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

Template:Multicol-break

• Archive7 11/30/2006 - 1/31/07
• 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 -

Template:Multicol-end

Hi

Thankyou for fixing up Geology of Tasmania and Geology of Andorra. I have recently made some other regional geology pages: Lachlan Orogen Narooma Terrane Geology of Jersey Geology of Guernsey Geology of Alderney that you may find need to improve! Hopefully I will get an article to Good Article status one day! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help - and will take a look at the others. Keep up the good work, Vsmith (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was editing the talk page and pulled a quote off of the article page, and got the two mixed up, and serendipitously thought that I forgot to hit "save" on the talk page, when in fact I started editing the article page (because I thought I had to click "edit this section" in order to properly copy/paste to the talk page, the paragraph that I was trying to emphasize. 76.4.128.40 (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a crazy story, I hope you will review my two edits and believe that I meant to put that edit into the talk page. (which I will do shortly since it was my original intention) I didn't think it would let me save a protected page from an IP#. Anyways, I apologize, I'm not trying to justify it, I goofed and I'm sorry.76.4.128.40 (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem and that's sorta what I had figured out. Note the article protection had expired so I removed the protection tag. Vsmith (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vsmith! I made a small article about mineral called Hodgkinsonite. Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hodgkinsonite Could you edit please? Thanks! Neptunekh (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you tube and google video meet criteria 8 of WP:ELNO? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - see the WP:YOUTUBE section of ELNO and note the conditions. Also be leery of linking to content that may be in violation of copyright. Vsmith (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, India fashion (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC) had added a brief History Paragraph in Costume Jeelry section after taking reference from another website whose link I had added in External Links. Although the external link was removed as you said that the website was selling jewellery, but the details added in the History section were kept in the article. Will it be appropiate to remove the website link but keep its article reference details in the article.[reply]

Please read reliable sources. A commercial website selling a product is not a good source - plus we don't want to promote one commercial site. If you have a connection to the website, that would also be a violation of conflict of interest. I'd suggest finding a non-commercial source for a reference - how about using a book? I note from your user contributions, that you added a link to the same commercial site to Patiala salwar last spring. Please read WP:SPAM. Vsmith (talk) 12:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

India fashion (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC) Thank you for your advice but you have still not answered my question ? Its also quite suprising that You have removed all the external links to even the other articles I had written after the above question I had put. Will it be appropiate to remove an external website link but keep its article reference details in the article. I hope their are no copyright issues involved as its quite a serious issue since you are putting someoneelse content on the wikipedia and not even given them the credit. If you do not approve of an external link why put its articles and details on the wikipedia. It will be Fair to remove even the article and its details refered from the external website.[reply]

Wikipedia is not copyrighted. If you copied non-free content from your website into a Wikipedia article - then I would suggest that it be removed. We write content based on reliable sources. A commercial website that you may be affiliated with is not a reliable source. Once you add content to Wikipedia that content is part of Wikipedia and we as editors have no claim to it. And please note that I did not put the content in the article - just removed a commercial spam link. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies. Vsmith (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

India fashion (talk) 10:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC) , I will request you not to come to use your imagination and come to your own conclusions. Nowwehere above I have mentioned that I am affliated to the above websites and they are owned by me. Yes, before adding the article I did make sure that all the information is reliable and after that I had emailed the website owners if I could add thier content on wikipedia and give their reference. They agreed on the condition that I can take their information if credit is given to them. Now that the credit has been removed I will request you to remove or let me remove even the content added from the websites. As per your above statement that once the content is added to wikipedia it becomes part of wikipedia I will request you to go through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) which governs all the information on the internet and even wikipedia has to follow their guidelines.. It is my duty to inform you that since you have removed the websites credit links from the articles then even the content and material added from these websites should be removed immediately.[reply]

India fashion (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC) , Its also highly Ironical that while you removed all the extenal links I had placed You added the links of other commercial websites. It clearly seems that your actions were vindictive just because I questioned your actions. Please Note: You have added commercial links and removed my links saying its commercial, Its shocking....For your reference I am sending the details below. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanae_Mori - has the follwing links added by you www.fashionwindows.com (They charge for monthly & annual subscription) and www.Infomat.com (They are a b2b marketplace with annual charges). Again in the next Article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/André_Courrèges - It has the following link www.vam.ac.uk which has an online shop . I do not know what to say about the above. How can you give guidelines to others when you do not follow it yourself or maybe you were just in a hurry to replace the links I had added. I am sorry to say that as an administrator of wikipedia your actions should be more responsible.[reply]

The links I removed from Costume jewelry and Patiala salwar were external links and not in a reference section. Please read WP:EL - we don't promote commercial websites via external links. Now in the case of Hanae Mori, I replaced a reference that contained only limited information on a non-reliable commercial site. I replaced that reference with two biographical sources which contained far more information and appeared to be less commercially oriented and more reliable.

