User talk:Vsmith

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

Question

You recently stopped by the YEC page and you made a comment that I violated WP:POINT. I noticed you are an admin, so I thought I'd personally ask you for advice on how I could have handled this situation better.

My intent: Two users were "fighting" -- one would put up an edit, and the other revert it. This happened several times. I thought to help out by moving the edit to the talk page and having them each give their reasons for why they believe their edit should stand, and thereby peacefully resolve the issue.

"The problem": However, as soon as I did it, a number of other editors jumped in (seemingly out of no where) and claimed I was violating a whole bunch of things, and things really got out of hand, etc.

Question: How do you think could I have done this better and resolved the conflict between the first two editors, without the rest of the community getting all upset over it?

Thanks, your advice would be appreciated as I really feel bad about this all. Tjbergsma (talk) 05:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Don't call something vandalism in an edit summary when it wasn't.

2. Carefully read WP:POINT

3. Do not attack other users - focus on the edit, not the editor.

4. Read and consider carefully the comments by other users on Talk:Young Earth creationism. I see User:dave souza has provided some input - pay attention.

5. Read WP:NPOV carefully, we all have a pov - just be careful not to overly push. I see you concentrate on certain religious articles (most of which I avoid) so we shouldn't meet often.

Happy editing. Vsmith (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indium supplement

Some people buy indium sulfate as supplement because you life longer and get no cancer at all! And everything is 100% true because a peer reviewed mice study of a guy called Schroeder from 1971 exists![1] When you read the article you can't find a thing of what is claimed by the people who market the stuff. The weight loss which is wanted was even more evident in the scandium group while you life longest with palladium and the tumor rate was in control A 11 of 80 in B 6 of 41 and in the indium group 6 of 54. With these small numbers you get nothing from your statistics than a rough guess. I hope Henry A. Schroeder never found out how greedy people us him to earn a fortune.--Stone (talk) 12:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAR notice

I have nominated Zion National Park for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

78.144.177.108

Try anonblock, as confirmed by whois. an isp proxy. thanks. --Encyclopedia77 Talk 00:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Link to Talk: Link

Seems to be inactive for now.??? Vsmith (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canyoseedemtalk (talk • contribs) 18:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, seems we had some overlapping edits there. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:NMSZBig.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:NMSZBig.gif. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banning of our IP

I noticed you banned our school's IP address against anonymous edits of Wikipedia for frequent vandalism? I looked at the edit log for this IP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/151.200.174.43

and see that most changes were not over turned and done in the spirit of the site.

What was your rationale? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucas20 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see a bunch of vandalism with a couple of valid edits. Simply use your reg. username to edit. Valid student users can also create a username from another location and log in. Vsmith (talk) 12:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: Archimedes reference

From the Archimedes page (notice "weight" not "volume"):

“ Any body wholly or partially immersed in a fluid experiences an upthrust equal to, but opposite in sense to, the weight of the fluid displaced. ” --Jhbdel (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what it says ... but, "where he saw that when an object floats, the amount of displaced water is equal in mass to that of the object" is not what he said. And that misstatement is what I reverted. If you drop a 100kg block of lead into a container of water, it does not displace 100 kg of water. Rather an amount of water equal to the volume of the lead mass. Vsmith (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought the point of the article was bouyancy not volume displacement (since mountains are rarely immersed in the mantle). --Jhbdel (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is about buoyancy - which is about the weight of the fluid volume displaced, not about the weight of the displacing object. In the case of lead in water, the bouyant force is equal to the weight of the water volume displaced - which is far less than the weight of the lead, and the lead sinks. And mountains do sink into the mantle until the buoyant force (equal to the weight of the displaced mantle volume) equals the weight of the mountain. Vsmith (talk) 00:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, my only point is that mountains seldom become completely submerged in the mantle. Thus, they seldom displace their volume. Rather, they displace only their weight and thus remain mountains. --Jhbdel (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was it that made you delete the reference to the XKCD comic on the Kepler page under the references in popular culture section? --65.93.166.40 (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pure trivia, it may be worth noting on the page about the comic if you want - but totally non-notable on the Kepler page. Vsmith (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links

