Hi. I'm contacting some people who have worked on the Rational Response Squad article because someone changed my redirect of "Brian Sapient" (which I made to redirect surfers to the RRS article) into an article on Brian Sapient himself. I'm not sure one is merited, particularly given what that editor started off with the article, and have begun a discussion on that new article's Talk Page. Your input would be appreciated. Nightscream 01:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that students here are vandalizing entries on Wikipedia. Please block this IP (Hilliard Christian School) 202.172.114.59 from editing wikipedia. If the students wish to change entries they should do so from their home computers.
I apologise for the students actions
Please contact me a iamcanjim@yahoo.com if you wish to further discuss this matter.
James Hosking —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.172.114.59 (talk) 05:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I have a question. Why did you delete my link "hauyne.eu?" That has been done two times. Please explain it to me, because I don´t understand it. By the way, I´m a greenhorn, concerning wikipedia. Best greetings zanzano. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanzano (talk • contribs) 17:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Why would you think that it was appropriate to remove the protection to this article? The global warming deniers are in full swing at the article, and another admin decided it was appropriate to protect. I have made a number of reversions to WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:OR and a variety of other issues; many other editors and admins were getting tired of this bullshit on this article. Why would you think removing protection but allowing the POV-pushers to push their shit is useful to the project? Just curious.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Look the sun is not traveling through the local fluff and local bubble so stop putting that on there because it makes the sun article sound very stupid so leave it alone and don't touch it and plus there is no proof —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.161.6 (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Dear Vsmith, Please review the DISCUSSION page for IDAHO. I plan to add a new section for nuclear fallout. Numerous references from reputable newspapers and television are provided to support this material. I understand you are not happy about this material being added, but I feel strongly that this is a significant point of view that should not be censored. Please advise via the DISCUSSION page for IDAHO if you have any additional concerns regarding this material.
76.184.140.85 06:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC) B.Sc. University of Texas, M.Sc. Southern Methodist University
Hello. About the change reverting. I have explained my intentions at the "White gold" talk page, please take a look at it. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by EaZee (talk • contribs) 02:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Will reply there. Vsmith 03:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you blocked 201.53.33.253. For your information, see this person's history. This spammer will definitely not go away. As an admin, could you somehow take measures to blacklist the sites?
I also left this message, but I don't think BenRG has admin rights. Cheers and TIA. DVdm 08:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
A new spamlink insertion on the page General relativity 2 days after your 31 hours block on 7-sep. Why not just get it over with and blacklist these pages? Cheers, DVdm 06:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I promised to remind you of the sprot tag om Rydberg formula. Or could I have removed it myself? Regards, /Pieter Kuiper 22:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, the re-naming of List of rocks to List of rock types was no problem. However, you then changed to old redirect to list of famous rocks and placed a speedy tag on it??? I cannot understand your reasoning there - you don't speedy a page with between 50-100 incoming links. I have re-instated the redirect to List of rock types and removed the absurd speedy tag. Please be more careful in the future. Vsmith 23:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm Pearlexpert. I would appreciate your advice on how best to resolve a problem to the benefit of the community. I've worked for years in the dot org world but haven't had a situation like this before.
It appears that my NPOV disputes on the 'pearl' and 'freshwater pearl' discussion pages have been altered to remove any mention that freshadama is a product name. I think both my entire posts are relevant, accurate, and helpful to readers trying to judge what is going on.
Strangely for 'discussion' pages the changes to my posts were made without any discussion or even comment about why they were being made. Moreover, no one has contacted me through my wikipedia usertalk page.
The changes were made by IP address, not by logged in wikipedia users. However, by looking up the IPs from the APNIC whois database the IP for the first change to the freshwater discussion page was made from an IP in French Polynesia and then a few days later to the pearl discussion page from a Darwin, AU IP.
It appears these changes were made by Jeremy Shepherd the founder/CEO of Pearl Paradise. He is traveling in this area and the IP addresses for the changes track with his travel according to his own blog entry: (http://journals.aol.com/jeremypshepherd/jeremy-shepherd/entries/2007/09/06/tahiti-marutea-sud-new-zealand-australia.../1758)
I would like my original entries restored to both discussion pages and I would like them to stay as a record of the issue at the time I originated NPOV disputes. But I don't just want to restore them and then have them changed again.
