The E=mc² Barnstar | ||
For your active work around mineral articles. Rhanyeia ♥ ♫ 12:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC) |
I will be instructing my solicitor refrence the printing of libelous material. I will remind you the onus is the on the person who printed the libelous material to prove what they said is true (without any doubt) and not vice versa. Should remedial action or suitable justification not be received promptly I will persue this case. I will be informing the owners of Wikipedia about said case also as this also involves them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biggilo ( talk • contribs) 15:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Vsmith. Could you please justify your semi-protection of Global Warming on 2nd January, bearing in mind that pre-emptive semi-protection merely to prevent possible IP vandalism does not adhere to Wiki policy. Thanks, 86.31.45.177 ( talk) 15:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This user won't give up, even when he is wrong. Anthon01 ( talk) 19:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Is this RFCstyle listing the preferred way to handle this low level, slow-burn dispute about cite style?
User:Doncram is acting on a conviction that PD-source tags are tantamount to a representation of plagiarism. He has been engaged in discussion on several article talk pages, a template talk page, and a style guideline discussion page, listed at RFC. He has stopped blanking PD-sourced content, but continues to exhort editors, and revert their reverts, insisting that PD sourced content needs to be enclosed in quotes with intext cites to conform to Wikipedia style guidelines. -- Paleorthid ( talk) 20:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Vsmith,
I have been observing the entry Aristotle and I discovered that the day before yesterday you reverted Sunshinyness version:
(cur) (last) 13:39, 21 January 2008 Vsmith (Talk | contribs) m (61,677 bytes) (Reverted edits by Sunshinyness (talk) to last version by 129.67.115.253) (undo) (cur) (last) 11:42, 21 January 2008 Sunshinyness (Talk | contribs) (61,240 bytes) (undo)
For removing the following:
From the 3rd century to the 1500s, the dominant view held that the Earth was the center of the universe ( geocentrism). This scientific concept, as proposed by Aristotle and Plato was later adopted as dogma by the Roman Catholic Church because it placed mankind at the center of the universe, and scientists who disagreed, such as Galileo, were considered heretics. This erroneous concept was eventually rejected.
Good Job!! It's thanks to people like you that wikipedia is becoming reliable!
I got curious and read what follows:
Who Geologist - MS, 1975, The University of Arizona. Currently a " torturer of teenagers" (high school science teacher) and a dabbler in almost anything scientific. {B-)}
[edit] Long, long time ago
In what seems like
another universe now, I was a
U.S. Marine - spent almost two years in
'nam. Radio op with
MAG-36, chopper outfit, mostly in and around Ky Ha
copter pad north of the
Chu Lai airbase. Took a trip to 'nam aboard the
USS Princeton (CV-37) in August '65 and flew back stateside June '67. Just in case anyone from that universe is surfing around
wiki. Damn, that was a long
time ago!
I have been in the italian Navy long long time ago as well.
I would be interested in knowing you better... if you are a facebook user please poke me. I consider myself another dabbler in almost anything scientific. °O) I will be in the New York facebook network for a month.
Maurice Carbonaro ( talk) 09:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
You may wish to review Number48 in light of your previous actions, specifically [1]. PouponOnToast ( talk) 13:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Vsmith for responding to my AN/I report with corrective action. Much appreciated! -- MPerel 02:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I reverted an article due to some vandalism and saw the user's talk page where you blocked the user for previous vandalism. 162.40.102.209 ( talk · contribs) is the target IP. Just letting you know he/she is at it again. Esoxid ( talk) 17:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
from jc perez sorry, Dr Smith there is not a self promotion. I consider only that adding PREDICTIVE FORMULA paragraph increase a bit wikipedia periodic table knowledge and data... Thanks jc perez —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean-claude perez (talk • contribs) 07:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
sorry for figures and graphics formula (I could send you a full text including them by email if you send me your email adress: jeanclaudeperez2@free.fr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean-claude perez ( talk • contribs) 10:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Figure 1: Conventional Empiric Mendeleev’s Table and new “X“ and “K“ diamonds-like modelling structures.
“Are there NUMBERS in the NATURE?” The MENDELEEV’s Table Generic EQUATION.
At IBM initially, then with “geNum” biomathematics Lab. thereafter, we have studied the phenomena of self-organization and global structures emergence such as “Fractal Chaos” for more than 25 years1. Particularly, we have then, since the end of the Eighties, make basic research about hypothetical mathematical structures of DNA and genomes 2 3. Our main question remains: “Are there Numbers in the Nature?” Let us take the example of the famous table of Mendeleev4, no one never had the idea to seek a possible mathematical law which would organize the information and the structure of "the most heterogeneous table of Science". We discovered this law: the equation of the table of Mendeleev. Here is a short summary: We discovered a simple equation which generates and predicts the structure of the table of Mendeleev. This equation predicts the number of elements of any layer of period "p" in the table according to the only value of this period "p". Beyond this mathematical modeling of the periodic table of the Elements, -This equation underlines, in its formulation, the " trace" of the 4 fundamental quantum Numbers. -This modeling predicts the structure of the hypothetical extensions of the table of Mendeleev towards possible Eléments (real) unknown which would be located beyond the last known radioactive Elements5. -This modeling also makes it possible to imagine an infinity of other Elements (virtual) which one could however predict positioning towards the low layers of the table, like their quantum properties. To summarize, if: -c(p) a horizontal layer of elements of the table of Mendeleev, -"p" the period associated with this c(p) layer such as p = [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 … ], -Int(v) the whole part of the numerical value "v". exp: if v=2.35, then Int(2.35)=2. Then, one obtains c(p), the number of elements contained in the c(p) layer of order p, by applying the formula:
Examples : If p=1 è c(1)=2 If p=2 è c(2)=8 If p=3 è c(3)=8 If p=4 è c(4)=18 If p=5 è c(5)=18 If p=6 è c(6)=32 If p=7 è c(7)=32 If p=8 è c(8)=50 If p=9 è c(9)=50 …/… If p=16è c(16)=162 Generic and predictive natures of the equation: Can one extrapolate this law beyond the periods for which it is checked (periods 1 to 7)? Which would be the properties of a hypothetical period 8? Researchers predict the existence of hypothetical Eléments 126 and even 164 78. If these elements existed, they would belong to a "eighth period" (since periods 1 to 7 can contain only 118 Elements). However, the quantum theory "predicts" that such a period 8 "should" contain 50 Elements. Effectively, to the 32 Elements corresponding to layer 7 would come to associate an additional long block of 18 elements, the "octadécanides". As we will see it, it would correspond to the quantum block "g", which contains 9 orbital (m = [ +4, +3, +2, +1, 0, -1, -2, -3, -4 ], these 9 states, compounds with the 2 states of the "spin", lead well to 2x9 = 18 additional Elements). It is exactly what our equation predicts (see details in WEB supplementary information). Graphical structures overview: This equation makes it possible to propose new graphic designs of the Mendeleev’s table6: -« 2-dimensions conventional table » : it is the usual representation in which lanthanides were reintegrated in their place. This table extends by bottom when p increases. -« 3-dimensions X diamonds-like » : this structure underlines the double symmetry of growth of the crystal-like table. It is made of 4 regular pyramids with square bases forming "XX" for face view, "X" for side view, and 2 squares adjacent by an angle in sights of top and below. When p grows, the extension is done alternatively by bottom and the top. -« 3-dimensions K diamonds-like » : This structure is most realistic: it amalgamates alignments by columns of the traditional table with the 3-dimensional structure. We have 4 orthogonal pyramids with square bases. Please visit WEB supplementary information for details. Strong Relationships between the 4 Quantum Numbers and Mendeleev’s Table Equation : Niels Bohr established the relation between the position of each Element in the periodic table and its electronic structure. The chemical properties of each Element are thus totally determined by the distribution of the electrons of this Element. The properties and positionings of these electrons, themselves, are determined by the laws of Quantum Physics. It is related to the wave equation of Schrödinger which establishes these distributions of probabilities of energies of the electron. These waves functions name the " orbitals ". Thus, with any electron identifiers are associated: they are the 4 Quantum Numbers. One successively defines “n”, “l”, “m”, and “s”, the 4 quantum numbers. We show in additional WEB supplementary information that our Mendeleev’s Equation includes strong links with the 4 quantum numbers: One thus finds, in this new concise writing of the generic equation, the explicit trace of 2 among the 4 quantum Numbers: "n" and "m":
= 2 = 2 where m and n are the magnetic and principal quantum numbers of index p.
To conclude : -1- The periodic table of the Elements is modélisable. It is structured by a numerical structure of whole numbers. -2- This structure is deterministic and predictive, then, for any period p, it can be calculated by applying "the generic equation of Mendeleev" which we discovered. -3- The generic equation is completely controlled by the four quantum Numbers. -4-This generic equation makes it possible to check the regularity of the common table of Mendeleev, but it can also "predict" and anticipate the existence of hypothetical Eléments now unknown, of which it makes it possible to determine the quantum properties, then electronic and chemical hypothetical properties. Jean-claude Perez #£
Email : jeanclaudeperez2@free.fr £ geNum inc : 1134, chemin Saint Louis Sillery Quebec G1S 1E5 Canada References: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean-claude perez ( talk • contribs) 10:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
stop deleting what i wrote!!!