If you copied any content from your favorite website which may be deemed as a WP:COPYVIO, then please remove said copied material with an edit summary indicating that you are removing a potential copyright violation. Vsmith (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.214.138 (talk) 10:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death Valley National Park has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Longhair\^talk 23:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please visit my talk page. Would like some help.

VSmith: I noticed that you recently undid my edit on the Bioplastics article, on which I added two links to new websites I launched containing informational pages related to bioplastics. I completely understand that Wikipedia is not a place for commercial advertising; however, I thought that those two sites, since their purpose is to provide informational articles and news about the topic of the article, would qualify as references rather than commercial spam. Is the mere fact that the sites serve ads the reason they qualify as spam? Or is there some other criterion that I am missing?

Sorry for my ignorance, and I appreciate your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.101.18 (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:EL and, since you state they are your websites: WP:COI. Vsmith (talk) 02:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those links. I appreciate your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.101.18 (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should I have put the quote under zoology, or do we only allow quotes in wikiquote? DarkLordofSith (talk) 03:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zoology would have been better perhaps. However, I don't see that quote as having enough significance for use there either, especially not at the top. Wikiquote qould be the best place for it - maybe it's already there? Vsmith (talk) 03:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi its suzy, i know this sounds bad but i forgot what the mole ratio is, is it a/b or b/a. --- thanks Mr. Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.151.65.68 (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail, Vsmith (talk) 03:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if black lite would be good for them. Like blue lite is good for them? Will fish,salamanders,frogs be any harm to them as well? Sinserly WOLF PUP

well I need A pump for my tank? Sinserly Wolf PUP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.51.190 (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking the wrong person, I know little about the subject. Sorry 'bout that, Vsmith (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reverting some obvious vandalism to Biosphere, I may not have reverted enough. You were the editor before Jonmarbury who has been blocked. I'm uncomfortable doing any more to the article other than pointing out the problem. --Sultec (talk) 04:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks, Vsmith (talk) 12:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ooo, sorry about that. I had assumed that rock types were the "mineraloids" mentioned in the stub template. Will go back over my work so far. Fleebo (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK - better than simply geology stub. I've caught a few... and added a couple stubs to my watchlist in the process. Onward... Vsmith (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Ludwigs2 is requesting an unblock. I know he has a history of these problems, but he has pledged to stop using Twinkle to undo others, and has promised to reform and check his temper. Perhaps we can lift his block, or atleast shorten it from a week to something shorter, given that he is apologetic. I'll leave it up to you how to handle this, since you issued the original block... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a close look at his block log, promises resulted in a block lift before - so I'm a bit skeptical of that. As for twinkle, I know nothing of how it works or what the problem may have been. However, he was aware of a problem and had previously apologized for marking changes as minor. The incivil edit summary here in which he castigates a user for marking a truly minor comma removal as a minor edit while marking his revert as minor was totally uncalled for. See User_talk:ElKevbo#Quackwatch. He was well aware of the past editing problems on quackwatch and yet chose to edit war there. Now, if admin consensus is to shorten or lift the block - then ok, but I don't feel that would send the right message here. Vsmith (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Ludwigs2 would be willing to make assurances, in return for having the block lifted. I think it would be reasonable to downgrade the block if he promises to stay civil, and to avoid the Quackwatch article for awhile. Or what assurances would you like to see from him? --Elonka 22:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I've commented on arbcom sanctions, at WP:ANI#Quackwatch. It might be useful and also give ideas how and when they are most effective.