Thanks for any advice or assistance to handle this situation.
Regards, Pearlexpert
Pearlexpert 07:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The changes were made because Yan Berry of Premium Pearl, a competitor, is using our company name. We did not coin the name freshadama, and feel her comments are libelous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.203.125 (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I am removing the reference to my company in Los Angeles, Pearl Paradise. We did not invent the word freshadama, it was coined by community members on Pearl-Guide.com. I do not appreciate the way the paragraph has been phrased in the discussion. Our company name is to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.203.125 (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I am removing the reference to my company in Los Angeles, Pearl Paradise from 'pearls' and 'freshwater pearls'. We did not invent the word freshadama, it was coined by community members on Pearl-Guide.com several years ago. I do not appreciate the way the paragraph has been phrased in the discussion. Our company name is to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.203.125 (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Did you not receive the message that I posted you on just a few moments ago. I am asking that our company name be removed from those posts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.203.125 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 11 September 2007
Don't know who you are if you don't sign. Also: Do not modify others comments, the page is a discussion page, not an article. Please post a paragraph there outlining your concerns - and sign with four tildes. Don't reword others comments. Vsmith 18:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
My NPOV posts on the talk pages of Pearl and Freshwater Pearl have been erased again. Can you please restore them? Is there any way to prevent this from happening in the future? Thanks. Pearlexpert 23:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I just uploaded an new diagram for the article on the Appalachian Mountains for an info box, based on your diagram . I am aware this does not include the Canadian section. Can you help me?
--Matt 17:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I saw you recently reverted some vandalism to the Colony of Virginia page. Vandalism to this page has been an ongoing war with four, five, or more vandalism attempts being made on some days and there being maybe 12-20 attempts made per week. I've been trying to police the page along with a couple of other editors. I'm rather new, so I'm not sure if this level of vandalism is sufficient to warrant semi protection or not. Thoughts? VirginiaProp 16:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
Awarded for more clearly diligent patrol of science articles than any other editor than I can see. ←BenB4 00:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC) |
←BenB4 00:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Dear Sir,
i am a Civil Engineer in Malaysia, I am curious whether is there any link between recent weather change and earthquakes in South East Asia within these few years due to imbalance weight of earth due to ground movement. As you can see, there are so many earthquakes within this region in these 3 to 4 years and since then, the weather in Malaysia start to change bit by bit, It used to so hot but now it rains a lot and the wind patterns changed; Even Singapore has sea Tornado recently.
--Umtanhh 08:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Is the posting of self-made reconstructions of extinct animals allowed in Wikipedia, and if so, are we obligated to site references used?--Mr Fink 16:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
First, thank you for pointing out valid sources I had missed on the volcanic origins of the mountains, and editing the page to reflect the varying interpretations.
However, I simply cannot see why a "Last Eruption" should be listed in the infobox - that's just misleading! Whether or not the lava intrusions ever breached the surface is besides the point on that score : the issue is that posting a "last eruption" implies the Monteregians themselves are volcanoes, and capable (at some point) of erupting, which is false.--Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin 04:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Please give your opinion: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Auno3 (2nd). JScott06 16:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I wonder if you could take another look at that article and clarify where it says, "contains the only documented Miocene exposures in the state." It doesn't say which state. I assume Arkansas, since that's where most of the ridge lies, but it's not a given. Thanks. --Kbh3rdtalk 18:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a reference on the observation of its double beta decay? --V1adis1av 21:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for messing up Carbon, I see you fixed it. I meant to improve the article but I accidently made the box really big, I am working on a Biology project for High School you see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xgmx (talk • contribs) 02:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
oh ok, I'll thank him/her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xgmx (talk • contribs) 03:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi V Smith,
Clay is not a soil! Clay may be a component of soil or soils may have clays within them, but clay is not soil.
