinations on a microprobe and powder diffraction, you are not able to determine below mineral series, mineral polymorphs, mineral polytypes and mineral varieties. Right? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, we're changing levels here, your MSA link above was for mineral ID by collectors - naked eye mineralogy. Now you're in deeper territory. In hand specimen mineralogy, you call a dark amphibole hornblende or a feldspar plagioclase, simple. But to determine which amphibole or plagioclase - then you need technological solutions. With the plagioclase group, the simplest might be specific gravity or index of refraction, as those vary directly w/ Ca content. Then microscopic or petrographic analysis, then X-ray diffraction, then quantitative chem ideally w/ microprobe. However, an old fashioned blow-pipe analysis could tell an experienced field mineralogist a lot. I've played a bit w/ a blowpipe n charcoal block, fusing on a Pt loop and even a bit of wet chem. Taught optical mineralogy lab (as a TA), learned X-ray techniques under Dr. Anthony (he was on my thesis committee at UofA), and did some microprobe analyses on a pre-computerized instrument on my thesis work, finished 1975. So my actual experience might be a bit dated.

Looking at my 1944 ed of Dana's system ... a microprobe was not needed for such determinations ... just makes quant analysis easier and on smaller samples in matrix.

So, do we need a mineralogy for amateurs and collectors and a separate mineralogy for mineralogists and researchers? Vsmith (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Mineralogy for amateurs and collectors - naked eye mineralogy (10x magnification), "however, an old fashioned blow-pipe analysis could tell an experienced field mineralogist a lot" ;) I was thinking MSA mineral ID is unrealistic going down to mineral determination. MSA ID has a ©. I was thinking, if I go down to Nickel-Strunz mineral group/ mineral series determination only, than I'm on the safe side. I'm not able to tell without chemical analysis which is the dominant cation anyway. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Writing down ur own thoughts is good to get them simple n crystal clear. The main list has c. 5,000 minerals, this is huge. Minerals found only on three locations on Earth are not very relevant for amateurs and collectors. MSA mineral ID doesn't cite all minerals, the list is shorter, an advantage. I was thinking about a handbook in 4 sections:

• Mineral Identification Key I - Nickel-Strunz class 01 to 08
• Mineral Identification Key II - Nickel-Strunz class 09 to 10 (silicates, germanates and organic compounds)
• List of Minerals - Sorted by Nickel-Strunz ID
• List of Minerals - Alphabetical List

Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Temperature spacing

Hi, I see that you reversed my edit on Economics of Global Warning, to retain the space before the degree symbol. I was in the process of doing that myself, but you beat me to it. So thanks. I still think it looks odd, as I commented in the Talk page for that article. Margin1522 (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Guess I'm used to it with a space. Aluminium used to look odd to me, but got used to it :) Vsmith (talk) 12:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Request re Alps

Hi, I noticed you edited the Alps and I need someone have a look at the Geology section to be certain it's a.) correct and b.) readable in plain English. Do you know about geology or perhaps know someone who does? Also, if you do know, can you have a look at the bottom of the Composition section where there's still a bit that's unsourced. I have a couple of geology books but can't seem to find anything that matches with that section although it doesn't seem incorrect to me. Thanks in advance. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Know a bit of geology, tho not much about the Alps - User:Mikenorton would have deeper knowledge of European geology. Did a bit of wording cleanup on the orogeny section and will take a closer look at the composition section. Vsmith (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Whoa ... the first quote kinda bothered me: already folded peaks are "thrust or slipped in front of a tectonic plate"; I looked it up through Amazon "peek inside" and ... well it's worse than I thought. A geography text circa 1990 that still speaks of mio- and eugeosynclines is simply lacking as a geological reference. And that quote speaking of a mountain ... slipped or thrust in front of a tectonic belt is at the end of a paragraph discussing the Henry Mountains and Black Hills as dome mountains. A ref that clueless of geology is seriously lacking - lose it. Vsmith (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems the geology section has two see mains where the detail resides (altho' the sourcing there may be a bit lacking) - so I'd say keep it straightforward simple intro and leave the details to the subarticles. Gotta get some shut-eye now ... Vsmith (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and the cleanup. I see what needs to be done there now; it needs a good reworking, but you've set me on the right direction. Appreciated. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

My Alpine geology is a bit rusty, but I'm happy to take a look. Mikenorton (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

A bit rusty is better than non-existent, except for the two-day crash course I gave myself. Thanks very much for the offer. I've decided to sandbox and rewrite the section, but feedback is very welcome. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I took a look through what's there now and it certainly does need some work - let me know when you want my input (I'm already watching your sandbox). Mikenorton (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm reading this now. The problem is translating it to plain English. About to give it a try or two. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

That looks pretty thorough - Stefan Schmidt's a good geologist, a good basis for a rewrite, but anything but straightforward - I'll see if there's a useful summary out there about the more recent understanding. Mikenorton (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand it but it is very technical. I'm about to give it shot if you want to watch and we can use the sandbox talk page if you'd like. Thanks to Vsmith for hosting this discussion. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome, and thanks to Mike for jumping in here. The Schmid paper is very good, but very technical - a tough read for one not familiar with European geology. I'll watchlist your sandbox and help where possible as time allows. Vsmith (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I've moved it back to mainspace but it will continue to need tweaking. I think that your suggestion above to leave most of it to the subarticles is the way to go (which unfortunately aren't well-sourced), but it needs some sort of summarization in the main article. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I've done some tweaking - perhaps that's all we can do for now. Best to look at the other articles before returning to the 'Alps' section. It's a pity that Woudloper is no longer active - he contributed a great deal to European geology articles and knows this stuff really well. Mikenorton (talk) 13:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Tweaked a bit also and removed the final sentence as rather confused, more stuff from a geography text. Vsmith (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I missed that last bit, glad that you caught it. Mikenorton (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the help. If it's reasonably accurate and written so that a high school student can understand it, then I'm happy with it. I do think this section and the subarticles need to be revisited, but I'm temporarily out of steam - and way out on a ledge subject-wise. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

A gorge named "Lanayru"

If those links were confusing, do you think u can ask where Lanayru is? Lanayru seems to be one of the gorges found in the desert and its located somewhere.--75.142.67.97 (talk) 01:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Fictional game fantasy stuff. Vsmith (talk) 02:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Mineral

I've been expanding the mineral article, and was wondering if you could take a look at what I've done, what I've screwed up (hopefully not much!), and what I'm missing or have too much of. I've been thinking of adding perhaps a bit on more advanced mineral ID (e.g. optical mineralogy, XRF, electron or ion microprobes, spectroscopy, and so on), and maybe more on mineral environments and associations; however, in a general article like this, perhaps the advanced stuff would go better in to mineralogy, and environments and associations might be veering too much into describing geology as opposed to discussing minerals. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 17:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching ... and just did a rather quick readthru - looks good, will give a more detailed look later. Needs some links in the lead, but I see you're still on that. The reference to a bestselling guide per Amazon published by Fog City Press sorta gave me a twinge (RS?), but I see it's used only for some basic properties so ... ah well (and we use wot's available...).

