User talk:Vsmith/archive10

Brian Sapient

Hi. I'm contacting some people who have worked on the Rational Response Squad article because someone changed my redirect of "Brian Sapient" (which I made to redirect surfers to the RRS article) into an article on Brian Sapient himself. I'm not sure one is merited, particularly given what that editor started off with the article, and have begun a discussion on that new article's Talk Page. Your input would be appreciated. Nightscream 01:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. James Hosking here from Hilliard Christian School

It has come to my attention that students here are vandalizing entries on Wikipedia. Please block this IP (Hilliard Christian School) 202.172.114.59 from editing wikipedia. If the students wish to change entries they should do so from their home computers.

I apologise for the students actions

Please contact me a iamcanjim@yahoo.com if you wish to further discuss this matter.

James Hosking —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.172.114.59 (talk) 05:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the vandalism continues, a block will happen. Meanwhile your staff shuld be supervising their students more diligently, don't you think? Vsmith 14:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hauyne

Hello, I have a question. Why did you delete my link "hauyne.eu?" That has been done two times. Please explain it to me, because I don´t understand it. By the way, I´m a greenhorn, concerning wikipedia. Best greetings zanzano. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanzano (talk • contribs) 17:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted on User talk:217.225.76.38, the link was to a commercial website selling gemstones. Please read WP:SPAM. A link promoting a comercial site or one to a site you are associated with qualifies as spam. Vsmith 22:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change denial

Why would you think that it was appropriate to remove the protection to this article? The global warming deniers are in full swing at the article, and another admin decided it was appropriate to protect. I have made a number of reversions to WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:OR and a variety of other issues; many other editors and admins were getting tired of this bullshit on this article. Why would you think removing protection but allowing the POV-pushers to push their shit is useful to the project? Just curious.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er... I didn't remove protection, just the tag after the protection period had expired. Vsmith 10:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Local Fluff and Local Bubble

Look the sun is not traveling through the local fluff and local bubble so stop putting that on there because it makes the sun article sound very stupid so leave it alone and don't touch it and plus there is no proof —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.161.6 (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Fallout in Idaho

Dear Vsmith, Please review the DISCUSSION page for IDAHO. I plan to add a new section for nuclear fallout. Numerous references from reputable newspapers and television are provided to support this material. I understand you are not happy about this material being added, but I feel strongly that this is a significant point of view that should not be censored. Please advise via the DISCUSSION page for IDAHO if you have any additional concerns regarding this material.

76.184.140.85 06:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC) B.Sc. University of Texas, M.Sc. Southern Methodist University[reply]

Now you taking a better approach to the problem. Much better to provide sources and discuss the material rather than simply edit warring. I will watch and see what develops. I'd suggest getting a username for editing as it adds respectability for your contributions in the view of the regular vandalism patrol guys. Vsmith 11:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White gold messing

Hello. About the change reverting. I have explained my intentions at the "White gold" talk page, please take a look at it. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by EaZee (talk • contribs) 02:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will reply there. Vsmith 03:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of 201.53.33.253

Hi, I noticed you blocked 201.53.33.253. For your information, see this person's history. This spammer will definitely not go away. As an admin, could you somehow take measures to blacklist the sites?

I also left this message, but I don't think BenRG has admin rights. Cheers and TIA. DVdm 08:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching the situation and planned to semi-protect the article as the next step. Now I see Wwoods has done just that with an indefinite expiration time. That should slow things down. Vsmith 03:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Also notice that this person is spamming his links to many other articles: Theory of relativity‎, Agatha Christie‎, Charlie Chaplin‎, Pablo Picasso‎, Cubism, Principle of relativity‎, Mass–energy equivalence‎, General relativity‎, Albert Einstein‎, Mathematics of general relativity‎, Special relativity‎, The Einstein Theory of Relativity‎, Principle of relativity‎, History of gravitational theory‎, Annus Mirabilis Papers‎.

I assume that we can't just semi-protect all these articles :-) - I left a similar message at Wwoods' talk page. Cheers, DVdm 08:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new spamlink insertion on the page General relativity‎ 2 days after your 31 hours block on 7-sep. Why not just get it over with and blacklist these pages? Cheers, DVdm 06:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest listing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam if you feel it necessary. Vsmith 01:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. DVdm 08:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sprot on Rydberg formula

Hi, I promised to remind you of the sprot tag om Rydberg formula. Or could I have removed it myself? Regards, /Pieter Kuiper 22:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, removed - and yes, you could have done it, Cheers, Vsmith 23:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of rocks

OK, the re-naming of List of rocks to List of rock types was no problem. However, you then changed to old redirect to list of famous rocks and placed a speedy tag on it??? I cannot understand your reasoning there - you don't speedy a page with between 50-100 incoming links. I have re-instated the redirect to List of rock types and removed the absurd speedy tag. Please be more careful in the future. Vsmith 23:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry for the initial mix-up. I have now changed all the mainspace articles that linked to list of rocks and made them link to list to list of rock types; all that remain are some talk pages and the like. I now want to speedy delete list of rocks so I can reverse the redirect - it will only be gone for a few minutes. This will make rocks consistent with many other articles (list of famous trees, list of famous gemstones, etc.) Is this ok now? Thanks. (feel free to respond here) UnitedStatesian 00:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the longstanding list of rocks has only recently been moved, the redirect should remain and not be usurped by a list of famous rocks. That name seems quite legitimate to me - and renaming/moving it to list of rocks would be quite lacking is descriptive meaning, those rocks are not just any old chunk of stone. [[:No, the longstanding list of rocks has only recently been moved, the redirect should remain and not be usurped by a list of famous rocks. That name seems quite legitimate to me - and renaming/moving it to list of rocks would be quite lacking is descriptive meaning, those rocks are not just any old chunk of stone. See Rock formations for a different take on your famous rocks list. I've reverted your switch of redirect and removed the speedy tag. Vsmith 01:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I've just suggested such a merge on Talk:List of famous rocks - no merge template emplaced yet though. Vsmith 01:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I'll take it up on RfD. List of famous rocks is the only list article in English WP that has "famous" is its title, contrary to naming guidelines - all I want to do is get rid of it. It is by no means "my" article. Thank you very little. UnitedStatesian 01:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're most welcome :-) Now, how about my merge suggestion - wouldn't that also get rid of that horrid famous bit? The famous list is just a stubby list and woul fit right in with the larger rock formation article (although I feel that one is rather poorly named. Vsmith 01:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would. How about a rename to "List of rock formations", followed by merging in the "famous" article. Thanks (very much this time) UnitedStatesian 01:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! We agree. Please post a comment at the merge proposal on Talk:Rock formation and we'll see what others think. Cheers, Vsmith 02:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

help with someone changing my NPOV dispute discussion entries for 'freshwater' and 'pearl' pages

Hi,

I'm Pearlexpert. I would appreciate your advice on how best to resolve a problem to the benefit of the community. I've worked for years in the dot org world but haven't had a situation like this before.

