User talk:Vsmith

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 :-)

Reverted page

You recently reverted Quantum mechanics to an earlier version. However, there were earlier changes that were not corrected. The page could better be reverted to my last edit. Unfortunately, I do not know how to do that.WMdeMuynck (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Done. Vsmith (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwigs again

If this doesn't violate WP:POINT, I don't know what does. Seeing as how he just recently came off a block from you for similar types of behavior, I'm not sure if he's getting it. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noted - warned. Vsmith (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we continue to allow him to be a part of this project. He defines disruptive. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"We"? I am aware that the two of you tend to clash a bit. What is it that you want here? A unilateral block on my part based on your clashes? Not. Have you tried dispute resolution ... user conduct rfc? ... Vsmith (talk) 03:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute. I'm an editor that creates articles, helps this place, and has several articles built to FA level. Ludwigs is disruptive. That's not clashing. That's one NPOV editor, me, having to put up with a POV editor, Ludwigs. Instead of indefinitely blocking him, we put up with it. Oh well, at least you're blocking him...better than nothing, though he hasn't learned. Just so you know, I appreciate your trying the mentor him. I'm just not sure it's very useful. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitated for a few moments before posting this, but... what the heck. I'd be more than happy to sit down with OrangeMarlin and ScienceApologist and try to work things out reasonably (in dispute resolution, or some more congenial context if available). The conversations that I've had with them to date, such as they are, have not worked out that way, but I do believe some sort of détente is possible. If they're willing, Vsmith, maybe you can find some experienced mediator from the other side of the wikipedia universe who's willing to take charge? --Ludwigs2 20:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The extra politeness is welcome. OM, be careful -- more at WP:CPUSH. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwigs has been blocked 5 times give or take. His civil POV pushing is obvious to all. He'll be blocked a sixth time. Of course, he and FT2 can try another secret hearing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid responses. :-) Vsmith (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm trying here... --Ludwigs2 23:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This arrogant edit is uncivil. You don't know more than anyone else on this article, you do not own the article, and to intimate otherwise should be enough to have you blocked again. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to do mediation on Wikipedia. It is too fraught, slow-moving, and has never worked in the dozen-or-so times I've been a party to it. I am happy to discuss matters over the phone as a conference call as long as on the call there is an arbitrator/administrator who can impose sanctions. Otherwise mediation is pointless. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. You've been there and done that, I haven't. Maybe Ludwigs2 will take you up on that ... Vsmith (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also refuse to do mediation per SA. I've seen what has happened to him, and I'm appalled by what others have done to silence his NPOV edits. In case I wasn't clear before. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hunh. re: SA'S comment: I'd prefer an online chat to a conference call (that allows for real-time conversation, while preserving a degree of anonymity). I might be amenable to that, if some reasonable system could be worked out for it. --Ludwigs2 19:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Online chat is a suitable substitute. It needs to be real-time so that the negotiations can actually occur. An administrator should at least be present (if not contributing). The major issue is simply that Ludwigs2 views fringe theories as being microcosmic. I see this view as being diametrically opposed to what a reliable, verifiable, and fully integrated encyclopedia should be doing. We cannot both be right about how to handle fringe theories. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'microcosmic', and I'm curious. can you explain? elsewhere, if preferred - I don't necessarily want to fill up Vsmith's talk page with this. --Ludwigs2 22:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Venn diagram pretty much sums it up. While I pick the universal as the context you pick the fringe theory circle. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