My appologies for adding a reference that was not used in the writing of the article - I had thought that this was just for useful references, since the other one was not refered to. The external link is not book promotion, just a useful link to free code rather than the commercial link that is there. I will put this on again with no reference to the book which it accompanies. I've also made some edits to the text, which I hope to add to when I have time, although this will mean adding the previously removed reference. --Kriging (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content is fine - just that your username and a link to a book website looked rather spammy or WP:COIy. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tar sands

I think you may be interested that there is a discussion about renaming the Category:Tar sands. Beagel (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mineral economics

Hi, was looking for your opinion on a redundant category I created, started a discussion here.--kelapstick (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there. Vsmith (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of Adam Dashner

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Adam Dashner, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Adam Dashner is a nonsense redirect page formed as a result of the reversion of page move vandalism (CSD G3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Adam Dashner, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we build smart bots? I zapped that page move vandalism - left the redir there so the vandal couldn'r repeat the bad move... Ah well that's awright, nice dumb bot. Vsmith (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi Vsmith, and thanks for the way you took care of secondary minerals. --Scray (talk) 03:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, not sure that was the best solution, but works for now maybe. Still thinking 'bout a section in mineral or a short independent stub. Seems a rather poorly defined term, depends on the context... I'd need to get some refs to back up the stuff rattling 'round in my head. Have a happy holiday, Vsmith (talk) 04:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merry

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 06:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bah humbug :-)

Izzat you snoozin' under that palm? Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 18:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish :) Guettarda (talk) 04:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User: Uncle Milty

Thank you for your help with the mess regarding my talk page. I was enjoying my Holiday dinner and didn't even see it happen.

I hope you enjoy(ed) yours. --Uncle Milty (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked a couple of ips, the bored one is ip hopping, so may be more. Enjoy what's left of the holiday! Vsmith (talk) 23:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of all my links

Dear Dr. VSmith, Wiki admin,

on Dec 20th Wiki deleted all links going to my website realgems.org because of "spamming". Meanwhile I know that I did something wrong when I added a lot of links to my own website. I will not do that again of course.

But Wiki admins have also deleted all links which were added by the international public. Now my website realgems.org is no more accessable on Wikipedia. So nobody can find all the photos and infos on my non-profit and educational website, after having read a Wiki page. Nothing happened with all the links you once added, e.g. to Mindat, Webmineral and Mineral Galleries. Why? Wiki accused me having spammed their mineral and gems pages with my own links but I don't see a difference between your links to some mineral sites and the links going to my site.

Would you be so kind and explain me why all your additions are no spam but my visitors' links are spam?

Oh, I just see that I cannot write my complete URL because this URL is blocked! So I have to write "realgems.org" instead of the complete address. It's a shame.

Kind regards, Redberyl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redberyl (talk • contribs) 14:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simple - I have no connection to those mineral websites. I simply use them to find technical mineral info and document my editing of mineral articles. I viewed your website as non-commercial and felt it had some quality images, but the data was available elsewhere. Your problem was in trying to promote your own work, that is a distinct no-no on Wikipedia for a very good reason. Too bad that the blacklisting was the result, but tough cookies. Am I going to work to change that? I see no reason to now. And that Dr. bit above is not appropriate as I'm not one, had to "drop out" and feed the kids. Vsmith (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if you really want to help, why not upload some of those great images to Wikipedia and add content to gem and mineral article stubs - join in the fun as a real Wiki-volunteer. Vsmith (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

14:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear VSmith, thanks for your quick reply - in contrary to the rest of Wiki admins. My international visitors also have no connection to my website but their additions (links) were deleted. Do you know exactly that all these people don't use my infos also, for editing mineral articles? Surely not. Thanks for having a look on my site. You are right: My project is mainly aimed on photos. To create such a collection seem to be helpful not only for collectors but also for U.S. scholars, according to my web usage statistics. Mineral data is also available elsewhere, not only on your favorite sites. Please tell me another website where you can see and compare more varieties of colors of gems and their minerals.

I really did not intend to promote my own work. The more visitors, the more I have to pay for traffic volume... I just thought that my efforts to compile all this stuff would be worth being linked on Wikipedia to help people finding a lot of gems varieties. That is (at least in my opinion) exactly the aim of Wikipedia: being a helpful resource for informations. I would have created articles but what would Wiki admins have said if I would have flooded Wikipedia with all these photos?

Your final sentence I don't understand, re "feeding kids". I hope you meant something positive, according to the Wiki ethics.

