User talk:Vsmith

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

the Moon

1st quarter, 26%

Archives

Archive list

Archive 1 7/7/2004 - 6/15/2005 Archive 2 6/15/2005 - 9/6/2005 Archive 3 9/6/2005 - 1/01/2006 Archive 4 1/1/2006 - 5/31/2006 Archive 5 5/31/2006 - 8/15/2006 Archive 6 8/15/2006 - ~11/30/06 Archive 7 11/30/2006 - 1/31/07 Archive 8 2/01/07 - 5/17/07 Archive 9 5/17/07 - 8/31/07 Archive 10 9/01/07 - 12/31/07 Archive 11 01/01/08 - 06/30/08 Archive 12 07/01/08 - 09/30/08 Archive 13 10/01/08 - 12/31/08 Archive 14 01/01/09 - 06/30/09 Archive 15 07/01/09 - 12/31/09 Archive 16 01/01/10 - 06/30/10 Archive 17 07/01/10 - 12/31/10 Archive 18 01/01/11 - 07/01/11 Archive 19 07/01/11 - 12/31/11 Archive 20 01/01/12 - 12/31/12 Archive 21 01/01/13 - 12/31/13 Archive 22 01/01/14 - 07/31/14 Archive 23 08/01/14 - 12/31/14 Archive 24 01/01/15 -

Wetland

What do you think of the image that was just added to Wetland (apart from the grammatical issues in the caption)? I think it's a nice photo, but it doesn't show the water that is an essential element in a wetland, or the green color of vegetation. CorinneSD (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The water is there, just hard to see at that size. I've tweaked the caption a bit. Vsmith (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The caption is certainly better. What do you think of adding or substituting the photo of a bog in Estonia that is on my user page, about three images up from the bottom of the page? CorinneSD (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

That Estonian bog picture is good - replace if you wish. Vsmith (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Can't seem to get through to this editor

V, can you help me get through to this editor, who is obviously a non-native speaker of English? I left a comment at User talk:TaivoLinguist#Language isolate about a poorly written edit at Language isolate. Immediately, the writer of that edit left a message on my talk page at User talk:CorinneSD#Summerian Language -- but it was left at the TOP of my talk page. I moved it to the bottom and responded, and directed him/her to leave comments at the bottom of the talk page. It was followed by a second one at the TOP, which I then moved to the bottom, and then a third at the TOP. All the comments are written earnestly but in very poor English. I'm not sure s/he even understands what I wrote. CorinneSD (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Left the user a note re: edit warring and "use the talk page". Seems a 3rr report has been filed - altho there be problems there... Vsmith (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Languages and unnecessary/subjective usage of WR:FRINGE notes

Ok, I am involved in discussion. Please take a look. Thank you. Okurogluselo 18:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I see that - also see that you continue to edit war, and that must stop. Vsmith (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Siberia 2

I've just started reading the article on Siberia. I'd like to convert square kilometers to square miles in the second paragraph of the lede, but I don't know how to represent "million". I also think it looks nice there seeing the words spelled out; I don't know if the square miles needs to be spelled out or not. Could you put in the conversion template so I can see how to do it? I know how to do it now for small numbers, but I don't know what to do with the "million". Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

{{convert|13100000|km2}} → 13,100,000 square kilometres (5,100,000 sq mi)

{{convert|13.1e6|km2}} → 13.1×10⁶ square kilometres (5.1×10⁶ sq mi)

... don't know with the word "million". Vsmith (talk) 02:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm going to save this at the top of my talk page for future reference. CorinneSD (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

V, I'm puzzled by something in the Siberia article. Toward the end of the fourth paragraph in the Siberia#Climate section are the following two sentences:

• It is a village with a population of 500, and it recorded a temperature of −89.9 °F (−67.7 °C) on 6 February 1933. It is considered the Northern Pole of Cold, meaning the coldest known point in the Northern hemisphere.

In the next paragraph we read, about the same village:

• With the lowest recorded temperature of −71.2 °C (−96.2 °F), Oymyakon (Sakha Republic) has the distinction of being the coldest city on Earth.

(a) Why are two low (presumably record) temperatures given for the village?

(b) Also, I notice that the order of the temperatures varies, some with C first, then F, and some with F first, then C. Which order do you think should be followed in the article? CorinneSD (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Removed second unsourced and colder claim and switched to °C first for consistency. Vsmith (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks. I have another question: the last sentence in Siberia#Climate is the following:

• In 2008, a research expedition for the American Geophysical Union detected levels of methane up to 100 times above normal in the Siberian Arctic, likely being released by methane clathrates being released by holes in a frozen 'lid' of seabed permafrost, around the outfall of the Lena River and the area between the Laptev Sea and East Siberian Sea.

I noticed that the sentence repeats the phrase "being released by". I'm wondering if that's really accurate and has to stay that way, or could the second one be changed to "being released through holes..." or some other wording. CorinneSD (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Reworded. Vsmith (talk) 02:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

V, I just added what I thought was an interesting photo from the methane clathrate article to my user page and added a caption, the first part of which I got from the image file and the second part of which I wrote myself. If you have time, could you read what I wrote and tell me if it is accurate? If not, could you tell me how I should modify it? CorinneSD (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

It is a good image. I don't know much about clathrates - perhaps frozen methane gas is a bit off; I'd say This is methane gas trapped within the ice structure. Vsmith (talk) 02:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks! To me, this image encapsulates a potential global warming disaster. If world temperatures continue to rise, a lot of this trapped methane will be released. CorinneSD (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

In the first paragraph of the section Siberia#Geology is the following sentence:

• The flow of the Ob and Yenisei Rivers was reversed, so they were redirected into the Caspian Sea (perhaps the Aral as well).

It's not clear to me when the flow of the rivers reversed. The Cenozoic was mentioned in the previous sentence. Was it during the Cenozoic? After the Cenozoic? I think they now flow northward, so for how long did they flow southward? Should we just link them to their respective articles? Even if that's all we do, can you add a few words that indicate when the flow of the rivers reversed? CorinneSD (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Reworded a bit to clarify ... but needs a source re: the extent of the Cenozoic ice caps/glaciers there. Vsmith (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Do any of these help?

