User talk:Vsmith/Archive26

your undoing of my edit to "Toltec"

Hi there. Next time you feel like undoing edits by another user, please consider reverting the changes rather than undoing them; that way you give the editor a chance to learn about these changes and correct whatever needs correcting. I found out you undid my edits by chance, when I just happened to visit "Toltec" again. I think it's only polite of anybody to let the other editor know their edits have been removed from the article. bye now! _themidget17 | babble 20:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Removed the game stuff again, non RS and irrelevant to the article. Vsmith (talk) 03:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Sol Invictus

Hello, V -- Happy New Year! What would you advise regarding this edit to Sol Invictus? [1] Corinne (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Chopped the bible quoting as excess preachiness. The rest seems rather heavy on astrology refs - don't know much 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know much about the astrology aspect, either. Corinne (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

See this. I don't know what's right or wrong here, but since you removed the Bible quotes before, I though you might be interested to see they've been put back in. Also, with this edit, a grammatical error was introduced, with no article before "sun god":

• During this time, people back then believed that "sun god" had "died".

Again, I don't know what's right or wrong here, and I've got to get to a copy-edit I promised to do a week ago. Corinne (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Fiddled, tweaked and chopped ... :) Vsmith (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Tethys Ocean

I believe all the edits made to Tethys Ocean at [2] are correct. I thought I would thank this editor, but since it's an IP editor, there is no option to do that. Then I thought I would post a welcome on his/her talk page, but now I don't even see the option to post a welcome that I used to see in the TW drop-down menu. Where did that go? Corinne (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Fixed a redlink w/ a redirect and undid the change to the book title as Tethysian wasn't there. No clue 'bout TW stuff. Vsmith (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates, which may have what you're looking for. Mikenorton (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks both. I guess I won't thank that editor since his/her edit was incorrect. Mikenorton, thank you for the link to the Welcome templates. I've added it to my list of useful links on my talk page. Corinne (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for taking care of vandals promptly and effectively. Caballero//Historiador ☊ 15:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Promo

Vsmith -

You've reverted two edits I made to pages, one in "Bibliography of Mount Rainier National Park" and the other in "Mount Adams "Washington)"

The heading to the Bibliography article itself is headlined "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it." That is exactly what my edits did.

The Mount Rainier bibliography, especially, is in great need of improvement, with the most recent title for the park flora published 75 years ago! These books have been reviewed and widely praised and are owned by several hundred libraries, as well used by individuals and park and natural resources professionals alike.

• Biek, David (2000). Flora of Mount Rainier National Park. Oregon State University Press. ISBN 9780870714702

• Biek, David and McDougall, Susan. (2007). The Flora of Mount Adams, Washington. Sound Books. ISBN 9780977628513

To curtly tell me I'm "promot[ing] our own stuff" is both unkind and unfounded.

Please accept the edits.

Davidbiekwa (talk) 08:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

...and what part of self-promotion do you not understand? Vsmith (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Will follow up on your suggestion. Davidbiekwa (talk) 08:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Raised beach

Hello, V - I found an article for you to work on if you have nothing to do: Raised beach. There are several tags that have been there for a few years, and it does look a little technical. Corinne (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm ... needs help and merging. Maybe tomorrow ... zzz Vsmith (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Water glyphs

Had you ever heard of Water glyphs? I hadn't. What do you think they were? Also, there are several external links throughout this article; can you fix them? Corinne (talk) 05:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Subject: Re. recent edit at talk:Chalcedony

To: Vsmith -

..rather messed up a previous comment..

Apologies for the broken code from a newbie, and thanks for the feedback.

I've repaired that, but please check ..

I did, but apparently missed the grot; I'll be more thorough next time.

Also on talk pages: new talk comments should go at the end of a section ..

So I'll assume the proper place would have been last entry under "Etymology".

If replying indent appropriately with leading colons.

I misunderstood the intent of '^:' and used it for sourcepage ref. Using your talk entry under "Bloodstone", I assume that referent mainpage text should be delineated as \'\'"text"\'\'.

As a beginner at this, I'm wary of making any edits, even on talk: pages, and appreciate the feedback. If you don't mind few more questions .

I'm no expert on much of anything, so I usually just read the intro and move on. Is the content of my "talk:" comment

1. appropriately on-target, (ie. too much speculative rambling for the intro),
2. should be pared down,
3. worth the hassle (which it turned out to be),
4. skipped, and I take my axe to the mainpage?

And a few syntactic ones:

1. Is there any convention for separating comments on talk pages, or do you just rely on the tilde-sig?
2. At this point, I could move it to the bottom of the section, make it much shorter or delete it entirely?

(Treading on eggs.)

Thanks, Jimmy Hers (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

We were all newbies once - just learn as you go and don't worry overmuch about making mistakes.

On talk pages - if you are replying to another post simply indent using a colon (:) at the start of your reply. A colon as first character of a line results in an indent of one space. If replying to a previous reply - just start with one more colon than the previous. If making a comment on the subject of the section that is not a reply - just leave a newline (hit enter an extra time) and start at the left margin.

It's usually advisable to start a new section at the bottom of the talk page rather than inserting a comment in an old talk section. Most of us expect "new stuff" to occur at the bottom of a talk page - and may overlook comments added to old sections, especially sections a year or so old. For a new section just start a new line at the bottom with ==new topic title==; hit enter and start writing as you did here. I advise adding the page to your WP:watchlist so you know if someone has replied. And don't worry 'bout breaking them eggs - they is petrified :)

Once in a while another grumpy editor may growl or snap at you for some little perceived infraction of the way it's s'posed to be done. No biggy, just roll on -- some folks are just that way. Charge on: make that edit - fix things - be bold - learn from errors ... Vsmith (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Lodestone

Hi Vsmith, it seems that the dates were originally introduced into the article by Gun Powder Ma in this edit in BC/AD format, back in 2006, so I guess the IP has a point. Mikenorton (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It was still a stub then, the expansion in 2009 by User:Chetvorno introduced CE - BCE usage. Usually stop looking when I hit a stub upgrade. Vsmith (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Then Chetvorno ignored WP:ERA. I changed it back to the original notation. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Whoop-de-doo... :) Vsmith (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Crazy Horse Monument - 'Logan's Run' reference.

Sir,

Just wondered why the reference to the Logan's Run novel was removed? You claim it was 'unsourced fictional trivia'. This raises a couple of questions in my mind that you might be so kinds as to address:

1. Doesn't a direct link to the referred work on Wikipedia count as a 'source'? Isn't Wikipedia considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles? If that isn't the case then it creates a rather interesting paradox...

2. I am not altogether clear on what the expression 'fictional trivia' is supposed to denote. Is it supposed to refer to trivia that is not factual? Or perhaps it means trivia that relates to fiction? The phrase appears grammatically ambiguous.