If I would start helping Wikipedia by editing etc., would Wikipedia re-install my links?

Kind regards, and happy 2009, Redberyl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redberyl (talk • contribs) 15:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say if you become a serious Wiki-contributor by adding valid content over time I would consider working to de-blacklist your site - not sure what that would involve though. Feed the kids simply meant I had a family to provide for and had to get a job to pay the bills instead of finishing a phd program. Vsmith (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VSmith, Now I understand what you meant re "kids". My English isn't the best, it's old school English from the late 60ies. My dad had a slightly similar prob after the war, re finishing high school. He always suffered from that f... time.

Yes, I would like becoming a contributor but at first Wiki has to re-install all links and "whitelist" my URL. Even you seem to think that my site is not the worst. A lot of people worldwide would praise you, having saved their links / input.

Best, Redberyl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redberyl (talk • contribs) 15:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No - first Wiki has to re-install all links and "whitelist" my URL, it doesn't work that way. If you want to contribute, then do so with no conditions. Build a reputation as a valid Wikipedian - then we'll discuss weblinks. Vsmith (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no because you (as an admin) have probably added more links to certain websites than any other of my international visitors. Regarding the Wiki spam politics you would have been regarded as a real spammer.

Let's have a look on "Red Beryl", "Painite", "Demantoid" or e.g. "Gahnite". What was your impacting input except from adding links? My visitors did exactly the same as you did but were put into the Wiki prison, together with me.

I don't need Wikipedia but Wikipedia should be happy about additional links to that rare (as you said) photo collection on my website. Therefore I repeat that Wikipedia (which is responsible for all deletions) has to "whitelist" my URL before I will become a true supporter and editor (mainly in de.wikipedia of course).

If that does not happen, and I will not be officially informed (email) about a positive solution, Wikipedia (at least some of its admins) is acting against its own dedication. I will not show this entry on my website until I get a positive response from you or another responsable admin.

When you sit back and relax, dear Vsmith, you will see that all this discussion is unnecessary. I would assist Wikipedia as a true supporter, you should release my URL from your "prison".

Happy New Year to you, Redberyl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redberyl (talk • contribs) 16:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry 'bout that, check [2] for my only addition to gahnite back in 2005 in which I basically doubled the size of the article and added three references to support my additions. Sourced content is what it's about. You seem to have a basic misunderstanding about how Wikipedia works and given your attacks on me in that reply and the demands you insist on I presume you don't want the support I offered - offer withdrawn and conversation over. Good day, Vsmith (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vsmith, I'm very sorry having overseen your duplication of that short text. Today you might have added four references, including a link to my site, to support your additions because it's not unimportant for many of your Wiki visitors to see different varieties of gahnite. Re "sourced content is what it's about": Many interested people don't want to read technical data but wanna see photos too.

I may have a "basic misunderstanding" re Wiki's intentions. I always thought that Wiki is an international encyclopedia, serving the world with texts and pics.

If I may have attacked you, I am very sorry. That was really NOT in my mind. Nevertheless if you feel being attacked, I am no Vietcong but a simple German (oh God) Wiki user.

"...I presume you don't want the support I offered..." - Well, I want especially your kind support, in the name of Wiki's basic intentions. I never expected that an admin withdraws his help just because he feels not so good with this delicate matter (for which you are not responsible after all).

"...and conversation over..." Is that democratic?

Best regards, Redberyl 84.128.252.99 (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global cooling

Thanks for catching that. I guess I missed that part too. --Uncle Milty (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More eyes are better - when multiple vandals/povers hit. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fly ash

Your removal of my reference and green product reference shows a lack of knowledge of the UK construction industry. I am in no way connected with the company that makes Thermalite but the product and its name are synonimous with the generic item. A little like the UK use of the term Hoover to describe a vacuum cleaner. The manufacturers website page was factual in respect of the Wikipedia entry and thus was appropriate. Your edit made the article yet more US centric which has already been noted by someone else as a problem. I will find some other references when I have time but otherwise will revert to my version if something more constructive cannot be worked out.--Wickifrank (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry 'bout that - you are encouraged to find a non-commercial reference and replace the content. Please read WP:RS, our purpose is not to promote any commercial interest - so don't simply revert the promotional bit back in. Vsmith (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Realgems.org