Best,

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have stated that I threatened to edit war in this diff. My intention was to point out that the justification which ScienceApologist claimed was in fact a false one. Further, his issue had not been discussed nor was there any agreement in favor of his actions. As such, I reverted his edit. My comment states this and only this. I am unclear how you have interpretted my statement as a declaration of edit war. Please explain. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, I disagree that it should be removed and will revert accordingly. That sounds to me like a threat to edit war. No mention there of only once. If I misread your intent - sorry 'bout that. On a battleground article such as quackwatch choose your wording carefully. And as pointed out later, Arthur Rubin had implied that it should be removed. Now, as it stands you have no cause for worry - unless you revert war, then 0rr kicks in. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I truly only meant that I will revert once accordingly. I felt that the "once" was implied. There is no mention of again and again. I really do sincerely appreciate the apology, but I would also ask that you please rescind the warning officially since it was based on a misreading of my true intent. Further, please note that Artur Rubin agreed to reverting to the last stable version (one which includes the Hufford review) after he implied that he was in favor of removing it. [1] Again, I thank you for your continued attention here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, do nothing that can be interpreted as edit warring and no problem. I feel that all the regulars on that page should be warned also. My thoughts are that the page should be on a 1rr (with the same definition of revert as on WP: 3rr) and enforced rigedly. The alternative will likely be full protection at some point. Vsmith (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. As it is no problem, would you mind removing or amending the entry at Talk:Quackwatch#Admin_log to reflect that this warning was given to me in error/misunderstanding. Otherwise, I know when our conversation here is long forgotten, editors will point the listing and claim that I did something wrong. Also, if you wouldn't mind stating something to that effect (that the warning given was based on a misunderstanding) at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Quackwatch. Then, if you'd like to issue a warning to everyone, then feel free to do so. I just feel that I was improperly singled out and that it will be used to my detriment in the future if you don't clear the air now. I really appreciate it and thanks again for your help here! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I expected, a user is already continuing to claim that my intent was to edit war [2] even though I have stated quite clearly that wasn't my intent but rather based on a misinterpretation of what I had written. I would really appreciate if you could swing by and clear the air. Thanks again, Vsmith. :-) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I said "if I misunderstood your intent..." Perhaps I did, however the implied threat to edit war was there and was quite clear in its stated meaning. My apology was for not being able to read your mind and find the unexpressed intent. As I stated previously, the warning stands and as long as you don't edit war - nothing happens. Your continued bickering with other editors along with calling them liars as such remains problematic. If an editor makes comments which lead to to an incivil response from you, that editor "wins". Ignore such potential baiting and concentrate on article content. I feel all of the regular "warriors" on the quackwatch page should be directly notified or warned of the new 1rr restrictions to be certain they are aware of them. Then any edit warring should receive quick and increasingly lengthy blocks. Now, stop bickering with other users and concentrate on article improvement. Vsmith (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vsmith, how is that I implied edit war. You are clearly inferring this from the text. I am telling you that my intent was to "revert once accordingly"; however, you are reading into my comment to mean "revert over and over again accordingly". Would you not agree that it is an assumption of bad faith to continue to believe that was my intent even after I have told you what my intent was? I accepted your conditional apology because the condition applied. You did in fact misunderstand my intent and thus I accepted your apology. If you are taking back that apology, I really don't know what to say other than I apologize for misunderstanding your intent. Regardless, your warning to me is only justified through the assumption of bad faith. As such, I am asking you nicely to please rescind such a warning, and instead, if you wish, extend an equal warning to all of the regulars. But singling me out on the basis of bad faith is - IMHO - not behavior becoming of a good Wikipedian. So I am asking you nicely once again, please go to the ANI board and state that your warning to me was based on a misinterpretation. That's all. I think that is an extremely reasonable request given the situation. I would greatly appreciate it. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that all the regulars on that page should be warned also. My thoughts are that the page should be on a 1rr (with the same definition of revert as on WP: 3rr) and enforced rigedly. The alternative will likely be full protection at some point. Comment copied from above for continuity with new section. Vsmith (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with 1RR. How about we say for 30 days, and then check if anything needs renewal? If you'd like to go ahead and announce a 1RR on the page, that'd be fine with me. Or, I can file the paperwork, either way's good.  :) --Elonka 01:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a go. I will support, but as noted above we need a clear definition of 1rr as there were several disgruntled comments about the earlier definition of 0rr on the page - in other words, use the standard revert definition from 3rr page. 30 days seems reasonable - with the option of extending if battling continues. The regulars should be notified and held on a tight leash. Newcomers to the page should be notified on their first revert. Vsmith (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest getting consensus from the Wikipedia community before making new conditions of editing. There is an admin noticeboard. QuackGuru 01:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom cases noted provide the backing. Vsmith (talk) 01:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You admins do realise that 3RR gives you the power that you are discussing - without involving or invoking anything new? Shot info (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Power goes to the head :-) Before using all that power it's nice to warn the battlers, no? Vsmith (talk) 01:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with you or any admin issuing warnings. I have a problem with any admin making up policy (0RR, 1RR) as they go along. 3RR gives you all the ammo you need. Problem however is always, other admins forever questioning each other, defending their particular editors, requesting reductions etc. etc. Shot info (talk) 03:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my experience with other discretionary sanctions, I'd recommend not warning every editor who happens to pass through the page, for a couple reasons: (1) Many editors regard such a notification as a warning, and react negatively, with a, "What did I do to deserve that?" Also, if word gets around that anyone who edits a certain page is going to get an ArbCom warning, more editors will just stay away. (2) Refraining from issuing formal ArbCom notifications keeps that admin card still in the hand, so it can be played later rather than too soon.

