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 :-)

Template:Multicol

• Archive1 7/7/2004 - 6/15/2005
• Archive2 6/15/2005 - 9/6/2005
• Archive3 9/6/2005 - 1/01/2006
• Archive4 1/1/2006 - 5/31/2006
• Archive5 5/31/2006 - 8/15/2006
• Archive6 8/15/2006 - ~11/30/06
• Archive7 11/30/2006 - 1/31/07

Template:Multicol-break

• Archive8 2/01/07 - 5/17/07
• Archive9 5/17/07 - 8/31/07
• Archive10 9/01/07 - 12/31/07
• Archive11 01/01/08 - 06/30/08
• Archive12 07/01/08 - 09/30/08
• Archive13 10/01/08 - 12/31/08
• Archive14 01/01/09 - 06/30/09
• Archive15 07/01/09 -

Template:Multicol-end

Regarding the article, 350 (organisation), would you be able to semi-protect it? The reason I ask is that you have reverted a particular edit, another editor has reverted the same edit, and now so have I. And, each of us has done this more than once. Yet anonymous editors keep putting the the deleted material back in. Placing linkspam warnings (or whatever) on their talk pages would be a waste of time because the IP addresses keep changing. However, semi-protection would prevent these anonymous editors from making any changes to the stub. Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 04:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you are able to semi-protect it, can you set it for the maximum days allowed? Indefinite?! — SpikeToronto (talk)

We don't indef semi except in highly controversial cases. Can extend if warring/promotion resumes. Vsmith (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can It be fully-protected too? Note: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers 99.155.150.45 (talk) 06:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not bitin' anyone, would simply block the ip - except keeps changing. Vsmith (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, 99.155.150.45 (talk), you can still make all the edits to the article you want: Simply register. So, there’s no biting of the newbies: Anyone can freely edit the article by simply registering. Thanks Vsmith for the semi-protect. — SpikeToronto (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/350_(organisation) 350 (organisation) 99.39.184.224 (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently in the process of reporting both myself and User:Likebox at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. I've tried WP:3O. I've also tried Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Likebox. Right now almost all of Talk:Quantum mysticism is our debate. I'm just not sure what the next step in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. As I understand it at least three editors must be involved to move to WP:RFC. Any advice would be appreciated.--OMCV (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion would be especially valuable since you were the first to show me the significance of WP:OR [1].--OMCV (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There may indeed be some OR and/or SYN in that article, but haven't yet (and may not) looked at the details. Does need more attention from other eds. Vsmith (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your rework of this article. I had been trying to work up the gumption to tackle the Description section which smelled of a copyright violation from somewhere, perhaps the state parks website. I don't believe that is an issue any longer, and your reorganization of the page is superior.

Perhaps you could find the right place in the text to more precisely identify the rocks of the shut-ins? Beveridge (1980) identifies it as rhyolite porphyry with a dike of dark diabase (p.45). Unklesbay & Vinyard (1992) identify it as ash-flow tuff (pp. 1-2). They discuss rhyolite (from lava,not ash) in the same paragraph, but the way I read it they're not placing it in the shut-ins. Being the geologist in the crowd, you're much more familiar with all those terms.

I don't whether you're familiar with those references. They're both[2][3] very interesting books on Missouri geology by a state geologist (Beveridge), a deputy state geologist (Vineyard), and geology professor (Unklesbay). You can read the relevent pages of Unklesbay & Vineyard at that Amazon link. --Kbh3^rdtalk 00:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, need to expand that geology section a bit more. I have those books - will have to dig 'em out and do some re-reading. An article on Missouri geology has been on my to-do list for a while ... if I ever get 'round to it (got lots of them round toits rolling around). Vsmith (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion tag was removed just before you protected the Planetary Habitability article.

I consider it not AGF and vandalism, would you mind reverting it as the last edit to the article this week? GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see a disagreement - not vandalism. I had considered an edit warring block as you and perhaps others seem to have violated 3rr. I chose to lock the page instead, the debate can continue while the page is protected. Please assume good faith and proceed with civility on the talk page. Vsmith (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(templat removed - doesn't belong on my talk page)

That is a valid template for a valid process and it was there before, it's removal was vandalism.GabrielVelasquez (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Marskell (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, for returning the template if you please. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My observation is that for 3 months short of two years, Gabriel started his disruptive edits. My opinion is that the article's content, relevance and coherence are brilliant, its legth is good and its name is very precise -scientifically and coloquially. My suggestion to solve this chronic problem is to ban Gabriel from editing this particular article and its talk page. Sincerely, BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice this reliable guy actually get's his articles mixed up. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to need your advice on this:

User: Kasaalam has been adding a whole bunch of (sometimes outdated) child labour links because "we deny the truth" instead of creating a NON POV entry on the topic and using these perfectly fine sources as a reference. I have tried to point it out to him, but considering his previous edit-wars I have my doubts it'll help.

I need your advice. If it's allowed according to Wikipedia guidelines, I'll hold my peace. But then.. one should also add a list of "blood diamond" links and "green mining" links and "other human rights" links and so on and so forth. Hardly the way I think Wikipedia would like to go with this.