Vsmith, my website realgems.org is non-commercial too. I created that site just for informing people about gems and minerals. I really cannot understand why you don't give me the chance to remove my own links so that, after such action, my photos and infos can be seen again. Apart from personal probs, isn't it worth having a thought about this case? Best, Mike Redberyl (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had a thought - your attitude got in the way - I'm done with it, take it up with the folks at WP:COIN and meantime ~~read~~ study WP:SPAM, WP:EL, WP:NOT and WP:WPSPAM. Bye, Vsmith (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vietnam Smith ;-) thanks to your helpful addition (s.a.) I just put my inquiry on WP:COIN. If you like please read that message. Then you might think different about my request. Meanwhile I'm sorry if I have hurt you somehow. I was a bit too engaged and disappointed about the blockade. That's it, kind regards and a happy 2009, Mike Redberyl (talk) 09:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented at WP:COIN [3]. I think it's more to the point that, even after COI/spam issues are dealt with, I don't think it's up to the standard required by WP:EL. As a mineralogical site, it adds nothing to what mindat.org offers in massively more detail. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm in agreement with you. Vsmith (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for help

Thanks for your help with Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Erandika34, I just wanted to apologize for my clumsy reporting of the matter, it's the first time I've made a sockpuppet report, but I see you figured it out what I was trying to say. Regards, Chuckiesdad (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I probably didn't "handle it right" or whatever - just blocked the spammer. If he/she returns as yet another sock the next step would be to blacklist the website. Vsmith (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, user is back as User:Niluka81, I just reverted the same change to Jewellery that he/she made under the previous 2 usernames. I'll report as sockpuppet, what's the process for blacklisting that spam website? Chuckiesdad (talk) 03:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, will keep an eye on that one. Blacklisting - never filed one, anyway here's the links: Wikipedia:Spam blacklist and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Take a look, but may be premature to request just yet. You're welcome to list there, but looks like those involved with it might want more activity. Continued sockpuppetry may do it. Vsmith (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it does look too soon, maybe user will take the hint. Regards, Chuckiesdad (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Movement Of Turqoise

I did not mean to move it, as I was trying to edit a spelling error.--DJackD (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal Account

The account with these contributions, Bandana Jones, has been committing rampant vandalism in a way that I think they should just be blocked and that warnings won't be useful. Admin, please? Awickert (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, all edits happened so quickly that it could even be a malicious bot. Awickert (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links and references being removed.

Why are external links and references being removed from gemstone and alexandrite? Khazargems, though a commercial site, it also has valid information regarding gems. We request you to stop deleting the links. We know of the standards of wikipedia and so we never give links into any commercial page but only to pages having valid information.
Earnestbirdy (talk) 06:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? The wording above suggests a connection to the site involved. Wiki is not here to promote our stuff, please read WP:COI. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two accounts 'eruditebapu' and 'earnestbirdy' and we have put information on an external site. Yes, it is a commercial site but the pages which have information do not advertise or sell anything. Inspite of it our links are deleted. We request you to visit the pages and see for yourself. Infact sites like multicour.com created alexandrite.com as a pure information site. They got the links in wiki and then added a section to browse the multicolour inventory. If one wants to purchase, then he/she has to go to multicolour. They also own alexandrite.com which is a one page site with ads for multicolor and alexandrite.net. But their links aren't deleted and also there's no necessity unless they provide information to the users. You may see it as a marketing strategy, but we aren't violating the wikipedia norms. And of course we are not acting smart. We are new to wikipedia editing and we must be making mistakes.

P.S.->And now, we cannot even add to information on wikipedia from that site(khazargems) as it would be a copyright issue.

Please enlighten us.Eruditebapu (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We request you to visit the pages and see for yourself.

I just did. A good reason not to link is the poor quality of information there. For instance, Alexandrite Formation; "the deepest layer is the core –which is almost entirely composed of molten rock or lava". FYI, the Earth's core is generally considered to be made of nickel-iron, and the inner core is solid Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked also, and was negatively impressed - full of errors and poor information. Seem just an excuse to draw attention or promote the commercial sales site.. If those two accounts continue to add spam links they will be blocked. Vsmith (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to element links

Hi Vsmith,

I appreciate the guidelines you sent through on editing the external links section. Although the changes appear superficial my motives are to increase the accessibility of information for each element by referring through to the periodic videos site. It's a well produced, informative and non commercial effort being run by the University of Nottingham in the UK.