It appears that my NPOV disputes on the 'pearl' and 'freshwater pearl' discussion pages have been altered to remove any mention that freshadama is a product name. I think both my entire posts are relevant, accurate, and helpful to readers trying to judge what is going on.

Strangely for 'discussion' pages the changes to my posts were made without any discussion or even comment about why they were being made. Moreover, no one has contacted me through my wikipedia usertalk page.

The changes were made by IP address, not by logged in wikipedia users. However, by looking up the IPs from the APNIC whois database the IP for the first change to the freshwater discussion page was made from an IP in French Polynesia and then a few days later to the pearl discussion page from a Darwin, AU IP.

It appears these changes were made by Jeremy Shepherd the founder/CEO of Pearl Paradise. He is traveling in this area and the IP addresses for the changes track with his travel according to his own blog entry: (http://journals.aol.com/jeremypshepherd/jeremy-shepherd/entries/2007/09/06/tahiti-marutea-sud-new-zealand-australia.../1758)

I would like my original entries restored to both discussion pages and I would like them to stay as a record of the issue at the time I originated NPOV disputes. But I don't just want to restore them and then have them changed again.

Thanks for any advice or assistance to handle this situation.

Regards, Pearlexpert

Pearlexpert 07:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the changes made to your comments. Vsmith 11:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The changes were made because Yan Berry of Premium Pearl, a competitor, is using our company name. We did not coin the name freshadama, and feel her comments are libelous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.203.125 (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the reference to my company in Los Angeles, Pearl Paradise. We did not invent the word freshadama, it was coined by community members on Pearl-Guide.com. I do not appreciate the way the paragraph has been phrased in the discussion. Our company name is to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.203.125 (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the reference to my company in Los Angeles, Pearl Paradise from 'pearls' and 'freshwater pearls'. We did not invent the word freshadama, it was coined by community members on Pearl-Guide.com several years ago. I do not appreciate the way the paragraph has been phrased in the discussion. Our company name is to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.203.125 (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not receive the message that I posted you on just a few moments ago. I am asking that our company name be removed from those posts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.203.125 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 11 September 2007

Don't know who you are if you don't sign. Also: Do not modify others comments, the page is a discussion page, not an article. Please post a paragraph there outlining your concerns - and sign with four tildes. Don't reword others comments. Vsmith 18:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My NPOV posts on the talk pages of Pearl and Freshwater Pearl have been erased again. Can you please restore them? Is there any way to prevent this from happening in the future? Thanks. Pearlexpert 23:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appalachians

Hi there, I just uploaded an new diagram for the article on the Appalachian Mountains for an info box, based on your diagram . I am aware this does not include the Canadian section. Can you help me?

--Matt 17:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colony of Virginia vandalism

Hello. I saw you recently reverted some vandalism to the Colony of Virginia page. Vandalism to this page has been an ongoing war with four, five, or more vandalism attempts being made on some days and there being maybe 12-20 attempts made per week. I've been trying to police the page along with a couple of other editors. I'm rather new, so I'm not sure if this level of vandalism is sufficient to warrant semi protection or not. Thoughts? VirginiaProp 16:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sprotected for a week. Vsmith 16:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You probably have a trunk full of these already

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Awarded for more clearly diligent patrol of science articles than any other editor than I can see. ←Ben^B4 00:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

←Ben^B4 00:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Vsmith 00:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enquiry about Earthquake

Dear Sir,

i am a Civil Engineer in Malaysia, I am curious whether is there any link between recent weather change and earthquakes in South East Asia within these few years due to imbalance weight of earth due to ground movement. As you can see, there are so many earthquakes within this region in these 3 to 4 years and since then, the weather in Malaysia start to change bit by bit, It used to so hot but now it rains a lot and the wind patterns changed; Even Singapore has sea Tornado recently.

--Umtanhh 08:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there would be a causal connection between eathquakes and weather pattern shift (I'm no expert in either seismology or meteorology though). Local weather pattern shifts could be caused by a variety of factors - perhaps a result of global warming. That said, the changes may be temporary and swing back to the previous pattern over the next few years. Yeah, that wasn't much help -- sorry 'bout that. Vsmith 00:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Concerning Self-made Images

Is the posting of self-made reconstructions of extinct animals allowed in Wikipedia, and if so, are we obligated to site references used?--Mr Fink 16:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no authority on image policy here, but it would seem that if you are producing original artwork from some previously published images, then you should give credit the the work you are using as a base. That would show that it was more than just your fantasy art. The attribution would be on the image page and not be required to appear on the article pages linking to the images. Vsmith 00:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monteregian Mountains

First, thank you for pointing out valid sources I had missed on the volcanic origins of the mountains, and editing the page to reflect the varying interpretations.

However, I simply cannot see why a "Last Eruption" should be listed in the infobox - that's just misleading! Whether or not the lava intrusions ever breached the surface is besides the point on that score : the issue is that posting a "last eruption" implies the Monteregians themselves are volcanoes, and capable (at some point) of erupting, which is false.--Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin 04:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed last eruption bit. Seems the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Volcanoes sometimes get overenthusiastic or over-inclusive at times. Vsmith 14:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auno3 sockpuppetry case (again)

Please give your opinion: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Auno3 (2nd). JScott06 16:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crowley's Ridge

Hi. I wonder if you could take another look at that article and clarify where it says, "contains the only documented Miocene exposures in the state." It doesn't say which state. I assume Arkansas, since that's where most of the ridge lies, but it's not a given. Thanks. --Kbh3^rd talk 18:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume Arkansas also, but the ref is a k12 site and not exactly a RS. Will do some more ref searching as I find time. Vsmith 23:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xenon-136 - radioactive?