Cordially,

Steve Hardy (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

For your #1 please see WP:WPNOTRS. All a link to a Wikipedia article does is show that such an article exists.

For #2: the fact that the monument was used by an author in a work of fiction may be factual, but it is simply trivial. That "fact" would likely be relevant in the article about the book, but not in the article about the monument - unless some WP:reliable source exists which reports the significance and relevance to the monument. Fictional trivia simply means trivia that is fictional. Vsmith (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Cerro Tuzgle

I just finished copy-editing Cerro Tuzgle for Jo-Jo Eumerus. I found far fewer problems than I did at the first stratovolcano article we worked on a few months ago. This one was pretty well written. I left a few comments on the article's talk page at Talk:Cerro Tuzgle#A few comments following a GOCE copy-edit of January 26-27, 2016. If you have time to read them, your opinions are welcome, and if you feel like reading through the article, that would be great, too. Corinne (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit.

Thanks for the map location edit on Ajanta Caves page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superhuman2342 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Chernozem

If you are available to provide feedback on some article improvements I am working on, please visit Talk:Chernozem#Black_C_as_source_of_soil_color on a new understanding of black soils. Cheers! -- Paleorthid (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I've been on a bit of a wikibreak - "real world" focus for a bit... Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Mary Anning

Hello, V -- Can you look at this edit to Mary Anning? Also see several edits by the same editor just previous to Mr. Granger's edits. Corinne (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

It has been handled. Be bold - you can zap such vandalism :) Vsmith (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I know I can use the rollback feature, but I thought in the case of repeated vandalism, the editor ought to be warned, and I don't think I should do that. Or is this not enough of a repetition to warrant a warning? Corinne (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Kipchaks

Hello, V -- I noticed this edit to Kipchaks has no reference, but I don't know if it needs one or not.

While you're looking at it, see the edits just before it (by a different editor), adding something to the references. Corinne (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Capitalized kazakh for that edit - don't know if it's valid? Seems the previous were just adding general refs, - not very helpful, but ... Vsmith (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, there's an article on Kazakhstan that mentions Kazakhs, and there's another on Kazakhs (which has some interesting pictures). Thanks! Corinne (talk) 02:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Cosmological argument

Please follow wiki rules of etiquette, see the talk page before you delete the insert.GESICC (talk) 13:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

hmm... if you will - take a look at the talk page of the article. And be careful with the vandalism accusations. Vsmith (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Seismic swarm

Hello, V -- Where've you been? I hope all is well. I'm in the middle of copy-editing Coropuna for Jo-Jo Eumerus, and I've added a few wiki-links. I wanted to link "seismic swarm" but couldn't find anything. Then I found Earthquake swarm. Are these two phrases close enough that "seismic swarm" could be re-directed to Earthquake swarm? If so, could you do that? Corinne (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• I've added a redirect there. Yes, earthquake swarm and seismic swarm are pretty much the same thing.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary

Hello, V -- Do you have Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary on your watchlist? An editor just added a comment at Talk:Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary#Suggestions for improving this and the other article, a section in which the previous comment was in 2008. I don't know if there has been other discussion on this in the intervening years.  – Corinne (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Now I see several sets of edits to the article made by this same editor. I don't know about the rest, but I don't think this is an improvement. What do you think?  – Corinne (talk) 03:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Mineral names

Hello Vsmith

IMA2015-E: IMA-CNMNC renamed sénarmontite to senarmontite and sérandite to serandite

What do you think about accents in the English language? Should we give up in near future and use only the American Standard Code for Information Interchange (US-ASCII)?

Note, in the German language: ü is equal to ue, ö is equal to oe and ä is equal to ae.

Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Moved serandite for consistency with in article use and IMA. Vsmith (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Erik Satie

Hello, V - Glad to see you back. I know this editor undid his/her own edit to Erik Satie, but what s/he typed is now there, and it's somewhat distasteful. Do you think it should be removed completely, i.e., hidden? Or should we just forget about it?  – Corinne (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

If it were a BLP - yes, but as is just ignore the school vandal and roll on. I would have slapped a lengthy schoolblock ... but ... Vsmith (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Oceania

Hello, V -- Is there anything of value in the new version in this edit to Oceania to make one hesitate to revert the whole thing?  – Corinne (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't know ... but I've added a couple of spaces ... :) Vsmith (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Brine mining

A little bit ago, someone added a blurb on lithium brines to the In-situ leach article. I didn't think it belonged there, but it pointed out the need for an article on commercial mineral extraction from natural brines. Please take a look at an article I started, Brine mining, and make changes and additions as appropriate. Thanks. Plazak (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Good job. I tweaked a bit and added links. Vsmith (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Cyprine (of Panikorovskii et al.)

Hello Vsmith. Could you move cyprine (of Panikorovskii et al.) to cyprine (mineral) please? Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

OK moved and tweaked - fix anything else I missed as I don't have ready access to the Mineralogical Magazine article. Vsmith (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thx Vsmith. The article is an available IMA-CNMNC Newsletter. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Águas de São Pedro

Hello, V -- Could you comment on (at least) my fourth question to Apokryltaros at User talk:Apokryltaros#Águas de São Pedro regarding how detailed the sq km and sq mi numbers should be? If the numbers should be rounded off, to what degree should they be rounded?  – Corinne (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Infobox mineral

Hello Vsmith. Some mineral articles have 'Z' as an item in the Template:infobox mineral. I assume this is crap, right? Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm deleting '| z =', '| space group =' and '| lattice ='. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Montane or mountain?

Can you comment at Talk:Mountain ecology#Renaming article? An expert is needed. I think the article was renamed recently before discussion had taken place or consensus reached, but it is being allowed to remain the way it is for the duration of the discussion. If "montane" is the correct word, I would prefer that it not be changed to "mountain" just to make it easier for people to find the article, but of course I will defer to your expertise on this.  – Corinne (talk) 04:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Kerman

Hello, V - Can you take a look at this edit to Kerman, and the one right after it? I don't think it belongs in the article. The editor added a lot, then only subtracted a little.  – Corinne (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Srr003.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Srr003.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.  ★  Bigr Tex 22:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Four years ago ...

geology
... you were recipient no. 146 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2016

hello i notice you have a thing on your userpage that imitate a software feature of wikipedia and it confused me its yellow and says please click here to leave me a message 198.52.13.15 (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Found this request by monitoring User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable. I think the IP meant that this might be an SMI issue. Toggling request. The user will have surely seen this by login-time. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 00:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I am in need of an experienced editor's eye

VSmith, I am asking for your opinion on this suggestion. I don't need you to publish your thoughts, just shoot me an online message. There are several other cases where I am suffering from the same challenge, and I'm hoping you might offer me some guidance. I took a couple months off after a previous go-round with this specific difficulty, and the cooling-down period doesn't seem to have made much difference. I'm wondering if you have any insights.

