User talk:Vsmith

Hello Vsmith and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

HTML colors

I noticed your comment on ammonia. I had thought three-character color codes (#rgb) were accepted equally well as six-character codes (#rrggbb). Which version of which browser do you use? --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 03:15, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Opera 7.23 - I don't think three character codes are standard HTML. Not everyone uses IE or Netscape so it is best to stick with standards.

Vsmith 03:25, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

MoS violation

American spelling is the international standard according to whom? English, unlike other languages, has no central authority on proper usage. There are several organizations, such as IUPAC, the OED, and others that attempt to set rules but there is no reason we must follow them. Even many scientific periodicals and journals do not follow the convention you mention, much less encyclopedias. Most UK scientific journals still seem to use British spelling, as any database search will show. - SimonP 17:39, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

According to IUPAC and as my quote indicated according to Wikipedia policy. Standards are important for consistency and clarity. In science articles the standards should be used with notes for common names and spellings where needed. I'm not used to the standard for aluminium, and often forget in common usage, but I intend to use the standards and will support Darrien to standardize usage in Wikipedia science articles.

Vsmith 22:56, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikiproject rocks & minerals

I started this project shortly after I joined wikipedia (months ago), and soon discovered that decisions & discussions about what really belonged in the infobox & how to phrase things were way beyond my ancient & rudimentary experience. I haven't been involved in this project since then, and I have no idea whether anyone else has picked it up and started solidifying the standard infobox & terminology & applying it to articles. (I've abandoned rocks for the dog breeds project :-) .) I would be thrilled if someon else were to take the initiative on this project & work on establishing some suggested standards to help ensure consistency. It's always a challenging thing to do, but IMHO needs doing--in a cooperative and encouraging way, of course. Have fun, in between torturing high school students! And I'd be delighted to answer questions about what we've done in the dog project over time, too, as a parallel. Elf | Talk 16:06, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I noted that activity had been almost nil and was wondering. Don't know if I want to take over, but will work on it when I have time and maybe develop it more. Torturing teenagers keeps me occupied:) Don't know much about dogs though, just have one old mutt.
-Vsmith 01:08, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Those are usually the best kinds of dogs! Elf | Talk 03:55, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Concentration

Thanks very much for your efforts on concentration. The article is much, much better for your input! -- FirstPrinciples 09:06, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks - there is more I plan to do, but now I have chemistry tests to grade. Gotta keep torturing them teenagers:) -Vsmith 16:18, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Timeline

So far, I like the direction your edits are taking; you are sharpening the viewpoint; if I might suggest an addition, at the epoch of the big bang at the instant of the first timestep, the physical constants may not have yet stabilized toward the current set we are enjoying now. What I am pointing out is that at the event of the big bang, in the infinity of cosmological decades (in the sense of 10^^-N years or seconds), just at the edge of the first Planck time, we could have been in a different version of the multiverse (one which would not have settled on our specific universe yet). Thus the current set of physical constants determined our version of the multiverse, our universe. I say timestep because before the first Planck timestep, we cannot really talk about the continuous variable time. My viewpoint is that we really cannot talk about t=0. Regards, Ancheta Wis 23:42, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Done. Plus a bit more. Time = 0 ...hmm. How about time < 0 from our universe perspective? Refers to the previous big crunch? I don't really want to think about that either. Implies time as independent of space or spacetime. I'm just rambling and its time to go to bed. -Vsmith 03:55, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Intrusive Rock

Hi there! I like the work you've done on the geology\minerals articles. I was hoping for a suggestion. There are lots of links to intrusive rock and I am wondering how to link this. Pluton links back to Batholith. I was thinking of an article like Intrusion (geology), where I could list Batholith, Laccolith, stock, sill etc. Then intrusive rock could link to there. But perhaps that's overkill? You know of any articles out there I'm overlooking that would make a good link? The geoogy catagories seem a bit juggled too; many articles are in several cats within cats. I want to move a lot of stuff under Earth Science category to Geology, But will fish around for comments first. Just looking for any suggestions; I love discussing geology. Thanks! --DanielCD 21:32, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Done. Link away & enjoy:-) Intrude away. I had been planning on making that a working link for a while now - you provided the spark. I did it off the top of my head so edit, correct and add to it. Now to make some redirects and/or modify those red links. I've been playing with the categories under geology - plan to make these a classification system of sorts, been working with mineral categories lately. Lots to do there. You've been doing some good work, keep at it. -Vsmith 23:53, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Archive 11

My apologies, both for apparently misplacing some of the discusion on chemical names when I archived and for not answering sooner. I thought I had, but I must have pressed the wrong button.