Do you have a reference on the observation of its double beta decay? --V1adis1av 21:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Wasn't my addition. Vsmith 23:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry

Sorry for messing up Carbon, I see you fixed it. I meant to improve the article but I accidently made the box really big, I am working on a Biology project for High School you see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xgmx (talk • contribs) 02:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't me - User:Porsche997SBS is the editor who fixed your messing with the infobox template. Please don't experiment with templates and other complex wiki pages. Cheers, Vsmith 02:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sorry

oh ok, I'll thank him/her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xgmx (talk • contribs) 03:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

clay definition needs help

Hi V Smith,

Clay is not a soil! Clay may be a component of soil or soils may have clays within them, but clay is not soil.

The AIPEA (International Association for the Study of Clays) the CMS (Clay Minerals Society issued the following definition for clay (Guggenheim and Martin, 1995. Report. Defininition of Clay and Clay Mineral: Joint report of the AIPEA nomenclature and CMS nomenclature committees. Clays and CLay Minerals, 43, 255-256):

"The term clay refers to a a naturally occuring material composed primarily of fine-grained mineral, which is generally plastic at appropriate water contents and will harden [when] dried or fired. Although clay usually contains phyllosilicates, it may contain other materials that impart plasticity and harden when dried or fired. Associated phases in clay may include materials that do not impart plasticity[,] and organic matter."

The particle size portion of the definition is in arguement - some think it is important others think it is too arbitrary as different disciplines define the cut-off size for clay differently. Soil scientists use the 2 micron cut-off, engineers often use 4 microns, colloidal scientists often use 1 micron cut-off. and as the above cited paper explains examples exist of plastic materials that harden when dried or fired that are composed of particles larger than micron size.

The minerals kaolinite, montmorillonite and illite are clay minerals, but can be components of clays. quartz, cristobalite and other clay-sized minerals are associated phases of (or in) clay.

Clays can be of many origins: sedimentary, volcanic, diagentic, pedogenic etc etc, even evidence for the biologically induced precipication of some clays (e.g. various oxides by drain-clogging bactiera).

Hope that helps, keep up the good work! Sarpy2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarpy2 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that soil bit had bothered me - removed it - more later, gotta go now. Feel free to edit the article based on your ref. Vsmith 12:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)i dont know wear to put this but i am deeply sorry this wont happen again.[reply]

Native american Philosophy

Proposal is perfect... I erase Section?? and we work on discussion section... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilmesis (talk • contribs) 18:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate Links

My apologies; I did not consider the external links I added to be "inappropriate."

Currently over 150 organizations I am aware of link to my photographs--and among them is Wikipedia on other topics--and not added by myself.

As to promotion--"self" or otherwise--I do not need to promote my photographs. Currently my photographs receive several thousand views daily from over 120 countries. On most topics my photographs list higher in search returns on both Google and Yahoo than does Wikipedia.

My photographs do not include any advertising and I do not sell prints except locally. While I do sell photographic files for stock purposes (including several from that Mount Rushmore gallery, including four recently for promotional products for Disney's upcoming movie "National Treasure: Book of Secrets") publishers find me via Google--and not Wikipedia. I very much doubt that if the entire population of the Earth visited my galleries via Wikipedia that it would add a single cent to my pocket... (And by the way out of thousands of visitors daily to my photographs links from Wikipedia account for no more than approximately 10 any given day.)

Moreover every photograph I have seen displayed on Wikipedia does include a bit of self-promotion of the photographer. For example if you visit the photographs on the Wikipedia entry for Multnomah Falls you will find links to the photographer's website: http://kay-photography.com/ I do not mean to single out Mr. Kay in this regard as "every" photograph I have seen on Wikipedia includes similar links.

I would not mind sharing my photographs directly on Wikipedia as other photographers have done. However many of the publishers I have worked with request "exclusive licenses" that preclude publishing specified images elsewhere except on my website. I felt that linking to them, rather than publishing them maintained both the spirit and intent of those licenses while still providing the content to Wikipedia users who might find it useful.

I was trying to be helpful. Again my apologies if this was "inappropriate."

If you wish to respond please do so at harpeegio@charter.net as I very rarely visit Wikipedia.

Gregory A Harp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harpeggio (talk • contribs) 18:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cave ecology

Hello, I'm curious why you think the link to cave fauna in SE Asia is spam? On Cave page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavingliz (talk • contribs) 02:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two inline external links to the same website in one brief paragraph, just looks like pure spam to me. The brief para. had essentially zero content - just a couple of "come on and see my stuff" links. Are you associated with cavesofmalaysia.com? Vsmith 02:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm associated with the link. Considering the link is to an informative www, I don't really see why you deleted it, especially as there are few websites on specialist sites such as Asian cave fauna. Cavingliz 13:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are associated with the site, then it becomes a conflict of interest issue as well as simple WP:SPAM. Vsmith 23:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Periodic table spam

Under what criteria are the following links spam? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Periodic_table&diff=prev&oldid=161519164. Why not chop Visual Elements instead, which adds nothing of value, not a unique interface, not exceptional data, nothing. Or Theodore Gray's periodic table table, which is very "nifty" and "cool" but much more a link for Digg or Reddit, not an encyclopedia entry.

Though the TouchSpin link does contain some ads, it is much better in every way than the poorly-executed Flash of Visual Elements and its tiny amount of data. The other link, ptable.com contains all the data of roughly 20 Wikipedia pages (all the links in Template:PeriodicTablesFooter) in a very modern Ajax interface and has no advertising. In a way, it's the perfect link for Wikipedia, combining Wikipedia's data in a way it cannot--as a web application.

Please reconsider the merit of these links.--Lucent 21:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP is not a list of links. Perhaps even more should be removed. Vsmith 23:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sold, then. You've set a very high standard by removing those. Probably everything but the IUPAC table should be wiped out, and it should be a reference, not an external link.--Lucent 06:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barn Star

image removed.

