User talk:Vsmith/archive4

Archive 4 - 1/1/06 - 5/31/06

Hey Vsmith Thanks

Thank you for your helpful comments. My students are going to write lots of stuff for the chemistry area.Smokefoot 03:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Plate_tectonics#refs

I replied to your comment on Talk:Plate_tectonics#refs. Please see. Thanks for all your work on the 'pedia! JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion on the storm cost extrapolation graph

So that I might better understand your opposition to my graph, I want to ask you:

• Does increased carbon dioxide lead to increased atmospheric energy resulting in increased temperature?

• Does increased temperature result in increased evaportation and transpiration?

• Does increased evaporated water result in greater precipitation?

• Does increased precipitation result in greater atmospheric laminar and turbulent flow?

• Does such increased atmospheric energy, then, manifest itself as greater average windspeed and greater precipitation?

• Does the recent historical record confirm that precipitation and windspeed are both increasing as greenhouse gas concentration has been?

Thank you for helping me understand your point of view. —James S. 05:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the graph(s) is, as I have clearly stated, simply that it is an extrapolation or interpretation from existing data and as such is original research. My feelings on the points listed above are irrelevant to that simple fact. If the graph and extrapolations are published in some peer reviewed format then simply provide the reference and it should be OK. Vsmith 05:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You don't have the integrity to take a stand on the basic science on which you are making editing decisions? Instead, you hide behind borderline problems, excluding anything which is too original for your delicate sensibilities after your years of proud service to the number one fossil fuel-burning organization in the world, but not original enough to make into a peer-reviewed climate journal. You are just like so many overconsumers in denial. How's your SUV? Does it feel good giving all that money to Osama's folks every time you squeeze your gas pump? —James S. 06:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Chill out mate, where did that diatribe come from? Good day. Vsmith 06:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I just expected that a science teacher would be interested in actually discussing science instead of weaselism and buck-passing. I guess not here in the USA -- we've evolved past that. Let me tell you something. I was born on an Army base right next to where the Nuremberg trials were held, and I know a thing or two about how the military conducts its business. Our pathetic squabbles for the remaining oil supply is a waste of time and money. But people like you don't want to talk about the science, you just want to squabble over arcane rule distinctions. What a classic load of buck-passing bs. —James S. 06:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow - I thought I was bad, back in the day ;-) - Guettarda 01:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, gotta have a laugh and roll on :-) His comments are quite revealing re: his POV. He did miss-guess a couple things - actually I have two SUVs. But then, you have to consider the secluded valley I call home. Have you noticed the posts of our resident astrologer - below, that also is good for a laugh - check out Theo7's edits. Enjoy, Vsmith 01:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

And his user page! Guettarda 01:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions

Suggest that you refrain from negative POV on the Science and Saturn page that goes against your preconceived views. Saturn's north pole has been photographed and you should take a look at the hexagon image. Also, would appreciate it if you would not attempt to rewrite history by avoiding the historical fact that mathematics was invented by astrologers - and that it is a science. If you have questions then use the Talk Page before reverting based on your personal POV. Thanks.Theo 04:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your civil suggestions. But I don't think that I'm rewriting history and I'll be sure to watch for that negative POV. Now, if you make rather questionable claims to science articles please provide peer reviewd references. Cheers, Vsmith 04:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that the peer-reviewed articles will be forthcoming. I've been asking him to name a living leading scientist in any real field of science who believes in astrology, but...well...no answer except, it seems, that I'm supposed to prove that there are none. (He gets mixed up on that whole "he who asserts must prove" thing -- too complex, I guess). Jim62sch 23:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Jupiter & Saturn - fix pipe problems in Jim's links - hpoefully they'll work now :-))

Thanks. Jim62sch 00:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, the Bad astronomy site (and related) is one of my favorite resources. I just last night added a ref to Saturn about the atmospheric hexagonal standing wave around the north pole. Theo's blather sparked my curiosity. Hadn't heard of that one before - learning continues unabated... Cheers, Vsmith 01:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Anon rant

You don't know much for a know it all do ya? You just copy don't ya? So you think you are science editor, ha. Never any original idea.--218.232.104.29 03:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Now what brought that on? We are in a good mood aren't we :-) - please see Wikipedia:Civility.

Nope, don't know much. Nope, don't know it all. Nope, don't copy much. And seems to me Wikipedia is not the place for original research -- ah well, on to the next one, Vsmith 03:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Age_of_the_Earth

Ergbert is kind of hanging being the last one to post, if you could respond I would greatly appreciate it, as I doubt my response would be as straight forward and detailed as yours. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. I added a response, doubt that it will convince him though as he appears to have no clue about scientific evidence and his truth bit. Also moved some ext links into the reference section in the article to better support the contested statement. Vsmith 04:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Bisbee Blue

I'm just curious why you so heavily edited the Bisbee Blue entry, eliminating lots of informative and intriguing information, referring to it as "hype". What may only be hype to you may be someone elses treasure, especially those who are local to the area, or to someone planning to pass through the area, who are very interested in the inside story behind this rare turquoise.

Above unsigned question from User:Vista4u2

Hi, I waded into what appeared to me to be an unabashed sales pitch to make it hopefully more encyclopedaic - probably should take another look. Does it need more pruning? Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith 01:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

sorry

I must have mistakenly put my minor change by default option on.

You voted for Physical oceanography and this article is now the current Science Collaboration of the Month! Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia science article.

Thank you for the kind welcome. I was beginning to wonder whether most of this site was run by robots. Lady BlahDeBlah 19:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Need you to look over something

Hi,

I'm taking steps to lodge a formal complaint against User:Theodore7 due to various reasons that I'm sure that you are aware of, or have experienced by now. Right now I have a rough draft of the complaint that I would like to have some people look over, add to, correct, and sign if they agree with it. I've never had to do anything like this before, so if you would please take some time to take a look at it and give me some feedback, suggestions, support, etc., then I would really appreciate it. It can be found here: [1] Thank you. --Chris Brennan 06:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Seeking WestPac Cruise Connections (1965-1967)

>>Took a trip to 'nam aboard the USS Princeton (CV-37) in August '65 and flew back stateside June '67<<

• Whose flagship was Princeton during your WestPac (1965-1967) cruises?
• Was she ever home-ported in Yokosuka, Japan?

RJBurkhart 13:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I don't know much about the Princeton. We loaded MAG-36 helicopter group aboard at Long Beach in early August '65 then sailed across the pond, stopped at Subic for a couple days, then pulled into Vietnamese waters on Aug 31. I offloaded with the base squadron to establish a heli-port on the Ky Ha peninsula (just a bit north of the Chu Lai airbase) starting Sep 1 '65. After that I was playing in the paddies 'til June '67. Vsmith 18:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Flood Geology

Starting with the Noah's Ark story, a trail of controversy is continuing, with users User:Codex_Sinaiticus and User:Rossnixon dragging up purported scientific evidence that many modern land formations such as the Grand Canyon were created in the Biblical Noah's Ark story. As a physicist, not a geologist, I can challenge some of their supposed citations to professional geologists espousing their views, and ostensible publications supporting them, but maybe you could add in some better comments based on your strengths?

The latest item is that Ross Nixon refers to this page: [2] as a "professional" page showing that the Grand Canyon is young. Most of the references cited are to presentations in unrefereed bulletins or house organs of fundamentalist colleges such as Loma Linda College (run by 7th Day Adventists), but a few refer to refereed journals such as The Journal of Geology, Paleontology and so on. Frankly, I can't decipher how the refereed works support or do not support the Creationist claims. If you can help - thanks Carrionluggage 06:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Helpful Comments on the Astronomy & Related Pages to Stop Instant Reverting by You, Thanks

Dear V. Smith. Would suggest you please cite what is POV before your instant reverts on the Astronomy and related pages. If you are to assert POV - then respectfully suggest that you explain yourself point-by-point. That would be very helpful, considering your constant reverts. Perhaps some helpful comments on the Talk Pages would suffice? Please inform me what you consider POV, as I can also cite many sources in the article. Thanks.Theo 14:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Been there, done that. Please consider your rfc. Thanks, Vsmith 14:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That is not a very helpful answer. It does not assume good faith, nor is a good explaination of POV - "been there, done that" does not suffice. I would suggest you stick to using the Talk Page, and avoid such comments, as this assumes that you have some sort of "claim" on the pages you instantly revert. Again, if you must do so, then suggest that you provide a more cogent response. This would be helpful since the rfc is not the point regarding your reverts. As a new Wikipedian, I can also edit, and would be more than interested in hearing your reverts based on your claims of "POV-pushing". Thanks.Theo 14:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for supporting my Rfa, Vsmith! I appreciate your trust. The puppy is now an Admin (final tally 58/7/2) Please let me know if there is anything I can ever do to assist you. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for welcome!

I've just realized the power of Wikipedia, and started doing some typo editing, but soon got into factual editing where I could contribute. It's fun (and somewhat addicting...)! SvenskaJohannes 06:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for sorting them out. I've checked the required code to do the picture thumbnail and will be able to do that next time. Cheers Jonty68 21:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

User:68.153.36.3

User:68.153.36.3 has been engaging in vandalism again. I would ask you to check his/her edit history for today and consider another ban. I'm not an admin so I can't do it myself. Thank you. --kingboyk 20:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Done Vsmith 21:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

For the heads up. Guettarda 03:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Might be worth asking for a sock check (though, of course, I don't know if there is any IP info on JG remaining). Guettarda 03:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Crystal twinning literature

Hi Vsmith,

I just read your contributions to crystal twinning, especially the part that there are three modes of formation of twinned crystals. Do you happen to have the name of the literature where you have got that information from? I'm writing a literature review about magnesium, but so far, wikipedia is the only source I have found which says that there are three specific modes..... and I fear my supervisor won't agree when I put wikipedia as a source of information,... :-(....

