User talk:Vsmith: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:56, 27 March 2013

Please note - rules of the game! I usually answer comments & questions on this page rather than on your talk (unless initiated there) to keep the conversation thread together. I am aware that some wikiers do things differently so let me know if you expect a reply on your page and maybe it'll happen :-)

CSH

Dear Vsmith, I've added 2 related articles to CSH as you had said. I hope those are suitable for WP.Soroush90gh (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Those pdfs look solid - would be nice to have a journal ref to back up the Ga Tech slideshow. The cement folks tendency to use their version of chem formulas kinda grates on the chemistry teacher in me :) Vsmith (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grossular

Hello Vsmith. Grossular has a merge stick on it from User talk:Strickja since 2009. I guess that you don't want to merge hessonite, a grossular variety. Right? Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably should ... now that this note is here, just maybe will get to it. Having an ice storm here now - don't know if the electric lines will go down? Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guessed that u r against merging, I guessed wrong :-O Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Thank you for fix my unfinished job at djerfisherite. I got the impression that webmineral.com isn't updated anymore, just take care ;) Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re: Cosmology

Hi, Several people, including you, have been reverting the description of Biblical Cosmology to one that is just completely fraudulent and doesn't have hardly a thing to do with the Bible's actual description of the cosmos. It's nearly a carbon copy of the Babylonian one and not accurate at all in terms of what the Bible says (which is why I included Bible references in my revision). Describing Bible cosmology as similar to Babylonian is about as accurate as calling America a communist nation. Isn't wikipedia supposed to be accurate?

All who have reverted it simply do not seem to care about accuracy. They may have good intentions, but their description is not accurate at all. I have MUCH more documentation of this I can add if you wish, even by agnostic scientists. I'm also a professor myself and have done quite a bit of study into the Bible as well as science and history. Wikipedia is very good in many places..but there is unfortunately a bias against historical facts in some areas, sometimes in Christian areas, but not limited to that by any means. I use wikipedia a lot...but we need to make sure it is accurate, not just supporting a prejudiced agenda.

Sorry I haven't contacted others about this..I just figured out how to use the talk pages just now.

Bryan

Dotoree (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are discussing now on the article talk. That's where it belongs ... Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for 1. welcome 2. info on signing 3. link fix Dr. Woo Woo (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Stay around awhile, we need more editors who are willing to learn and improve the articles. Vsmith (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page - mole fraction

Hi!Please use the talk page if you're wondering about some aspects before considering a reversion.

About the question proper, isn't the isotopic abundance a type of mole fraction which deserves to be mentioned? Or perhaps it is expressed as mass fraction?--MagnInd (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it could be, however I don't recall isotpe abundances being reported in terms of mole - usually expressed as a simple percentage as our article does. Could be that mole fraction is used, hey there's a lot I don't know :) ... do you have a reference for its use? Vsmith (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Googling isotopic abundance mole fraction gives plenty results.--MagnInd (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So I see ... as I said before - lots I don't know :) Vsmith (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the results one could see easely (a relatively straightforward/immediate inference by proof by contradiction) that the use of mass fraction instead of mole fraction to isotopic abundance would create unnecessary complication for the average atomic mass of an element (namely a recursive definition).--MagnInd (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that natural abundance as used in isotope studies is essentially equivalent to mole fraction. So a bit noting that in the mole fraction article would be appropriate, hopefully with a reference and preferably not as a one line section. Vsmith (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for cleaning up my lousy spelling in Geology of Cyprus :) Tobias1984 (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, mo' caffeine ... b'lieve I will. Anyway I had to have something to do while my morning coffee pried my eyes open -- and fixin' is more fun than vandal revertin'. Keep on keepin' on... Vsmith (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wise paper Ixiolite

