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 :-)

contest of edit deletion

I indeed know alot about machinery, and some manufactures. But, I edited for viki not standing for any group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loney tulip (talk • contribs) 05:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But you need to address the concerns noted on your talk:

Wikipedia is not a "How to..."
Your edits appeared promotional
Your references were incomplete and the isbns posted appeared invalid.

Vsmith (talk) 10:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(",)

Thank you for your contributions to Pine Island Glacier. Please see wp:Tea.

Were you wp:MEAT on Religion and environmentalism and Christianity and environmentalism? ;-| 99.181.159.214 (talk) 02:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:-)

Thank you for your contributions to Climate change denial. 99.181.143.128 (talk) 03:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Gemology and Jewelry "stuff"

I wish I knew what this is about; see the history of Moussaieff Red Diamond, and the version of the article that constitutes the current editor's talkpage. I am frankly bewildered. I've tried starting a section on the article talkpage, which is "unavailable" in no way I can discern. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems someone is trying to promote a pet theory or hoax. I've left a note on their talk. Vsmith (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

question

On Talk:Current sea level rise#Add legislation? 108.73.115.187 (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per your edit

On Evangelical environmentalism you stated not to included a link within at reference title, but this happened when Climate change policy of the United States was wikilinked to explain by Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin. Did you not intend to have the link outside the title? 108.73.115.187 (talk) 06:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apples & oranges. How 'bout you write some unbiased content based on WP:RS rather than constantly pushing a POV through e-links and see alsos? Vsmith (talk) 11:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hellow

You have erased my own personal information from my accounts Talk page?? If that doesn't constitute as "talk" I suggest you admit Wikipedia is the largest content of useless public information.

Please reinsert the information to "my" talk page.

If you Brits and your Jews do not wish to give whats mine that is on you, but remember at the end of this you have no history due to your false claims of sovereign capability.

Quote this:

"I have a Bob (bobby) and I have a Traynor (trainer). So.... I Know you "

No more bullshit, just hand it over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emplorio (talk • contribs) 19:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'l I be. Please see your talk page history ... it's still available. We don't store article content on our talk pages. And please read WP:Civil and avoid threats ... or whatever that was supposed to be. Vsmith (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References and sources

Dear Vsmith,

Thank you for alerting me to some improper edits I made to the article on the Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny on Wikipedia. I have now added a number of references and sources for the material. Could you kindly remove the boxed message at the top of the page, which indicates the contrary? Thanks.

Benirschke-Perkins (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Improved -- changed to more sources needed template, as the history section and people lists need more. Need to replace those inline links to external sites with reference tags in the organization and activities sections. Try to avoid the "sales pitch" presentation -- what do other sources say about the center? What the article needs are secondary sources - critical or "praising". Vsmith (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Radium Girls

Thanks for sorting out the reflist there, this is to show my appreciation. ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, noticed the change on my watchlist and took a look -- saw the links to sites selling stuff and fixed while removing that spam. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really didn't notice them so i'm glad you did. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme

Hi, I hope you can help - I received a message saying you had deleted the page referring to the IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme due to the addition of copyrighted material - the update I performed simply updated the infromation that reflects the IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme whom I work for. As the page has now been deleted I can't view it to see what the disputed material was, can you clarify the situation for me? Many thanks! IEAGHG (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent addition to the page was or included a direct copy of material from the program website. So I reverted it to the earlier version as a copyright violation. Then, as the previous version also had no references I began to check that and found it also to be essentialy a copy of content from the website with minor changes added by other unsuspecting editors who were trying to improve it. The original had been created in August 2007 by User:Andrealacey and appears to have been their only edits to Wikipedia. As I noted on your talk page, you are free to start a new article based on reliable sources and free from copyright violations. If you choose to do so, please consider your WP:conflict of interest, read WP:COPYVIO and strive to write an objective article. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aerosol

Its been a while, but I have finally got back to looking at the Aerosol article. Nearly seven years ago (! WTF!) I was proposing a merger with particulates. Most of the last 4 years on Wikipedia have been spent ploughing a lonely furrow on Cullompton which was my new home 5 years ago.

I have now decided to concentrate on making this article an overview of all aspects of aerosol science and technology. I'd appreciate your thoughts though on where I am taking the article. Note that most of sections 3 and 4 are at present the remainder of a merger from another stub article and will be rewritten with proper sources in due course. It's a bit lonely there so sny comments would be welcome.--NHSavage (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been awhile ... time flies. Took a quick look, seems good. More later ... maybe :) Vsmith (talk) 01:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

kernite molweight

the molweight 290.28 first mentioned on the page was indeed taken from http://webmineral.com/data/Kernite.shtml, the first ref. on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernite page. However, this molweight corresponds with the formula Na2B4O6(OH)3·3(H2O), in which (OH)3 is wrong, it should be (OH)2. Unfortunately, both (OH)2 and (OH)3 can be found on the webmineral kernite page, which seems strange... Using standard chemical tables I calculated that for Na2B4O6(OH)2·3(H2O) the molweight is 273.22. I noticed that in the past the text box was introduced on 11th June 2009, with a formula containing (OH)3 and a molweight of 290.28 (this molweight indeed corresponds with (OH)3). This was repaired by you on 19th July 2009, and the (OH)3 was changed into (OH)2; however, unfortunately the molweight was not changed then. Wjchardon (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've copied this to talk:Kernite for others to see as well. Thanks for the explanation. I usually ignore the molwt bit as it's not very relevant to the mineral description and neither Mindat.org or the Handbook of Mineralogy list it either. Vsmith (talk) 12:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan IP ANI case