My intention was to update all elements (I notice some are semi protected), however to enter into a discussion for all element pages would take a disproportionate amount of time to the change being made. What's your advice?

Vikingforties (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, any time I see an editor adding an external link to several different pages the spam alarm goes off. Also the youtube link therein was problematic. Do you have a connection to the videos or website (see WP:COI)? I would say rather than taking it to each element page that you might try asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements for advice. Vsmith (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page Move

Hello Vsmith, I didn't mean to move the page Turqouise to Turquenite-I'm ten.--DJackD (talk) 10:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page Redirect

You redirected the page at Carbon_air_capture without even discussing this move first. And then, you redirected visitors to a page that is proposed to be split up! How about discussing things first? --Sam.carana (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps 'twas a bit hasty... Seemed the article was a bit promotional for the U. of Calgary prof. - basically sourced to his websites and the Discovery channel show. It seemed that the subject could and should be included in the CCS page under Air capture proposals section as the concept is discussed in the lead. The CCS page needs work, but I don't see any recent discussion regarding splitting that article. Kieth's tower concept could be briefly summarized in the CCS article - w/out the long quotes. Sorry 'bout that, Vsmith (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belief

Excellent distinction here. Scientists don't tell us about their beliefs, do they? Rather, they propose explanations. The difference is that everyone is entitled to their beliefs and opinions, but a proposed explanation can and should be tested. Am I getting you right?

By the way, it's been a long time, hasn't it? I've mostly been away these past 3 years. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time flies when you're havin' fun!

Yes, that word - belief, is a bit problematic. We're all products of our upbringing and subject to viewing the world through fuzzy glasses at times (fuzzed by our often unconcious beliefs and prejudices). Back in the 60s & 70s when I began studying science, the phrase "multiple working hypotheses" was "in" as a means to avoid becomming too attached to any one explanation - and being blinded by built in bias or belief. Don't see much mention of that lately. It's an old concept dating at least to the late 1800s and geologist Thomas Chrowder Chamberlin.

I teach physical sciences to high schoolers in the "Bible belt" and (in part for self preservation) try to avoid the word "belief". Whe asked if I "believe in evolution" (usually a very loaded question) I reply that I accept the evidence I've seen - but that "believe in" is not a scientific concept.

Rattled on enuff for now, Vsmith (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt City, Missouri

Why is the official web site of the Matt City Council not a "reliable source"? MattCityMo (talk) 03:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Cause anyone can create a geocities webpage and say anything... Better question, why would you think it reliable? Vsmith (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a resident of Matt City... that's the main reason I find it reliable. I believe I know what the name of my town is. MattCityMo (talk) 04:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really what I asked ... but, if I were to take a drive to Viburnum and see the city limits sign had changed - or whatever (was last there about 18 months ago), then I would personaly say: OK - it is. However, I still couldn't post that on Wiki because it would fall under original research. Now - an official Missouri government website or document verifying the change, or a USPS document regarding zip code reassignment, or a census bureau document or official websites of those entities would work as usable references. Your or my say-so or some publish anything web server won't cut it. Vsmith (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a image to my user page

Hi Vsmith ! Happy New Year! I was just wondering how I could add another image or picture from another website to my user page. Could you please help me? Thanks!Neptunekh (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Air capture

I've reversed your merge, please can you leave as is - see discussion page

Surface Mining

Hi Vsmith. On the 13th of Jan you removed an external link I added to the Surface Mining wikipedia entry. I think this was a relevant link with good info, please check it out and give me some feedback on why it wasn't included. Salvevital (talk) 04:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The site contained little info, see WP:EL, and as you had added links on other articles to other pages on the same site (with limited info) it appeared to be WP:SPAM. Vsmith (talk) 11:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Halle Berry's Heritage

I wonder if this should be noted about Halle heritage: Her maternal grandmother was English. Also has other English (distantly related to the Baronets Beresford, Viscounts of Tyrone, Earls of Tyrone and Marquesses of Waterford, to Barons Decies and to Baron Beresford, and to the Marquess of Campo-Maior Count of Trancoso in Portugal), Irish, German and remote Dutch ancestry.. I got this info from here: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000932/bio Thanks! Neptunekh (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)`[reply]

Reliable source? Doubt it. I have no interest in celebrity articles - so I'd say, ask elsewhere. Vsmith (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"conspiracy theory" - Pentagon

Maybe google video isn't reliable source itself, but the evidence shown in those two DOCUMENTARY movies are hard proof, and the method of prooving the theory used in them is purely SCIENTIFICAL (especially concerning 911 in Plane Site) sensu stricto. I suggest you watch them first, and than eventually present your contr-arguments. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.12.91.242 (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not interested. Vsmith (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orang-utang

Thaks, I have replaces the block message with a welcome. Red face.... Rich Farmbrough, 09:32 20 January 2009 (UTC).

