Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:30, 19 May 2014

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

US Virgin Islands

Apologies. I reverted your edit on US Virgin Islands by accident. I have restored your version. Green Giant (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem - those things happen, thanks for the note. Vsmith (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Permian–Triassic extinction event

I have deleted "By contrast the CO2 ppm vs. pre-Industrial vs. todays" because this insinuates a hysterical and unproven hypothesis that todays global warming event has something to do with this event; or that the CO2 levels caused by this event may cause a similar event today. Though it is true the CO2 levels caused by this event increased 2000 ppm, it remained high throughout the Triassic, Jurassic and made a gradual decline beyond. Todays CO2 dispute has no business in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomboyloots (talk • contribs) 08:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... will think it over, meanwhile you might want to explain your edits at talk:Permian–Triassic extinction event rather than simply reverting. Vsmith (talk) 10:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome

Thank you for your welcome ... I guess my edits didn't go un-noticed after all, ha ha.

Also am "retired" geologist (UWestern Ontario, '76). Am collecting current info (most of my mineralogical texts are out-of-date), but occasionally I see a misleading entry and will correct. Not used to the ins and outs as a contributor, but will learn. Am thinking of establishing a web site or Wiki regarding mineral separation data using specific gravity for those who mess round (like me) with a small concentrating table mill to pass the time.

Also changed careers to education.

Anyway, just wanted to acknowledge your welcome.

Regards Wrbulmer (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Abiogenesis: arise or arose?

Hello, pls see my reason for present tense. Northfox (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources?... replied there. Vsmith (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for Added the link

Hi Vsmith,

I think I have added the link by mistake. I was in dilemna whether or not teflon filter helps in water purification. I am really sorry for that. Will take care in future to link with related wikipages for better reader's information.

Regards

Joseph Warrender — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosephWarrender (talk • contribs) 06:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem, we're all learning here :) Vsmith (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Microscopic derivation

I've noticed your edits to ideal gas law and I consider it is important to specify explicitly that the derivation of ideal gas law is microscopic and to distinguish between macroscopic laws and theoretical derivations involving microscopic considerations.

Also the macroscopic status of the ideal gas law is the same as that of, for example, the law of gravitation and can be taken as a primitive statement/law needing no macroscopic derivation. --188.26.22.131 (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome to specify explicitly with a reference noting such microscopic considerations. However, the derivation is mathematical and of itself doesn't depend on a microscope. Vsmith (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I've copied the above to Talk:Ideal gas law for more eyes... Vsmith (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

External Link Question

Hello,

I have recently tried to add a few external links to different wikipedia pages. For example, I tried adding a link to 'Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton' and 'Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune'. Both links were under the url basedirectory.com. I understand that the external links have to be kept to a minimum, but I feel that this site would be beneficial to the viewers of the page. They are most likely living there already or moving there, so they are on the page to look up general information about the base. This site that I suggest offers additional information about the bases, including USO information, local businesses, and other similar information.

The reason why it was declined was because I used 'we' in the edit summary, but I don't work at the website company that I am suggesting. (I don't know if that is why it was turned down or not) I also noticed a similar site listed under Camp Lejeune's external links (dodlodging.com) That site is also great for visitors to utilize, and basedirectory.com would just as useful in the same context.

Is there anyway to have these links reconsidered?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WojoDesign (talk • contribs) 16:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest asking on the talk pages of those articles. Your username along with the use of "we" suggested to me that you may have a conflict of interest. If not - OK, although I would suggest a username change - and avoid edits that may be mistaken for spam or coi. Vsmith (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Just letting you know that I've soft blocked the account because of the username. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Maya civilization

Besides removing citation notices, he's copy/pasting from other articles so I've made a wholesale revert. He won't be happy but he ignored my post to his talk page this am. He's probably done the same with other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 17:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

He's just new though. He's emailed me about the earlier comment I made on this talk page. He needs help I guess. Dougweller (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Been occupied elsewhere. Thanks for the note. Vsmith (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Marcellettim addition removed

Hello Vsmith,

My name is Mark Marcelletti and I am the owner of California Environmental Dewatering, creator of http://ced.biz and it's content. We are a specialty chemical company that has proven and verifiable science. I added non-copyrited content to Misplaced Pages to increase the accuracy of it's content and it was removed. Could you add my edits back in?

Kind Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcellettim (talk • contribs) 21:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:conflict of interest, we aren't here to promote or advertise. Your addition (at least in part) was copied directly from your website which has a copyright notice at the bottom. So - no, I won't re-add your copyrighted material nor add content which promotes your company. Vsmith (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Bizarre edit summary

Oops. Weird glitch. I meant to point out that the pretense tense indicates the current condition, so "is currently" is redundant. Thanks for your edit. Much better. Ground Zero | t 16:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem, oopses do happen. I've redone the lead sentence on all those mineral list articles. Your edit brought the "poor wording" to my attention. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Per your message

Yes, I understand completely. I would like to continue contributing to the site though, as I often see articles that lack new research/findings. However, to avoid COI, I will use the original journal abstracts or articles as references.

Thank you for bringing the COI to my attention.