Hi V, thanks for your input. FYI, the example you posted was an edit warring example. The basis of my complaint is external link spamming and block evasion. I'd like to suggest that it might help the admins who review the case to see your comment broken out with a sub heading, and have it clearly spelled out that you're raising a different problem behavior from that user. Thanks for your interest. I don't edit as much when I have to wade thru that junk on my watchlist NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, maybe so, but if you check that talk page you'll see the same link spamming behavior ... so not so different except the ip also edit warred there while pushing a different pov. Thinkin bout it... Vsmith (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good point! Indeed, that page is examples of both. I was just thinking that when you said an example of the edit warring etc etc.... that could confuse an admin trying to make sense of the claims, since I was not talking about edit warring. Just tossing out an idea here.... what about modifying your remark to say one example article of what NAEG is saying is X, and in addition to NAEG's reasons for a range block, at least on this example article the IP also engages in edit warring? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just stopping by to thank you for your continued interest in trying to reform this IP's behavior. FYI, on Aug 23 the primary IP at the library was soft blocked (if soft is the word) for a year and the soft range block for what I infer is their home was extended to Nov 23. Thanks again for caring. Its sort of ironic since I've often been interested in the news stories they post and share their POV. Sure wish we could get them to interested in meaningful NPOV editing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I had noted that. Vsmith (talk) 12:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring concern

Hi, my concern is that why only myself is reported for edit warring, when the other user Zeraful has also engaged in edit warring, who has been deleting content from that article, and when I reinstated those deleted content items, that user kept undoing my edits, like around 5 times. It seems quite unfair that I'm being penalized for edit warring only, when clearly 2 editors are engaged in the same act. And, I was the one who actually made the compromise edits on the article, several of them, while Zeraful didn't, and after finding a compromise resolution on the article, with input by the other user, i'm the only one who gets reported for edit warring. The Battle of Khe Sanh article had the same problem involving the same user. I'm believing that Shrigley is unfairly, and in a biased way, penalizing me for edit warring, who conflicted with me a long time ago on the Paracel and Spratly Islands article, and may be penalizing me for my position on that territorial dispute.

Oh, by the way i was only kidding about the tieng Viet thing, i knew that you weren't Vietnamese and that you tried to write it as best you can, and i wouldn't take offense over something negligible like that, so you didn't need to apologize for that, and i hoped that you would pick up the sarcasm i placed at the end of my edit summary, but unfortunately you missed it. I will provide a review for that link as soon as i can, but i have to go back to my work now... Anyways, I'll look forward to hearing from you soon about the concern i have about this whole edit warring thing. Nguyen1310 (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When your username showed up on the edit warring board I took a look. On reviewing the article I noted that the two of you were both over 3rr - so rather than blocking both, I protected the article as I found it for three days. Yes, the reporting user should have included both editors. In the future, simply stop before reaching 3 reverts and discuss. And yes it is frustrating when other users "just won't agree with me" ... :)

No problem regarding the language bit. My crash course in Vietnamese back then was focused on spoken and not written language. Our teacher was an ARVN sergeant and we learned a bit -- but long time gone. Vsmith (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As well, can you please revert the last 2 edits that Zeraful has made on the North Vietnam article, that user has added those items in without any consensus or agreement with me, where i have explicitly rejected the edit in the article's talk page (the edit regarding the Vietcong attempting to invade the South). As well, the name DRV violates the common naming policy, and should be changed back to the name North Vietnam, as very few people who read this article know what DRV means, and its the user's attempt to legitimize the North, which is POV. What this user did is against what the whole concept of consensus-building stands for. Thanks again. Nguyen1310 (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry it was protected "on the wrong edit", but that's the way it works. An admin action is supposed to be neutral and protect "as we find it" is the rule. You are welcome to build your case on the talk page. Vsmith (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comercial links at Flux (metallurgy) and Wave soldering

Elizabethnorton (talk · contribs) reverted your reverts of their commercial links at the above two articles. After checking the contents of the links and confirming they were primarily commercial in nature, I reverted to your version and left a note on their talk page. Given that they've now been warned by two editors, and gave "removed promotional links" as their rationale for material removal at Solder (showing that they're aware of policy), it should be safe to impose sanctions if they edit-war on this further.

I hope I'm wrong about the likelihood of them doing so, but they're showing all of the hallmarks of being a single-purpose account promoting a company's interests. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Urantia Book

Dropped off my watchlist until I saw it pop up at WP:COIN. Dougweller (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Seems ~5-6 years ago a user visited my talk pushing that stuff ... don't recall doing more than taking a brief look. But, yes there be some pushing goin down there, not pennies ... much bigger coins. Hmm... ? Vsmith (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roger A. Pielke, Jr.‎

Many thanks for the semi-protection at Roger A. Pielke, Jr.‎. Much appreciated. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, we don't need ip edit warring on a BLP with no discussion. The page is on my watchlist - so will monitor activity in 10 days. If I miss something (got a huge watchlist), just alert me :) Vsmith (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I should have studied more before making changes to this article, thanks for your quick correction and description. Sorryasshere154 (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Longship numbers

Thanks for the help with the metric numbers in the longship article!Big ups from kiwi land!1% — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.36.191 (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Please provide references to support your additions to the article. Vsmith (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My bad! I meant thickness not width.Captain 1% — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.36.191 (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:BrightStarSky - copyright violations again

Please see: User talk:BrightStarSky#Copyright violations, again

We've both warned the user. In fact, this user has been warned many times and persists. Please advise. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indef blocked. Seems to have continued even while talking to you on their talk page. Vsmith (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were only two since: [1] and [2]. Neither looks like a copyvio.

Since I last warned him, he has made about 2,000 edits, almost all of which are similar in nature: a sentence or two with a ref. My guess is that the vast majority contain copy paste.