Furthermore, I would like to put this text on the Dutch wikipedia too (nl:Tweeling), so I hope your source can provide some more information about twinning than is already put into the English article.

Please let me know.

Regards, SietskeEN 09:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi - the source was the ref listed: Hurlbut, Cornelius S.; Klein, Cornelis, 1985, Manual of Mineralogy, 20th ed., ISBN 0471805807 and that particular bit is from pp 147-149. Hurlbut lists Buerger, M. J., 1945, The Genesis of Twin Crystals, American Mineralogist, v. 30 pp469-482, as their primary source for that part. Basically any good mineralogy or crystallography text should provide more info, Hurlbut was just the mineralogy book I have handily available. Hope this helps, Vsmith 12:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! SietskeEN 12:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The great law of superposition

my computer had a problem, and my many edits, had to be re-entered, but it only took about 20 minutes. Steno must have been an interesting fellow. For those of us who have been given some "secrets" of our " Fantastic Planet ", that was a movie in the 50's a cartoon; anyway I have read some of Darwin's words, the letters to and from A. Russel Wallace. Great stuff.

I particularly like the Prickly pear cacti on the Galapagos that have to have stalks like 6 ft tall to get away from the tortoise. Natural selection, how wonderful. There is a major replacement of a good scientific word in the Evolution article. Every body babbles on so endlessly in the article, which should be about "biological evolution", that they miss the error. The word is used near the top of the article then replaced later, and nobody catches it. They aren't really reading the article. I had to go back and find it after I read the error. Anyway thanks for coming on right behind me on the Law of superposition article. As I stated, I didn't change a lot of words, just made it readable, with some wikis etc....MichaelMcAnnisYumaAZ--Mmcannis 06:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Images in French

Hey Vsmith,

I recently discovered the wonder of Userboxes so I've added perhaps too many to my user page, but I wanted to add a few to my page in French, but I found that many of the one I just tried like that didn't exist go I just made them. I went to make a "From Canada" one and it worked well until I went to link the image. Is there a way to import the image used here Template:User_canada to the French version?

Thanks in advance --Mr Minchin 06:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you could upload it to the commons site, since it's public domain it's alright to do so. Janizary 22:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I have never used those & don't have a clue re: the image for it. Quite out of my range here :-) Vsmith 23:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Age of Earth

Yes, I gave you the source. Could you stop messing with things that you don't understand? No wonder that wiki is such a mess. ati3414

Please read the discussion at Talk:Age of the Earth, you seem to be ignoring what everyone else is saying. Thank you, Vsmith 16:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Permeability (geology)

Sorry about the revert error. I got confused. No Guru 19:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem - I also goofed and had to revert further back, it happens. Cheers, Vsmith 19:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

196.25.255.242

Please unblock user 196.25.255.242 because it is a SAIX proxy gateway and all internet users from southern africa use it including me--Jcw69 19:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I have been unblocked along with many others --Jcw69 19:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry me again, it looks like my IP address switches every now and again to 196.25.255.242 which seems to be still blocked. I just click edit again and I have a different IP which is not blocked. This has never happened before as once a SAIX IP address is blocked many people are blocked at the same time as WP is cached at that IP --Jcw69 20:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I unblocked your IP shortly after reading your first post here. And the IP doesn' show up on List of currently blocked IP addresses and usernames. so I don't know what the problem is now. Vsmith 21:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

User:205.213.6.3

Hi, I saw that you blocked User:205.213.6.3 on Feb 1... I guess it was a short block because they were back vandalizing on Feb 2. Since this appears to be a middle school with a regular history of vandalism, doesn't it make sense to block it permanently? It seems likely that the vandalism will continue indefinitely, and overshadow any possible useful contributions from the 12-and-13-year-olds that use this address? Just a suggestion. Herostratus 07:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

your rv

Why? What point is there in keeping this particular discussion? Others need keeping; why this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADark_matter&diff=38367550&oldid=38356598 Did you read my edit summary?

Barnstar Cluster

WIKIPEDIAN CERTIFICATE Vsmith 15:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Shape and cut: Star polygon Measurement of arguments: Excellent Weight: No undue weight Proportions: Keeps minority views in proportion Finish: Sparkling prose Clarity: Clear thinking Colour: Vibrant Wikipedian This Wikipedian was graded by: RoyBoy, Guettarda, KillerChihuahua, WAS 4.250, Jim62sch, Samsara, Dragons flight and Ec5618.

---

You're quite welcome, if you would like to vote/participate in awarding other science contributors, check out my meta. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You are more than welcome, you deserve it! We had fun creating this for you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's well-deserved. And thank those two for being the creative minds behind the design. Guettarda 03:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Reports Vandals

Hi, Where would you report frequent vandals?

As i've found http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=209.80.133.240 is doing it a lot

Cheers

Sam

Regarding Ceasium to Cesium Edits

I changed it this way because of the discussion on the talk page of Cesium. The majority of users seemed to approve the Cesium spelling vs the Caesium spelling. I also would like to comment that just because something is a standard doesn't mean it is correct. I also use the google evidence to support why I did this. Wikipedia should be accepting change and adapting to meet the leading edge and not holding onto old traditions.

Thanks

Thank you for the welcome Vsmith! I have been using Wikipedia for a while, but am just now finding the time to do some editing. I find that I am slowly getting more and more comfortable with the editing process, and have some projects in mind.

Thanks for the tips. --Fisheye 03:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Vengeful and illegal editing

May I ask you why are you so dutiful in removing my example from all the external links? According to wiki, it is perfectly within the rules to add such a contribution under the external links.Ati3414 05:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... vengeful and illegal! Don't think so. Your simple calculatins were removed fro Age of the Earth by a consensus finding that they were misleading, irrelevant, and/or personal research. Several of your comments regarding that were simple personal attacks. Your attempted forking of the calculations to an independent article met with similar consensus defeat at afd. You then resorted to adding links to a PDF page you posted on another site as external links in Age of the Earth and Uranium-uranium dating, these were removed by a consensus of editors, although you engaged in edit warring against several editors there. The links to half-life and Radioactive decay were viewed by me as more of the same as well as of questionable copyright status. The link to that pdf is not needed, Wikipedia is not a link repository and we don't make links to our own work. I see you have reverted back. Vsmith 16:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No , there was no consensus. And you are hounding me down, so please cease and desist or I will ask for wiki arbitration. The external links are precisely for ponting to outside work as are the reference links. Don't turn wiki into a Gestapo.

see the message for the subject

>User talk:212.202.169.253 >From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia > >Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please >use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would >like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Vsmith 00:04, 7 February 2006 >(UTC) >

Please add the articles you meant

Salt in General

Everything I posted in the three Articles Edible_Salt, Sodium_Chloride and Halite is true. Perhaps You should do some research about Salt. If You are offended by the Truth ignore it. But don't censor it.

What about an explanation why You do reverted the changes. (this is something You should do)

In due respect

Jan Girke jangirke@gmx.net

Hi Jan, I see Truth is the issue - my, my. Your edits were Health Food Store advertizing style POV and simply did not add encyclopedaic information to the article(s). Halite is about the mineral, sodium chloride is about the chemical compound; neither are about your truth. Now edible salt just might have room for part of it(?), but not as blatant POV pushing Truth. Cheers, Vsmith 14:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Minerals on WP

Hi, Vsmith. Just wanted to ask if you're OK with the direction I'm going on the mineral pages I've edited. I've started mostly with rares I personally like, to get some procedures in place. I was hoping to expand my efforts a bit (even if slowly), and you seem to be the most active in working on the mineral pages, so I would appreciate your input. Thank you! Baryonyx 04:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

rvv

Hey, I was just going to rollback some vandalism on CO2, paused a moment to reply elsewhere, and you sneaked in ahead of me :-). Anyway, I thought I'd use this as an excuse for a friendly hello, not having had cause to talk for a while... which in itself is sort-of a good thing! William M. Connolley 14:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC).

Coal page edit on wiki

Heya, nice to meet you.

Can I ask, how should I pose difference of theories on the coal page so that the edit is retained.

