Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:34, 16 May 2010

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 :-)

Archives

Template:Multicol

• Archive1 7/7/2004 - 6/15/2005
• Archive2 6/15/2005 - 9/6/2005
• Archive3 9/6/2005 - 1/01/2006
• Archive4 1/1/2006 - 5/31/2006
• Archive5 5/31/2006 - 8/15/2006
• Archive6 8/15/2006 - ~11/30/06
• Archive7 11/30/2006 - 1/31/07
• Archive8 2/01/07 - 5/17/07

Template:Multicol-break

• Archive9 5/17/07 - 8/31/07
• Archive10 9/01/07 - 12/31/07
• Archive11 01/01/08 - 06/30/08
• Archive12 07/01/08 - 09/30/08
• Archive13 10/01/08 - 12/31/08
• Archive14 01/01/09 - 06/30/09
• Archive15 07/01/09 - 12/31/09
• Archive16 01/01/10 - 04/01/10

Template:Multicol-end

Inconsistent changes to chemical formulas of minerals

Thank you for your message. I stopped the bot and I will fix the prolem. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 22:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Followup: there were few additional rare cases. I created a script to systematically found any affected article. Then I fixed them, and I improved the ability of the script to avoid chemical formulas. It should work better now. Thank you. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 11:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Vsmith (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Anhydrite: a question on the removal of the "See also" section

Hello, Vsmith, I observed that you removed the "See also" section on the Anhydrite page, as you do sometimes for other ones. I would be pleased to discuss this question with you. I agree that a page should not contain superflous and useless information and that concision is essential to write effective pages. In the WP good practice, it is recommended to be cautious with the "See also" section and to avoid to repeat meaningless information. However, a merit of the "See also" section is to offer to the WP reader a convenient way to "quickly switch" between pages dealing with related subjects, or to link to less visited pages which could benefit from further editions. For instance, in my opinion, the framework of anhydrite is much larger than the only mineralogy topic and can also embrace chemistry and materials science. That is the reason why, yesterday I completed this section when reading across very different fields. Now that you removed it, the page perhaps gained in concision, but now the ease of navigation is reduced and unexpected links do not longer appear. Perhaps that your last cleanup went beyond your intentions. I would suggest to be more careful when envisaging such cleanup, and I realise that many viewpoint can coexist and that they may contradict. I think that all is a question of adequate balance and equilibrium. I would appreciate your answer here on your discussion page. In advance, Thank you, Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Gypsum and calcium sulfate are linked within the body of the article and therefore redundant. Alabaster and selenite are varieties of gypsum and not really relevant here. Phosphogypsum and gypsum plaster are commercial products/byproducts and not relevant to a mineralogical article. Vsmith (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

PbO2

Hi Remember the copper(II) sulfides business. The case at hand is PbO2. I am unsure how to undo his changes, but I will try to re-rerename. But your help may be required. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you got it done. Vsmith (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you please say something to Flushing258? This editor is fairly new and refuses to discuss matters, prefering revert-warring over names vs discussion. Who knows what's going on, but the editor needs to open up. Thanks, --Smokefoot (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like he was heading for a 3rr block, so I move protected the page for a week and suggested that he discuss his concerns on the talk page. Restored to the long-standing name pending the outcome of a consensus for change. Vsmith (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Geological input needed

I'm faced with a major conundrum: if the Flood created the observed stratigraphy (including features like the Grand Canyon), and yet Pangaea had to split up and drift apart post-Flood, shouldn't that leave a huge mark on the presumably poorly consolidated Flood deposits? Your wisdom is needed on my talk page. :) Guettarda (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It'd be all mush ... wait what's that rock .. turbidite. Yeah, all mush. Vsmith (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Death valley stuff

So, pray tell Vsmith, my "vandalism" when I have provided true knowledge appropriate to the sections that have been posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.137.181 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

See: the details of this edit. Vsmith (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have the time

Hi Vsmith,

Ceranthor, Carcharoth, and I brought the article on David A. Johnston, the volcanologist who died in the Mount St. Helens eruption, to FAC. We're hoping that if we get enough reviews to get it through FAC in a reasonable amount of time that it can be the featured article of the day on May 18, the 30th anniversary of the eruption.

If you have the time, could you please look through it and review it? (And if you don't have the time, don't worry.) Thanks! Awickert (talk) 04:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Took a quick look and fixed a couple spelling/wording/link bits, may take a longer look later. Vsmith (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw - thanks very much! And if you could leave a note on the FAC page (Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/David A. Johnston/archive1) along with a support or oppose (and if the latter, a list of improvements you'd like to see made), I'd appreciate it very much!