My friend made this barnstar. He has plenty of others which are much better, but he don't want to give them to me. Since i think you are interested in barnstars, this is very interesting for you. :P 1() 20:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but no, I have no interest in such. Cheers, Vsmith 20:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment

Your input would be appreciated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Martinphi ScienceApologist 21:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your anti-vandalism efforts

I noticed that you have been regularly correcting vandalism done to the article on Atomic Theory. I commend you generally on your efforts to keep Wikipedia a good reference source, and I also thank you on a personal level, as much of this particular article is my own work (nearly all of it, actually), and it peeves me to see mischievous little gremlins screwing it up. Have a cookie. :)Kurzon 12:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance

Greetings!
I was curious if you could possibly read through my "expansion" of the watershed protection article. I am trying to improve myself as a technical communicator and would greatly appreciate any and all feedback!

Thanks, Prevero

Will take a look when I have a bot of time. Vsmith 22:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I think I just edit conflicted you on Global Warming trying to do the same thing. --BozMo talk 21:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Seems to have been re-added with your edit summary as validation. Vsmith 22:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grossular

Vsmith I have a Reference have like to add in the Grossular article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grossular The parts where it says [citation needed] about The chemical structure for viluite is Ca2(Mg,Fe)5Si8O22(OH)2, Calcium Magnesium Iron Silicate Hydroxide and Some Data Indicates it to be similar to nephrite jade in luster and color. I have article you could use an a Reference: http://www.geocities.com/smresource9/minerology/viluite.html

Please tell me what you think. Neptunekh 10:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check WP:RS - that geocities site is not a reliable source, and has a bit of mis-information or simple confusion. Vsmith 11:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I'm confused, please explain to me which entry I vandalized, so I will not make this mistake again. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.85.58.94 (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On July 25 someone using that IP address vandalized Global warming. If you didn't do it, don't worry. To avoid such problems please create an account. Vsmith 17:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do have an account, that I use when I create entries. My work computer is on a local network at a local University, it could've been anybody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.85.58.94 (talk)

Greek Agate and Egyptian Jasper

Hi Vsmith! Would you mind merging the Egyptian Jasper article and the Greek Agate article to the Agate article and the Jasper? Thanks! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_agate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_jasper Neptunekh 19:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

apologies

not sure which link you removed. I am affiliated with an anti-corrosion technical library, which is not selling anything, only the technical knowledge of my family's years in the anti-corrosion business. perhaps there is some misunderstanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjb9866 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the WP:SPAM and WP:External links pages. Wikipedia is not a list of links; you are welcome to add content to Wikipedia articles. Continuing to add external links only will likely lead to problems. Vsmith 01:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom crystal

Hi Vsmith! I created a page called Phantom crystal. Phantom_crystal Would you mind editing it? Thank you! Neptunekh 23:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks, not convinced we need an article on that. And seems you could fix a bunch of typos yourself. In case you want more good info, see http://www.rockhoundingar.com/quartz/phantom.html for a detailed discussion of the topic. Please be careful about copyright violations as you edit, as an earlier version was deleted for that reason. Vsmith 01:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phantoms

Why don't you think you need an article on Phantoms? Neptunekh 02:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could easily be covered in a section in the quartz article - or more generally in the crystal or crystallography article. Of the abundant google hits, the one mentioned above was the only one not selling crystals or hyping their so-called powers. Cheers, Vsmith 03:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oil shale

Thank you for your assistance improving the Oil shale article to the GA level. Of course the work continues and I hope that you will be able to continue to contribute also for FAC nomination and improving other oil shale related articles. I think the next GAC could be the Oil shale geology and the Oil shale extraction. Beagel 14:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hot springs

that was a copy and paste from the Hot Springs, Arkansas history section. I have no idea why it is called "Poop Reserve" there - if that is wrong then change it... A.J.Chesswas 03:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see that now. However, surely you recognize the "Poop reservation" bit as a bit of earlier vandalism - did you simply not see that when doing the copy/paste bit? Vsmith 03:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King's GW bibliography

Dear VSmith -- I would like to thank your concern regarding our link, but would like to add that this is not promotional jargon. King's College Library, Cambridge has had a generous donation to contribute to GW awareness. We have acquired many books from both GW camps, and we would like to share that knowledge with people in the UK as well as worldwide. King's College Library is a free library and would seek no financial gain from this link but to expose our free collection to whoever wants to know and read it. If you happen to pass by Cambridge one day, please feel free to pay us a visit and see for yourself. If it's not too much to ask, I will now re-instate just one link and kindly ask if you could leave it at that. Many thanks, King's College. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedrium (talk • contribs) 15:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate "Chopping" by Vsmith

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Periodic_table&diff=161519164&oldid=161518930

Why did you remove this links listed at the above edit? They are not spam as you state. The Touchspin periodic table has been a part of this page since July 4 2006, They Dayah table, even longer. Both are valuable and useful to the readers of this page.

Your comments said "External links - spam," but these are nothing of the sort. Then and now, those page, and the links to them in the external links section of the periodic table page have violated no rules of wiki. The links were not created by the page's authors and were not self promotional, rather, your actions were excessive and damaging to integrity and content of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.194.86 (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the Wikipedia:External links guidelines. Vsmith 02:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Molar stuff

uhm, if possible please don't delete the helpful molar calculation, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.249.39 (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry just did it again. Wikipedia is not a "How to..." and your formatting and the phrasing, "...if you see a solution description that says ... " is not encyclopedaic. Vsmith 18:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, I know the wording doesn't sound encyclopedaic. other people can take the time to make it 'sound right'. I'm just trying to be helpful as I believe encyclopedias should be in every way possible. The internet provides many more possibilities than were in the encyclopedias of the past which you seem to be striving to mimic. I don't think you should remove useful and correct information just because it sounds wrong or because it conflicts with your narrow view of what the site should be. That being said there still should be some policing and I'm sure that people appreciate your removal of true non-useful vandalism. I guess we have different opinions of what vandalism is but you'll win because I don't have the time to enforce my view like you do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.249.39 (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution vandalism

Hi there, I've indef-blocked that account you blocked for 24h, it is a sockpuppet of a long-term vandal. See Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse#Genesis_vandal for details. Tim Vickers 19:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit Quartz

Hi Vsmith! I created an artcile called fruit quartz. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_quartz Can you do the usual? Thanks! Neptunekh 00:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Revert of page on "Theory"

Please read the first paragraph of the article. The article states that the common usage of the term "theory" is synonymous with "hypothesis". When the word theory is used in this way, the statement "It's not a fact, it's only a theory." is in no manner misguided. To state the obvious, a hypothesis is not a fact. Please undo your recent mistaken revert.