This is my fault. I've really let the community down. I could have prevented this. I should have kept an eye on him. I let almost two months go by without spot checking. I really don't want to dump this on Moonriddengirl and the crew at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations. They'll have my guts for garters. I'm so sorry. :( Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the good news is, a spot check shows only about 10% copy paste. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guts for garters, that creates quite an image ... :)

I've reverted the last series of edits to Minorities in Pakistan as it contained quite a bit. The user seems to cut n paste something from a newspaper into a WP article followed by minor wording changes... problematic not only for copyvio, but somewhere it says WP is not a newspaper ... or something like that. The current clamor to get & keep new warm bodies, well, leads to this kind of problem. Were you "officially" mentoring here? The copyvio crew should be delighted - 2000 seems a drop in the copyvio bucket. Vsmith (talk) 13:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a terrible shame because the editor was really doing a lot of work. The trouble is that, yes, a lot was also newsy, and he couldn't resist the eas of the copy-paste-change-a-few-words technique.

Perhaps he will request unblock, and agree to spend some time checking over his own edits or something. Then maybe he can go forward with editing in a fashion that fits the encyclopedia, under a few watchful eyes, of course.

And no, I was not a mentor in any way. Search "frodesiak" at his talk and you will see the sum total of my interaction with him.

As for the copyvio bucket, I would love to see this stay off their books. I can't imaging them receiving it with delight. Besides, it may only turn out to be a hundred or so, with the added complication of the appropriateness of the newsiness, and whether that should be removed.

What do you think of the idea of a few blind rollbacks of recent edits before they get buried? Of course, a few good edits would be lost in the action.

Sorry for the long reply. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blind reverts - the idea seems counter wiki, but considering the scope of the problem and the general newsy nature of editing here, I would support - followed by a double check afterward to perhaps re-add valid material. Vsmith (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure I'm comfortable with it. I was just throwing it out there. What would you say to unblocking on condition that he cleans up his mess? I think we got his attention now. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the user has basically ignored multiple warnings over the past two months and continues adding copyvio material, I quite simply am dubious about competence here. If the user can place a valid unblock request and demonstrate a real understanding of the problematic nature of his editing - then I won't stand in the way of an unblock by another admin. If unblocked, close supervision or mentoring should be required. Vsmith (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. But a speech at unblock wouldn't convince me, personally. Talk has been pretty cheap. I am trying to get the editor to actually demonstrate that he can edit. My big worry is that these copy pastes have been concealing competency issues. Continuing to copyvio doesn't worry me, as close monitoring would stop that quickly. I'm worried about this editor's English. I suggest allowing him display some skills at his talk. Then we will see. What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Care to offer feedback on his interpretation? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Med rpts

Thanks for the feedback on the anecdotal medical reports. I see you are or have been in Arizona, so you might want to take a crack at reporting the medical benefits of your weather there...if you can find some studies!

Regards, Charley in San Francisco NRN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charley sf (talk • contribs) 13:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't lived in Az for quite a while and know nothing about supposed med benefits of the weather there. And seems the weather/air pollution conditions would depend more on "where in Az" ... conditions in Phoenix are quite different than Patagonia down south or Flag up north. Vsmith (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts

Hello Vsmith

I thinking loudly on a handbook of minerals on en.wikibooks, based on Mineral Identification Key II (MSA)

Any comments? Are u available as consultant n more? ;) Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never done anything on wikibooks - where have you been "thinking loudly" (link needed)? The MSA id key looks good - maybe use it ... seems someone a while back started a mineral id article here.

Consultant?? clarify please ... Vsmith (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, found it: Mineral tests ... needs some help. Vsmith (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking loudly here ;) Well, questions & answers, frequently asked questions (FAQ), some cleaning stuff? You are a geologist, like minerals and you have practice. It's a brain storming, don't know which problems would turn up on such a challenge. The mineral systematic got me enchanted. But I don't have the editing capacity at the moment. I think ... --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ask away, maybe I can provide coherent answers :) Just added the MSA link to that poor mineral tests article. Vsmith (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In order to determine a mineral you have to count. So without a laboratory for determinations on a microprobe and powder diffraction, you are not able to determine below mineral series, mineral polymorphs, mineral polytypes and mineral varieties. Right? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we're changing levels here, your MSA link above was for mineral ID by collectors - naked eye mineralogy. Now you're in deeper territory. In hand specimen mineralogy, you call a dark amphibole hornblende or a feldspar plagioclase, simple. But to determine which amphibole or plagioclase - then you need technological solutions. With the plagioclase group, the simplest might be specific gravity or index of refraction, as those vary directly w/ Ca content. Then microscopic or petrographic analysis, then X-ray diffraction, then quantitative chem ideally w/ microprobe. However, an old fashioned blow-pipe analysis could tell an experienced field mineralogist a lot. I've played a bit w/ a blowpipe n charcoal block, fusing on a Pt loop and even a bit of wet chem. Taught optical mineralogy lab (as a TA), learned X-ray techniques under Dr. Anthony (he was on my thesis committee at UofA), and did some microprobe analyses on a pre-computerized instrument on my thesis work, finished 1975. So my actual experience might be a bit dated.

Looking at my 1944 ed of Dana's system ... a microprobe was not needed for such determinations ... just makes quant analysis easier and on smaller samples in matrix.