Thank you
Riventree (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Homo Sapiens

Perhaps we can discuss the matter before you revert. Especially considering your choice of reasoning. I don't think you grasp what a personal comment is, or a language barrier was the culprit. Rather than remove a citation that has largely been debunked I added a statement showing that the cited study doesn't explain a key problem with its own theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estarski (talk • contribs) 21:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

And the statement you added is your opinion? Or do you have a reference that indicates that "key problem" and objection has been published. The comment appeared rather trivial to me - and perhaps irrelevant. Please enlighten me on your thinking. Thank you. Vsmith (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

It isn't an opinion. The study sought to explain where Neanderthal DNA in modern humans come from without mentioning that not all modern humans have Neanderthal DNA. The relevance of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans is a very important puzzle piece in the pursuit of human origins.

A quick Google search nets : "Everyone living outside of Africa today has a small amount of Neanderthal in them, carried as a living relic of these ancient encounters. A team of scientists comparing the full genomes of the two species concluded that most Europeans and Asians have between 1 to 4 percent Neanderthal DNA. Indigenous sub-Saharan Africans have no Neanderthal DNA because their ancestors did not migrate through Eurasia." https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/

The problem with the cited study is it doesn't even address the main question it was supposed to be answering. Normally, I would have removed reference to the study altogether, but elected to add an addendum instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estarski (talk • contribs) 22:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmm - the Nat Geo bit you note states: "Everyone living outside of Africa today has a small amount of Neanderthal in them, ". Given that, I'd say you could cite the Nat Geo bit as a ref for the lack of Neandertal DNA in sub-Saharan Africa. You word it as you wish, but cite it rather than simply adding unsourced comentary w/in article space. Vsmith (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

COMPLAINT

WHY DID U REMOVED MY EDIT IN MAN MADE DISASTER?.I AM A SCHOOL STUDENT AND I KNOW THAT WE ALL GET WORK ON THAT TOPIC AND WIKIPEDIA DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION ON IT SO I CREATED A ACCOUNT AND EDITED THAT PAGE WITH LOTS OF INFORMATION WHICH I GOT FROM DIFFERENT PLACES.AND U REMOVED IT WHY?I NEED A REPLY.REPLY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mananrock (talk • contribs) 14:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

First: don't shout (all caps = shouting). Second: learn to sign your talk page comments.

Last January I did remove a rather misplaced and unsourced addition to Category:Man-made disasters. The content you added would have been appropriate in the article Man made disasters (its red ...see Anthropogenic hazard) if properly referenced, but not in the category page.

So ... get some solid references and edit the article - not the category. Vsmith (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems I told you that back in January - check your talk page. Vsmith (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Makran Trench

Hello, V -- I hope you are enjoying the summer. I just came across the article on the Makran Trench. I noticed that there is no map showing where the trench is. I thought I'd mention it in case you might be able to find a map.  – Corinne (talk) 04:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Figure 25A–3 on page 4 of this USGS publication would be ideal as it locates several of the relevant geologic features mentioned in the article. As a USGS publication it is public domain - could be used as is or modified. Vsmith (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow! That's a pretty good map. Thanks for finding it. However, I don't know how to upload it and separate it from the surrounding text. Maybe Checkingfax could help.

On another issue, I was reading the Makran Trench article, and looking at linked articles, and I came across this one: Zagros fold and thrust belt. I saw that there was a tag at the top of the article that has been there since 2013 requesting that the article be written in a somewhat less technical way. I thought about linking words such as "oblique" to the "Types of angles" section in the Angle article, and the word "orthogonal" to the Orthogonality article, but I think a geology expert would be best at simplifying the language (if indeed it does need simplifying). I noticed, by the way, that in the Orthogonality article, there is no section on geology, mineralogy, or crystallography. Just thought I'd mention it in case you're in need of a project. ;)  – Corinne (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne. I used GIMP to crop the PDF then exported it as a .png file and uploaded it to the Commons. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - I've been lazy lately :) Vsmith (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Merger of hexagonal and trigonal crystal systems

Hello. Would like your input here. Thank you! --Officer781 (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Alaskan Earthquake

My Uncle just turned 90 He lived in Anchorage, 1964 and has amazing slides of The clocks stopped, Penney's damaged building, fissure wirh house still standing. He was young enough but Worked for government and one of few allowed back in area of damaged buildings. Amazing pictures — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.206.208 (talk) 01:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Murder of Helen McCourt

I wonder whether this article needs protecting or the IP editor(s) need a warning. See [3] and the edits just prior to it.  – Corinne (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Geography of Russia

Hello, V -- I was just looking at the latest edit to Geography of Russia. This last edit, changing 6,000 km to 6 km is clearly vandalism, so I was about to revert, but when I looked at the edit just previous to it, that one didn't look so good, either. I don't know about the one before that. How far back should the revert go?  – Corinne (talk) 00:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

All about Volcanos listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect All about Volcanos. Since you had some involvement with the All about Volcanos redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Vsmith. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Help with a geology map?

I saw your editing on a geological article, and was wondering if you can explain a geological map for me for another article? Crock81 (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

hmm ... just stopped by following a bit o a wikibreak. But, I see the you have been given the boot for some stuff ... so will just move on for now :) Vsmith (talk) 12:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Mineralogy

Hello Vsmith. I notice your wikibreak. I changed a lil bit the template:infobox mineral, I hope that you do not mind. Webmineral.com is not being updated, mineralienatlas.de is a bit better. I think that with this layout I am able to administrate the crystal system easier.

I am still trying to list the most important minerals. An easier list would have been: all solid solutions, all homologous series, all ore minerals and all minerals with images.

If you do not mind. Eveslogite has a copyright violation template since December 2013. Regards, welcome back. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Chris, not sure how active I'll be for a while. Will take a closer look at eveslogite ... maybe tomorrow, time for sleep now :) Vsmith (talk) 02:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Vsmith.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Vsmith. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Retain GA status of Snow?