I think sections on more technical mineral studies, as you mention, are indeed needed here - at least as a brief intro w/ link to more detailed article. Ideally we would develop optical mineralogy, x-ray crystallography, etc to use as a see main for deeper stuff. (Maybe even some archaic techniques as I discussed with Chris.urs-o in the Thoughts section above a bit.) And yes, mineral environments of formation and associations are important and could or should be briefly covered or introduced with links to more specialized articles. Yeah ... lotta work waiting and ...Good job, keep on truckin' , Vsmith (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Telluric iron

Hi Vsmith,

Thanks for the additions to the telluric iron article. That looks good. I'm glad you were able to find pictures for it, because it'll save me from having to go to Greenland and take them myself. :-D I'm not a geologist, and knew nothing about the subject when I started the article. I was mainly looking into the history of steel, (one of the subjects I know best), when I stumbled across the info about telluric iron, and really thought it should have its own article. I'm glad to see a real mineralogist helping to expand it. Thanks again. Zaereth (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome, I stumbled across the article while looking for native iron. Don't recall seeing the term telluric iron previously (may have tho - memory gets fuzzy :). Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It's Latin, I think, meaning "terrestrial" or "of the Earth." It was the term used by Steenstrup and Lorenzen, and the first one I came across, although I've seen it in many other sources since. Zaereth (talk) 04:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Appreciation

		The Geology Barnstar
		Thanks for setting me on the right track with the Alps. I couldn't have done it without expert advice. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Reference usage

Hello, I noticed some of your input on articles even though good material, didn't have sources. I'll remind you of this page: Wikipedia:List of free online resources. This makes it easier too MediaWiki:Gadget-ProveIt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidelight12 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

http://spinoff.nasa.gov/spinoff/spinsearch?BOOL=AND&ALLFIELDS=water+filtration&CENTER=&BOOLM=AND&MANUFACT=&STATE=&CATEGORY=Consumer&ISSUE=&Spinsort=ISSUED

http://www.nasa.gov/missions/science/f_water.html

That's the closet I could find. Sidelight12 (talk) 06:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but 'twould be helpful if you were more specific. I assume you were referring to the water ionizer edit. The NASA link you found seems irrelevant. Also note that water ionization receives plenty of promotional edits based on pseudoscience scams. In the specific cas, an editor added some claims with no source. I removed it and requested the user provide references in support as it seems likely the user would know where he read or heard about it. Also seems best to alert a new user that references are required. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. I got mixed up with the editors. Sidelight12 (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit war brewing at Yosemite National Park

If you have some spare energy, please come and lend a hand. Thanks! —hike395 (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Looked ... acted ... :) Vsmith (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I was also approached recently with regards to possible edits to the Yosemite National Park article. My input on the matter can be found at the following link;

user talk:Edit Centric#Hantavirus Risk in Yosemite

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit Centric (talk • contribs) 10:50, 4 October 2012‎

Noted, Vsmith (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thmc1 / 173.63.176.93 sill sockpuppeting / REPLYU REQUSTED

This person (blocked sockmaster Thmc1) is still block evading by not logging in, even after he was warned by SysAdmin Kudpung. I would suggest that you block the suspected IPs(173.63176.93, 74.88.160.244) as well as IPs used by his other blocked account (Nyc88) and any other accounts affiliated w/them. Why are sockppuppets of a blocked sockmaster still allowed to edit even after ample warnings? To make matters worse, he even violated his block and continuted editing the day after he was blocked! Please see Thmc1 sockpuppet investigation archive for latest investigation/evidence[8]. MBaxter1 (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

No clue -- links would be helpful. Vsmith (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually I think it's the other way around, if I'm not mistaken, I think I remember MBaxter1 (talk) being mentioned to admin Ronhjones as a possible sockpuppet in the past few months in conjunction with an edit disagreement issue. Are you stocking this address? Is this some sort of retaliation? First of all, I have no idea who any of these other users are, much less others who use this IP address. 173.63.176.93 (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... Thanks, I think, hadn't noticed the 173... above was the same as the 173... I just talked to .. still no clue why MBaxter showed up here. Aw well - keep on keepin' on Vsmith (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Vsmith- Don't let 173.63.176.93 fool you. It was him who attempted to mention this to RonHJones using IP 74.88.160.244. That IP was found to be one of 173.63.176.93's sockpuppet and blocked after a recent investigation. 173.63.176.93 is actually a sockpuppet of Thmc1, blocked for excessive sockpuppeting back in 2010. Even though 173.63.176.93 was ruled most likley as one of Thmc1's sockpuppet, he was let off with a warning. For the full story, I suggest that you check out Thmc1's most recent investigation, August 2012[9]. The final assessment was one account (Nyc88) permanently blocked, one IP temporarily blocked, and one left open with warning. If he causes you anymore trouble, you should report this to the SysAdmins and don't hesitate to mention the sockpuppet investigation. The reverting of your edits is the same kind of BS he conducted on the London City article that got him blocked back in 2010. He has an anti-UK bias amongst many, and you can confirm this with user Eraserhead1.MBaxter1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hantavirus

VSmith, I actually came to your talk page for a different reason and just happened to notice this. It looks ridiculous and I think this MBaxter1 character is highly suspicious himself. In the meantime, can you please look at this story seen on the main CNN.com page today? http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/05/health/hantavirus-warnings/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

I think that this Yosemite hantavirus story is worthy of at least brief mention in the article because it is now having international implications. I just don't see a justification in ignoring it completely, thanks.173.63.176.93 (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Does the article have a current events section? The hantavirus bit isn't history, and as it is notable, it should be discussed on the hantavirus page ... haven't checked. And, no, don't think we need a current events section on the page ... WP:notnews. Vsmith (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm confused----is there some sort of differentiation you're making between the two pages by Wikipedia standards? I would think this should be mentioned on both pages and cross-linked to each other.173.63.176.93 (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Se WP:Due weight or somewhere... Is this discussed on the hantavirus page? I'm aware that some users think that every news headline should be splashed accross any semi-relevant article. However, I'm not one of those. If the event stays hot and is important in the broader context of the article in say 6 months -- then maybe. Wikipedia is not a sensationalist tabloid, it's not a newspaper (see wikinews for that), it is supposed to be an encyclopedia - and entries here should have enduring significance to the subject. Vsmith (talk) 00:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Not trying to spam

Hi vsmith, You recently removed my edits from a few chemistry related terms in which I added links to the External Link sections. I thought it would be useful to have a more simplified version of these definitions, which is what the external links offered. It wasn't to dictionary.com as mentioned. Just wanted to clarify it wasn't spam, again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themaab (talk • contribs) 19:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, it was to chemistry-dictionary.com instead, another one-liner. External links should provide more info ... not less. Vsmith (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

SMOKE CREEK DESERT, NEVADA

re: Smoke Creek Desert, Nevada =- thanks for some of the clean up - I'll try to find the cites, they disappeared when I decided it was faster to compose in word than on the page and then copy and paste - some cites took and some didn't - eg: the ECV (E. Clampus Vitus) maps they put together - I'll try to find those - but the picture has me confused - the credit says 'Denver, co' - then the smoke creek - it looks like it might be the smoke creek - though the edge of the basin is FAR more telling as it is a 'charged' basin -- unlike the others - Winnemucca Lake (Lake Winnemucca) and the Black Rock Desert -which are charge-discharge basins. The tracks of vehicles and their detritus give ample warning of the nature of that particular basin. -- could you clarify the origin of the photo- having done a fair amount of work out there, that photo would have had to have been shot from the basin itself - unlikely except in late August/early September if I recall correctly.