So, do we need a mineralogy for amateurs and collectors and a separate mineralogy for mineralogists and researchers? Vsmith (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mineralogy for amateurs and collectors - naked eye mineralogy (10x magnification), "however, an old fashioned blow-pipe analysis could tell an experienced field mineralogist a lot" ;) I was thinking MSA mineral ID is unrealistic going down to mineral determination. MSA ID has a ©. I was thinking, if I go down to Nickel-Strunz mineral group/ mineral series determination only, than I'm on the safe side. I'm not able to tell without chemical analysis which is the dominant cation anyway. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Writing down ur own thoughts is good to get them simple n crystal clear. The main list has c. 5,000 minerals, this is huge. Minerals found only on three locations on Earth are not very relevant for amateurs and collectors. MSA mineral ID doesn't cite all minerals, the list is shorter, an advantage. I was thinking about a handbook in 4 sections:

Mineral Identification Key I - Nickel-Strunz class 01 to 08
Mineral Identification Key II - Nickel-Strunz class 09 to 10 (silicates, germanates and organic compounds)
List of Minerals - Sorted by Nickel-Strunz ID
List of Minerals - Alphabetical List

Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temperature spacing

Hi, I see that you reversed my edit on Economics of Global Warning, to retain the space before the degree symbol. I was in the process of doing that myself, but you beat me to it. So thanks. I still think it looks odd, as I commented in the Talk page for that article. Margin1522 (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I'm used to it with a space. Aluminium used to look odd to me, but got used to it :) Vsmith (talk) 12:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request re Alps

Hi, I noticed you edited the Alps and I need someone have a look at the Geology section to be certain it's a.) correct and b.) readable in plain English. Do you know about geology or perhaps know someone who does? Also, if you do know, can you have a look at the bottom of the Composition section where there's still a bit that's unsourced. I have a couple of geology books but can't seem to find anything that matches with that section although it doesn't seem incorrect to me. Thanks in advance. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Know a bit of geology, tho not much about the Alps - User:Mikenorton would have deeper knowledge of European geology. Did a bit of wording cleanup on the orogeny section and will take a closer look at the composition section. Vsmith (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa ... the first quote kinda bothered me: already folded peaks are "thrust or slipped in front of a tectonic plate"; I looked it up through Amazon "peek inside" and ... well it's worse than I thought. A geography text circa 1990 that still speaks of mio- and eugeosynclines is simply lacking as a geological reference. And that quote speaking of a mountain ... slipped or thrust in front of a tectonic belt is at the end of a paragraph discussing the Henry Mountains and Black Hills as dome mountains. A ref that clueless of geology is seriously lacking - lose it. Vsmith (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the geology section has two see mains where the detail resides (altho' the sourcing there may be a bit lacking) - so I'd say keep it straightforward simple intro and leave the details to the subarticles. Gotta get some shut-eye now ... Vsmith (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback and the cleanup. I see what needs to be done there now; it needs a good reworking, but you've set me on the right direction. Appreciated. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Alpine geology is a bit rusty, but I'm happy to take a look. Mikenorton (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A bit rusty is better than non-existent, except for the two-day crash course I gave myself. Thanks very much for the offer. I've decided to sandbox and rewrite the section, but feedback is very welcome. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look through what's there now and it certainly does need some work - let me know when you want my input (I'm already watching your sandbox). Mikenorton (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading this now. The problem is translating it to plain English. About to give it a try or two. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That looks pretty thorough - Stefan Schmidt's a good geologist, a good basis for a rewrite, but anything but straightforward - I'll see if there's a useful summary out there about the more recent understanding. Mikenorton (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it but it is very technical. I'm about to give it shot if you want to watch and we can use the sandbox talk page if you'd like. Thanks to Vsmith for hosting this discussion. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, and thanks to Mike for jumping in here. The Schmid paper is very good, but very technical - a tough read for one not familiar with European geology. I'll watchlist your sandbox and help where possible as time allows. Vsmith (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it back to mainspace but it will continue to need tweaking. I think that your suggestion above to leave most of it to the subarticles is the way to go (which unfortunately aren't well-sourced), but it needs some sort of summarization in the main article. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some tweaking - perhaps that's all we can do for now. Best to look at the other articles before returning to the 'Alps' section. It's a pity that Woudloper is no longer active - he contributed a great deal to European geology articles and knows this stuff really well. Mikenorton (talk) 13:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked a bit also and removed the final sentence as rather confused, more stuff from a geography text. Vsmith (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that last bit, glad that you caught it. Mikenorton (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for the help. If it's reasonably accurate and written so that a high school student can understand it, then I'm happy with it. I do think this section and the subarticles need to be revisited, but I'm temporarily out of steam - and way out on a ledge subject-wise. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A gorge named "Lanayru"

If those links were confusing, do you think u can ask where Lanayru is? Lanayru seems to be one of the gorges found in the desert and its located somewhere.--75.142.67.97 (talk) 01:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional game fantasy stuff. Vsmith (talk) 02:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mineral

I've been expanding the mineral article, and was wondering if you could take a look at what I've done, what I've screwed up (hopefully not much!), and what I'm missing or have too much of. I've been thinking of adding perhaps a bit on more advanced mineral ID (e.g. optical mineralogy, XRF, electron or ion microprobes, spectroscopy, and so on), and maybe more on mineral environments and associations; however, in a general article like this, perhaps the advanced stuff would go better in to mineralogy, and environments and associations might be veering too much into describing geology as opposed to discussing minerals. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 17:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching ... and just did a rather quick readthru - looks good, will give a more detailed look later. Needs some links in the lead, but I see you're still on that. The reference to a bestselling guide per Amazon published by Fog City Press sorta gave me a twinge (RS?), but I see it's used only for some basic properties so ... ah well (and we use wot's available...).