The AIPEA (International Association for the Study of Clays) the CMS (Clay Minerals Society issued the following definition for clay (Guggenheim and Martin, 1995. Report. Defininition of Clay and Clay Mineral: Joint report of the AIPEA nomenclature and CMS nomenclature committees. Clays and CLay Minerals, 43, 255-256):
"The term clay refers to a a naturally occuring material composed primarily of fine-grained mineral, which is generally plastic at appropriate water contents and will harden [when] dried or fired. Although clay usually contains phyllosilicates, it may contain other materials that impart plasticity and harden when dried or fired. Associated phases in clay may include materials that do not impart plasticity[,] and organic matter."
The particle size portion of the definition is in arguement - some think it is important others think it is too arbitrary as different disciplines define the cut-off size for clay differently. Soil scientists use the 2 micron cut-off, engineers often use 4 microns, colloidal scientists often use 1 micron cut-off. and as the above cited paper explains examples exist of plastic materials that harden when dried or fired that are composed of particles larger than micron size.
The minerals kaolinite, montmorillonite and illite are clay minerals, but can be components of clays. quartz, cristobalite and other clay-sized minerals are associated phases of (or in) clay.
Clays can be of many origins: sedimentary, volcanic, diagentic, pedogenic etc etc, even evidence for the biologically induced precipication of some clays (e.g. various oxides by drain-clogging bactiera).
Hope that helps, keep up the good work! Sarpy2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarpy2 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Proposal is perfect... I erase Section?? and we work on discussion section... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilmesis (talk • contribs) 18:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
My apologies; I did not consider the external links I added to be "inappropriate."
Currently over 150 organizations I am aware of link to my photographs--and among them is Wikipedia on other topics--and not added by myself.
As to promotion--"self" or otherwise--I do not need to promote my photographs. Currently my photographs receive several thousand views daily from over 120 countries. On most topics my photographs list higher in search returns on both Google and Yahoo than does Wikipedia.
My photographs do not include any advertising and I do not sell prints except locally. While I do sell photographic files for stock purposes (including several from that Mount Rushmore gallery, including four recently for promotional products for Disney's upcoming movie "National Treasure: Book of Secrets") publishers find me via Google--and not Wikipedia. I very much doubt that if the entire population of the Earth visited my galleries via Wikipedia that it would add a single cent to my pocket... (And by the way out of thousands of visitors daily to my photographs links from Wikipedia account for no more than approximately 10 any given day.)
Moreover every photograph I have seen displayed on Wikipedia does include a bit of self-promotion of the photographer. For example if you visit the photographs on the Wikipedia entry for Multnomah Falls you will find links to the photographer's website: http://kay-photography.com/ I do not mean to single out Mr. Kay in this regard as "every" photograph I have seen on Wikipedia includes similar links.
I would not mind sharing my photographs directly on Wikipedia as other photographers have done. However many of the publishers I have worked with request "exclusive licenses" that preclude publishing specified images elsewhere except on my website. I felt that linking to them, rather than publishing them maintained both the spirit and intent of those licenses while still providing the content to Wikipedia users who might find it useful.
I was trying to be helpful. Again my apologies if this was "inappropriate."
If you wish to respond please do so at harpeegio@charter.net as I very rarely visit Wikipedia.
Gregory A Harp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harpeggio (talk • contribs) 18:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I'm curious why you think the link to cave fauna in SE Asia is spam? On Cave page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavingliz (talk • contribs) 02:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes I'm associated with the link. Considering the link is to an informative www, I don't really see why you deleted it, especially as there are few websites on specialist sites such as Asian cave fauna. Cavingliz 13:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Under what criteria are the following links spam? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Periodic_table&diff=prev&oldid=161519164. Why not chop Visual Elements instead, which adds nothing of value, not a unique interface, not exceptional data, nothing. Or Theodore Gray's periodic table table, which is very "nifty" and "cool" but much more a link for Digg or Reddit, not an encyclopedia entry.
Though the TouchSpin link does contain some ads, it is much better in every way than the poorly-executed Flash of Visual Elements and its tiny amount of data. The other link, ptable.com contains all the data of roughly 20 Wikipedia pages (all the links in Template:PeriodicTablesFooter) in a very modern Ajax interface and has no advertising. In a way, it's the perfect link for Wikipedia, combining Wikipedia's data in a way it cannot--as a web application.