When I've been working on other ArbCom Enforcement articles, I would usually follow this sequence with a disruptive editor, and then (usually) only go from one step to the next if they continued disrupting:

1. Explain at the article talkpage, the expected behavior. This would be a general notice to everyone on the page, without singling out anyone in particular. Then if there were continued problems from an editor:
2. Post a "nudge" at the user's talkpage, advising them in a good faith way about the expected behavior. Then if they ignored that:
3. Post a "caution" at the user's talkpage, diffing behavior of concern, and telling them clearly what behavior needed to change, and that there might be further consequences if it didn't. Then if they ignored that:
4. Give them the formal ArbCom case notification (it's a big scary template, and tends to get people's attention). This would also have the dual wakeup call, in that if I had a "list of editors" on the article talkpage, that editor's name would move up on the article talkpage from the "Other editors" section to the "Editors notified of sanctions" section. Then if they continued to disrupt after that:
5. Diff the disruption to their talkpage, and tell them clearly to stop it, or there's a ban/block in their future. Then if they ignored that too:
6. On the next infraction, I'd issue a brief ban, tailored to whatever it was they'd been doing. This might be a ban on editing the article, a ban on the article and talkpage, a ban from editing a section of the article (like I once banned an editor from editing the article lead and related image caption), etc.
7. If they violated the ban, then I'd either expand the scope of the ban, or proceed to a block (rare, but it's happened, usually in the East Europe topic area) But the vast majority of editors will respect a ban. They may complain about it long and loud, but they won't violate it.

Note that discretionary sanctions are a bit of an art form, so the above steps are a general path, so I wouldn't necessarily follow each step rigidly. For example, when dealing with an obvious SPA, I might proceed to a ban very rapidly, whereas when dealing with an established editor, I might pause at one rung on the ladder and give them multiple warnings before proceeding to the next step. But this is tricky to do, as sometimes it's good to give an editor that extra chance, but on the other hand the other editors on that article may get upset that someone is getting special treatment.

Anyway, that's my advice on issuing warnings, based on hard-won experience in this arena. I'm not going to say that I do this stuff perfectly, but I figured I'd pass along lessons I've learned from doing this in the past. Take it or leave it, up to you.  :) --Elonka 04:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(update) I went ahead and posted the 1RR restriction, and tried to be careful about defining it. Let me know if you'd like any other tweaks. I also added a restriction about not deleting citations, since that's been a problem recently. --Elonka 05:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Been kinda busy off-wiki for a while, the real world demands attention sometimes. As I've stated previously, we differ in approach. I would more quickly slap a short block rather than all those warning steps. Some of our editors will milk it for all it's worth unless rapid consequenses hit them up side the head, we have experts here at system gaming. Back to the world for a bit now. Vsmith (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understood.  :) BTW, is it okay with you if I unblock Ludwigs2, as long as I promise to keep a close eye on his edits? I think the message has been sufficiently communicated to him, and that a block is no longer needed to protect the project. --Elonka 01:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you are overly? concerned about that block. Is there admin concensus for an unblock, or should I put it up on ANI for review. I seldom block an experienced user and never without cause and consideration of their block and edit history. If there exists a consensus among admins who are not involved with Ludwigs2, I would have no objection.