It do get crazy at times - confusion reigns. Vsmith (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal #209.184.253.253

Hi Vsmith, I saw vandalism on Permian, decided on a last warning, then checked his other contribs and found he did more vandalism this month. So thanks for blocking (didn't know you were an admin), I totally agree. There's one thing... about this particular edit. At least one good user will not be able to contribute anonymously any longer. That's sad. Woodwalker (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - the use of schoolblock does get a few good editors while cutting down on the bored schoolkid playing. That one user mentioned seems to have had a username back in 05, but hasn't been using it - maybe this will prompt a revival of that username. I have had some of my students edit and even start articles back when ips could do that. Now I encourage those interested to get a username. Keep up the good work, Vsmith (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to encourage students to edit Wikipedia. I think it is a good way to study and learn about a subject thoroughly. Nevertheless I support schoolblocks, seems the only option in most cases. Thanks again and take care, Woodwalker (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tsavorite page

Hello Vsmith,

I'm not really familiar with Wikipedia and this is the first time I leave a message to anyone. Hopefully this will get to you and hopefully I'll know where to find your answer... I think Wikipedia is great but sometimes a little bit difficult to understand. It took me a while to realize that you were blocking my contributions to the tsavorite page.

It seems that you are editing my contributions as you are considering them as spam. Am I correct? If so, I do tend to disagree (obviously).

Gems are mainly mined in places where people don't go very often. Gemstones are more often seen as a finished product, on a piece of jewelry or sometimes unmounted, but cut. In my opinion, seeing videos or pictures of gem extractions (the source), is not only rare but also very interesting. I've been on a few gemstone forums and have had the opportunity to chat to people about mining. I can guarantee you that it sets a spark in people's eye; similar to a gold rush. You may say that the point of Wikipedia is simply educational. Are these pictures and videos not?

I would be glad to discuss this with you and to view your opinion.

Regards,

Eric —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.57.35.60 (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SPAM and WP:EL. The weblink you provided was to a commercial site promoting their product. Wikipedia is not here for advertizing. Further, if you have a connection to the website or business involved, please read WP:COI. Vsmith (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking Content from Other Sites without References

I wrote several paragraphs on Sunrooms and Patio Rooms for my website *Califpedia.com, you are using my content, but you are deleting the proper reference. So, if you want to erase the reference then you must also erase all of the copied content from your wikipedia page and that will be fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Next Doctor (talk • contribs) 00:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have removed the copyvio contested material. Please don't add copyrighted material to Wikipedia articles in the future. Vsmith (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted appropriate contect

Dear Vsmith,

You sent me a meesage saying "don't advertise your own links", however if you look at the pages "First moment of area", "Second moment of area" and "Vibration" BEFORE i edited them, you will notice my web site was already listed under "External Links". The reason why I updated these links is because I moved my web site from an unreliable free server: "http://mywebsite.bigpond.com/npajkic" to a web site I bought: "www.engineeringaerospace.com". All I did was simply update the link and not advertise my own material. It was there to begin with.

As for other pages, I added material which is relevant to the subject. I see absolutely no harm in doing this, but if you feel that's advertising, that's fine - you can remove these links. All I'm asking for is that you leave the ones that were there to begin with.

