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 :-)

Maunder Minimum

Thanks for removing my goof — my wife interrupted me. I agree with removal of trivia, as previously discussed on the talk page there. In light of Little Ice Age and Other observations, my intent was to add a new Significant concurrent events, starting with Lan_Xang#Latter_years where I have already put a link to the Maunder Minimum. In light of what's going on today, I think it important to link significant climatic events to articles on concurrent collapse of kingdoms and empires, and vice versa. In many articles, this has already been done. This is my first feeble attempt. I'll put a paraphrase of this at Maunder's talk and see what others say there. --Pawyilee (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome - we all make those goofs at times. It seems that your intent re: Significant concurrent events might be a bit of original research unless you can show that some WP:RS has made the connection between those concurrent events. I would advise caution there. Vsmith (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks. Note at Maunder_Minimum_Talk that I dropped that hot potatoe. I'll leave the MM link in Lan_Xang#Latter days, and leave the sole survivor of The Age of Stupid to draw his own conclusions. —09:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Tor Zawar

Just a thank you for added info to the Tor Zawar page. I actually forgot to add the bit about the quake. I have actually produced my own study (PDF) of the volcano (using whatever i could find online and in books) called "Geology and Aspects of The 2010 Tor Zawar Eruption"

I can't send it to you unless i have your e-mail, but it dosn't matter.

Regards, Noble Fan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noble fan (talk • contribs) 15:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zinnwaldite

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocks and minerals#Zinnwaldite is it ok? I personally don't like articles on discredited minerals. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commented there - should we chop biotite ...? Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 12:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer ur Chlorite group solution. To move biotite to biotite–phlogopite series and make redirects. There are so many construction sites open. We clear it lil by lil ... ;) Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you meant Annite–phlogopite series? :) To me a shorter name is simpler to type also.

The chlorite group was not a simple binary group, but rather more complicated. Vsmith (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and chlorite was in use elsewhere. Vsmith (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Option A: biotite–phlogopite series, biotite redirect, mindat.org version

Option B: annite–phlogopite series, biotite redirect, Chris.urs-o version

Option C: biotite, annite–phlogopite series redirect, Vsmith version

The name biotite is obsolete, we copy and paste, so shorter name doesn't matter, more or less. I got a feeling that the series name is more correct. Maybe biotite-phlogopite series is a Mindat typo. The key of a good databank, are correct names n titles. Don't know where we're heading, really, really (",) Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biotite may be obsolete to mineralogists, but as a field petrology term it sure is handy. Who would say annite–phlogopite granite? And as for typing, where is that en dash thingy (–) on my keyboard? And yeah, where are we heading? Toward a general encyclopedia used by regular people or to a technical ref for mineralogy researchers? We need an article on biotite which discusses the dark mica in general and leads to the various end-member species and their specialized occurrence. Same for zinnwaldite - except it's not as common a mineral. I see the biotite article refers to the siderophylite endmember... so should we have an annite-phlogopite-siderophyllite-polylithionite series article? Point is, if there is a common name for an intermediate mineral in a series then use it - even if discredited by some official body. Vsmith (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thought it wrongly, sorry. Biotite is an accepted name for the dark mica series, so name n title don't change. Zinnwaldite is obsolete, this name should be an redirect and not a title. As for the dash thingy, we make one redirect with hyphen. But, when in doubt, don't change page's title and its categorization on Wikipedia. (",) Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Referenced material and edit summaries

Cheers for that, sorry about deleting those references. DaHuzyBru (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the geology rewrite - Yule Marlbe

Hi Vsmith. Wanted to say thanks for rewriting the geology development of Yule Marble. A vast improvement to the article. I originally inserted the USGS section into the article because a rewrite was beyond my knowledge. I also removed the 24 hour clock from the timeline and the line with homo sapien developmentOneHistoryGuy (talk) 03:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orbicular Granite contribution