Yeah, I was Navy Independent Duty Corpsman (entered at E-5 because I had all but one semester of college to do in a double Micro/Etomoloty major and turned down their OCS offer since I was headed for CO anyway and left USN as a E-8 without TIR but it didn't matter as I was mustered out w/o record to work for Nixon (who 'stopped' bio warfare) through different pay checks each month. I was forced to do 5 (as in FIVE!) back-to-back tours many of which were with the 2/5th and 3/5th Marines then the 2/5th and then a VERY short stint with the 3/4th(?) - but worked all regions from I through IV since I was 'unattached' to The Corps -- and 5 years is a LONG time to spend in cournty. Yes-- what a long strange trips it's been. My last tour was too weird - But the trade off was we'll give you a choice - no combat, no military record (eg no VA), and we'll let you do bio-research (mass distraction use of bacteria, rot cotton) and give you a Masters when you go back to the real world. I guess that's here had to tell what's real after a bit. But I LOVE the desert because you can see things coming a LONG way away. Then I earned multiple MS/A's and ended up with an Ed.D. in Special Ed, and am now retired.

Anyway I went to check on Smoke Creek after the Burners finished another season destroying The Black Rock and some of the most fragile environment in the world, and despoiling the Holy and Sacred sties of the Pyramid Band of the Paiute, and the Western Shoshone and wanted to see if anyone had picked up on the dead-end references that were hanging fire waiting for someone to catch-- which means a few hours tracking down maps for cites. thanks for pushing me - no need to contact me, I'll have it done in the next month or so, depending on how tired I get of dial-up speeds - live rural and deal with both the good and the bad. thanks again my friend. I won't be back here to get an answer, but will try to find those maps, they are not as buried as Freemont's maps were but FAR more easy to find than the rail-road maps themselves! - Pgalioni (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC) "thank you for your service" LOL! ---

And thank you. I had to look it up, seems no one has touched that article since your & my edits last year. Good luck finding those maps. I may do some digging on USGS sites ... or not - lots to do. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Page deletion

Thanks for doing that, I was hoping to get some sort of response from the editor, but you saved me from tagging it - the end result would have been the same. Mikenorton (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Looked quite obvious and the user seems non-responsive to your request or the problems with their image uploads. Vsmith (talk) 00:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Michigan guy is back

Hi, FYI I think he's on right now 97.86.80.98 (talk · contribs) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

If so he moved on see User talk:141.218.36.99. Vsmith (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I asked James to tell the server that sock has restarted the block clocks.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Request

This User:Mrt3366 is reverting the edits, inserting pov templates, and putting <···!> in the article to hide text, of Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, when asked on the talk page of the article he uses harsh words. My request is kindly take a look on the history, talk page and article and act accordingly so that the encyclopaedic values of the article are not lost. Thank you sir.  MehrajMir ' ^(Talk) 11:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Unacceptable

I have reverted your unacceptable removal of the see also link to a documentary that is directly related to the lake. Placing the relevant link is not "promotion of a film", your removal of it however reeks of something considerably less than encyclopedically acceptable. --87.79.208.194 (talk) 12:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Page is back

Hi Vsmith, Bedrock Geology UK North is back I'm afraid. Mikenorton (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

hmm... and gone again. Stuff goes on while I'm off playing. :) Vsmith (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Help?

I don't often ask these things (in fact this is a first), but there sometimes come times in which I cannot contain my disdain of a certain class of administrator-- in this case several who are looking out for a buddy who is a music afficionado or musician, who nevertheless feels the lay need to edit articles on the philosophy of medicine. [10]. This is going to inevitably escalate to a civility block (simply because users get blocked when insulting admins). Would you consider showing up as an admin on my "side"? SBHarris 02:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that. Seems that it's sometimes best to move on. You gotta avoid the "civility police" actions. And yes, the cliques are bothersome. I avoid Jimbo's blog and the regulars there and dislike the cronyism that goes on. Focus on content and keep on truckin'. Vsmith (talk) 10:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit War on Authoritarianism Article, again with same user. Request for Mediation

Hi VSmith, there's an ongoing problem happening on the Authoritarianism article. Currently the user Zeraful and Cresix have been reverting all 3 of my edits on that article, for reasons that are not sufficiently justifiable and are totally senseless. The user Zeraful deleted some content critical of the Vietnamese gov't, like of how Hanoi blocked Facebook, how Vietnam is on the Reporters Without Borders "Enemies of the Internet" blacklist and how the Vietnamese government suppresses protests in the country like in 2011, in a paragraph in the article that are true and had proper and sufficient citations with sources to credible international news website articleslike Forbes and The Economist. Then, an ip user tried to reinstate those deleted items and added additional content. That ip's edits were reverted by Crecix (who used twinkle) with no reason provided. After that, after seeing what's going on in the article, I came in and reinstated the article version of that ip user, after checking the changes in content, and I saw nothing wrong with the change in content by that ip and nothing wrong with the sources they provided. I added an additional source to one of the deleted items as well, from the DART Center website from Columbia University. Then, my edits were reverted by Zeraful and Crecix, claiming that "sources are needed to back [the deleted content] up", and "verification of sources failed", even though the items in dispute do have sufficient and credible sources (you can check the sources for yourself as well). Can you please help in trying to resolve this issue? I would greatly appreciate your efforts in trying to find a resolution to this. As well on a side note, the user Zeraful has a chronic problem of blanking out content, that are factual and recognized by academics, that usually have sources to back them up, that are critical or exposing anything negative of the Vietnamese communist govt, and has done this in numerous articles in the past, like on the North Vietnam article, and imparting pro-communist POV statements in encyclopeadic articles, with no or invalid and unacceptable sources. Zeraful also engages in "wording wars", trying to change words used in articles to make articles sound less critical of the Vietnamese regime, often changing things to the point that sentences are grammatically incorrect. Nguyen1310 (talk) 06:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

As of now, i'm not going to continue editing this article until mediation begins. I have just remembered 3rr, and i'm not going to let that Zeraful drive me over that.Nguyen1310 (talk) 06:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Addressing zeraful's claims: removal of factual content, especially sourced ones, out of dislike or not wanting others to see it, IS censorship. Zeraful accuses me of POV, but really the info and content I contribute are true, factual, and usually sourced and supported content, with sources from reputable sources, which can be found in the North Vietnam article, the Authoritarianism article, and many others. The sources that Zeraful presents, like from vietnamnet.vn and tuoitre.vn, are on articles irrelevant to the content that he claims to support (I read the article for myself and know this, Zeraful hopes that no one on English wiki can read Vietnamese by sourcing to irrelevant Vietnamese-language webpages). Zeraful regularly imparts pro-communist commentary, not encyclopedic type material (more for blogs instead) in articles like the North Vietnam article and Battle of Khe Sanh article and many others (esp. look at those articles' talk pages), and very often Zeraful's content is very historically incorrect (look at the North Vietnam article talk page for yourself). Zeraful also engaged in personal attacks, telling me to "go get a life" in his edit summary on the Authoritarianism article, for example, and is very dishonest, like saying that I deleted sources from the BBC or Alexa, even though I clearly didn't and is still there in my reinstations, and like saying that he didn't delete content in the North Vetnam article when he clearly did. Zeraful also doesn't engage in developing compromised edits and solutions, like in the Authoritarianism and North Vietnam article, where he kept reverting my edits, and i'm the only one who delivered a compromised edit, in both articles. I also know that Zeraful is following and tracking my edits, which is very concerning. Nguyen1310 (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Nguyen1310