I concluded that the original state of the Snow article no longer passed GA muster. So, I followed the instructions at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. Item 6. and 7. say, "6. Wait for other editors to respond. Do everything you can to improve the article during this time. During the reassessment discussion, you must decide if the article has improved enough to meet the good article criteria." During that period, I substantially rewrote the article to where it bears little resemblance to the original. I feel that it is close to GA eligibility, but feel awkward to be the one to declare it so, without input from others, given my extensive editing. Please leave your thoughts at Talk:Snow#Comments on rewrite. User:HopsonRoad 12:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism to Roy C. Booth and Bemidji, Minnesota pages

Vandalism to Roy C. Booth and Bemidji, Minnesota pages by IP user 2600:1:930F:779C:EDBC:1A5A:BBE5:2AC5

I recently undid some perceived vandalism to the above two pages and i think you have as well. Apart from reverting such is there any other things that can be done? WendigoUK (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC) WendigoUK (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Could request semi-protection of the page if it continues. The correct avenue for the ip would be to make a deletion request rather than edit-warring that declined prod bit. Watching the article. Vsmith (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. How do I request semi-protection of the page? WendigoUK (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection and Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.Vsmith (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks WendigoUK (talk) 14:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Environmental Restoration wiki

I understand your concerns and appreciate your comments. I will replace the link to the Environmental Restoration wiki article with primary references that are either peer reviewed journal articles or US government documents. Would it be acceptable to include a link to the Environmental Restoration wiki as an External Link at the bottom?

Please note that the Environmental Restoration wiki (ERwiki) is not a traditional ‘wiki’ since it is not open to editing by the public. Development of the ERwiki was sponsored by SERDP and ESTCP, two of the main sponsors of US government supported environmental research. All articles are written by experts in the field, and undergo peer review by an external editorial board. For example, Dr. Jason Gerhard, the author of the Smoldering Remediation article, is a Professor at the University of Western Ontario and an internationally recognized expert on this technology. I encourage you to visit the site and to review the information and author credentials. Our goal is the dissemination of the latest scientific information and technology in the field of environmental engineering and geology CElliottPG (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, and I will take a closer look at the website. An external link would likely be OK, however if, as you indicate above, you are associated with it .. then please read WP:COI and work to avoid any semblance of promotion. Vsmith (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Tarim Basin

Hello, Vsmith -- Does the material added to Tarim Basin in this edit need a source? If the source is there, I guess I don't see it.  – Corinne (talk) 04:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

See also this edit to Turkic languages by the same editor.  – Corinne (talk) 04:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Both :) ... tweaked the basin a bit. Vsmith (talk) 13:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Doug Weller talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

Tectonics

I don't know if you are notified regularly of the week's Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement, but this week's article is Tectonics. I just made a few copy-edits, but I think more could be done. There is one sentence that is particularly dense, that is, either overly academic, thus incomprehensible, or poorly written, or both. I thought you might be able to improve the sentence – or perhaps other things in the article. The sentence is the last sentence in the section Tectonics#Stike-slip tectonics:

• This type of tectonics is found along oceanic and continental transform faults, at lateral offsets in extensional and thrust fault systems, in the over-riding plate in zones of oblique collision and accommodating deformation in the foreland to a collisional belt.

The sentence reads pretty well until the last part of the sentence. After "This type of tectonics is found" is a series of prepositional phrases:

• along oceanic and continental transform faults
• at lateral offsets in extensional and thrust fault systems
• in the over-riding plate in zones of oblique collision.

I'm guessing, though I'm not sure, that the part that begins "accommodating deformation" is a second noun phrase following "in zones of":

• in zones of

(1) oblique collision, and

(2) accommodating deformation

but that whole phrase, "accommodating deformation in the foreland to a collisional belt" sounds a bit technical. Would it be enough to link the terms, or could this be re-written so it is more comprehensible to an average reader?  – Corinne (talk) 05:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, in the section Tectonics#Extensional tectonics, I wanted to link "detachment layer", and the only article I could find was Detachment fault, so I linked it with a pipe. Is that all right, or is there another article that would be better?  – Corinne (talk) 05:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Fiddled with it a bit. And seems detachment fault works. Vsmith (talk) 13:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I've changed that link to target Décollement, which seems better. Mikenorton (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!  – Corinne (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I just went to the article Tectonics to see your edits, and I can't find them.  – Corinne (talk) 03:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Still there - check the history... Vsmith (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal attacks on Wikipedia

It doesn't matter if you are an admin. Your edit violated Wikipedia:No_personal_attack on Hydraulic fracturing. "Reverted to revision 756546355 by Materialscientist: If the wording isn't exactly like the source, then modify it - but don't try to make it the opposite. Seems to have been some fracking fan pushing here :) "

(1). Please actually read the source before reverting my edit and then making the claim that the source said the opposite.

(2). The source said "USGS studies suggest that this process is only rarely the cause of felt earthquakes." if anything the WP edit is more in favor of fracking causing earthquakes then not compared to the source material.

(3). Do not make personal attacks calling people "some fracking fan" Wikipedia:No_personal_attack even more so when their edit matches the source. WP history is history and changes and description of the changes throwing jabs does not improve quality but does frustrate the user getting the jab.

(4). The user who originally made the edit adding the words "directly" instead of "sometimes" had a very suspicious history of edits which sparked these changes. I edited nothing else on this page expect his wording added. I have no preference on this as long as it matches the source and if you do change the source that the new source has more weight than the previous source.

Contentcreator (talk)

Heavy mate. Anyway the edit I reverted removed sourced info re: fracking and the Oklahoma quakes. Even removing the CNN ref re. the Sept. 2016 quake entirely. If you made the edit - well then I'm sorry you took my comment as an attack. Removing sourced content needs explaining. Vsmith (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Well your note seemed to suggest it was more related to making what I left "appear the opposite" which was just that sentence. I removed the cnn story because it was the same individual whose edit history was not great and because that sentence was fairly loosely worded according to the article. My opinion was that the individual could just comeback later and fix it to be more line with what the article actually says as I have seen in similar instances in the past in wikipedia where someone just comes and adds a few bad edits and never returns to the page.

Contentcreator (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, if the added sentence was "fairly loosely worded" ... then the best approach would be to tighten the wording ... fix it rather than delete it. Vsmith (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Well I just removed it again I will re-add it if you think it should but the only real line that really speaks to fracking is "The report found that oil and gas drilling activity, particularly practices like hydraulic fracturing or fracking, is at issue." I went to AP and local OK news where it occured and none of them supported it. I could not find the original report and using language "is at issue" just seemed lacking substance.