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Neogotchi (
talk •
contribs)
07:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I am the user that provided visionlearning modules as external links on some articles a few weeks back. I would like to include a link to relevant material on those topics for teachers and students on the Visionlearning website, an open-source, federally funded science teaching initiative, nearly ten years old. Visionlearning contains peer-reviewed, and freely available teaching resources in science and math written specifically for educators and students. I believe the link to this material will enhance the wiki content as it provides a means for teachers and students to access further information on a topic, and since it is written specifically for an educational audience, will help legitimize the content on wiki in these circles. Also, may I point out that Visionlearning is completely non-profit. oking83
Vsmith, IP address 192.203.136.252 is registered to a public library! 66.99.216.2 ( talk) 21:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
You recently removed an external link to Enviromentality (http:// environment-policy.info) I added to the entry for political ecology and stated that "links to web sites with which you are affiliated" are not appropriate. I read the guidelines for external links before adding this one and I did not see this rule so I am asking whether mere association with a web site is grounds for removal if the web site is otherwise a worthwhile link. I am not deriving any financial reward from generating external link traffic. Since that time I have also moved from anonymous to being a named user as that may have aroused some suspicion. Otherwise I thank you for keeping Wiki clean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cherson ( talk • contribs) 21:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
OK since it appears that standing up for one's own work = self-promotion, no matter how worthy, I have recommended the link on the article talk page. I would suggest that a better test would be substantive value of the link since it would be fairly easy to employ a 'shill' to promote a link as well, wouldn't it? (3/29/2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.246.43 ( talk • contribs) 21:52, 29 March 2008
His edits don't look like edit warring to me, and I don't see what the issue is (other than some of his strong language regarding the article's content, not any contributors). He's requesting unblock ... have you anything to add? Daniel Case ( talk) 03:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
QG - he cannot restore the first reference, he is blocked - and now you want him unblocked because he did some great editing ... The block was for 3rr and edit warring, not for great editing.
OM - ease off a bit and don't antagonize him further on his talk. If you have evidence to support a longer block - for whatever reason - then take it to the proper place. Saying that He has a POV, and he won't stop. is rather odd - we all have a pov, you included, will you stop? Cheers,
Vsmith (
talk)
04:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Vsmith,
Please review the recent changes that commenced when SA returned from his recent 72 hour block, and I'd request that you restore the previous stable version as it existed prior to these massive and undiscussed changes. This is a repeatedly problematic behaviour from this particular user, see here for starters. I will post additional diffs as needed in support of this request. Thanks, WNDL42 ( talk) 15:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering how one would get a "wiki bot". Google's not helping me one bit. Vael Victus ( talk) 22:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Vsmith,
Thanks for the clarification on adding links to websites members are affiliated with, my bad.
- Wholebrainer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wholebrainer ( talk • contribs) 05:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Since you were able to come to a decision to block me, could you explain to me why BLP policy - Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals - does not apply in my case. Thanks. Momento ( talk) 13:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
So far I have been accused of spamming and conflict of interest. In the future I will, give no personal references to any entry - no matter how relevalent. I am a Korean War veteran and don't need the hassle. Don Mattox —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mattox ( talk • contribs) 03:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Vsmith, please Wikipedia:avoid personal remarks such as this.
The Washington Times Foundation is not the same thing as The Washington Times. If you had checked, you would have seen that there is no mention of it in the article to which you redirected the page I started.
What I need help with is not "how to do it"; having been around here longer than you, I'm well aware of technique. I was hoping someone would join me in the research and writing. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 12:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Good move!! I kept wondering "who cares?" but not enough to actually do anything. - Denimadept ( talk) 17:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
You sent me a polite (thank you), but not very specific message. It read:
"Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it."
I admit I may not have been as judicious as necessary, but I was adding links to benefit the wikipedia community at large. I'm not sure which links you took issue with, but I've been making edits, usually sparingly, for a couple years now and never received such a message, so it was somewhat of a personal affront. Could you please reference the links I added that you disliked, and further could you please tell me why; this information would help me greatly in my future (i.e., with regard to staying within community guidelines). I'm a fan of wikipedia on many levels, and want not for wikipedia to become a non-fan of me!
In short, I added links that brought further insight to the specific pages they were added to. My links, from what I recall, ranged from adding appropriate TED Talks, some germane blogs, and a few external generic websites with useful information (e.g., university of chicago biographies of people mentioned in the article, a Daylife page from the CEO of Denuo, one site about what exactly communication means).
I work for a law firm in Salt Lake City, and that I know of have never once linked to our firm, cases prosecuted by our firm, or anything involving our clients, which would be wholly controversial.
Thanks for your time VSmith, I look forward to your specificity.
Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skishoo2 ( talk • contribs) 22:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Vsmith,
I noticed you have reverted my recent edits on the "Huygens probe" page. I made those edits anonymous (134.76.235.93), because I thought they were a minor correction and I didn't have my password at hand.
Apparently, my "corrections" are controversial. Let me explain my rationale. I would like to substitute the possessive >>Huygens's<< to >>Huygens'<< because:
1. I think it is ugly and looks rather silly, maybe because...
2. In the Dutch language, which also uses the possessive apostrophe, it is plainly wrong (and Huygens is a Dutch name)
3. I have never encountered this form in the scientific and popular Huygens literature (and I've read dozens of papers), except on this Wikipage
4. I have never HEARD anyone use this form (which should be pronounced "Huygenses"), including many American and British scientists. This would be the rational for using this form, according to the Wikipage on the possessive apostrophe
So, >>Huygens'<< is (also) correct, and I feel BETTER than >>Huygens's<<. Maybe you felt I was vandalizing the page (editing anonymously), but I was merely trying to improve the page's readability. I ask now you to allow my previous edits. Admittedly, I am inexperienced in editing, so if you do not agree, should I take it to the "discussion" page?
Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozric13 ( talk • contribs) 12:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I am Rodney Smith, I was born in Bisbee, and many years ago I decided to create a few Bisbee webpages giving my perspective of Bisbee as a person that grew up there and still views himself as a resident. I am no more a spamer than you are a resident of Bisbee. My walking tour and website are real and not spam. In a given year I provided about 10 walking tours and make no money from them. But I do satisfy visitors to Bisbee with history and exercise. Before you cut my link again come on a 2 hour walking tour with me.
My page is just as relavent as the Bisbee observer page which no longer give news on line.
Please leave my link alone.
By the way, Bisbee.net is not commercial in any great quantity either. Charlie also grew up in Bisbee too. Years ago when he started his website, there were a few pay customers, but now like so many things in Bisbee, his is a work of love.
I have to admit that I took out the cattle ranch link, which I consider about as Bisbee as Wilcox is a mining town.
Go after the real spammers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bisbeewall ( talk • contribs) 04:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting the edits to Talk:Coal made recently by 163.153.240.250. The school district has found the students involved and have taken appropriate action. -- NERIC-Security ( talk) 12:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. This is regarding the link to http://www.shopgemstones.com/31.html on the emerald page. This is an important link to this section because there is no other information like this there on how to value emeralds. The site does not sell anything. I think you should look through the information on the site and make sure it does not benefit wikipedia users before deleting the link.
On the subject of Mid-Atlantic ridge. You flagged my ip address for ip hopping. I like to call it leaving the office and going home. You jump to conclusions too fast. The theory I posted is valid and I've defended it several times on user's deleting the theory from the page. On no grounds is the theory not relevant. The theory has been discussed on national TV and has sufficient scientific backing as much as Wegener's theory. Wegener's theory is a little over 50 years old. It isn't the end of the discussion, but the beginning of the discussion. Re-post the theory or I'll assume you're politically and secularly motivated and and disturbing the peace on this forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.251.40.176 ( talk) 14:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Repost the info any which way you want, but the theory deserves a space on the page because it is part of the evolving discussion on the Mid-Atlatic Ridge. And you're wrong, Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia. It's a living encyclopedia which incorporates matters such as these. According to wp: fringe theory: "Creation science — The overwhelming majority of scientists consider this to be pseudoscience and say that it should not be taught in elementary public education. However the very existence of this strong opinion, and vigorous discussion regarding it amongst groups such as scientists, scientific journals, educational institutions, political institutions, and even the United States Supreme Court, give the idea itself more than adequate notability to have articles about it on Wikipedia."
wp:NPOV "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one."-- 68.251.40.176 ( talk) 01:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
You have repeatedly removed SUBJECT-RELATED content from pages dealing with Magnet Cove, Arkansas & the geological related anomaly there. These pages are only stubs & one of them even has a REQUEST on it for Wiki-members familar with the area to add more content.....I have, several times, only to have it constantly reverted back by you into a very generalized stub. You do not OWN these pages...neither do I. I'm trying to provide further information on the subject, you are trying to keep them just like they were...using "spam" as an excuse for your actions & even going as far as to temporarily ban me. This further hampered my attempt to even discuss with you anything about WHY you feel that subject-related content shouldn't be included.