This user often add section without sources, and label other users as "communist censorship", like in http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=North_Vietnam&action=history. He is also changing word and content of the article to fit his own point of view, and when I present sources, he claim that they're "partisan" and deleted it, even if one of them come from BBC, and one from Alexa.--Zeraful (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I've given you both a 24 hr vacation from editing for 3rr violations on Authoritarianism. Vsmith (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Chrysocolla gallery

Hi, I noticed you recently deleted the gallery at Chrysocolla. I thought it served a useful purpose, as Commons currently has 374 (!) photos of chrysocolla, to pick out a small subset to help our users visualize some of the varieties -- and the beauty -- of this mineral. Could you take another look at the gallery? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pete, will take another look and p'raps restore a couple of those. As it was it seemed there were too many and as you say commons has a lot. Will check for specific relevant images to illustrate points in the article. Vsmith (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I may fiddle with the format -- article currently has an unfortunate narrow "gutter" of text between fotos & infobox. Gallery avoids this.

And thanks for the other improvements! Cheers -- Pete Tillman (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Bedrock Geology UK - Archaean and Palaeoproterozoic

I have noticed that you deleted the page "Bedrock Geology UK - Archaean and Palaeoproterozoic" by Rhondeag on the ground of Implausible typos (R3). I am a colleague of Rhondeag and we were wondering how this page warranted deletion under R3. Please could you provide us wih your reasons for deleting the page under R3. This would be much appreciated.

Pmc08 (talk) 08:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

My reason was implausible redirect as no one would likely be searching for that long string. However the more important reason was that, before the article was redirected, it contained some rather obvious copyright problems. It seems user:Rhondeag was completely unresponsive to questions about that article, the "Bedrock Geology UK" article or various image concerns. You and Rhondeag like me are anonymous users and Wikipedia cannot take anonymous comments/claims about serious issues without further backup as user:Peridon has pointed out to you. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, I have the BGS book ordered and will double check when it arrives - should be later this week depending on mail service. Vsmith (talk) 10:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Geosyncline

See Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing. Hyacinth (talk) 23:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Seen that already ... bah. Vsmith (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Ghosttowns link

Hello. I don't think the ghost towns link is spam. The guy is not selling anything and nothing on his site links to any seller. Other than a page that says who he is, the site is not a personal web page. With these factors in mind, the site is not WP:ELNO. Your thoughts? (I'll look for them here.) --S. Rich (talk) 03:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

When a user adds dozens of links to a website - and that was the only contributions of that user - that is spam. I looked at the first one that showed up on my watchlist and the text appeared to be copied from the Wikipedia article (or was it the other way around? didn't think so). Seems it was the Gleeson article. The only "new" stuff was a batch of photos. He is welcome to add new content w/ reliable sources or to upload good images to commons. Vsmith (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't find any policy or guideline that describes what you are suggesting, e.g., that adding links to dozens of different articles constitutes spamming. For example, I've been improving references by adding dozens of {{OCLC|1234567}} templates to references which link to the WorldCat. Am I spamming? (At the same time, we have a {{ASIN|7654321}} template to link to Amazon -- if there wasn't ISBN, OCLC, LCC, or LCCN data for a particular item, would it be spamming to include the ASIN?)

In DA's case, he has cited and linked WP as the source when giving info about the locations. (By comparison, some of those ghost town EL pages have no source data whatsoever.) His data about Eagle Mountain, California is accurate (I've been there and live in Riverside County) and he's providing roughly 42 photos per location, which load up quickly. He has absolutely no ads, which is not the case with some of the other sites we see on these obscure ghost town pages.

If any of the various WP pages have linkfarms, then those EL sections should be culled; but his additions are not cluttering the EL section. (I went to the Gleeson page and cleaned out a couple of the ELs with ads and readded DA's link.)

None of the WP:ELNO criteria apply. The photos are high quality and because they are taken at the scene he qualifies as a "knowledgeable source" IAW WP:ELMAYBE #4. Indeed, his pages fit well in the 3 "What to include" criteria. His contributions are worthwhile and should be included. --S. Rich (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Quite simply, if a user only adds links to a site of his to a couple dozen wp articles - that qualifies as spam. We don't use Wikipedia to promote our own stuff. The user is more than welcome to add content to wp articles or images, but not to use wp for promotion of his web pages. WP:other stuff exists is no excuse. Vsmith (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

This is interesting. If I had come across his website and then added links to the various articles, the additions would not be spam. But you're saying because DA has done so, the material is spam. The distinction, which is not addressed in the guidelines, is in who adds the links and not in what the link is.

In this particular case, the real problem is in whether DA is promoting himself. But, again, there a distinction. DA is treading towards the realm of WP:PROMOTION, but the promotion is not so much for himself, but in the particular interest he has -- e.g., obscure places in the desert. In other words, he's really not promoting himself. (And, yet again, it would certainly be proper for a non-related editor such as myself to add the links.)

Sadly, though, DA has created a sockpuppet. OrangeMike blocked User:Ghosttownaz for "spamming" in June. If our newbie had appealed the block, pointing out (quite correctly) that none of his links were for commercial purposes, this might be different.--S. Rich (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Bottom line: we're here to build an encyclopedia. A user whose only interest is in adding external links is not here to build an encyclopedia. Thanks for the note re: the sockpuppetry, adds another dimension. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you're being unfair. He has an interest in documenting the disappearing human activity in AZ, etc. and has set up a non-commercial website for all to access. It is not a promotion of himself or something other than a bit history. In this regard he has more than an "only interest". He'd like his contributions to be recognized and available, only he's gone about it in the wrong manner.The result: the links were hastily labeled as spam.

Also, I think you rushed to judgment with the very first reversion of his added link. I say this because the edit summary said "spam" from the get-go, when the EL was not selling anything either on its own or through annoying flashing ads. (I recognize that you may have done a "who is linking" vice "what is being linked" analysis before you started reverting his edits. Still, if this is the case, then I wish I could find guidance that supports that position. Again, if I had come across the links and put them in they'd be fine. Don't you agree?)--S. Rich (talk) 02:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... just looked at the Gleeson link again. What I find is a history basically copied from WP with a couple comments added. Then there are 42 photos most with no identifying notes - just bare images w/ a copyright note embedded. Tell me how that page is worth linking to again, as I'm not seeing it. So, no that one at least wouldn't "be fine". The Oorah bit wasn't around back in the 60s - so means nothing to me, we had our own gung-ho phrases. Vsmith (talk) 12:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, like me, you don't remember. But the article gave an interesting origin of the phrase back to the 50's. Still, as an Army guy, I must boast that our battle cry has an earlier origin. I was attending a conference (or some other such nonsense) at the JFK Special Warfare Center a few years/decades ago. We had a fellow talking about the Rangers, and he said he had landed with them on Omaha Beach (a rather nasty bit of real estate). He told us how some general came up to the one of the Ranger NCOs. The whole invasion force was pinned down on the beach by machine gunners firing from above. The general ordered the Rangers to get up those cliffs and knock out the German pill boxes. The NCO responded: "Who – us?!" --S. Rich (talk) 05:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

