User talk:Vsmith: Difference between revisions

Please note - rules of the game! I usually answer comments & questions on this page rather than on your talk (unless initiated there) to keep the conversation thread together. I am aware that some wikiers do things differently so let me know if you expect a reply on your page and maybe it'll happen :-)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Vsmith,

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

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

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

Any ideas for how to address this problem?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

External Links Deleted

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

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

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

Similar conversation on my talk page, fwiw.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

You are most welcome, but I didn't really spend very many hours... Anyway, jump in and write some more.

And thanks Chris for the fixin' here :) Vsmith (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm just about ready to jump in again! Of course, it's been so long I need to review almost everything; but, I do need the intellectual stimulation.Bettymnz4 (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered all the inline questions. Pls review for further improvement.PumpkinSky talk 22:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks ok, I removed one fragment you missed :) Seems most of those were added by Montanabw in response to some of my earlier comments. My Voynick analysis work comments are still here if you're interested and haven't already seen it. Vsmith (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you strikeout (or something) those on that work subpage that don't need looked at?PumpkinSky talk 23:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty certain the problematic ones have been addressed by either Montanabw or my fixes back in Feb. This dif shows the changes from 2 - 10 Feb. Basically either all fixed or hidden comments left. So ... address any hidden comments remaining (if there are any now) which you've been doing and all should be ok. If you have specific concerns, I'll address them ... but I've no interest in going over that all again. Vsmith (talk) 00:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So with what you two did and I did tonight, it's essentially done. Cool. Thanks.PumpkinSky talk 01:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ever get a copy of the thesis on Yogo sapphires from Univ of British Columbia? I can email it to you if you didn't. Is the thesis something we can/should add as a ref to the article?PumpkinSky talk 11:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have the Gauthier thesis stored somewhere (my download folder is a mess :) but haven't read it in detail. There is another by Dahy in 1988 and a Guidebook article by him from 1991 (see: Talk:Yogo_sapphire#Yogo_map 00:56, 24 January), but was not able to find an online version of those. Seems Voynick refers to Dahy's work. Vsmith (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can email the Gauthier one if you like. There is a cite thesis template. There is a book version of Gauthier too.PumpkinSky talk 13:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a pic of the sample I found at Barton Mine. Volcanoguy 19:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like moly to me - even with the focus problems :) If it "feels" like it looks and other tests re: phy properties fit, it must be moly. Vsmith (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That picture was taken on an angle to show more of the molybdenite. Hopefully I can find better samples later this year. Volcanoguy 01:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are any further improvements needed to Yogo sapphire? PumpkinSky talk 22:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Hydrophilite (Y: 1813, discredited IMA 2006) isn't IMA/CNMNC approved, discredited as its description is incomplete. It's existence is questioned. It's probably identical with antarcticite (a redirect to calcium chloride, IMA 1965-015, CaCl₂·6H₂O) or sinjarite (too a redirect to calcium chloride, IMA 1979-041, CaCl₂·2H₂O). What do you think? Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say move/rename to antarcticite with a rewrite and note about the "old name" then change the sinjarite to redirect to it. Antarcticite seems more widely identified and more interesting. Will do it a bit later ... if I don't get too distracted elsewhere :) Vsmith (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Antarcticite :) Vsmith (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving the TOC at the bottom of List of geologists - I don't know why I didn't notice that. Mikenorton (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, just noticed when I went to see who the Z guy was :) Vsmith (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Christianity and environmentalism#User talk:97.87.29.188.23May 2012 ... 141.218.36.85 (talk) 02:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? No discussion there, just a link to an ip talk page. Vsmith (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a much better link. I swear, between you and MaterialScientist these articles are improving by leaps and bounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riventree (talk • contribs) 09:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tweakin's the game :) And now I've spent part of my Saturday morning because I followed you to Experimental archaeometallurgy ... and there was a bit o tweakin to do there; the refs there need more... or redoing, but a nice cool spring morning awaits outside. Vsmith (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully I'm helping more than I'm hurting. :) If you have any advice, I'm listening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riventree (talk • contribs) 01:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Geology for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pls see User:Wehwalt/Sandbox6, it'll be part of the PR. Can you help with the "alluvial" comment? PumpkinSky talk 22:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded a bit, fixed a punctuation error and made caps on "mya" consistent. Vsmith (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question for you. See the line with "perhaps VSmith...". Thoughts? PumpkinSky talk 23:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commented there. Vsmith (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear VSmith, Please consult with me prior to annulling many hours of my work! I made it clear that Citation was necessary, and will add more refs. as I find them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magazine1212 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is best to find the supporting references prior to adding the material. The petrobas site is a commercial website and not a WP:RS and that Pre-salt info doesn't belong in the lead section - even if you find a source to relate it to the article. Vsmith (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know this article is now at WP:FAC. Link at: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yogo sapphire/archive1. Thank you so much for helping get it there. Improvements welcome. PumpkinSky talk 00:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please address this edit summary: "Mineralogy and geology: do you have modal percentages for the mineralogy of the lamprophyre?)", 0057UTC, 2 Jun. Thank you. PumpkinSky talk 01:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This summary and its inline question too "minor wording change; comment out dodgy sentence (see inline comment))"PumpkinSky talk 01:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Modal percentages (at least range values) are available, but would seem to be unneeded technical detail for this article.