• [1]
• [2] (can't see whole article)
• [3]
• [4]
• [5] CorinneSD (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm reviewing this article re: a large glacially dammed lake - which appears useful. Vsmith (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Siberian Traps

From the article on Siberia, I got to the article on the Siberian Traps. I noticed something and I wonder if you could explain it to me. I have my screen enlarged to 150% (it's a small screen), and the "250 to 251 million years ago" appears on a new line even though the line before it had room for at least the "250 to 251", which appears to be a separate link from "million years ago", but I guess is something else. I see it's a template. I'm just curious what that template is, and why it is used (instead of simply typing "250 to 251 million years ago". Is it because the number has to keep being updated as the years go by, and the template allows that to happen automatically? Even if it is a template, I still don't see why the line has to break after the words that appear just before it. CorinneSD (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

See Template:Ma. The template forces the value (or range in this case) to be on the same line as the "unit" million years ago. Similar to the use of non-breaking space (&nbsp followed by ;) to keep the unit on the same line as the value.

The template 251 to 250 million years ago as used in the article and the Mya links to Myr which isn't typically used in geology which is a bit odd. Simply using {{Mya|251|250|Mya}} gives 251 to 250 Mya without a link to Mya. The 251-250 link goes to a graphical timeline. Clear as mud ? :) Vsmith (talk) 03:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

δ18O

From the Siberian Traps article I got to the article on δ18O to find out what it meant. I added what I believed was a missing "and" in a sentence in the lede; I don't know if you want to check to be sure I understood the sentence correctly. In the "Mechanism" section, I found the following sentence:

• The ratio of 18O to 16O is used to tell the temperature of the surrounding water of the time solidified, indirectly.

I've read the sentence through several times, and it is still unclear to me. I guess it's the water that was "solidified, indirectly", but I don't think that's very clear. I wonder if you could make the sentence a little clearer. CorinneSD (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't help that the sentence does not actually parse as grammatical English. Better wording would be "...indirectly tell the temperature of the surrounding water at the time the shell solidified." You may find this more useful than the WP article if you want a general introduction to the topic. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! CorinneSD (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

V, I guess splitting an infinitive doesn't bother you. Would you consider "to determine indirectly"? CorinneSD (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't bother me at all. But, now I have a vision of my freshman English teacher, Mrs. Bressie, standing over me - glaring ... :) If you think the usage will serve to drastically distract the reader; then it can be changed. I was so shaken by that vision that I checked with the Grammer Girl and my mind was soothed. Vsmith (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Another IP to block

I wanted to give you a heads up about that IP wikilinking block evader who frequently targets global warming related articles, who seems to have popped up using the IP 108.73.112.95. Everymorning talk 02:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Russia

I'm reading parts of the article on Russia, and I have two questions for you:

1) In the section Russia#Climate, the second paragraph begins:

• Most of Northern European Russia and Siberia has a subarctic climate, with extremely severe winters in the inner regions of Northeast Siberia...

Wouldn't you consider "Northern European Russia" and "Siberia" two areas? If it is two areas, shouldn't the verb be "have" instead of "has"?

2) Near the end of the Climate section, after the temperature chart, is the following sentence:

• In winter, temperatures get colder both from south to north and from west to east.

I don't understand this sentence. I don't completely understand the overall meaning -- I suppose it means the gradual dropping of temperatures moving gradually across the land as the weeks progress through the fall into the winter, and then through the winter, but that's just a guess. I also don't understand how it could get colder in the south of Russia before it gets cold in the north of Russia. CorinneSD (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

1 Yes - two areas.

2 Poor construction and very broad statement. I assume it means the winter temperatures are colder in the northern and eastern regions. Rather obvious that the north is going to be colder; not so obvious about the east - implies Kamchatka is coldest... I'd say chop it. Vsmith (talk) 03:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Geography of Russia

I'm reading the article on the Geography of Russia, and I have a question for you. In the section Geography of Russia#Global position and boundaries, the last sentence in the first paragraph is:

• Russia is also located on the northernmost tip of Asia.

(I had changed "It" to "Russia" for clarity.) I don't understand "the northernmost tip of Asia". I know that Russia is located in the northern reaches of Asia, but "tip"? What tip? I don't think that's the best word. Russia stretches too much east to west to form a tip of land, doesn't it? Can you think of a better word or phrase? CorinneSD (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's another question about the same section. At the very end of the section there is a red link at "Japan". If you look at it in edit mode, you'll see "Russia-Japan maritime boundary", but no article exists on that topic. I'm wondering whether this should stay a red link. CorinneSD (talk) 03:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I would just delete the "tip" sentence -- or reword to something akin to: Russia includes the entire northern portion of Asia.

The red link: doesn't bother me and just maybe there is an article to be written ... Vsmith (talk) 04:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion?

Please look at my history and explain? This IP address has previously been blocked some time back as part of a large (possibly unreasonable) block, but I never was specifically targetted by that block, and it long-expired. As for the revert on "Ocean acidification", I would also have liked a more useful objection comment, to correct the entry as needed. Thanks, 76.10.128.192 (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Please forgive and disreguard this comment, I had misread the changelog :) Thanks again, 76.10.128.192 (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

username

Hey there I found your message board. Its me jmcollectables. My name is Jaime Maldonado and I received your message my contribution is only to show my image of my Philip the 4th coin which I own now my user name do I have to change it to my real name or is the letters " j" " m' which stand for my inicials of my name isn't enough to identify. Also please send the messages via yahoo its much easier for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcollectables (talk • contribs) 13:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. Your coin image is interesting, but I've removed it from the Potosi article as it was nonworking and rather misplaced. It is a neat coin - have you had it authenticated? Vsmith (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

my coin was passed down from my grandfather who told me it has been im my extended faamily since he could remember. Im the proud owner of the coin now and only wished to share a piece of history with the world. The value means nothing to me but the history is the true treasure. i will close my account and place my image of the coin where all may see and admire. I believed the world still has hidden treasure out there that are yet to be discovered, now i see technical will stand in the way of progress. What do ido mr vsmith? Do i have to create a new account to contribute? My intention was to show the coinage minted in potosi bolivia where the coin was minted. thats all... please advise. i have other material which is most intresting and as far as the value? im not intrested in the monitary value but the historical value!! im new so if i dont relpy in line with wiki please forgive me.jaime maldonado 13:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcollectables (talk • contribs)

Thank you and i accept all emails all of your suggestions... jaime maldonado 13:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcollectables (talk • contribs)

Again, I would reccommend changing your username if you wish to continue contributing here. Others will likely question your current username as it appears to be commercial.

Thanks for explaining, you do have a treasured heirloom. If the coin were mine I would want to get it appraised by a reputable expert, but that is your decision. Vsmith (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

More block evasion

I noticed that you reverted an IP edit here, citing WP:Block evasion. Your reversion was subsequently reverted by Editor abcdef.

I see that you are performing similar reversions such as here and here.