Please reconsider the merit of these links.--Lucent 21:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
My friend made this barnstar. He has plenty of others which are much better, but he don't want to give them to me. Since i think you are interested in barnstars, this is very interesting for you. :P 1() 20:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Your input would be appreciated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Martinphi ScienceApologist 21:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you have been regularly correcting vandalism done to the article on Atomic Theory. I commend you generally on your efforts to keep Wikipedia a good reference source, and I also thank you on a personal level, as much of this particular article is my own work (nearly all of it, actually), and it peeves me to see mischievous little gremlins screwing it up. Have a cookie. :)Kurzon 12:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Greetings!
I was curious if you could possibly read through my "expansion" of the watershed protection article. I am trying to improve myself as a technical communicator and would greatly appreciate any and all feedback!
Thanks, Prevero
I think I just edit conflicted you on Global Warming trying to do the same thing. --BozMo talk 21:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Vsmith I have a Reference have like to add in the Grossular article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grossular The parts where it says [citation needed] about The chemical structure for viluite is Ca2(Mg,Fe)5Si8O22(OH)2, Calcium Magnesium Iron Silicate Hydroxide and Some Data Indicates it to be similar to nephrite jade in luster and color. I have article you could use an a Reference: http://www.geocities.com/smresource9/minerology/viluite.html
Please tell me what you think. Neptunekh 10:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused, please explain to me which entry I vandalized, so I will not make this mistake again. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.85.58.94 (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I do have an account, that I use when I create entries. My work computer is on a local network at a local University, it could've been anybody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.85.58.94 (talk)
Hi Vsmith! Would you mind merging the Egyptian Jasper article and the Greek Agate article to the Agate article and the Jasper? Thanks! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_agate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_jasper Neptunekh 19:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you think that Category:Zeolites could be merged with Category:Zeolite group so that it would become "Zeolite group"? Does it take an administrator to do that? Best regards Rhanyeia♥♫ 15:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
not sure which link you removed. I am affiliated with an anti-corrosion technical library, which is not selling anything, only the technical knowledge of my family's years in the anti-corrosion business. perhaps there is some misunderstanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjb9866 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Vsmith! I created a page called Phantom crystal. Phantom_crystal Would you mind editing it? Thank you! Neptunekh 23:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you think you need an article on Phantoms? Neptunekh 02:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance improving the Oil shale article to the GA level. Of course the work continues and I hope that you will be able to continue to contribute also for FAC nomination and improving other oil shale related articles. I think the next GAC could be the Oil shale geology and the Oil shale extraction. Beagel 14:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
that was a copy and paste from the Hot Springs, Arkansas history section. I have no idea why it is called "Poop Reserve" there - if that is wrong then change it... A.J.Chesswas 03:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear VSmith -- I would like to thank your concern regarding our link, but would like to add that this is not promotional jargon. King's College Library, Cambridge has had a generous donation to contribute to GW awareness. We have acquired many books from both GW camps, and we would like to share that knowledge with people in the UK as well as worldwide. King's College Library is a free library and would seek no financial gain from this link but to expose our free collection to whoever wants to know and read it. If you happen to pass by Cambridge one day, please feel free to pay us a visit and see for yourself. If it's not too much to ask, I will now re-instate just one link and kindly ask if you could leave it at that. Many thanks, King's College. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedrium (talk • contribs) 15:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Periodic_table&diff=161519164&oldid=161518930
Why did you remove this links listed at the above edit? They are not spam as you state. The Touchspin periodic table has been a part of this page since July 4 2006, They Dayah table, even longer. Both are valuable and useful to the readers of this page.