Commented via inline comment as Voynick does support the statement, but it is rather unclear and confusing - certainly not cumulate ... so I'd say leave it out. Vsmith (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you again.PumpkinSky talk 02:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(two of them). PumpkinSky talk 01:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got 'em. Vsmith (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yogo cooling...note the ref says "speculates" and the article "possibly", ref stmt by Montana mining engineer. Since we don't say it's a fact, we may be ok. PumpkinSky talk 02:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have access to this article Keith A. Mychaluk, 1995, The Yogo Sapphire Deposit, Gems & Gemology all I can see is the abstract.
Also it seems the other MS thesis is the one I've seen referenced. James P. Dahy, 1988 The Geology and Igneous Rocks of the Yogo Sapphire Deposit and the Surrounding Area, Little Belt Mountains, Judith Basin County, Montana, Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology, Butte, but haven't found an online version. The Gems & Gemology article above references it.
Also see [1] referring to a guidebook article on the Yogo dist. by Dahy and more stuff. The guidebook article (I think) Dahy article here (item #4)
In case anyone has access to those. Vsmith (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or can send me the $25 to buy the 1991 Special pub 100 :) Vsmith (talk) 04:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And Keith A. Mychaluk, Geology of the Vortex Sapphire Mine, Utica, Montana, University of Calgary, Dept. of Geology and Geophysics, 1992 ... Vsmith (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thesis was written by a woman: User_talk:Risker#Guylaine, and based on google images, an attractive one.PumpkinSky talk 10:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any of those. Sigh.PumpkinSky talk 11:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do :)

Back on track ... the reaction rim stuff discussed on that Friends of Mineralogy board is most interesting as it indicates the Yogos were not in chemical equilibrium with the dike magma and suggests a xenolith origin (or an evolving magma) which makes the "dodgy sentence" bit p'raps more dodgy - mining engineers ain't geologists :) Still thinkin', Vsmith (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the FAC the Gauthier theses is being asked to meet SCHOLARSHIP. Can you help?PumpkinSky talk

The next to last item by truthkeeper is too technical for me. Can you take care of it? (just search for your name). PumpkinSky talk 23:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, just say dark rock, was hot and has other rock chunks so as to not scare away the masses. Heh, and Maxim just the other day requested more technical jargon in the form of mineral modes. Sorry, no time right now and I'm in a rather grumpy mood :) so I'd best hold off for a bit. How come that FAC page has no sections? Vsmith (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They generally don't have sections. Yea, the conflicting requests are a drag. I can't do justice to the geology section without you. Hope you feel better.PumpkinSky talk 02:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think all we need is something between what's there now and "dark, hot rock" phrasing (grin). When you have a chance, we appreciate all ya can do! Montanabw^(talk) 20:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Something between" done. Vsmith (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking to see if you can help with some of the comments in the peer review. The most problemic is the one about the gossan distorting mineralization potental. Volcanoguy 05:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that "single sentence" doesn't do much and if the source doesn't expand on it ... hmm. From my memory, assuming the gold was in or assoc with the arsenopyrite and pyrite, then as the sulfides oxidize the immobile gold would be concentrated in the Fe-oxides and quartz of the gossan and hence the hypogene ore in the shear zone below the gossan would be lower grade. That's off the top o the head - studied geochem prospecting under the gossan god, T. S. Lovering, back in 1973. As for a source - hmm, and one specific to Big Dan - bigger hmm, especially if that's all your source states. Vsmith (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted the vague sentence. Volcanoguy 03:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the Acid Mine Drainage page, you attribute the bogus change in question to Woohookitty, but they appear to be the anonymous edit following WHK's changes. I am not WHK, so I have no dog in this fight, I just noticed the log entry when I was following up on some of my previous edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riventree (talk • contribs) 07:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What fight? Please read the edit summary again: "(Reverted to revision 491750437 by Woohookitty: ..." Vsmith (talk) 09:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. Would like to address your concerns about the Zultanite page (also some of this on Talk page Talk:Zultanite).