actually, I'd pick whichever circle is appropriate to the article in question. or are you suggesting that the universal context should be applied always and everywhere? --Ludwigs2 22:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. but that does seem more like a matter of faith and doctrine than a practical, useful position. at any rate, we should continue this discussion on your talk page or mine. let's leave this thread for discussing the details of setting up a chat. --Ludwigs2 23:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If by "faith and doctrine" you mean "policies and guidelines of Wikipedia". ScienceApologist (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, SA - by "faith and doctrine" I mean that you are approaching the topic as a matter of belief rather than a matter of science or reason. Placing everything in an absolute, universal context is a move that's only done as an act of faith, because only in faiths do you have a transcendental perspective which can be appealed to with this kind of authority. Scientific investigation and reason are both inherently contextual - before you can discuss the validity of any claim you have to first specify the contextual domain in which that claim is assumed to make sense. So, fringe theory article X is intended to discuss X: reasonably (the way a scientist or logician would approach it), this means that the article must first give an effective description of X, and second place X in context to the greater world by noting that X has no real scientific merits. by trying to take it out of its context into some universal perspective, you end up not writing an article about theory X; rather, you write a different article about how that universal perspective views X, and that adds an intractable POV (pretty much what would happen if you tried, say, to write an article about premarital sex starting from the implicit assumption that Catholic church doctrine is True). Skepticism is a belief structure in its own right, and care needs to be taken that it doesn't get imposed on articles out of context (the same care that gets taken to keep religious perspectives or atheistic perspectives from being imposed on articles). does that make sense? --Ludwigs2 05:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're both welcome to continue the discussion here - if it's more comfortable as sorta neutral territory. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thank you - I just didn't want to intrude on your page. --Ludwigs2 00:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Geology" article revisions

I was looking at the "Geology" article, and noticed that it was heavy on the history of geology, and very sparse on geology as practiced in the modern day. I also noticed that it wasn't formatted as WikiProject science says that standard Wikipedia science articles should be. I've made some changes to try to fix this without making major changes, but I'd like advice from someone like you who has been around here for a while before I do anything more drastic. I wouldn't like to jump into doing more drastic changes on my own, because I'd like someone else to bounce ideas off of, and to make sure that the article doesn't end up with any unintentional biases. So:

a) What are your suggestions to what the article would need?

b) Do you know anyone who would be interested in helping me revise it?

I'll check back on your talk page; otherwise, if easier, email me at wickert AT colorado.edu.
Thanks,
Awickert (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vsmith - I haven't seen anything here and didn't get an email - which makes me worried that it may have gotten spamscreened. Could you reply here (I'll check), or at least tell me if you're not interested? Thanks. Awickert (talk) 04:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry 'bout the delay - just didn't get around to it. The article could definetly use some work, esp. the modern history and current status. So, how to proceed. I'd suggest to start with a subdiscipline section and expand a bit based on a summary of the subpage - if the linked subpage has any real content. Or perhaps, more likely work to expand the subpage first...? I'd say follow your interests - the sedimentology article needs improvement. You will note in many articles a fair dose of 1911ism as early wikiworkers tended to copy stuff from there, sometimes w/out even copyediting. You may also find bits of material remaining from creationist POV pushers that need weeding/fixing. Just give it a go and I'll help/monitor as time allows. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good - I think I'll be working on that off and on, then. Thanks for editing what I threw up on the Geology article for spelling, links. Awickert (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Powers

Hi Vsmith! I need your help in writing a article about a not very well-known actress nameed Alexandra Powers. What I do know about her is that she was born on 9 September 1967 in New York City and her birth name is Alexandra Kristin Powers. Her first role came in the TV film The Day After. She also had a small role in Mask (with Eric Stoltz, not Jim Carrey) and the TV series L.A. Law and 21 Jump Street. After DPS she starred in The Seventh Coin opposite Peter O'Toole and had small roles in The Player and Rising Sun. In 1994 she played Tonya Harding in the TV movie Tonya & Nancy: The Inside Story. Other roles have been in Bruce Willis' Last Man Standing, the Walter Matthau / Jack Lemmon comedy Out to Sea, and the tv movie Storm. But since 2001, she has devoted her life to Scientology. Here are refrence links to what I know about her: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0694490/ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0694490/bio http://www.filmreference.com/film/56/Alexandra-Powers.html http://www10.pair.com/crazydv/weir/dps/cast.html http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?t=24302. Please help me write a bio about this actress because I haven't written one yet! Thanks!Neptunekh (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really have little interest in actor/actress articles. Therefor I'd suggest that you find an experienced editor who works on that category of articles and discuss your proposal with them -- or maybe find a wikiproject page covering movie people. Sorry, Vsmith (talk) 02:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rainforest Eidts

First, I apologise, but Asidemes made multiple erroneous edits and I don't really have the time to deal with each individually since this seems ot take several days each.