Contentcreator (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The USGS reference speaks mostly about "wastewater disposal" related to oil & gas drilling and for fracking does say that fracking ... "is only rarely the cause of felt earthquakes". Vsmith (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

... and from what I've read - yes, by far most fracking related seismic events are below the level of felt quakes, but the Oklahoma event was unusual in that context. Vsmith (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

My issue going with pushing that those states were cause by fracking in September. I am just going to move it to the hydraulic fracturing talk page and try to come to an outcome there but I will remember thisContentcreator (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Calthemite

Hi Vsmith. Appreciate your editing of the article on Calthemite.
Just wondering if the two photos halfway down the page should be left as slightly larger images as they show some details which are hard to see when the images are reduced to the standard thumbnail size. These are the image with the metal ruler next to the soda straw and the image with the calcite rafts on the solution droplet.
Regards, Newcaves
PS. go easy on me as this is my first attempt at submitting a full page to Wiki. If this calthemite submission works out ok, I have another article started which I will continue to add to then submit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newcaves (talk • contribs) 12:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome. Yes, I was thinking 'bout the size on a couple of the images. Vsmith (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Upped the size on the calcite raft pic for visibility (could chop part of the black at the bottom on the image page). The readings on the ruler aren't critical and those interested can click to view more detail. Vsmith (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Calthemites

Hi Vsmith I have added some extra items in the "categories section" of the Calthemite page. Sorry don't know how to link them into those categories. Can you assist here? Hope you don't mind me changing the size of a couple of images - I think the images add greatly to the text explanation. When they are too small they are hard to make out detail. I checked out some other articles on Wiki and they have images of the size that I have made them. Hope this fits in with Wiki convention. Regards Newcaves — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newcaves (talk • contribs) 23:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Well -- I've removed the red categories as non-existing categories simply don't help - will check for existing relevant cats (maybe...).

As for the image: File:Calthemite straw Stalactite showing length with ruler.jpg, I would suggest editing and cropping it to make it narrower - remove part of the excess hand and the empty area on the right (with the distracting red bit). Vsmith (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I see your point about the bright red bit in that picture, however it also serves the purpose to clearly show that calthemites are growing on a manmade concrete structure. The red bit is a fire hose real box. The picture also shows a bit of pipework and a light fitting behind the hand. I did consider cropping the picture initially, however decided against this as it clearly showed beyond doubt, the type of location which calthemites are growing. There was also some literature around which indicated that calthemite soda straws were only observed to grow a couple of cm long. The ruler next to the straw clearly shows that this one is 15cm long and still growing. I have since found a paper showing that they have been found growing up to a metre long, however don't have any images yet of such lengths, so maybe something I can work on trying to get more info on longer straws. Thanks for your assistance with tweaking this page. Thanks - I think it looks great as it is now.

With regards the other "categories" - not clear how this works, but would expect that things listed in "categories" were to aid people in searching for pages which relate closely to other subjects. i.e. stalactites, stalagmites, concrete degradation, flowstone and calcite rafts. Is this something which needs to be set up, so as to assist people searching for similar/related subjects??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newcaves (talk • contribs) 04:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Think I have just figured it out. "Calthemites" are not actually "Speleothems", however in each there is a common aspect in that "Soda Straws", "stalactites", "stalactites", "columns", "flowstone", "calcite rafts" and "cave popcorn" etc, have a similar appearance in both situations, however the chemistry is completely different as are the growth rates etc etc. Calthemite deposition is related to "concert degradation" and nothing to do with caves in limestone or dolomite etc. Hence I am thinking that "calthemite" should be assigned a category of is own. In that way calthemite can also be subcategorised and linked to these other pages including "Concrete degradation" which it is not at the moment. What are your thoughts.??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newcaves (talk • contribs) 07:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I-131

Hello. I read the info about RAI 131 half life. Can you tell me how long The life span of RAI 131 is the body working? I cannot find an answer. I've been told about 6 months and then was told one year. Thank you ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.72.236 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

See Iodine-131: halflife = 8.0197 days. Vsmith (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Norodom Sihanouk

I know this is not your particular interest, but I thought you might like to see or review this edit to Norodom Sihanouk. It created the longest infobox I have seen on Wikipedia. I have no way of judging whether it is appropriate or not.  – Corinne (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

That does seem a bit much :) - pro'ly should be cropped or hidden/made expandable or something ... Vsmith (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

O.K. I hope you or one of your tps's will do that since I don't know how.  – Corinne (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't remember how either - if I ever knew :) - and it's late ... zzz Vsmith (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Redrose64.  – Corinne (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to have two infoboxes? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Two shouldn't be needed - could just chop. But the question above was about collapsing the second as part of the first (if all that is to be kept). Vsmith (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

You could start by embedding one inside the other. To keep the current order, and put royalty inside officeholder, see Template:Infobox officeholder#Embedding other templates and Template:Infobox royalty#Use as a child template; to put officeholder inside royalty, see Template:Infobox royalty#Embedding other templates and Template:Infobox officeholder#Embedding within a different infobox. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - thinking about doing something ... may not tho :) Vsmith (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Big Bang theory in Islam

Dear Vsmith,

Your action of undoing my entry and replacing it with the text of someone who might be lacking understanding of the early islamic people The text assumes that muslims had no idea about the creation of the universe and somehow the scientist found the Big Bang theory and all of a sudden Muslims started thinking that the Heaven (everything above us/ outside the planet) and the Earth were adjoined This is plain wrong. Early muslims also had this idea. It is evident when one goes to islamic countries where this science of the Big Bang has not fully reached even they will tell you this Second problem is that the text is missing the all important verses of the Quran

https://quran.com/21:30

https://quran.com/51:47

Sadly this representation of islamic viewpoint if reduced to just the text of HEADBOMB will be unfair relative to the representation of other faiths

http://aboutislam.net/science/faith-science/big-bang-islamic-perspective/

http://www.irfi.org/articles2/articles_3951_4000/islamic%20concept%20of%20creation%20of%20universehtml.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrk786 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that. We use secondary sources to support our edits - not primary religious text quotes. Now, the two links you provide above just might be useable as refs, maybe? Why not start a discussion on the article talk explaining how those two sources would fit our guidelines on WP:reliable sources? Vsmith (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Feldspar

Hello, V - I'm just wondering, do we normally link to sections of articles? See this edit to Feldspar. I can see linking to a section for an obscure topic, but when the entire article is on the linked term, I'm not sure it's necessary. What do you think?  – Corinne (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, MOS:LINK#Section links. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

If the info you want to link to is within a specific section of an article, then by all means link directly to that section as Redrose64 notes. In that specific case the relevant material was in the Earth crust part of the article and not the general planetary crust bit of the lead. Vsmith (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The Crust (geology) article should be ditched and we should have an Earth's crust article and separate articles written about planetary crusts and lunar crust ... But seems somebody back when decided to lump 'em - aw well :) Vsmith (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Do not perpetuate the edit warring at Abundance of elements in Earth's crust. You should be using the talk page instead of undoing my edit yet again. 128.40.9.164 (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

... and just who is edit warring there? I see an anon edit that is problematic and undo it. Now I am aware of a talk "discussion" and will take a look. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry (butterfly effect)

I was not vandalizing. The image was not showing on my browser so I thought it was dead (it showed the full text in an ugly way on the article). Keron Cyst (talk) 04:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The ip edit prior to yours messed it up - I restored the article to its state prior to the ip's edit. When a page doesn't display right, check the history for ip "playing" edits. Cheers - Vsmith (talk) 12:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Image vandal?