If you do not desire to discuss the matter, that's fine. But in that case, then let those of us who know something about the site (I've studied it for several years) add information to the page which may be of interest to others who study it also. Hampering the efforts of others to make the articles better, simply because you have nothing more detailed to add to them, is not very constructive to Wikipedia.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.215.240 ( talk) 11:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. For some reason you have deleated the external link i provided to a gallery of thunderegg images - and somehow the term 'spamlink' floated into revision history. Now - i may be quite new here, but i would like to point out that the image gallery in question is a non-commercial one. I have no issues concerning getting in customers. It doesnt even feature any ad content. It's just a page about thungereggs and the ONLY reason i am here and putting this link on the wiki page is because i was trying to help and to liven up a VERY poor page. Providing links to relavent info does not sound like spam to me, and i hope not to people who actually want to find out a bit about thundereggs. Your other changes, i have no problem accepting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eibonvale ( talk • contribs) 05:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
He's continually doing the same thing to the Magnet Cove articles. They are stubs & I have been adding an external link to the articles, following the same format as "External Links" found on over 1/2 of other Wiki-pages. The link leads to a site with some verified history behind Magnet Cove, plus images of all known minerals found there. He's taken it upon himself to be the Wiki-Master of all geology content I suppose & simply deletes any other persons addition of content to the page.
He's done it to my edits multiple times, now to yours, & I've noticed several other instances that he has reverted geology related pages to "his" desire. Sad way to be a Wikipedian. This is one of the reasons why Wiki has a less than desirable reputation with many internet users. I initially thought about letting him play his game....but decided to try one last time, with predictable results.
So, anyone wanting info on Magnet Cove minerals...it's not on Wiki. Ask his guy, he knows everything about the place evidently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.215.240 ( talk) 12:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Change the details in the article about me again and I'll start changing the details on here about you. I'm FED UP with it. So be told. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickmuirhead ( talk • contribs) 15:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just rephrased the support for the Big Bang that you took for criticism because of words like "the main objection" however it has been a past objection, of old physicists, who as Einstein and Feynman, believed in the principle of conservation of energy. The new physicists are already trained to ignore this principle as not having any valid application in cosmology. E.g. in my university all physicists are told that the Big Bang proves that the energy is not conserved. Jim ( talk) 16:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Dennis Rawlins' autobiography is almost totally made of references to his own site, www.dioi.org It should be banned as a vanity page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.226.135 ( talk) 13:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
User 92.11.226.135 is a sockpuppet. See suspected sockpuppet page for evidence. Please ignore his ranting. -- Keithpickering ( talk) 15:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
You deleted Steggles, which is the name of a major company in Australia, without a CSD justification or a link to an AfD. What was your justification for deletion? Thanks, Andjam ( talk) 12:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Vsmith, I rv'd a couple of your deletions. It seemed that you may have gotten a bit too enthusiastic in the worthy fight to limit spam. You've been deleting External links section links to relevant content. If you think that tertiary material such as the The Canadian Encyclopedia shouldn't be even in External links, please consider moving it to a Further reading section rather than deleting it. Thanks, LeadSongDog ( talk) 09:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you please block this user for sending a personal attack to my talk page. Here is the link to the attack.[ [4]] Footballfan190 ( talk) 19:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you also block this user. This user vandalized Robert Capa, even after a final warning. A user did send a message, but there was no blocking. Seriously, I think there needs to be a blocking in this case and not just a simple warning. Footballfan190 ( talk) 20:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
This user needs a blocking. Had a final warning before vandalizing Proselytism. Footballfan190 ( talk) 23:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
This User did it again too. That user attacked talk pages, even after being warned. Please, block him. Here is the link.[ [5]] Footballfan190 ( talk) 01:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm the individual who turned on Mark McMenamin to The Urantia Book. Former Marine, beach landing in Chu Lai in JUN'66. Like you flew home in AUG'68. Radio Relay Opr from Chu Lai, Da Nang, Phu Bai, Dong Ha, Khe San and places inbetween. We appear to have much in common. I will happily enlighten you about The Urantia Book from my 3+ decades of study and experience.
Feel free to contact me at JJ_6062003@Yahoo.com
Best,
JJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJ606 ( talk • contribs) 18:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi JJ, good to see you back safely from Saudi Arabia. Nice find with Mcmenamin, now we also have Kary Mullis seeing the light. Don't worry about VSmith, probably shell-shocked, he prefers reality.LOL —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Majeston (
talk •
contribs)
12:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
For keeping the chemistry pages in good shape. We are busy ( [6]) choosing which version of which article goes on the Wikipedia for Schools DVD and are almost at the point of using a script saying "choose most recent version saved by Vsmith". -- BozMo talk 14:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
i don't know who you are and what you know about corrosion & rust . i'm corrosion engineer i've added some text to corrosion & rust 'bcause they were not very clear & complete i've added also a link to asite that i consider very useful..why you don't remove all the links??????????? corrosion doctors????
but you think you know better than me what is important in this field.. ok.. continue in this way and give very incaccurate and stupi definition to the people.. if this is the spirit of wikipedia then.. i don't want to be a part of it.. thank.. you've lost an expert in this field..
regards
V. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Vittorio6 (
talk •
contribs)
21:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
.... ok.. you see little.. you're the expert...when i'll need and expert on corrosion i'll call you... bye bye..
V. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vittorio6 ( talk • contribs) 19:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Vsmisth
look at this..
from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2008/03/30/sv_101websites.xml&page=3 43 Wikipedia www.wikipedia.org
Controversial, democractic and sometimes error-strewn encyclopaedia that has brought Darwinism to the world of knowledge. Make it your first port of call for looking something up. Just be sure to check somewhere else that what you find makes sense.
best regards and find someone more expert than you...
regards
V. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.96.3.245 ( talk) 07:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Raising Malawi, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raising Malawi. Thank you. NewAtThis ( talk) 23:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry for editting her page then. Darn, I thought it was neat I met her, but I guess that's all it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MelissaReynolds ( talk • contribs) 02:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Please see
the Pentagon talk page re. a recent revert you did I'd like to discuss further, if you have a minute.
Thanks! —
Wikiscient—
18:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering about how you can possibly justify changing the edits about the 9/11 conspiracy so adamantly and yet it's so biased of you to do so. As mentioned in the wikipedia's NPOV policy, ALL entry's must be from an unbiased point of view and this entry about the pentagon (thanks to you) is very biased and unfair, the conspiracy's must be mentioned on this page - to say either side is correct is biased but that applies on both sides, not just on the theories which you don't agree with! And I will quote here: The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions. So please for the sake of freedom of speech, it applies to everyone, not just your own stubborn opinion.
Thanks. 81.100.86.7 ( talk) 20:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not mean any harm to Wikipedia since my website is the extensive source of information about Poland. Moreover, I do not have any sponsor, I do not sell anything, I just do the website because I like it. My only (very meager) profit is from google ads. But I understand that adding just links may be considered inapropriate.
I have one comment. I added a short information about horseradish soup to horseradish article. I think my addition should be kept (it was deleted) since this soup is quite unique but it is related with Easter season in the region of Poland I come from. I wish I could update this article with my comment about the soup again. I hope you agree! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseradish#Culinary_uses
regards
Jagoda —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagoda Klaehn ( talk • contribs) 04:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Yesterday, I changed around the way the different meanings of marble were for a very good reason. While trying to correctly link one form of the word in an article I have been writing, I had difficulty finding the way that page was titled.
Generally, Wikipedia standards are when a name is associated with just one topic that is well known to all of society, while the remainder of meanings of more obscure, entry of that title by itself goes straight to the most common meaning, while a disambiguation page is used for all others. An example is when there is one major city by a name, along with many other smaller cities or towns. Entering London goes to London, England, a famous city around the whole world, while all other places called London (such as London, Ontario) are found on the disambiguation page.
Meanwhile, if two or more articles of equal popularity share the same name, the proper way is to go straight to a disambiguation page. An example is Georgia, which is both a U.S. state and a country, besides all the other more obscure meanings.
I feel that marble is more like in the category of Georgia than London. Marble (toy) (which was called Marbles before I changed it to avoid confusion) is known to most children in developed countries around the world, who then grow up familiar with this term throughout their lives. Marble (rock) is something that adults generally know about (seeing Marble tiles a lot), but in fact, the toy is probably the more familiar meaning of the word, given that it comes earlier in life.
Given this, I believe entry of "marble" should go straight to a disambiguation. Sebwite ( talk) 15:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
...we meet again. Thanx for your edits on the creep/deformation related stuff. So many articles on wikipedia, yet still so much that is not adequately covered. Work to do. Regards, Woodwalker ( talk) 20:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
This article has recently been expanded. Should you feel inclined to give it a critical eye, any suggestions would be appreciated. Kablammo ( talk) 00:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok gandu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devrana ( talk • contribs) 09:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Please avoid removing alternative views without reading about them, or move them to a better place. As a teacher you should be aware of the consequences of indoctrination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by As110 ( talk • contribs) 08:51, 21 April 2008
How come you deleted my post to Brainstorming article? Seems to me people interested in Brainstorming would like to know about the IDEA Cafe. http://ideacafe.meetup.com/1
71.218.159.189 ( talk) 15:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
[7] Just wanted to give you a heads up that I just went ahead and reverted both Scibaby sock edits on Effects of GW (since it seems that you missed one). They are pesky. Jason Patton ( talk) 01:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.
