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 :-)

Operation COOKIE MONSTER

Thanks!! Vsmith (talk) 01:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

humidity graph

The Y - axis on the graph that I removed (and you replaced) is labeled "grains", not grams. I believe that the data given by the graph is incorrect. Can you provide any supporting data (other than the linked graph which is grams vs cubic metres, and may be incorrect)

I am prepared to support my position; if you are not prepared to support yours, please don't revert my edits.Artmario2001 (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the Image:Relative Humidity.png in the article definetly says grams H2O per kilogram of air. Don't know where you are seeing grains. Vsmith (talk) 01:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you are correct. I think it's time for me to get new eyeglasses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artmario2001 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abiogenic Petroleum Science

You recently removed my neutral point of view criticism of the petroleum article. Don't do that. Why are you afraid of abiogenic petroleum origin? Why are you afraid of the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists? If you really believe in fossil fuel nonsense, why do you need to censor papers published by the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists?Wikkidd (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... afraid of... really believe... need to censor? Please read WP:Fringe. Vsmith (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quackwatch

Jossi (talk · contribs) had made no edits to the article since the restrictions were put in place, and it was reasonable to assume that Jossi did not know about the restrictions. ArbCom was clear that editors need to be informed: "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines." Jossi has now been informed about it, both at the article talkpage and at her user talkpage,[1] and has not made any reverts since she has been notified. If any editors had concerns about her edit, they could have gone in and changed the text, and then the editing continues from there. I do not think that your reverting of her edit was wise, as it gets you too involved in the content wars. However, since you are an uninvolved admin, you made a decision that you thought was fair and I'm of course not going to revert you. In the future though, please remember that just like when imposing a block (see WP:BLOCK#Education and warnings), that the standard is to warn first, and then impose restrictions. Everyone usually gets a free pass for the first infraction, unless they've done something truly egregious or vandalistic. Jossi's edit did violate the restrictions, but it didn't rise to the level of vandalism. By the way, just curious, how is it that you heard about the edit in the first place? --El on ka 14:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been on my watchlist for quite some time - protected it back in Feb.

I do support your editing restrictions on the page and feel my revert of Jossi's revert was required to avoid the possible appearance of favoring one side of the dispute. I assume good faith on Jossi's part (as not aware of the restrictions) and therefore see no need for sanctions. If zero reverts are allowed, we need to enforce that. Vsmith (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we just have different styles then. I usually find it's easier to not "revert the reverters", but instead to caution them, and let the normal editorial process bring the article back into compliance. Sure, that may mean that everyone gets a free revert, but eventually those get used up, and then things continue from there. :) If you'd like to do further monitoring of the page, c'mon in. Feel free to add your name to the "uninvolved admins" list at the talkpage. You might also be interested in this, a page I've been working on: Wikipedia:New admin school/Dealing with disputes. --El on ka 15:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

12:44, 14 July 2008 Vsmith (Neutron) (→Discovery: rmv prior claim - ref link doesn't work)

Would it be OK if I put as reference only the book?, what else i need to prove that line?, it is written in his biography... thanks (line= In 1924 Santiago Antúnez de Mayolo presented in "Hypothesis about the constitution of matter" the existence of a neutral element in the atom ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabb99 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What book? The biography entry is unreferenced and was added by an anon editor recently. Were you that anon? Perhaps you could provide a quote (and translation?) from the book you mention on the Talk:Neutron page for others to consider. A proposed hypothesis about some neutral element in the atom does not seem to qualify as a discovery - needs physical evidence. Vsmith (talk) 12:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, I wasn't the anon, I think you are right that it doesn't qualify as a discovery, a, well, and the book i was referring was "Hypothesis about the constitution of matter", but i really don't know if it really exist, I'd look for it, thanks a lot --Cabb99 (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gemstones

VSmith,

Sometime ago you removed a couple of my edits as self-promotional. On the topic "Gemstones" there are three requests for citations in the first six paragraphs. In each case my book Secrets Of The Gem Trade is probably the source of the statements made as the author(s) cited the book themselves and footnoted that.

I can supply the citations, chapter and verse or not, you decide.

Richard W. Wise —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemwise (talk • contribs) 19:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was a while ago... Anyway, you are welcome to add the citations requested to the gemstone article. Seems the Value of gemstones section is rather a mess and peer reviewed articles in the field are rather rare. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southeastern Plains (ecoregion)

Please undelete Southeastern Plains (ecoregion). You failed to check page history for "The initial edit summary may have information about the source of or reason for the article." The source was a GFDL Wikipedia article which points at the EPA and Talk points to confirmation it is PD information. Google of phrases also easily finds an EPA document other than those maps. [2](pdf) If you read the bot message on my Talk page then you also should have seen the referenced response.[3] The proper procedure for a missing source is a no-sources or {{cn}} tag, not deletion. -- SEWilco (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the simplest solution would be for you to properly provide a source when you create an article. Another WP article is not a proper source. You are most welcome to re-create the article and add a valid reference. Vsmith (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is confusion between the origin of the text (the ecoregions Wikipedia article) and the source of the facts. The text came from an GFDL Wikipedia article, thus it is not a copyright violation. The EPA source is weakly mentioned in the ecoregions article, but a request for citations should have been made rather than deletion. Reverse your deletion and I'll add the above source whether you template it or not. We'll see what the bot makes of it. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...