I agree that the discussion seems to have died out; that's why I archived it. I didn't follow along and so don't know how close you were to a consensus. If you were close, you might want to state your current proposal and see if there are any objections. If you're far from consensus, you might want to put it aside for the time being. If the discussion was somewhere in between, you might want to try a straw poll.

Good luck. I'm not sure how helpful this is. I've been on Wikipedia less than two months myself.

By the way, I worked for a year at a high school in Tempe, Arizona. Maurreen 06:48, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Stratum

Hey, do you think this article is better under Stratum or Rock strata? I saw your comment, but I thought Stratum would work better. But now I'm not so sure; Rock strata seems more intelligible to the layman. Just letting you know I didn't just brush your suggestion aside. They can always be switched. --DanielCD 16:14, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fine either way. I initially preferred Rock strata, but stratum had more direct links to it. Doesn't make much difference to me. Thanks. -Vsmith 16:18, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the rock/mineral articles. I've moved several from the 1911 ency. and intend to work on updating/clarifying the info as I'm able. Some of the names may be outdated as well, so if you see any outdated stuff, zap it or LMK. Really appreciate the help! --DanielCD 14:59, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I rewrote a bit in alunite last night, I worked on a mountain of the stuff in Arizona back in the '70s. Also just changed a link in mafic to Silicate minerals which is my current mineral classification project. Plan to make pges for each mineral group (carbonates sufides etc.) and link them from a master Minerals list classified or something like that. You are welcome to take a look and fix any errors you find there. -Vsmith 16:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Geologic time

Hey, I am having a hard time finding any policy on capitalizing sub-words that go with geologic ages, such as "Late" Paleozoic and Permian "Period" (as opposed to late Paleozoic and Permain period). Outside info says to capitalize these, but I don't know what to do here. I would like to follow the standard and capitalize them. You have an opinion ? --DanielCD 19:44, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Capitalize 'em, at least the periods, eras, etc when used with the time. Not so sure about the late & early, may depend on context - I hadn't thought about that very much. Do it the way it seems right and don't fret, others may change - probably not worth an edit war - discuss it with 'em if they do. -Vsmith 00:42, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Standardization

I saw you are standardizing some mineral formulas. I've done quite a few lately, and may have left some messes because I need to research more and the 1911 formulas often translate badly. Geology could use some standardization in dates also. Someone commented in the talk at the Gondwana article that the dates didn't add up. Almost afraid to tackle that one because dates vary so much. Just letting you know; I'm working on it and always like to fish for comments/suggestions. Especially when I fins someone who appreciates rocks! --DanielCD 14:35, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is quite a job, the amphiboles and chlorites were a real mess. Some day I'll tackle the clays... I use the refs. listed at Silicate minerals, the websites are quite comprehensive - although they disagree on some formulas. Some of the 1911 names and data are quite dated. I haven't looked at the Gondwana dates closely. Think I'll let that one be for a while. Keep up the good work and enjoy {B-)} Vsmith 20:33, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

thanks for ...

... addition to "Niagara Falls". This is up as one of the Featured article candidates if you are interested in supporting (or ... gulp ... objecting to) it.Sfahey 18:54, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Thanks for your vote. Did you think the geo. section was incomplete, or were there errors in it? I like to learn things from the (someimes arduous) process of getting an article through the FAC gauntlet. Also, I noticed you are/were a geologist, and presumably have done serious scientific writing. Do you see any problem in wikipedia asking "us" to agree to that public licensing agreement that "Ram-bot" just sent to frequent contributors? Sfahey 03:22, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are welcome. It is a good article. The geo section was a bit incomplete and Pollinator did a pretty good job of filling it in. I'm still thinking about the escarpment and the dip of the strata toward the Appalachian basin to the south and the effect of that on the falls, but not sure of the local dip or how to include without getting too technical. Also the bit about the erosion of the underlying soft shale and its relation to the development of the falls is fuzzy.