Secondly I never specified a better source for the Madagacar statement, I simply noted the reference doesn't say what Asidemes claimed it says.

Fnally the artcile currently makes the claim that Madagascar has lost 90% of its rainforest, just as iot originally did. And as a reference it cites the same article which I have already established in the discussion only says that it has lost 90% of its forest. The other reference also does not say that Madagascar has lost 90% of its rainforest. It also says that "Almost 90% of Madagascar's forests have been destroyed." Are you telling me that I can't revert these claims even though I can establish readily that they do not support the claim that Madagascar has lost 90% of its rainforests?Ethel Aardvark (talk) 03:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to 2/3 with better ref. I can't see now where he said "eastern" - hmm, maybe had two articles confused. The best procedure -- one step at a time. Vsmith (talk) 11:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And perhaps an apology for your unjustified accusation of vandalism? I am not a vandal, I am a good faith poster and this happens to be my areas of professional expertise. I discussed the removal of those refercens on the discussionpage and thought the matter resolved, and then you accuse me of vandalism for making alterations. I appreciate it's easy for passionate laymen to conflate rainforest and forest and so forth, but that doesn't justify ignoring Wikipedia's policy of verifiability. I am beginning to appreciate why so many other expert contributors have told me that it's not worth editing controversial topics and to just stick to obscure plant genera and so forth. In order to correct blatant mistakes in this article it has taken two weeks so far, the issues still haven't been resolved and I have been repeatedly accused of vandalism for making the effort. Ethel Aardvark (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I have changed one edit thus far that seemed unsupported. The "eastern rainforest" ref I was looking for was from the deforestation article discussion - and was supported by a reference there. You had removed several valid references with your "blanket reverts" and that comes dangerously close to vandalism and I was pointing that out as a word of caution as both you and Asidemes were slinging that at each other when I protected the two pages involved rather than blocking anyone for edit warring. Continue discussing problems one at a time rather than rapid reverts of a number of references at one time. When editing controversial topics, patience is essential - people genuinely disagree and some fervently "fight for their view". Working with others in such an environment isn't easy. Vsmith (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the history. In the deforestaion article Asidemes made multiple reverts at the one time, including removing every single clarification request and weasel tags that I had added to the entire article. I was returning the article to the state that I had originally produced. Yet somehow that is construed as my making multiple reverts. I'm genuinely puzzled. I agree, if Asidemes wants to make changes one at a time that would be a better solution, but that is not what has happened. Instead his multiple reverts of my work remain and I am accused of making multple reverts and vandalsim if I return the article to the state it was ion after my last additions.

And still no apology I notice. Fair enough, I guess the idea of assuming good faith no longer applies.Ethel Aardvark (talk) 04:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother to undo the block. I will not be returning. OTOH this has given me an excellent example for discussion with my students and on other fora of why Wikipedia can never be reliable on any vaguely controversial topic. Ethel Aardvark (talk) 03:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Structure of the Earth

Hi there. I see you are also editing the structure of the Earth article. I am going to work on it as my first non-anonymous editing project. Just wanted to say hello to a fellow geologically minded wikipedian.

Seorwz (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed listing myself twice.