- Joseph — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnordqvist (talk • contribs) 22:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad that you understand and hope to see more from you - we need more good content editors. Vsmith (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Forum Needed on Misplaced Pages

As far as I am concerned Misplaced Pages is full of Admins Generally that are fascist totalitarian truth oppressors that hinder the advancement of human knowledge the stated purpose of Misplaced Pages. Of course I know the real truth about Misplaced Pages and that it is a Governmental Intelligence Operation to gather Intelligence. If not then I suggest a major change or addition to Misplaced Pages that a "Forum" button be placed beside the "Talk" button where people can converse freely on the subject of the article without fear of thought police. 2602:306:C518:6C40:48D2:4370:819A:64A6 (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah - the "real truth". P'raps you should take your forum button idea to WP:Village pump ... or not. Please also read WP:No personal attacks. Vsmith (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

VSmith, your restraint is amazing, and shall serve as a model for me in the future. Wow! Just... wow! Riventree (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Sometimes when it gets to me - I walk away from the 'puter and grab my splitting maul and attack some recalcitrant oak logs in my woodpile... Cheers Vsmith (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your Welcome and would appreciate your guidance

Thank you for your welcome note and explaining why you made some changes to my edit on Francis Bacon. As you can see I'm very new to this. I would like your guidance on how to get this right. As a Psychologist (1st class honours - many years ago now - I'm 53) who has published in peer-reviewed journals I'm acutely aware of the standards of quality research, but not quite sure how this works in Misplaced Pages world. After reading Dr Blair-West's book on Francis Bacon and going over his website, I realised that the article on Bacon was lacking. To explain one point, while Blair-West's book is of the 'inspirational' genre he is a medical writer who has published in way more peer-reviewed journals than I have (I have heard him speak as well) and his two other books are non-fiction and well-researched. He previously held an academic appointment at the University of Qld and published research into depression and suicide.

Anyway, his book The Way of The Quest, follows the early childhood of Bacon in historically correct detail - as he says in the Foreword, Blair-West spent some time in the UK researching the life of Bacon. But it is the 28 page appendix he calls the 'Backstory' to be found at the back of the book that I am referencing here. Here he reviews the research into the Shakespeare authorship question and takes it further than I have seen done before. On his website he provides an excerpt from Dodd's book which gives more detail than other authors on what happened in Bacon's "fall from grace" see this page - http://www.thewayofthequest.com/francis-bacon.html If you wish to dismiss this information, can I respectfully suggest that I would think you should review it closely first? As one of the foremost modern authorities (as I would see it) on Francis Bacon, I have been in contact with Dr Blair-West and suggested that he should update aspects of the Bacon page (and the Mont St Michel page - where the book is set).

In terms of using the Amazon link to the book I assumed this would be the easiest for a Misplaced Pages reader in terms of looking into the reference directly without having to then go and find the book. Would it be better to just reference the book publication with no hyperlink? Or use a link to the author's website?

Is there any other guidance you can give me around any other aspect of the edits I made that would make them acceptable to you please? Pennylewis (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pennylewis, I know nothing about Blair-West's works. When your edit showed up on my watchlist (I've not edited the Francis Bacon page other than vandalism reverting ... as far as I remember) I noticed the Amazon link and followed it. The book is billed as an "inspirational novel" by Amazon which caused more concern. As for using the book as a reference, I'd be dubious - but suggest that you raise the issue on talk:Francis Bacon basically explaining your position there as you did above. Then wait to see what the "regular editors" there think about it. Or you could ask at WP:reliable sources noticeboard. Also as you had added what appeared to be a promotional bit about the book on Mont Saint-Michel ... my mental alarms went off and I thought "only edits .. promoting a book .. possible conflict of interest". I note above that you suggest the author "update aspects of the Bacon page", and there the conflict of interest problem gets more complex.

The issue of the link to Amazon is more straight-forward - we simply don't promote any commercial website or business. The way to reference a book is to provide the publication details along with a valid ISBN. Anyone can then use the ISBN number to find information about the book via the publisher, Amazon, Barnes & Noble or other such sites.

With your background, you know what good references are -- the best are peer reviewed journals. Same goes for references on Misplaced Pages - use the best available. See WP:reliable sources for more nitty gritty advice. :)

Anyway - after you digest the above links re: the workings of Misplaced Pages - I hope you stick around - there are lots of articles needing improvement. Vsmith (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining all that. Now I understand the policy more clearly I will do you as you suggest. In terms of the author updating the page, I'm simply suggesting that given that he has researched the subject extensively he should contribute to the WP page. I will use the ISBN in The Mont St Michel page and review this inline with what you have said - I have to balance out respecting and admiring a work from promoting it! Pennylewis (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Oxyhydrogen ...

I am not intentionally warring on the Hydroxy page. I am adding factual, historical applications and original names, dates, and intent of the owner of the name Hydroxy e.g., TR Knudtson . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julian Mark Wayne House (talk • contribs) 03:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems others view that differently. When your block expires, please discuss your concerns on the talk pages of the articles. Vsmith (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

ISASMELT

Hello Vsmith. I wonder if I could ask you to check out the ISASMELT edit history and related talk page. It looks like the author wrote a marketing article but got it through the approval process. I am insufficiently experienced to know what to do (if anything); If all is well, just tell me to STFU :) 71.109.219.35 (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems User:ChrisFountain has explained thing on the article talk. The article is well written and referenced and seems ok - could probably use a tweak or two - and maybe some criticism if sources are available. I've put it on me watchlist. Vsmith (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit war

An edit war is developing at Galileo affair. As User:Darouet is registered, massive protection is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.64.117 (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Sandbox category removal

Thanks for removing those category and stub links from my sandbox. It won't happen again. Cheers. tsherryUSA(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure

I am not sure that you have the experience to edit the article on the Galileo affair. Your edit restored a number of untrue remarks on points of fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.202.208 (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Hello. I dont understand? I created those articles the same way as any other? Why is it a problem now? Other people do exactly the same!--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Copying content from copyrighted material, either print or web based, has always been "a problem". I posted on your talk "now" because your edits just came to my attention. If "other people do exactly the same" - then they too are in violation. Have you read the WP:Copyvio page? If not, then read the second paragraph carefully. Do you not understand the seriousness of the problem? What other pages have you added content in violation of copyright? I will be checking further as time allows and if further violations are found that will also be removed. Or, you could go back and rewrite and copied content that you may have added to other articles to avoid the problem. Any future violations will be treated differently, as you now know the rules. Vsmith (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that, but you can save your rude tone for someone else, because I do not appreciate it. I've already starting rewriting the Sasco article, I hope it doesn't anger you as much as my last questions have. (I can see why your students must have felt tortured by you. ) Thanks for serving, by the way. And to answer your question "What other pages have you added content in violation of copyright?" Probably a lot, but if you want to worry about it, thats up to you.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

And it is not necessary to respond, because I wont read it. As soon as someone is rude to me I feel absolutely no reason to ever speak with them again--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if my reply came accross as rude, such was not intended. Simply trying to provide a serious message and explain the problem. And you are welcome. Vsmith (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

External Links to GIA Gem Encyclopedia

Hi Vsmith Sincere apologies if my edit seemed promotional. The external link to GIA Gem Encyclopedia was added to provide an additional external resource, as per External Links on other Misplaced Pages pages (links to mindat.org, as an example) . In my edit summary, I disclosed who I work for, as per the Amended Terms of Use wikipedia is proposing. It was not intended to be promotional, just full disclosure. This is my first attempt at editing, and very much appreciate whatever guidance you can provide regarding best practices.

Kind regards, Vivianne Vdelsign (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It was good to acknowledge your employer and possible COI. You are most welcome to edit Misplaced Pages articles to add content, fix errors, ... However, simply adding external links to webpages related to your employment was problematic and appeared promotional. Please find articles that need improvement or subjects lacking Wiki articles and add/improve content. Back your edits with WP:reliable sources and all is well. Vsmith (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

This link is a external link with more detail about the Gold Rush History mapped out on a singe global google map. Not affiliate or my link. Just a fan of the forum. This is legit please refer to the wiki rules. SilverGoldForum (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that you get a new username - one that doesn't suggest a WP:conflict of interest. Or simply avoid edits that suggest a coi - specifically adding external links to said forum. Vsmith (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

RevDel Request

On WP:AIV they seemed to forgot this. --///EuroCarGT 04:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems it's been done. Vsmith (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Panspermia

I thought you would like to read what our friend User:BSmith821 wrote about us (Misplaced Pages) and our work on "his" Panspermia article: https://astrobiologyfuture.org/resources/76/download/Complete_8865-26.pdf He is the WP editor that was sanitizing the Chandra Wickramasinghe article in order to postulate him for the "highest British honor." Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. Vsmith (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

GIA links

Hello. I'm writing in regards to you removing the educational resources links from the pages that I edited. I read all the links that you provided by I'm still not clear why you removed the links. The links I posted to www.gia.edu do not contain any advertising and it is all linking to a non-profit educational resource. The pages on each gemstone on gia.edu have a lot of important research information and photos and videos that just can't be added to the Misplaced Pages pages. Can you please let me know why you feel these links shouldn't be added, and how the links I added are any different from the other links that have been added to the External Links section? Thank you. Kgiordan (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The links aren't "bad". However, when a new user only adds links to the same website's pages it begins to look like promotion. You are welcome to add verifiable content to WP articles, but just adding external links isn't really that helpful. Please also read WP:COI and if you have a connection to GIA consider that as we aren't here to promote our own work or that of any website/organization. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

An edit by me was reverted by you

What does a copy/paste copyvio count as? I paraphrased the source of where I got my information from on Sales tax token. Sleepinabanana (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Here is one instance:

Your first two sentences to the history section:

In 1933, eleven states passed legislation for sales tax. By 1940 over 30 states had enacted legislation and systems for sales tax collection due to the success of the early programs at generating revenue for the state that used the sales tax token.

The sentence from the reference:

In 1933 eleven states passed legislation for sales tax and by 1940 over 30 states had enacted legislation and systems for sales tax collection due to the success of the early programs at generating revenue for the state.

How is that paraphrasing? The rest is the same - too close for even "WP:close paraphrasing". Vsmith (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting

You are repeatedly putting false statements in the article on the Galileo affair. It will be interesting to see you prove that Galileo was in "Arcetri" when he was actually in Siena and Florence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.168.153.124 (talk) 08:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Prove? Not interested. Vsmith (talk) 10:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Why are you removing external links

Did you look at the links before removing them - they go to informational pages on heat pipes, with no sales message in the main text.

Please look at the links before saying that they can't be used.

BillAnderson71 (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I looked at them. Informational pages which contain sales/promotional links are not needed. We aren't here to promote commercial websites. (You don't need to copy my comments from your user talk page -- simply reply there.) Vsmith (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

American Expeditionary Forces -- a question

Hello Vsmith:

I know this isn't your particular field, but you're a quick and decisive administrator. I need your advice on a small editing issue. If you visit the page American Expeditionary Force, you'll see that an editor has changed it from the original plural to a singular. He changed the title as well as references to it in the text. He has also gone through Misplaced Pages changing the name from plural to singular in multiple articles. This is simply incorrect. On the talk page I give evidence that it should be "American Expeditionary Forces" in the plural as this is the historical and official designation. I was waiting for a response from other editors on that article, but there is none.