IP problem

Can you please take a look at this IP? They've been edit warring and vandalizing. Thanks. INeverCry 01:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thx for that. Another 200 edit user has reverted you on 2012–13 UEFA Champions League group stage, the same way the IP was doing. I don't know the story with this ref-switching. INeverCry 01:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• • That isn't vandalism. I've already left a note on INeveryCry's talk page, but those edits are not vandalism as they are changing primary links to secondary ones, which is clearly not vandalism. They did a lot of reverting and such, but that is a different issue and I'm a bit disturbed at the inappropriate template bombing on the edit's talk page by an experienced editor who should know better. There is an unblock request on the IPs talk page, started by Sven, and I would ask that Vsmith just take a look again at the block, as I think it might be in error. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Commented on ip talk. Vsmith (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

What confused me was the block log and lack of block template, so it was kind of impossible to tell why you made the block. Now that you have explained it, it makes sense and it was a judgement call, but the improper vandal templates threw me. I don't think he likes that I pointed out the templates, but the edits were not vandalism. His methods, however, were less than optimal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll agree the anonblock template was inadequate and I should have done a better job of explaining at the time. My glitch and apologies for the confusion it caused. Vsmith (talk) 01:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for pulling you into this mess I seem to have made. INeverCry 01:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Repin

Dear Dr. Vsmith!

I am geologist with backgraund from 1973 (I worked as a little specialist when was a student of MSU in some "wild" territories ).

https://plus.google.com/113608956654143996274/about

If You can know anything about SALARS - You can look site of USGS.

If You have any gadgat in Your pocket - You have some piece Lithium. This metal is the base of modern batteries, accumulaters and etc. SALARS - the first source of Lithium. And KCl - one of the main fertilizers, and many potashes, and very many useful things.

So, I think, that WIKI readers have any rights to know, what is the base of the phones, electricity cars ann many other interesting things.

Regards,

aleksey g.repin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleksey g.repin (talk • contribs) 08:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Wiki readers have a right to know. That is why we write articles. However, we don't promote our own work with external links. Write content for the Russian Wiki based on reliable sources and perhaps we can translate and add to en.wiki. Vsmith (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Striped flint

All right, I added scientific sources for opal and Neolithic usage. I will try to add sources to the uniqueness of Polish striped flint, if it indeed is so unique. I based on the internet sources claiming it is unique for Poland, however now I see, some forms of striped flint can be found in many places around the world. Please, give me a week. Olaf (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no rush, thanks for adding refs and for leaving me this note. Vsmith (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I improved the article. I hope it's quite good now. Olaf (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Can you please block this IP, another one of blocked user Zrdragon's many sockpuppets? Thanks,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and this one?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Fish question

Hi VSmith, i have a question regarding Pacific vs. Atlantic Ocean seafood. I know this is random and user pages are for article-related thingys, but it's a burning curiosity in me. Throughout my life, I ate seafood caught from the Pacific Ocean and from it's connecting water bodies, like sardines, mackerel, shrimp and other shellfish, salmon etc from Thailand, Vietnam, Taiwan etc., and the seafood i ate from these areas had a typical (smelly) seafood smell/odor, although it wasn't very pungent. However, when I compared the same seafood i ate originating from the Pacific with the same ones originally caught from the Atlantic, e.g. from eastern North America, north Europe, the Atlantic seafood had a much more strong, very pronounced, seafood odor/smell. For example, frozen and canned sardines from Thailand and Vietnam had a much less pungent seafood odor than the same canned and frozen sardines from New Brunswick, Canada and Portugal. Why is this the case?? Nguyen1310 (talk) 01:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't the foggiest idea. Processing perhaps? Vsmith (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, but prob not because they freeze the seafood the same way, canning prob the same, but even the fresh ones smell strongly... Nguyen1310 (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me butting in, but I fish a lot and possibly might have some ideas, (although I have no real definitive answer). Most likely it has to do partly with chemistry and partly with perception. Although connected, the different oceans are different bodies of water with different chemical compositions, different food sources, and different environments. This is very likely to cause fish to smell differently. Which one is smellier, however, is usually more of a matter of perception. Growing up on Pacific fish myself, I also have noticed that Atlantic fish tastes weird, but a friend of mine who grew up in New England says that our Pacific fish tastes weird to him. Zaereth (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

coriolis

Yes, I have the exact reference to VI Arnold, and the illustration, however (as it appeared) on another computer, so it might day a day or two to transfer the files. Sinc. Leon00 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.209.24.130 (talk) 12:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Azomite citations

Hey there, V Smith.

I found and added your recommended citations. Reference #4 was intended for the whole section but have clarified. My intention was not to confuse. Also thank you - if you are the user that added the nifty mouse-overs to the citations. That was next on the list. Will hopefully have time to add more points of interest soon.

Cheers Victoriasays (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Clarifying and adding references is good. I can't claim any "credit" for the mouse over bit as that's a feature of Wiki - maybe you modified your "preference file" to allow it?

Could you please address the points I raised on the article talk, specifically the "rare earth" stuff and the rather obvious promotional tone of the article, we don't write articles to advertise products for companies. Vsmith (talk) 00:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Dude, it was an accident. I was in the process of figuring out to restore it. Victoriasays (talk) 02:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Request

Hello - the IP at the following: User talk:68.188.38.198 is at a school (and I am a teacher here.) Is there a way you can permanently or at least semi-permanently block it? This way the students here won't be able to edit without a login. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.38.198 (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Vsmith (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Mélange page

Hi, there's a subsection that somebody has added to the mélange geology article covering a band. It's entirely out-of-place, could you please revert the article? Thanks, Colin J. (NZ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.23.26 (talk) 06:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted those additions, although you don't need any special privileges to be able to do that. Mikenorton (talk) 07:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. Looks like I sorta missed something there - thought I'd done that. Hmm... Vsmith (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

C. Richard Tracy

Hi, I noticed that you deleted a list of students that was placed on the page years ago. May I ask why? thanks, BigDogRufus — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigDogRufus (talk • contribs) 19:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I could see no point in a plain list of names with no WP:reliable sources nor any indication of notability. Vsmith (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Coordinated sock attack

Hello, what happened now at these articles:Mount Hermon, List of mountains, List of caves, Gush Hispin, National parks and nature reserves of Israel, Mishor Adumim, Tourism in Israel, and all the East Jerusalem settlements attacked by this IP on 31 October here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/80.179.118.129

is a coordinated sock attack, this has happened before: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive733#Coordinated_attacks_by_socks

Its basically many different IPs and "new" accounts going back to different places showing up at the exact same time and starting to pov push and edit war.

This IP:[11] for example is a confirmed proxy server: http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/67.142.164.21

I kindly ask that you please revert all these edits and lock the articles. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

G'mornin ... sleep is good. Maybe ANI. Look around a bit later, need caffeine now. Vsmith (talk) 10:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

link for isbn numbers

Thanks for straightening me out on a sales link at Old Faithful Inn. I wasn't trying to be crassly commercial but I think it's useful for readers to have some pathway to finding the source. With printed books, that's not hard. But with ebooks, what to do? The link I added is for a book available only on the iTunes store; nowhere else. For some reason, a google search for the isbn doesn't find it, which might be an issue to take up with the iTunes store.