On what basis have you decided that these edits are made by "users who intentionally evade a block" (quote from WP:Block evasion)? How have your reversions improved Wikipedia's articles? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

See User talk:108.195.138.174 and this list for a bit of insight. Specific behavior? See WP:BEANS. Why are you concerned? If you feel that specific edits by that ip were "good", you are welcome to make the edit yourself. Vsmith (talk) 11:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sanctions against editors should not be punitive, reverting constructive edits simply for block evasion is ad hominem, attacking the users of the IP address (who may not even be one person) instead of the edits. Editor abcdef (talk) 11:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you again for your help and advise. I will read up on the articles you have directed me to. Jaime maldonadojaime maldonado 13:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcollectables (talk • contribs)

Searchlight edit

Yo, I noticed you reverted my edit to Searchlight, Nevada, for "game trivia". I wasn't aware trivia about video games in "In popular culture" sections was disallowed, in fact I've seen it plenty of times in other articles. Is there a policy page or something that states this? --91.154.29.72 (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

No but their is a policy against sockpuppetry. John from Idegon (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

And? I'm not sockpuppeting, I don't have an account in the first place. --91.154.29.72 (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The game bit you added was trivial and unsourced. That some game uses the town in some way is of no relevance to the article on the town. That the town was used in the game might be relevant in the game article if supported by a WP:reliable source. Also you don't have to have an account to be a sock - if you change ip addresses to avoid a block - you are a sock. Having said that, I am not making that accusation. Vsmith (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Saxons

I'm wondering if you can answer the question I posed to Ben MacDui at User talk:Ben MacDui#Saxons 2. CorinneSD (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Chilean volcanoes

Hello there, I wonder if you could contribute with some thoughts in Talk:List of volcanoes in Chile#Cleanup_and_return_to_pre-merge_layout.

—Dentren | ^Talk 19:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Still another question!

Considering wikis are either tertiary sources or a compilation of sources can one source articles on Wikipedia using wikis or would one have to use the sources making up the wiki directly? Dandtiks69 (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

As Wikipedia and other wikis are user made they are not WP:reliable sources. If the content in a wiki is sourced to a reliable source - then use that source after checking that source to make certain it was not misused by the wiki author. Vsmith (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Esotericism

V, even if he's right, doesn't a merger of two articles have to gain a consensus first? I don't know, but I thought I'd point this out to you. [6] (Read the edit summary in the Revision History.) CorinneSD (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It was a bold move - and if no one objects - then no problem. Are you objecting? Looks like there was a merger proposal (see Talk:Western esotericism#Merger proposal) back in Oct. 2014. Vsmith (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

No, no. I'm not objecting. I just never saw this happen before. No problem. CorinneSD (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Columns

Can you tell me where I can find instructions on how to format text in three columns, but no table (no lines or boxes, anyway)? I want to format samples of Chavacano language, with the Chavacano at the left, Spanish in the middle, and English at the right, instead of the blockquote format (see my recent edits). CorinneSD (talk) 03:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

See: Help:Columns. Vsmith (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Areca nut

Can you take a look at what's been happening in the edit history at Areca nut? See [7] and edits previous to that. See also my comment and Sminth's reply at User talk:Sminthopsis84#Areca nut. After I read Sminth's reply, I went to the article to look for things to cut and saw this latest edit. I also wonder if that whole second paragraph in the lede should be there. Usually, information about toxicity or harmful effects of plants is in a section late in the article under a heading such as "Toxicology", "Toxicity", or something like that. CorinneSD (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The lead summarizes the article - at least theoretically. As health issues are a significant part of the article, that should be mentioned in the lead. I've chopped that image - didn't belong in the lead. Vsmith (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Evenks

I saw this edit to Evenks, [8], and a similar one at Ket people, [9], and I looked at the categories at the bottom of the page, and I wondered, why use both "ethnic groups" and "indigenous people"? Is there an important difference that makes two categories necessary? CorinneSD (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I've no expertise here -- but, to me an ethnic group is not necessarily an indigenous people. altho an indigenous people can also be an ethnic group. Vsmith (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems this editor likes to add category templates. See User talk:Abrahamic Faiths#Ethnic template. CorinneSD (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems that has been resolved. Vsmith (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Seismic fault image

Thanks, I was just considering doing the same, as the image is really unhelpful. I'll try to find an image that is genuinely free to use (I doubt that that one was), because so much of our understanding of fault geometry comes from seismic data - it's what I spend most of my working day doing - interpreting faults on seismic data I mean. Mikenorton (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Jewelry wire gauge

I don't understand this edit to Jewelry wire gauge: [10]. Are they saying that in England, wire gauge is not measured in millimeters? If so, I think "In the rest of Europe" is too far away from "England" to make that clear, and "in the world" is kind of silly. But if I revert, I don't even know what to say in the edit summary. CorinneSD (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe: "In most of the world wire size is simply expressed in millimeters." I really have no clue and the article has no sources. Just fix it and for an edit summary - "Wording fix" (or be more cryptic...) Vsmith (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:CWW

Learn something everyday! Thank you. I was unaware of CWW, and long since had forgotten about the article. It seemed to me having all the regions at one article rather than scattered was a good idea. Thanks for the guidance! Capitalismojo (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Been playing this game for over a decade and no way to keep track of all the policy change stuff. Been involved in cleaning some real copyvio problems ... ain't no fun. Vsmith (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot

Besides the necessity of correcting a slight typographical error, do you feel like reviewing these changes to Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot at [11]? The editor sounds like he knows what he's talking about, but I also trust your judgment. CorinneSD (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... methinks I'll pass on that one and let the good physics folk handle it rather than quibble a bit. A username starting with Dr. ... results in weird sounding alarm bells in me head. Vsmith (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

somaliland map

Hey vsmith, can you please Display the 8 years old original map before you lock it. The new biased map is the main reason of this dispute. Please review your decission and put the old one instead of the new one. Its does not show where Somaliland locates on earth. Its just massive massive blue colored map (blue is the flag of Somalia) And the highlighted disputed area is very fabricated. The actual disputed Somaliland territory looks like this

this image looks more fair. It shows where somaliland locates in the world (very important) and it highlights the accurate disputed territory of eastern. Sool and Sanaag regions. puntland have similar map showing the exact thing. Any neutral user can verify this using indepedent reliable references. I will search compromise with AcidSnow to see if we can use the obove displayed map. I demand fairness nothing distruptive. Thank you. Dandaawi (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Before the disscusion spills of here, I would like to say that Somaliland is regarded as a region with in Somalia, but it's adminstration desires it's own indepednce. The territory that are disputed (shaded in light blue) are with other regions in Somalia. Although, he claims that "Its does not show where Somaliland locates on earth", this is exactly what the map does. This is both in terms what it regarded as it's territory (all shades of blue) and what others regions think (dark blue). As for the colors, it has nothing to do with any flag actually. It's just that the color blue looks nice. The same is done for the Nationalities and regions of Spain, see Andalusia as an example. AcidSnow (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

AcidSnow Can we agree to use the above map. Which highlights both the disputed area and the location of somaliland in the world ? ??Puntland have the same marked disputed area Dandaawi (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I moved Dandaawi request to the talk page so it wouldn't cause build up here, hence why I wrote "Noved" -> Moved. AcidSnow (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

All such discussion belongs on the article talk. Vsmith (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Shall I move this whole discussion then? AcidSnow (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

No. Vsmith (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I see, my apologies. AcidSnow (talk)

What was put at my talk page?