Thanks,

Sam

Coal speculations

Nice edit, thx. There is more supporting information regarding creation of black coal - it appears to be that Russia is relying heavily on this new information and is using it with success, however I'd like to hear from a Russian geologist their views on the topic to verify these articles aren't based on conjecture...

http://www.red-ice.net/specialreports/2005/09sep/oilnotfossil.html

http://www.borderlands.com/archives/arch/endfos.html

Request for mediation

See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#External link regarding the age of the Earth. --Smack (talk) 07:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Artificial crystals photo

NOTE: I initally posted this request on User:Hadal's talk page, then I noticed that he seems to be on a WikiVacation, so I'm reposting my request here in verbatim.
Hi, I've recently been in the process of uploading various photos of minerals I took at the Natural History Museum in London, (see User:Aramgutang/Gallery) and while for all the other pictures I took, I made notes on what mineral it was and what the museum caption said, there is one image that I can't find my notes for. The image is in Commons at [3]. The only thing I can remember is that they were artificially grown. I was wondering if you could identify the crystal habit of the crystals and place the image in an appropriate article, as well as change its description accordingly. While it's unfortunate that it's probably impossible to identify what the mineral is from the photo, I think it is still a good illustration of an interesting crystal habit. From looking at your user page and contributions I assumed you're the best person to ask about this. Thanks. --Aramգուտանգ 02:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi - that is a great photo, but I have no idea right off what it is. Will keep it in mind for future use. By the way I use low resolution and the images on pyrolusite were severely overlapping the infobox. Vsmith 03:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I also posted the image on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science, following User:TenOfAllTrades's advice on my talk page, so we'll see what becomes of that. As to the pyrolusite changes, I looked back at my inital version with a resized browser window and saw what you meant by overlapping (I use a 1280x960 resolution, so I often get so frustrated by large amounts of white space I see in Wikipedia articles, that I forget to consider the people using lower resolutions). I rearranged them after your edit, because I find a horizontal arrangement more appealing, and with lower resolutions, the 3rd image would get moved below the other two, so I'm not sure I see what the point of moving them below the infobox was. Oh, and also, I finally finished uploading all my rock pictures, so I won't be bothering you any more. While doing this, I also created articles for the minerals I had pictures of that didn't have one, including Legrandite, Papagoite, Rosasite, Hawleyite, Sassolite, Metatorbernite and Chapmanite, as well as a rather lengthy article on the Verneuil process, for which I had to do quite a bit of research. I did my best in summarising the info from MinDAT, Webminerals and such in the rock articles, but I'd appreciate it if you gave them a lookover when you have the time to make sure I didn't make any glaring mistakes (since I know pretty much nothing about geology or mineralogy). Thanks. --Aramգուտանգ 07:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

User talk:207.42.85.70

MatWeb is a online collection of material property data. I placed a link to it on articles related to engineering properties. It only makes sense to place this link there as the reader of this article is interested in this topic. The rationale for placing the link is more to provide the reader with further free information than to promote MatWeb. There is more useful information on this website than room on the article. These links should be kept on the relevant pages. Thanks

User talk:207.42.85.70 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia as we drive for print or DVD publication; see the welcome page to learn more. Thanks. Vsmith 17:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

toxics use reduction -- edits

Hi. I'm rather novice. You were helping with the toxics use reduction entry. I was still editing and ran into some type of editing conflict. If you don't mind, pls check this entry again to see if it needs improvement etc. Thanks. HG

Wy

Wy you deleted post of Beijós? http://antoniopovinho.blogspot.com, Beijós XXI.

Er... say what - or who? I haven't a clue ... Vsmith 00:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

oldest rocks

Hi, I was hoping that you can clarify for the average reader of Wikipedia what the oldest rocks and minerals are. There needs to be clarity of language, and you seem to be the best at it, and a trained geologist, and a teacher. I started a page about the oldest rock, but it needs to be edited and improved. I was also more specific about the oldest surface rock, but again, this needs to be clarified. I hope you can help future readers of Wikipedia to understand the complexities of dating the oldest rocks and minerals on Earth. Thanks. Yours truly, Joseph Prymak

Hmm... I took a quick look - will look closer tomorrow, right now it's time to get some shut eye. First impression: at the very least should be merged together, don't need two separate articles. 2nd thought, maybe merge with Age of the Earth -- but will reserve judgement 'til I get a chance to think a bit more. Later, Vsmith 04:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi

It seems like I have been discussing earthquakes with an expert :) Look forward to get to see all you have written about these things :) Jordskjelv 11:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Environmental isotopes

Thanks a lot! I tried to make a category for first time and I didn't understand how. Then I forgot due to the other problem. I saw your email. I'll have some more comments about it ;-) after I look at the environmental isotopes included in the category. Jclerman 06:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Making Personal Attacks

• • 200.123.178.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), Making Personal Attacks , probably Nkcs or Pablo-flores or OneEuropeanHeart wrote: "ESTE GIL SE LA COME Y LE GUSTA BIEN DURITA POR ATRAS", a very offensive statement in spanish to 200.45.6.10, (please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:200.45.6.10&oldid=40503654)200.45.6.10 02:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

WHOIS results for 200.123.178.246 Generated by www.DNSstuff.com

Location: Argentina [City: Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires]

ARIN says that this IP belongs to LACNIC; I'm looking it up there.

Using 30+ day old [STALE - being deleted now] cached answer (or, you can get fresh results). Displaying E-mail address (use sparingly -- this will make it more likely that you will trigger our rate limiting system).

% Joint Whois - whois.lacnic.net % This server accepts single ASN, IPv4 or IPv6 queries

% Copyright LACNIC lacnic.net % The data below is provided for information purposes % and to assist persons in obtaining information about or % related to AS and IP numbers registrations % By submitting a whois query, you agree to use this data % only for lawful purposes. % 2006-02-22 11:45:24 (BRT -03:00)

inetnum: 200.123.176/20 status: allocated owner: NSS S.A. ownerid: AR-NSSA-LACNIC responsible: Administrador de Ips address: Reconquista, 865, 2 address: C1003ABQ - Buenos Aires - CF country: AR phone: +54 11 50316400 [6420] owner-c: MAC2 tech-c: MAC2 inetrev: 200.123.176/21 nserver: DNS1.IPLANISP.COM.AR nsstat: 20060221 AA nslastaa: 20060221 nserver: DNS2.IPLANISP.COM.AR nsstat: 20060221 AA nslastaa: 20060221 inetrev: 200.123.184/22 nserver: DNS1.IPLANISP.COM.AR nsstat: 20060219 AA nslastaa: 20060219 nserver: DNS2.IPLANISP.COM.AR nsstat: 20060219 AA nslastaa: 20060219 inetrev: 200.123.189/24 nserver: DNS1.IPLANISP.COM.AR nsstat: 20060220 AA nslastaa: 20060220 nserver: DNS2.IPLANISP.COM.AR nsstat: 20060220 AA nslastaa: 20060220 inetrev: 200.123.191/24 nserver: DNS1.IPLANISP.COM.AR nsstat: 20060220 AA nslastaa: 20060220 nserver: DNS2.IPLANISP.COM.AR nsstat: 20060220 AA nslastaa: 20060220 created: 20041116 changed: 20041116

nic-hdl: MAC2 person: Administrador de Ips e-mail: ipmaster@NOCIPLAN.COM.AR address: Reconquista, 865, address: 1003 - Buenos Aires - country: AR phone: +54 11 50316420 [] created: 20021226 changed: 20050303

Sorry, I really don't know what you are talking about - or even who you are, except one of the edit warring IPs on a couple of Argentine pages. Vsmith 17:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

limestone

Can you explain your recent reversion? Shouldn't it read "Limestone is a sedimentary rock composed ..." Does "chemical mineral" mean anything specific? Thanks! Debivort 06:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The anon removed is a chemical, leaving a non-sentence, therefor I assumed simple vandalism and rolled it back. I agree the chemical bit needs espansion or explanation. Limestone is chemical in the sense of being largely the result of either direct precipitation, evaporite or biogenic precipitation and mostly not a clastic or fragmental sediment. Yeah, that all needs to be done up better in the article ... sometime :-) Vsmith 13:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I seems that the person who recently wrote personal attacks related with the Huemul Project page is Nkcs. See contributions of 200.68.127.154. Probably Nkcs or one of its partners logged with this IP after 200.82.18.5 to try to hide his misbehavior. 200.45.6.126 13:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

200.45.6.126 signning off now. Thanks. 200.45.6.126 16:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

AfD

Thanks for the info. Now I learned about AfD and how to vote, etc. I did put my opinion. I hope it helps. Jclerman 18:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: 200... stuff

Thanks for the note, I thought the issue has been solved =(. Take a look at WP:AIAV, this user has been repeatedly accusing Pablo-flores and OneEuropeanHeart [4] for that supposed comment in his/her talk page. Personally I find this quite disgusting, I only reverted a few changes because they seemed a controversial, this user has been varned about 4 or 5 times before the two protections and if you also see all dinamic IP adresses the warnings' count shows a total of 32! [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. Also the last user shows a clear tendency for vandalism [12] reverting other users' changes with apparently no notable reason, without consensus, and with a talkpage that explicitly states "just saying the quality is bad is a opinion, and uncited and unverifable opinions are discouraged", "please read the discussions on this page as to why your recent edits were regarded as unhelpful", and "please discuss changes here before editing the article" [13]. All contributions of this user have been uncited and unhelpful, I think he is clearly a vandal and not an user with community service. Goodbye, and again thanks for the comment on my talk page. --Nkcs 22:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Incorrectly titled articles by User:David Shear

You posted the original Welcome message to User:Davis Shear. Since I am pretty much of a newbie myself, I am asking you to let User:David Shear know that he should provide proper titles to his articles before he publishes them in categories. He has posted a number of articles in various categories whose titles include his User page. If you will go to his User page and scroll down to the bottom, you will find the following links to the articles in question:

• User:David Shear/Flory-Huggins
• User:David Shear/My Sandbox
• User:David Shear/Sandbox
• User:David Shear/Entropy of Mixing
• User:David Shear/Chemical thermodynamics

Please note that some of those articles are posted in more than one category.