As an editor who seems to focus on controversial topics with a large percentage of edits in talkspace (only 13.5% in main namespace)[3], he needs to focus on civility and controlling his irritability index. Yes, he states that he is aware of and working on that, but a previous block was reduced based on his assurances of reform. Vsmith (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The block was reviewed by uninvolved admin Jayron32 (talk · contribs),[4] who suggested shortening it, and by uninvolved admin Tiptoety (talk · contribs), who agreed with the idea of reducing it to a ban.[5] Plus of course there's me. Would that meet your standards of consensus? --Elonka 17:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Vsmith (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, thanks for being willing to reconsider.  :) BTW, I'm about to try and get another "perennial conflict" article under control, Chiropractic. Would you be interested in helping out as an uninvolved admin? If so, just add your name to the list at Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log and add the article to your watchlist. If not, I understand. It's a real quagmire! --Elonka 14:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you review my revert on the Universe article? It is connected to your revert on CMB. Cheerio. --Friendly Neighbour (talk) 05:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with it. Someone wants to overemphasize the unknown - which is rather obvious anyway. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 10:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we make more explicit the difference between "the Universe", "the universe" and "the observable universe"? Something like the What does the word "universe" mean? section of this article does. Of course, we could start from a discussion on the talk page of the Universe article. --Friendly Neighbour (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't looked, but if the issues haven't been clarified, they should be. Vsmith (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You recently reverted Quantum mechanics to an earlier version. However, there were earlier changes that were not corrected. The page could better be reverted to my last edit. Unfortunately, I do not know how to do that.WMdeMuynck (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Done. Vsmith (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this doesn't violate WP:POINT, I don't know what does. Seeing as how he just recently came off a block from you for similar types of behavior, I'm not sure if he's getting it. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noted - warned. Vsmith (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we continue to allow him to be a part of this project. He defines disruptive. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"We"? I am aware that the two of you tend to clash a bit. What is it that you want here? A unilateral block on my part based on your clashes? Not. Have you tried dispute resolution ... user conduct rfc? ... Vsmith (talk) 03:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute. I'm an editor that creates articles, helps this place, and has several articles built to FA level. Ludwigs is disruptive. That's not clashing. That's one NPOV editor, me, having to put up with a POV editor, Ludwigs. Instead of indefinitely blocking him, we put up with it. Oh well, at least you're blocking him...better than nothing, though he hasn't learned. Just so you know, I appreciate your trying the mentor him. I'm just not sure it's very useful. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitated for a few moments before posting this, but... what the heck. I'd be more than happy to sit down with OrangeMarlin and ScienceApologist and try to work things out reasonably (in dispute resolution, or some more congenial context if available). The conversations that I've had with them to date, such as they are, have not worked out that way, but I do believe some sort of détente is possible. If they're willing, Vsmith, maybe you can find some experienced mediator from the other side of the wikipedia universe who's willing to take charge? --Ludwigs2 20:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The extra politeness is welcome. OM, be careful -- more at WP:CPUSH. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwigs has been blocked 5 times give or take. His civil POV pushing is obvious to all. He'll be blocked a sixth time. Of course, he and FT2 can try another secret hearing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid responses. :-) Vsmith (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm trying here... --Ludwigs2 23:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This arrogant edit is uncivil. You don't know more than anyone else on this article, you do not own the article, and to intimate otherwise should be enough to have you blocked again. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to do mediation on Wikipedia. It is too fraught, slow-moving, and has never worked in the dozen-or-so times I've been a party to it. I am happy to discuss matters over the phone as a conference call as long as on the call there is an arbitrator/administrator who can impose sanctions. Otherwise mediation is pointless. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. You've been there and done that, I haven't. Maybe Ludwigs2 will take you up on that ... Vsmith (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also refuse to do mediation per SA. I've seen what has happened to him, and I'm appalled by what others have done to silence his NPOV edits. In case I wasn't clear before. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hunh. re: SA'S comment: I'd prefer an online chat to a conference call (that allows for real-time conversation, while preserving a degree of anonymity). I might be amenable to that, if some reasonable system could be worked out for it. --Ludwigs2 19:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Online chat is a suitable substitute. It needs to be real-time so that the negotiations can actually occur. An administrator should at least be present (if not contributing). The major issue is simply that Ludwigs2 views fringe theories as being microcosmic. I see this view as being diametrically opposed to what a reliable, verifiable, and fully integrated encyclopedia should be doing. We cannot both be right about how to handle fringe theories. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'microcosmic', and I'm curious. can you explain? elsewhere, if preferred - I don't necessarily want to fill up Vsmith's talk page with this. --Ludwigs2 22:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Venn diagram pretty much sums it up. While I pick the universal as the context you pick the fringe theory circle. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