Hi Vsmith, Wow! that was fast!!I am mega impressed with the way volunteers peruse and check new contributions so meticulously.In answer to your question concerning my second reference: "Aspects of the history of Copper mining in Namaqualand" by John M Smalberger. That reference was intended to apply to the Stub , Concordia, one of the 2 places in SA where Orbicular Granite occurrs. I intend to expand the stub on this obscure little town listed below the article as one of the few places where this rare type of rock occurrs. Because I am a "Wiki virgin" , you will have to excuse me still getting to grips with how to edit efficiently. Glad to make your aquaintence and thanks for bringing my attention to this error.Look forward to further interaction in the future. Have a good day trying to get Teenagers interessted in anything at all besides gaming! (laughing) Warm regards--Gregoryclivedunn (talk) 11:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was on my watchlist, so thought I'd help a bit. Just worked a bit on the Concordia, Northern Cape article, let me know if I've misread something. Vsmith (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transitional Fossil GA review

An article you have made significant contributions to, (transitional fossil), is up for Talk:Transitional fossil/GA1GA review. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Hi Vsmith, I am currently a student at Clemson University and I am taking English 103. Our current assignment is to write a Wikipedia article, and I was wondering if you could take some time to read what I have started and give me some feedback! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrifaction Thanks! Ajdu93 (talk) 03:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have worked to improve a poor article - off to a good start. However:

First - the text needs wikification, you need to add links within the text - need blue links.

Second and perhaps more important - your Processes section contains only one: Permineralization which is divided into subprocesses. The article previously stated Petrification is not the same as permineralization. So ... what gives? I haven't yet looked at your references ... and perhaps the terminology confusion is there. Anyway, if there is only one process then perhaps this should just redirect there. Or we need to define/distinguish the subject better as supported by good refs.

Keep on working, hopefully you're not finished as work remains to be done. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you for your input! Your help is very much appreciated. I do want to let you know that what I have written so far is only about half of the assignment. I'll be finishing this week, which is why there is currently only one process under the "Processes" section. As for the terminology confusion, based on my research, petrification is comprised of two processes, one of which is permineralization. I checked the source the previous author used for that statement and found that the author did not include everything and the source does indeed say that petrification includes two subprocesses. Again I want to thank you for your time and input! Ajdu93 (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear that you plan further work. A caution, working on it live as you are doing may cause conflicts as others not aware of your plans may jump in and "fix" things making your finishing work more difficult. Keep on truckin' ... :) Vsmith (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of mines in Temagami

Just thought you would like to see the new list I made for the Temagami mines. The see also section on all Temagami mine articles was getting long so I removed all of the mines and replaced them with the list. More organized IMO. I still need to do some work on the list and make an article for the 1906 Priest Mine on Cross Lake (an inclined shaft also goes under the lake). Volcanoguy 08:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good move - limit those see alsos :) Just noticed as I was archivin old stuff: did you ever upload that molybdenite image we were discussing 'bout a month ago? If so I missed it somewhere. Vsmith (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No I haven't. I still have the sample but I don't have a great camera for taking close up photos. Volcanoguy 16:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way since you mentioned our molybdenite discussion I forgot there is another rock (most likely diorite) I found at Hermiston-McCauley Mine awhile back with a quartz vein in it. I looked in the quartz vein to see if there was anything in it and there is a small speck of something that I have been trying to find out what it is. Since I found it I have been thinking it may be gold because Hermiston-McCauley is a gold mine (has been idle since the early 1940s) and it dosen't look like pyrite. If I get my hands on a camera that is good for taking close up photos I will take a photo of the molybdenite and the Hermiston-McCauley diorite/quartz sample. Volcanoguy 06:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know much 'bout gold, but hey I'll take a look ... or if it's a big gold chunk, I'll give you my shipping address and ... ;) Have fun, Vsmith (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris.urs-o

Hystrix asked me on the April 1st to candidate for Admin on Commons. I'd like to hear one or two advices from u. Thx n cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 02:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't keep track of such stuff on Commons, but around here if one actively uses the buttons it just leads to drahma and piles of arguing. As I dislike all that I don't use the tools much 'cept for stompin' vandals. However, it does make it easier to stop vandalism nonsense. So if you've got the patience for it - go for it, I'm sure there is a need there. Good luck whichever way you decide. Vsmith (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thx for remembering me. I hate filibusting too. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

100,000 edits

		100,000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100,000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have accomplished. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work! – From: Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but it seems I got one of those 100K thingys a few months ago. Cheers! Vsmith (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(:D) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Electromagnetic radiation DRN thread

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Electromagnetic radiation". Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Syamsu on Free Will

Hi Vsmith,

I am wondering if, as an administrator, you can be of any further help in resolving the issue with User:Syamsu at Free will, besides just helping revert his war edits as you have this morning.