- Don't bother, I took care of it myself since you are afk or whatever.

AikBkj 16:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity?

Dear Mr. Vsmith, I have seen that according to your understanding of the case, you have censored my citation of what can be considered a paradigmatic autodidact; a really 'self taught’ person with amazing recognized achievements (if I found a digital version of his curriculum vitae I would sent it to you, just for your information – same if I found where he is now in the world,).
Please, let me explain: there is nothing here such as "vanity" (22:55, 31 October 2007 Vsmith (Talk | contribs) (7,459 bytes) (rmv last addition - vanity?).
Indeed, this Mr. (no academic titles) "George A. Jachewatzky-Hashaviah” was my teacher (truly the best I ever known) in 2006, in one of his teaching tours here in south America, invited to teach 4 full time courses of 120 hours each in the framework of a Master degree by the University of Guayaquil (the largest University here in Ecuador), institution where among other executive functions at my 75 years old, I’m still a full time professor. My colleagues and I were deeply astonished by the level and deep of the academic knowledge and the professional attitudes and aptitudes of this person without any formal education.
I hope that in the midst of your occupations you will found some time to spend so to read the following web page. It teaches us a little about “self taught” people: www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=%2Farts%2F2001%2F07%2F14%2Fboint14.xml
As far as I know in the last 40 years Mr. Jachewatzky-Hashaviah as been in many countries of the world a vivid paradigm of a person who, pursuing what Jürgen Habermas called in 1978, the interest of man in knowledge and education (cognitive, hermeneutic, emancipating and instrumental) fulfills any definition of a self taught or autodidact (or even auto-ontological / ontogenical) person. I can’t believe that in the encyclopedic efforts of Wikipedia such a modern paradigm it’s considered just ‘vanity’ and not, as it was my intention, to supply a vivid example of a true “autodidacticism”.

I try to attach here a reference letter from our institution for your information, but it seems I don't know how to use the option. If I could have your e-mail I would do it gladly. Whatever you decide of course I will respect your decision. But there is nothing such as ‘vanity’ here.

Thank you for your kind attention to my words.
Sincerely yours,
Bolivar A. (marregui01@hotmail.com)

Thanks for your clarifying comments. My first impression was that the anon was writing about himself, hence my ?vanity note, I'm glad this was not the case. However, there still remain two problems: verification - where is a description of this individuals exploits published. Wikipedia is not for first hand accounts - that would be original research or hearsay. The second problem is notability. I'm sure from your description the individual is a "great guy", but Wikipedia demands more. If he is indeed notable, then it should be no problem to write a fully sourced biographical article about him as a Wikipedia article. Until those two problems are resolved, mention of him does not belong in the autodidact article. Vsmith 22:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Vsmith, Thank you for considering my words. As I try to explain it my sole intention was to provide an excellent case of “autodidacticism” fully comparable to other mentioned in the web page; a person that has been considered in many countries, their universities and other public institutions as a ‘phenomenon’. As I had write to you, I have been a student of him and hear a little about his life, but certainly I’m in no position or right to write “a fully sourced biographical article about him as a Wikipedia article” (to be published where?, in what form, under what conditions and 'label'?) in the form of an essay or a deep analysis, the whole facts of this person’s life and the processes by which he has become such a surprising professor in many matters without formal education. The only thing that I’m trying now ‘to put my hands on it’ is his ‘curriculum vitae’ which, as I remember, was full of official reference letters (instead of diplomas), which testify about the person. When I get it I certainly will send to you a copy, just for your information. Maybe you, who know exactly what Wikipedia means by verification, credibility, notability, etc., will feel provoked to investigate further and write about this truly amazing autodidact that has become a researcher and a teacher of university professors in so many countries. If this is not the case, even it’s a waste, just forget about it.

Thanks again for your kind attention, Cordially, Dr. Bolivar A. (marregui01@hotmail.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.76.60.92 (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R U SERIOUS?!

Gawd. I actually add something that people can use and what do you do, YOU WIPE IT?!?!?!?!?!

Ummm and EXCUSE ME just cos you're a professor or used to be doesn't mean you know everything. NO OFFENCE! But it is true. AND WHY did you change what I wrote???

♥ ME Teletubbiesrule! 04:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC) and yes, if it is ok please reply! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teletubbiesrule! (talk • contribs) 04:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, serious. What you added was a misplaced, unsourced (copied from where?) and quite redundant acronym which was also not written as prose. Vsmith 04:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work

Thanks for the improvement to the article Electromagnetic spectrum.-- Penubag 01:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dolerite in Tasmania

Gday,

after a bit of thought on how to approach this I've decided that if you'll drop me a postal address at my | webform I'll buy and post you a copy of 'The Rock that Makes Tasmania' by David Leaman for some Christmas reading. He's a retired prof or something and not internet addicted like the rest of us. Little review of the book here.

Most of Tasmania is studded with dolerite peaks and (mostly) plateaus, in fact most of the mountains here are dolerite topped, except a few in the SW. Indeed the sea cliffs from the most southerly point most of the way east (Bruny Island, Tasman Peninsular) to about Maria island are dolerite. So much so they can affect a ship's compasss. Tasmania at 68,401 km² or 26,410 sq mi is about the size of the Republic of Ireland. And I've been thinking of putting a youtube vid up doing a vox pop in the street "So, what is that mountain made of?" And I assure you the word diabase will never pop up unless they've popped in from North America with a geology degree in their pocket. Lots of blue dots on googleearth in tasmania shown dolerite, eg the columns at Cape Raoul on the Tasman Peninsular, are spectacular.--Meika 04:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SORRY!!!

i am sorry for troubling winkapida i wouldlove to be a better user.

THANKS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.204.124 (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeology

Hey there, I just noticed your revert of my edit to archaeology, regarding the 'science' bit. I note that you are a Geologist, which means you probably see things from the scientific side (everyone sees things differently :p). However, there are an influential group of archaeologists who have argued, in published sources, that archaeology isn't a science and contains aspects that are distinctly unscientific.

Obviously, neither school is going to be 'right' (each archaeologist will pursue their discipline in their own way) but I think the opening paragraph should at the very least not present archaeology as unqualified, undisputed science as I feel this would be misleading to readers.