actually, I'd pick whichever circle is appropriate to the article in question. or are you suggesting that the universal context should be applied always and everywhere? --Ludwigs2 22:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. but that does seem more like a matter of faith and doctrine than a practical, useful position. at any rate, we should continue this discussion on your talk page or mine. let's leave this thread for discussing the details of setting up a chat. --Ludwigs2 23:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If by "faith and doctrine" you mean "policies and guidelines of Wikipedia". ScienceApologist (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, SA - by "faith and doctrine" I mean that you are approaching the topic as a matter of belief rather than a matter of science or reason. Placing everything in an absolute, universal context is a move that's only done as an act of faith, because only in faiths do you have a transcendental perspective which can be appealed to with this kind of authority. Scientific investigation and reason are both inherently contextual - before you can discuss the validity of any claim you have to first specify the contextual domain in which that claim is assumed to make sense. So, fringe theory article X is intended to discuss X: reasonably (the way a scientist or logician would approach it), this means that the article must first give an effective description of X, and second place X in context to the greater world by noting that X has no real scientific merits. by trying to take it out of its context into some universal perspective, you end up not writing an article about theory X; rather, you write a different article about how that universal perspective views X, and that adds an intractable POV (pretty much what would happen if you tried, say, to write an article about premarital sex starting from the implicit assumption that Catholic church doctrine is True). Skepticism is a belief structure in its own right, and care needs to be taken that it doesn't get imposed on articles out of context (the same care that gets taken to keep religious perspectives or atheistic perspectives from being imposed on articles). does that make sense? --Ludwigs2 05:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're both welcome to continue the discussion here - if it's more comfortable as sorta neutral territory. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thank you - I just didn't want to intrude on your page. --Ludwigs2 00:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at the "Geology" article, and noticed that it was heavy on the history of geology, and very sparse on geology as practiced in the modern day. I also noticed that it wasn't formatted as WikiProject science says that standard Wikipedia science articles should be. I've made some changes to try to fix this without making major changes, but I'd like advice from someone like you who has been around here for a while before I do anything more drastic. I wouldn't like to jump into doing more drastic changes on my own, because I'd like someone else to bounce ideas off of, and to make sure that the article doesn't end up with any unintentional biases. So:

a) What are your suggestions to what the article would need?

b) Do you know anyone who would be interested in helping me revise it?

I'll check back on your talk page; otherwise, if easier, email me at wickert AT colorado.edu.
Thanks,
Awickert (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vsmith - I haven't seen anything here and didn't get an email - which makes me worried that it may have gotten spamscreened. Could you reply here (I'll check), or at least tell me if you're not interested? Thanks. Awickert (talk) 04:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry 'bout the delay - just didn't get around to it. The article could definetly use some work, esp. the modern history and current status. So, how to proceed. I'd suggest to start with a subdiscipline section and expand a bit based on a summary of the subpage - if the linked subpage has any real content. Or perhaps, more likely work to expand the subpage first...? I'd say follow your interests - the sedimentology article needs improvement. You will note in many articles a fair dose of 1911ism as early wikiworkers tended to copy stuff from there, sometimes w/out even copyediting. You may also find bits of material remaining from creationist POV pushers that need weeding/fixing. Just give it a go and I'll help/monitor as time allows. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good - I think I'll be working on that off and on, then. Thanks for editing what I threw up on the Geology article for spelling, links. Awickert (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vsmith! I need your help in writing a article about a not very well-known actress nameed Alexandra Powers. What I do know about her is that she was born on 9 September 1967 in New York City and her birth name is Alexandra Kristin Powers. Her first role came in the TV film The Day After. She also had a small role in Mask (with Eric Stoltz, not Jim Carrey) and the TV series L.A. Law and 21 Jump Street. After DPS she starred in The Seventh Coin opposite Peter O'Toole and had small roles in The Player and Rising Sun. In 1994 she played Tonya Harding in the TV movie Tonya & Nancy: The Inside Story. Other roles have been in Bruce Willis' Last Man Standing, the Walter Matthau / Jack Lemmon comedy Out to Sea, and the tv movie Storm. But since 2001, she has devoted her life to Scientology. Here are refrence links to what I know about her: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0694490/ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0694490/bio http://www.filmreference.com/film/56/Alexandra-Powers.html http://www10.pair.com/crazydv/weir/dps/cast.html http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?t=24302. Please help me write a bio about this actress because I haven't written one yet! Thanks!Neptunekh (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really have little interest in actor/actress articles. Therefor I'd suggest that you find an experienced editor who works on that category of articles and discuss your proposal with them -- or maybe find a wikiproject page covering movie people. Sorry, Vsmith (talk) 02:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I apologise, but Asidemes made multiple erroneous edits and I don't really have the time to deal with each individually since this seems ot take several days each.