Hello, Vsmith! I want to bring this IP user to someone's attention and I noticed that you reverted their edit on Clouded monitor. I'm not sure if this is some sort of bot because their edits are quite close together? I went through their contributions manually and reverted the edits that degraded image quality/scope, but a few of them actually improved the taxobox image so I'm not sure if I went about this correctly… – Rhinopias (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't know what their story is, but I've undone a couple more that didn't seem better. Vsmith (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Ta article

I messed with the Ta vs Nb separation in tantalum. if you think that I was too heavy handed, just revert and I will try again. I think I got it better than it was. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me (disclaimer: I have no experience with nor detailed knowledge of the chemistry involved). Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Dolstone and Dolomite Rock

Hi Vsmith I think there is a real issue here. I wrote the section on "Caves in Dolomite Rock" to add to the overall Wiki knowledge on the subject. I specifically included the words "Dolomite Rock" in the section title, as this is the term used by the overwhelming majority of Speleologists and Geologists worldwide. This is so evident in the universal, world renowned book edited by Hill and Forti and published by NSS - The American National Speleological Society. This is also echoed in the publication "Encyclopedia of Caves" published in the UK with over 100 articles by world-wide experts.

The point is that the wider community overwhelmingly use the words "Dolomite rock" or just "dolomite" on its own to indicate the host rock in which caves have formed. What I had written certainly ties in with the existing title of the wiki page. If anything the title of the page should be changed to read "Dolomite Rock or Dolostone" as it appears that neither the "American Geological Institute" nor the US "National Speleological Society" nor the rest of the world use this term "Dolostone". It appears to be very much a minority group using this term and not universal as Wikipedia strives to achieve. Hence the sentences which you have deleted, was reinforcing that the speleological community use the term "dolomite" or "Dolomite Rock" when referring to the particular chemistry of the bedrock in which caves have been created. With all alterations to Wikipedia pages, it is easy to delete, but harder to write/add to the knowledge on a page. It also take considerable time to chase up references and add them to a page. Something which is sadly lacking on the Dolomite Rock page. I would urge you to reconsider the deletions and alterations which you have made. I look forward to your comments on this subject. Kind Regards Newcaves (talk) 07:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Seems there is a problem. I am aware that "dolomite" is used quite often to refer to the rock, however this leads to real confusion. So in building an encyclopedia we need some order amidst the chaos :) To me the rock is dolostone, but I know that it isn't universally accepted. So I would have no real problem with dolomite rock instead of dolostone - we just need to be clear and avoid using dolomite when referring to the rock. By the way it is not a proper noun so "Dolomite Rock" is not an option. Vsmith (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Vsmith

I have read through the talk page of "Dolostone and Dolomite Rock" and it appears that this issue has been brewing for some years now - but no action. I personally know several speleologists who are very active in the Union Internationale de Spéléologie (UIS) and hold positions on the council of this international speleological organisation and they have always used the terms "Dolomite" or "Dolomite Rock" when referring to karst areas containing caves. This also fits in with the major literature books which are considered the bible of karst geology, caves and minerals around the world. Hence I think the move of changing the title of the "Dolostone" page to "Dolomite Rock" and the first line to "Dolomite Rock or Dolostone" is a good compromise which is long overdue. This is bearing in mind that the world wide geological community also does not recommend the use of the term dolostone. I don't have the expertise to start the ball rolling to change the page name, so would be very grateful if you could instigate this. I could then change the names in the section on caves which relates to the speleological community.

With regards to "Dolomite" not being a proper noun is not an issue. It is actually a mass noun. The dictionary gives the example - In English, mass nouns are characterized by the fact that they cannot be directly modified by a numeral without specifying a unit of measurement, and that they cannot combine with an indefinite article (a or an). Thus, the mass noun "water" is quantified as "20 litres of water" while the count noun "chair" is quantified as "20 chairs" . Hence if we were to rule out "Dolomite Rock" as a Wikipedia page title, then there would be plenty of other Wiki pages which would have to have their title changed. Much appreciate all your thoughts on this subject and would really appreciate it if you are able to change the title of this page - I assume that there would be links from some other pages which would need to be modified. Sorry this part of wikipedia's workings is far beyond my knowledge. Kind regardsNewcaves (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Replied at talk:Dolostone Vsmith (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi VSmith

I am quite perplexed by your change today on the Dolostone page. You stated earlier, "So I would have no real problem with dolomite rock instead of dolostone". Then when I change the heading "Caves in dolostone" back to "Caves in Dolomite Rock", this does not compute. It is about Caves and Speleologists use the term "Dolomite" or "Dolomite Rock" to talk about the bedrock containing caves. The start of the description on this whole Dolostone page says, "Dolostone or Dolomite Rock", yet you are not allowing the use of the term which is used internationally by speleologists and geologists. I thought Wikipedia was suppose to try and use the terms most widely accepted by expert communities, not terms used by a minority group. Another classic example is "Limestone", it is basically a rock with a high proportion of Calcium Carbonate (CaCO₃). We don't call this mineral another name when it is in rock form!!!! So why should Dolomite?? (you may be thinking what about marble, or chalk - however these are CaC₃ which specific physical characteristics. With all due respect, the whole "Dolostone" page would be better combined with the "Dolomite" page. The start of the description should include "The mineral Dolomite naturally occurs in the form of Dolomite Rock, also known as "Dolostone"---- etc etc. This should keep the majority of people world wide happy with this compromise and all the information on the mineral is together. In its present form, on two separate pages, it is extremely scattered.

As previously mentioned, I don't have the expertise to merge these documents, so would be grateful if you would undertake this merger. Kind regardsNewcaves (talk) 07:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

First - we don't use article space to argue about Wikipedia disagreements. Can you understand that? - what is the rush?

Second: Regarding your comment above: "Another classic example is "Limestone", it is basically a rock with a high proportion of Calcium Carbonate (CaCO₃). We don't call this mineral another name when it is in rock form!!!! " - er, yes we do, it's called calcite whether in the rock limestone or when it's a crystal sitting in someone's collection. And we don't call the rock calcite. So I fail to see the point of your comment.

Also to merge the rock article with the mineral article is quite an absurd suggestion.

Also we don't capitalize dolomite or dolomite rock.