I think sections on more technical mineral studies, as you mention, are indeed needed here - at least as a brief intro w/ link to more detailed article. Ideally we would develop optical mineralogy, x-ray crystallography, etc to use as a see main for deeper stuff. (Maybe even some archaic techniques as I discussed with Chris.urs-o in the Thoughts section above a bit.) And yes, mineral environments of formation and associations are important and could or should be briefly covered or introduced with links to more specialized articles. Yeah ... lotta work waiting and ...Good job, keep on truckin' , Vsmith (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Telluric iron

Hi Vsmith,

Thanks for the additions to the telluric iron article. That looks good. I'm glad you were able to find pictures for it, because it'll save me from having to go to Greenland and take them myself. :-D I'm not a geologist, and knew nothing about the subject when I started the article. I was mainly looking into the history of steel, (one of the subjects I know best), when I stumbled across the info about telluric iron, and really thought it should have its own article. I'm glad to see a real mineralogist helping to expand it. Thanks again. Zaereth (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, I stumbled across the article while looking for native iron. Don't recall seeing the term telluric iron previously (may have tho - memory gets fuzzy :). Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's Latin, I think, meaning "terrestrial" or "of the Earth." It was the term used by Steenstrup and Lorenzen, and the first one I came across, although I've seen it in many other sources since. Zaereth (talk) 04:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation

		The Geology Barnstar
		Thanks for setting me on the right track with the Alps. I couldn't have done it without expert advice. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference usage

Hello, I noticed some of your input on articles even though good material, didn't have sources. I'll remind you of this page: Wikipedia:List of free online resources. This makes it easier too MediaWiki:Gadget-ProveIt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidelight12 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://spinoff.nasa.gov/spinoff/spinsearch?BOOL=AND&ALLFIELDS=water+filtration&CENTER=&BOOLM=AND&MANUFACT=&STATE=&CATEGORY=Consumer&ISSUE=&Spinsort=ISSUED

http://www.nasa.gov/missions/science/f_water.html

That's the closet I could find. Sidelight12 (talk) 06:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but 'twould be helpful if you were more specific. I assume you were referring to the water ionizer edit. The NASA link you found seems irrelevant. Also note that water ionization receives plenty of promotional edits based on pseudoscience scams. In the specific cas, an editor added some claims with no source. I removed it and requested the user provide references in support as it seems likely the user would know where he read or heard about it. Also seems best to alert a new user that references are required. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I got mixed up with the editors. Sidelight12 (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war brewing at Yosemite National Park

If you have some spare energy, please come and lend a hand. Thanks! —hike395 (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looked ... acted ... :) Vsmith (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was also approached recently with regards to possible edits to the Yosemite National Park article. My input on the matter can be found at the following link;

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

Thmc1 / 173.63.176.93 sill sockpuppeting / REPLYU REQUSTED

This person (blocked sockmaster Thmc1) is still block evading by not logging in, even after he was warned by SysAdmin Kudpung. I would suggest that you block the suspected IPs(173.63176.93, 74.88.160.244) as well as IPs used by his other blocked account (Nyc88) and any other accounts affiliated w/them. Why are sockppuppets of a blocked sockmaster still allowed to edit even after ample warnings? To make matters worse, he even violated his block and continuted editing the day after he was blocked! Please see Thmc1 sockpuppet investigation archive for latest investigation/evidence[3]. MBaxter1 (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No clue -- links would be helpful. Vsmith (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think it's the other way around, if I'm not mistaken, I think I remember MBaxter1 (talk) being mentioned to admin Ronhjones as a possible sockpuppet in the past few months in conjunction with an edit disagreement issue. Are you stocking this address? Is this some sort of retaliation? First of all, I have no idea who any of these other users are, much less others who use this IP address. 173.63.176.93 (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Thanks, I think, hadn't noticed the 173... above was the same as the 173... I just talked to .. still no clue why MBaxter showed up here. Aw well - keep on keepin' on Vsmith (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vsmith- Don't let 173.63.176.93 fool you. It was him who attempted to mention this to RonHJones using IP 74.88.160.244. That IP was found to be one of 173.63.176.93's sockpuppet and blocked after a recent investigation. 173.63.176.93 is actually a sockpuppet of Thmc1, blocked for excessive sockpuppeting back in 2010. Even though 173.63.176.93 was ruled most likley as one of Thmc1's sockpuppet, he was let off with a warning. For the full story, I suggest that you check out Thmc1's most recent investigation, August 2012[4]. The final assessment was one account (Nyc88) permanently blocked, one IP temporarily blocked, and one left open with warning. If he causes you anymore trouble, you should report this to the SysAdmins and don't hesitate to mention the sockpuppet investigation. The reverting of your edits is the same kind of BS he conducted on the London City article that got him blocked back in 2010. He has an anti-UK bias amongst many, and you can confirm this with user Eraserhead1.MBaxter1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hantavirus

VSmith, I actually came to your talk page for a different reason and just happened to notice this. It looks ridiculous and I think this MBaxter1 character is highly suspicious himself. In the meantime, can you please look at this story seen on the main CNN.com page today? http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/05/health/hantavirus-warnings/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

I think that this Yosemite hantavirus story is worthy of at least brief mention in the article because it is now having international implications. I just don't see a justification in ignoring it completely, thanks.173.63.176.93 (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does the article have a current events section? The hantavirus bit isn't history, and as it is notable, it should be discussed on the hantavirus page ... haven't checked. And, no, don't think we need a current events section on the page ... WP:notnews. Vsmith (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm confused----is there some sort of differentiation you're making between the two pages by Wikipedia standards? I would think this should be mentioned on both pages and cross-linked to each other.173.63.176.93 (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Se WP:Due weight or somewhere... Is this discussed on the hantavirus page? I'm aware that some users think that every news headline should be splashed accross any semi-relevant article. However, I'm not one of those. If the event stays hot and is important in the broader context of the article in say 6 months -- then maybe. Wikipedia is not a sensationalist tabloid, it's not a newspaper (see wikinews for that), it is supposed to be an encyclopedia - and entries here should have enduring significance to the subject. Vsmith (talk) 00:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to spam

Hi vsmith, You recently removed my edits from a few chemistry related terms in which I added links to the External Link sections. I thought it would be useful to have a more simplified version of these definitions, which is what the external links offered. It wasn't to dictionary.com as mentioned. Just wanted to clarify it wasn't spam, again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themaab (talk • contribs) 19:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, it was to chemistry-dictionary.com instead, another one-liner. External links should provide more info ... not less. Vsmith (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SMOKE CREEK DESERT, NEVADA

re: Smoke Creek Desert, Nevada =- thanks for some of the clean up - I'll try to find the cites, they disappeared when I decided it was faster to compose in word than on the page and then copy and paste - some cites took and some didn't - eg: the ECV (E. Clampus Vitus) maps they put together - I'll try to find those - but the picture has me confused - the credit says 'Denver, co' - then the smoke creek - it looks like it might be the smoke creek - though the edge of the basin is FAR more telling as it is a 'charged' basin -- unlike the others - Winnemucca Lake (Lake Winnemucca) and the Black Rock Desert -which are charge-discharge basins. The tracks of vehicles and their detritus give ample warning of the nature of that particular basin. -- could you clarify the origin of the photo- having done a fair amount of work out there, that photo would have had to have been shot from the basin itself - unlikely except in late August/early September if I recall correctly.