I won't be making the edit again, pending discussion on the talk page. Man from the Ministry 12:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about field of study which may be science-based or ____?___ based. What goes in the blank? Vsmith 12:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. See the article talk page for my suggestions. :) Man from the Ministry 16:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear power

Thanks for protecting it from anon vandalism. --LeyteWolfer 17:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I considered blocking, but as there were several ips involved felt protection would be more effective. Vsmith 17:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related IPs template?

You gave a final warning to a vandal from 163.248.116.30, and he immediately reappeared at 163.248.116.31, so I blocked both. I seem to recall a template for user talk pages of related IPs, but I cannot find it. Could you point me to it if you know what I'm talking about? Thanks. --Kbh3^rd talk 17:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, seems there is such a template - but I don't remember where, ah well. It appears the two ips are registered to a school district in Utah - so if they return after the block expires, zap 'em with a long schoolblock. Vsmith 01:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

69.227.151.150‎

Hi. Sorry to bother you here, but the 'bot at AIV removed the above IP address. He's threatening more vandalism with the other IPs and the block you put on (72 hours) expires today. Thanks. --LeyteWolfer (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ip's vandalism target page is semi-protected because of multi-ip vandalism, so he'll be frustrated there for a while. May extend the block for incivility and threats to vandalize when the current block expires. Vsmith (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting the ecosystem article

Hi tried to get the ecosystem article semi projected as I proposed on the talk pages there. Almost all the edits made to this article have been vandalism lately and I was wondering if there is something we can do about this? - Mdd (talk) 10:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 52 edits in the last 30 days only two seem non-vandal related (resulted in a change in the article). So that's maybe 25 vandal edits and 25 vandal revet edits (not an actual count) - which is less than one vandal edit per day average. Although troublesome, that is not a high rate of vandalism for a main topic article - and in general not enough to go for protection. I too wish vandalism were gone, but that's just one of the realities of open editing that makes Wikipedia work. Simply tacking a protect tag at the top of the article does nothing (and is rather posting an untruth, also a form of vandalism), protection requires administrative action. Thanks for your concern and well meaning action though, Vsmith (talk) 12:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC) (Copied to Talk:Ecosystem)[reply]

Anthemoessa

Hi! I created a page called Anthemoessa. It's about the island of the Sirens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthemoessa Would you mind editing it please? Thanks! Neptunekh (talk) 08:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cristalls_enargita.jpg

Hello. A question has raised about an image you originally uploaded here on Wikipedia which is now on Wikimedia Commons, Image:Cristalls_enargita.jpg, and a nomination for deletion has been made. See the deletion request here and comment if you wish. Thank you. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice concerning the article americum

I see – together with, at least, User:Rifleman 82 and User:JWB – you are one of the active contributors on the topic. I left a message for JBW at his talk page. With all expert knowledge and yours, it will be easy to decide this wee problem. I'm not expert on the topic. -- Gluck 123 (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:216.163.52.5

I think you should know that User:216.163.52.5 is back to his old tricks and carrying out blatant vandalism attacks on several articles. Just a little tip. Manxruler (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup -- blocked again. Vsmith (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was very helpful of you. Manxruler (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith

Vsmith, is there still a policy or guideline something like this?

(My guess) Expressions of support for a viewpoint elsewhere have no bearing on changes made to the current article. Each addition or deletion must stand on its own merits, regardless of the reader's assessment of the writer's POV.

If not, then perhaps we need to come to some sort of personal agreement on how to provide balance at the politicization of science article, because it seems we are on opposite sides.

Looks like you think Bush and the conservatives are the bad guys, while UCS and/or Gore are the good guys. So that would make me an advocate for the other side. Is this how you see the situation?

If so, we might agree that each of us would write a 'fair description' of our favored side.

Anyway, I'm not going to revert any more. I've used up my "one revert per week" ;-)

Maybe we can find a politicization example which is clear and obvious to both of us, like Galileo or tobacco. --Uncle Ed 14:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry 'bout the agf bit, just a suggested link and a new red link reminded me of some old pov fork problems. And your guess re: the guideline is likely close.

You then go on to assume opposite side stuff and good guy/bad guy ... give me a break. My editing history should stand for itself. If it's politician vs science or religion vs science - guess where I'll be. Vsmith 02:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, sorry, I'll have to study your contribs. I think we both agree that "any interest vs. science" involves the kind of distortion described by William Happer:

... advocacy groups use science and scientists ... to drive science out of technical decisions and to promote a nonscientific agenda.

By the way, I'm quoting from a version of Politicization of science that was reverted. I wonder whether you prefer the version I made with Kim Dabelstein Peterson. [1] --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

study my contribs... heh, 'bout 95% vandal reversion lately :-)

I tend to not take political science appointees too seriously, especially after a change in party - much is sour grapes. And when the deposed appointee tries to paint the deposers with a broad Stalinissm connection based on supposed or tenuous appearances, I tend to tune 'em out. As stated above Happer summed up a couple of historical problems quite well, but when he tries to paint current controversies with the same brush - I tune out.

As for the article, I'm not thrilled with either version. And did you collaborate w/KDP? or did he just clear up some stuff following your edits? Vsmith 03:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming controversy‎

I've undone your revert of my edit because you gave no explanation why well-sourced material from a major newspaper that is relevant to the topic should not be included. 121.208.180.8 (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the kangaroo fart bit was totally out of place in the attribution section and sourced by a sensationalised news blurb is just not well sourced - try sourceing to the scientific article (assuming there is one) when more of the speculative parts are solidified. Vsmith 02:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone your 12/29/07 revert about the Great Barrier Reef, the line about the UN claim that the entire reef will be gone by 2030 is utter balderdash and the UN is not in a position to make scientific claims, so 70.XX.XXX or whatever his IP was, is correct in deleting that tidbit. Please let's not continue with the unsubstantiated claims in Wikipedia, such as this, and the bit about kangaroo farts that I find here. Let's let Wikipedia be encyclopedic and reliable, not a place for people to vent crazy political doomsday opinions.Morgan Wright (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. After looking at the ref - seems it was a headline in a news release, I decided it really wasn't appropriate as cited. That said, if the UN report (which is backed by scientific studies) actually does state that, then it should be included. Not as crazy political doomsday opinions, but as sourced scientifically backed info. Vsmith (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geology 3370 - Introduction to Mineralogy.