My question of you: is this issue too small to fight over? And if we do change it back to the original, I don't know how to rename the article.

Thanks for any wisdom you can impart! Wilson44691 (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Moved it back and asked the editor to join the discussion you started on talk per WP:BRD. As multiple units of the Army and Marines were involved it seems Pershing's Forces would be correct. Haven't done anything with all the links made to the singular title as they don't appear to be double redirects and can be fixed later pending the ensuing discussion. May not be my "field", but am interested as I had relatives involved in those forces. Vsmith (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Very effective action. I'll ignore the over-the-top reaction. (See where I went there? "Over the top"?). Cheers, Wilson44691 (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Machu Picchu & L. Ron Hubbard

I posted a section about Machu Picchu and L. Ron Hubbard, but you removed it. Can you please give me some clarification for its removal? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.55.53 (talk) 05:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Removed the paragraph about Hubbard now - as rather irrelevant to the article. More appropriate in Hubbard's biography methinks. Vsmith (talk) 12:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Bosnian pyramid stuff

You might want to see . That's 2 new editors this month, this one showing up after the other got a 3RR warning. Not counting the IP of course. We are being threatened with more I see. Dougweller (talk) 06:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The vast opportunity for cruft promotion is such a temptation :) Vsmith (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Barringer crater

Hey man, just a heads up that I reverted one of your edits on the above article. I initially added Elugelab to the see also section of the barringer crater article and did not provide my rationale for doing so. I thought readers would realize the similarities, and understand why someone added it, but seen as you, a reader, did not get it. I wrote a short sentence about why they're similar, in a way. The explanation sentence in the see also section of the barringer crater article should now get readers to grasp that a "10 megaton" impact event (barringer crater) is not at all equivalent in results to an actual 10 megaton surface exploding nuclear bomb going off in the same place. Have a look. Do you get the relevance between the two events now? 86.46.180.56 (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

So I see ... and what WP:RS made the comparison to establish notability? Also seems Barringer should be capitalized. Vsmith (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Driehaus Architecture Prize nomination for "In the News"

Hi! I nominated today's Driehaus Architecture Prize laureate Pier Carlo Bontempi to be featured on the start page of Misplaced Pages at "In the News". It'd be great for the whole discipline if you could support this nomination.

Please go there: Misplaced Pages:In the news/Candidates#Driehaus Prize and add Support or Strong Support. Thank you! All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It'd be also very helpful if you could also support this request (click!), so the Driehaus Prize would be considered to be included at "In the News" every year. Thank you, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Mixing (Process Engineering)

Hello, I saw that you've made some recent edits to the high-shear mixer page, and I was wondering if you'd be willing to lend your skill and knowledge to the mixing (process engineering) page. Thanks!RSido (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Went there - made various minor fixes. Any specific problems? Vsmith (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Reverting my edit

Hi V - I put an additional note in the 'fine-tuning argument' article which you reverted because the references weren't good enough (I assume).

Thing is, the note is simply an observation of a logical inconsistency within the fine-tuning premise itself. I only put the references to prove it has indeed been mentioned by others, not as sources.

Like another edit where I pointed out the number of words in some song lyrics followed a particular 21, 12 pattern (the album is called 2112), the observation is self-evident. The source is what's already written on the page.

I don't want to just undo the revert, obviously. Please can you have another look at what I wrote, see if you agree?

Cheers, Mark82.69.89.101 (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but your "observation" falls into the range of WP:original research and needs solid references. Vsmith (talk) 02:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

JSTOR Survey (and an update)

Hi! Just a quick update that while JSTOR and The Misplaced Pages Library discuss expanding the partnership, they've gone ahead and extended the pilot access again, until May 31st. Thanks, JSTOR!

It would be really helpful for growing the program if you would fill out this short survey about your usage and experience with JSTOR:

SURVEY

Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

unintended copywrite

I was under the assumption that by citing the material it would not be considered copy write. Particularly since 2 clicks of followed links would clarify that it is a direct quote!

The shaman poet (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Please read the WP:Copyvio page. What you did was a simple cut and paste of content from the referenced website. What you need to do is rewrite the content in your own words rather than copying. Also, the galleries.com website fails WP:RS as it is a commercial site. You should be able to rewrite the content and support it with a valid non-commercial internet or mineralogy text reference. Vsmith (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

copy write deletion mistake

The following is the message provided by the site from which the copy paste was taken from to include in "epidote" section:

Unless otherwise noted, all mineral descriptions and images, plus the related descriptions on this server are the property of Amethyst Galleries, Inc., and may not be copied for commercial purposes. Permission to copy descriptions and images is granted for personal and educational use only. All such copies must include this copyright notice and explicit references to the URL http://www.galleries.com/.

Is Misplaced Pages not considered a non-commercial "educational use" website?

Did you miss the citation provided at the end of that quotation?

