User talk:Vsmith/archive12

Operation COOKIE MONSTER

Thanks!! Vsmith (talk) 01:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

humidity graph

The Y - axis on the graph that I removed (and you replaced) is labeled "grains", not grams. I believe that the data given by the graph is incorrect. Can you provide any supporting data (other than the linked graph which is grams vs cubic metres, and may be incorrect)

I am prepared to support my position; if you are not prepared to support yours, please don't revert my edits.Artmario2001 (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the Image:Relative Humidity.png in the article definetly says grams H2O per kilogram of air. Don't know where you are seeing grains. Vsmith (talk) 01:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you are correct. I think it's time for me to get new eyeglasses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artmario2001 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abiogenic Petroleum Science

You recently removed my neutral point of view criticism of the petroleum article. Don't do that. Why are you afraid of abiogenic petroleum origin? Why are you afraid of the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists? If you really believe in fossil fuel nonsense, why do you need to censor papers published by the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists?Wikkidd (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... afraid of... really believe... need to censor? Please read WP:Fringe. Vsmith (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quackwatch

Jossi (talk · contribs) had made no edits to the article since the restrictions were put in place, and it was reasonable to assume that Jossi did not know about the restrictions. ArbCom was clear that editors need to be informed: "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines." Jossi has now been informed about it, both at the article talkpage and at her user talkpage,[1] and has not made any reverts since she has been notified. If any editors had concerns about her edit, they could have gone in and changed the text, and then the editing continues from there. I do not think that your reverting of her edit was wise, as it gets you too involved in the content wars. However, since you are an uninvolved admin, you made a decision that you thought was fair and I'm of course not going to revert you. In the future though, please remember that just like when imposing a block (see WP:BLOCK#Education and warnings), that the standard is to warn first, and then impose restrictions. Everyone usually gets a free pass for the first infraction, unless they've done something truly egregious or vandalistic. Jossi's edit did violate the restrictions, but it didn't rise to the level of vandalism. By the way, just curious, how is it that you heard about the edit in the first place? --El on ka 14:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been on my watchlist for quite some time - protected it back in Feb.

I do support your editing restrictions on the page and feel my revert of Jossi's revert was required to avoid the possible appearance of favoring one side of the dispute. I assume good faith on Jossi's part (as not aware of the restrictions) and therefore see no need for sanctions. If zero reverts are allowed, we need to enforce that. Vsmith (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we just have different styles then. I usually find it's easier to not "revert the reverters", but instead to caution them, and let the normal editorial process bring the article back into compliance. Sure, that may mean that everyone gets a free revert, but eventually those get used up, and then things continue from there. :) If you'd like to do further monitoring of the page, c'mon in. Feel free to add your name to the "uninvolved admins" list at the talkpage. You might also be interested in this, a page I've been working on: Wikipedia:New admin school/Dealing with disputes. --El on ka 15:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

12:44, 14 July 2008 Vsmith (Neutron) (→Discovery: rmv prior claim - ref link doesn't work)

Would it be OK if I put as reference only the book?, what else i need to prove that line?, it is written in his biography... thanks (line= In 1924 Santiago Antúnez de Mayolo presented in "Hypothesis about the constitution of matter" the existence of a neutral element in the atom ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabb99 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What book? The biography entry is unreferenced and was added by an anon editor recently. Were you that anon? Perhaps you could provide a quote (and translation?) from the book you mention on the Talk:Neutron page for others to consider. A proposed hypothesis about some neutral element in the atom does not seem to qualify as a discovery - needs physical evidence. Vsmith (talk) 12:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, I wasn't the anon, I think you are right that it doesn't qualify as a discovery, a, well, and the book i was referring was "Hypothesis about the constitution of matter", but i really don't know if it really exist, I'd look for it, thanks a lot --Cabb99 (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gemstones

VSmith,

Sometime ago you removed a couple of my edits as self-promotional. On the topic "Gemstones" there are three requests for citations in the first six paragraphs. In each case my book Secrets Of The Gem Trade is probably the source of the statements made as the author(s) cited the book themselves and footnoted that.

I can supply the citations, chapter and verse or not, you decide.