Hey! Saw that your helping with the ixiolite article. I have that pdf for you (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/65175676/Wise%2C%20Cerny%2C%20Falster%201998%20Scandium%20subst%20%20CGM%20Ixiolite.pdf) --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got it - thanks. Will read now and see if I can resolve the disagreement bit. Vsmith (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More reading: --Tobias1984 (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got em, thanks ... lotta readin'. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that you made some changes to tapiolite. Would this picture help with the crystal chemistry? --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be useful for an expansion of the article ... sometime :) My recent edit was just to clarify nomenclature and target a couple of redirects. So many places to play, so little time... Vsmith (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already made this quite some time ago for my master thesis, so this time "time" was not the issue for me, which it usually is :). --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block of User:38.127.205.3

Hey :)

I've just changed the block settings of your block on the above IP to enable account creation, there's gonna be a school project (by someone who's done them before), and their students need to create accounts.

[stwalkerster|talk] 01:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem ... you might put a {{schoolip}} tag on that talk page so soft block will be done next time. Vsmith (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, do you check IPs before you block them?

When you blocked 128.97.253.249, you blocked the Internet gateway at a major university. You cut off perhaps 100,000 people in order to punish one miscreant.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.179.18.131 (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm ... changed it to a soft block, account creation enabled. Sorry 'bout that - no "punishment", just simple childish vandalism prevention. Vsmith (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormal Activity (film series)

Can you extend protection time? This dates back in end of February. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Ho (talk • contribs) 20:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the ips return next week with similar activity, drop me a note. Vsmith (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sunstone

I'm currently researching "sunstone" in a historical context, so needless to say my mineralogical understanding of the subject leaves much to be desired. I was wondering if you could clear up the status of Labradorite for me. Is it a plagioclase feldspar, a calcite, or other?

And if it is a plagioclase feldspar would it be safe to add Labrador and eastern Canada to the list of natural sunstone locations?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZachJBeavers (talk • contribs) 03:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zach, labradorite is a plagioclase on the calcium rich end whereas oligoclase is a sodium rich variety. Labradorite does have some interesting optical properties, but I've never heard it referred to as "sunstone". I would say that unless you have a good reference that calls it sunstone then no. Vsmith (talk) 10:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome.

Thanks for the welcome. KatieBoundary (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heh ... like your lie detector machine - it'll fix them lyin' rocks... Vsmith (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't thought about that. It does fix the lying rocks, stopping them from lying, and instead causing their pieces to fly (including into eyes - always bring goggles or glasses on any good hike). :) KatieBoundary (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't I edit this article?

Resolved

Why can't I edit this article? KatieBoundary (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was told at Teahouse and on my talk page that the article is semi-protected from vandalism. I am tagging this "resolved". KatieBoundary (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you got that explained/figured out - sorry I wasn't around to explain things a bit ... gotta get away from the keyboard now n then. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cozumel page

Hi Vsmith

Thanks for helping clean up the Cozumel page after "OfficialCozumel" had spammed it. As a side-effect some of the links to This is Cozumel as sources and an external resource were removed, I've added them back in.

icampbell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icampbell (talk • contribs) 19:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I'm a bit skeptical of the thisiscozumel website, seems a bit spammy and ad heavy, not sure it would pass muster at WP:RS. That's part of why I went with the non-promotional pdf pages -- altho have doubts about them as well, but at least they don't look spammy. Vsmith (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

helloo

hello thank for the aware, for the artical of western culture the source say's that christians account 75-76% ^[1]^[2] of eurpean are christians while the articale say that 76% is among "who described themselves as religious".Jobas (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you using references. However, please also use edit summaries to explain your edits. Had you explained your edit (the one I reverted) with a clear edit summary, I would not have undone it. Vsmith (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome

Thanks for the warm welcome, I've read the intro material you posted on my page, so I hope I won't make any egregious "no nos" but if I do, please feel free to use a carrot or stick. Cheers Geraldatyrrell (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome - and thanks for adding more references. Vsmith (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Universe