Seorwz (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda funny - anyway, does that mean I have to list myself to keep the numbers up? Considered it a while back, but I'm not prone to join projects ... just keep on fixin' things. Vsmith (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

center of mass

your no fun :)

Just teasing. thought i would talk about the signifiance of the center of mass. i think theres more there than just bland ideas.. its almost as if nature pretends me and you are spheres with all our atoms in this center point.. and when we get pushed.. she just says "screw it, ill pretend their balls and rotate them like that".

anyway, ttyl

156.56.171.83 (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was a neat little essay, but this is an encyclopedia - not an essay collection. Sorry 'bout that. :-) Vsmith (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why did you block me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.171.108 (talk) 11:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue who you are - so I don't know why, most likely vandalism. Vsmith (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello...

...I am very bored. Please talk to me on my talk page. i-am-entertainU (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

....or not ... 'bout zzz bedtime. Vsmith (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

volcanology vs petrology (Chromatite)

Hi Vsmith - There's bound to be some overlap with what are closely related subjects. As far as stub-sorting's concerned here's nothing wrong with having both templates, or even three or four stub templates on a page (more than four is too many though), if it'll catch the attention of editors who are specialists in more related areas. Several of those articles could also comfortably take {{mineral-stub}} as well. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied there. The mineral and geology stubs were subdivided not too long ago because they were too large and when stub cat lists reach several hundred in length it's time to chop 'em up into more detailed topics. There is no problem with having 2 or 3 stub links -- as long as there is a strong correlation or overlap in coverage. This strong overlap doesn't exist for chromitite or dunite. Vsmith (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Igneous petrology is a scope of WikiProject Volcanoes and therefore it deserves the volcanology stub. Black Tusk (talk) 03:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanology is a subset of igneous petrology, not the other way around, that some wikiproject members don't know that is too bad. Vsmith (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I happily agree volcanology is generally a subset of igneous petrology and I always knew that. But the thing is the volcano wikiproject includes any igneous rock and therefore it gets something from that wikiproject. But since you don't agree, I won't bother adding the volcanology stub to intrusive igneous rocks. Black Tusk (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK and thank you, note I haven't objected to including the volcanology project on the respective talk pages - just the stub addition which seemed misleading. Vsmith (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I;ve replied to your comments - and yes, I know about the subdividing of geology-stub - I was involved in the discussions on that at the time. Mineral stub wasn't divided then, though. It's length suggests some division is plausible - splitting it may be worth proposing at WP:WSS/P. Grutness...wha? 02:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The mineral-stub, though not split did have rock types removed last November. Been involved with both geology and mineral stub stuff since their start. Your proposal for a split of mineral-stub is overdue and I will support it. Not sure just yet if the proposed sub-stubs will work ... maybe so. Most mineral stub articles are of very rare minerals and some may not fit well in one of those types. Antlerite for example - a secondary mineral of the oxidized zone of copper deposites. Is it sedimentary (deposited by circulating waters) or metamorphic (as an alteration product of retrograde metasomatism). Many rare (and not so rare) minerals either don't fit well or fit more than one category - and "composite" bothers me, may work though. Coming at this from an economic geology background ... maybe ore mineral-stub and gemstone-stub. Or maybe silicate mineral-stub, sulfide mineral-stub, ... base it on the mineral classification systems. Just thinking here - before diving into Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2008/October#Split_of_Cat:Mineral_stubs. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 02:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

robably one of those makes more sense than my suggestion - it's not my field of expertise, so the idea of the four types I mentioned was largely thinking out loud - hoping to draw a more educated response (and "composite" was a mistake - the word I was looking for was "conglomerate" - but even that's probably not the best of ways of dividing things). Grutness...wha? 10:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in Jewelry

Hi. What was wrong with the addition of Mochica jewelry in the Jewelry page? You reverted the changes including the mention to the Mochica culture of Peru. Pattych (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... now that I look at it, I'm not sure what I was thinking of at the time, I've undone my edit. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Electron sock

Hi. After some investigation I believe user GodLovesTheIrish and IPs 60.234.55.16 and 60.234.28.155 might be of interest to you as being similar to IrishChemistPride, IrishChemistPride2 and AtomicKiwi. MickMacNee (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - obvious sockpuppetry, dealt with. Vsmith (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. MickMacNee (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on the Palladium Page

Do you notice that there seems to be a vandalism on the palladium page? Such vandalism generally comes from anonymous contributions from users with just an IP. One noticed incidence is the revision made by User:70.79.161.122 at 02:46 am Oct. 8, 2008, changed the global palladium production from 222 tons to 420 tons while the cited USGS source says 222 tons.