As of tomorrow night, my internet will become spotty (traveling), so consider this a thanks-in-advance. Awickert (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your review and help; it was recently promoted. Awickert (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I noticed it had and you're welcome, but I didn't do much. Is it going to make the main page on the 18th? Vsmith (talk) 01:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure yet. That's what we're working on right now. Would be very neat if it did! Awickert (talk) 02:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, Carcharoth just put it up on Misplaced Pages:Today's_featured_article/requests, so I guess we'll just see what happens. Awickert (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead dioxide to Lead(IV) Oxide

I have a problem with this name is because this chemical is an ionic compound not a molecular compound. The prefix "di" shouldn't be used to name ionic compound. Plus, the ion lead has multiple charges. The correct name should be "Lead(IV) Oxide" I use the roman numeral (IV) means that the lead ion has a +4 charge. --Flushing258 (talk) 04:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have a time

Here's the article The geological history of Point Lobos I created today. Maybe you could fix my English and... If you have no time, that's OK. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed a bit - more later, gotta go get the grandkids now. Vsmith (talk) 09:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much!--Mbz1 (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I enjoy learning new stuff - guess I should read the refs now, to make sure my fixes haven't changed the meanings :-) Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it will be a good idea to read the refs, and make sure that I did it right. Of course I much more doubt about me than about you :) I would like to ask you about the gallery. The thing is that I have few more images, which show different features of the rocks, not the ones that are in the article now. Would you mind, if I am to put them to gallery? I have not uploaded them yet, but I hope to upload them in the next few days.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the gallery simply because it seemed unneeded for only one image and I'd rather see images used in relevant sections. However, I would have no objection to putting a gallery back with a number of images. Vsmith (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand. I will upload few more images, and put them to the gallery, and let you to decide to keep or remove it. BTW, if you enjoy learning new stuff, and if you have a time, could you please take a look at another article I wrote few days ago Looming, Towering, Stooping, and Sinking. It was nominated for deletion, but I hope it will be kept. If you are interested in the subject, maybe you could fix my English. If you do not, that's OK. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Cobaltite

In November 2007 you added an infobox to cobaltite which said - among other things - that it's magnetic after heating. This seems off to me (although WebMineral.com supports it, I'm still wondering about the Curie point?) and to an anon on the talk page. Mind addressing it? DS (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, can't find any discussion of it other than that line on Webmin, so removed it. Vsmith (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

my links

how do I talk to you about some links I made and you seem to have deleted?

aloha

Sam Low www.samlow.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owl1 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You're talkin'. Please read WP:COI and WP:SPAM, we don't use Misplaced Pages to promote our own stuff. Vsmith (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Links

sorry - but My question regarding links which you removed seem not to have been filed?

let me know if you get this and we can discuss them. I believe that all of them have merit.

aloha

Owl1 (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Owl1

Links - ok got it

when you say promote our own stuff - what did you object to?

an example - I posted a link on the Sea Education Association web site to an article I wrote about sailing on a SEA vessel. Is this self promotion? The article was published, is relevant to the SEA mission, is well written etc.

Is it self promotion if you link to your own web site de facto? If so, fine. What is to present another person from suggesting such a link? (I have found links to my articles that I did not make, for example.)

I have tried to correct the crew lists for two voyages aboard Hokule'a on which I was a crew member. How do I do this so as not to have it erased? Is there a higher authority to appeal to?

Just trying to use the encyclopedia...

aloha

Owl1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owl1 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, adding links to your own websites on multiple articles is blatant self promotion. If other links have been added by non-associated editors - no problem.

As for the crew list corrections - no problem if cited to a reliable source, if you have done that and they were removed with my spam removal sweep - sorry 'bout that. I'd say you may re-add those corrections - again if properly sourced. Vsmith (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

links - I will stop after this

Self-promotion

Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates.

Examples of these types of material include:

  1. Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links).
  2. Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages.
  3. Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article.

OK - I still do not get it. The wording is "obscure individuals" pointing to their web pages. I have written extensively about Hokule'a - have sailed aboard her for 7,000 miles, have made a movie about her, have a Ph.D. in anthropology from Harvard - am qualified, I think, to include relevant articles on the subject in the external links.

What do you think?

aloha

Owl1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owl1 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

How about peer reviewed articles? Sorry, I have no intention to doubt your credentials - however your red-linked user name doesn't give any indication of credentials, just another anonymous user. So for starters, create a userpage establishing a bit of who you are (you don't need to give out real life identity) - just give your fellow editors here something to work with. And even so self promotion via article external links is something we don't do. Vsmith (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Whenever I see you have been at an article, I know everything is under control. Thanks for your tireless efforts to make sure that radiometric dating is no longer really confusing. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that radiometric dating bit was a while back. Vsmith (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

My bad, I meant very confusing. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

OK... I was only mildly confused :) Vsmith (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Desert

Hi thanks for spotting that my revert was incomplete, I didn't notice the slight difference in IP addresses. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No prob. Two buddies in a computer lab having fun. Easy to slip by under the radar. Vsmith (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Volcanoes_by_Volcanic_Explosivity_Index

Hi Vsmith,

You are a geologist, and I assume you have an interest in Volcanic Explosivity Index. You may be interested in contributing at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_22#Category:Volcanoes_by_Volcanic_Explosivity_Index. Could you comment on this? It is User:94.196.237.72's idea, his only contribution :s --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

blocking bug?