Richard W. Wise —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemwise (talk • contribs) 19:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was a while ago... Anyway, you are welcome to add the citations requested to the gemstone article. Seems the Value of gemstones section is rather a mess and peer reviewed articles in the field are rather rare. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southeastern Plains (ecoregion)

Please undelete Southeastern Plains (ecoregion). You failed to check page history for "The initial edit summary may have information about the source of or reason for the article." The source was a GFDL Wikipedia article which points at the EPA and Talk points to confirmation it is PD information. Google of phrases also easily finds an EPA document other than those maps. [2](pdf) If you read the bot message on my Talk page then you also should have seen the referenced response.[3] The proper procedure for a missing source is a no-sources or {{cn}} tag, not deletion. -- SEWilco (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the simplest solution would be for you to properly provide a source when you create an article. Another WP article is not a proper source. You are most welcome to re-create the article and add a valid reference. Vsmith (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is confusion between the origin of the text (the ecoregions Wikipedia article) and the source of the facts. The text came from an GFDL Wikipedia article, thus it is not a copyright violation. The EPA source is weakly mentioned in the ecoregions article, but a request for citations should have been made rather than deletion. Reverse your deletion and I'll add the above source whether you template it or not. We'll see what the bot makes of it. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...

I didn't advertise anything. Don't talk to me like you have some sort of imaginary authority. I hate you self promoting authorities who seemingly patrol wikipedia. They were perfectly legitimate edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.76.78.51 (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for calling your vandalism to my attention - I've acted on it. Check the date of my earlier comment on your talk please, funny - no? Vsmith (talk) 00:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Sometimes these problems almost take care of themselves. :) Kuru ^talk 00:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greenhouse Effect

vsmith,

What do you find so wrong with my addition to the page "Greenhouse Effect"?

The addition I made is factual and informative.

veteran0101 (U.S. Navy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veteran0101 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being cryptic in my edit summary - I believe Jason Patton was more explicit with his edit summary. Please read WP:OR and WP:WEASEL. Vsmith (talk) 10:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words I need to cite references. When I site references then it should be able to stay. Correct? Veteran0101 (talk) 05:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing reliable sources would be a step in the right direction. The diagram referred to is generalized and simplified and I'm not seeing Wind (convection), Latent heat flux and Reflection (albedo) as short circuits in the system. Yes white clouds reflect sunlight, convection moves the gases around constantly and surface evaporation - cloud condensation add energy to the atmosphere. Those are all parts of the underlying system - not short circuits to the system. Vsmith (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hey there. Just wondering why this was undone? Thanks for your time! Freunde (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, when an ext. link is added to the top of the list it signals spam and the wiki linked to didn't seem to be needed. Vsmith (talk) 10:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care where it goes in the list, but I feel the link is beneficial to the article. The link does not violate any policy on Wikipedia, so I don't see why the link shouldn't last? Freunde (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about infobox photo at Talk:Mount Rainier

Feel free to join in. Thanks! hike395 (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I leaving Wikipedia?

Vsmith, take a good look at my user page. I believe it documents that fact that I have been a long time contributor of good articles related to my many years of engineering experience.

So why have I decided to leave Wikipedia? Because I have grown weary of the revisions made by unexperienced people who think they know a subject when they really don't know it. I am also weary of people who make revisions because they "know better than anyone else". In particular, the actions of one young postgrad student who calls himself Headbomb with whom it is impossible to reason because of his firm belief that he is infallible ... and that he and only he "knows better than anyone else". His attitude has finally been the last straw in making my decision to leave Wikipedia. I am simply tired of trying to reason with the likes of Headbomb.