Do you have other reasons for deleting more than what you find troublesome? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The shaman poet (talk • contribs) 19:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages may be an educational resource, however content added to Misplaced Pages may be used elsewhere - even for non-educational purposes. Please read Misplaced Pages:Copy-paste as it covers this incident. Also read Misplaced Pages:FAQ/Copyright for further info. As for the citation you added - that provides verification that you had a source to support your addition. Just providing that source does not justify blatant copy-paste copyright violation. The "personal and educational use" bit you quote above applies to use an educational setting and not for copying to a website such as Misplaced Pages. Vsmith (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

173.166.159.109

Hi, just wanted to give you a heads up that I've run a whois check on the above IP address and its an ISP, not a school. I've updated the page templates accordingly. Cheers, ► Philg88 ◄ 16:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - I've change the block to anonblock w/"likely a school ...." Vsmith (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Zinc

I saw that you have made edits to Mining, so I thought I'd ask you about something in Zinc. You might also want to take a look at a question I left in a comment on User talk:Josh Parris's talk page earlier today on Molybdenum. He might not be as active recently on Misplaced Pages as I thought (and I know I am a bit impatient), so you might want to answer that question, too. I just started reading the article on Zinc. Right now I'm focusing on the second and third paragraphs of the lead/lede. It seems to me that the sentences are a bit out of chronological order. There may be some logic to the order that I haven't figured out yet, but I noticed that a sentence in the second paragraph seems to contradict a sentence at the beginning of the third paragraph:

• Second paragraph: The mines of Rajasthan have given definite evidence of zinc production going back to 6th century BC. To date, the oldest evidence of pure zinc comes from Zawar, Rajasthan as early as 9th century AD, when a distillation process was employed to make pure zinc.

• Third paragraph (second sentence): German chemist Andreas Sigismund Marggraf is normally given credit for discovering pure metallic zinc in 1746.

(I added the italics for emphasis.) Do these sentences contradict each other? If so, which is correct? CorinneSD (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages articles are "cobbed" together by an uncoordinated gang of typically noncommunicative folks each "pushing" their own bias ... Anyway, the 3rd paragraph bit is from the typical "western viewpoint" which historically ignores other writings - not by "evil intent", just folks using resources available. Then along comes the editors with access (and interest) to works by other civilizations and they add the Chinese, Hindi, Muslim, ... view ... kersplat ... all too often in the lead sections of articles and no effort to coordinate the content. So, yes -- the zinc article has problems and does need a good wordsmith to smooth out the contradictions and choppiness. The quick fix: simply add in the western world between given credit and for discovering....

Sorry 'bout the rant :) Vsmith (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I think you described the way many articles are put together quite well. I added "in the western world" and will work on the order of information in that section later. (I might ask you for help with that when I get to it.) Thanks also for your reply to my question on the Molybdenum article. Now I have a question about sphalerite. New section below. CorinneSD (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Sphalerite

I just finished reading the article on Sphalerite. I don't see any problems with it, but I have one question. The word "zinc blende" is written as two words in the lede but as one word in the section on "Chemistry" (just below the lede). Which do you think it should be? (I'm guessing two words.)

Also, I had never heard the adjective "gemmy" used before, anywhere. I assumed it meant "gemlike", but it sounded a bit informal (like "sparkly"). I found it listed in Wiktionary, where it says it means "full of gems; bright, glittering", so I guess it is used in the article to mean "bright, glittering" (or gemlike). Had you heard that adjective used before? What do you think of its use here? Wouldn't "gemlike" be both more formal and more descriptive? Or should I just get used to a new word? CorinneSD (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

de:Sphalerit uses "Zinkblende", zinc blende is the english version of it. I guess that English rules apply. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Isn't "hornblende" a word? Or is it "hornblend"? That's one word. But for some reason, "zincblende" doesn't look right, and I prefer the two words, "zinc blende". Maybe we should look in a minerology textbook. CorinneSD (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It is hornblende (one word), however the old zinc blende for sphalerite derives from the blende: German for blind or deceiving - (sphalerite from Greek for treacherous) both old lead miners terms meaning no lead to quote/paraphrase Klein's Manual of Mineralogy 1985. And Klein uses the two word: zinc blende. Vsmith (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I prefer zincblende meself, but don't know which is "correct". As for the gemmy, I agree it is rather informal sounding and changed it to gem quality in the image caption. Vsmith (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Good move. CorinneSD (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Metalloid

I've been reading the article on Metalloid and have made a few minor copy edits. I have gotten to the section Metalloid#Periodic table territory, sub-section "Location", and have come across something that puzzles me. At the beginning of the third paragraph I read "Going along a period", and, in the middle of that paragraph, "Going down a main group". I had earlier skimmed the article on Periodic table and saw in the illustration of the periodic table the word "Period" with an arrow pointing down the first column and the word "Group" with an arrow pointing to the right in the first row. So why would it say, "Going along a period" and "Going down a main group" in the article on Metalloid? I understood "along" to mean "across", horizontally. Things seem to be reversed (unless "down" and "along" mean something different than their usual meanings). Can you explain this to me? CorinneSD (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Periods are the horizontal rows and groups are the vertical columns. The first image in the periodic table article has "Period" with an arrow pointing down, referring to the period numbers 1-7 below: the numbers of the horizontal rows; the arrow to the right "points out" the numbers 1-18 for the 18 groups or vertical columns. Vsmith (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. That shows you how much (that is, how little) I know. Can you see how those arrows might be confusing to an average, unscientific reader? Perhaps it should say "Groups" and "Periods" rather than "Group" and "Period", but there may not be room for that. I defer to your judgment on this. CorinneSD (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary

I've been reading the article on the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary. I have found very few errors. I noticed, however, that in the sections Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary#Alvarez impact hypothesis and Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary#Chicxulub Crater, chemicals are sometimes written with a subscript (small number) and sometimes not. Shouldn't these be consistent? CorinneSD (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes they should be consistent. I've rewritten the newly added material to fix that and other stuff that needed work. Hopefully better now. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Vsmith (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, iridium isn't radioactive so the background just refers to the normal concentration levels in crustal rocks. Fixed and tweaked a bit more there. Vsmith (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks for working on it. I had just gone to the disambiguation page for "background" and selected the item that I thought was the one meant, but I'm glad you corrected it. (I still don't understand why the word "background" is used to refer to normal concentration levels, though.) CorinneSD (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the dab page doesn't have it. In this usage it's nore background = normal. In geochemical prospecting the search is mostly looking for values above the normal or background. But, just because that is in my "background" doesn't mean anyone else understands it that way. So... there probably should be a bit about geochemical background on the dab page. Maybe sometime I'll work on that... Vsmith (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your kind reply. CorinneSD (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Went ahead and changed that to "average crustal content" for now. Vsmith (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess that's clearer. (I know "crustal" is an adjective referring to the earth's crust, but is that word really used in geology? Just curious.)

I have another question. In the first photo in the article, the caption says it shows the K-Pg boundary, but to the non-scientist reader it is not readily apparent where that boundary is in the hillside there. Is there any way a bit more information could be given in the caption to say precisely where that boundary is?

Also, in the second photo, a man is pointing to the boundary, but it appears that he is pointing to the boundary between a very light yellow-beige and a slightly darker yellow-beige. Is that really where the boundary is? Or is the boundary where the yellow (either lighter or darker) changes to a dark gray? CorinneSD (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... well crustal just seemed a natural fit, never really thought about it.

As for the specific boundary line is in the images - don't really know. Both of the users who uploaded the images (Glenlarson and Wilson44691) are still active ... maybe ask 'em. Vsmith (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the first photo again and changed my mind. I guess the dividing line is clear enough. It's light rock below and dark rock above. CorinneSD (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I was reading the article on Talc, and clicked on the link to Terrane, and in the first paragraph the word "crustal" is used at least twice. I should have known you were right. I had just never heard it used. CorinneSD (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Did you see the latest edit to Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary? An editor added a wiki link to "dinosaur". Would you consider that over linking per WP:OVERLINK, or not? CorinneSD (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't think that one link is problematic. I've fixed a bit of the lead - links and capitalization (period and era are capitalized when part of a formal name: such as Paleogene Period and Cenozoic Era). Vsmith (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

New article in userspace

Hi Vsmith, Milesjolly1997 here. Thought you'd like to read my first stab at an article. It's about a looney tunes cartoon from 1964 called Bartholomew Versus the Wheel. I'd just like to thank you for your warm welcome, it put me at ease and helped me to sort my Misplaced Pages affairs out. Here is the article if you want to read it. See User:Milesjolly1997/Bartholomew Versus the Wheel.

I've fixed a bit for you there. Vsmith (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Sorry to see that you are being trolled at various talk pages. I hope this cuppa will help to make up for it. Thanks for all your efforts here at WikiP. MarnetteD | Talk 21:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - this old dude just dozed off over a cup of strong coffee -- maybe some tea would help :) Vsmith (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

"Hoax"

Dear Vsmith, I did not post a hoax on Misplaced Pages. I am only writing what I know; and I know there is a micronation that claims Antarctica. Not having heard of it is no reason to assume it is fraudulent. I referenced it in the edit description. If necessary, I can take it down until the micronation's existence is proven. Unless somebody already removed it. Just letting you know.

Thanks, PresidentCooper (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Event horizon

If you have time, could you take a look at the latest edits to Event horizon? It's a minor addition, but since the writer misspelled relativity two times, perhaps the edit should be reviewed for content and appropriateness. CorinneSD (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems to have problems with spelling and punctuation, see the user's attempt at quark. I've removed the addition to event horizon as it linked to the disambiguation page and was rather trivial. Vsmith (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

AIV thanks

Thank you so much for your very rapid response wrt 12.183.57.66. I really appreciate it. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem, saw the AIV note - looked and zapped. Then signed off to go get the grandkids after school. :) Vsmith (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Sulfur

I've been reading the article on Sulfur and have come across something I'd like to ask you about. It is in the fourth paragraph in the section Sulfur#Natural occurrence. The sentence begins:

"Significant deposits of elemental sulfur, believed to have been (and are still being) synthesised by..."

I think that "believed to have been (and are still being)..." is rather silly and an awkward construction. I wonder if you think "believed to be synthesised by..." would be acceptable. CorinneSD (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Better yet reword and drop the silly "believed" bit. I just found several sources for the bio synthesis in sediments and/or assoc w/ salt domes. I'll take a stab at rewording that shortly and add some refs. Vsmith (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Great! CorinneSD (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Pony Express

Should a sentence about F. A. Bee be added to the Pony Express entry? http://books.google.com/books?id=t94HAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=FA+Bee+,WW+Finney+and+John+S+Jones&source=bl&ots=MzFu3d1zoZ&sig=u0MM9Ylcf0NoDwT8thOM7EwRdvM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BCZcU_rrPITJ8AH3vIDgAg&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=FA%20Bee%20%2CWW%20Finney%20and%20John%20S%20Jones&f=false I am trying to promote the Frederick A. Bee entry in Misplaced Pages. MC Potbelly (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Per that link he was involved - is that the only source? Also the relevant section in the Frederick Bee article is rather problematic - needs work to reword all those quoted bits. Vsmith (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Carbon

I'm reading the article on Carbon, and in the third paragraph in the lede, a sentence begins:

"Carbon forms more compounds than any other element,..."