If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight ( talk) 18:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Most of your work on the vanity page of Dennis Rawlins has been reversed. Note that Keithpickering is a sock-puppet of Dennis. The real Pickering is paid by Dennis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.5.71 ( talk) 12:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Rawlins has many numerical sock-puppets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.5.71 ( talk) 12:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I added some information on past uses of chrysotile asbestos and its optical properties using polarized light microscopy. I also added a number of references and some external links. All of the information was removed but the references and links were retained. As a novice at this I am confused. Thanks, IEQParticles ( talk) 20:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your welcome. I am associated with www.microlabgallery. My business website is microlabnw.com and I started posting photographs on that site. What I am trying to do is make this resource available to people who are interested in learning how to identify and understand the significance of particles in the environment. I have been in this business for over 40 years and wanted to share the knowledge. Some of the information is not anywhere else because it is based on my research while I was doing work for various government agencies and companies that were interested in the outcome only and not in how I got there. I understand if it is inappropriate to reference microlabgallery and have no problem with its removal and will not reference it or my business site in the future. I understand how important it is to be rigorous in applying the rules, even at the expense of what may be useful information. Thanks again, IEQParticles ( talk) 14:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
They are for people whodont have time to read the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.105.160 ( talk) 04:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Although Onbeach.com is a commercial website, it also offers complete information of all the beaches in the Caribbean, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. This site offers information on the stucture of the sand, how clean the beaches are, what the facilities on and around the beaches are and whether or not the water is clear. The list of beaches on wikipedia is incomplete and doesn't offer as much information, or pictures for that matter, as onbeach.com does. Suus1982 ( talk) 08:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been despamming Iguazu Falls for some months now and have little tolerance for b.s. links, but I'm inclined to think the one you reverted today — [8] — doesn't qualify as spam. I'm not suggesting it be added again (it's not very well-written and provides no significant new information) but it has no advertising and is certainly legitimately on-topic. The ip of whoever added it has a bad history, but it looks like this edit was well-intentioned. Please forgive me if this seems like nitpicking; I just hate to see the term "spam" applied with too broad a brush. Rivertorch ( talk) 21:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
As I said, I don't disagree with your removal of the link. Maybe I'm overcautious in my use of the word, but apparently I am not alone: WP:Spam, for instance, doesn't apply in this case. (As you noted, WP:EL does.) Anyway, it just seemed a tiny bit like crying wolf or something. Thanks for your good work here. Rivertorch ( talk) 03:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi I could not figure out how to generate content box at the top which most wiki sites seems to have like the one you have at the top in this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabs003 ( talk • contribs) 04:25, 23 May 2008
Thanks for the editing and also the links
Rabin (
talk)
02:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Vsmith. In view of your significant contributions to the article Galápagos Islands, I thought that you might be interested in visiting the new task force, Galápagos Islands task force. Thanks. GregManninLB ( talk) 21:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Currently busy w/ tornado damage recovery - back to it later. Vsmith ( talk) 19:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
OK - not so busy now. Vsmith ( talk) 22:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. How long have you been on here? Also, does it matter if I'm young? ~Becca -aka Nerdy and proud- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdy and proud ( talk • contribs) 22:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your continuing work on the Expanding/Growing Earth pages. I knew that there were serious POV issues that really needed to be handled there, but it wasn't my area of expertise. The only thing I know about it is that the question of where the new matter comes from has not been satisfactorily answered IMHO and I've seen more than a few geologists' opinions on the issue in different fora on the 'net. I feel much better knowing an expert of geology and wiki is keeping an eye on things.
Thanks again :) Aunt Entropy ( talk) 23:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Kindly describe your basis for nominating "Whole-Earth decompression dynamics" for deletion. Marvin Herndon ( talk) 17:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marvin Herndon ( talk • contribs) 17:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Re Dynamo theory You have stated "you appear to be adding and promoting your own ideas/research on dynamo theory and other articles". I think there is some misunderstanding. I edited "Dynamo theory" and improved the scientific descriptions, including adding factual discussions with references to new, recently published fundamental concepts in peer-reviewed, world-class scientific journals. There is a big difference between self-promotional and factual representations. Please tell me which of my own words, are not factual. I describe both older ideas and newer and the basis for the newer ideas. Suppose this were 1905, would you object to Einstein citing his own publications on brownian motion, special relativity, or the photo-electric effect? You might, if he said, "Look at how great I am". But as a good scientist, he would, I am confident, describe his published work in a factual manner, just as I have done. As a self-professed "dabbler in almost anything scientific", I would like to extend to you an invitation to "dabble" at the forefront of science, and in doing so to understand where I'm comming from and what science is all about. I have put a lifetime of work into one, recently published, east-to-read book, entitled "Maverick's Earth and Universe" which, among other things presents a more fundamental approach than the so-called scientific method, and provides information intended to help people make discoveries plus a whole lot more. The book is available from amazon.com.
Rather than escalating this whole issue, I would like for you to understand and then, having done that, to help rather than to oppose me.Marvin Herndon (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Better, if you send by email your mailing address, I'll arrange for you to receive a copy of the book. I have an email link at http://NuclearPlanet.com Marvin Herndon (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Marvin Herndon ( talk) 20:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
"There are none so blind as those will not see." My book is written so that the reader does not have to believe, but rather, can understand the logical progressing of discoveries. I have tried to write it so that a bright middle-school student can understand. And, yes it does in fact present a more fundamental approach than the so-called scientific method. You are a teacher, so you must be familiar with that method, which usually begins with something like 'pose a question' but how does one do that? Do you teach your students to "remain in the dark"? What's wrong with this picture? Marvin Herndon ( talk) 18:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Gee - everyone wants to promote their fringe and wacko bullcrap on Wikipedia. That's rather to be expected - gain exposure, make mo' $$$ - aw well. But they also seem to expect me to promote their speculations with my students - NO! I won't promote nonsense junk that has been long ignored by "mainstream science". So yes, I do see what is wrong with this picture, good-day, Vsmith ( talk) 16:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Be precise here. Are you stating that the published work of J. Marvin Herndon is "fringe and wacko bullcrap"? Marvin Herndon ( talk) 06:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Note - there was no indentation of my comment above as is normal for a reply on talk pages. Therefore Mr Herndon may assume that my comments above were in general as a result of disgust with numerous promotion efforts over the past four years here. But to anyone interested, if the shoe fits, wear it. Cheers, Vsmith ( talk) 06:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
PS If you're teaching high school Science, How about promoting the Janet Periodic Table to your students as is on the WWW. It gets away from the vagaries of the Sergeant Welch table and is probably one of the reasons our students are falling behind in science.WFPM WFPM ( talk) 05:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Re Your editing of my adding Talk:Nuclear model to the Atom's reference list, that was because I couldn't get a reference my models in the Nuclear model section and they certainly are nuclear models. So why couldn't you spruce up my edit and leave the reference in please. WFPM WFPM ( talk) 04:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought education was about learning about facts and/or opinions and about conceptualization. And I found it hard it hard to get a concept of the Atom from the Mendeleev periodic table which is essentially a big data base and I had to build the models to understand the difference between it and the Janet Table. And now, as they say in Fox news, I am reporting and you decide. I would hope that you would do the Neodymium magnet test and tell me what you think about the model of 4Be9.WFPM WFPM ( talk) 20:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason why you removed the appearance of my model picture from under the descriptive narative? I thought it helped a lot in understanding the model concept, and some readers particularly young readers will be attracted to the narative by the picture. WFPM WFPM ( talk) 21:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Well I dont want to foul it up by trying anything, but it seems to me that the talk nuclear model page could have my image on the left side as it is on the image page and then have the discussion on the right side of the image. WFPM WFPM ( talk) 00:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay I think I did what you told me and now the page wont call up an image?WFPM WFPM ( talk) 03:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
V, what brought on the page protection at remote viewing? not a problem, it just surprised me a little. -- Ludwigs2 04:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This is not spam. Please check before leaving such an opinion. I believe this is a relevant external link that provides useful information to wikipedia users. Thanks anyway for your note. Marsal G.Durall —Preceding unsigned comment added by Economyweb ( talk • contribs) 16:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Why do you think this link (as an external reference) does not apply? Thank you. Marsal G.Durall marsal@economyweb.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Economyweb ( talk • contribs) 17:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
are you satisfied with this result? -- Ludwigs2 02:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Vsmith. I am going to nominate the Oil shale geology article for the GAN. However, I think this article probably needs some more editing and improvement before the nomination. Maybe you are interested to take a look on this article? Thank you in advance. Beagel ( talk) 09:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
As one of the people who has over 10 edits at Mammoth Cave National Park and has edited it this year, your attention is needed at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mammoth Cave National Park/1.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 15:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what is going on here. I am at work, in a call center with 300+ employees. I have never visited any "alcohol prohibition page" and really DO NOT appreciate the rude message! perhaps you should locate who ACTUALLY did this before risking offending new users like me! I really don't understand. what this is all about?..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.198.207.11 ( talk) 02:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I did an undo on both so they are restored, but wonder if there isn't someway to prevent this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pearlexpert ( talk • contribs) 04:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
please look now at the article. It looks bad. Please move the photo return ! :-( -- Alchemist-hp ( talk) 13:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I want to discuss the removing of the link I've posted in the Dead sea article. I am not a new user to Wiki, and I know the rules. I believe that the link of the photos of the dead sea are relevant external link to the dead sea article. I don't think that only Geologists are looking on the dead sea article @Wiki. I would like you to reconsider the "spam" you tagged the site.