Since I am not an administrator, I don't feel that I should notify David Shear that what he has done is incorrect. That's why I am contacting you. - mbeychok 23:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

anon 12.110.132.34

What did I do?
User contributions

What would you call this? [14] - I call it vandalism, pure and simple. Vsmith 01:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing Categories from Scratch Pages

Thanks for the suggestion - and the compliment. I removed the Categories from my scratch pages so they shouldn’t show up again that way. I’m trying to work as inconspicuously as possible, up to the point where I post something.

For almost the last month I’ve been tied up with other things, and it was only today that I started to look at Wikipedia again.

I’m finished with “User:David Shear/Flory-Huggins” (at least for the present) and redirected it to “User:David Shear/Entropy of Mixing”, but I can’t delete the former altogether (“Flory-Huggins”) myself. The Deletion policy says that "Only administrators have the ability to delete and undelete pages". If you could delete it, it would clean my area up a bit and I would appreciate that. Perhaps in the future I should simply call scratch areas "Sandbox A, B, C" etc. instead of giving them dedicated names. I’m still just learning.

David Shear 20:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not accept this

(you blocked 200.45.6.172)

I do not accept this. You'll have to prove it. 200.45.6.172 02:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm waiting. 200.45.6.172 03:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll wait logged for a few minutes more. If you have something to say me, say it now. 200.45.6.172 03:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

200.43.201.132 03:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm waiting.... 200.43.201.132 03:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Five minutes more. 200.43.201.132 03:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Five minutes more, just in case IBM report is wrong. 200.43.201.132 03:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. Given that your mission is to find out vandals, I suggest to study the evidence carefully. I gave you 3 names. One of them is really a vandal of the worst kind. I'll check this page tomorrow. Signing off. 200.43.201.132 03:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Account Unjustly Blocked

I have discovered that my account "Happyjoe" is blocked from editing due to some sort of misunderstanding over the Big Spring, TX article. I am uncertain who to contact to have this mistake fixed. Please remove this block so that I may complete necessary editing on other articles. Thank you for your timely assistance in resolving this problem... Happyjoe 69.145.215.206 04:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that - you'll have to take that up with the blocking admin - I have no intention of unblocking. I see the anon IP you have been spamming admins with has also been blocked for block evasion. Tough stuff - learn to play by the rules. Vsmith 04:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a public computer, right now there are about 100 ppl using this network.

above comment added by - User talk:134.115.2.139

Thanks for calling your vandalism to my attention, I took a look and blocked you for it. Cheers, Vsmith 03:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

A question about the Aceh earthquake

I thought I should ask you about this, as you obviously have great knowledge about seismic issues.

in the article 2004 indian ocean earthquake I changed the part about aftershocks, cause I don't believe the quake in march was an aftershock, but a whole new great earthquake. This is proved by the afershock map that shows almost all aftershocks from the 2004 earthquake being north of the episenter, while all aftershocks of the 2005 earthquake are south of the 2004 earthquake. Knowing the fault ruptured to the north from Simeulue in 2004, and aftershocks always follow the faultline ruptured, I cannot see how the 2005 earthquake can be a huge aftershock.

I tried to change this, and it really bugs me that when I changed it, somone changed it back.

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=3r6rmljuuakk9?method=4&dsname=Wikipedia+Images&dekey=USGS+Sunda+Trench.JPG&gwp=8&sbid=lc07a

I would really appreciate your answer, as I believe the current article is not correct. But this link does not show the aftershocks, it shows the distinct rupture along the faultline Jordskjelv 18:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Really, no great expertise here. I note the following bit from the 2005 Sumatra earthquake page: A debate arose among seismologists over whether this should be considered an aftershock of the December 2004 event, or a "triggered earthquake" as it was larger than typical aftershocks and on a different fault. It would seem the size and different fault would indicate it as a related earthquake rather than an aftershock. Perhaps that qualifying bit could be added to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake article along with the aftershock bit. The link to the www.answers.com image is simply a copy from Wikipedia. Vsmith 02:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of it being a copy, but it shows the two rupture zones. But I will insert that from the 2005 earthquake. Thanks! Jordskjelv 07:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Earthquake weather

I'm looking for expert opinion on earthquake weather, an article written by an anonymous editor (or possibly as many as three) and then wikified by (primarily) me. It seems well-sourced but I wonder if overall it's a little unbalanced. --Trovatore 01:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Took a look - chopped a bunch of nonsense. Probably needs listing on WP:AFD. Vsmith 03:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I doubt that. I'm not competent to judge whether there's any chance there could be anything to it, but in either case it's still a notable piece of folklore; no way it gets deleted. I bet (without checking) that the following links all come up blue: chupacabra, spontaneous human combustion, orgone energy. --Trovatore 03:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right (they are blue:-) and with the 1906 SF earthquake centennial it'll no doubt get more hype. Urban legends or whatever are notable, if for nothing else than the money made by the hypsters. And I did learn a bit, wasn't really aware of the Aristotlean stuff (maybe just never paid attention to it before). Wiki is a learning experience. I did feel it necessary to cut the hype and link to a study that hasn't happened and to add the rest of the USGS debunk. The true believers will no doubt be back. Cheers. Vsmith 03:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Is the study genuinely in the works, at CSU East Bay? If so, I think it probably does deserve to be mentioned. Also the bald statement that "there's no connection" seemed a little over-categorical to me; maybe something along the lines of "no mainstream study has ever found a connection, and there is no understood mechanism by which one could exist".

By the way, here's an observation about earthquakes: They follow me around. I was on-site for Whittier Narrows, Loma Prieta, and Northridge. So stay out of southern Ontario, at least for another few months. --Trovatore 03:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if the study is real - the link was to a coming soon page. When there are published results, then it will (maybe) be notable. The no connection bit is a direct quote from the public domain USGS site. A few years back a non-seismologist (a meteorologist? don't remember) hypothesized that a planetary alignment would produce a gravitational effect and cause the New Madrid fault zone to shake things up. It received a lot of hype and resulted in some publicity and awareness raising of the potential dangers in the area, but nothing happened. And - if you decide to visit SE Missouri, let me know so I can anchor the china cabinets & such. Vsmith 04:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Guess who...?

I shuffling the ref format now? yes, its... Reddi. Sigh. See for example Ray Bradley. William M. Connolley 16:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Creep

Do you have any tips on getting some equations into our beloved pages? I just did downhill creep but I am at a loss to make it look good. Cheers, Daniel Collins 04:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC).

Check out [15] for TeX markup how to... help. I am not used to using it though. Vsmith 04:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Daniel Collins 19:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC).

Very good. I do need to play with TeX a bit to get used to using it ... someday :-) Vsmith 19:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want, just write in the pseudo-code and give me a buzz. I'm writing my thesis in LaTeX, and it has a lot of eqns. Cheers, Daniel Collins 23:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC).

User: If humans came from apes, why are there still apes?

I think you may have been premature in blocking User: If humans etc. His edits looked to me like they could reasonably be good faith, even if highly POV. I think this may be covered in assuming good faith, together with not biting new wikipedians. JoshuaZ 16:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I considered the disruptive edits that amounted to vandalism. The user seemed well aquainted with AFD actions, which indicated to me that he was not a newbie. However, feel free to unblock if you feel I have made a mis-call. Vsmith 16:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. Anyways, your point about new users not being familiar with AfDs is a good point. JoshuaZ 16:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I was expecting something else. Can I still post my instructive joke, though: if humans came from africa, why is there still africa? :-) William M. Connolley 15:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :-) I like that one. Vsmith 16:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Link and Content removal ?

Thanks, I understand your concern. But I believe the links are extremely relevant to the topic.
The same goes for the content that you removed - can you explain why it was? I trust your personal views didn't sway your opinion. Thanks.
(above by 67.101.127.23)

You seem to be spamming a bunch of articles with your favorite(?) story/nonsense link. I reverted it from only Origin belief as I recall. If you think the content you want to add is important - then I would suggest posting it to the talk page for discussion/consideration. Vsmith 16:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

212.219.82.39 blocked

The I.P adress that you blocked for vadalism (which is completely understandable) is used by over 700 computers by many schools in the north west of england (thats probaly about 10,000+ people). I know that some users have vandalised wikipedia but I also log on whilst at school and cant due to this ban, is there anyway that it can be unblocked for registered users to acess, like me? can you reply on my page please. Thanx --Childzy 20:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

hi

brightmoon here the living fossils section as written is inaccurate ..im a biologist

Hi brightmoon, a biologist, good, I'm a geologist and ...

Specifically what is inaccurate? The subject of living fossils is covered in that article (which I haven't checked closely - need to perhaps). Vsmith 16:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

living fossils

since lving fossils is a laymens term i was trying to explain it in laymens terms and clear up common misconceptions of the term ...hence that list of other organisms that are living fossils and are not understood to be

biologists and paleontologists do use the term colloquially but they do mean something a little diffrent than laymen do ....perhaps i should have been clearer about that point

any fossil organism that has not changed substantially over time is understood to be a living fossil by biologists and paleontologists ...in a historical context singling out a few well known "living fossils" like coelecanths (which really arent identical to the extinct ones) ...makes laymen think that they are somehow special and unusual when they are not

Apology

I am sorry that I said you were just like so many overconsumers in denial, and that people like you don't want to talk about the science but just squabble over rule distinctions. I stand by the remainder of my comments and questions, including asking how you feel about supporting sworn enemies of the United States through your petroleum product consumption. That is a legitimate political question. --James S. 15:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Apology? Hmm ... Isn't the timing strange. Also, I have no desire to discuss your legitimate political question - it has zero relevance, just shows your conclusion jumping and extreme POV. Vsmith 03:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry that you think that your fungible economic support of those who hate our country the most, through the only choice of transportation mode which you feel is available to you, is of zero relevance. I disagree. --James S. 08:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read before randomly reverting things.