Regards, Nebojsa Pajkic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebojsapajkic (talk • contribs) 03:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry 'bout that. It's quite simple: We don't promote our own stuff. The mywebsite.bigpond.com links were added by someone(?) and as that address is rather blatantly non-reliably a publish anything site they should have been removed previously. Vsmith (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the policy of the web site, than OK I won't argue. But what happens if a registered user decides to add my web site to those pages? Will it be removed then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebojsapajkic (talk • contribs) 05:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends - you got a buddy with an account :-) Vsmith (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read this vsmith, I posted it on another page but I'm not sure if you've read it. I am waiting for the final reply, but I think you should still read it:

My web site was listed under "External links" on 3 pages previously: "First moment of area" (http://mywebsite.bigpond.com/npajkic/solid_mechanics/first_moment_of_area/index.html), "Second moment of area" (http://mywebsite.bigpond.com/npajkic/solid_mechanics/second_moment_of_area/index.html) and "Vibrations" (http://mywebsite.bigpond.com/npajkic/vibration/undamped_free/index.html & http://mywebsite.bigpond.com/npajkic/vibration/viscously_damped_free/index.html). I must point out that I NEVER POSTED MY WEB SITE ON WIKIPEDIA, I guess someone else must have. In any case, I bought a new domain name (http://www.engineeringaerospace.com) a couple of days ago and decided simply to update the links from the old addresses to the new ones. Nothing more nothing less. However the editor (Vsmith) decided the content was spam and removed the links altogether.

If you have a look on the pages in questions, they are EQUAL if not even BETTER than the content provided on Wikipedia. I stand by this because I am a professional aerospace engineer who knows what he's talking about. Therefore there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for anyone to remove the links which were posted on Wikipedia (by SOMEONE ELSE!) just because I, the publisher of the site, decided to update the links from non-working versions to the working ones.

Please consider this request for inclusion seriously. I have received praise in past for my web site and I believe that it is in public's best interest that they remain on the web sites they were ALREADY LISTED ON.

Regards, Nebojsa Pajkic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebojsapajkic (talk • contribs) 06:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

(copied from...?) Nice site, I agree that it is unfair to characterise it as spam, there is no hint of advertising in it. However, it is self-published and so has a reliability issue. Read our external links guideline especially the What should be linked section. The question to be answered here is what is your site adding that could not be directly written into the Wikipedia article? If you think there is a case, take it up on the talk page of the article. SpinningSpark 14:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Spark, thank you for your reply and taking time to see my web site. I thought about what my web site has to offer that is not already on the Wikipedia page and I have come up with a number of things: "Irregular Boundaries" section, "Composite Shapes" section, problems and worked solutions which anyone can follow (and this is really important because most students learn by following examples) and a lot more detailed graphics. However, above all stands the fact that my material was written by a knowledgeable scholar who holds legitimacy of his credentials rather than an anonymous contributor of Wikipedia.

Furthermore I would like to point out that I learned yesterday that another person attempted to post a link to the same web site (who is not affiliated with me, but subscribed to my newsletter where I raised this issue), and her contribution was also rejected and deleted. I have not heard from here what was the reason she received. So how is this justified by vsmith?

Thank you, Nebojsa 08:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebojsapajkic (talk • contribs)

Furthermore vsmith, you should have already realised that if I am willing to pay for hosting for a personal non-profit web site out of my own pocket, and get NOTHING in return, I have absolutely no interest to advertise myself. What will I gain? And do you really think I would waste a friend's time to include a link to my non-profit web site on Wikipedia??? You sound delusional! The only reason why I'm continuing this discussion with you is because I believe you are screening educational material that is beneficial to the general public, and as far as I understand, that is the aim of Wikipedia - to provide credible information to Internet users. Bottom line - you are not carrying out your responsibility as an editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebojsapajkic (talk • contribs) 08:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NPA. It would be nice to note from where SpinningSpark's comment was copied.

If you are really interested in "helping" Wikipedia and its readers, then add reliably sourced content to the articles. That's the way Wikipedia works. And please note, your own personally hosted website is not a reliable source. Vsmith (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comment made by SpinningSpark is located at "Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests

Now as for your "reliable sources" comment, first of all, the fact that I am an accredited, professional engineer is all the reliability someone like you should accept. I don't see you credentials anywhere. While you sit at your computer day and night playing God on Wikipedia, I put my knowledge into practice and get paid for it. And if you're going to argue on that basis, than the external link which is already posted on "First moment of area" wikipedia page (http://www.iaengr.org/forum/messages//468.html) is LESS realiable than my web site because it is a forum where EVRYONE and ANYONE can post their comments. So if you go by your reliability defense, that site has no more right to be there than mine does.