Your comments said "External links - spam," but these are nothing of the sort. Then and now, those page, and the links to them in the external links section of the periodic table page have violated no rules of wiki. The links were not created by the page's authors and were not self promotional, rather, your actions were excessive and damaging to integrity and content of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.194.86 (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
uhm, if possible please don't delete the helpful molar calculation, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.249.39 (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
yeah, I know the wording doesn't sound encyclopedaic. other people can take the time to make it 'sound right'. I'm just trying to be helpful as I believe encyclopedias should be in every way possible. The internet provides many more possibilities than were in the encyclopedias of the past which you seem to be striving to mimic. I don't think you should remove useful and correct information just because it sounds wrong or because it conflicts with your narrow view of what the site should be. That being said there still should be some policing and I'm sure that people appreciate your removal of true non-useful vandalism. I guess we have different opinions of what vandalism is but you'll win because I don't have the time to enforce my view like you do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.249.39 (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I've indef-blocked that account you blocked for 24h, it is a sockpuppet of a long-term vandal. See Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse#Genesis_vandal for details. Tim Vickers 19:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Vsmith! I created an artcile called fruit quartz. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_quartz Can you do the usual? Thanks! Neptunekh 00:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Please read the first paragraph of the article. The article states that the common usage of the term "theory" is synonymous with "hypothesis". When the word theory is used in this way, the statement "It's not a fact, it's only a theory." is in no manner misguided. To state the obvious, a hypothesis is not a fact. Please undo your recent mistaken revert.
- Don't bother, I took care of it myself since you are afk or whatever.
AikBkj 16:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Vsmith,
I have seen that according to your understanding of the case, you have censored my citation of what can be considered a paradigmatic autodidact; a really 'self taught’ person with amazing recognized achievements (if I found a digital version of his curriculum vitae I would sent it to you, just for your information – same if I found where he is now in the world,).
Please, let me explain: there is nothing here such as "vanity" (22:55, 31 October 2007 Vsmith (Talk | contribs) (7,459 bytes) (rmv last addition - vanity?).
Indeed, this Mr. (no academic titles) "George A. Jachewatzky-Hashaviah” was my teacher (truly the best I ever known) in 2006, in one of his teaching tours here in south America, invited to teach 4 full time courses of 120 hours each in the framework of a Master degree by the University of Guayaquil (the largest University here in Ecuador), institution where among other executive functions at my 75 years old, I’m still a full time professor. My colleagues and I were deeply astonished by the level and deep of the academic knowledge and the professional attitudes and aptitudes of this person without any formal education.
I hope that in the midst of your occupations you will found some time to spend so to read the following web page. It teaches us a little about “self taught” people: www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=%2Farts%2F2001%2F07%2F14%2Fboint14.xml
As far as I know in the last 40 years Mr. Jachewatzky-Hashaviah as been in many countries of the world a vivid paradigm of a person who, pursuing what Jürgen Habermas called in 1978, the interest of man in knowledge and education (cognitive, hermeneutic, emancipating and instrumental) fulfills any definition of a self taught or autodidact (or even auto-ontological / ontogenical) person. I can’t believe that in the encyclopedic efforts of Wikipedia such a modern paradigm it’s considered just ‘vanity’ and not, as it was my intention, to supply a vivid example of a true “autodidacticism”.
I try to attach here a reference letter from our institution for your information, but it seems I don't know how to use the option. If I could have your e-mail I would do it gladly. Whatever you decide of course I will respect your decision. But there is nothing such as ‘vanity’ here.
Thank you for your kind attention to my words.
Sincerely yours,
Bolivar A. (marregui01@hotmail.com)
Dear Mr. Vsmith, Thank you for considering my words. As I try to explain it my sole intention was to provide an excellent case of “autodidacticism” fully comparable to other mentioned in the web page; a person that has been considered in many countries, their universities and other public institutions as a ‘phenomenon’. As I had write to you, I have been a student of him and hear a little about his life, but certainly I’m in no position or right to write “a fully sourced biographical article about him as a Wikipedia article” (to be published where?, in what form, under what conditions and 'label'?) in the form of an essay or a deep analysis, the whole facts of this person’s life and the processes by which he has become such a surprising professor in many matters without formal education. The only thing that I’m trying now ‘to put my hands on it’ is his ‘curriculum vitae’ which, as I remember, was full of official reference letters (instead of diplomas), which testify about the person. When I get it I certainly will send to you a copy, just for your information. Maybe you, who know exactly what Wikipedia means by verification, credibility, notability, etc., will feel provoked to investigate further and write about this truly amazing autodidact that has become a researcher and a teacher of university professors in so many countries. If this is not the case, even it’s a waste, just forget about it.