It looks like you blocked this user for a month four days ago, and yet despite no unblock in the log they continue to vandalize. I don't get it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like my block was back on Feb 22 :) Vsmith (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

And the "duh" award for the day goes to... me. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the improvements you made to the Laterite article.

Thanks so much!! I appreciate the thoughtful corrections/additions you make to "my" pages.

The lead is definitely better with out the namer's infor. I wasn't able to 'see past his significant contribution' about the naming and description of laterite to separate him from the soil.

Other corrections and additions have made it a stronger article. I don't hyperlink as much as you do; I'm concerned about overlinking. (That said, I'm leaving yours.)

Is aluminium the preferred spelling?

Again, thank you;) Bettymnz4 (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. You did a good rewrite of the article, I just "patched a bit". As to links: if you think someone might be unfamiliar with a term or may just want to follow the wiki-trail - leave a link.

And yes, aluminium is the preferred spelling per IUPAC and wiki standard. It took me awhile to adjust - teaching HS chemistry for 25 years using US texts, but I've managed to "shift my brain". Back 5-6 years ago there were plenty of raging edit wars over aluminum/ium and sulf/phur - but we agreed to go with the IUPAC approved aluminium, sulfur and caesium in science articles.

Keep up the good work, Vsmith (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. I am a former chemistry teacher, also. I'll have to brush up on the IUPAC rules!!Bettymnz4 (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, thank you for strengthening my article. I did list it for a PR and Ruhrfisch has kindly taken this article on for a PR. My recent changes are in response to his comments. Between you two, I should have a GA!!!Bettymnz4 (talk) 00:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I was just editing the article, and here you are :) I've changed the rather odd calciums to carbonates. Don't have access to the ref you are using, but calciums is not a standard term in my experience -- and the listed minerals are carbonates (magnesite has no calcium). Also at the reducing and acidic conditions required for bauxite formation, calcite seems a bit misplaced. As bauxite is a rock, obviously residual silica phases and maybe even carbonates could persist - but for "pure" bauxites the Eh/pH conditions make silica and iron soluble. Don't know that we want to get into Eh/pH discussions in the article though. I've also removed the "Mineral Mine" website as not a WP:RS, sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Bettymnz4(User talk:Bettymnz4) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thank you, again, for being bold and taking care of the calciums to carbonates. Although I have a double teaching major in chemistry and math, it's been over 35 years since I've taught. (Subbing in those subjects hardly counts !! lol) Because I didn't check out the chemical formulas, I missed out on that. Why isn't "Mineral Mine" a WP:RS? Is it because it's a commercial site? (If that's the case, then I imagine the American Kennel Club, et al, that I used on my recent rewrite of the Greater Swiss Mountain Dog wouldn't be WP:RS?) If you need to take time to research the answer about reliable sources, please don't take time.

Thanks for the cookie. Yeah, I just retired last year... The Eh/pH stuff maybe more for the bauxite page. That said a good Eh vs pH diagram relates directly to the varieties of laterites - iron stability, silica stability and alumina stability regions with varying Eh/pH. hmm... again.

As to the website and RS. For science related articles academic sites are preferred to commercial sites. Don't know 'bout dog breed stuff. And as I recall the "Mineral Mine" referred to bauxite as a mineral ... yeah picky of me, no?. And for the percentage data, there are better sources, seems the petrology book and/or the ore deposit book on the shelf beside me had % data ... and don't feel up to digging in to the mountain dog now, so will pass on that one. Vsmith (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

That's fine on the dog info; I asked in case you knew "off the top of your head".

Is metavolcanic rock a type of volcanic rock?

I'm having a discussion with User:Black Tusk about this. If you'd like to enlighten us, please feel free to do so at User talk:Black Tusk#Metavolcanic rock. Thanks!! —hike395 (talk) 04:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Paper number

I format the references of the back-arc basin using {{cite journal}} template but I don't know how to put the parameter for Paper number 2000GC000106. Could you please help me show this parameter? Regards --Tranletuhan (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm.. Don't know right off the top of my head, and I don't use that template much. May check it out later ... no time right now. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I sincerely hope it's okay to jump in on this question ;) If I understand the question, use "cite paper|title=blahblah|other items|number=2000GC000106|any additional items". Hope that answers your question AND I hope my answering this isn't considered rude. (I've had many a question that VSmith and others have helped me with.) Bettymnz4 (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for "jumping in" - I was out of time at the moment, had to go babyset my 2 yr old grandson. Vsmith (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Fun!!

Template:Chemical formula

Hi there. I replied here. Cheers, Waldir 07:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Please remove Schulz's too

Vsmith, Stephan is obviously not involved -- please move his if you're going to move mine. Your snide remark about meddling is also not appreciated -- it was not snide, it was true. ATren (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Stephan's "involvement" in climate articles is a known. Your involvement is also a "known" and you are not an admin. Simple as that. I was in the process of leaving you a comment on your talk, but my connection is rather slow today ... and here you are. I'd suggest finding some other topic to constructively apply your editing talents. Vsmith (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)