• True, some of the content was from Diaspore page, but only the stuff that pertains to Zultanite. There were several changes, especially to the sidebar, and also a new image was added.
• Zultanite has a trademark on its name for use in commerce, but this is not different from Tanzanite.
• Being one form of Diaspore, is similar to the gemstone Tsavorite being a form of Grossular, whereas Viluite is a non-recognized variety (or non-gemstone-named variety).
• You mentioned a copy-and-paste from some other source, but I can't find that using copyscape. Could you let me know where that is from and I can change or seek permission to use the source?

Appreciate your help in this. --Jeffmcneill (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox data was copied from the diaspore page with only a couple changes to pleochroism, see WP:COPYWITHIN. The body of your text had no WP:reliable sources (the trademark filing page doesn't qualify). The text appeared to be promoting an "excludive" gemstone occurrence. You will note that I suggested a possible source to use if an article is needed. As a quick google search shows the stuff is widely hyped and an article here would need to avoid all that and focus on what reliable sources provide. We're not here to sell stuff for ebay sellers etc. Vsmith (talk) 09:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	geology
	Thank you for polishing this gem with your profound geological knowledge, as part of more the 100.000 valuable edits to the project, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, but profound ... that's a bit rich :) Vsmith (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Today's good story (hidden message: "open mind"), - you awesome Wikipedian of 7 June 2012 ;) - I tried to translate to German, but gave up on the specific language in your field, help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? riddles ... :) No sprechen Deutch. Did take a course in reading German way back 'bout '72, but is long gone. Cheers Vsmith (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, just peek at Saphir (Yogo), I wanted to avoid the geology, but they wanted it - being so good! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peeked - neat. And you separated mineralogy and geology into sep sections -- had considered that on the en page, but never got 'round to it. Vsmith (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was another helpful user there (actually the "they" who wanted the geology) who separated the sections. We still struggle how to say "etched, pitted, and rounded nature of the surfaces" in German, can you say what it means in other words? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... followed the link to Roll-stone's talk (with google translate as an aid) and yes, the sapphires reacted with the enclosing magma, they are considered as foreign inclusions (xenocrysts) and not in chemical equilibrium and the surface reacts with the corrosive magma much like a metal surface can be etched (pitted and unevenly dissolved) by an acid. This surface dissolution would be most effective on projections or "corners" of the crystal, leading to the rounding - rather than "rounding" due to motion (physical tumbling) within the ascending fluid magma. The pitted and partially dissolved (or etched) surface would be the optimal site for crystallisation of spinel crystals which form from the dissolved constituents of the corundum with the addition of magnesium from the magma. I've rambled a bit & don't know if I've really answered your question :) Vsmith (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it's all a bit too much for me, but perhaps the other end can understand it. - Please look (with the translate aid) if you can live with what is now in the article? It seems that the fluidity of the magma might appear more clearly, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Can you please explain why you have removed the part about Prevalin containing Bentonite? If you need proof that it does contain Bentonite, then that can be found here: http://www.boots.com/wcsstore/cmsassets/Boots/Content/Products/Allergy%20Hayfever%20-%20CAT:%20A00000586/10124276.P/Prevalin%20Allergy.pdf

Would this link be ok? http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/allergy-and-asthma/medicines/prevalin-allergy.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexyjw (talk • contribs) 08:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a shame to have a medical section about Bentonite with a glaring omission.

Thanks

John - in no way affiliated with Prevalin, apart from having been squirting it up my nose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexyjw (talk • contribs) 08:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry 'bout that, removed it as it was sourced to a promotional website. Please read WP:RS and especially WP:MEDRS as I'm doubtful about the above links as well. Vsmith (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are mentioned on Talk:Christianity and environmentalism. 99.181.140.207 (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Teamwork Barnstar

For your outstanding support and dedication in getting Yogo sapphire from a new article to DYK to GA to FA and FOUR. The team effort of the uncountable people involved in getting this unique article to FA is a textbook case of teamwork in article improvement, ie, what Wikipedia should be, not what it all too often is. I can never thank everyone enough. PumpkinSky talk 23:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent articles, including Narsarsukite. When you create a new article, can you add the WikiProject assessment templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like {{WikiProject Keyword}} to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject (ex. if it's a biography article, you would use WikiProject Biography; if it's a United States article, you would use WikiProject United States, and so on). You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow them to start tracking the articles through Wikipedia:Article alerts and other tools. This can help you too, as the WikiProject members will often defend your work from deletion and try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir,

I have added just two links to each of two Wiki articles, each link being to a relevant page that gives further information on the topic concerned.