Yeah, I was Navy Independent Duty Corpsman (entered at E-5 because I had all but one semester of college to do in a double Micro/Etomoloty major and turned down their OCS offer since I was headed for CO anyway and left USN as a E-8 without TIR but it didn't matter as I was mustered out w/o record to work for Nixon (who 'stopped' bio warfare) through different pay checks each month. I was forced to do 5 (as in FIVE!) back-to-back tours many of which were with the 2/5th and 3/5th Marines then the 2/5th and then a VERY short stint with the 3/4th(?) - but worked all regions from I through IV since I was 'unattached' to The Corps -- and 5 years is a LONG time to spend in cournty. Yes-- what a long strange trips it's been. My last tour was too weird - But the trade off was we'll give you a choice - no combat, no military record (eg no VA), and we'll let you do bio-research (mass distraction use of bacteria, rot cotton) and give you a Masters when you go back to the real world. I guess that's here had to tell what's real after a bit. But I LOVE the desert because you can see things coming a LONG way away. Then I earned multiple MS/A's and ended up with an Ed.D. in Special Ed, and am now retired.

Anyway I went to check on Smoke Creek after the Burners finished another season destroying The Black Rock and some of the most fragile environment in the world, and despoiling the Holy and Sacred sties of the Pyramid Band of the Paiute, and the Western Shoshone and wanted to see if anyone had picked up on the dead-end references that were hanging fire waiting for someone to catch-- which means a few hours tracking down maps for cites. thanks for pushing me - no need to contact me, I'll have it done in the next month or so, depending on how tired I get of dial-up speeds - live rural and deal with both the good and the bad. thanks again my friend. I won't be back here to get an answer, but will try to find those maps, they are not as buried as Freemont's maps were but FAR more easy to find than the rail-road maps themselves! - Pgalioni (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC) "thank you for your service" LOL! ---[reply]

And thank you. I had to look it up, seems no one has touched that article since your & my edits last year. Good luck finding those maps. I may do some digging on USGS sites ... or not - lots to do. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page deletion

Thanks for doing that, I was hoping to get some sort of response from the editor, but you saved me from tagging it - the end result would have been the same. Mikenorton (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looked quite obvious and the user seems non-responsive to your request or the problems with their image uploads. Vsmith (talk) 00:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan guy is back

Hi, FYI I think he's on right now 97.86.80.98 (talk · contribs) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If so he moved on see User talk:141.218.36.99. Vsmith (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I asked James to tell the server that sock has restarted the block clocks.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request

This User:Mrt3366 is reverting the edits, inserting pov templates, and putting <···!> in the article to hide text, of Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, when asked on the talk page of the article he uses harsh words. My request is kindly take a look on the history, talk page and article and act accordingly so that the encyclopaedic values of the article are not lost. Thank you sir. MehrajMir '^(Talk) 11:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable

I have reverted your unacceptable removal of the see also link to a documentary that is directly related to the lake. Placing the relevant link is not "promotion of a film", your removal of it however reeks of something considerably less than encyclopedically acceptable. --87.79.208.194 (talk) 12:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page is back

Hi Vsmith, Bedrock Geology UK North is back I'm afraid. Mikenorton (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hmm... and gone again. Stuff goes on while I'm off playing. :) Vsmith (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help?

I don't often ask these things (in fact this is a first), but there sometimes come times in which I cannot contain my disdain of a certain class of administrator-- in this case several who are looking out for a buddy who is a music afficionado or musician, who nevertheless feels the lay need to edit articles on the philosophy of medicine. [5]. This is going to inevitably escalate to a civility block (simply because users get blocked when insulting admins). Would you consider showing up as an admin on my "side"? S B H arris 02:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry 'bout that. Seems that it's sometimes best to move on. You gotta avoid the "civility police" actions. And yes, the cliques are bothersome. I avoid Jimbo's blog and the regulars there and dislike the cronyism that goes on. Focus on content and keep on truckin'. Vsmith (talk) 10:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War on Authoritarianism Article, again with same user. Request for Mediation