I am getting ready to give up on Wikipedia. If an editor sees something he/she doesn't like that is fine. Revert what you don't like, not the whole thing. An editer reverted a link I placed to a game because there was adsense on the page. Fine. He also inadvertantly reverted a change to this page, adding another meaning of concentration -- the game. I replaced ONLY the part concerning the alternate meaning -- kind of a fact and not open to interpretation.

Unless I am reading the history wrong (possible-I'm new to this, and if so I appologize) you saw Jamie's change, and undid my second change based solely on the IP address.

I have had every addition I made to wikipedia reverted at least once, apparently simply because I placed a few links that iritated an editor. The non-link additions have been factually correct and about as non-controversial as anything could be. I am getting tired of replacing them because people can't take the time to read before deleting.

I am sorry if this sounds petulant, but I am getting really very frustrated, and about to give up on contributing anything to Wikipedia.

Hi GameMan, it's good that you have registerd as your username will get more respect than an ip. I have again removed the link to concentration (game) from the disambiguation header on concentration because the game link is on the disambig. page and we do not reproduce the entire disamb. list on the concentration page, no reason to and it just adds clutter. I did not randomly revert your addition as an ip nor as a registered user, simply removed an addition that added unneeded clutter.

I know nothing about the other problems you refer to, except from the discussion on your talk page. Don't give up on Wikipedia over a couple of disagreements - stick around and learn. Vsmith 02:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I get it now. I just figured out what a disambiguation page is ... seems I am the one editing without reading. Next time I'm feeling frustrated, I've got something to remember before letting it progress to annoyed :) ... Thanks GameMan 03:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

One more thing. Please accept my appologies for jumping to conclusions. I promise to spend the next 15 minutes repeating to myself ... "I will think before I type" and "Assume good intentions".

We're all learning, cheers! Vsmith 03:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Please consider blocking this user

Hello Vsmith

You previously blocked user talk:167.7.248.212 in February. They are back at the vandalizing ways, and have been "last-warning" warned twice this month already, and deserve another for vandalism to Limestone. Please consider blocking them again. Thanks Debivort 20:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Took a look, agreed, blocked. Cheers, Vsmith 21:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Licorne

Thanks for taking care of that. I doubt anyone would say very much in his defense at this point, with all the nonsense he has caused for so long now and with his fantastic little pro-Hitler blow-up. --Fastfission 01:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You might want to look at User: 67.78.143.226, who very much looks like a sock to me...--Stephan Schulz 20:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

change to radium

Hello there! This is in response to my earlier revision of the boiling point of radium. It was not an experiment...the boiling point of 1140 celsius is listed at the Los Alamos web page cited on this article. Since you reverted 1140 back to 1737, I wanted to let you know that I also changed the k/f numbers for radium's boiling point (in the interim) based on conversion calculations. As the page now stands, the numbers for radium's boiling point do not relate to one another. k/f numbers are based on 1140 celsius. I'm new to wikipedia editing, and hesitate to make any further changes to this page for fear of being blocked. I'm curious as to whether you (with your science background) might shed some light as to why there is such a discrepancy across the internet? Is it because of the unstable nature of radium? Or are the different numbers reflecting different isotopes? Best regards and thanks for your patience. AVan Bonn

Hi, it seems someone else has reverted back to the webelements values. Yes, they do disagree with the Los Alamos numbers - as well as my old CRC Handbook (1976 ed.) Not sure about which is correct and don't plan on boiling up a batch of radium to find out. But, until this can be clarified let's at least be consistent across K - C - F conversions. Also, if you add an edit summary to your edits there will be less likelihood of someone reverting without reading or considering your edits. Vsmith 14:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

link to private site

Thank you for the information. I am truly sorry, I didn't know! I will remove it.. Best regards.

What is wrong with 6 000 years of stripped flint?

• http://www.primtech.net/flint/poland.html
• http://archterra.cilea.it/exhibits/

The stripped flint is recently popular and the site I linked had nice pictures of it. If you don't like my point of view, do this better or write in the discussion field. You aren't a flint expert to call my text "spam". Xx236 13:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... Sorry 'bout that - the link you added to the flint article was [16] which showed up in Polish, I don't read Polish so I assumed from the context of stripped flint jewellery that it was a jewellery advertisement, hence the spam part. The two links you place here, above, would not have had the same reaction. Now, why not redo with the above readable links and without the jewellery emphasis. and it should work fine. Vsmith 14:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Keeps minority views in proportion

Your user page says that you keep minority views in proportion. Would you look at Green Fireballs, Philip J. Klass, Roswell incident, and Majestic 12 with respect to that? Thank you. Bubba73 (talk), 18:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet another date links proposal

You may wish to see the proposal at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#linking_of_dates. Thanks. bobblewik 18:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Larimar Corrections

Thank you for doing the corrections to my Larimar article and bringing it up to Wiki standards. However, would it be terrible if I did a few corrections to, well, your corrections? You introduced a few errors (minor ones, really) I feel should be fixed. Also, you removed the "atlantis nonsense". I agree that the notion is nonsense, but Larimar is known as the 'atlantis stone' and sold as such (you can google it). I think Wiki should at least reflect that notion or maybe even clear it up. I'd like to do these changes, but not without your permission and/or aproval. Thanks! --The Singularity 15:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

A brief mention that larimar is hyped as the atlantis stone would be ok, but not any detailed discussion of the atlantis myth. What other errors? - fix 'em if they are errors. By the way, it isn't your or my article, we don't owm 'em. Cheers, Vsmith 05:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Watershed

Heads up. I'll be reworking the watershed article, but don't take my contributions for granted. I will be advocating the duality, in as representative a way as possible. Daniel Collins 18:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC).

See here for a draft. Daniel Collins 20:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC).

Looks ok to me. Thanks for the note. Vsmith 05:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

Hi Vsmith! Thank you for supporting my RfA. It passed at 105/1/0, putting me in WP:100 - I'm delighted and surprised! I'm always happy to help out, so if you need anything, please drop me a line. Cheers! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Tsunnami Article Changes

What was wrong with the Tsunnami changes done by 71. Ip address? Did you see the hanges or simply revert? They were just link adds, didnt change any facts

Looking at your previous posts I ight think "you" would think them as clutter to have extra links there, but isnt that the whole point of having it online? To link from one thing to another. Besides all the links were to wikipedia articles, not outside refernces.

Ideally a user should be able to click on any word to get more information. Whether it be at the top or bottom of an article.

KM

Please read the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and other links I provided on your talk page, you will find the answer there. Don't overlink. Vsmith 13:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont see reference to "overlink" in the link you sent to me. It is odd to think tht there would be too many links on the Internet. Overlink implies that there are too many repeating links, you did not just remove multiple instances of links, but you removed all added links.

KM

See the section titled Wikilinking in the Manual of Style. You added at least five links to earthquake and two or three to volcanic and landslide within a short section. That was overlinking - we only need a link to the first occurrence of a term. Vsmith 14:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Still sounds like opinion nothing to do with facts. I opened up the style guide and then did a simple find for "Wikilinking" and did not find anything.

Please advise where you found it.

KM

OK, my error above, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style and more specifically Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. Sorry 'bout the confusion. Vsmith 16:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Use of the rollback function

The rollback link is provided to admins solely for vandalism. It's all right to also use it for pre-agreed mass reversion of non-vandalism, but this does not seem to be what you've been doing. Do so again and you will be blocked.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Since you've involved yourself in this now, could you please join in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 15:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Been there, done that - voted for Bobblewik's proposal a couple of days ago. Also just replied there to James F's threat above. Vsmith 21:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

James F., did you leave a note of Ambi's talk page! If you're going to get involved at least use a straight bat. Bobblewick is not using a bot and is being bold as wikipedia encourage. He also has a lot of support for the edits that he is making. Ambi needs to spend more time discussing these things and less time wasting everyones time. Where is ambi in the discussion? At least Talaris is prepared to state his case and try to reach consensus. David D. (Talk) 22:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It's Talrias, by the way. Since everyone else is posting on the wrong talk page, one more misplaced message hopefully won't be too bad! Dacyd, you say I am well out of line, however if you'd read the talk page for WP:DATE recently you would discover it is in fact Bobblewik who is "out of line", given that he added in the guideline which is now so contentious almost a year ago, with a deceptive edit summary. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the spelling. The original blocks were due to the fact he was running a bot and I do sympathise with those blocks. I really don't think that blocks for non-bot editing are appropriate. I'll go and read the talk page you mention. David D. (Talk) 23:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm familiar with that talk page. i have seen nothing to convince me there is a consensus that makes bobblewick's edits controversial. David D. (Talk) 23:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The return of 203.143.64.20

He vandalized Bogan again (just thought I'd let you know since you blocked him last time).

203.143.64.20

He seems to have stopped for now. Opblaaskrokodil 01:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Action needed

Hi! Can you do something about 72.229.186.113 (talk · contribs). The modifications he's making clearly show that he's an anonymous sockpuppet vandal that has been here last night and before. I warned him but he inores me. He keeps reverting and vandalising today, using this new IP. --Realek 16:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Could you check this please? Thank you very much :-) - J B

Thank you for your letter

Thanks for your letter, vsmith. I had only added * "the-periodic-table.org because it was relevent and not "spammy". Some of the other periodic tables listed appear to be simply commercial, rather than content based sites. Webelements.com in particular has more advertising than content. Content is the most important, but it is also important to link to a variety of relevent outside sources on the topic.