Regarding your comment: Your recent addition to Tunguska event contained a link to a video from www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2013/02/25/russian-meteor-another-shock-to-the-system/ - That site would seem to not pass our reliable sources policy and has been removed

The people doing research highlighted by this website include widely read authors, tenured faculty, Nobel Laureates (Hannes Alfven) and serious engineers and journalists. Why do you think this site does not pass the "reliable sources" policy? The models investigated by this group may not fit the mainstream theories propounded by cosmologists but they are by no means dis-proven or lacking in supporting evidence. At least not any more or less than conventional cosmological theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D arvind (talk • contribs) 15:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The website seems to be promoting fringe material. The main page has promotional bits and links to buy their books. Therefore, it fails WP:Reliable sources. Vsmith (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the vandal at my user page

I was away for a few days, and only just noticed that the vandal had returned about four days ago. Thanks for reverting him, and protecting the page. Unfortunately, he is a very slow, drawn-out vandal, having first appeared in early February. Chris857 (talk) 03:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome and you are on my watchlist - so I'll zap him again if he shows up for more nonsense. Vsmith (talk) 10:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi Vsmith, please attend to my request at WP:RPP ASAP. Some Polish IPs keep irritating me. Thanks. Arctic Kangaroo 17:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Reaper done did it while I was eating lunch. Cheers. Vsmith (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Syamsu is back

Hi Vsmith,

I believe that Syamsu is back at it again at Free will. I'm not sure how to formally report suspected sockpuppetry but since you were involved in his ban I thought maybe I could just notify you directly and maybe you could take it from there? --Pfhorrest (talk) 09:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this earlier, but my morning caffeine hadn't got to me brain then :) Per their comment on the talk page there, I've indef blocked for socking and legal threat. Vsmith (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My edits to "Dalton Minimum" deleted by YOU.

Your recent re-addition to Dalton Minimum here has some problems. First: the addition lacks relevance to the article as written. Second and more important: the content is sourced to a website which seems to fail Wikipedia sourcing guidelines and doesn't mention Dalton Minimum - unless I've missed something - thus failing WP:SYN. Please explain on talk:Dalton Minimum. Vsmith (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First reservation: relevance. We are looking at the referenced article http://www.landscheidt.info/ First ref in article: Look at the first graph (white background) labeled "Sun-SSB Angular Momentum" and you will see at the

right end of the first line the word "Dalton" in orange print. At the left end of the second line you will see the word

"Minimum" in orange above the date 1810. Together they say "Dalton Minimum".

Second ref in article: Look at the second graph (white background) labeled "Solar Activity Events in C14" and you see

"Dalton Minimum" at the right end.

Third ref in article: Look at the third graph (black background, blue wave lines) labeled "Jupiter Distance to Sun/SSB

difference". Look near the center at the bottom of the second line you will see "Dalton Minimum" in orange print.

Fourth ref in article: Look at the bottom graph on the page below the row of 5 bright yellow "Suns". You will see the

"Jupiter Distance to Sun/SSB difference" graph repeated. On this graph you see a green pitchfork in the center and

the word "Dalton" appears under the left side of the green line.

So there you have 4 references on the first page.

Second reservation: Sourcing Here is the definition from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

=> the piece of work itself (the article, book),

the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press).

I am referencing the website as an article in itself. What is the problem with that? I appears to me that you are a global warming activist who wants to deny any evidence of climate change which does NOT point to human activity. This article shows plainly how the planetary grouping of Jupiter, Neptune, and Uranus on one side of the Sun with Saturn on the other side of the Sun (which occurs about every 178 years) causes the Sun to go into a period of LOW activity. This causes sunspot activity to drop dramatically which in turn causes lower temperatures on Earth. This article suggests that Solar cycle 24 will be very low and Solar cycle 25 will be very low also - both of which portent severe cold in our near future.