I've added that dual licensing disclaimer to my user page - seems OK to me although I'm not totally clear about the details. -Vsmith 04:43, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

... and for your recent vigilance on "Niagara Falls". It's interesting how different folks pick up on different types of items, (usually) for the betterment of the whole enterprise. BTW, I just now noticed your reply (above) to my long-past query. D'ya know if the convention is to reply on this page, as you did, or to the originator's "mailbox"? You must have enjoyed a bump in classroom attentiveness since the tsunami.Sfahey 01:49, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks

See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Your reply to my comment was a personal insult, and did not address what I had to say. Guettarda 18:52, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I did address a part of your post. There was no insult intended, sorry if you took it that way. It was a comment on a common problem in academia along with an attempt at humor. Vsmith 21:22, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

'The Boomer Bible' vs. 'Boomer bible'

Dear Vsmith,

I only moved the contents for the enty, 'Boomer bible' to an appropriate entry title of, 'The Boomer Bible.' The book being described is, in fact, The Boomer Bible by R. F. Laird, (New York, NY: Workman Publishing, 1991) and I thought it would be appropriate to have it under the correct title.

There was a link that pointed people that had used 'Boomer bible' to the new destination of 'The Boomer Bible' for the convenience of other users.

Please reconsider your decision to undo my edits.

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Regards,

BalowStar

Hi - you seem to have had a rough start :-)

The article Boomer bible was quite adequate as it was, and yes, it was about the R.F. Laird book - I just added bibliographic info to that page and deleted some redundant and commercial external links. If you felt that it was mis-named, the proper edit would have been a move rather than a copy and paste job which just made a near duplicate article and left the article history with the old one. A move moves the article and its history and talk page - important info that needs to go with an article. See the help pages for details.

I am in complete agreement with jpgordon and the others who have reverted your various promotional edits. Note: your efforts have been reported on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. Wikipedia is not for product or website promotion - proceed with caution - explore and learn the Wiki way. And, no I won't reconsider my decision. Vsmith 05:02, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(above copied from my talk BalowStar)

Dear Vsmith,

Thanks for taking the time to get me up to speed. I certainly intend no vandalism to your site. The edits made as to content and external links are certainly appropriate within your context and that is what jpgordon and I were discussing.

The only item I am asking you to re-consider is the title of the entry itself. You can see that the entry for 'Moby-Dick' is not 'Moby dick.' The entry for 'War and Peace' is not 'War and peace.' The entry for 'Charlotte's Web' is not 'Charlotte's web.' Nor do we find an entry for 'Brothers karamazov,' but, more appropriately, 'The Brothers Karamazov.' It just seems that the entry 'Boomer bible' should be 'The Boomer Bible,' as the actual title of the book -- a point made directly regarding the lesser known 'Moby-Dick' title format. Of course, with re-directs from the prior entry name.

Due to my inexperience here, I had made a new entry for 'The Boomer Bible' and incorrectly copied the entry from the adequate 'Boomer bible' entry. I now understand that this should have been a move to the newly titled entry to preserve the history from the original 'Boomer bible' entry. I apologize for violating the community's policies and spirit.

I will not proceed until you tell me that you think it is the appropriate action to take regarding the title of the entry for The Boomer Bible.

Kindest Regards,

BalowStar

BalowStar sounds well-intentioned, and he may have a point about moving this page.

Shall we list it on Wikipedia:Requested moves? Would that be the best way to proceed?

Jonathunder 19:02, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

Not sure about the intentions - there was quite a bit of promotional spamming involved by BalowStar And the email address is telling ([email protected]). Hopefully a lesson was learned as a result of all the reverts. I became aware of it thru a suspicious link added to Albert Einstein.