For that matter, Wiki's isbn search page book sources lacks a link for the iTunes store among the other booksellers. Would that be the right place on Wiki to create a pathway?

I value guidance. Meanwhile, I'll go back to the sandbox for more practice.

tks — Preceding unsigned comment added by BluffTaylor (talk • contribs) 04:10, 2 November 2012

An e-book without a valid isbn would seem questionable and perhaps a self-published piece which would fail WP:RS. If is is only available at a commercial sales site - that's even worse and a link to it would be inappropriate. I wasn't aware that itunes had anything other than music, and if their "books" lack valid isbns I'd be wary of linking - we don't promote self-published stuff. Vsmith (talk) 10:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Global warming controversy". Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you!

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. EarwigBot operator / talk 00:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC) Notice Hello, I'm Cole132132. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! The reason for this being the refernces were directly stated for co2 gaps as well as tempertature changes a compleatly relavent subject. I suggest instead of blatently delting other peoples work because of your own political opinions (which is the only thing assumable) that you overlook things properly, as well as participate in the Dispute Noticeboad.-- Cole132132 (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC) Talkback Hello, Vsmith. You have new messages at Plurofuturo's talk page. Message added 09:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. I think I've cleared things up - they explained the apparent COI (and it looks like it's not one), and they're now in compliance with WP:NOSHARE. Thanks for calling them on that.  — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 09:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Thanks for your assistance and translating there - looks like Plurofuturo is on the way to understanding and hopefully constructive editing. Vsmith (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC) MRS GREN I added the "MRS GREN" section to the Life article because a new user had created a new article of that title with no sources at all, and with the simple definition. Rather than leave such a poor article in place, I created a section at the Life article for this new article to redirect to. Based on the number of hits the phrase receives on Google, it seems a likely search term, especially for younger Wikipedia readers. The sources I gave are reliable in that they show that the term is a commonly used acronym used in elementary pedagogy, which was the point of the references. I would hardly go to those sources to learn meaningful science, but sources that might otherwise be considered unreliable can be considered reliable in the right context. Would you prefer the information sourced from the BBC? Or from an Australian climate change website? Or from TES, a British teachers' network? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC) JSTOR Hi there. You're one of the first 100 people to sign up for a free JSTOR account via the requests page. We're ready to start handing out accounts, if you'd still like one. JSTOR will provide you access via an email invitation, so to get your account, please email me (swallingwikimedia.org) with... the subject line "JSTOR" your English Wikipedia username your preferred email address for a JSTOR account The above information will be given to JSTOR to provide you with your account, but will otherwise remain private. Please do so by November 30th or drop me a message to say you don't want/need an account any longer. If you don't meet that deadline, we will assume you have lost interest, and will provide an account to the next person in the rather long waitlist. Thank you! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Email sent, thanks, Vsmith (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC) What happened to the paleogeography images?? I noticed you recently made an edit to the Jurassic article. Those paleo maps existed for such a long time in all those articles and now all of a sudden they were removed? What happened? Did they suddenly become non-fair use? Those images fit so great in all the period articles, it would be a shame if they were all taken out :( I'm wondering if you know what happened to them. Cadiomals (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC) Good morning. Seems there been a bit of a flap over at commons about these - don't know all the details. See [12] and [13] for some of the discussion. Vsmith (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC) Need protection on Michael Crichton Protection barely expired on Michael Crichton and we've already been hit with two IPs repeating the edit warring that caused it in the first place. We made need permanent protection. Glaucus (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC) Sleep and busy took over earlier, but it seems quiet now - the article is on my watchlist. Vsmith (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