Can you give me an idea, I didn't see it? Thanks! Capitalismojo (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It was a senseless vulgar personal attack. Vsmith (talk) 01:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Then thanks very much for removing it! Capitalismojo (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Tibet

Hello, V -- I just started reading the article on Tibet, and I was looking at the map and the legend for the map, and I noticed that the second line in the legend (for the color orange) says, "Tibetan autonomous areas, designed by China". Shouldn't that be "designated by China", or even "borders designated by China"? CorinneSD (talk) 01:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes and now is - see map legend at Lhakar. Vsmith (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Feldspar

1) V, I wanted to add bullets to the three items in Feldspar#Compositions to create a bulleted list, but when I previewed it, the formulas all came out on the next line, at the left margin, so I didn't save. Is that why there's an em-dash before the formula in the next section? Isn't there any other way to keep the formula on the same line? CorinneSD (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

2) The last sentence in Feldspar#Compositions is the following:

• Barium feldspars form as the result of the replacement of potassium feldspar.

Wouldn't this sentence be clearer if it mentioned barium:

• Barium feldspars form as a result of the replacement of potassium feldspar with barium?

Or: ...the replacement in the feldspar of potassium with barium?

In other words, "the replacement of potassium feldspar" with or by what? Or am I misunderstanding something? CorinneSD (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

'twas a bit contorted - my solution: rewrote a bit ... maybe more when more time ...

Labradorite

In the section Labradorite#Labradorescence there is a quote from a Danish geologist, O. B. Boggild. I wonder:

a) whether you like the format of the quote, and

b) whether there should be a long dash before the reference number.

It's too bad there's no article on this geologist... CorinneSD (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't see the need for the 2nd duplicate ref w/in the box. Danish WP has an article on him. Morning comes early tommorrow ... gotta zzz. Vsmith (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Ukok Plateau

V, in the article on Ukok Plateau, in the first paragraph in the "Transport" section, it has "true altitude" in parentheses after "Teplyi kluch". I added a conversion template to show altitude in feet, but now, because the feet are in parentheses, there are two sets of parentheses, and I don't like the look of two close-parentheses in succession. Can you think of any way to indicate meters and feet without double parentheses, or do you think the figures could be either deleted or placed somewhere else? CorinneSD (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The double parens doesn't bother me, but I suppose you could make the elevation bit a separate sentence following the listing: ...through the Ukok (Russia-Kazakhstan border), Ulan-Daba (Russia-Mongolia border), Teplyi kluch and Kalgutinsky passes. The Teplyi kluch pass is at an altitude of 2,907 metres (9,537 ft). Vsmith (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Lena River

This can't be right, can it? Is this a case of vandalism? [12] CorinneSD (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Reverted vandalism. Check List of longest undammed rivers and List of the longest Asian rivers which don't say 3rd, but def not 73rd... Vsmith (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

George Kennan (explorer)

V, I just saw this edit to George Kennan (explorer): [13]. I didn't remember seeing the place of birth and place of death right after the dates at the beginning of an article, so I looked at Ernest Shackleton and saw that the places are not given with the dates. The place of death was added in the infobox, so I don't know what exactly should be done here. CorinneSD (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I see now that there are other changes after that one. I agree with some but not others. CorinneSD (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

All gone, at least for now. I think birthplaces by the dates are cluttersome, though I don't necessarily revert them. Many changes in one go without an edit summary, though, are completely unacceptable. Rothorpe (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Cumans

I wonder whether this edit to Talk:Cumans [14] and the one right before it by the same editor are appropriate. The editor appears to be editing other editors' posts. CorinneSD (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems the first was removing a forum edit - usually ok. Don't know why the non-breaking spaces were needed, but the colon for indent, OK ... Vsmith (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

O.K. CorinneSD (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Eclogite

In the article Eclogite, there is a grammatical error in the caption of the lead image. There's a run-on sentence. I assume "it" refers to white quartz, but since I'm not 100% sure, I thought I'd check with you. CorinneSD (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Reworded. Vsmith (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Secular humanism

You are correct, that was within the Legal etc. area, and more properly belongs in the Modern Context section. Humanismws (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Better location; however, you need to format a reference for the direct quote. Also, a blog post is a bit lacking as a reference. Vsmith (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the apropos help - a citation was inserted. - Dwight Humanismws (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

. was added, for something more on point. Your roping me in is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanismws (talk • contribs) 01:33, 7 July 2015‎

References

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Medes

Thanks for this. We have a new editor who lacks competence (can't spell for a start) and has an agenda getting in the way of good editing. Doug Weller (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed - the choice of username says a lot. Vsmith (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I placed the tags at the two articles

Because while I am, generally, a chem expert, I am not an inorganic or solid state or geo-chemist by training, and so should not be the one composing the sentence or two to add at each article, to justify the wikilink. While you and I know that the wikilink is valid, we do not write for ourselves, and it is inappropriate to use the link without searchable information at each article allowing a student or other layperson to understand the basis for it.

I am reverting your removal, temporarily, until such time as someone with background in non-stoichimetric materials can add a sourced sentence or two to each article. Until then, I ask that you allow the tags to remain (valid as the relationship is, until it is explained).

Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems it has already been "fixed". Such "background" is not needed to make the edit - we don't need to be subject matter experts, rather just use good sources. Vsmith (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, an experienced and expert editor came in and made the change, and so I left your deletion in place. (Actually, I reverted, then re-reverted!) In any case, that matter is settled.

read if you wish

However, a short essay to close. The incoming editor who fixed the lack of cross-appearing material to make it clear, in each article, as to how the articles were related (and so why they were wikilinked), was in fact a chemist (i.e., an expert). The dearth of such editors and editing is what make Wikipedia chemistry articles, on the whole, of such poor general quality. Look to the number of GA articles there, and it is a paltry small fraction. And with time, even the top articles are drifting toward worse, for amateur attention (and expert inattention). So, from this practicing chemist and teacher's informed opinion, far from subject matter expertise being unnecessary, its absence is why this encyclopedia remains an unusable academic source in our field, and the shortcomings of science articles in general are aflood with the results of non-specialists editing them (e.g., the wide distribution of anything-that-strikes-you dumping of primary-sourced factoids about research results, otherwise—other than at Wikipedia—not yet elevated to appear in texts and reviews). It takes a trained individual to read the literature, organise information broad in scope in a pedagogically sound way, and then to populate the valid subcategories of the subject, and to maintain it over time—sorting substantiated results from unsubstantiated, even using secondary sources. Note, the Journal TIBS long had a regularly populated "Textbook errors section," and professors generally understand the need to read reviews (for colleagues' caught mistakes), and pre-read texts (to find any others) before using even a good, tried teaching text. [We gave prizes each week in graduate school to the individual finding the most mistakes in new versions of the otherwise esteemed Isaacs' Physical Organic Chemistry (advanced text, see two reviews here, [15]).] Hence, even if one assumes the underlying root definitions and structures of science articles at WP are sound—and many if not most, are not, see the "Elementary concepts" section edit in this diff, [16], as well as the broad recent edits to Chemical compound and Chemical substance ledes and definitions—we are not "free and clear." The attitudes/principles that all editors are created equal in their dedication to scholarly sourcing, and that any editor approaching a well-structured article framework can equally choose good sources to extract, and then extract them in an encyclopedic fashion—these are (in my long experience here) simply demonstrably false. And that the core principles of WP regarding consensus to decide factual content—this contributes to the problem, through its aggravation of otherwise dedicated but time-constrained expert editors without patience to develop supportive editorial networks to fight for the truth about the points they try to make (a matter loo long to even begin addressing here). Donc, non mon ami, non… apart from the irony of your comment's fundamental philosophy, viewed alongside WP's maintaining an "expert needed" tag, yours—forgive me, in my experienced opinion, with many thousands of science edits, via IP and over several historical logins—is simply an uninformed opinion vis-à-vis science content. The leading and best medical article editor is a practicing physician. The best chemistry editors—for correcting mistakes, and revising articles toward scholarly understandings—are practicing chemists, many PhDs. The lack of, and disdain for expertise, far from being a hallmark of WP, actually contributes substantially to its failures (and, as MIT Technology has noted, [17], its creeping demise), and certainly not to its long-term success. Finally, before pointing to the Nature "study" or other such WP-self-aggrandizing material (Oxford and other collaborative interactions, same issues), see this note on the importance of selection and statistical power on well designed comparison studies, [18], as well as the WP text content to which it is attached, and the citation it provides. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC) With regard to the need for expertise, I would note some of my points on problems with science quality echo those of Roy Rosenzweig, an American history Prof, in his review of biographies of 25 Americans at WP (a study still failing the statistical power test, as no one argues that some WP articles will be good). Rosenzweig wrote that WP is "accurate in reporting names, dates, and events in U.S. history" (better for those 25 biographies than for science, it seems). But he, like I, goes on to point to things that only experts can provide: RR states that Wikipedia "often fails to distinguish important from trivial details, and does not provide the best references, [and it lacks] 'persuasive analysis and interpretations' (see [19], skimming down past the Nature discussion). Taken together, the flaws to which attention has been called are valid, and the supposed comparison "studies" leading to the conclusion we are doing well are deeply flawed. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I've hatted the lecture -- take it up with Jimbo. What is Wikipedia? The encyclopedia anyone can edit... Cheers :) Vsmith (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Introducing the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology!

Greetings!

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 663 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in evolutionary biology.

• Browse the new WikiProject page
• Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Jane C. Goodale

V, I'm reading the article on Jane C. Goodale, and in the section Jane C. Goodale#Influence there is a block quote. However, in the block quote, the first sentence, besides missing a comma after "have been", is not a complete sentence. Something is missing. I clicked on the reference number, then on the link in the reference, and could not find this quote. I was looking for the original source so I could find the missing word (unless the original also is missing a word). Can you help me find the original text of this quote? CorinneSD (talk) 01:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

See Google books - "Pulling the Right Threads: The Ethnographic Life and Legacy of Jane C. Goodale". Vsmith (talk) 01:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! CorinneSD (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Crystallography

V, I'd like your help clarifying something in the lead of the article on Crystallography. The first two sentences in the second paragraph are:

• Before the development of X-ray diffraction crystallography (see below), the study of crystals was based on their geometry. This involves measuring the angles of crystal faces relative to theoretical reference axes (crystallographic axes), and establishing the symmetry of the crystal in question.

The word "this" that starts the second sentence is not clear. I assume it refers to a method of studying crystals based on geometry, but that's not completely clear. It could also refer to the development of X=ray diffraction crystallography. "This method" might be a little clearer, but there would still be a little ambiguity. It would be cleared up if the verb in the second sentence were changed to past tense – "involved" – tying it to the last clause in the preceding sentence with its past tense verb "was based". If, on the other hand, it would be desirable to keep the present tense "involves" to avoid any suggestion that this method is no longer used, then perhaps the last clause in the first sentence could be made more specific. CorinneSD (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

At the risk of annoying you with another request, could you take a look at the last paragraph in the lead? It starts off with a good introductory (or topic) sentence, tied to the three types of diffraction at the end of the previous sentence. However, after the first sentence, this last paragraph has no clear organization. The second sentence starts off fine, with "X-rays interact with the spatial distribution of electrons in the sample," but after that, I'm lost. For example, it's not clear whether the clause beginning with "while" is a further explanation of the first type of interaction or is introducing a second type. I don't know much about crystallography, but I think with slightly better organization, the various types of interaction might be a little clearer. CorinneSD (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Clarification attempted. Vsmith (talk) 01:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

It's much clearer now. I hope nobody objects to a bulleted list in the lead. CorinneSD (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Crystal optics

In the section "Other effects" in the article on Crystal optics, I came across "In response to a magnetic field, some materials can have a dielectric tensor that is complex-Hermitian," and later, "A dielectric tensor that is not Hermitian gives rise to complex eigenvalues". I wondered what "Hermitian" was, so entered it in the search box. It led to a kind of disambiguation page, List of things named after Charles Hermite. I assume that the particular use in Crystal optics is one of the things in that list, but I don't know which one. If the word could be linked to the right one, it might add to the comprehensibility of the article. CorinneSD (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

When I see an article containing a mass of math eqns in large LaTeX format ... me eyes glaze over... zzz... (brings memories of attempts to read Britannica math articles when I was a kid.) Vsmith (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I think the photographer got Charles Hermite on a bad day. CorinneSD (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC) Look at the last sentence in the lead in that article. CorinneSD (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Old geniuses get grumpy... --- and that sentence is "classic" :) Vsmith (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Petrographic microscope

I just read the article on Petrographic microscope. In the second-to-last paragraph is the following sentence:

• To observe the interference figure, true petrographic microscopes usually include an accessory called a Bertrand lens, which focuses and enlarges the figure.