Right after "element" is a "citation needed" tag. I just thought you might be able to find and add the citation so the tag can be removed. CorinneSD (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The "more" bit is supported by the lanl reference -- reworded a bit as the "theoretically possible" bit however, isn't in that ref. The lead really shouldn't have the refs - they belong in the sections the lead is summarizing ... ideally. Anyway -- keep on truckin' Vsmith (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Americium

Would you mind looking at the latest edit to Americium? An IP editor changed a reference. CorinneSD (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Appears to be just replacing a dead link, page now hosted elsewhere, biblio info seems OK. Vsmith (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Nickel

I have just finished reading the article on Nickel. (I skipped over the parts on chemistry, like "Compounds".) I made a number of minor edits. As I was reading, I came across a few places which I thought needed clarification. I thought I'd list them for you and perhaps when you have time you could look at them.

1) In the first paragraph in the lead, there is a "citation needed" tag. I thought you might be able to find a reference.

2) The second sentence in the third paragraph in the lead reads:

"Historically, this has led to its use for plating metals such as iron and brass, in chemical apparatus, and in certain alloys that retain a high silvery polish, such as German silver."

There is something wrong with the phrases following "for plating metals". First of all, they are not parallel in structure. I wonder if the comma after "iron and brass" should be removed so that it reads, "for plating metals such as iron and brass in chemical apparatus". If it doesn't mean that, then something needs to be done to clear this up.

3) Toward the end of the last paragraph in the section Nickel#History is the following sentence:

"Canada switched alloys again to plated steel during the Korean War, but was forced to stop making pure nickel "nickels" in 1981, reserving the pure 99.9% nickel alloy after 1968 only for its higher-value coins."

I was about to move the phrase "after 1968" to a place just a bit earlier in that phrase beginning "reserving" when I realized that something seemed wrong with the chronology of the whole sentence. It goes from the Korean War to "in 1981" to "after 1968". Also, both the phrase after "but was forced..." and the phrase beginning "reserving" are about pure nickel. Can you sort this out?

Reworded and chopped a bit along with a confused forum post used as a ref (nonWP:RS). All for now, maybe more later - zzz time. Vsmith (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

4) In the section Nickel#World production there is a table headed "Mine Production and Reserves". I have two questions:

1) I see "metric tons" at the bottom of the table, on the world totals line, but isn't there a way to indicate that the numbers are "metric tons, rounded" at the top of the table?

2) In my screen, there seems to be an unnecessary space after the table and before the next section. Is that just in my screen (I have it set at 125% so it is easier for me to read), or is that in anyone's screen? If it is in anyone's screen, could a bit of that space after the table be removed?

5) In the section Nickel#Extraction and purification, the second sentence of the second paragraph reads as follows:

" Recent advances in hydrometallurgy have resulted in significant nickel purification using these processes."

I'm wondering whether the plural "processes" is needed. Isn't "hydrometallurgy" one process? Shouldn't it be "this process"? Even if it is a collection of several different processes, none of them have been mentioned, so "these processes" is confusing.

6) In the section Nickel#Electrorefining, there is a description of the Mond process. In the first paragraph are the following two sentences:

"If necessary, it may be separated by distillation. Dicobalt octacarbonyl is also formed in this process, but it decomposes to tetracobalt dodecacarbonyl at the reaction temperature to give a non-volatile solid."

To a scientist or engineer, this may be perfectly clear, but to me there are a few ambiguities:

1) In the first sentence, what is "it"? It's not clear to me.

2) In the second sentence, what is "this process". That's not clear to me, either.

Thanks in advance. CorinneSD (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I replied

User_talk:Anna_Frodesiak#The_Michigan_Kid

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Gemstones Production Maps

Hello,

I am a geographer and the one who pulished the maps of ruby, sapphir (...etc) production that you have deleted yesterday. I just would like to know why you deleted them (just to know a little bit better about the "wikipedia"'s rules).

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2EDA:E450:25EE:45BA:4CCA:DF2 (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The images were to small to read, then I opened them to read them and the wording was not in English. Would be fine for fr.wiki or wherever - but not en.wiki. Vsmith (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

fossil fuel phase out

Not a problem. I like the work you are doing on these articles. Keep it up. Plazak (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

K is radioactive

from potassium page: "Naturally occurring potassium is composed of three isotopes, one of which, 40K, is radioactive. Traces (0.012%) of this isotope are found in all potassium..."