Please reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxweb ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the article talk material, I'll take your word for it. I'm disappointed that sources which address the issues raised have not been added to the article as was originally planned. Interesting though that he was blocked as a sock, I hadn't been aware of that. — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 18:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The E=mc² Barnstar | ||
For your active work around mineral articles. Rhanyeia ♥ ♫ 12:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC) |
I will be instructing my solicitor refrence the printing of libelous material. I will remind you the onus is the on the person who printed the libelous material to prove what they said is true (without any doubt) and not vice versa. Should remedial action or suitable justification not be received promptly I will persue this case. I will be informing the owners of Wikipedia about said case also as this also involves them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biggilo ( talk • contribs) 15:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Vsmith. Could you please justify your semi-protection of Global Warming on 2nd January, bearing in mind that pre-emptive semi-protection merely to prevent possible IP vandalism does not adhere to Wiki policy. Thanks, 86.31.45.177 ( talk) 15:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This user won't give up, even when he is wrong. Anthon01 ( talk) 19:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Is this RFCstyle listing the preferred way to handle this low level, slow-burn dispute about cite style?
User:Doncram is acting on a conviction that PD-source tags are tantamount to a representation of plagiarism. He has been engaged in discussion on several article talk pages, a template talk page, and a style guideline discussion page, listed at RFC. He has stopped blanking PD-sourced content, but continues to exhort editors, and revert their reverts, insisting that PD sourced content needs to be enclosed in quotes with intext cites to conform to Wikipedia style guidelines. -- Paleorthid ( talk) 20:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Vsmith,
I have been observing the entry Aristotle and I discovered that the day before yesterday you reverted Sunshinyness version:
(cur) (last) 13:39, 21 January 2008 Vsmith (Talk | contribs) m (61,677 bytes) (Reverted edits by Sunshinyness (talk) to last version by 129.67.115.253) (undo) (cur) (last) 11:42, 21 January 2008 Sunshinyness (Talk | contribs) (61,240 bytes) (undo)
For removing the following:
From the 3rd century to the 1500s, the dominant view held that the Earth was the center of the universe ( geocentrism). This scientific concept, as proposed by Aristotle and Plato was later adopted as dogma by the Roman Catholic Church because it placed mankind at the center of the universe, and scientists who disagreed, such as Galileo, were considered heretics. This erroneous concept was eventually rejected.
Good Job!! It's thanks to people like you that wikipedia is becoming reliable!
I got curious and read what follows:
Who Geologist - MS, 1975, The University of Arizona. Currently a " torturer of teenagers" (high school science teacher) and a dabbler in almost anything scientific. {B-)}
[edit] Long, long time ago
In what seems like
another universe now, I was a
U.S. Marine - spent almost two years in
'nam. Radio op with
MAG-36, chopper outfit, mostly in and around Ky Ha
copter pad north of the
Chu Lai airbase. Took a trip to 'nam aboard the
USS Princeton (CV-37) in August '65 and flew back stateside June '67. Just in case anyone from that universe is surfing around
wiki. Damn, that was a long
time ago!
I have been in the italian Navy long long time ago as well.
I would be interested in knowing you better... if you are a facebook user please poke me. I consider myself another dabbler in almost anything scientific. °O) I will be in the New York facebook network for a month.
Maurice Carbonaro ( talk) 09:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
You may wish to review Number48 in light of your previous actions, specifically [1]. PouponOnToast ( talk) 13:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Vsmith for responding to my AN/I report with corrective action. Much appreciated! -- MPerel 02:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I reverted an article due to some vandalism and saw the user's talk page where you blocked the user for previous vandalism. 162.40.102.209 ( talk · contribs) is the target IP. Just letting you know he/she is at it again. Esoxid ( talk) 17:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
from jc perez sorry, Dr Smith there is not a self promotion. I consider only that adding PREDICTIVE FORMULA paragraph increase a bit wikipedia periodic table knowledge and data... Thanks jc perez —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean-claude perez (talk • contribs) 07:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
sorry for figures and graphics formula (I could send you a full text including them by email if you send me your email adress: jeanclaudeperez2@free.fr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean-claude perez ( talk • contribs) 10:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Figure 1: Conventional Empiric Mendeleev’s Table and new “X“ and “K“ diamonds-like modelling structures.
“Are there NUMBERS in the NATURE?” The MENDELEEV’s Table Generic EQUATION.
At IBM initially, then with “geNum” biomathematics Lab. thereafter, we have studied the phenomena of self-organization and global structures emergence such as “Fractal Chaos” for more than 25 years1. Particularly, we have then, since the end of the Eighties, make basic research about hypothetical mathematical structures of DNA and genomes 2 3. Our main question remains: “Are there Numbers in the Nature?” Let us take the example of the famous table of Mendeleev4, no one never had the idea to seek a possible mathematical law which would organize the information and the structure of "the most heterogeneous table of Science". We discovered this law: the equation of the table of Mendeleev. Here is a short summary: We discovered a simple equation which generates and predicts the structure of the table of Mendeleev. This equation predicts the number of elements of any layer of period "p" in the table according to the only value of this period "p". Beyond this mathematical modeling of the periodic table of the Elements, -This equation underlines, in its formulation, the " trace" of the 4 fundamental quantum Numbers. -This modeling predicts the structure of the hypothetical extensions of the table of Mendeleev towards possible Eléments (real) unknown which would be located beyond the last known radioactive Elements5. -This modeling also makes it possible to imagine an infinity of other Elements (virtual) which one could however predict positioning towards the low layers of the table, like their quantum properties. To summarize, if: -c(p) a horizontal layer of elements of the table of Mendeleev, -"p" the period associated with this c(p) layer such as p = [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 … ], -Int(v) the whole part of the numerical value "v". exp: if v=2.35, then Int(2.35)=2. Then, one obtains c(p), the number of elements contained in the c(p) layer of order p, by applying the formula:
Examples : If p=1 è c(1)=2 If p=2 è c(2)=8 If p=3 è c(3)=8 If p=4 è c(4)=18 If p=5 è c(5)=18 If p=6 è c(6)=32 If p=7 è c(7)=32 If p=8 è c(8)=50 If p=9 è c(9)=50 …/… If p=16è c(16)=162 Generic and predictive natures of the equation: Can one extrapolate this law beyond the periods for which it is checked (periods 1 to 7)? Which would be the properties of a hypothetical period 8? Researchers predict the existence of hypothetical Eléments 126 and even 164 78. If these elements existed, they would belong to a "eighth period" (since periods 1 to 7 can contain only 118 Elements). However, the quantum theory "predicts" that such a period 8 "should" contain 50 Elements. Effectively, to the 32 Elements corresponding to layer 7 would come to associate an additional long block of 18 elements, the "octadécanides". As we will see it, it would correspond to the quantum block "g", which contains 9 orbital (m = [ +4, +3, +2, +1, 0, -1, -2, -3, -4 ], these 9 states, compounds with the 2 states of the "spin", lead well to 2x9 = 18 additional Elements). It is exactly what our equation predicts (see details in WEB supplementary information). Graphical structures overview: This equation makes it possible to propose new graphic designs of the Mendeleev’s table6: -« 2-dimensions conventional table » : it is the usual representation in which lanthanides were reintegrated in their place. This table extends by bottom when p increases. -« 3-dimensions X diamonds-like » : this structure underlines the double symmetry of growth of the crystal-like table. It is made of 4 regular pyramids with square bases forming "XX" for face view, "X" for side view, and 2 squares adjacent by an angle in sights of top and below. When p grows, the extension is done alternatively by bottom and the top. -« 3-dimensions K diamonds-like » : This structure is most realistic: it amalgamates alignments by columns of the traditional table with the 3-dimensional structure. We have 4 orthogonal pyramids with square bases. Please visit WEB supplementary information for details. Strong Relationships between the 4 Quantum Numbers and Mendeleev’s Table Equation : Niels Bohr established the relation between the position of each Element in the periodic table and its electronic structure. The chemical properties of each Element are thus totally determined by the distribution of the electrons of this Element. The properties and positionings of these electrons, themselves, are determined by the laws of Quantum Physics. It is related to the wave equation of Schrödinger which establishes these distributions of probabilities of energies of the electron. These waves functions name the " orbitals ". Thus, with any electron identifiers are associated: they are the 4 Quantum Numbers. One successively defines “n”, “l”, “m”, and “s”, the 4 quantum numbers. We show in additional WEB supplementary information that our Mendeleev’s Equation includes strong links with the 4 quantum numbers: One thus finds, in this new concise writing of the generic equation, the explicit trace of 2 among the 4 quantum Numbers: "n" and "m":
= 2 = 2 where m and n are the magnetic and principal quantum numbers of index p.
To conclude : -1- The periodic table of the Elements is modélisable. It is structured by a numerical structure of whole numbers. -2- This structure is deterministic and predictive, then, for any period p, it can be calculated by applying "the generic equation of Mendeleev" which we discovered. -3- The generic equation is completely controlled by the four quantum Numbers. -4-This generic equation makes it possible to check the regularity of the common table of Mendeleev, but it can also "predict" and anticipate the existence of hypothetical Eléments now unknown, of which it makes it possible to determine the quantum properties, then electronic and chemical hypothetical properties. Jean-claude Perez #£
Email : jeanclaudeperez2@free.fr £ geNum inc : 1134, chemin Saint Louis Sillery Quebec G1S 1E5 Canada References: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean-claude perez ( talk • contribs) 10:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
stop deleting what i wrote!!!