Goodbye to all the friends I did make here in the past two and a half years or so. mbeychok (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you ("a few miles northeast of me")? I am a detail type person, so I just had to add the correction about Douglas County. I'm not finished with the Douglas County info. as I want to besure I have everything correct. I have written/edited articles about the county in years past and I will add sources when I am able to put my hands on some of my pervious articles. Thanks for the message! Randyspurlock (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I figured you out now. You are my son's greatest High School mentor, and my daughter thinks a lot of you too! ;) Good to see you here. I'll take your advise about the history of the county. I just want to get it as correct as I can. I rarely do anything with out sources before me, but yesterday I got caught up in that hipe when I saw that Arno was not mentioned as a county seat before Ava. I'll try to get something fixed up with better structure, and also include an accurate history of our county. Randyspurlock (talk) 12:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey request

Hi, Vsmith I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions. Thank You, BCproject (talk) 08:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religion of evolution

Your religious beliefs should never stand in the way of scientific provable fact. Until the theory of evolution is proven as law through scientific process it is inadmicable into the scientific ideology. Evolution has no more place in science than does the theory that there is life on mars because there's water. It is of yet unproven.

One should be prudent when attempting to pass off their religion as fact.

The words "have evolved" are inaccurate, pretentious, and religious in nature. They should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigax (talk • contribs) 17:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religion? Science don't prove nothin'. Where did you study science? Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Arbitrary Reverts.

Wikipedia is supposed to be a place to find credible information brought together by the minds of the many. I recently edited Iron to no longer include the religious belief that animals have "evolved" to adapt to their environment. I changed: "The only exceptions are several organisms that live in iron-poor environments and have evolved to use different elements in their metabolic processes" To: "The only exceptions are several organisms that live in iron-poor environments and use different elements in their metabolic processes"

In your revert you said my change "did not appear to be constructive" even though my change removed the religious rhetoric leaving the sentence completely intact and expressing the exact same information without giving a possible (yet scientifically unproven) reason for the organisms use of different elements in their metabolic processes.

Your revert is in fact destructive as it serves to pass to the reader as fact that which is not. A.K.A. - Vandalism

I trust that you will either leave my change intact, or site your credible source for the addition of "have evolved to".

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigax (talk • contribs) 20:42, 10 August 2008

I didn't say anything about "constructive". Please carefully read the following articles: evolution, scientific method and theory (the science part). The word evolved has nothing to do with religion. And please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~. Vsmith (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

Just because you say it's not a religion doesn't make it so. Evolution is not scientifically proven, it is believed through faith that it does in fact exist. There is no historic evidence of evolution and the science of "evolution" is unsound.

If you can prove evolution is indeed fact, please message me with your findings and site your sources. Until then it is simply something you believe in and while you have every right to believe in any religion you want, you cannot pass it off as fact until it is so.

Your insistent reverting of my removal of the words "have evolved to" are tantamount to a wild Christian coming in and saying that the organisms which live in iron poor areas use different elements because God made them that way.

That which is not FACT and PROVABLE have no place in Wikipedia.

Again I say, if you insist upon reverting what i have omitted please site your source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigax (talk • contribs) 20:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you paying attention? Have you finished your reading assignments listed above? How about WP:3RR? New assignment: Evolution as theory and fact - when you finish digesting that, you're more than welcome to come back. Bye, Vsmith (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of my web link

Hi there, My website www.tanzanite-gemstone.com has been on wikipedia for almost a year as an external reference. I wonder why now it has been removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.37.162.3 (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed as part of a commercial and promotional site cleanup. It is a heavily promotional site which you added within the now removed pricing section, Wikipedia frowns on promotion of our own stuff and as you say it is your website (see WP:COI). Vsmith (talk) 10:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yttrium

Several editors have started working on this article which you seem the have contribuited significantly. You are welcomed to join for the FAC push if you want. Nergaal (talk) 12:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fixes

Hi

Thankyou for fixing up Geology of Tasmania and Geology of Andorra. I have recently made some other regional geology pages: Lachlan Orogen Narooma Terrane Geology of Jersey Geology of Guernsey Geology of Alderney that you may find need to improve! Hopefully I will get an article to Good Article status one day! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help - and will take a look at the others. Keep up the good work, Vsmith (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize

I was editing the talk page and pulled a quote off of the article page, and got the two mixed up, and serendipitously thought that I forgot to hit "save" on the talk page, when in fact I started editing the article page (because I thought I had to click "edit this section" in order to properly copy/paste to the talk page, the paragraph that I was trying to emphasize. 76.4.128.40 (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a crazy story, I hope you will review my two edits and believe that I meant to put that edit into the talk page. (which I will do shortly since it was my original intention) I didn't think it would let me save a protected page from an IP#. Anyways, I apologize, I'm not trying to justify it, I goofed and I'm sorry.76.4.128.40 (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem and that's sorta what I had figured out. Note the article protection had expired so I removed the protection tag. Vsmith (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hodgkinsonite