SILVER SOL

Take it to the article talk page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
hello, could you please not delete my edit? If you feel its not neutral or its promotional kindly edit it to be neutral. I personally don't see it this way, on the page of every approved medicine by the fda there is a mention of the name of the company which developed it. See for example prozac or tadalafil. This gel isn't alternative medicine, it is a mainstream drug, just as any other drug. It can be prescribed by normal doctors. Its fda approved. 70.39.186.229 (talk) 08:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)ryanspir Find some independent sources which discuss or review the product. Commercial websites, patent aps and FDA "letters" won't do it. And... who are you? Please log in. Vsmith (talk) 11:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC) FDA is an independent source. It's not FDA "letters". It's FDA official approval. I'm Ryanspir and I'm not a part of that company and has nothing to do with colloidal silver. I just want the information provided on this page to be unbiased and updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanspir (talk • contribs) 15:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC) Promotion Hello, I'm not promoting commercial product. I didn't write for example that it cures all or anything. 1. I think you are mistaken. Any FDA approved drug may and should have info about it on wikipedia. Please look prozac or cialis articles for example. They do contain info about the manufacturer. I don't see any reason why FDA approved drugs containing colloidal silver product should be treated differently. I did provide a link to their website, because meanwhile this company has no entry in wikipedia. However, once the entry will be created I'll change the link. 2. "Silver is also promoted within alternative medicine in the form of colloidal silver, although it has not been shown to be safe or effective.[1]" This is what is written in the lead. This became absolutely false and misleading all the readers from the year of 2009 when FDA approved this form of colloidal silver. *It is a regular drug now, which can and is prescribed by the doctor. Do you agree with me? Because the fact of FDA approval makes it impossible to consider this variant of colloidal silver as not safe or as not effective. Are we together? 3. The whole article about colloidal silver is written in very bad, biased and in negative way. Why wouldn't you fix that? Looking at the talk page it's not only me who holds this opinion. Its currently written in a way, that shows that colloidal silver is mainly quackery and it may turn you blue and create side-effects. Did you ever hear that FDA will approve quackery drugs? Did you ever hear that EPA will approve quackery agents and allow them to be used by hospitals in the US? This article should be edited in the light of FDA approval of colloidal silver in 2009. We know also that FDA is not a fan of approving colloidal silver, it took years for it to be approved. So we can easily deduct that the company have provided enough scientific evidence to FDA supporting it's claims. 4. I have just listed the facts in my edit and I was very brief. Saying for example that this is the first colloidal silver approved by FDA is not a promotion, it's a fact. Listing of the patents, besides including additional info for the interested user also shows that silver sol is a variation of colloidal silver. 5. "In August 1999, the FDA banned colloidal silver sellers from claiming any therapeutic or preventive value for the product..". As you see, HERE you are satisfied that if FDA said so, no additional independent sources are needed in order to state that fact on wikipedia. So, in 2009 FDA has reversed it's position by granting its approval. It's obvious that the cited information is wrong now and outdated from 2009 and till this moment. 6. Etc, etc, etc. There is so many things that are currently wrong in the article and I can talk for ages. So I was a bit shocked that you have reversed my edit which contains updated factual information while at the same time you do allow all the wrong and well outdated info to stay on the page. Most of the cited negative publications were written well prior to 2009. But the medical community is advancing, new forms of colloidal silvers being developed which wikipedia should reflect. If you are not satisfied with the link to their website or to the EPA approval, or you find any sentence which looks to you promotional, please change/edit that particular link or sentence, but do not delete the whole section.* If you would like me anything to change or add, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanspir (talk • contribs) 15:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC) Seems you are mixing things up a bit. A product used as an external ointment is of course not going to have the same treatment as one used internally. But this all belongs on the article talk page. The inclusion of information about some new medication simply needs some WP:reliable sources that are independent of the product and not just patent and FDA memos or whatever. Write a solid well referenced article about this product independent of the "colloidal silver" nonsense and then perhaps add mention in the medical uses of silver page. Your other concerns regarding the article and "colloidal silver" stuff needs to be discussed on the talk there independently of your "new product" article or article addition. Vsmith (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC) Colloidal silver nonsense Haha :-). I caught you red handed. When you say colloidal silver nonsense it shows that you are personally biased regarding the subject. As a result of this the article contains wrong info and doesn't contain the right info. I suggest you inhibit yourself from watchlisting this article. Alternatively, lets elevate it further. The link i provided is not fda memo. Its the official fda approval. Any drug as long as its fda approved has the right to be listed as a drug on the wikipedia, it doesn't matter if its for internal or external use. Interestingly enough, when it was said previously that fda warns about using cs, now that was simple a letter and yet you allowed this statement to exist on the page. You are using double standards. :) also, about us patent, do you think they have no verification process? Anyone can create a snake oil for treating humans and they will issue a patent for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.186.173 (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC) (talk page stalker) Well, they have issued patents for perpetual motion machines. Chris857 (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC) Bias and double standarts i'm sure that if i would add additional warnings around the sections and cite fda letters or memos, you wouldn't object. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.186.209 (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC) Take it to the article talk page and sign in please. Vsmith (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC) To talkstalker Haha :). The link you have provided is for international patents and indeed it mentions some hits for perpetual motion. However same search on US Patent site didn't show any hits. Probably some countries have less stringent rules for inclusion. So sorry, but even on this side point no win :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.186.173 (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC) Read further - only the first was French. Vsmith (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC) Wp:medrs i hope i'm signed now. Lets look at subject. It says: statements from nation or internation recognized expert bodies. So, will you contradict that fda is such a body? Or you contradict the fact that the link which i provided clearly allows the company to distribute the cs gel in us and it also specifies the indications as it is done by fda for any drug? Isn't that link even if it would be a memo or a letter doesn't show the position of fda regarding the product? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanspir (talk • contribs) 22:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC) Good, you've logged in -- now you need to learn to sign your talk comments. To do that, just type four tildes at the end ( ~~~~ ) and Wiki software replaces that with your username and timestamp. As for WP:MEDRS, seems another user referred you to that, altho I agree. FDA documents can be used, but are not sufficient. Need further 3rd party references. And, take it to the article talk please as I'm not the only editor involved. Vsmith (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC) Patents for talk stalker hehe :). I cannot see any approved patent for perpetual motion. It seems that the link you provided also lists simply submitted and not approved patents. :) i'm still winning on this point unless you can provide seven digit number for an approved us patent for perpetual motion in the last ten years. :) 70.39.186.237 (talk) 08:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Ryanspir Please read this http://lifesilver.com/testimony.htm This link contains u.S congressional report about silver sol. As they state a copy of this can be found at library of congress. An additional resource is http://silversol.soundconcepts.com/faqs.aspx as of special interest for you read statement of surgeon general of us airforce pk carlton md who recommends it being used in military and the protection of the civilians. Sorry cannot sign, some issue in my mobile phone, ryanspir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanspir (talk • contribs) 09:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC) please let me know if you have read the provided information. If you will think logically, think like that: if cs is a snake oil, or not effective, or has harmful side effects, or has got anything else bad at all, why would a doctor who is surgeon general of us airforce recommend its usage? First of all, he knows that military will conduct super stringent tests before accepting it. So he must be pretty sure it will pass all tests otherwise he would have discredited himself. Why would he even risk this scenario being a military doctor? The most logical reason is that he was convinced by the produced studies, saw efficiency and absence of side-effects. ryanspir — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.144.184.147 (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Opinions

Neutral opinions

Please read this Washington Post opinion:

A good deal for the District and Puerto Rico

Please read The New York Times Opinion:

Will Puerto Rico Be America’s 51st State?

Please read the Boston Herald Opinion:

Puerto Rican statehood By Boston Herald Editorial Staff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.82.115 (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Why? Not really interested in political squabbling. Vsmith (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

wp:medrs

So can you put back my edit? In Wp:medrs it says OR, not and. Thus fda position statement shall suffice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.144.184.146 (talk) 07:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems there is no "my edit" to put, the above is your only edit ip202.144.184.146. Vsmith (talk) 12:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Silver Sol section edit

Could you please put back my edit regarding section Silver Sol which you have removed? This is in light of the additional explanation and the correct adherence of my edit to wp:medrs. A quote from WP:MEDRS - "Ideal sources for biomedical material include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies." Please see "or" before the word medical, which means position statements from nationally or internationally recognized expert bodies is sufficient. The link to FDA approval letter for ASAP silver sol gel is the position statetemnt of FDA, which is a recognized expert body. That letter says that FDA recognizes it as an official drug and allows it's sell in the country and use/prescription.

1 - This is a database of FDA clearances. Kindly seach entry: DEVICE: ASAP ANTIMICROBIAL SILVER WOUND DRESSING GEL.

In addition: [www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf8/K082333.pdf Quote:] "We have reviewed your Section 510(k) premarket notification of intent to market the device referenced above and have determined the device is substantially equivalent (for the indications for use stated in the enclosure) to legally marketed predicate devices marketed in interstate commerce.." Please reflect upon: "..have determined the device is substantially equivalent.."

Ryanspir (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

replied on article talk. Vsmith (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Expanding Earth Bibliography

Dear Vsmith,

Dougweller wrote to me, that it is not possible to insert a link to a publication without owning the copy-right, because this would be a copyright-violation. So if you delete links inserted by the copyrightholders themselves calling it self-publication, you cannot insert any links at all. Then all articles you referred to in the "Notes" are eiter self-publications or copyright-violations, and there are many links to various scientific artiles on your pages.

Yours sincerely - Geomensch

You dont want only outdated historical literature on Wikipedia, do you? Kind regards - Geomensch

First, you don't have to own the copyright to references you use and link on Wikipedia. That is not what DougWeller said.

Quite simply, we don't use Wikipedia to promote our own stuff. The ~35 page print on demand book I removed a link to is available on Amazon for $$. You linking to it appears as a WP:COI. Please read WP:RS, WP:Fringe and WP:Spam.

I have never linked to a work that I own copyright to.

An outdated scientific concept will most likely be sourced to historical literature. Vsmith (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Geomensch (talk) 08:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Vsmith,

DougWeller wrote to me, that he thought the linking to the PDF supposively was a copyright violation and therefore he removed it from the Wikipedi page. He asked me, if I have the copyright or not and he gave me a warning because of an assumed copyright-violation, that did not happen as we now know. The link was inserted again and he accepted. No reason for deletion exists.

Please read the impressum on page 1: All rights reserved to the author. Although to book can be bought from Amazon and from many other book-stores, I keep the right to give it as PDF as free contribution to the geoscientists. The editor Books on Demand did not get the copyright for it. This is unusual, I know. But Books on Demand allows the authors to keep all the rights and then publish the work with another editor. I can give this to a scientific journal and then I will give the copyright to them. As long as I don't do this, I can improve the content by the feed-back of all my colleagues all over the world. As it has an ISBN, I can show it to anyone without any danger of plagiarism. This is, what I did for some time and know the work is complete.