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Neogotchi (
talk •
contribs)
07:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I am the user that provided visionlearning modules as external links on some articles a few weeks back. I would like to include a link to relevant material on those topics for teachers and students on the Visionlearning website, an open-source, federally funded science teaching initiative, nearly ten years old. Visionlearning contains peer-reviewed, and freely available teaching resources in science and math written specifically for educators and students. I believe the link to this material will enhance the wiki content as it provides a means for teachers and students to access further information on a topic, and since it is written specifically for an educational audience, will help legitimize the content on wiki in these circles. Also, may I point out that Visionlearning is completely non-profit. oking83
Vsmith, IP address 192.203.136.252 is registered to a public library! 66.99.216.2 ( talk) 21:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
You recently removed an external link to Enviromentality (http:// environment-policy.info) I added to the entry for political ecology and stated that "links to web sites with which you are affiliated" are not appropriate. I read the guidelines for external links before adding this one and I did not see this rule so I am asking whether mere association with a web site is grounds for removal if the web site is otherwise a worthwhile link. I am not deriving any financial reward from generating external link traffic. Since that time I have also moved from anonymous to being a named user as that may have aroused some suspicion. Otherwise I thank you for keeping Wiki clean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cherson ( talk • contribs) 21:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
OK since it appears that standing up for one's own work = self-promotion, no matter how worthy, I have recommended the link on the article talk page. I would suggest that a better test would be substantive value of the link since it would be fairly easy to employ a 'shill' to promote a link as well, wouldn't it? (3/29/2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.246.43 ( talk • contribs) 21:52, 29 March 2008
His edits don't look like edit warring to me, and I don't see what the issue is (other than some of his strong language regarding the article's content, not any contributors). He's requesting unblock ... have you anything to add? Daniel Case ( talk) 03:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
QG - he cannot restore the first reference, he is blocked - and now you want him unblocked because he did some great editing ... The block was for 3rr and edit warring, not for great editing.
OM - ease off a bit and don't antagonize him further on his talk. If you have evidence to support a longer block - for whatever reason - then take it to the proper place. Saying that He has a POV, and he won't stop. is rather odd - we all have a pov, you included, will you stop? Cheers,
Vsmith (
talk)
04:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Vsmith,
Please review the recent changes that commenced when SA returned from his recent 72 hour block, and I'd request that you restore the previous stable version as it existed prior to these massive and undiscussed changes. This is a repeatedly problematic behaviour from this particular user, see here for starters. I will post additional diffs as needed in support of this request. Thanks, WNDL42 ( talk) 15:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering how one would get a "wiki bot". Google's not helping me one bit. Vael Victus ( talk) 22:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Vsmith,
Thanks for the clarification on adding links to websites members are affiliated with, my bad.
- Wholebrainer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wholebrainer ( talk • contribs) 05:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Since you were able to come to a decision to block me, could you explain to me why BLP policy - Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals - does not apply in my case. Thanks. Momento ( talk) 13:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
So far I have been accused of spamming and conflict of interest. In the future I will, give no personal references to any entry - no matter how relevalent. I am a Korean War veteran and don't need the hassle. Don Mattox —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mattox ( talk • contribs) 03:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Vsmith, please Wikipedia:avoid personal remarks such as this.
The Washington Times Foundation is not the same thing as The Washington Times. If you had checked, you would have seen that there is no mention of it in the article to which you redirected the page I started.
What I need help with is not "how to do it"; having been around here longer than you, I'm well aware of technique. I was hoping someone would join me in the research and writing. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 12:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Good move!! I kept wondering "who cares?" but not enough to actually do anything. - Denimadept ( talk) 17:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
You sent me a polite (thank you), but not very specific message. It read:
"Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it."
I admit I may not have been as judicious as necessary, but I was adding links to benefit the wikipedia community at large. I'm not sure which links you took issue with, but I've been making edits, usually sparingly, for a couple years now and never received such a message, so it was somewhat of a personal affront. Could you please reference the links I added that you disliked, and further could you please tell me why; this information would help me greatly in my future (i.e., with regard to staying within community guidelines). I'm a fan of wikipedia on many levels, and want not for wikipedia to become a non-fan of me!
In short, I added links that brought further insight to the specific pages they were added to. My links, from what I recall, ranged from adding appropriate TED Talks, some germane blogs, and a few external generic websites with useful information (e.g., university of chicago biographies of people mentioned in the article, a Daylife page from the CEO of Denuo, one site about what exactly communication means).
I work for a law firm in Salt Lake City, and that I know of have never once linked to our firm, cases prosecuted by our firm, or anything involving our clients, which would be wholly controversial.
Thanks for your time VSmith, I look forward to your specificity.
Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skishoo2 ( talk • contribs) 22:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Vsmith,
I noticed you have reverted my recent edits on the "Huygens probe" page. I made those edits anonymous (134.76.235.93), because I thought they were a minor correction and I didn't have my password at hand.
Apparently, my "corrections" are controversial. Let me explain my rationale. I would like to substitute the possessive >>Huygens's<< to >>Huygens'<< because:
1. I think it is ugly and looks rather silly, maybe because...
2. In the Dutch language, which also uses the possessive apostrophe, it is plainly wrong (and Huygens is a Dutch name)
3. I have never encountered this form in the scientific and popular Huygens literature (and I've read dozens of papers), except on this Wikipage
4. I have never HEARD anyone use this form (which should be pronounced "Huygenses"), including many American and British scientists. This would be the rational for using this form, according to the Wikipage on the possessive apostrophe
So, >>Huygens'<< is (also) correct, and I feel BETTER than >>Huygens's<<. Maybe you felt I was vandalizing the page (editing anonymously), but I was merely trying to improve the page's readability. I ask now you to allow my previous edits. Admittedly, I am inexperienced in editing, so if you do not agree, should I take it to the "discussion" page?
Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozric13 ( talk • contribs) 12:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I am Rodney Smith, I was born in Bisbee, and many years ago I decided to create a few Bisbee webpages giving my perspective of Bisbee as a person that grew up there and still views himself as a resident. I am no more a spamer than you are a resident of Bisbee. My walking tour and website are real and not spam. In a given year I provided about 10 walking tours and make no money from them. But I do satisfy visitors to Bisbee with history and exercise. Before you cut my link again come on a 2 hour walking tour with me.
My page is just as relavent as the Bisbee observer page which no longer give news on line.
Please leave my link alone.
By the way, Bisbee.net is not commercial in any great quantity either. Charlie also grew up in Bisbee too. Years ago when he started his website, there were a few pay customers, but now like so many things in Bisbee, his is a work of love.
I have to admit that I took out the cattle ranch link, which I consider about as Bisbee as Wilcox is a mining town.
Go after the real spammers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bisbeewall ( talk • contribs) 04:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting the edits to Talk:Coal made recently by 163.153.240.250. The school district has found the students involved and have taken appropriate action. -- NERIC-Security ( talk) 12:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. This is regarding the link to http://www.shopgemstones.com/31.html on the emerald page. This is an important link to this section because there is no other information like this there on how to value emeralds. The site does not sell anything. I think you should look through the information on the site and make sure it does not benefit wikipedia users before deleting the link.
On the subject of Mid-Atlantic ridge. You flagged my ip address for ip hopping. I like to call it leaving the office and going home. You jump to conclusions too fast. The theory I posted is valid and I've defended it several times on user's deleting the theory from the page. On no grounds is the theory not relevant. The theory has been discussed on national TV and has sufficient scientific backing as much as Wegener's theory. Wegener's theory is a little over 50 years old. It isn't the end of the discussion, but the beginning of the discussion. Re-post the theory or I'll assume you're politically and secularly motivated and and disturbing the peace on this forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.251.40.176 ( talk) 14:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Repost the info any which way you want, but the theory deserves a space on the page because it is part of the evolving discussion on the Mid-Atlatic Ridge. And you're wrong, Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia. It's a living encyclopedia which incorporates matters such as these. According to wp: fringe theory: "Creation science — The overwhelming majority of scientists consider this to be pseudoscience and say that it should not be taught in elementary public education. However the very existence of this strong opinion, and vigorous discussion regarding it amongst groups such as scientists, scientific journals, educational institutions, political institutions, and even the United States Supreme Court, give the idea itself more than adequate notability to have articles about it on Wikipedia."
wp:NPOV "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one."-- 68.251.40.176 ( talk) 01:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
You have repeatedly removed SUBJECT-RELATED content from pages dealing with Magnet Cove, Arkansas & the geological related anomaly there. These pages are only stubs & one of them even has a REQUEST on it for Wiki-members familar with the area to add more content.....I have, several times, only to have it constantly reverted back by you into a very generalized stub. You do not OWN these pages...neither do I. I'm trying to provide further information on the subject, you are trying to keep them just like they were...using "spam" as an excuse for your actions & even going as far as to temporarily ban me. This further hampered my attempt to even discuss with you anything about WHY you feel that subject-related content shouldn't be included.