Secondly I never specified a better source for the Madagacar statement, I simply noted the reference doesn't say what Asidemes claimed it says.

Fnally the artcile currently makes the claim that Madagascar has lost 90% of its rainforest, just as iot originally did. And as a reference it cites the same article which I have already established in the discussion only says that it has lost 90% of its forest. The other reference also does not say that Madagascar has lost 90% of its rainforest. It also says that "Almost 90% of Madagascar's forests have been destroyed." Are you telling me that I can't revert these claims even though I can establish readily that they do not support the claim that Madagascar has lost 90% of its rainforests?Ethel Aardvark (talk) 03:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to 2/3 with better ref. I can't see now where he said "eastern" - hmm, maybe had two articles confused. The best procedure -- one step at a time. Vsmith (talk) 11:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And perhaps an apology for your unjustified accusation of vandalism? I am not a vandal, I am a good faith poster and this happens to be my areas of professional expertise. I discussed the removal of those refercens on the discussionpage and thought the matter resolved, and then you accuse me of vandalism for making alterations. I appreciate it's easy for passionate laymen to conflate rainforest and forest and so forth, but that doesn't justify ignoring Wikipedia's policy of verifiability. I am beginning to appreciate why so many other expert contributors have told me that it's not worth editing controversial topics and to just stick to obscure plant genera and so forth. In order to correct blatant mistakes in this article it has taken two weeks so far, the issues still haven't been resolved and I have been repeatedly accused of vandalism for making the effort. Ethel Aardvark (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I have changed one edit thus far that seemed unsupported. The "eastern rainforest" ref I was looking for was from the deforestation article discussion - and was supported by a reference there. You had removed several valid references with your "blanket reverts" and that comes dangerously close to vandalism and I was pointing that out as a word of caution as both you and Asidemes were slinging that at each other when I protected the two pages involved rather than blocking anyone for edit warring. Continue discussing problems one at a time rather than rapid reverts of a number of references at one time. When editing controversial topics, patience is essential - people genuinely disagree and some fervently "fight for their view". Working with others in such an environment isn't easy. Vsmith (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the history. In the deforestaion article Asidemes made multiple reverts at the one time, including removing every single clarification request and weasel tags that I had added to the entire article. I was returning the article to the state that I had originally produced. Yet somehow that is construed as my making multiple reverts. I'm genuinely puzzled. I agree, if Asidemes wants to make changes one at a time that would be a better solution, but that is not what has happened. Instead his multiple reverts of my work remain and I am accused of making multple reverts and vandalsim if I return the article to the state it was ion after my last additions.

And still no apology I notice. Fair enough, I guess the idea of assuming good faith no longer applies.Ethel Aardvark (talk) 04:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother to undo the block. I will not be returning. OTOH this has given me an excellent example for discussion with my students and on other fora of why Wikipedia can never be reliable on any vaguely controversial topic. Ethel Aardvark (talk) 03:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I see you are also editing the structure of the Earth article. I am going to work on it as my first non-anonymous editing project. Just wanted to say hello to a fellow geologically minded wikipedian.

Seorwz (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed listing myself twice.

Seorwz (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda funny - anyway, does that mean I have to list myself to keep the numbers up? Considered it a while back, but I'm not prone to join projects ... just keep on fixin' things. Vsmith (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your no fun :)

Just teasing. thought i would talk about the signifiance of the center of mass. i think theres more there than just bland ideas.. its almost as if nature pretends me and you are spheres with all our atoms in this center point.. and when we get pushed.. she just says "screw it, ill pretend their balls and rotate them like that".

anyway, ttyl

156.56.171.83 (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was a neat little essay, but this is an encyclopedia - not an essay collection. Sorry 'bout that. :-) Vsmith (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why did you block me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.171.108 (talk) 11:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue who you are - so I don't know why, most likely vandalism. Vsmith (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...I am very bored. Please talk to me on my talk page. i-am-entertainU (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