Hi VSmith, there's an ongoing problem happening on the Authoritarianism article. Currently the user Zeraful and Cresix have been reverting all 3 of my edits on that article, for reasons that are not sufficiently justifiable and are totally senseless. The user Zeraful deleted some content critical of the Vietnamese gov't, like of how Hanoi blocked Facebook, how Vietnam is on the Reporters Without Borders "Enemies of the Internet" blacklist and how the Vietnamese government suppresses protests in the country like in 2011, in a paragraph in the article that are true and had proper and sufficient citations with sources to credible international news website articleslike Forbes and The Economist. Then, an ip user tried to reinstate those deleted items and added additional content. That ip's edits were reverted by Crecix (who used twinkle) with no reason provided. After that, after seeing what's going on in the article, I came in and reinstated the article version of that ip user, after checking the changes in content, and I saw nothing wrong with the change in content by that ip and nothing wrong with the sources they provided. I added an additional source to one of the deleted items as well, from the DART Center website from Columbia University. Then, my edits were reverted by Zeraful and Crecix, claiming that "sources are needed to back [the deleted content] up", and "verification of sources failed", even though the items in dispute do have sufficient and credible sources (you can check the sources for yourself as well). Can you please help in trying to resolve this issue? I would greatly appreciate your efforts in trying to find a resolution to this. As well on a side note, the user Zeraful has a chronic problem of blanking out content, that are factual and recognized by academics, that usually have sources to back them up, that are critical or exposing anything negative of the Vietnamese communist govt, and has done this in numerous articles in the past, like on the North Vietnam article, and imparting pro-communist POV statements in encyclopeadic articles, with no or invalid and unacceptable sources. Zeraful also engages in "wording wars", trying to change words used in articles to make articles sound less critical of the Vietnamese regime, often changing things to the point that sentences are grammatically incorrect. Nguyen1310 (talk) 06:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, i'm not going to continue editing this article until mediation begins. I have just remembered 3rr, and i'm not going to let that Zeraful drive me over that.Nguyen1310 (talk) 06:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing zeraful's claims: removal of factual content, especially sourced ones, out of dislike or not wanting others to see it, IS censorship. Zeraful accuses me of POV, but really the info and content I contribute are true, factual, and usually sourced and supported content, with sources from reputable sources, which can be found in the North Vietnam article, the Authoritarianism article, and many others. The sources that Zeraful presents, like from vietnamnet.vn and tuoitre.vn, are on articles irrelevant to the content that he claims to support (I read the article for myself and know this, Zeraful hopes that no one on English wiki can read Vietnamese by sourcing to irrelevant Vietnamese-language webpages). Zeraful regularly imparts pro-communist commentary, not encyclopedic type material (more for blogs instead) in articles like the North Vietnam article and Battle of Khe Sanh article and many others (esp. look at those articles' talk pages), and very often Zeraful's content is very historically incorrect (look at the North Vietnam article talk page for yourself). Zeraful also engaged in personal attacks, telling me to "go get a life" in his edit summary on the Authoritarianism article, for example, and is very dishonest, like saying that I deleted sources from the BBC or Alexa, even though I clearly didn't and is still there in my reinstations, and like saying that he didn't delete content in the North Vetnam article when he clearly did. Zeraful also doesn't engage in developing compromised edits and solutions, like in the Authoritarianism and North Vietnam article, where he kept reverting my edits, and i'm the only one who delivered a compromised edit, in both articles. I also know that Zeraful is following and tracking my edits, which is very concerning. Nguyen1310 (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyen1310

This user often add section without sources, and label other users as "communist censorship", like in http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=North_Vietnam&action=history. He is also changing word and content of the article to fit his own point of view, and when I present sources, he claim that they're "partisan" and deleted it, even if one of them come from BBC, and one from Alexa.--Zeraful (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've given you both a 24 hr vacation from editing for 3rr violations on Authoritarianism. Vsmith (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysocolla gallery

Hi, I noticed you recently deleted the gallery at Chrysocolla. I thought it served a useful purpose, as Commons currently has 374 (!) photos of chrysocolla, to pick out a small subset to help our users visualize some of the varieties -- and the beauty -- of this mineral. Could you take another look at the gallery? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pete, will take another look and p'raps restore a couple of those. As it was it seemed there were too many and as you say commons has a lot. Will check for specific relevant images to illustrate points in the article. Vsmith (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I may fiddle with the format -- article currently has an unfortunate narrow "gutter" of text between fotos & infobox. Gallery avoids this.

And thanks for the other improvements! Cheers -- Pete Tillman (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Bedrock Geology UK - Archaean and Palaeoproterozoic

I have noticed that you deleted the page "Bedrock Geology UK - Archaean and Palaeoproterozoic" by Rhondeag on the ground of Implausible typos (R3). I am a colleague of Rhondeag and we were wondering how this page warranted deletion under R3. Please could you provide us wih your reasons for deleting the page under R3. This would be much appreciated.

Pmc08 (talk) 08:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My reason was implausible redirect as no one would likely be searching for that long string. However the more important reason was that, before the article was redirected, it contained some rather obvious copyright problems. It seems user:Rhondeag was completely unresponsive to questions about that article, the "Bedrock Geology UK" article or various image concerns. You and Rhondeag like me are anonymous users and Wikipedia cannot take anonymous comments/claims about serious issues without further backup as user:Peridon has pointed out to you. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have the BGS book ordered and will double check when it arrives - should be later this week depending on mail service. Vsmith (talk) 10:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geosyncline

See Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing. Hyacinth (talk) 23:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seen that already ... bah. Vsmith (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosttowns link

Hello. I don't think the ghost towns link is spam. The guy is not selling anything and nothing on his site links to any seller. Other than a page that says who he is, the site is not a personal web page. With these factors in mind, the site is not WP:ELNO. Your thoughts? (I'll look for them here.) --S. Rich (talk) 03:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When a user adds dozens of links to a website - and that was the only contributions of that user - that is spam. I looked at the first one that showed up on my watchlist and the text appeared to be copied from the Wikipedia article (or was it the other way around? didn't think so). Seems it was the Gleeson article. The only "new" stuff was a batch of photos. He is welcome to add new content w/ reliable sources or to upload good images to commons. Vsmith (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any policy or guideline that describes what you are suggesting, e.g., that adding links to dozens of different articles constitutes spamming. For example, I've been improving references by adding dozens of {{OCLC|1234567}} templates to references which link to the WorldCat. Am I spamming? (At the same time, we have a {{ASIN|7654321}} template to link to Amazon -- if there wasn't ISBN, OCLC, LCC, or LCCN data for a particular item, would it be spamming to include the ASIN?)

In DA's case, he has cited and linked WP as the source when giving info about the locations. (By comparison, some of those ghost town EL pages have no source data whatsoever.) His data about Eagle Mountain, California is accurate (I've been there and live in Riverside County) and he's providing roughly 42 photos per location, which load up quickly. He has absolutely no ads, which is not the case with some of the other sites we see on these obscure ghost town pages.