How do we prevent such vandalism? Maybe temporarily ban editings from users with just an IP? Silverbach (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prevent? No, as long as wiki is open to anon editing it's gonna happen, The vandalism level on palladium is really rather low, so semi-protection isn't warrented now. Just constant vigilance. Thanks for catching the number change, those are the hardest to catch it seems. Vsmith (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cold fusion

HELP! We have Cold Fusion proponents dramatically asserting ownership over cold fusion. I need all the help I can get. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a not-unrelated matter ... Thanks for your request to appear before the FT project, I hope you will understand my reluctance to discuss it there. I have no issue with you (that I am aware of?), but my past experience leaves me highly sceptical of FTN. It is unclear just what SA is insinuating, but it ranges from serious to unforgivable actions on my part. I volunteer here because I love the document; I'm willing to put up with the crap that gets flung around, but I draw the line at attention seeking, high profile, rage addicted and arrogant editors making pronouncements on my intentions and motives. I've been getting this a bit too often lately, so forgive me for unloading my frustration here. Unsubstantiated accusations are extremely disruptive, the tacit approval given to tag team strategies and 'editors who go a bit to far sometimes' is one of the most immature aspects of that project. Other users read these and take up the cause, it's a lot easier than writing or improving articles. It is yet another example of fundamentalism and zealotry, hostility based on self righteous indignation, it is indistinguishable from any other 'crusade'. Editors at that notice board, even more than other forums, should strongly discourage subjective and poorly sourced statements. Personal attacks will incite drama, some seem to relish that, and drive off well intentioned users. I know that many feel the need for an 'us and them' outlook, but there is only 'us' - the project. The discussion should have been on the talk page.

I will end on a lighter note and repeat something I heard once.

"There are two sorts of people in the world: those who think there are two sorts of people in the world, and those who don't".

Regards, cygnis insignis 07:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the above you seem to be attacking a group of editors - as you stated you were venting frustration, I'll let it go. Quite simply: do not use my talk page to attack any group of editors. Vsmith (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding Earth

I have never encountered an undo based on the edit summary?! However, it appears you have removed a reference or two when you did this. It is quite possible that I am mistaken, the fog of war obscures an articles history, so can you please check this and post your response. Ta. cygnis insignis 06:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably should've been more wordy. One of his refs was used in refutation - a 1961 ref refuting a 1978 ref?... The second ref re:rythmites seemed a stretch, but mabe not. His talk page comments were quite unacceptable attacks and confirmed the previous POV pusher charge. Those comments along with his block history led to his block. Now, are you just concerned about that edit summary? or were you indicating agreement with his editing? You're welcome to edit the page, but it would be good to discuss on the talk page too, as this seems to be a contentious area for some. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't say ... I will invite you to place the references from those journals on the talk page of the article, as a source for improvement of the article, unless you have a legitimate reason for expurgating them.

Quite apart from this request to see that your reflexive action does not hinder the improvement of our document, it should be noted that the user, whom you blocked, did not remove a sourced statement [1] and agreed with another user [2]. The summary of undoing vandalism could be construed as a misinterpretation of policy, would you block a 'regular' for the same infraction. My skimming of the of the users history, with regard to Human and Expanding Earth, does not reveal an intention to disrupt. Your strict application of policy could be construed as somewhat ... selective? Are you not itching to block others for this sort of behaviour, or me for suggesting such a thing, or SA for contravening the decision produced from arbitration? I have the diffs to that if you want to stop disruption. I could point out the legitimate concerns any reasonably informed reader would have with human, but I am skeptical of the willingness of your audience to take a neutral POV.