My solution would be that if Mr. Kasaalam writes a NON POV (can he do this if he accuses "wikipedia" of "hiding the truth") paragraph using those sources, not adding them blindly.

Your insights much are appreciated. I also discussed it with user materialscientist.

Gem-fanat (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vsmith: Would you consider placing a semi-protect on the Same-sex marriage article? Whether or not one supports the concept, its history page is clearly showing an on-going edit war involving anonymous editors who, from what I can glean, will not resolve the issue via the article’s talk page. Each editor reverts the other using the edit summaries to provide their “position.” I came to this a few moments ago when I was starting a vandalism patrol, and was quite shocked at the goings on in the history. I think that a semi-protect will at least eliminate the anons and force them to use logged-in accounts to make their edits. Fear of subsequent WP:3RR penalties alone should calm them enough to participate in a proper Talk page dicussion <hopeful smile>. Thank you for your consideration of the foregoing. Hope all’s well in your part if the world! — SpikeToronto (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Took a quick look last night - didn't have much time - seemed to have settled down a bit, not on my watchlist so haven't kept up. Vsmith (talk) 22:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has deleted your {{Sprotect2}} protection template over at 350 (organisation) with this edit. I do not think the change is correct since it has now removed the silver lock symbol at the top of the page. I do not feel confident enough of the incorrectness of the edit, however, to revert it. Would you please take a look? Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the time was up. The editor’s edit summary confused me. — SpikeToronto (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was reading the talk page about the Urantia Book/Rodinia connection. A good dialogue seemed to be going concerning the originality (or lack of same) of Rodinia and the supposed formation and breakup dates. Unfortunately the exchange collapsed into personal attacks and nothing fruitful came of it. I am interested in the connection you made with the works of Arthur Holmes. I understand that he championed the idea of continental drift when before it was in vogue. as you are probably aware, a mechanism for seafloor spreading wasn't agreed upon at the time. My question is: Does he write about the supercontinent before Pangaea (nw called Rodinia) does he (or any other geologist before 1955) speculate as to when Rodinia formed and when it broke up in our Earth's history. Does Dr. Holmes or any other scientist before 1955 make the connection between Rodinia and complex life evolving in Rodinia's shallow bays.

Just so you know, I am cataloging the various scientific concepts presented in the Urantia Book and correlating them with scientific understandings from the time of UB publication onward. Thank you in advance for any response that might elucidate these matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.101.74.142 (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holmes proposed convection cells as a mechanism back ca. 20s or 30s, if my memory is working. Don't recall right now about Pangea/Rodinia, although I think Rodinia is a later concept. Peraonally have no interest in the Urantia stuff. Vsmith (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For [4] William M. Connolley (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brain has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But where could someone see their non-automated edits?Abce2|This isnot a test 21:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Say what...? Non-automated edits? What's an automated edit? Vsmith (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle, Huggle, etc. It may be my way of calling them, I don't remember.Abce2|This isnot a test 21:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this? still not sure what you're asking. I don't use those gadgets. Vsmith (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, never mind. Thanks anyways, Abce2|This isnot a test 22:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there is no picture of the structure of the quartz crystal on the quartz wiki page; and you are saying it isn't very helpful to put an external link to crystal structure animation; hmmm, nice —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boed00 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way to improve the quartz article is to add a good structural image to the article, not by adding an ext link to your bare animated stuff. Vsmith (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

y, it was bare information in the form of animated 3d crystal model :-))) if u know better way to describe the crystal structure than a 3d model let me know, i like to learn new things which are worth to learn..Boed00 (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nxxxn: Hello, This is Nxxxn. You undid a revision I made in the article 350 organization. You said that I gave 350's website and it contained a list and is non-RS. Even though a list from the website is given people can clearly see from the 350 website that the personalities given support 350. You are saying that for each person I have to give a different reference source. The reference source for majority of the people are in the 350 website. Many openly stated that they support 350 in the organization's website. You can remove the names of those people you are saying who does not support 350 and is not clear. Please let the name of the people who openly supported 350 be in the list I wrote. You can remove the personalities, whom you are saying have not clearly supported 350. While the reference website was given just below the heading then people can easily access and see that the personalities in the list are supporting 350. Let it be please!!! Remove the personalities who haven't clearly supported 350 according to the source!!! If, a specific RS for each name, then what if I include the same RS for all names? If so, I can write the website near all names as the RS for each. Then you can't say there is no RS for each name. Make the issue clear please!!! - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nxxxn (talk • contribs) 18:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems Arthur Rubin has adequately answered your questions. I agrre with him. Vsmith (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I edited some wording at Long term effects of climate change that I thought I'd written when it was actually you. I don't have strong feelings about it, so feel free to change it back if you want (does need a comma that I added, though).Brian A Schmidt (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I was adding wikilinks and thought humidity or higher rainfall was an important factor - haven't read the book you used as a ref, looks like a good one so I'm tempted to order it. And yes, the comma was needed. Vsmith (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are being ridiculous--- I was not preserving my work--- I was restoring an intro which was written by other people. The recent edits were extremely silly.Likebox (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Smith :

You are removing links I am adding. I think those links are legitimate. For example, on a national park page, I add a link to OutpostUSA.org. That is not a commercial site, does not sell anything, does not promote an outfitter or any other business, and is not a blog. It does, however, include three dozen photographs and specific description of hiking trails, lodging and other details. You allow other links to hiking guides and travel guides. I fail to see why they are acceptable and this is not. I think the links I added should be restored.