Hi Vsmith! I made a small article about mineral called Hodgkinsonite. Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hodgkinsonite Could you edit please? Thanks! Neptunekh (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Do you tube and google video meet criteria 8 of WP:ELNO? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - see the WP:YOUTUBE section of ELNO and note the conditions. Also be leery of linking to content that may be in violation of copyright. Vsmith (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of external Link

I, India fashion (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC) had added a brief History Paragraph in Costume Jeelry section after taking reference from another website whose link I had added in External Links. Although the external link was removed as you said that the website was selling jewellery, but the details added in the History section were kept in the article. Will it be appropiate to remove the website link but keep its article reference details in the article.[reply]

Please read reliable sources. A commercial website selling a product is not a good source - plus we don't want to promote one commercial site. If you have a connection to the website, that would also be a violation of conflict of interest. I'd suggest finding a non-commercial source for a reference - how about using a book? I note from your user contributions, that you added a link to the same commercial site to Patiala salwar last spring. Please read WP:SPAM. Vsmith (talk) 12:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

India fashion (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC) Thank you for your advice but you have still not answered my question ? Its also quite suprising that You have removed all the external links to even the other articles I had written after the above question I had put. Will it be appropiate to remove an external website link but keep its article reference details in the article. I hope their are no copyright issues involved as its quite a serious issue since you are putting someoneelse content on the wikipedia and not even given them the credit. If you do not approve of an external link why put its articles and details on the wikipedia. It will be Fair to remove even the article and its details refered from the external website.[reply]

Wikipedia is not copyrighted. If you copied non-free content from your website into a Wikipedia article - then I would suggest that it be removed. We write content based on reliable sources. A commercial website that you may be affiliated with is not a reliable source. Once you add content to Wikipedia that content is part of Wikipedia and we as editors have no claim to it. And please note that I did not put the content in the article - just removed a commercial spam link. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies. Vsmith (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

India fashion (talk) 10:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC) , I will request you not to come to use your imagination and come to your own conclusions. Nowwehere above I have mentioned that I am affliated to the above websites and they are owned by me. Yes, before adding the article I did make sure that all the information is reliable and after that I had emailed the website owners if I could add thier content on wikipedia and give their reference. They agreed on the condition that I can take their information if credit is given to them. Now that the credit has been removed I will request you to remove or let me remove even the content added from the websites. As per your above statement that once the content is added to wikipedia it becomes part of wikipedia I will request you to go through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) which governs all the information on the internet and even wikipedia has to follow their guidelines.. It is my duty to inform you that since you have removed the websites credit links from the articles then even the content and material added from these websites should be removed immediately.[reply]

India fashion (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC) , Its also highly Ironical that while you removed all the extenal links I had placed You added the links of other commercial websites. It clearly seems that your actions were vindictive just because I questioned your actions. Please Note: You have added commercial links and removed my links saying its commercial, Its shocking....For your reference I am sending the details below. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanae_Mori - has the follwing links added by you www.fashionwindows.com (They charge for monthly & annual subscription) and www.Infomat.com (They are a b2b marketplace with annual charges). Again in the next Article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/André_Courrèges - It has the following link www.vam.ac.uk which has an online shop . I do not know what to say about the above. How can you give guidelines to others when you do not follow it yourself or maybe you were just in a hurry to replace the links I had added. I am sorry to say that as an administrator of wikipedia your actions should be more responsible.[reply]

The links I removed from Costume jewelry and Patiala salwar were external links and not in a reference section. Please read WP:EL - we don't promote commercial websites via external links. Now in the case of Hanae Mori, I replaced a reference that contained only limited information on a non-reliable commercial site. I replaced that reference with two biographical sources which contained far more information and appeared to be less commercially oriented and more reliable.