Do you recommend that contributors do not add links only content? I would just like to get your feedback and expertise on that. I want to be a productive volunteer and add value, not "spam" to Wikipedia. Thank you very much again for your welcome letter.

I'm typically suspicious when a new user starts adding ext. links to a site, with no other edits, as that commonly implies that someone is trying to use Wikipedia as either advertising or to bump up their hit count. Now again, the site you added did not supply any additional inf - in fact it was quite less informative than the wiki articles.

I am aware that there are no doubt lots of external links that need removeing - just doing my bit as I get time. The webelements site does have a bit much adv., but it has been used for a long time and was (last time I looked) a reliable site for info. In fact it probably was the ref source for a bit of element data on wiki ... don't know.

Again, as before, Wikipedia is not just for everyone's favorite link list. Add external links only to support added content, preferably as reference information. Not just Wow, this is neat stuff additions. Vsmith 04:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome

Thank you for the welcome on my talk page.-User:Agoodperson

Not sure what to call it

Right, on here Battlefield (video game series), and i was wondering how to make those catagory/list boexs

As im writing quite a few wiki pages on for a support forum, and it would be very useful

Would be grateful if you could pass on any links that would help me out!

I.e this {{battlefield}}

Thanks

Reedy Boy 08:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Go to Template:Battlefield series click on edit and take a look how it is set up - copy the code and experiment with it somewhere :-)

The templates used on any page are listed at the bottom of the respective edit page. I've not done anything with them so can't tell you anything beyond this. Enjoy, Vsmith 13:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou Muchly. Would creating a link such as Template:Battlefield series allow me to create templates? Im presuming this, as this is how a lot of wiki works.

Reedy Boy 19:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

To make it short - yes. Sorry 'bout the delay. Vsmith 01:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Template namespace Vsmith 01:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia survey

Hi. I'm doing a survey of Wikipedia editors as part of a class research project. It's quick, anonymous, and the data will be made available to the Wikipedia community later this month. Would you like to take part? More info here. Thanks! Nonplus 00:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Been there - done that Vsmith 01:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Alleghenian orogeny

Hi, could you take a look at Alleghenian orogeny? There seems to be some slight creationist POV pushing there, but I'm not really a geology person so I don't know. JoshuaZ 21:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Did it - could use quite a bit more though. Vsmith 01:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

How can the size of the orogenic area and the time of orogeny give the mountain height if the erosion rate is unknown? Dan Watts 03:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

And what is the evidence for an unknown erosion rate or a rate vastly different from today? Vsmith 17:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Who needs a vastly different rate? Denudation rates of ~0.1 mm/yr (Alps and Hawaii), 0.6 mm/yr Himalayas - Ganges sedimentary cone in the Bay of Bengal, and whopping 8 mm/yr for Mt. Ranier (H.H. Mills 1976 - Geology 4:401-406) and unbelievable 19 mm/yr for a young volcano in New Guinea (Ollier and Brown 1971 - Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie 15:12-28) compared against orogenic uplift rates of ~1-1.5 mm/yr Alps, ~1-10 mm/yr Rocky Mountains, 3 mm/yr central Andes and another whopping 72 mm/yr in Japan (Tsuboi 1933 - Japanese Journal of Astronomy and Geophysics 10:93-248) allow unbelievable values (both positive and negative) for the possible height (or depth) of the Alleghenian mountains. Dan Watts 21:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Am I to expect a reply? Dan Watts 19:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Um - not necessarily :-)

Don't really see the problem. When uplift exceeds erosion mountains grow, when uplift slows erosion takes over. Don't see what is unbelievable about the 19mm/yr for New Guinea considering the climate and likely rock type. The ranges you quote quite definetly allow for heights greater than the Himalaya and the article now says: could have risen - what's the problem? Vsmith 20:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

O.K. At the time, the wording was more certain. (Unbelievable is definitely hyperbole.) Dan Watts 20:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

VSmith

Excuse me i am studing this stuff in school i am sorry gosh, dude your mean i didn't see it typed in there ok i will stop you need to let it go ok i'll stop! (P.S. i don't know what you are talking about a monolauge at all ok bye)

              i'm sorry, 
                      --65.190.219.208 01:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Watershed

Hey Vsmith, did you see what's coming down at Talk:Watershed? I thought a heads-up was due as you used to care about that... --JackLumber 11:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Feels like you and I are the only fellers trying to oppose the watershed move. Can you possibly find (maybe hire) some backing? The hour is getting late. Someone even wanted to monkey with terminology in North American articles. --JackLumber 11:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Abiogenic petroleum talk

Is there any way to archive the talk page for abiogenic petroleum origin? It's getting pretty massive and unwieldy. Even I can't find somewhere to bitch and moan easily! Rolinator 14:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

User:209.213.90.51

User 209.213.90.51 has started vandalsim again, and since I see you temp banned them in the past maybe you should consider it again. Thanks.

Watershed

670~ redirects. I've done 270, care to help?

That was funny :-)

I'd say: Ask those who requested/supported the move rather than those who opposed it. Cheers, Vsmith 19:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

External Links

Vsmith,

We added a link to a non-promotional free video of Camelback Mountain and it was determined to be spam. The link was added as a service to Wikipedia/TravelRapidly.com viewers to understand what it is like to visit Camelback Mountain not unlike other destinations we offer. We do offer viewers the option to pay to view a longer version of the video if they would like.

How is this considered spam when there are links to Google maps and Yahoo maps on other topics, which are commercial sites, hoping to sell advertising for giving relevant information about a subject?

If the Google and Yahoo external links are acceptable, please communicate how we include our VERY RELEVANT, TOPIC SPECIFIC, and FREE OF CHARGE streaming videos to Wikipedia for viewers.

Thank you for your consideration,

TravelRapidly, Inc.

For reference from our website:

Our Mission Statement:

• Provide the highest quality, largest viewing size, and greatest selection of online travel videos from around the world.

• Strive to provide a natural, realistic, and full, representation of each destination without music or commentary, which may bias the viewer’s interpretation.

• Provide worldwide access to all travel destinations around the globe no matter how small or obscure.

• We work for our subscribers, who are our customers, to provide videos as close to reality as possible.

• We do not show "promotional videos" funded by sponsors.

Quite simply, adding links to your own website for promotional, google hit building or other purposes, is spam. And most likely some other sites mentioned need to be removed as well. Vsmith 15:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. TravelRapidly, Inc.

Shuffling

Hi. I like the way you straightened out various and "trivial" jewel references here. --Uncle Ed 20:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - keep on shufflin' Vsmith 21:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Polar Bears / Effects of Global Warming

Not quite following what you meant by "After edit conflict..." in your reply to me at Effects of global warming. I don't believe I've been edit-warring. In fact, I'm not sure if I ever had a dialogue with you. Did the statement have anything to do with me? --Fowler Pierre 19:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Just that when I hit the save button - it wouldn't save because Dragons Flight had saved an edit after I started. DF beat me to it :-) The comment was just me growling at the system, nothing you did. Cheers! Vsmith 21:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

if you had looked at my page, there was already a previous user who had accused me of vandalism due to lag causing me to revert the vandalised page of a real vandal. when the page loaded someone had already reverted it and thus caused me to revert the wrong page.

(above unsigned comment by User:Mindtempest)

First: you had blanked that from your talk page.

Second: you had best evaluate your vandal reversion procedure.

Third: check your work after saving.

Fourth: sign your comments.

Vsmith 12:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

ok will do that in the future thx Mindtempest 13:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Cascades edit

Thanks for making the change, Vsmith. To quote your comment in the discussion section:

"Done as suggested. You could have changed it yourself. Vsmith 03:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)"

I suppose I could have, but I've never outright edited a page before, and to do so without submitting a proposed change for the community to consider seemed a bit arrogant.

my RFA

Many thanks for your vote on my recent RFA, which passed narrowly. You may actually have provided the winning margin, since I was promoted by discretion of the bureaucrat. I will try to be worthy of your support. Regards, Kaisershatner 21:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Phalloanalysis

Sure, it's wacky pseudoscience, but somone has deleted it without saying anything on the talk page. Is there a way to bring it back? It was...interesting, to say the least. Sort of like the mythology of flowers, except grounded in phalluses. If you could look into it? Cheers, Rolinator 12:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The delete history states that it has been deleted 39 times! So, I think I'll leave it gone. Google returns 15 hits, including the deleted wiki article. A bit of it is preserved here along with diverse other goodies. Vsmith 13:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

So now decisions about deletions are being based on the numbers of times an article has been deleted by vandals or the number of times it has been accessed through Internet search engines? What a ridiculous policy, but, hey, that's Wikipedia! Keep up your absurdity, and no one is likely to waste any time writing articles for this "encyclopedia."

(above unsigned by anon 207.200.114.64)

No, vandals may erase a page (still remains in history), but it takes an admin to delete an article. So the article in question was deleted by admins 39 times based on deletion policy. And the deletion policy is spelled out pretty clearly - based only in part on Google noteability. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy for the details. Vsmith 19:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Half Life rollback

Just curious as to what was wrong with the edit that I inserted into the page. I know that it in no way relates to the scientific term, however, it may help some users attempting to look up the Valve title to find what they are looking for.