The word "figure" appears twice in this sentence, but is not used anywhere else before this. The sentence preceding this sentence says, "A particular light pattern...is created as a conoscopic interference pattern," but for a reader to instantly associate the word "figure" with "pattern" I think is a stretch. It's not clear that the same thing is meant by both words, and the word "figure" can mean different things. Perhaps the word "pattern" should be continued, or the word "image" used instead of "figure". Perhaps "image" followed by "pattern" in parentheses? CorinneSD (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Added a parenthetical after conoscopic interference pattern. Vsmith (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Spinel

In Spinel, would it be all right if I reversed the order of the two carat figures in the caption for the image in the infobox? It seems that the red spinel on the right has the greater number of carats. Shouldn't the order of carats in the caption reflect the left-right arrangement in the photo? CorinneSD (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Did it - will address other questions (above) later ... or not ... been busy in the garden today. Vsmith (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Art Jewelry Forum

Hello, I am working on a pet project to help digitize information about the field of metalsmithing+jewelry. I started with making a page for Art jewelry forum (AJF), and have a list of artists that I would like to make pages for as well. The AJF page has been nominated for deletion because it is questioned if the organization is "notable". I am reaching out to you because I saw that you edited some pages that relate to studio craft, and thought you may have an informed opinion (unlike the mathematician who nominated the page for deletion) about whether or not it is a "notable organization". If you have an opinion, one way or another, please way in on the articles for deletion discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Art_jewelry_forumClarefinin (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

nah... Vsmith (talk) 02:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Australia

I just started reading the article on Australia. In the section Australia#Etymology, there are two block quotes. However, the second one is formatted differently from the first one. I don't understand the need for an asterisk and indentation. Would you mind looking at it? CorinneSD (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The second is a footnote in the quoted source. (see here) Don't rightly know if the * is needed in the article quote. Vsmith (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Gertrude Bell

Just wondered if the close-square bracket was in the right place in Gertrude Bell. [20] CorinneSD (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Chopped the link. No explanation or text - just google satellite images with an arrow pointing to a cemetery(?). What was the purpose? Vsmith (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I updated the page I was pointing to with an explanation and rationale for the satellite images, but now you've removed everything. Why? DavidJames21353 (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that ... I had earlier missed the in text part - or would have zapped that then also. Pure speculation and a link to a google sat image stored on a commercial website have no place in a Wikipedia article; please read WP:OR. By the way, I like old plastic models ... have several "a young kid back in the 50s" put together. Vsmith (talk) 13:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, understand. But I can put my speculation/research on the article's Talk page? That's allowed? DavidJames21353 (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing the article. You are free to discuss there, but would need more than speculation to gain acceptance - reliable sources rather than spec/OR needed. Vsmith (talk) 14:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Post script

You have my thanks, and deep respect for your service. Semper fi. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Vsmith (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Macquarie Island

I just read the article on Macquarie Island. In the section on Macquarie Island#Geography, I noticed that there is similar information in the first and last paragraphs. I think perhaps the information should be brought together into one paragraph. Do you feel like working on it? If not, tell me, first, whether you agree, and second, where you think the information should be placed. CorinneSD (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Fiddled a bit - tweak as you wish :) Vsmith (talk) 02:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Gneiss

[21] Isn't the plural "s" usually left outside the brackets? Or doesn't it matter? CorinneSD (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I can easily answer, if you don't mind. The title of the linked article is plural, so putting the "s" inside the brackets avoids using a redirect in this case. (In most cases it would result in a red link.) Zaereth (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Yup - what Z said :) Vsmith (talk) 01:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) V and Zaereth Oh, I'm sorry for bothering you. I should have looked at the article title. Most titles are singular, so I just assumed it should be singular, and I had often seen the plural "s" outside the brackets. Of course you and the editor are right. That will teach me always to look at the article title. CorinneSD (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I have to admit, it is unusual, but cases do exist where it's necessary to pluralize an article. For example, see Basic fighter maneuvers. Have a good weekend. Zaereth (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Bonin Islands

I'm reading the article on the Bonin Islands, and in the second paragraph of the Bonin Islands#British possession section, the name "Nathaniel" is spelled two different ways. The first way has a link to an article where it is spelled that way. The second way is "Nathanael" (which is an unusual spelling). I don't know whether it would be safe to change it to "Nathaniel" or whether that spelling reflects a spelling in the source for that statement. Is there any way to check that? CorinneSD (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Most likely an alternate spelling; for consistency I'd say make them both "Nathaniel". If someone objects - discuss. Vsmith (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Red Skelton

You will see in this edit to Red Skelton [22] that an editor reverted an edit in which another editor had added some pretty disgusting material. Since it is so disgusting, I'm wondering whether the editor who added it should be either warned or blocked. CorinneSD (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

A bit of disgusting vandalism by someone using a random ip for a single edit - not likely to even see any warning posted (especially 3 hours later). Such happens often, one of Wikipedia's flaws. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

O.K. CorinneSD (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Prussia

Really? You couldn't let the Hetalians win? I am HETALIAN (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Take your fantasy world elsewhere. Vsmith (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

IHR

Do you think we should ask for protection? Doug Weller (talk) 04:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Rather belated ... most likely. Vsmith (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Oceania

Can you look at these edits to Oceania? [23] I can't figure out what s/he's trying to do. CorinneSD (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Removed - perhaps they will explain ...? Also did some other "fixin' ... Vsmith (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. You said "The Aleutian Islands" aren't on the margins of Asia", but you left the phrase "of the margins of Asia" after Ryukyu Islands. Did you mean to do that? I looked at the map of the Ryukyu Islands in their article, and it doesn't seem that they are too far away from Asia. CorinneSD (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