There are two separate issues here. Firstly, address my concern about expurgated references (incongruously cited or not), then ponder whether you should be tacitly endorsing an article that conflicts with every policy and guideline that you and I hold dear. cygnis insignis 16:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than welcome to bring those refs to the talk page and discuss. If you feel I've blocked improperly, then take elsewhere for review, the editor in question knows full well how to request an unblock for review. If you want the fun of being an admin, then apply - quite simple. As for the article content details - better discussed on the article talk page where all interested can see and respond. As for your implication that I'm endorsing an article that conflicts with every policy and guideline that you and I hold dear. er - that seems like a simple insult. Good day. Vsmith (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutron Star Page

You reverted all the changes on the Neutron Page citing that too much had been lost. When I was editing it I thought that there was too much complicated jargon in page, I think this results in the page not being accessible or easily understood by people who do not have science backgrounds. I am curious to what issues you had with the edits. Alexa7890 (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Far too massive a change and I see no discussion on the talk page about this (except that stray anon comment at the top). Discuss and try a piecemeal approach - one bit at a time. Vsmith (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, there are some rather disjointed comments. State what changes you would like and wait for input from other users. Vsmith (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi This ip is a public IP used by cocalico school district. a permanaent block is reccomended
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cluewako (talk • contribs) 18:33, 30 October 2008

I've no clue what ip you're referring to? Vsmith (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWar Removal

Jdrrmk (talk) has frowned at you! Frowns promote WikiWar and hopefully you will take this as a WikiWarning. Spread the WikiWar by frowning at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Frown at others by adding {{subst:WikiFrown}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Regarding Ludwigs2

Per your comments on the ANI about this editor, yes there is a history, but I have taken a very non-participatory role in his comments back. I started Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fringe theories/sandbox, not because of Ludwigs or anyone else, merely because I saw edit-warring, and the comments within Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/sandbox, which indicated it should be deleted or userfied. I did start the MfD, without even looking who set it up. It was about an hour later that I realized I forgot to inform everyone (the only reason that happened was because some IP editor, who was blocked for 5 years I see, messed up all of the formatting. It was at that point I realized Ludwigs2 was the initiator of it, and I thought, "oh crap". But I figured he would read the discussion comments about userfying, and no one would be upset. In other words, Ludwigs is pursuing some strange obsession with me. I pretty much ignore him, except to deal directly with his personal attacks by involving uninvolved admins. Anyways, I just wanted to clarify. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the nature of that "history" - just thought others on ANI needed to know that qualifier. I did not mean to indicate any wrongdoing on your part, and I'm sorry if it looked that way. I posted there to get more input as he was denying any attack. Appears that East718 agreed with my take on it and gave him a week to think it over. If the page is userfied - he'll have something to work on... while thumb twiddling. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment about the week. OK, I laughed. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laughter is good... I keep an eye on your talk page banter for that. Vsmith (talk) 03:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tanzanite On WIKI

Dear Sir, I have included two new links on the section about Tanzanite Grading. This serves to offer people a comparison between the GIA, and other laboratories. Anchor Cert is one of the most commonly used Laboratories in the UK for grading Tanzanite, and HKD in Canada is used frequently throughout Canada, Thailand, And Australia. This has been shown as a pdf taken from tanzanite-gemstone.com. This serves as a mean to inform people of the grading of the stone, nothing more.