Thanks again for your kind attention, Cordially, Dr. Bolivar A. (marregui01@hotmail.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.76.60.92 (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Gawd. I actually add something that people can use and what do you do, YOU WIPE IT?!?!?!?!?!
Ummm and EXCUSE ME just cos you're a professor or used to be doesn't mean you know everything. NO OFFENCE! But it is true. AND WHY did you change what I wrote???
♥ ME Teletubbiesrule! 04:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC) and yes, if it is ok please reply! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teletubbiesrule! (talk • contribs) 04:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the improvement to the article Electromagnetic spectrum.-- Penubag 01:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Gday,
after a bit of thought on how to approach this I've decided that if you'll drop me a postal address at my | webform I'll buy and post you a copy of 'The Rock that Makes Tasmania' by David Leaman for some Christmas reading. He's a retired prof or something and not internet addicted like the rest of us. Little review of the book here.
Most of Tasmania is studded with dolerite peaks and (mostly) plateaus, in fact most of the mountains here are dolerite topped, except a few in the SW. Indeed the sea cliffs from the most southerly point most of the way east (Bruny Island, Tasman Peninsular) to about Maria island are dolerite. So much so they can affect a ship's compasss. Tasmania at 68,401 km² or 26,410 sq mi is about the size of the Republic of Ireland. And I've been thinking of putting a youtube vid up doing a vox pop in the street "So, what is that mountain made of?" And I assure you the word diabase will never pop up unless they've popped in from North America with a geology degree in their pocket. Lots of blue dots on googleearth in tasmania shown dolerite, eg the columns at Cape Raoul on the Tasman Peninsular, are spectacular.--Meika 04:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
i am sorry for troubling winkapida i wouldlove to be a better user.
THANKS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.204.124 (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey there, I just noticed your revert of my edit to archaeology, regarding the 'science' bit. I note that you are a Geologist, which means you probably see things from the scientific side (everyone sees things differently :p). However, there are an influential group of archaeologists who have argued, in published sources, that archaeology isn't a science and contains aspects that are distinctly unscientific.
Obviously, neither school is going to be 'right' (each archaeologist will pursue their discipline in their own way) but I think the opening paragraph should at the very least not present archaeology as unqualified, undisputed science as I feel this would be misleading to readers.
I won't be making the edit again, pending discussion on the talk page. Man from the Ministry 12:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. See the article talk page for my suggestions. :) Man from the Ministry 16:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting it from anon vandalism. --LeyteWolfer 17:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
You gave a final warning to a vandal from 163.248.116.30, and he immediately reappeared at 163.248.116.31, so I blocked both. I seem to recall a template for user talk pages of related IPs, but I cannot find it. Could you point me to it if you know what I'm talking about? Thanks. --Kbh3rdtalk 17:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry to bother you here, but the 'bot at AIV removed the above IP address. He's threatening more vandalism with the other IPs and the block you put on (72 hours) expires today. Thanks. --LeyteWolfer (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi tried to get the ecosystem article semi projected as I proposed on the talk pages there. Almost all the edits made to this article have been vandalism lately and I was wondering if there is something we can do about this? - Mdd (talk) 10:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I created a page called Anthemoessa. It's about the island of the Sirens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthemoessa Would you mind editing it please? Thanks! Neptunekh (talk) 08:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello. A question has raised about an image you originally uploaded here on Wikipedia which is now on Wikimedia Commons, Image:Cristalls_enargita.jpg, and a nomination for deletion has been made. See the deletion request here and comment if you wish. Thank you. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I see – together with, at least, User:Rifleman 82 and User:JWB – you are one of the active contributors on the topic. I left a message for JBW at his talk page. With all expert knowledge and yours, it will be easy to decide this wee problem. I'm not expert on the topic. -- Gluck 123 (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you should know that User:216.163.52.5 is back to his old tricks and carrying out blatant vandalism attacks on several articles. Just a little tip. Manxruler (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Vsmith, is there still a policy or guideline something like this?
If not, then perhaps we need to come to some sort of personal agreement on how to provide balance at the politicization of science article, because it seems we are on opposite sides.