This is in accordance with what I have been given to understand is an acceptable practice that enhances Wikipedia.

Please advise if you consider this to be unacceptable and why.

Philip227 (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)Philip GeganPhilip227 (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the spam link I left on your talk page. Repeatedly adding a bare external link to an apparent commercial website is WP:SPAM and, should you have a connection to that website -- please read WP:COI. Vsmith (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very glad to have your input on various topics around Diatoms. There is a wholesale lack of ecological/ scientific awareness with one notable editor whose CV suggests he may have trained as an accountant. Your support is much appreciated.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help a bit, don't know much about 'em. Maybe an accountant trying to balance the books w/ a bit o promotion ... just feed them little critters with (blah, blah). Vsmith (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You had deleted the citation to D Mann's 1999 paper on the share of diatoms to primary production in oceans. So I emailed Dr Mann and asked him and his reply is given below. He has also marked this email to Diatom-l list.

David Mann <removed address> 2:48 PM (58 minutes ago)

to diatom-l, me Dear Bhaskar (copied to diatom-l, in case anyone else has been bothered by the same question).

Thanks for your enquiry. You are quite correct: Field et al. do not give the 40-45% figure. However, the passage in Mann 1999 is, as you will have seen:

“Recent estimates of global net primary production suggest an overall total of 105 Pg (105 X 10^15 g) of carbon fixed per year, of which 46% is oceanic and 54% is terrestrial (Field et at. 1998). Of the oceanic component, approximately one-quarter takes place in oligotrophic regions where diatoms account for no more than 25-30% of primary production (Nelson et at. 1995) ; but in highly productive areas, diatoms predominate. Overall, therefore, it might not be unreasonable to estimate that diatoms could account for between 40 and 45% of oceanic production, producing perhaps 20 Pg of carbon per year, making them more productive than all the world's tropical rainforests (Field et al. 1998).”

The statement “it might not be unreasonable to estimate” was not meant to be linked to Field et al.: the final reference to Field et al. refers to the productivity of tropical rainforests, not to the calculation for diatoms. There’s no doubt that I should have been more careful in explaining and referencing the calculations and I clarify this below. However, if I had meant that Field et al. had made the 40-45% estimate, I hope I would have given the Field et al. reference after “oceanic production”, or 20 Pg C per year.

I have noticed that, in several papers on diatoms, the 40-45% figure, or the simple derivative, that diatoms account for c. 40–45/46% = c. 20% of total global primary production, is referenced to Field et al. and Nelson et al., whereas in fact neither of these papers give this figure: it is possible that the people citing these papers have not actually read them, or have not read them carefully and are instead relying on other people, who have also not read them. Field et al. do not separate the diatom contribution. Nelson et al. do separate it (the focus of their paper is the silica cycle), but, as far as I can remember and I have just checked again, Nelson et al. never give an overall percentage contribution of diatoms to total oceanic C production (see their p. 361): the only 40-45% figure they give (on p. 364) is for net export of biogenic silica. However, even though one is not supplied by Nelson et al, a % figure for the proportion of total oceanic C production is easily obtained from their paper, since they estimate 26 Gt C yr-1 for the diatom contribution to the 60 Gt C yr-1 that they assumed for all oceanic primary production, i.e. 26/60= 43.3%.

Field et al. gave new estimates for the total global productivities of land and ocean, and of the different regions/biomes on land and in the sea. These overall totals were thought to be more accurate than the previous estimates (e.g. revising the overall estimate of 60 Gt C yr-1 for oceanic production used by Nelson et al.). Hence it was necessary to recalculate the diatom contribution to global C production, using the new Field et al. totals . There seemed no reason to doubt the calculations of the *relative* contribution of diatoms in different oceanic zones made by Nelson et al., but unfortunately the classification of the oceans used by Field et al (oligotrophic, mesotrophic and eutrophic) did not correspond to the classification by Nelson et al. (oligotrophic vs coastal + nutrient-rich). So, to use Nelson et al.’s data for calculating the diatom contribution to the overall productivities estimated by Field et al., I made some simple rough recalculations (‘guesstimates’) for Mann 1999, resulting in the sentence “Overall, therefore, it might not be unreasonable to estimate that diatoms could account for between 40 and 45% of oceanic production”.

Please see “Global significance” at http://www.tolweb.org/Diatoms/21810 for a further explanation.