Given that; I agree that the name should be either Boomer Bible or The Boomer Bible, I'd prefer the former. As those both exist with a bit of history I guess it will require an admin to accomplish the deed. Boomer Bible has essentially no content in its history, just botched redirects, could an admin simply delete that and move the article there? I don't know much about all this. -Vsmith 23:34, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would only add for your consideration that the entry title for 'The Brothers Karamazov' is not 'Brothers Karamazov.' Thanks for your help. BalowStar 19:20, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Aerosol pic

(William M. Connolley 10:14, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Hi. You added a nice pic to the aerosol article, but... to me it doesn't necessarily look like pollution. It looks rather more like cloud from the mountains. Could you add a link back to the NASA source so I/we can check NASA's description? Thanks.

Done. Should have added the link last night. Vsmith 12:51, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 14:49, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Thanks. No question but you have labelled it correctly from the NASA description. I still feel ever-so-slightly dubious about NASAs description but they are probably right and are obviously more of an Authority than me.

slag / slut

I note you've moved the alternate definition of the former to the same page as the latter. As the definitions and applications thereof are, however, very different I believe it would be better to leave them in seperate locations (and expand the former), it also being bad practice to point from a term to different term in this way. Slag (slang) is now at slag --Vamp:Willow 10:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That works. I put the disamb. at the top, but didn't have enough info on the slang to create a decent stub, so included it with slut. Slag (slang) makes a neat phrase :-) Vsmith 14:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

thanks re comment about quotation; looked in my own install of Opera (same version) and it was fine so I think it is probably an issue of what language / codepage you have set; the items after each entry are just using the charcodes for tick and cross. btw, although it seems odd, most people tend to put replies to comments back on the sender's page so that they see them (ie I wouldn't have looked for the response I see just above here so have only seen it by accident!) --Vamp:Willow 20:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Liquifaction

Hey, could you peek at the liquefaction article and see my edits. I think I am getting in a beef with the creationists, though I don't want to (believe me, I stay away from the debate like the plague!). But I need an opinion. If I can't put scientific stuff on the Flood geology page, why should there be stuff like that on a science page? Maybe I'm getting Wikistress or something. But I don't think all fossils formed by sinking into the ground and I don't know of any published studies on this. I also removed a statement that claimed all strata were laid down at one time under water by precipitation. I don't want to offend anyone though; I just want to work on geology stuff. An opinion would be appreciated. --DanielCD 16:14, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi - I removed that section and it was promptly put back in. Seems Ungtss is intent on spreading the word. His earlier edits to the liquifaction page appear to be a stage setting to work in the flood stuff. I also checked his work on Wave loading and found the same stage setting ploy without references to support his verbosity. I have listed that page as needing attention and peer review as well as no sources cited. I'm with you on this, but these characters are stubborn :-) Vsmith 16:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sedimentary rocks

I am surprised to see that in your template of sedimentary rocks you go for "clastic" vs "precipitate". It seems to me that even when you add "biogenic or chemical" this falls a bit short for carbonates. What do you do with a cross bedded grainstone for example? I would like to suggest that carbonates be kept into a subcategory of their own. I realise this is a discussion that could go on for ever but I am not trying to pick a fight..this is just meant as a friendly point of view/suggestion. Carole a 13:24, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi, glad to have some input. I created those very preliminary templates a while back planning to get more organized with them - but have been off chasing other dreams for awhile. Maybe clastics, evaporites, and carbonates. With further subdiv. under each esp. the carbonates. And realizing that there is always going to be something that doesn't fit or fits in more than one category. Maybe this will spur me to get it more organized and move them from my personal workspace to the rock & mineral group page. Your suggestions are welcome and you can edit them, even tho they are currently in my user space. Vsmith 16:18, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh good, you didn't take it badly. The all thing about rock classification is that, you are right, it is never going to be perfect. Coal, for one will always mess you up and chalk is another killer if you get to the nitty gritty of it. I am not a regular wikipedian, so I don't want to promise too much, but I'll try to help with the rock project every now and then. I am out of country right now, away from my books and don't want to do too much stuff from the top of my head. I'll make sure that I take a couple of my favourite petrography texts next time I leave home. Carole a 04:48, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Water hardness

Hi there again. I just made an article at Water hardness and would like to invite you to proofread/comment, if you are interested. None of the other water articles seemed to cover it in any depth. Later --DanielCD 15:51, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)