Looks like you think Bush and the conservatives are the bad guys, while UCS and/or Gore are the good guys. So that would make me an advocate for the other side. Is this how you see the situation?
If so, we might agree that each of us would write a 'fair description' of our favored side.
Anyway, I'm not going to revert any more. I've used up my "one revert per week" ;-)
Maybe we can find a politicization example which is clear and obvious to both of us, like Galileo or tobacco. --Uncle Ed 14:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I've undone your revert of my edit because you gave no explanation why well-sourced material from a major newspaper that is relevant to the topic should not be included. 121.208.180.8 (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I have undone your 12/29/07 revert about the Great Barrier Reef, the line about the UN claim that the entire reef will be gone by 2030 is utter balderdash and the UN is not in a position to make scientific claims, so 70.XX.XXX or whatever his IP was, is correct in deleting that tidbit. Please let's not continue with the unsubstantiated claims in Wikipedia, such as this, and the bit about kangaroo farts that I find here. Let's let Wikipedia be encyclopedic and reliable, not a place for people to vent crazy political doomsday opinions.Morgan Wright (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi VSmith,
The term papers in my class this semester were on minerals named after people (thus Sperrylite, Julgoldite, Uytenbogaardite, and a host of others). The students received extensive training on the tools of direct scientific research, including GEOREF, Web of Science, and so forth, in order for them to learn to access and use the real peer-reviewed literature. The only non-peer reviewed sources allowed were for photo links. Wikipedia was 100% off limits, except for becoming generally acquainted with the real literature.
I reviewed, commented and returned all 62 papers, and then reread the results, which were quite good, and have allowed most of them to upload their articles to wikipedia for a small amount of extra credit. I told them to adhere to wikipedia style, but as well as being beginners at science, they are beginners at wikipedia as well, and will need a lot of help. I told them the basics (no text dumps for example) which many of them seem to have ignored, the rest is up to them.
Several of them had their articles deleted immediately, one with the outrageous comment that "this isn't your work". There have been predictable complaints about lacking wikification. I'm hoping this will all work itself out. These articles are generally well researched and vetted by me (for what that's worth), and certainly of a basic quality that they should enrich Wikipedia.
I noticed one person put the authorship statement in the body of the article, rather than in the discussion, I have been trying to fix some of the little faux pas like that on the fly.
I will be at the AGU all next week and will look at the articles again over the break. Please email me directly if you would like to discuss further.
Cheers,
Jon Snow.
jesnow at uh dot edu Jesnow (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Plate tectonics 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.
It's okay. I just didn't realize what was going on because of the heated argument, and the revert war sidetracked me from figuring it out. It's unfortunate, but I will try to work on the article again when the controversy dies down.Athene cunicularia (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Where it says, "Afwillite is one of the calcium silicates that form when Portland cement sets to form concrete.[6] The cement gets its strength from the hydration of its di- and tri- calcium silicates." That's wrong and every time I correct it, you change it back. Afwillite does not form as a result of the Portland cement setting. It is used to make Portland cement. Afwillite can occur as an alteration or by contact metamorphism. Its key significance is that it is used for making Portland cement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crw19 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Afwillite is rare, however, if you have access to Megaw H. D. (1952). The structure of Afwilltie. Acta. 5, 477. You will find that afwilite, is in fact used in Portland cement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.30.26 (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Can I see your sources?
Copied to Talk:Afwillite - Vsmith (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I did not vandalize, I added the what certain people believe to be facts. I also said that this may be the truth, I didn't say it was. I also quoted a true quote from Rumsfeld, and I even cited. I cannot see how any of this is in any way vandalism.
I did not intend my edit as vandalism, but there is a significant amount of evidence against what the government said happened, so I just added the suspicions of the conspiracy, and never said it was true.