Hi VSmith,

The term papers in my class this semester were on minerals named after people (thus Sperrylite, Julgoldite, Uytenbogaardite, and a host of others). The students received extensive training on the tools of direct scientific research, including GEOREF, Web of Science, and so forth, in order for them to learn to access and use the real peer-reviewed literature. The only non-peer reviewed sources allowed were for photo links. Wikipedia was 100% off limits, except for becoming generally acquainted with the real literature.

I reviewed, commented and returned all 62 papers, and then reread the results, which were quite good, and have allowed most of them to upload their articles to wikipedia for a small amount of extra credit. I told them to adhere to wikipedia style, but as well as being beginners at science, they are beginners at wikipedia as well, and will need a lot of help. I told them the basics (no text dumps for example) which many of them seem to have ignored, the rest is up to them.

Several of them had their articles deleted immediately, one with the outrageous comment that "this isn't your work". There have been predictable complaints about lacking wikification. I'm hoping this will all work itself out. These articles are generally well researched and vetted by me (for what that's worth), and certainly of a basic quality that they should enrich Wikipedia.

I noticed one person put the authorship statement in the body of the article, rather than in the discussion, I have been trying to fix some of the little faux pas like that on the fly.

I will be at the AGU all next week and will look at the articles again over the break. Please email me directly if you would like to discuss further.

Cheers,

Jon Snow.

jesnow at uh dot edu Jesnow (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAR listing for Plate tectonics

Plate tectonics has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Politicization of science

It's okay. I just didn't realize what was going on because of the heated argument, and the revert war sidetracked me from figuring it out. It's unfortunate, but I will try to work on the article again when the controversy dies down.Athene cunicularia (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afwillite

Hello, Where it says, "Afwillite is one of the calcium silicates that form when Portland cement sets to form concrete.[6] The cement gets its strength from the hydration of its di- and tri- calcium silicates." That's wrong and every time I correct it, you change it back. Afwillite does not form as a result of the Portland cement setting. It is used to make Portland cement. Afwillite can occur as an alteration or by contact metamorphism. Its key significance is that it is used for making Portland cement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crw19 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the ref I provided. Afwillite is a rare mineral so how can it be a significant component in making such a common product? Also, take a look at the portland cement page - no mention of it there. Vsmith (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afwillite is rare, however, if you have access to Megaw H. D. (1952). The structure of Afwilltie. Acta. 5, 477. You will find that afwilite, is in fact used in Portland cement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.30.26 (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my jumping in. I don't have access to the Megaw paper, but other more recent documents indicate that afwillite has been used, in laboratory settings, to test improved setting rates in cements (without success, incidentally). Many, many sources indicate afwillite's presence as a product of cement crystallization, and none that I could find indicate it as an initial component of the mix, including AIME's volumes on Industrial Minerals and Rocks, virtually the bible for things like sources of materials for cement and uses of minerals. As Vsmith points out, even if sometime, someplace some afwillite was added to a cement mixture, its rarity means that is not possible for it to be routinely used on a large scale, and therefore such mention does not belong in the encyclopedia. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I see your sources?

This should probably be moved to the Afwillite talk page, but - google "portland cement" + components + afwillite --> only 99 hits, some of which are pay sites, but those that are not are about afwillite as a product of cement crystallization. Googling "portland cement"+ components (i.e., no mention of afwillite) gets 262,000 hits. The book I mentioned above is published by the AIME. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copied to Talk:Afwillite - Vsmith (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er...

I did not vandalize, I added the what certain people believe to be facts. I also said that this may be the truth, I didn't say it was. I also quoted a true quote from Rumsfeld, and I even cited. I cannot see how any of this is in any way vandalism.

I did not intend my edit as vandalism, but there is a significant amount of evidence against what the government said happened, so I just added the suspicions of the conspiracy, and never said it was true.

I personally believe that there should be a whole page dedicated to the possible conspiracy, but what ever. If what you think is true is true then it is, If what I think happened did, then I'm right, and the truth will eventually come out, and the world will know which hit the pentagon a missle or a plane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remilo (talk • contribs) 02:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems you've replied to the wrong person - and without any indication of what article you were talking about (my note on your talk was last Feb.). After some checking - it seems you have been adding some questionable material with no reliable sources along with some simple vandalism to The Pentagon article. Now that you have called it to my attention, should you continue the nonsense and conspiracy theory pushing edits - you will be blocked. It doesn't matter what you or I "think", it's all about reliable sources. Vsmith (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not vandalize the pentagon. I told you before, that I was adding what people believed is the truth, and I did not say it was. But what is there is stated as fact, even though it may not be. I also sited, and used a quote from Secretary of defense Rumsfeld (which I also cited) to go along with my point. You cannot ignore the significant amount of evidence against what the government says is truth, so it should not be stated as fact, when it may not be. I do not think it was vandalism, and I did not intend it to be. However if I am blocked because I am trying to tell the world that something might be true, so be it, I will just make another account, and not vandalize in my opinion.

I am sorry about the vandalism I made last year, that was intentional. I was really very pissed at the person who's article I was editing, so that is why I vandalized it. That was intentional, but this about the pentagon was not vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remilo (talk • contribs) 13:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Reversion
		For reverting so many unhelpful edits and vandalism on Wikipedia I User Swirlex award you this Barnstar.

link to engineering encyclopedia

Hi, I think that the link to the science and engineering encyclopedia www.diracdelta.co.uk is a valuable addition and that you should look at the pages before being too hasty. I welcome your comments. Charlie Hawkins consultant@diracdelta.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.214.214 (talk) 08:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SPAM and WP:External links. Quite simply: if you are associated with a site, don't link to it. Vsmith (talk) 13:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden copyvio

Thanks for this deletion. I had simply assumed it was written by a contributor and had no idea it was a copyvio. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure 'bout the copyvio bit. It seemed rather odd to paste a large "quote" as a hidden comment - I assume you were intending to use/summarise it within the article space? Better to userfy it to a user/work subpage seems to me. Is this common practice for you? Material "published" even in blog form should be considered copyrighted material, you did provide inline links, but the main one didn't work for me. Vsmith (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, after further digging. Seems the long Kuhner bio bit was added by Special:Contributions/69.143.32.190 on Dec. 6, within the infobox(invisible in article), at the same time as User:Jkuhner began editing the Insight (magazine) page. Rather a mess :-) Vsmith (talk) 15:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgotten how useful it can be to paste rough, unfinished material into a user subpage. Also, I simply assumed the Kuhner quote was okay instead of doing the digging that *you* did. Once again, thanks for correcting *my* errors! :-)