I don't see any world changing problem here. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Vsmith

First off, thanks for your words of wisdom about use of article space. Point taken if this is the convention for wikipedia - I am still learning, however by moving to a persons talk page, much discussion and issues raise are lost to new readers who may want to join in the discussion. With regards to you're reference to "argument". I think that is a bit upbeat, I would consider it more of a "discussion" with rational supporting facts. Obviously you have a strong interest in geology and speleology, however we are definitely not on the same page or reading the same text books, when it comes to definitions and use of words in the global community. My example regarding "limestone" is very sound. Pure calcium carbonate (CaCO₃) has three polymorphs "calcite", "aragonite" and "vaterite". Each has exactly the same chemical composition, but it is the crystal form (shape) which is the distinction.

The term Dolomite (CaMg(CO₃)₂) was initially applied to the rock which had a high concentration of this mineral. Then the term was later used to describe the mineral. This is not a conflict and can easily be differentiated by inserting the word "rock" afterwards. Limestone as in the bedrock as laid down my calcarious marine creature's skeletal material, has a high concentration of (CaCO₃), It doesn't become another name when one carries a piece back to put in their mineral display cabinet. It is still "limestone" containing calcium carbonate. In the case of a "dolomite rock" in the display cabinet, it is a dolomite rock containing the a high concentration of the "dolomite mineral". The real point is that the vast majority of the worlds experts in geology and speleology use the term "dolomite" on its own or "dolomite rock" to describe the bedrock which may be mined for its mineral or to describe the rock in which caves exist. So why are Wikipedian's so pedantic to stick with a term not used by the majority of worldwide experts? I find this bizarre to comprehend. I am not personally criticising yourself, but the reluctance by the few who appear to dominate / watch over this "dolostone" wiki page - yet why aren't these people improving the page with references and content. Most people when they do a search of wikipedia, expect to find out all about "dolomite" on the one page, not scattered over two pages and using a different term. Limestone is a good example of how to handle this issue. After reading the talk page on "dolostone", I see that despite considerable discussion and people conceding that "dolomite" is used to describe the rock, by the wider community of experts including those in the US, UK, Europe and Australia, nothing has been done to bring Wikipedia in line with the world experts view. Frankly it is lowering my regard for Wikipedia as a knowledge base to rely on.

With regard to finding an example of dolomite as a speleothem, yes should be able to find one easily in my extensive personal reference library. I am however fast loosing faith in Wiki. RegardsNewcaves (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that. And, no I can't "find one easily " in your "extensive personal library" :) And article discussion belongs on the talk page of the relevant article.

My caving work was back in the early 1970s and involved mapping and exploring caves in the Gasconade Formation - an Ordovician dolostone/dolomite rock in the Ozarks. Long time ago ...

You should not "rely on" Wikipedia without checking further - it is a website constructed by volunteers like you n me. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 12:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Vsmith

Unfortunately I fail to understand what you mean by the cryptic first line of your reply. Neither do I "rely" on Wikipedia as the definitive on a subject, but I would expect to read information which is accurate. I have been a serious caver for over 50 years and still continue to be active in this respect with multi week long explorations, surveying, geology and numerous other research expeditions which has resulted in numerous pier reviewed published papers. It is not even worth detailing such information here. What I can say is that it is very frustrating when I spend time writing up sections for wikipedia and chasing up appropriate references, only to have the information deleted by another at the click of a button. Unfortunately your last brief response has been far from helpful. I am willing to contribute (yes we are all volunteers), but if there is a minority intent on rejecting much of what is contributed and hanging onto a legacy of a minority, in the use of just the word "dolostone" without adopting the overwhelming worldwide majority term of "Dolomite Rock" or just "Dolomite", then where does this leave Wikipedia. It goes backward and people have less faith in its overall content. Yes I can try and change the name of the page and combine it all into one. However I know I am wasting my time, because the hours or days of work will be reverted with one mouse click, by someone further up the pecking order of Wiki and I will be bared from contributing if I revert it back again. I don't know the ropes like you obviously do, after your years of contribution (which is quite impressive), that is why I suggested you would be far more knowledgable and know the procedure to change the page to "Dolomite Rock" and include Dolostone in the first line of the description above. Yes I know you are a volunteer, but your knowledge of the workings of wikipedia and the procedures leaves me for dead. Hence I asked that you instigate the change which is beyond my capabilities. Kind regardsNewcaves (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have no intention to "...combine it all into one" as that would just create confusion. Perhaps the academic world likes confusion ... nah just careless/thoughtless perhaps - everybody doin' their own thing. However, an encyclopedia should do better. I would consider Dolomite rock as the title, but is that actually used? Perhaps better would be Dolomite (rock), but is that really better than the real term dolostone that you seem to hate? Why is this so important to you? You do good work on speleology articles and I would like to see you continue. Just how important is dolomite (the mineral or the rock) in speleology? Vsmith (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi VSmith

As previously stated- yes "Dolomite" on its own or "Dolomite rock" is used extensively by the speleological fraternity worldwide. You only need to look at the US and UK publications mentioned at the start of this discussion. I could direct you to plenty more publications directed at the international speleological readership. Personally I have absolutely nothing to gain from "Dolomite" or "Dolomite (rock)" being the title page page of the rock section. However I am of the opinion that if a term is used by the majority of authoritative organisation around the world then that should be the most prominent term used as the heading which the majority of people would type into the search fields. I have no overwhelming objection to their being two separate pages, for the mineral and the rock (but it does appear to me to be overly complicating things as I have explained with limestone). I also do not have objection with including the word "dolostone" on the page and it certainly must be included in the first sentence of the page. However, "dolostone" should not be the title of the page nor used extensively in the text, as it is not the most universally accepted word.

I have caves in karst areas of dolomite rock and it is certainly different to limestone. I have also been into old mining tunnels through dolomite rock and open cut quarries, which has been mined for use in steel making. There is certainly much more which could be added to this/these page/s with respect to dolomite - the mineral and the rock. I do recall reading a comment (recently deleted) at the start of the present "dolostone" which suggested the two pages should be merged. Obviously someone is dead against that and I wonder if some people just get two hung up on a narrow focus and not the overall picture.

Anyway if there has to be two pages, then the title change to "Dolomite (rock)" is certainly acceptable, and I would appreciate it if you could instigate this change. Other additions can be added as and when I get time. There are a few major family (health related) issues which are consuming most of my time at the very moment, but I will endeavour to add to the page/s in the near future. Kind regards Newcaves (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

continued...