I wrote: Recent research and papers by Carl Smith indicate that the grouping of Jupiter, Neptune, and Uranus on one side of the Sun with Saturn in opposition (or nearly) on the other side of the Sun cause the Sun to drop into a state of lower activity resulting in severely reduced sunspot activity and lower temperatures on Earth. This configuration of planets occurs about every 178 years. It occurred in about 1631 which lead to the Maunder Minimum then in 1813 which lead to the Dalton Minimum and and again in 1990 which was predicted by Carl Smith and Theodor Landscheidt to lead to the next minimum called the Landscheidt Minimum which has already begun. This minimum will probably last until 2030. [3]

This is scientific evidence that the four great planets are causing climate change NOT anthropomorphic carbon dioxide emissions. Of course global warming activists want to suppress all evidence which disputes their thesis. You are one of them.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crwillis101 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, don't call me names.

Second, so the graphs use the word Dalton..., so what?

Third, the "reference" you used is a website ... i.e. self published I'd say. Where has it really been published? In what peer reviewed journal? Use "that" peer reviewed journal for your reference ... what is it?

Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A warning by me on Crwillis101's talk page just got me an email repeating the name-calling. Dougweller (talk) 09:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fluvial

"Reverted to revision 542471423 by RockMagnetist: er... mass wasting just needs gravity" - Gee, and there all this time I've been thinking that streams and rivers were driven by gravitation. Silly me. Paul venter (talk) 08:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heh - yup - all driven by gravity. But that pile of scree at the cliff base didn't need another "agent" - just gravity to pull 'em down once some weathering process loosened 'em. Mass wasting is erosion w/out those erosive helpers: moving water, ice & wind. Vsmith (talk) 10:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm.. that pile of scree is just one example of mass wasting involving "some weathering process"- mud slides are another and water is very much a factor here. The article itself states "Factors that change the potential of mass wasting include: change in slope angle, weakening of material by weathering, increased water content; changes in vegetation cover, and overloading". Few processes are simple and nature just loves blurring the lines we draw. Incidentally, "w/out those erosive helpers: moving water, ice & wind" and earthquakes, there would be no mass wasting - gravity is certainly not going to achieve anything on its own. Paul venter (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ever notice those chunks of rock along the road below a steep roadcut after a cold night? They are loosened by expansion/contraction due to temperature change overnight and by freeze thaw frost action - no flowing water needed, just weathering due to temperature changes and frost. Vsmith (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Religious Interpretations of the Big Bang Theory.

Kindly read what has been mentioned in the talk page for this article at [[1]]. The last section has all that I have to say in the opening part. Four references were given and all of them were dubious and utter rubbish. Please have a look through and then comment. You will see if I am wrong in wanting the changes that I do. 117.194.235.31 (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it. Quite simply: be patient and don't edit war -- give others time to consider your points. In your last edit summary you stated: I will have to bring in the Admins. Not nice to make pseudo threats such as that, the "admins" are watching :). You may have some valid points, now give it a bit of time for other interested editors to chime in. Please assume good faith of your fellow editors. Also note that by choosing to edit as an ip rather than creating an account, others can easily see your geographic location and are likely to react to that making assumptions about your point of view. Now, please wait for others to respond on the talk page. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zeolite decomposition

Dear Smith,

Kindly wait for a few days, I shall provide you the reference from where I discovered that certain Zeolites decomposes due to direct or indirect contact with Heat and Moisture. Also mention which kind of reference you require?

Regards, John E. Tusker — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.tusker (talk • contribs) 18:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See reliable sources: some source published by a reliable outfit. A book or scholarly article would be best. Please avoid commercial websites which may be promoting a product. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zeolite Decomposition

Dear VSmith, The reference is from a book named "APPLIED CATALYSIS" written by Pakistani professor: Muhammad Haroon. But I cant seem to find an online copy of the book. But I will try to present it you within 2-3 days. Regards, John E. Tusker. John.tusker (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.pewforum.org/global-religious-landscape-unaffiliated.aspx

[2] ttp://www.pewforum.org/global-religious-landscape-christians.aspx

[1]

[2]