I didn't advertise anything. Don't talk to me like you have some sort of imaginary authority. I hate you self promoting authorities who seemingly patrol wikipedia. They were perfectly legitimate edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.76.78.51 (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for calling your vandalism to my attention - I've acted on it. Check the date of my earlier comment on your talk please, funny - no? Vsmith (talk) 00:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Sometimes these problems almost take care of themselves. :) Kuru ^talk 00:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greenhouse Effect

vsmith,

What do you find so wrong with my addition to the page "Greenhouse Effect"?

The addition I made is factual and informative.

veteran0101 (U.S. Navy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veteran0101 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being cryptic in my edit summary - I believe Jason Patton was more explicit with his edit summary. Please read WP:OR and WP:WEASEL. Vsmith (talk) 10:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words I need to cite references. When I site references then it should be able to stay. Correct? Veteran0101 (talk) 05:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing reliable sources would be a step in the right direction. The diagram referred to is generalized and simplified and I'm not seeing Wind (convection), Latent heat flux and Reflection (albedo) as short circuits in the system. Yes white clouds reflect sunlight, convection moves the gases around constantly and surface evaporation - cloud condensation add energy to the atmosphere. Those are all parts of the underlying system - not short circuits to the system. Vsmith (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hey there. Just wondering why this was undone? Thanks for your time! Freunde (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, when an ext. link is added to the top of the list it signals spam and the wiki linked to didn't seem to be needed. Vsmith (talk) 10:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care where it goes in the list, but I feel the link is beneficial to the article. The link does not violate any policy on Wikipedia, so I don't see why the link shouldn't last? Freunde (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about infobox photo at Talk:Mount Rainier

Feel free to join in. Thanks! hike395 (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I leaving Wikipedia?

Vsmith, take a good look at my user page. I believe it documents that fact that I have been a long time contributor of good articles related to my many years of engineering experience.

So why have I decided to leave Wikipedia? Because I have grown weary of the revisions made by unexperienced people who think they know a subject when they really don't know it. I am also weary of people who make revisions because they "know better than anyone else". In particular, the actions of one young postgrad student who calls himself Headbomb with whom it is impossible to reason because of his firm belief that he is infallible ... and that he and only he "knows better than anyone else". His attitude has finally been the last straw in making my decision to leave Wikipedia. I am simply tired of trying to reason with the likes of Headbomb.

Goodbye to all the friends I did make here in the past two and a half years or so. mbeychok (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you ("a few miles northeast of me")? I am a detail type person, so I just had to add the correction about Douglas County. I'm not finished with the Douglas County info. as I want to besure I have everything correct. I have written/edited articles about the county in years past and I will add sources when I am able to put my hands on some of my pervious articles. Thanks for the message! Randyspurlock (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I figured you out now. You are my son's greatest High School mentor, and my daughter thinks a lot of you too! ;) Good to see you here. I'll take your advise about the history of the county. I just want to get it as correct as I can. I rarely do anything with out sources before me, but yesterday I got caught up in that hipe when I saw that Arno was not mentioned as a county seat before Ava. I'll try to get something fixed up with better structure, and also include an accurate history of our county. Randyspurlock (talk) 12:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey request

Hi, Vsmith I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions. Thank You, BCproject (talk) 08:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religion of evolution

Your religious beliefs should never stand in the way of scientific provable fact. Until the theory of evolution is proven as law through scientific process it is inadmicable into the scientific ideology. Evolution has no more place in science than does the theory that there is life on mars because there's water. It is of yet unproven.

One should be prudent when attempting to pass off their religion as fact.

The words "have evolved" are inaccurate, pretentious, and religious in nature. They should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigax (talk • contribs) 17:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religion? Science don't prove nothin'. Where did you study science? Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Arbitrary Reverts.

Wikipedia is supposed to be a place to find credible information brought together by the minds of the many. I recently edited Iron to no longer include the religious belief that animals have "evolved" to adapt to their environment. I changed: "The only exceptions are several organisms that live in iron-poor environments and have evolved to use different elements in their metabolic processes" To: "The only exceptions are several organisms that live in iron-poor environments and use different elements in their metabolic processes"

In your revert you said my change "did not appear to be constructive" even though my change removed the religious rhetoric leaving the sentence completely intact and expressing the exact same information without giving a possible (yet scientifically unproven) reason for the organisms use of different elements in their metabolic processes.

Your revert is in fact destructive as it serves to pass to the reader as fact that which is not. A.K.A. - Vandalism

I trust that you will either leave my change intact, or site your credible source for the addition of "have evolved to".

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigax (talk • contribs) 20:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything about "constructive". Please carefully read the following articles: evolution, scientific method and theory (the science part). The word evolved has nothing to do with religion. And please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~. Vsmith (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

Just because you say it's not a religion doesn't make it so. Evolution is not scientifically proven, it is believed through faith that it does in fact exist. There is no historic evidence of evolution and the science of "evolution" is unsound.

If you can prove evolution is indeed fact, please message me with your findings and site your sources. Until then it is simply something you believe in and while you have every right to believe in any religion you want, you cannot pass it off as fact until it is so.

Your insistent reverting of my removal of the words "have evolved to" are tantamount to a wild Christian coming in and saying that the organisms which live in iron poor areas use different elements because God made them that way.

That which is not FACT and PROVABLE have no place in Wikipedia.

Again I say, if you insist upon reverting what i have omitted please site your source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigax (talk • contribs) 20:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you paying attention? Have you finished your reading assignments listed above? How about WP:3RR? New assignment: Evolution as theory and fact - when you finish digesting that, you're more than welcome to come back. Bye, Vsmith (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of my web link

Hi there, My website www.tanzanite-gemstone.com has been on wikipedia for almost a year as an external reference. I wonder why now it has been removed?

Archives