Hi VSmith

As you would have notices, I have added some additional information as you suggested regarding dolomite speleothems. As there are many locations around the world, I have not specifically mentioned a particular cave. If someone is particularly interested then they can refer to the reference which I have included. Regarding the chemistry involved with deposition as a speleothem, I am not convinced that the dolomite (rock) page is the correct place for this. As per the previous discussion with yourself, could you please change the page name to 'Dolomite (Rock)'. As I have mentioned above, I certainly think that the term "Dolostone" should also be highlighted in the first line of the description. Kind Regards, Newcaves (talk) 06:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the details of dolomite speleothems would be a bit out of place there. As to the page name - it would be Dolomite (rock) w/out the capital R. How common is that parenthetical bit in lit references? And how many of the wider refs using dolomite w/out specifying are from AAPG papers? Vsmith (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi VSmith

There is no issue with (rock) having a lower case 'r'. - Yes I did a typo. As previously stated both "dolomite" and "dolomite rock" are widely used in speleological literature to describe the rock, bedrock, karst etc etc.. Sometimes the authors use sentences like "dolomite in the rock form .......etc etc...". Since our initial discussions, I have looked through many speleological publications in my library and have come across a few references to "dolostone", however the references to "dolomite" are overwhelmingly more abundant. As far as the statistics on how widely used the term dolostone is used - the statistics detailed on the dolostone talk page by RW cover this pretty well. RW states: "From the AAPG online scientific paper search database (which searches over 14 peer reviewed geological publications". I would assume that many of these publications are not directly related to the petroleum industry but the wider community of geologists. As far as chasing up exact numbers of references in the speleological community - sorry I don't have time to chase this. It is a bit of a pointless exercise as the use of dolostone in the speleological community would be far less a percentage than in the geological community. Hence your initial preference for "Dolomite (rock)" as the page title, is quite sound, and definitely a sensible solution to bring Wikipedia in line with the majority of users and experts worldwide. Newcaves (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

László Makra

{{infobox person}} does not work. Please help.--Pataki Márta (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

OK now ? Vsmith (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

the drainage divide article, its image, and its caption

Hi Vsmith,

Thank you for your recent work on the drainage divide article, and for all your efforts to improve Wikipedia.

I'd like to discuss one particular change you made. It was a reversion of an edit I had made. You won't be surprised to learn that I like my version better. I started a discussion on the talk page. Would you like to hear my pitch for the change? TypoBoy (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Vsmith! Thank you very much indeed for your kind welcome message and for the useful links. It has been a really nice surprise, very much appreciated :-) Best, ZeoMatHP (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Marsh

I was just looking at the latest edit to Marsh. I can't tell if the edit is an improvement or vandalism (but I don't see any "switching", and the edit summary says "switched"), but then I looked at the edit just previous to that one and I'm pretty sure this one is wrong. I don't know whether the editor thought "sandspit" was a misspelling, or what, but I'm pretty sure that "sandspit" was the right word, not "sandpit". However, since I don't know if the subsequent edit is correct or not, I hesitate to revert to the version before the change to the link. Can you take a look at this? Thanks.  – Corinne (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Undid the sandpit bit (yeah: sandspit seems an odd term, but it is valid). Left the interwiki bit, altho I thought those were obsolete ??. Also removed a red "see main" as rather pointless. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Lastarria

V - I happened to notice an edit to the GA review of Lastarria, at Talk:Lastarria/GA1, and I started to read the first section of the review. The reviewer caught one or two small things I missed (when I copyedited the article a while ago for GOCE), but, upon going through the list, I found I disagreed with several things. I started fixing some problems with the prose that I hadn't seen earlier. I wanted to ask you for your opinion regarding this sentence. It's in the lead, but a similar sentence appears later.

• Several volcanoes are located in this chain of volcanoes, which is formed by the subduction of the Nazca Plate beneath the South American Plate.

I want to know whether you think the word "the" is necessary before "subduction". I don't think it is. I think it sounds wordy with two thes. Without it, the sentence would read:

• Several volcanoes are located in this chain of volcanoes, which is formed by subduction of the Nazca Plate beneath the South American Plate.

I already removed "the" from the similar sentence later in the article (but I'll put it back in if you feel strongly it is necessary).  – Corinne (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

"thick n fast, they come at last " ... or something like that (following edit conflict. Anyway - the "the ... the ... the ..." bit doesn't bother me. But I can see where it might be distracting (?). Vsmith (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

2) I am going through the list of suggested corrections made by the reviewer one by one. In one, the reviewer suggests that "material" needs an "s", to make it plural. The reviewer does not make it clear which instance of the word should be plural, but it may be in this sentence. However, it is already plural, and I don't see an edit changing it from "material" to "materials".

• The avalanche deposit consists mostly of loose materials such as ash, lapilli, pumice, with only a few lithic blocks.

I would have used the singular: "loose material", similar to "pyroclastic material" in the first paragraph of Lastarria#Edifice proper. In your opinion, which is better, in this sentence, "loose material" or "loose materials"?  – Corinne (talk) 01:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't see the need for the plural just because there are three different types of material listed. Vsmith (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The word "edifice" bothers me more as it says "man made building" or some such in me brain. But I note that the presumed author here does use it quite a bit in other volcano articles. Vsmith (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you think of another word that would work in place of "edifice" and would be more colloquial? I replied to each of the items in the list at the GA review page.  – Corinne (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Not right off the top o me head. And I googled and discovered the USGS definition so ... hmm - do learn something every day or so ... G'nite :) Vsmith (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. Interesting. I'm glad to learn it really is the right word after all.  – Corinne (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of WVexplorer

A tag has been placed on WVexplorer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

guidelines WP:Conflict of interest WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC WP:FAILN WP:QUESTIONABLE: "Such sources include websites and publications … ’’’promotional in nature'..."

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Senor Cuete (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Vsmith (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Questionable practices

The Article Mavis Manor was nominated for speedy deletion but it looks like user:Xdrfirefly just put it back after it was removed. Senor Cuete (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Dolomite (rock) or Dolostone

Hi VSmith

Regarding our lengthy discussion during early February this year, as found at your user talk page under the archived section No 26 on Dolostone. As indicated in the discussion, you were open to the idea of changing the title of the page to "Dolomite (rock)" which by all accounts is a more universally accepted term compared to "dolostone" which appears to be much more restricted (or localised) in its use. As previously mentioned, it would be far better that you facilitate the name change as you have far more expertise, experience and knowledge on how Wikipedia works than myself as a novice. I realise that we are all volunteers and that our time is precious. I am sure that you would be able to facilitate this page title change far quicker than myself. I am more than happy to make any wording changes within the page to reflect this title change and I would make sure that the word "Dolostone" remains in the first sentence as the alternative or other name which is in use. I am also happy to chase up more references etc to add to this page.

As far as I can see, I have honestly and truthfully answered all your queries/questions relating to this subject and hope that you are able to facilitate this transition. As specifically pointed out by others, on the Dolostone talk page the term dolostone is not the preferred term used internationally by geologists or geologists. Dolomite (rock) is the best compromise to cover this mineral rock. Best regards Newcaves (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)