That is rather an involved sentence and could be rephrased. But, yes I meant that ... Formosa, the Ryukus, the main Japanese islands and the Kurils Islands south of Kamchatka are "of the margins of Asia" (and are considered as Asian); whereas the Aleutians aren't, they extend at ~ right angles from the others. So I've rewritten it. Vsmith (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I revised it. In my edit summary, I said that I had added "Today" to signal a contrast with the "originally conceived" and past tense of the "1st parag.". I saw later that it was not in an earlier paragraph, it was earlier in the same paragraph. It looked liked a separate paragraph in edit mode – but the signal indicated by "Today" is still needed (unless it is all about an older conception of Oceania). I didn't like the sound or look of "Included are" and "Excluded are", so I re-phrased the sentences. I understand the difference between Taiwan/Formosa, the Ryukus, the Japanese islands, and Kurils and the Aleutians, being on different continents. I just had never heard the phrase "of the margins" [of anything!]. I've heard "at the margins" or even "on the margins", but not "of the margins". I think "at the margins" is better. Let me know what you think. CorinneSD (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

That works -- lots of commas to get lost in though :) Vsmith (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Kid

99.112.214.104 — Preceding unsigned comment added by HughD (talk • contribs) 21:01, 21 July 2015‎

Thanks for your effort on the "kid's" talk. It is all quite a waste. Vsmith (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

NENA and KENORALAND

I see the videos were added to YouTube by a David Pearson (on NENA and KENORALAND) -- but lacking any other info. Is that this David Pearson? The audio on my computer is not currently working making it difficult to evaluate the videos. I'm not sure of their status re WP:RS and would appreciate more information if you can provide some detail.

The Canadian Geology Series David Pearson (@ YouTube) is not the same at all as the one US one that you found. The YouTube series is a 1970s video series for maybe TV Ontario as part of a distance learning programme. I have no idea on how to find info on the Canadian one or weather the Canadian one is still alive. Eyreland (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyedit request

I've been copy-editing some of the articles at WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. I stumbled upon this request: California Kings#Synopsis. Since I had already added the "Working" template to indicate I would do the copy-edit, and it was only one section, I went ahead even though I found the subject matter distasteful. Now I'm wondering whether this kind of thing should even be on WP. CorinneSD (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I find it best to simply ignore some topics, and that would be in the ignore list. Vsmith (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Moissanite Edits

Vsmith, You reverted edits that were made in good faith, and you have no references (commercial or otherwise) to back up the 9.5 claims. Why did you do this? DeeJaye6 (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page; we don't use promotional commercial websites as references. Please read WP:RS. Vsmith (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@DeeJaye6:, I echo Vsmith's statement: commercial websites are not acceptable sources for information at this or any encyclopedia, here see WP:VERIFY. Reverting is the accepted way at WP to reverse edits that violate such policies, and Vsmith will have wide support for his change. Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 05:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps see, if time permits

The recent edits I did in the cinnabar lede. Perhaps you can ID someone to take care of the structure Figure legend/description issue, so that that long tag can be removed? Cheers. Le Prof. 71.201.62.200 (talk) 05:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Removed the "long tag" as it included a redlink and wasn't helpful. Added color note to figure. See File:Cinnabar crystal structure.png description - you may want to contact User:MarinaVladivostok on commons regarding the details of the image. Vsmith (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

heat pumps

I edit the "Heat Pump" page, in order to remove this statement:

[b]"In heating mode, heat pumps are three to four times more efficient in their use of electric power than simple electrical resistance heaters."[/b]

This is a misleading information, to make people believe one heat pump can pump 3 or 4 times more heat than electrical heaters, meaning one heat pump give more energy than he spend, and this is a breach of physics principles, first and second law of thermodynamics.

Thanks,

Florian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toader florian (talk • contribs) 09:38, 26 July 2015

No, they are more efficient - produce the same amount of heat with less energy, as they are transferring heat energy from outside air or the ground to inside air rather than by through electrical resistance in a heating element. Same amount of heat in your home w/ less energy / lower bill from the power company. Vsmith (talk) 11:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Phrase marker

Hello, please could I just ask you to confirm that when you deleted Phrase marker (back in 2005) there was nothing of importance in the history of the article either? I'm thinking of recreating it (or at least dealing with the topic within some other article). Thanks, W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

It had only two edits, a four word sentence and a speedy delete tag. Vsmith (talk) 11:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! W. P. Uzer (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Mire

What do you think of this edit to Mire? [24] Of course, I don't know which word is more correct, but I think the word "general" is a little boring and overused on WP. CorinneSD (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I could go with either. I shifted the paragraph break to include terminology bits together. Vsmith (talk) 01:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Trinitite link

Vsmith, Please excuse my ignorance regarding acceptable links. I had scanned through the terms and conditions but did not see anything that prohibited such a link. However, I have since learned, thanks to your links, that links that sell items are to be avoided. Thank you for your edit. Cheers, Scott (www.atomicrockshop.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srisner (talk • contribs) 23:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem with that, we were all new once. I note that you include a link to that commercial website here which suggests that you have a connection with it. Please read WP:conflict of interest as we simply aren't here to promote our own stuff. Vsmith (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Calamine (mineral)

Hello, V - I have two questions for you regarding the article Calamine (mineral):

1) The first sentence right after the two-item bulleted list is:

• The two minerals are usually very similar in appearance and can usually only be distinguished through laboratory analysis.

I'd like to revise this slightly to avoid the repetition of the word "usually". I wonder whether you think one could be deleted, or whether one could be changed to another word. I wonder whether two adverbs are needed before "be distinguished".

2) I found the last paragraph interesting. I didn't know that metallic zinc didn't exist in nature. Why not? Also, the last sentence says, "Brass produced by calamine is called calamine brass." I had never heard of that before. Are there other kinds of brass besides "calamine brass"? CorinneSD (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Reworded the first sentence. Zinc is a highly reactive metal and only very rarely occurs as a native metal as far as I know. Metal elements, with the exception of copper, silver, gold and platinum, rarely occur uncombined. Iron and nickel only occur in native form in meteorites and some very rare highly reducing terrestrial environments. Brass is an alloy and various "types" based on relative proportions of Cu and Zn exist. The "calamine brass" was named based on the source f the zinc. Vsmith (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Baryte

In the section Paleothermometry in the article on Baryte is the following sentence:

• Since baryte has oxygen, systematics in the δ18O of these sediments have been used to help constrain paleotemperatures for oceanic crust.

Could you tell me what "constrain" means in this sentence? I figure that it means "used to help determine" temperatures of the oceanic crust in earlier epochs, but I had never seen "constrain" used this way. CorinneSD (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

My take and supported by google search: severely restrict the scope; which as used re: temperatures would mean something like - define or limit the range of paleotemperatures. Vsmith (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Mendip Hills

I'm copy-editing the article on the Mendip Hills, and I wanted to ask you something. In the section Mendip Hills#Geology, I noticed that "Carboniferous Limestone" is capitalized throughout. Should it be capitalized, and, if so, could you tell me why?