There is no conflict of interest because Amazon does NOT have any right to be the only one to sell the book. There are other book-stores who sell it as well. Everyone can make his own price. They can sell it cheeper or more expensive or give it for free if they want to. The only person, who has rights is me. I can make this available as a gift without violating any rights of any other person because they don't have them. Only after giving it to a journal, the copyright belongs to the journal.

Now my question to you: Were all the articles linked to on Wikipedia linked by the editors of these journals themselves as copyright-owners? Who did it? Anyone can do this, if the article can be read for free and the journal does not take a fee. Some articles cost a fee. For others free access is provided. This is the decision of the copyright-owner alone.

"We don't use Wikipedia to promote our own stuff". Whose "stuff" should it be? What will you do, when someone else inserts a link to my article? The question is not, to whom something belongs, but if the scientific quality is good. This is the most and only important criteria. If the Bibliography on the Wikipedia-page about Earth Expansion is considered a "collection of crazy ideas" anyways, then Wikipedia can very well add another new crazy idea to it. Beleive me, there are much more worthy places for this link than here.

My new publication has been read by so many thousands of scientists already. It is going all over the world and taken notice of with high appreciation, as I was able to end the conflict between crazy earth-expansion theories and today's knowledge about plate tectonics. I have had heavy scientific discussions with expansionists teaching things completely out of scope, as I wrote in the book. The historical importance of this work is a very good reason to add it to the Wikipedia-Bibliography. Even about a probably outdated theory the list of literature should not be outdated. In the first place it should be complete.

Kind regards - Geomensch Geomensch (talk) 08:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems I decided to download the paper to see for myself what it said. Problem occurred, as my anti-virus program flashed a big red warning regarding the site ... so I backed out. For that additional problem we won't link to it from a WP article. Vsmith (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

And your comments above reveal a basic lack of understanding about what Wikipedia is or how it functions. Please take some time to learn about this encyclopedia. (note: I've formatted your comment above for readability) Vsmith (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

This warning comes routinely from the upload area for every document, because the upload area cannot take the responsibility for the downloads. If you answer "yes" that you want to do the download, everything will be okay. If this warning appears in big red letters for other users, this might be irritating and must be changed. So what would you suggest?

Geomensch (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest finding a different host. Vsmith (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

In any case, the CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 93, NO. 11, 10 DECEMBER 2007 article by Herndon is clearly copyvio. As I've said, we can link to an official site for a journal article, but we cannot link to that article anywhere else. And although you can probably go through the procedures necessary to show that your article is copyright free, etc, that doesn't mean you can add it to an article and I doubt that you'll be able to without being reverted. Wikipedia is not a forum for new ideas. When it's published, or perhaps if it gets discussed by sources that are acceptable, maybe then, but even in that case you'd be expected to suggest it on article talk pages and not add it yourself. Dougweller (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The relevant words re Herndon are at wp:LINKVIO. That said, wp:V and wp:NOR are bedrock policies. We need published reliable sources upon which to base our statements. A primary source written by one of our editors completely fails to meet these criteria. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Is http://nuclearplanet.com/1370.pdf OK? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It is his own promotional site, so I'd assume OK per copyright (don't pretend to know the details there). Similar to university professor pages listing their works with links to copies hosted by the university. However, I view Hernden's website as pure fringe promotion. Vsmith (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

"It is his own promotional site, so I'd assume OK per copyright" (Vsmith) Then I added the link. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

"I view Hernden's website as pure fringe promotion." (Vsmith) Of course it is. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that we can assume copyright isn't held by the journal itself, something that is common practice. This should be established before the link is included, so I'm removing it again. Dougweller (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, my assumption above was based on lack of copyright knowledge - so best to just give ref w/out the link to the fringe promotion page. Vsmith (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Medrs

Kindly reply on the talk page of the medical uses of silver regarding medrs. Ryanspir (talk) 04:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Ryanspir

medrs, patent and antibiotic

kindly reply on medical uses of silver talk page Ryanspir (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

User_talk:208.108.129.140

Hello, I just saw you blocked User:208.108.129.140 from editing - thanks. Would you mind dropping an appropriate template on their Talk page? This would indicate that this IP no longer needs to be reported to admins. Thanks. kashmiri 00:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, just did - forgetful here :) Vsmith (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Peer reviewed articles

This is how reliable peer-reviews are :-DDD

blog post

Earth Formation (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

And ...? What is the point? Elsevier got hacked or whatever ... and stuff was retracted. Dishonesty abounds in this world. That in no way indicates that non-peer reviewed stuff is somehow "better" or even useful. Please take your self-promotion efforts elsewhere. Vsmith (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hi Vsmith,

I wanted to wish you a Merry Christmas. Your name pops up frequently on my watchlist and, although I haven't really interacted with you much, the few conversations we've had have been quite pleasant. Thanks for that, and for all your work at stopping vandals. I hope the coming year is a great one for you. Zaereth (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and enjoy the holidays ... s'posed to be a white one around here. Vsmith (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia have two articles for evolution?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Quacod (talk • contribs) 11:20, 23 December 2012‎

We have more than that, see Category:Evolution, Category:Evolutionary biology. KillerChihuahua 14:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

An encyclopedia should not have multiple articles for the same things. At least there should not be an article called just evolution. It should be evolution(description of how its different.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quacod (talk • contribs) 15:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Content forking. If there is a parent article, it has the name alone, with no parenthetical detail. KillerChihuahua 15:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Puppy! Vsmith (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)\

eh, I was handy and my watchlist is kindof inactive right now. Glad to be of any help. KillerChihuahua 16:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Geology of the Grand Canyon area

You were talking to a sock there. Dougweller (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised? Chatting with socks is so much fun :) Thanks for the note. Vsmith (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Meteoric iron

Hi Vsmith! I was wondering if you have time to take another look at meteoric iron and assess if it is already B-class or what it still needs to reach it. --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Just gave it a B (don't usually pay much att'n to those "grades" tho' --- hey, I dun retired from gradin' papers 'n sech :)

Did a bit of tweaking to ref 6, the cite template kinda garbled things ... so I just redid it w/out - probably need a chapter # there. Vsmith (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time. Mostly i was worried about the completeness of the article. I will still look for the chapter and add it to the reference. --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Another request

Hey Vsmith! Me again ;). I was wondering if you would like to take a look at keilite. You were so helpful with daubréelite, so I thought you might be interested in this one (although i see that you already visited the page once). --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Beetle photo in Pine, AZ

thumb|Beetle in Pine AZ Back in August 2011, you removed this photo from the Pine, AZ article. I keep meaning to write you to ask if you would reconsider. I think it's a pretty cool shot, and Pine isn't an over-illustrated article. Only gas station in Pine, ims. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Er...seems I removed this one File:Dynastes granti, Pine AZ.jpg. It wasn't that the image was bad, rather the caption was perhaps promotional (?) Either would be OK with a tie-in - relevance to the area around Pine. Vsmith (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, back in. Turns out to be a common Rim critter. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)