I myself am not so interested in writing a bio of Kuhner. He seems to be a lousy editor of a second-rate web magazine. I wrote off Insight several years ago and get my news from wire services, network news shows, and of course The Washington Times. (Not to mention The Guardian and a few other UK news sources.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DohgonCarbon

WHY YOU DID DELETE WHAT I PUT IN THE CARBON PAGE! I AM ANGRY BECAUSE EVERY THING I DID ON THE ENCYCLOPEDIA IS DELETED BY PEOPLE! MUST YOU BE ELITE TO USE THIS SITE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DohgonCarbon (talk • contribs) 16:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't SHOUT. The material you added to carbon was deleted as unsourced nonsense. Now if you can provide a source for it, please do so. Vsmith (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bentonite

I can see how the image I put on there may be considered spammy and a couple of references unreliable and I have therefore removed them, but I refuse to remove the mention of medical benefits with the reference to about.com. On there website, they link to the follwing research:

Sources

Abdel-Wahhab MA, Nada SA, Farag IM, et al. Potential protective effect of HSCAS and bentonite against dietary aflatoxicosis in rat: with special reference to chromosomal aberrations. Nat Toxins.1998; 6:211-218.

Ducrotte P, Dapoigny M, Bonaz B, Siproudhis L. Symptomatic efficacy of beidellitic montmorillonite in irritable bowel syndrome: a randomized, controlled trial. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005 Feb 15;21(4):435-44.

Santurio JM, Mallmann CA, Rosa AP, et al. Effect of sodium bentonite on the performance and blood variables of broiler chickens intoxicated with aflatoxins. Br Poult Sci. 1999; 40:115-119.

PDR Health. Bentonite. <http://www.pdrhealth.com/drug_info/nmdrugprofiles/nutsupdrugs/ben_0308.shtml>

Jason7825 (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Pyknometer

Hi V! I do not understand why you changed the entry as non-glass pyknometers exist. Please see the link below. I do not work for the company. What do you think remove glass from the description or add steel as well?

http://www.ejpayne.com/productdetails.asp?ProductID=PYK&Section=SANITARYWARE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.147.121 (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidense that you have edited that page - the edit I reverted was made by ip 81.153.31.16 who was in a revert war and has been blocked as a sockpuppet. I will check out your link and consider changes to the article. Meantime, as you seem to be a sock of a blocked ip - I'd just suggest cooling it - or perhaps a range block is in order? Clue, if you are blocked for whatever reason as one ip and you return to edit as another ip, you are a block evading sock - can't get any simpler than that. OK, now I see you've been blocked at this ip as well, so - I can't do it :-) Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello V. Yes I have fallen foul of a trigger happy admin., but I wil not go into details here other than to say I am not a sockpuppet as despite using different IP addresses I have never hidden that I am the same person. I would say though I was a little taken aback to see that whilst I posted quite a polite comment your reply was titled "reply to clueless sock." I don't think that was necessary when I was mearly starting a discussion with the aim of improvimg an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.64.40 (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really are clueless ... geez - how about doing a reality check. Note, the article has been modified per your request. Now stop the nonsense. Vsmith (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi V. I am aware the article has been modified. I am at a loss to comprehend that nature of your reply: "clueless", "reality check", " "nonsense." I just don't understand why you need to speak to me like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.66.183 (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maby a range block should cull the nonsenses, this seems to be Disruptive editing. --Hu12 (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of Ripenet - that'd be fun :-) Vsmith (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would save the project some bandwidth:-D--Hu12 (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowstone National park link

Spam? You have to be kidding. Did you look through the entire section? I spent weeks developing just that one section (I already know you didn't look at all, since the web log shows you only looked at the Overview Page). I spent weeks in Yellowstone photo-documenting and developing the content for that section. I'd like to see a link to something MORE relevant to this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamNP (talk • contribs) 22:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Vsmith (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rock templates

Hello, I am an Italian Wikipedian. I am dealing with rocks. I am planning to develop templates. Looking around I found your templates on Igneous rock, Metamorphic rock and Sedimentary rock. I seem to be a good starting point. Why 'were not used? Let me know. Thanks --Mario1952 (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to modify and use them. I created those a while back, but there was no interest and I got side-tracked and sorta forgot about 'em. Maybe I'll work them up now that you have jogged my memory. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Your work may have better luck in Italy. How Latins say nemo propheta in patria. Ciao --Mario1952 (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for cleaning things up in the Mont Saint-Hilaire article! I'm afraid I'm not quite as good as keeping things clean as I would want to be. <ref>insert footnote text here

And as evidence of the above, I left a reference above rather than a signature. Go me!-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin (talk • contribs) 19:27, 30 December 2007

No problem - fixed that ref tag w/ a nowiki tag. Hope I didn't messup any refs when I combined them into ref name=. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USMC length

I'd appreciate a little consideration for those of us who have older computers. 114Kb total is awfully big, and often causes problems with my browser. I'm somewhat surprised an admin is not more understanding of the situation. I could "Be Bold" and just take an axe to the page,a s some editors have been known to do, but I've chosen not to take that path. There are new editors on pages all the time, and older editors who may have been inactive. Please give this a chance to work. Thanks for your consideration of others in this matter. - BillCJ (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill, dictator here :-) Why not be bold a bit at a time. You mention that a history article exists, just start moving material out of the main article - with a polite explanation on the talk page and see what happens. If someone reverts then ask for an explanation. And I'm aware of slow systems, I access by tele modem when my satellite connection founders and disable image loading to speed things up. The main problem then becomes looong talk pages. Which reminds me, time to archive here, thanks - Vsmith (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection?

Hi Vsmith, at the CU report here, Alison said that a range block might be possible if attacks continue. I think this might this be a better solution than fully protecting the article. R. Baley (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a range block is emplaced and works - then unprotect. Seems the sock attack is not limited to the global warming article. Vsmith (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I can't do it myself, just acting as a "dot-connector" here. R. Baley (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons Greetings

Belated Happy Christmas and best wishes for the New Year William M. Connolley (talk)

Thanks, and have a good one - easy on the spirits now, might affect your editing civility. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]