Thank you Trekker Forrest

See User talk:TrekkerForrest for my warning re: spam, as user had added multiple links to the same website. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. Vsmith (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion about this external link has been started at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Wind Rivers link. As your removal of the link didn't include any indication of why you removed it, it would be very helpful to us if you would explain your concerns. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VSmith,

I must apologize, I am not try to edit war regarding Global warming. But if Wikipedia is trying to be truly neutral, then it must introduce the side that global warming is a scientific theory. While the media and most everyone else considers it be an absolute fact, it really hasn't been proven with 100% accuracy. Therefore, I think it is fair to discuss it, in the article, as a theory that is very popular, but one that has not been totally (100%) proven. As a scientist, I think you would have to agree.

jbird669

Nothing in science is ever 100% proven. As for discussing it, that's what the talk page is for. Vsmith (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe discuss was the wrong word. Perhaps a section can be added to the article that makes note of the fact that it's a theory and not proven? It can be construed as misleading because the article reads as if Global Warming is scientific fact, which it is not.

As I said, such discussion belongs on the article talk. Vsmith (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vsmith: Could you please look at this discussion[5] for me? An editor managed to change the name of the Bryozoa page to Ectoprocta. He otherwise has done very good editing on this article, but this move is simply wrong and confusing for the reasons I give in the discussion. Since you're a geologist (and the only administrator I "know"!), you might be able to help me address this effectively. I don't mind a full discussion of the taxonomic issues within the article, but bryozoans are almost universally recognized as, well, bryozoans! This page move will needlessly confuse students, faculty and many others. The editor who made the change may have lost interest in the discussion, though, leaving this unacceptable status quo. Thanks for any help you can give. Wilson44691 (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it back - before the bots adjust all the links to it. Vsmith (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. This is a much more sensible way to have the discussion. I appreciate the wiki-boldness, which was just in time before it got even messier. Wilson44691 (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree you are guilty of species discrimination read Specieism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.175.102 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I have 3 cats - to keep the woodshed and premises free of rats and mice. So me and my cats are guilty. Vsmith (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you're a fellow member of the pro-Felid cabal. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block extended, see diff. I've indeffed User:Noise69 as an obvious sock. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Vsmith (talk) 04:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am I dreaming or does the user appear to still be editing under the same account after being blocked twice? Rivertorch (talk) 05:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a bit persistent ... using a bunch of ATT ips to blank his comments repeatedly, guess he doesn't like what he said. May need a semiprot on the talk for a bit and he needs an indef for disruption. Vsmith (talk) 13:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just sprotected for 6 hrs. Vsmith (talk) 13:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had requested that hours earlier here but nobody was minding the store. Rivertorch (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Quantum mysticism article and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 21:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User 23prootie copied and pasted the page Commonwealth of the Philippines into the redirect Philippine Commonwealth without reaching a consensus.--JL 09 _^q?c 07:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that was taken care of before I got my morning cup of coffee. Vsmith (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vsmith. You asked if I had references for my arguments regarding my argument in discussion for the article on the universe, and I would like to ask: by what standards are these references acceptable by? Einstein? Jesus? Why not just my own analytical and logical deductions? 5 plus 5 equals 10, it is logic and there is no reference required to make such a statement, It states in Wikipedia to assume good faith and not to edit-war with people, however, I have been engaged in an edit war which appears bias in nature, unreasonable and selfish. I am not trying to judge, this is just how it feels to me at the time,

"Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were false, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning."

I simply showed that the article on the universe is false, by all logical and reasonable understanding of science but because of my understanding on this, I am shunned and taken into an edit war. Why is this? I am trying to improve the article with reason and logic not bogus sci-fi ideas which are all based on emotion and opinion. Science does not run on emotion or opinion, it runs on proof and math/logic. So until it is proven that the universe is expanding and that it is not just a section in the universe that is expanding (like a cookie crumb expanding in water) I would appreciate it to not be told as science. Instead of calculating the age of the universe, which we cannot logically fathom as we only can calculate a section of the universe, we should admit to not knowing.

"When disagreement occurs, explain yourself using talk pages, and give others the opportunity to do the same. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives and look for ways to reach consensus."

If I have said anything illogical, irrational or blatantly untrue, and you would like to express that then please do. I am human and capable of error, but I would appreciate to know where I have err so that I may learn. If I have not said anything illogical then I would appreciate my argument to be re-submitted to the discussion pages where it may be publicly available for others to reason with and discuss, analyze and come to terms with. DiscoElf (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read reliable sources and original research. Vsmith (talk) 02:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my edit about some molecular crystal being electrical conductors. Will you kindly explain the revert based on the quality standards of Wikipedia? 24.184.234.24 (talk) 03:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)LeucineZipper[reply]