(above by User:Kyotodesertfox)

The link is on the Half-life (disambiguation) page that is linked at the top of the Half-life page. That is the purpose of the up at the top disambiguation links. Vsmith 15:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Well noted. I am new to Wiki, so please forgive my ignorance.

(above by User:Kyotodesertfox)

Ya beat me to it!

I was just about to revert the Volcano vandalism to your most recent version, when you managed to beat me to it by a couple of seconds. Give the nature of the (annoyingly frequent) vandalism to this article, I was beginning to wonder whether it might not be school kids doing something for a laugh while their teacher had his back to them--the stuff you just reverted being the first of today's round. <g> Any ideas? Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 13:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!

Thanks for blocking the User:204.98.2.28 vandal. --Asterion ^{talk to me} 20:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Isaac Newton.

Hi VSmith, I'm Daniel5127. I just saw the article that has been vandalised many times. So, Do you know the way of blocking people who vandalised article? Because I want to block him or her for one day. I'm not going to punish him or her, just blocking him or her. Please, You need to explain to me. Ok? Cheers. Daniel5127, 03:03, 26 April 2006(UTC)

Hi Daniel15127, yes unfortunately the Isaac Newton page gets quite a bit of vandalism. I have blocked one anon editor today for vandalizing it as well as other pages and also warned a couple of others. Typically a simple warning about vandalism will stop most from continuing, but, if they persist with the vandalism admins can and do block them. It isn't to be viewed as punishment, but rather to protect the Wikipedia project. Any user can revert or delete vandalism, just be careful not to delete the wrong thing :-) Vsmith 03:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Editing "Solar system"

Hello; I'm Serendipodous (yes, the misspelling is intentional :) ), and I have been editing the Solar System article for some time. I've been wondering if you'd be interested in rounding up a number of people on the site who are knowledgable in astronomy (unlike myself; I'm just an interested layman) to help polish the article up. It does need serious work but I would like some input on exactly what that work should be. Thanks for your time. Serendipodous 19:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I have the page on my watchlist and will view your changes with interest as well as possibly editing a bit here and there. I'm not really into any major collaboration right now - bit busy with other things. Good luck and sorry 'bout the belated reply. Vsmith 03:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Scientist Articles.

As I have observed the article on Scientists such as Isaac Newton, Copernicus, Marie Curie, Albert Einstein, Alexander Graham Bell, the article has been vandalized many times. I don't know why scientists articles have been vandalized many times. Sometimes article is empty, and make other wikipedian upset about their hard work. I love Science such as Physics, Chemistry. I also interested in Alchemy which is metal transformes into precious metal such as gold, silver... from Newton. That means Newton is Daniel5127's favorite scientist. Anyways, Thanks you for Response my question, but Please, you must send me message back so that I could read your response in the future. Usually, other wikipedians send back him or her message when He/She send wikipedian message. Wait for your message. OK? I hope you enjoy with Wikipedia. Daniel5127, 02:16, 27 April 2006(UTC)

Er... I replied above per my policy. You are welcome to copy whatever you want to your talk. Vsmith 03:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

IP 206.166.83.50

Hi Vsmith: Is there any way you can block this user again, perhaps permenantly this time. S/he recently vandalized the David Kim article, and has obviously been warned numerous times about such edits. If it's a shared IP, all the better--perhaps it will teach the little twerps to be more vigilent of their moronic peers and will instill in them some sense of responsibility. I always look for multiple silver linings, as you can tell. :)

Issued a one week block after reviewing the anons vandalism since Apr 12. No permanent block though. Please sign your posts. Vsmith 03:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Turquoise...

I edited the article Turquoise on April, 30, 2006 like this. turquoise is one of the precious stone like Ruby, Diamond, Sapphire, Emerald. I discovered that Turquoise is one of the precious stone in Encyclopedia. So, Do you think that Turquoise is not precious stone? Because you reverted article Turquoise back. Ahh, Why don't you like to send me message back? That was very interesting... Thanks for your message but It's not fair even I send you message, but you didn't send me message. So, That the one of the main problem of you and me. Please, I understand that you don't like to send them message. But, This will not be problem to send them message. Even You have been using wikipedia for 2 years more than me, even I've been Wikipedian for 2months. So, Please Please Please Leave the message on my talk-page. I suggest you send me message for my question. OK? Daniel5127, 06:20, 2 May 2006(UTC)

List of Inorganic compounds vs. List of Minerals

Walkerma suggested me to contact you, maybe you could help me (us?) out in a question I ran into on Talk:List of inorganic compounds#Wikipedia Search for compounds. It was noted that not all inorganic compounds had been categorised in the proper categories (we are here talking about for example TiO2, which should be in Category:Titanium compounds and in Category:Oxides). I decided to start a search through Wikipedia on ALL pages containing the word 'titanium' (e.g.). (That is .. when I am very bored) I indeed did encounter some pages that were not categorised, but I also encoured pages about minerals. Strictly spoken, these minerals are also 'metal compounds' (I know there is quite a distinction, mainly that most minerals are not used 'as such' as inorganic compounds, but some (NaCl, TiO2) are principally the same material). Could you join us in the 'discussion' on Talk:List of inorganic compounds#Wikipedia Search for compounds how things should best be classified? Cheers. --Dirk Beetstra 16:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I will from now on put minerals into the 'metal mineral' categories, if they are not properly stated, if I am working through the list anyway. --Dirk Beetstra 16:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Will check back with you later when I have time to think a bit. Vsmith 17:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I will proceed then as stated on Talk:List of inorganic compounds#Wikipedia Search for compounds. Cheers, Dirk Beetstra 17:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ref format again :-(

Do you feel like commenting at Talk:Global warming about the ref format issue? Its come up due to the FA push :-( William M. Connolley 09:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks (Fiamme)

Thanks for the rapid wikifying and for cleaning up after me. I apologize for the rude edit summary, I regretted it as soon as I saved the page. There are a few things that I read here that make me cringe, probably similar to the way that some editors cringe when others make edits without wikifying. :) Regards, Rickert 13:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to worry, it just showed up on my watchlist and i edited, Cheers Vsmith 00:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Surface Water Quality Modelling article

New user Benbella has started an article, Surface Water Quality Modeling, which looks to be a primary source publication. I commented on the article talk page where I have urged moving the article to wikisource. Beyond that, I am somewhat at a loss as to the best way to proceed. I was hoping this would interest you enough to review the situation. -- Paleorthid 00:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the article. -- Paleorthid 00:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem, will need to keep an eye on it though. The user doesn't seem too interested in discussing. Vsmith 00:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

For our reference the addresses are now User:Benbella/Surface Water Quality Modeling and User:Benbella/Surface Water Quality Modeling:Physical Process. Vsmith 00:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Stratigraphic nomenclature charts

Hello - I see your long history and good edits on lots of pages that I've started paying attention to, so I thought I'd check your views on this -- the multicolored strat charts on most pages relating to subdivisions of geologic time are nice, but some of them make me crazy - like Berriasian, [17] as one example - it makes it look like Berriasian and Barremian are equivalent time periods; likewise Valanginian-Aptian, and so on up the column. Because of the horizontal format, "UP" the column is not possible to really visualize. I'd really like it if these things could be arranged vertically, so that it would be immediately apparent that the section goes Berriasian, Valanginian, Hauterivian, Barremian and so on up the section. This would be a lot of work - the graphic is on most of these age and period pages - but do you think it would be OK to start? --Geologyguy 02:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi - the graphic footer is a template, example: Template:Cretaceous Footer, for each Period so the work would just involve restructuring the templates for each (the templates are a simple wiki table rather than a graphic). I do agree that the double horizontal format is confusing and a vertical format would be better (maybe not as compact though). Looks like User:Jyril created that one and others last year so you might want to discuss it with him. Or experiment a bit and be bold and fix it. Vsmith 02:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Commercial links

I have seen other commercial links on the Thermography page. Please, why cannot I add mine?

Look again - I just zapped 'em. Vsmith 01:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Stco23

Can you unblock my User Talk page. I thought i was blocked so i abused the unblocked thing. I have a Dial-up connection. I could not edit untill i went offline and back online. I can edit again. Please unblock my talk page. Thank You.--Stco23 12:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Take it up with the protecting admin. Your edits are questionable at best. Vsmith 13:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Edits to Global Warming Controversy

I blanked out those paragraphs because they attempted to argue a position on global warming in a section which was intended to instead cover the scope of the debate itself. There are plenty of other references in this article and others to the debate itself.

Please bring this point up on Talk:Global warming controversy where others may see your reasoning and discuss with you. Vsmith 22:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

content dispute

Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. --200.45.6.159 15:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Simple - it is a matter of one anon with lots of IPs pushing a POV against all other editors. Tactics used by that roving anon amount to vandalism. Vsmith 16:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I inform you that you protected The Wrong Version of those pages. I insist you to immediately revert to the right versions. Regards, --200.43.201.231 13:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Darn, I always get the wrong page - gee, you'd think I'd learn :-) Vsmith 13:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems that you also endorsed Pablo-flores silly diagnostics about my behavior. Perhaps you should review the facts concerning all involved editor's behavior. I also ask you to take this matter more seriously.--200.43.201.231 13:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Re Deletion AU

Dear VSmith:

My article was stupid and not up to the standards of Wikipedi and deserved to be deleted.