If any of the various WP pages have linkfarms, then those EL sections should be culled; but his additions are not cluttering the EL section. (I went to the Gleeson page and cleaned out a couple of the ELs with ads and readded DA's link.)

None of the WP:ELNO criteria apply. The photos are high quality and because they are taken at the scene he qualifies as a "knowledgeable source" IAW WP:ELMAYBE #4. Indeed, his pages fit well in the 3 "What to include" criteria. His contributions are worthwhile and should be included. --S. Rich (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simply, if a user only adds links to a site of his to a couple dozen wp articles - that qualifies as spam. We don't use Wikipedia to promote our own stuff. The user is more than welcome to add content to wp articles or images, but not to use wp for promotion of his web pages. WP:other stuff exists is no excuse. Vsmith (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting. If I had come across his website and then added links to the various articles, the additions would not be spam. But you're saying because DA has done so, the material is spam. The distinction, which is not addressed in the guidelines, is in who adds the links and not in what the link is.

In this particular case, the real problem is in whether DA is promoting himself. But, again, there a distinction. DA is treading towards the realm of WP:PROMOTION, but the promotion is not so much for himself, but in the particular interest he has -- e.g., obscure places in the desert. In other words, he's really not promoting himself. (And, yet again, it would certainly be proper for a non-related editor such as myself to add the links.)

Sadly, though, DA has created a sockpuppet. OrangeMike blocked User:Ghosttownaz for "spamming" in June. If our newbie had appealed the block, pointing out (quite correctly) that none of his links were for commercial purposes, this might be different.--S. Rich (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line: we're here to build an encyclopedia. A user whose only interest is in adding external links is not here to build an encyclopedia. Thanks for the note re: the sockpuppetry, adds another dimension. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're being unfair. He has an interest in documenting the disappearing human activity in AZ, etc. and has set up a non-commercial website for all to access. It is not a promotion of himself or something other than a bit history. In this regard he has more than an "only interest". He'd like his contributions to be recognized and available, only he's gone about it in the wrong manner.The result: the links were hastily labeled as spam.

Also, I think you rushed to judgment with the very first reversion of his added link. I say this because the edit summary said "spam" from the get-go, when the EL was not selling anything either on its own or through annoying flashing ads. (I recognize that you may have done a "who is linking" vice "what is being linked" analysis before you started reverting his edits. Still, if this is the case, then I wish I could find guidance that supports that position. Again, if I had come across the links and put them in they'd be fine. Don't you agree?)--S. Rich (talk) 02:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... just looked at the Gleeson link again. What I find is a history basically copied from WP with a couple comments added. Then there are 42 photos most with no identifying notes - just bare images w/ a copyright note embedded. Tell me how that page is worth linking to again, as I'm not seeing it. So, no that one at least wouldn't "be fine". The Oorah bit wasn't around back in the 60s - so means nothing to me, we had our own gung-ho phrases. Vsmith (talk) 12:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, like me, you don't remember. But the article gave an interesting origin of the phrase back to the 50's. Still, as an Army guy, I must boast that our battle cry has an earlier origin. I was attending a conference (or some other such nonsense) at the JFK Special Warfare Center a few years/decades ago. We had a fellow talking about the Rangers, and he said he had landed with them on Omaha Beach (a rather nasty bit of real estate). He told us how some general came up to the one of the Ranger NCOs. The whole invasion force was pinned down on the beach by machine gunners firing from above. The general ordered the Rangers to get up those cliffs and knock out the German pill boxes. The NCO responded: "Who – us?!" --S. Rich (talk) 05:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP problem

Can you please take a look at this IP? They've been edit warring and vandalizing. Thanks. INeverCry 01:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for that. Another 200 edit user has reverted you on 2012–13 UEFA Champions League group stage, the same way the IP was doing. I don't know the story with this ref-switching. INeverCry 01:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- That isn't vandalism. I've already left a note on INeveryCry's talk page, but those edits are not vandalism as they are changing primary links to secondary ones, which is clearly not vandalism. They did a lot of reverting and such, but that is a different issue and I'm a bit disturbed at the inappropriate template bombing on the edit's talk page by an experienced editor who should know better. There is an unblock request on the IPs talk page, started by Sven, and I would ask that Vsmith just take a look again at the block, as I think it might be in error. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commented on ip talk. Vsmith (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What confused me was the block log and lack of block template, so it was kind of impossible to tell why you made the block. Now that you have explained it, it makes sense and it was a judgement call, but the improper vandal templates threw me. I don't think he likes that I pointed out the templates, but the edits were not vandalism. His methods, however, were less than optimal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree the anonblock template was inadequate and I should have done a better job of explaining at the time. My glitch and apologies for the confusion it caused. Vsmith (talk) 01:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for pulling you into this mess I seem to have made. INeverCry 01:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Repin

Dear Dr. Vsmith!

I am geologist with backgraund from 1973 (I worked as a little specialist when was a student of MSU in some "wild" territories ).

https://plus.google.com/113608956654143996274/about

If You can know anything about SALARS - You can look site of USGS.

If You have any gadgat in Your pocket - You have some piece Lithium. This metal is the base of modern batteries, accumulaters and etc. SALARS - the first source of Lithium. And KCl - one of the main fertilizers, and many potashes, and very many useful things.

So, I think, that WIKI readers have any rights to know, what is the base of the phones, electricity cars ann many other interesting things.

Regards,

aleksey g.repin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleksey g.repin (talk • contribs) 08:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wiki readers have a right to know. That is why we right articles. However, we don't promote our own work with external links. Write content for the Russian Wiki based on reliable sources and perhaps we can translate and add to en.wiki. Vsmith (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archives