If you do not desire to discuss the matter, that's fine. But in that case, then let those of us who know something about the site (I've studied it for several years) add information to the page which may be of interest to others who study it also. Hampering the efforts of others to make the articles better, simply because you have nothing more detailed to add to them, is not very constructive to Wikipedia.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.215.240 ( talk) 11:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. For some reason you have deleated the external link i provided to a gallery of thunderegg images - and somehow the term 'spamlink' floated into revision history. Now - i may be quite new here, but i would like to point out that the image gallery in question is a non-commercial one. I have no issues concerning getting in customers. It doesnt even feature any ad content. It's just a page about thungereggs and the ONLY reason i am here and putting this link on the wiki page is because i was trying to help and to liven up a VERY poor page. Providing links to relavent info does not sound like spam to me, and i hope not to people who actually want to find out a bit about thundereggs. Your other changes, i have no problem accepting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eibonvale ( talk • contribs) 05:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
He's continually doing the same thing to the Magnet Cove articles. They are stubs & I have been adding an external link to the articles, following the same format as "External Links" found on over 1/2 of other Wiki-pages. The link leads to a site with some verified history behind Magnet Cove, plus images of all known minerals found there. He's taken it upon himself to be the Wiki-Master of all geology content I suppose & simply deletes any other persons addition of content to the page.
He's done it to my edits multiple times, now to yours, & I've noticed several other instances that he has reverted geology related pages to "his" desire. Sad way to be a Wikipedian. This is one of the reasons why Wiki has a less than desirable reputation with many internet users. I initially thought about letting him play his game....but decided to try one last time, with predictable results.
So, anyone wanting info on Magnet Cove minerals...it's not on Wiki. Ask his guy, he knows everything about the place evidently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.215.240 ( talk) 12:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Change the details in the article about me again and I'll start changing the details on here about you. I'm FED UP with it. So be told. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickmuirhead ( talk • contribs) 15:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just rephrased the support for the Big Bang that you took for criticism because of words like "the main objection" however it has been a past objection, of old physicists, who as Einstein and Feynman, believed in the principle of conservation of energy. The new physicists are already trained to ignore this principle as not having any valid application in cosmology. E.g. in my university all physicists are told that the Big Bang proves that the energy is not conserved. Jim ( talk) 16:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Dennis Rawlins' autobiography is almost totally made of references to his own site, www.dioi.org It should be banned as a vanity page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.226.135 ( talk) 13:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
User 92.11.226.135 is a sockpuppet. See suspected sockpuppet page for evidence. Please ignore his ranting. -- Keithpickering ( talk) 15:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
You deleted Steggles, which is the name of a major company in Australia, without a CSD justification or a link to an AfD. What was your justification for deletion? Thanks, Andjam ( talk) 12:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Vsmith, I rv'd a couple of your deletions. It seemed that you may have gotten a bit too enthusiastic in the worthy fight to limit spam. You've been deleting External links section links to relevant content. If you think that tertiary material such as the The Canadian Encyclopedia shouldn't be even in External links, please consider moving it to a Further reading section rather than deleting it. Thanks, LeadSongDog ( talk) 09:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you please block this user for sending a personal attack to my talk page. Here is the link to the attack.[ [4]] Footballfan190 ( talk) 19:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you also block this user. This user vandalized Robert Capa, even after a final warning. A user did send a message, but there was no blocking. Seriously, I think there needs to be a blocking in this case and not just a simple warning. Footballfan190 ( talk) 20:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
This user needs a blocking. Had a final warning before vandalizing Proselytism. Footballfan190 ( talk) 23:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
This User did it again too. That user attacked talk pages, even after being warned. Please, block him. Here is the link.[ [5]] Footballfan190 ( talk) 01:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm the individual who turned on Mark McMenamin to The Urantia Book. Former Marine, beach landing in Chu Lai in JUN'66. Like you flew home in AUG'68. Radio Relay Opr from Chu Lai, Da Nang, Phu Bai, Dong Ha, Khe San and places inbetween. We appear to have much in common. I will happily enlighten you about The Urantia Book from my 3+ decades of study and experience.
Feel free to contact me at JJ_6062003@Yahoo.com
Best,
JJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJ606 ( talk • contribs) 18:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi JJ, good to see you back safely from Saudi Arabia. Nice find with Mcmenamin, now we also have Kary Mullis seeing the light. Don't worry about VSmith, probably shell-shocked, he prefers reality.LOL —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Majeston (
talk •
contribs)
12:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
For keeping the chemistry pages in good shape. We are busy ( [6]) choosing which version of which article goes on the Wikipedia for Schools DVD and are almost at the point of using a script saying "choose most recent version saved by Vsmith". -- BozMo talk 14:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
i don't know who you are and what you know about corrosion & rust . i'm corrosion engineer i've added some text to corrosion & rust 'bcause they were not very clear & complete i've added also a link to asite that i consider very useful..why you don't remove all the links??????????? corrosion doctors????
but you think you know better than me what is important in this field.. ok.. continue in this way and give very incaccurate and stupi definition to the people.. if this is the spirit of wikipedia then.. i don't want to be a part of it.. thank.. you've lost an expert in this field..
regards
V. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Vittorio6 (
talk •
contribs)
21:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
.... ok.. you see little.. you're the expert...when i'll need and expert on corrosion i'll call you... bye bye..
V. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vittorio6 ( talk • contribs) 19:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Vsmisth
look at this..
from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2008/03/30/sv_101websites.xml&page=3 43 Wikipedia www.wikipedia.org
Controversial, democractic and sometimes error-strewn encyclopaedia that has brought Darwinism to the world of knowledge. Make it your first port of call for looking something up. Just be sure to check somewhere else that what you find makes sense.
best regards and find someone more expert than you...
regards
V. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.96.3.245 ( talk) 07:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Raising Malawi, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raising Malawi. Thank you. NewAtThis ( talk) 23:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry for editting her page then. Darn, I thought it was neat I met her, but I guess that's all it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MelissaReynolds ( talk • contribs) 02:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Please see
the Pentagon talk page re. a recent revert you did I'd like to discuss further, if you have a minute.
Thanks! —
Wikiscient—
18:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering about how you can possibly justify changing the edits about the 9/11 conspiracy so adamantly and yet it's so biased of you to do so. As mentioned in the wikipedia's NPOV policy, ALL entry's must be from an unbiased point of view and this entry about the pentagon (thanks to you) is very biased and unfair, the conspiracy's must be mentioned on this page - to say either side is correct is biased but that applies on both sides, not just on the theories which you don't agree with! And I will quote here: The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions. So please for the sake of freedom of speech, it applies to everyone, not just your own stubborn opinion.
Thanks. 81.100.86.7 ( talk) 20:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not mean any harm to Wikipedia since my website is the extensive source of information about Poland. Moreover, I do not have any sponsor, I do not sell anything, I just do the website because I like it. My only (very meager) profit is from google ads. But I understand that adding just links may be considered inapropriate.
I have one comment. I added a short information about horseradish soup to horseradish article. I think my addition should be kept (it was deleted) since this soup is quite unique but it is related with Easter season in the region of Poland I come from. I wish I could update this article with my comment about the soup again. I hope you agree! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseradish#Culinary_uses
regards
Jagoda —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagoda Klaehn ( talk • contribs) 04:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Yesterday, I changed around the way the different meanings of marble were for a very good reason. While trying to correctly link one form of the word in an article I have been writing, I had difficulty finding the way that page was titled.
Generally, Wikipedia standards are when a name is associated with just one topic that is well known to all of society, while the remainder of meanings of more obscure, entry of that title by itself goes straight to the most common meaning, while a disambiguation page is used for all others. An example is when there is one major city by a name, along with many other smaller cities or towns. Entering London goes to London, England, a famous city around the whole world, while all other places called London (such as London, Ontario) are found on the disambiguation page.
Meanwhile, if two or more articles of equal popularity share the same name, the proper way is to go straight to a disambiguation page. An example is Georgia, which is both a U.S. state and a country, besides all the other more obscure meanings.
I feel that marble is more like in the category of Georgia than London. Marble (toy) (which was called Marbles before I changed it to avoid confusion) is known to most children in developed countries around the world, who then grow up familiar with this term throughout their lives. Marble (rock) is something that adults generally know about (seeing Marble tiles a lot), but in fact, the toy is probably the more familiar meaning of the word, given that it comes earlier in life.
Given this, I believe entry of "marble" should go straight to a disambiguation. Sebwite ( talk) 15:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
...we meet again. Thanx for your edits on the creep/deformation related stuff. So many articles on wikipedia, yet still so much that is not adequately covered. Work to do. Regards, Woodwalker ( talk) 20:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
This article has recently been expanded. Should you feel inclined to give it a critical eye, any suggestions would be appreciated. Kablammo ( talk) 00:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok gandu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devrana ( talk • contribs) 09:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Please avoid removing alternative views without reading about them, or move them to a better place. As a teacher you should be aware of the consequences of indoctrination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by As110 ( talk • contribs) 08:51, 21 April 2008
How come you deleted my post to Brainstorming article? Seems to me people interested in Brainstorming would like to know about the IDEA Cafe. http://ideacafe.meetup.com/1
71.218.159.189 ( talk) 15:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
[7] Just wanted to give you a heads up that I just went ahead and reverted both Scibaby sock edits on Effects of GW (since it seems that you missed one). They are pesky. Jason Patton ( talk) 01:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.