2) The last sentence of the Geology section is:

• The hills gave their name to the rare mineral Mendipite, an oxide of lead, with chlorine, formula Pb3O2Cl2, an example of which has been found at the head of Ebbor Gorge.

I just wondered if the commas around "with chlorine" are necessary. Also, and this is a minor concern, I wondered: if the mineral is so rare that it is named after the Mendip Hills, it seems a little odd to say, "an example of which has been found". Is it that rare even in the Mendip Hills that only "an example" has been found?

3) If you have time, you might want to read through the Geology section. If you read the original request for a copy-edit at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests#Mendip Hills, you'll see that it is on a list of FA articles nominated a while back that are undergoing a review to be sure they still meet the standards of an FA article. CorinneSD (talk) 03:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

1 The "Carboniferous Limestone" is a formally defined stratigraphical unit of the region. A general reference to some other limestone unit deposited in the Carboniferous Period would have a lower case "l". Altho usage in geological literature is at times inconsistent.

2 No, the comma before "with chlorine" is not needed - example of excess commaism. And that "an example" bit is rather odd as the type locality is Churchill, Somerset and that is where the gorge is located. Don't know if the orig discovery was in the gorge.

3 "if you have the time ..." - hey I'm retired and have lots of time. But, will I get around to it? or will I wander outside and enjoy a cool, rainy August day...? (Have read and there be a bit of fixin' needed ... and it'll pro'ly nag at me...) Vsmith (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

addenda -- note the "P" in Carboniferous Period above. Also a formal name as is Paleozoic Era. Vsmith (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, it has been raining too hard to wander about ... so fiddled a bit with it. Vsmith (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm...just followed that copyedit guild link ... I s'pose the king there will p'raps be upset that I didn't follow their protocol or whatever :) Vsmith (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I just got chewed out for putting the "Working" template on three articles on that Requests for copy-edit page, meaning I had agreed to copy-edit those articles. I was actively working on at least two of them (see my talk page). Apparently, I'm only supposed to work on one at a time. You did a lot of work on the Geology section of Mendip Hills! Wow! I'm retired, too, and this is one of my hobbies. I wish it were cool and rainy here. It's warm and a little humid. I noticed in the section Mendip Hills#Quarrying, "carboniferous limestones", uncapitalized, in the second paragraph. Should that stay that way or be capitalized? CorinneSD (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Cap'd the Carboniferous Limestone there for consistency, even a "general reference" to limestones of the Carboniferous the Carb should be cap'd. We had 1.5 inches of rain with a high of 78 °F - rare cool wet day here in the Ozarks. Vsmith (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Your edit on Clarens formation

Hi,I'd like to inform you that I undid your edit on Clarens Formation because you added two genera which were synonymous with Massospondylus. Regards--213.7.72.72 (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Exmoor

V, I've just started copyediting Exmoor (I've already left a comment about the lede at User talk:Rodw#Exmoor.) I noticed that there is an external link in the caption to the map of Exmoor in the infobox. Should there be an external link there? CorinneSD (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be an included part of Template:Geobox see Template:Geobox/doc/Protected area. Vsmith (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh. I looked at both pages to which you provided a link, but did not see any explanation. I guess it is because it is a protected area that it can have the external link there. CorinneSD (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen it used on several park type pages. Maybe it is there because no-one bothered to question it. Or else a holdover from the good old days before ref tags, when bare ext links were commonly used as references. Vsmith (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Since the main editor for Exmoor, Rodw, is leaving for a vacation, I thought I'd ask you this question. I figured you could probably answer it:

• I see the word "upland" in the section Exmoor National Park and again in the section on Geology. Since that word is not common in American English, I wondered what it meant, exactly. When I entered the word in the search bar, it led to a disambiguation page. I wonder if there is an article, or section of an article, that would define "upland" and to which you could create a link. I didn't know which item on the disambiguation page would be the correct one. CorinneSD (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

See Highland which gives upland as a close synonym. Seems close enough for a pipe link. Vsmith (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Forgive me my ignorance, V, but there is something about the last sentence in the section Exmoor#Geology that doesn't make sense to me:

• The bedrock and more recent superficial deposits are covered in part by moorland and supported by wet, acid soil.

If you take out the middle of the sentence, this is what is left:

• The bedrock and more recent superficial deposits are...supported by wet, acid soil.

I don't see how bedrock, or even superficial deposits on top of the bedrock, can be supported by soil. Is this a specialized meaning of the verb "support"? I can understand the plants that grow in moorland being supported by wet, acid soil. I just can't picture bedrock supported by wet, acid soil. CorinneSD (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd change to ... are covered in part by moorland which is supported by wet, acid soil. or something akin to that - haven't looked at the reference tho'. Vsmith (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

System (stratigraphy)

Help!! I was reading System (stratigraphy) and I found several sentences were so dense that I thought, either this is way over my head or something is wrong with the writing. I fixed one sentence (would you mind checking to make sure it is correct?), but then the following paragraph was equally poorly written. System? or "A system"? (etc.) This article is for you. CorinneSD (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Gah! That is rather garbled ... This article is for you. Gee thanks :) Don't recall seeing that one before (not on my watchlist anyway) - or maybe I looked and gagged. Should perhaps be reverted to the first version back in 08 by User:Woudloper. Chopped garbled 2nd para and shuffled a bit - maybe I'll look at it again in the morning ... Vsmith (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I cut away the (imho) excessive wording. If we want to promote other (stub sized) articles with blue links, it would be more of a service to the reader to list them together in a "see also" section underneath. I personally do not see why, though (but please feel free to add if you do). Cheers, Woodwalker_talk 01:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Glenthorne

I was reading the article on Glenthorne (linked from Exmoor), and I wanted to add a conversion template for hectares to acres at the beginning of the article, and then I realized there was a link at hectare. How do you add a conversion template when the word is linked? Or don't you? Maybe the link is not necessary if the template is added. CorinneSD (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't think a conversion template is really needed as the link defines it. Could delink and then add the conversion to whatever units ... Vsmith (talk) 03:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I liked the photo in this article so much that I added it to my collection on my user page. I tried to create a caption using the words in the article even though I didn't understand them real well. Would you mind looking at the caption and telling me whether it is correct or not? I'd appreciate any suggestions you have for modifying or shortening it, or making it more interesting. It's near the end of my user page, right after the image of the Lena Delta. CorinneSD (talk) 23:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks reasonable to me - that is a great image. Vsmith (talk) 03:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)