I personally believe that there should be a whole page dedicated to the possible conspiracy, but what ever. If what you think is true is true then it is, If what I think happened did, then I'm right, and the truth will eventually come out, and the world will know which hit the pentagon a missle or a plane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remilo (talk • contribs) 02:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I did not vandalize the pentagon. I told you before, that I was adding what people believed is the truth, and I did not say it was. But what is there is stated as fact, even though it may not be. I also sited, and used a quote from Secretary of defense Rumsfeld (which I also cited) to go along with my point. You cannot ignore the significant amount of evidence against what the government says is truth, so it should not be stated as fact, when it may not be. I do not think it was vandalism, and I did not intend it to be. However if I am blocked because I am trying to tell the world that something might be true, so be it, I will just make another account, and not vandalize in my opinion.
I am sorry about the vandalism I made last year, that was intentional. I was really very pissed at the person who's article I was editing, so that is why I vandalized it. That was intentional, but this about the pentagon was not vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remilo (talk • contribs) 13:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Reversion | ||
For reverting so many unhelpful edits and vandalism on Wikipedia I User Swirlex award you this Barnstar. |
Hi, I think that the link to the science and engineering encyclopedia www.diracdelta.co.uk is a valuable addition and that you should look at the pages before being too hasty. I welcome your comments. Charlie Hawkins consultant@diracdelta.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.214.214 (talk) 08:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for this deletion. I had simply assumed it was written by a contributor and had no idea it was a copyvio. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
WHY YOU DID DELETE WHAT I PUT IN THE CARBON PAGE! I AM ANGRY BECAUSE EVERY THING I DID ON THE ENCYCLOPEDIA IS DELETED BY PEOPLE! MUST YOU BE ELITE TO USE THIS SITE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DohgonCarbon (talk • contribs) 16:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I can see how the image I put on there may be considered spammy and a couple of references unreliable and I have therefore removed them, but I refuse to remove the mention of medical benefits with the reference to about.com. On there website, they link to the follwing research:
Sources
Abdel-Wahhab MA, Nada SA, Farag IM, et al. Potential protective effect of HSCAS and bentonite against dietary aflatoxicosis in rat: with special reference to chromosomal aberrations. Nat Toxins.1998; 6:211-218.
Ducrotte P, Dapoigny M, Bonaz B, Siproudhis L. Symptomatic efficacy of beidellitic montmorillonite in irritable bowel syndrome: a randomized, controlled trial. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005 Feb 15;21(4):435-44.
Santurio JM, Mallmann CA, Rosa AP, et al. Effect of sodium bentonite on the performance and blood variables of broiler chickens intoxicated with aflatoxins. Br Poult Sci. 1999; 40:115-119.
PDR Health. Bentonite. <http://www.pdrhealth.com/drug_info/nmdrugprofiles/nutsupdrugs/ben_0308.shtml>
Jason7825 (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi V! I do not understand why you changed the entry as non-glass pyknometers exist. Please see the link below. I do not work for the company. What do you think remove glass from the description or add steel as well?
http://www.ejpayne.com/productdetails.asp?ProductID=PYK&Section=SANITARYWARE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.147.121 (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Spam? You have to be kidding. Did you look through the entire section? I spent weeks developing just that one section (I already know you didn't look at all, since the web log shows you only looked at the Overview Page). I spent weeks in Yellowstone photo-documenting and developing the content for that section. I'd like to see a link to something MORE relevant to this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamNP (talk • contribs) 22:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I am an Italian Wikipedian. I am dealing with rocks. I am planning to develop templates. Looking around I found your templates on Igneous rock, Metamorphic rock and Sedimentary rock. I seem to be a good starting point. Why 'were not used? Let me know. Thanks --Mario1952 (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning things up in the Mont Saint-Hilaire article! I'm afraid I'm not quite as good as keeping things clean as I would want to be. <ref>insert footnote text here
I'd appreciate a little consideration for those of us who have older computers. 114Kb total is awfully big, and often causes problems with my browser. I'm somewhat surprised an admin is not more understanding of the situation. I could "Be Bold" and just take an axe to the page,a s some editors have been known to do, but I've chosen not to take that path. There are new editors on pages all the time, and older editors who may have been inactive. Please give this a chance to work. Thanks for your consideration of others in this matter. - BillCJ (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Vsmith, at the CU report here, Alison said that a range block might be possible if attacks continue. I think this might this be a better solution than fully protecting the article. R. Baley (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)