If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight ( talk) 18:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Most of your work on the vanity page of Dennis Rawlins has been reversed. Note that Keithpickering is a sock-puppet of Dennis. The real Pickering is paid by Dennis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.5.71 ( talk) 12:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Rawlins has many numerical sock-puppets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.5.71 ( talk) 12:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I added some information on past uses of chrysotile asbestos and its optical properties using polarized light microscopy. I also added a number of references and some external links. All of the information was removed but the references and links were retained. As a novice at this I am confused. Thanks, IEQParticles ( talk) 20:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your welcome. I am associated with www.microlabgallery. My business website is microlabnw.com and I started posting photographs on that site. What I am trying to do is make this resource available to people who are interested in learning how to identify and understand the significance of particles in the environment. I have been in this business for over 40 years and wanted to share the knowledge. Some of the information is not anywhere else because it is based on my research while I was doing work for various government agencies and companies that were interested in the outcome only and not in how I got there. I understand if it is inappropriate to reference microlabgallery and have no problem with its removal and will not reference it or my business site in the future. I understand how important it is to be rigorous in applying the rules, even at the expense of what may be useful information. Thanks again, IEQParticles ( talk) 14:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
They are for people whodont have time to read the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.105.160 ( talk) 04:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Although Onbeach.com is a commercial website, it also offers complete information of all the beaches in the Caribbean, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. This site offers information on the stucture of the sand, how clean the beaches are, what the facilities on and around the beaches are and whether or not the water is clear. The list of beaches on wikipedia is incomplete and doesn't offer as much information, or pictures for that matter, as onbeach.com does. Suus1982 ( talk) 08:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been despamming Iguazu Falls for some months now and have little tolerance for b.s. links, but I'm inclined to think the one you reverted today — [8] — doesn't qualify as spam. I'm not suggesting it be added again (it's not very well-written and provides no significant new information) but it has no advertising and is certainly legitimately on-topic. The ip of whoever added it has a bad history, but it looks like this edit was well-intentioned. Please forgive me if this seems like nitpicking; I just hate to see the term "spam" applied with too broad a brush. Rivertorch ( talk) 21:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
As I said, I don't disagree with your removal of the link. Maybe I'm overcautious in my use of the word, but apparently I am not alone: WP:Spam, for instance, doesn't apply in this case. (As you noted, WP:EL does.) Anyway, it just seemed a tiny bit like crying wolf or something. Thanks for your good work here. Rivertorch ( talk) 03:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi I could not figure out how to generate content box at the top which most wiki sites seems to have like the one you have at the top in this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabs003 ( talk • contribs) 04:25, 23 May 2008
Thanks for the editing and also the links
Rabin (
talk)
02:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Vsmith. In view of your significant contributions to the article Galápagos Islands, I thought that you might be interested in visiting the new task force, Galápagos Islands task force. Thanks. GregManninLB ( talk) 21:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Currently busy w/ tornado damage recovery - back to it later. Vsmith ( talk) 19:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
OK - not so busy now. Vsmith ( talk) 22:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. How long have you been on here? Also, does it matter if I'm young? ~Becca -aka Nerdy and proud- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdy and proud ( talk • contribs) 22:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your continuing work on the Expanding/Growing Earth pages. I knew that there were serious POV issues that really needed to be handled there, but it wasn't my area of expertise. The only thing I know about it is that the question of where the new matter comes from has not been satisfactorily answered IMHO and I've seen more than a few geologists' opinions on the issue in different fora on the 'net. I feel much better knowing an expert of geology and wiki is keeping an eye on things.
Thanks again :) Aunt Entropy ( talk) 23:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Kindly describe your basis for nominating "Whole-Earth decompression dynamics" for deletion. Marvin Herndon ( talk) 17:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marvin Herndon ( talk • contribs) 17:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Re Dynamo theory You have stated "you appear to be adding and promoting your own ideas/research on dynamo theory and other articles". I think there is some misunderstanding. I edited "Dynamo theory" and improved the scientific descriptions, including adding factual discussions with references to new, recently published fundamental concepts in peer-reviewed, world-class scientific journals. There is a big difference between self-promotional and factual representations. Please tell me which of my own words, are not factual. I describe both older ideas and newer and the basis for the newer ideas. Suppose this were 1905, would you object to Einstein citing his own publications on brownian motion, special relativity, or the photo-electric effect? You might, if he said, "Look at how great I am". But as a good scientist, he would, I am confident, describe his published work in a factual manner, just as I have done. As a self-professed "dabbler in almost anything scientific", I would like to extend to you an invitation to "dabble" at the forefront of science, and in doing so to understand where I'm comming from and what science is all about. I have put a lifetime of work into one, recently published, east-to-read book, entitled "Maverick's Earth and Universe" which, among other things presents a more fundamental approach than the so-called scientific method, and provides information intended to help people make discoveries plus a whole lot more. The book is available from amazon.com.
Rather than escalating this whole issue, I would like for you to understand and then, having done that, to help rather than to oppose me.Marvin Herndon (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Better, if you send by email your mailing address, I'll arrange for you to receive a copy of the book. I have an email link at http://NuclearPlanet.com Marvin Herndon (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Marvin Herndon ( talk) 20:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
"There are none so blind as those will not see." My book is written so that the reader does not have to believe, but rather, can understand the logical progressing of discoveries. I have tried to write it so that a bright middle-school student can understand. And, yes it does in fact present a more fundamental approach than the so-called scientific method. You are a teacher, so you must be familiar with that method, which usually begins with something like 'pose a question' but how does one do that? Do you teach your students to "remain in the dark"? What's wrong with this picture? Marvin Herndon ( talk) 18:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Gee - everyone wants to promote their fringe and wacko bullcrap on Wikipedia. That's rather to be expected - gain exposure, make mo' $$$ - aw well. But they also seem to expect me to promote their speculations with my students - NO! I won't promote nonsense junk that has been long ignored by "mainstream science". So yes, I do see what is wrong with this picture, good-day, Vsmith ( talk) 16:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Be precise here. Are you stating that the published work of J. Marvin Herndon is "fringe and wacko bullcrap"? Marvin Herndon ( talk) 06:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Note - there was no indentation of my comment above as is normal for a reply on talk pages. Therefore Mr Herndon may assume that my comments above were in general as a result of disgust with numerous promotion efforts over the past four years here. But to anyone interested, if the shoe fits, wear it. Cheers, Vsmith ( talk) 06:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
PS If you're teaching high school Science, How about promoting the Janet Periodic Table to your students as is on the WWW. It gets away from the vagaries of the Sergeant Welch table and is probably one of the reasons our students are falling behind in science.WFPM WFPM ( talk) 05:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Re Your editing of my adding Talk:Nuclear model to the Atom's reference list, that was because I couldn't get a reference my models in the Nuclear model section and they certainly are nuclear models. So why couldn't you spruce up my edit and leave the reference in please. WFPM WFPM ( talk) 04:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought education was about learning about facts and/or opinions and about conceptualization. And I found it hard it hard to get a concept of the Atom from the Mendeleev periodic table which is essentially a big data base and I had to build the models to understand the difference between it and the Janet Table. And now, as they say in Fox news, I am reporting and you decide. I would hope that you would do the Neodymium magnet test and tell me what you think about the model of 4Be9.WFPM WFPM ( talk) 20:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason why you removed the appearance of my model picture from under the descriptive narative? I thought it helped a lot in understanding the model concept, and some readers particularly young readers will be attracted to the narative by the picture. WFPM WFPM ( talk) 21:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Well I dont want to foul it up by trying anything, but it seems to me that the talk nuclear model page could have my image on the left side as it is on the image page and then have the discussion on the right side of the image. WFPM WFPM ( talk) 00:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay I think I did what you told me and now the page wont call up an image?WFPM WFPM ( talk) 03:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
V, what brought on the page protection at remote viewing? not a problem, it just surprised me a little. -- Ludwigs2 04:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This is not spam. Please check before leaving such an opinion. I believe this is a relevant external link that provides useful information to wikipedia users. Thanks anyway for your note. Marsal G.Durall —Preceding unsigned comment added by Economyweb ( talk • contribs) 16:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Why do you think this link (as an external reference) does not apply? Thank you. Marsal G.Durall marsal@economyweb.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Economyweb ( talk • contribs) 17:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
are you satisfied with this result? -- Ludwigs2 02:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Vsmith. I am going to nominate the Oil shale geology article for the GAN. However, I think this article probably needs some more editing and improvement before the nomination. Maybe you are interested to take a look on this article? Thank you in advance. Beagel ( talk) 09:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
As one of the people who has over 10 edits at Mammoth Cave National Park and has edited it this year, your attention is needed at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mammoth Cave National Park/1.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 15:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what is going on here. I am at work, in a call center with 300+ employees. I have never visited any "alcohol prohibition page" and really DO NOT appreciate the rude message! perhaps you should locate who ACTUALLY did this before risking offending new users like me! I really don't understand. what this is all about?..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.198.207.11 ( talk) 02:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I did an undo on both so they are restored, but wonder if there isn't someway to prevent this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pearlexpert ( talk • contribs) 04:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
please look now at the article. It looks bad. Please move the photo return ! :-( -- Alchemist-hp ( talk) 13:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I want to discuss the removing of the link I've posted in the Dead sea article. I am not a new user to Wiki, and I know the rules. I believe that the link of the photos of the dead sea are relevant external link to the dead sea article. I don't think that only Geologists are looking on the dead sea article @Wiki. I would like you to reconsider the "spam" you tagged the site.
Please reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxweb ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the article talk material, I'll take your word for it. I'm disappointed that sources which address the issues raised have not been added to the article as was originally planned. Interesting though that he was blocked as a sock, I hadn't been aware of that. — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 18:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)