....or not ... 'bout zzz bedtime. Vsmith (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vsmith - There's bound to be some overlap with what are closely related subjects. As far as stub-sorting's concerned here's nothing wrong with having both templates, or even three or four stub templates on a page (more than four is too many though), if it'll catch the attention of editors who are specialists in more related areas. Several of those articles could also comfortably take {{mineral-stub}} as well. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied there. The mineral and geology stubs were subdivided not too long ago because they were too large and when stub cat lists reach several hundred in length it's time to chop 'em up into more detailed topics. There is no problem with having 2 or 3 stub links -- as long as there is a strong correlation or overlap in coverage. This strong overlap doesn't exist for chromitite or dunite. Vsmith (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Igneous petrology is a scope of WikiProject Volcanoes and therefore it deserves the volcanology stub. Black Tusk (talk) 03:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanology is a subset of igneous petrology, not the other way around, that some wikiproject members don't know that is too bad. Vsmith (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I happily agree volcanology is generally a subset of igneous petrology and I always knew that. But the thing is the volcano wikiproject includes any igneous rock and therefore it gets something from that wikiproject. But since you don't agree, I won't bother adding the volcanology stub to intrusive igneous rocks. Black Tusk (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK and thank you, note I haven't objected to including the volcanology project on the respective talk pages - just the stub addition which seemed misleading. Vsmith (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I;ve replied to your comments - and yes, I know about the subdividing of geology-stub - I was involved in the discussions on that at the time. Mineral stub wasn't divided then, though. It's length suggests some division is plausible - splitting it may be worth proposing at WP:WSS/P. Grutness...wha? 02:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The mineral-stub, though not split did have rock types removed last November. Been involved with both geology and mineral stub stuff since their start. Your proposal for a split of mineral-stub is overdue and I will support it. Not sure just yet if the proposed sub-stubs will work ... maybe so. Most mineral stub articles are of very rare minerals and some may not fit well in one of those types. Antlerite for example - a secondary mineral of the oxidized zone of copper deposites. Is it sedimentary (deposited by circulating waters) or metamorphic (as an alteration product of retrograde metasomatism). Many rare (and not so rare) minerals either don't fit well or fit more than one category - and "composite" bothers me, may work though. Coming at this from an economic geology background ... maybe ore mineral-stub and gemstone-stub. Or maybe silicate mineral-stub, sulfide mineral-stub, ... base it on the mineral classification systems. Just thinking here - before diving into Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2008/October#Split_of_Cat:Mineral_stubs. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 02:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

robably one of those makes more sense than my suggestion - it's not my field of expertise, so the idea of the four types I mentioned was largely thinking out loud - hoping to draw a more educated response (and "composite" was a mistake - the word I was looking for was "conglomerate" - but even that's probably not the best of ways of dividing things). Grutness...wha? 10:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know that edit you just reverted was not vandalism, i think a custom edit summary would have been appropriate. Thanks Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 11:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, which one? Vsmith (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sulphate to sulfate Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 01:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah this one. Probably so. Didn't call it vandalism tho' - just no "personalized comment" to a "one hit wonder" from a Ripenet ip. Such spelling changes get rather old. Anyway, wot you doin' under my bed? Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Just making sure your doing the right thing thats all ;) I agree that kind of issue can get frustrating, you being here since 04 would know. Its just that ever since rollback has been given to non admins, there has been scrutiny from people wanting to find out if its being used correctly. This discussion on AN is an example. Just common sense i think, you would like to think wikipedia has improved vastly since when you first started?

Hi. What was wrong with the addition of Mochica jewelry in the Jewelry page? You reverted the changes including the mention to the Mochica culture of Peru. Pattych (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... now that I look at it, I'm not sure what I was thinking of at the time, I've undone my edit. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. After some investigation I believe user GodLovesTheIrish and IPs 60.234.55.16 and 60.234.28.155 might be of interest to you as being similar to IrishChemistPride, IrishChemistPride2 and AtomicKiwi. MickMacNee (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - obvious sockpuppetry, dealt with. Vsmith (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. MickMacNee (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Parting, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. OttoTheFish (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - cleavage now has parting section. Vsmith (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you notice that there seems to be a vandalism on the palladium page? Such vandalism generally comes from anonymous contributions from users with just an IP. One noticed incidence is the revision made by User:70.79.161.122 at 02:46 am Oct. 8, 2008, changed the global palladium production from 222 tons to 420 tons while the cited USGS source says 222 tons.

How do we prevent such vandalism? Maybe temporarily ban editings from users with just an IP? Silverbach (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prevent? No, as long as wiki is open to anon editing it's gonna happen, The vandalism level on palladium is really rather low, so semi-protection isn't warrented now. Just constant vigilance. Thanks for catching the number change, those are the hardest to catch it seems. Vsmith (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HELP! We have Cold Fusion proponents dramatically asserting ownership over cold fusion. I need all the help I can get. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]