He has been pushing this edit for over three years, and editing almost nothing else, ever; almost every time he surfaces to pick up the war, he repeatedly violates 3RR; he has been warned for 3RR violations at least four times recently on his talk page; temporarily blocked twice for them; created a sock puppet which was also blocked; and now today, after the last block expired, immediately picked up the war again (six reverts so far today, even after another 3RR warning); and now flatly refuses to address concerns on talk, insisting that he has "said enough to build consensus" and that every other editor of that article, who unanimously disagree with his edits, must be banned for not going along with him.

It's becoming a real farce, and I think some kind of administrative intervention or something is required at this point. He's entirely recalcitrant and I don't know that even another temporary block will help, given his non-response to the recent ones.

Any ideas for how to address this problem?

Thanks, --Pfhorrest (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3rr report filed. As I've reverted the disputed content, I'd be considered "involved". Vsmith (talk) 00:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now indef'd for disruptive editing. Sockwatch alert! :) Vsmith (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help! Would it be appropriate to notify you here if I see suspected sockpuppets? Filing full wiki reports at AN and such is always quite intimidating to me. --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be OK, I dislike "jumping through those hoops" as well. I do expect to see more of that character, given his history. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add my thanks as well for both the admin help and the welcome you set up on my talk page. Garamond Lethe (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lund and WRV

Thanks for your assist. . . Is it the standard to put book references in the external links section? I, at least edited the link title to reflect the full text version of the title instead of the abbreviated version.

Thanks again Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.22.138 (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the links from the artocle text to an external link as you had added it more as a "see here for more info" rather than a reference for specifics in the article. If you do use the webbook as a reference to support added or existing text, then you can make a reflink <ref>url and book title</ref> following the relevant text and it'll show up in the reference section. Vsmith (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No ° used w/ Kelvins?

So that's really the convention? Guess I've been doing it wrong for 50 years! Oh, well.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, seems kinda picky 'though, comes from teaching chemistry for a few years. Thought about changing the "K" to "C" for consistency with previous paragraphs ... probably would've been better. Vsmith (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's there 'cos that's what the authors used, but I'm fine with consistency. This is supposed to be for general readers, and it's plenty confusing already.... Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but anyone who gets past the intro without developing a blank stare can't be a "general reader" :) Vsmith (talk) 01:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. That one needs work.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops

Excuse me. Why did you undo absolutely everything I added to the Nicaragua page even though it was all solid? --Horhey420 (talk) 10:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry 'bout that, but your last edit there deleted 157K of text. If that was an error - then restore the previous content, it's still there in the history. Vsmith (talk) 10:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored your edits previous to the blanking edit mentioned above. Please use caution. Vsmith (talk) 11:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I noticed. I apolagize. Should've figured it had something to do with that ref error. --Horhey420 (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
- Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
- If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 21:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yogo checks

Many thanks for both the technical expertise you gave on the geology parts of this and the paraphrasing checks. I do appreciate it. PumpkinSky talk 20:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, glad to help a bit ... and learn a bit :) Glad to see you back, Vsmith (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Would love to have your continued help there.PumpkinSky talk 20:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External Link Deletion

TFX Associates is a non-commercial independent collaborative of 16 senior scientists and engineers. The external links that you disabled are to informational webpages. The objective of TFX Associates is to inform and engage like minded researchers in an active discussion on topics of mutual interest. Please cease and desist. Wikipedia dispute resolution has been informed. Thank you.

Edward Bigelow PhD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.244.140 (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External Links Deleted

Ref. links. Plasma acceleration, Remote sensing, Reconfigurable computing, Sniping — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.244.140 (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say simply: we don't use Wikipedia to promote our own stuff. Vsmith (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Made links of the above, also Directed-energy weapon was involved ... for future reference :) Vsmith (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noted that, thanks. Vsmith (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I am humbled (and thankful) for the hours of work you've expended to help make the Algoman orogony article a GA.Bettymnz4 (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archives