Nebojsa 14:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebojsapajkic (talk • contribs)

And another thing vsmith, I realised that you're continuing this argument for one obvious reason. The elementary material I published on my web site which any engineering freshman should be able to understand is clearly beyond the scope of your comprehension if you believe what you're saying. If you had the slightest idea about the content I authored, you would see that it's not only set logically (and backed by mathematical proofs!), but it's 100% correct. You probably never even made an effort to look at it. For example, the page you immediately deleted: http://www.engineeringaerospace.com/vibration/undamped_free/index.shtml contains clearly defined formulae, legitimate sources of reference and clear solutions to the problems. If you understood it, you would agree that it's reliable. If you didn't, you'd refuse it.

Nebojsa 14:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Science of Global Warming Page

Why did you delete my addition of dissenting scientific opinion? There are a lot of scientists who disagree with man-made global warming, or even that the earth is warming. My addition gave some balance to the page. Why was this deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehermann2223 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you're a scientist. Can you not handle divergent scientific opinion? As far as I can tell, there is much dissenting opinion on global warming out there. Readers deserve to know that there are alternate theories and opinions. The quotes that I put up there are recently published quotes from a mainstream, scientific conference. Why should they not be posted? Or is global warming less about science and more a sort of religion--a faith that can't be questioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehermann2223 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:UNDUE. Vsmith (talk) 04:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but you completely deleted the alternate viewpoint. It would be incorrect to say that nobody or almost nobody questions man-made global warming when there are hundeds of prominent scientists--not to mention tons of mainstream politicians--who are on record arguing against these theories. Man-made global warming is a THEORY at this point. Noone knows the truth yet, and there are MANY people who question it. This is not analgous to the argument that the world is flat--or even the anti-evolution argument. Lots of respectable, non-ideological people disagree with it. In the interest of intelletual balance, I respectfully request that you repost my basic changes. If you think there are two many quotes, and thus the balance of opinion, is misrepresented, I'll understand if you want to take some of those off.

Sincerely, Eric Hermann —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehermann2223 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take your concerns to the talk page of the article. But be advised, I think this has been discussed at length previously and editors there may be less than overjoyed at hearing it again. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 04:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric: 2 things.

Absolutely no one who can read a graph debates that there is a relatively rapid trend of increasing global temperatures. They are, we measure it. It's just one of those things.
Opinions of scientists have little value. Only their data and conclusions are worthwhile. Although, perhaps that isn't relevant, as the article was about "scientific opinion". But scientific opinion and opinions of scientists are two different things: scientific opinion is often given by organizations of scientists, who are only convinced in unison by data, and if you would like to add to opinions of dissenting organizations, please feel welcome to do so.

Awickert (talk) 05:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, I'm not a scientist. Nor do pretend to know all that much about the issue. What I object to is the characterization of a scientific consensus.

First, here is an article about a report done by Lou Dobbs (granted, not a heavyweight source) in which two scientists challenged not only anthropogenic warming, but the idea of warming itself: http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2009/20090114065138.aspx

Apparently the data is not so simple to read, and it largely depends on which data sets are being used. As the above article suggests, the data also shows patterns of cooling in recent years.

No, the data show that it is warming, your dissenting articles questions why. I can do the calculation for you; by changing radiation from the sun, sunspot cycles will only change temperature on the order of 0.05 degrees C. Awickert (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second, here is a scientific organization (with a prominent board of contributors) that questions many of the basic orthodoxy over global warming: http://icecap.us/index.php

Third, here is the link to a recent conference that questions global warming orthdoxy. It is sponsored by a variety of scientific organizations: http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/sponsorships.html

I think it's great that there are dissenting organizations. I think that they should hold themselves to a high level of science to keep the research going. But I would warn you, in anything you read (not just this), to especially question every statistic whose basis isn't stated, and to always seek out the counterargument to every fact that you read from a biased source (or any source). Be a true skeptic! Awickert (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the data is not clear and there is much dissenting opinion. If I have time (and I'm not sure if I will), I will collate the information and sources and post the information on the Wiki page. I assume that if this is done accurately--and with legitimate scientific organizations as sources--that you will not have any objections.

Of course not, as long as there are peer-reviewed journal articles that are appropriately cited, and that they are not just cherry-picked scenarios. And smile, I'm just as unforgiving to alarmists. Awickert (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best, Eric Hermann —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehermann2223 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm done abusing Vsmith's talk page. Sorry, Vsmith. Awickert (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I went bed and missed all this - Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archives