If you do ever get around to writing a AU formation article. Please consider ocean floor spreading and black/white smokers as a "possible" source of Original feed material.

You may be interested in some of the articles coming out of Japan these days on this subject.

True; some mineralization seems to also have an origins in hot springs inter continental but I not so sure that isn't just another re-concentration, A process of which our earth is so wonderful.

Gold deposits around here are simple in structure V . . .

Gold is found in the Goldenville formation of a Meguma (Goldenville and Halifax - shale)formation. Meguma rock is ocean silt and sand pushed up on land.

The formation is known to be 29,000 feet in depth and some of the formation is 90% tilted from placement orientation.

Meguma in this province is a heavily folded series of anticlines and synclines the length (two hundred miles) of the formation.

Gold is predominately found in Anticline domes (pipes}, predominately on anticlines and a cross section of one "unblemished" dome <-- an impossible scenerico. Looks like a nuclear mushroom cloud with side branches in the stem. The cloud is of quartz. Remelted endlessly over eons. Thousands of layers. Thousands of feet in height from surface to unknown depths.

Speculation {and this is my off the wall uncultured , unlearned, pure speculation} is that ALL of the Au found today was deposited at the initial formation of the anticline dome , which is a pure, as yet not found, modern equivalent, under ocean, smoker.

Not found.? No smoker seems to gush pure white silica quartz. Hence my comment on a former more active earth than presently known. I also base this past activity conjecture on the fact that there doesn't seem to be a lot of or otherwise, popping up around the planet these days as per previous past periods of earth's troubled history. The processes are so slow that one can’t see the forest for the trees and there does seem to be some real interesting hot spots showing up in California with no apparent explanation. Interesting as we assume the place will break off from the mainland, not melt into one vast civilization ending intrusive igneous pluton of continental size.

But enough of that.

It is my surmise that under the ancient oceans .

The endless melts of silica gushed forth higher and higher though layer after layer of ocean deposits of silt. They would spread out in thin sheets over the "at the time" ocean floor only to re-buried again by silt.

Au was in the silica along with other minerals in the form of crystals, disseminated and had a tendency to concentrated on the outer walls which heat loss would explain.

As a side process to this, the constant plumes of superheated water , showered the quartz and gangue with gold dust in sometimes high concentrations, in the general direction of the prevailing ocean currents.

However, as with all earth processes. The anticline seams have be tilted, faulted and twisted. It takes a pure leap to try and envision the actual conditions of the original formation and depositation of the AU found today. None of the current books and I specifically refer to Ore Deposits 3rd edition. Park and MacDonald and truthfully others . Seem to look fir the original source. Preferring to concentrate on theories better explaining the precess of secondary re-depositations rather than original sources of placement.

But whatever.

This is all just speculation and time is too short to speculate further. I was looking up Julie Sets tonight and was surprised to see a message left for me by you. Thank You for the courtesy of a reply.

In a past day I was annoyed, in the present day I am composed, in another day I will be serenely composed and still.

But as for today, I’m attempting to understand Julie Sets.

Regards.

Jim

I do go on so. Sorry.

Never got around to that gold article. See Rolinator's Ore genesis article. I intend to do some work on that - sometime :-). Vsmith 13:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

request for user block

hi. as the last admin to block him, could i request you reblock 204.169.201.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for recent additional vandalism at Wikipedia:News and Telephone. Thanks :) --Quiddity 18:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

hey im just trying to help, i am NOT, repeat NOT trying to vandlize any pages and whatnot. im sorry if i cause any trouble. matt a.

thanks for your help

hi please see my new page I made! Its Gary Paulson! thanks matt a. Mattwa 21:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Crystallization

Hi Vsmith - Got your message. I will start translating in my sandbox; you may see it at this address - ehm, I just started. Hope you don't mind if I tend to use crystallisation instead of crystallization - British background, and I will probably mix up things. UbUb 21:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Message to Vsmith from Raniboy

Hello sir,
I got your message and your point is well taken. Actually, it was a Geologist like you who told me about Dolomite stones in Israel. At first i thought it was marble but he told me that all marble is actually Dolomite. Anyway, thanks for letting me keep my links and i promise not to step over the line again.

Best Regards
Rani

Hi.

Hi Mr. V Smith,

The info posted by me on the pages with respect to stones were not promoting a company. The information is highly educative for people interested in sources of stones, collected by me after a long period of research from primary and secondary sources.

Also, I wish stone details from other countries could also be included so as to give a better idea to the researchers.

I am not sure how you managed to come to the conclusion that my write-up was Spam. Tell me of one commercial idea that you see in that write-up!!

Hope you reverse the change done by you.

Take care, hope to hear from you soon

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kulveer (talk • contribs)

Hi - the addition of detailed info on commercial stones of India appeared to me as a promotion of the Indian stone industry - hence the spam note, sorry if that was not the intention. I agree that the List of stone article/list is in need of a lot of work as it is rather a hodge - podge now, but the addition of a large amount of detail on one country seemed the wrong way to go. Perhaps a link from dimension stone and other articles on commercial uses of rocks to stones of India and future country specific stones of ... articles is the way to go. Vsmith 12:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the new article on Stones of India

And Oh! By the way I should have thanked you for the new article. I'll try to make it more comprehensive as per the details collected by me. But I still feel that more country-wise details on stone varieties, and on marble etc. needs to be added on the respective pages as well. Consider it.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kulveer (talk • contribs)

Have fun with the article. The type of detail you were adding on specific articles was a bit much. Marble, granite, sandstone, etc. should be general articles focussing more on the geology and general geographic distribution. Details of occurrences in specific countries, especially with regard to commercial varieties and uses, should be discussed in separate articles such as stones of India or specific country resource articles or sections of geography articles. Vsmith 12:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi VSmith...

Greetings!

I realize that wikipedia is not a link collection for advertisements. However, as long as you are citing silvercolloids.com, quackwatch.com, and that other supposed silver information website, I will endevour to provide balance to the external link section.

I think the link to the medical section of silvermedicine.org is relevant.

If you'd like me to stop posting my link, please remove the afformentioned links as well, as they provide information that is not scientifically correct, nor ethically balanced.

I've been involved in silver research for many years, and have been quoted in several published books and articles. My work is non-commercial.

Thank You!

~ Jason

Hmm.. balance to Quackwatch ?? Anyway, in what peer reviewed referenced journals are your works published? Available via Pubmed? Vsmith 13:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Charges without proofs

(Garbage removed)

This user is insulting me. I request your immediate action. --200.82.18.171 14:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

How can you be insulted, you're just a number? I beleieve the # you referred to above(removed) was somenumber else's vandalism. If you want to be insulted get yourself a Wiki identity :-) Immediate action taken - garbage removed. Vsmith 15:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The garbage is still there: e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:200.43.201.152

You saw that this sysop wrote "you are not honest" and "you are a vandal". Given that this same user was involved in making Personal Attacks earlier this year against me, I request you to ban him immediately. --200.82.18.171 15:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Specific Gravity less useful

I'm objecting to the removal of density from the corundum entry. Density is a far more fundamental unit of measure than specific gravity. Specific gravity depends on a second, unrelated number as a reference. Density is therefore more scientifically accurate than is specific gravity. And frankly, everyone I work with as a physicist uses density, not specific gravity. If you don't like that argument, then isn't the point of an encyclopedia to give the maximum possible information, in the manner of the CRC handbook, whether or not such information may be "redundant" with another piece of information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.236.95.21 (talk • contribs)

Hi - the corundum srticle is about a specific mineral and it is common practice in mineralogy and in the hundreds of Wikipedia mineral articles to use specific gravity. It is not less accurate than density - it is simply the density without the units (it is a ratio of the density of the mineral to the density of water which is 1 g/cc). If you write an article specifically from a physics viewpoint or a section within the current article about some physics aspect of corundum feel free to discuss density. However for the infobox and general mineral property description specific gravity is more standard. In case you missed it specific gravity currently redirects to relative density anyway for those physics types who may be clueless about S.G. Cheers! Vsmith 20:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

My link is not a spam link.

Hi.

My name is Roberto Méndez and I am from Costa Rica. You have deleted recently the link that I posted to my website www.costaricaforyou.com. Although this is a private website, I can assure you, this site contains more graphical information than other one that you can find about Costa Rica. If you check the site for the ICT - Insituto Costarricense de Turismo (www.visitcostarica), they have information but not a big quantity de pictures of our country that lets to people see how is Costa Rica.

Also they have posted commercial information about hotels, rent-a-cars, restaurants, etc. In my site, there is information about beautiful natural places, that you probably will not find in Internet, because there is not a big hotel o a famous restaurant near (For example, La Rajada Beach, or Llanos del Cortés Waterfalls in Guanacaste; or the Monte de La Cruz in Heredia).

www.costaricaforyou.com is a personal effort to show Costa Rica in a different way, actually most of the job is doing for my girlfriend (Rebeca) who makes the translations to others languages and for myself (Going to a lot of places, taking pictures, getting information, writing the articles, updating the website.

I am positive sure this site deserves to be in wikipedia as a link and could be a great complement to the information that wikipedia shows.

I hope you can see my point, and let me to post a link to this site.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation,

Best regards. Roberto info@costaricaforyou.com

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertoamt1 (talk • contribs)

Reply and warning posted on User talk:Robertoamt1. Vsmith 22:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)