So there's no need to make a distinction... K 40 or otherwise. Please refrain from editing things you don't understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The shaman poet (talk • contribs) 01:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand quite well, do you? Do you understand WP:reliable sources? If you do, then why don't you use them to support your edits as Misplaced Pages policy requires? Cheers. Vsmith (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You obviously do not even understand wiki's policy on sourcing with wiki links, while taking liberty in undoing material you don't understand even after sourced with links to other pages. Again, please leave the undoing part to someone who has a firm grasp on the subject. You are not being helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The shaman poet (talk • contribs) 03:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's see now...editor since 2004, administrator since 2005, more than 131,000 edits, advanced degree in geology, science teacher...versus editor since 2011, no information on user page, every item on talk page a warning or notification of some sort, doesn't know that other articles on Misplaced Pages are not considered sources....... I suggest that you approach your experience on Misplaced Pages with a different attitude and a mind OPEN to learning something new, a WHOLE NEW TYPE OF EXPERIENCE which is collaborating -- that is, working together in a cooperative manner to produce something of value -- with other editors in a RESPECTFUL way. If you are prepared to do this, your opinions and contributions will be taken seriously, you will be treated with respect, and you may even experience the satisfaction of making a positive difference in creating and improving Misplaced Pages articles. Start fresh. It's a whole new day today. CorinneSD (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Since you have seen my user page, then you should know that your hubris is of no value to me. Also, perhaps you would care to explain, at least to yourself, why is it that wiki is so in need of editing all that I have made contributions to, while most of what I see from you is eliminations and lack of additions. How is it that your "advanced degree in geology" has missed so much or made so little actual contribution? If other wiki articles are not considered sources, then by logic and default, neither you or wiki are of any value! You need to reconsider your logic. Respect is a two way street, sort o say, You need to first see past your contradictions before you can earn it. Every day 'is' a new day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The shaman poet (talk • contribs) 03:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

You are entitled to your views on Misplaced Pages's value, but if you wish to contribute here effectively you need to understand what is regarded as a 'reliable source' - the relevant guideline states "Although Misplaced Pages articles are tertiary sources, Misplaced Pages employs no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy. Because Misplaced Pages forbids original research, there is nothing reliable in it that isn't citable with something else. Thus Misplaced Pages articles (or Misplaced Pages mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose." Also, I don't understand why you're accusing CorinneSD of hubris - she is obviously referring to Vsmith rather than herself. Mikenorton (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Article merge

Can the 2 article titles List_of_books_featuring_transgender_persons and List_of_transgender_characters_in_literature be merged into 1 article or can the title of article be redirected? Because there is no need for 2 separate articles with the same content.

Becuase I do not have the expertise education or time to understand reemerging....... Perhaps you could fix the template Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender fiction and merge the transgendered literature section together? I'm not computer savvy so I'm not sure...... Venustar84 (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems the second list has been deleted and the template now has a redlink. Perhaps post a question on the article and/or template talk page. Vsmith (talk) 11:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

phantom quartz

VSmith does phantom quartz come ever in a silver or grey colour and where can I buy it online? Venustar84 (talk) 01:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

See the external link on the phantom quartz page, it has a good discussion of phantoms. I don't give buying advice - just do a search w/ your fav search engine. Vsmith (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Not into buying advice but have you ever seen Phantom Quartz in a grey color vsmith?

Please tell if you have? And do you remember me when my username used to be neptunekh? 108.180.17.36 (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Had to refresh my memory wrt your username, but now I remember, and you started the phantom quartz page a while back. Hope all is well with you. Anyway re: grey phantom quartz, some of the shaded phantoms I recall from the Mt Ida area could be called grey - but not a distinct or dark grey. Seems smoky quartz phantoms could also be called grey. But then I'm no expert on quartz crystal variations. Vsmith (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Vsmith Can you be my mentor on wikipedia? because I'm not good at editing and I have been warned I could be blocked from editing? Please help me. Venustar84 (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Vsmith (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio

I had forgotten I'd discussed copyvio with this editor before. I just searched back and found which is more material from . That's not archived but there are other clues on the site that this is earlier then the same material in our article. This version before he started editing again after my revert doesn't seem to have any of the sources from the blog, the version before you reverted seems to have all of them (although I haven't checked literally every one). I can't undo his edits but will try to manually remove them. Dougweller (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Done - do you mind warning him this time so he knows I'm not the only editor concerned? He's heading towards a block, maybe he should be blocked now, I'm not sure. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Warned - maybe shoulda blocked now rather than later... Keep on truckin' Vsmith (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I just "re"-added material yesterday which had been removed several weeks back, However I did reword it and added referenceses. I can see where you may think it was just a paraphrase and felt to remove it.

However ALL of the material prior to that was removed also. All the material prior to that was in my own words and was properly referenced.

Also If you are talking about copyright material from Dr. Ward's writings, I AM Dr. Ward.

Please explain, Thank you

CWatchman (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

OK...I have done a little study on this and from what I understand I first need to post the following on my blog : "The text of this website is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)." After that is posted then I am free to use any portion of that material on Misplaced Pages. Is this correct? CWatchman (talk) 01:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Replied on Talk:Biblical Mount Sinai. Vsmith (talk) 03:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello please contact me as I am sitting on a vein of beryllium ore and am being persecuted for it need help also kimberlite pipe 8283415259 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.181.3.143 (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

No thanks, don't need mo hassles. Good lucl :) Vsmith (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Graphite undo

Who are you to decide what's a "useless comparison" ? These wiki articles are designed for education. Making contrast and comparisons is an essential part of learning. Please don't assume more authority than you are allowed Your continuous ignorance in this field is frustrating to helpful editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The shaman poet (talk • contribs) 16:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

What... no answer?

You're a complete moron for claiming such comparison made is "pointless and unsourced". I merely expanded on a comparison made on the diamond page and importing the graph from that page. If you are a consistent anal retentive, then you should also remove that comparison as well. But we both know you're a fool!

Furthermore, the comparison made between graphite and diamond is made in geology classes around the world. Why do you feel that your ignorance is a merit for judgment?