In addition I would like to discuss with you some links that you removed:

Please read reliable sources and external links. Commercial websites that promote tanzanite for profit are not reliable sources. Vsmith (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Here you have stated that commercial sites that promote Tanzanite for profit are not reliable sources, yet there is a link on the WIKI page for Lapigems which clearly does promote Tanzanite for profit, as does tanzanite gemstone. I would like to respectfully argue that the two sites provide people with a variety of information about Tanzanite not just seeking to sell the stone. If you notice on tanzanite-gemstone for example, should you have time that they provide people with a variety of news on Tanzanite taken from external sources, and also offer guides etc. Just because a site is commercial does not mean that it is unreliable. Both sites do their best to inform people with a balanced argument. Indeed Tanzanite Gemstone was originally on WIKI for providing such information, including, history, its potential as an investment, as well as providing a variety of links from articles written about Tanzanite from various jewellery magazine, the IGA etc.

As such I would kindly ask you to consider that the information I am trying to include on this page is to help the public come to their own conclusions, and to provide more information about the stone.

If you do not agree then I respectfully ask that you remove the link from Lapigems as this is no different from the information that I am trying to post.

Your Sincerely

Josh Robbins
—Preceding unsigned comment added by J Philip Robbins (talk • contribs) 07:45, 6 November 2008

Will take a look a bit later. Vsmith (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looked, removed promotional stuff. Vsmith (talk) 15:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

Sorry about the confusion regarding external links. I didn't realize that I should post to the talk page rather than adding something. Was your last post (asking me to stop) regarding my posts to the talk pages or to the the pages themselves? I'm a new user doing this for my job, and I want to follow the rules, so please let me know. Thanks.Ejsamoht (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page comments aren't that bad, but you're still promoting your (I assume) "great" website. Much better that you jump in and add sourced content to some needy article of interst to you. And by Wikiconvention, new talk comments go to the bottom of the page. Vsmith (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit

I an new to this and do not understand what i did wrong in editing Palladium? I referenced the information that i put in... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preciousmetalboy (talk • contribs) 17:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the links I provided on you talk page. The website you used was a commercial, promotional site and not a reliable source. Quite a bit of your additions appeared to be direct "cut-n-paste" copies from that site, so I linked to the copyviolation page. Vsmith (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tanzanite

Dear Sir, I have tried on numerous occassions to add additional information about Tanzanite, which on the whole have included cited references. Yet every time these have been taken down. Could I respectfully ask why it is not acceptable to provide sections on 'Pricing'? People are very interested about this as you will note in forums etc. In addition I included a section on Tanzanite Symbolism & Lore, again deemed unacceptable. Why is this when there is an identical section in the WIKI Diamond page? In addition tanzanite-gemstone and lapigems.com along with the Tanzanite Authority where removed despite providing information about Tanzanite on their sites, yet there is still a link to swahalagemtraders. Who sell Tanzanite? Why are they exempt from being removed? Surely a WIKI page with more information, correctly cited with a multitude of references is more useful than a minimalist page? I appreciate that one may deem such sites as unreliable on the grounds of being reliable sites. However if one where to investigate the role of such businesses in the Tanzanite business one would find that these have been in business for over 14years etc.

I am sorry If I sound somewhat rude, but I am unsure as to how I can add content without it being removed.

Thank You ^_____^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by J Philip Robbins (talk • contribs) 08:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nassak Diamond

Hi Vsmith. I just created the article on the Nassak Diamond. Please feel free to give it a once over. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 04:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just took a quick look - impressive! Will check it out in more detail later, Cheers Vsmith (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Climate Change

Hi Vsmith.... what if i just made some amendments to the Paeleoclimateology page instead? S Rosser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirosser (talk • contribs) 18:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course welcome to edit paleoclimatology. I simply felt that going mainspace with your article was a bit premature. I have asked a couple climatology/global warming experts to review your work (User:Sirosser/Historical Climate Change) and give advice. Vsmith (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok great.... look forwardto it! cheers.--Sirosser (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

aluminosilicate

Thanks for merging silica-alumina as per merge request- I will now start cleaning it up.--Axiosaurus (talk) 11:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

Hi, do you like to play with me in the Wikipedia:Sandbox? --62.158.97.189 (talk) 12:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

North Sea geological history

Hello, Vsmith. You have new messages at SriMesh's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Archives