I think I sent something similar about this to Diatom-L in the early 2000s…

Best wishes, David Mann

Senior Principal Research Scientist Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh

<removed address> websites http://rbg-web2.rbge.org.uk/algae/ http://rbg-web2.rbge.org.uk/DIADIST/ http://rbg-web2.rbge.org.uk/ADIAC/ http://www.rbge.org.uk/rbge/web/science/research/crypto/index.jsp

From: Bhaskar M V <removed address> Sent: 27 June 2012 08:33 To: David Mann Subject: Diatom algae

Dear Dr Mann

I read your 1999 paper 'Species concept in Diatoms'. This says that 40 to 45 % of the primary production in oceans is by diatoms, and Field et. al. 1998 is cited.

I could not find any reference to Diatoms in the paper cited - Christopher B. Field, et al. Primary Production of the Biosphere: Integrating Terrestrial and Oceanic Components Science 281, 237 (1998);

The wikipedia entry for Diatoms says - "They are especially important in oceans, where they are estimated to contribute up to 45% of the total oceanic primary production.[citation needed]"

Can you please clarify this point.

regards

Bhaskar www.nualgi.com/new — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diatom1 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed address inf above. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bhaskarmv. Vsmith (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VSmith, may I ask you to have a look at the International School of Gemology page history? I need a second opinion on the latest edits by TParis, preferably from someone with a geology background. My well researched and verifiable article, albeit non-flattering for Robert James, the owner of the ISG, has been wiped off the wiki.Rock-o-solid (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Took a look ... wow, that was not a WP:article, let's see: seems it was a fluff promo thingy which was turned into an attack thingy by a "couple of editors". Agree with TParis that afd is the proper road to take. And why did you decide to ask me 'bout this? Why is Gemwise hiding behind platitudes? Something fishy going down. Vsmith (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VSmith, I contacted you cause you were the editor who stopped the fluff in the first place and because you have a rock background. This topic gets technical at points and an admin who can distinguish science from from non-science will do a better job at judging the content. To address your second question: I can't speak for Gemwise, nor do I care much about his edits but my original article is not an 'attack thingy'; it's a set of rather unfortunate truths containing well-researched and completely verifiable facts. Forum posts that are signed by known entities within the gemological world should hold as much weight as quotations in established magazines or other paper sources in my opinion. Anyway, all other facts, verified by other sources, have been deemed unworthy as well in one go and I received a level 3 straight away. Once one goes beyond fluff things just become very ugly very quick on this topic. I regret this but do feel that this information should be out there. I tried to write down the facts as dry as I could and realize that its very inconvenient for the owner of the school but he will have to face responsibilities for his actions like any other human, one of which is that when you lie you look bad when that is pointed out in public. Rock-o-solid (talk) 10:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I see TP has given you lots of good advise re: WP rules stuff and I'll watch your workspace article development. Looking at the article history I see several new accounts chiming in ... so I assume p'raps they were showing up because of discussions on blogs etc. rather than socks. I don't follow gemstone forums as not my geocup o' tea. Vsmith (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VSmith,

The edits you mention describe the controversy around Mr. James. Yes, I wrote a blog post back in 08 on the subject. I am a major writer in the field. It was a balanced article that quoted a number of the most highly respected experts in the gemological community on copper diffusion in tourmaline, topaz and garnet. In writing about a controversy, balance is the best one can hope to achieve. There have been a few other edits, some to expand and some to contract the issue. It seems to me that what constitutes "disruptive editing" depends to a large degree on whether you want the controversy discussed or deleted. Mr. James and his partisans desire the latter, a couple of other editors, the former.

I read the "Reliable Source" section in Wikipedia and see no barrier to quoting from blogs, please correct me if I am wrong by directing me to the appropriate section of the article.

I also add quotes and references to articles by GIA Bangkok, as you know, no more recognized expert in the field than GIA. I note that another administrator removed another article reference that is to an article written by Mr. James himself. If you review the bibliography of the GIA Bangkok article you will find my blog referenced along with three articles by James with links that lead nowhere. This is standard op. for Mr. James. Prove him wrong and he tries to remove the evidence. In this case the article was preserved on a website critical of Mr. James. The whole thing is quite convoluted. Perhaps deletion of the page makes the most sense. It is far better than having wikipedia serve as a promotional billboard for ISG.

I decided to change my handle from GemWise to Platitude. Choosing a name is allowed on Wikipedia, why is platitude phoney and gemwise not? Sorry, always forget to sign.

Platitude 19:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

RWW — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemwise (talk • contribs) 19:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For info on using blogs read Wikipedia:USERG#Self-published sources online and paper. For user name change see Wikipedia:Changing username and/or Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing your signature to use a new sig while retaining original username. As you see, just typing in "platitude" doesn't work and the signbot or some user like me will add your "official sig" and mabe gripe at you :) Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please reinsert the information to "my" talk page.

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

Quote this:

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

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

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

Dear Vsmith,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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