If you copied any content from your favorite website which may be deemed as a WP:COPYVIO, then please remove said copied material with an edit summary indicating that you are removing a potential copyright violation. Vsmith (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't notice your message before

My reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.214.138 (talk) 10:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death Valley National Park FAR

Death Valley National Park has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Longhair\^talk 23:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Veteran0101 (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please visit my talk page. Would like some help.

policy and criteria for "spam"

VSmith: I noticed that you recently undid my edit on the Bioplastics article, on which I added two links to new websites I launched containing informational pages related to bioplastics. I completely understand that Wikipedia is not a place for commercial advertising; however, I thought that those two sites, since their purpose is to provide informational articles and news about the topic of the article, would qualify as references rather than commercial spam. Is the mere fact that the sites serve ads the reason they qualify as spam? Or is there some other criterion that I am missing?

Sorry for my ignorance, and I appreciate your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.101.18 (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:EL and, since you state they are your websites: WP:COI. Vsmith (talk) 02:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those links. I appreciate your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.101.18 (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question (quote)

Should I have put the quote under zoology, or do we only allow quotes in wikiquote? DarkLordofSith (talk) 03:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zoology would have been better perhaps. However, I don't see that quote as having enough significance for use there either, especially not at the top. Wikiquote qould be the best place for it - maybe it's already there? Vsmith (talk) 03:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi its suzy, i know this sounds bad but i forgot what the mole ratio is, is it a/b or b/a. --- thanks Mr. Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.151.65.68 (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail, Vsmith (talk) 03:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hydropoics at home

I was wondering if black lite would be good for them. Like blue lite is good for them? Will fish,salamanders,frogs be any harm to them as well? Sinserly WOLF PUP

well I need A pump for my tank? Sinserly Wolf PUP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.51.190 (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking the wrong person, I know little about the subject. Sorry 'bout that, Vsmith (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check Biosphere article

In reverting some obvious vandalism to Biosphere, I may not have reverted enough. You were the editor before Jonmarbury who has been blocked. I'm uncomfortable doing any more to the article other than pointing out the problem. --Sultec (talk) 04:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks, Vsmith (talk) 12:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mineral-stub

ooo, sorry about that. I had assumed that rock types were the "mineraloids" mentioned in the stub template. Will go back over my work so far. Fleebo (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK - better than simply geology stub. I've caught a few... and added a couple stubs to my watchlist in the process. Onward... Vsmith (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Ludwigs2

User talk:Ludwigs2 is requesting an unblock. I know he has a history of these problems, but he has pledged to stop using Twinkle to undo others, and has promised to reform and check his temper. Perhaps we can lift his block, or atleast shorten it from a week to something shorter, given that he is apologetic. I'll leave it up to you how to handle this, since you issued the original block... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a close look at his block log, promises resulted in a block lift before - so I'm a bit skeptical of that. As for twinkle, I know nothing of how it works or what the problem may have been. However, he was aware of a problem and had previously apologized for marking changes as minor. The incivil edit summary here in which he castigates a user for marking a truly minor comma removal as a minor edit while marking his revert as minor was totally uncalled for. See User_talk:ElKevbo#Quackwatch. He was well aware of the past editing problems on quackwatch and yet chose to edit war there. Now, if admin consensus is to shorten or lift the block - then ok, but I don't feel that would send the right message here. Vsmith (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Ludwigs2 would be willing to make assurances, in return for having the block lifted. I think it would be reasonable to downgrade the block if he promises to stay civil, and to avoid the Quackwatch article for awhile. Or what assurances would you like to see from him? --El on ka 22:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom sanctions/Levine2112

Hi,

I've commented on arbcom sanctions, at WP:ANI#Quackwatch. It might be useful and also give ideas how and when they are most effective.

Best,

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have stated that I threatened to edit war in this diff. My intention was to point out that the justification which ScienceApologist claimed was in fact a false one. Further, his issue had not been discussed nor was there any agreement in favor of his actions. As such, I reverted his edit. My comment states this and only this. I am unclear how you have interpretted my statement as a declaration of edit war. Please explain. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, I disagree that it should be removed and will revert accordingly. That sounds to me like a threat to edit war. No mention there of only once. If I misread your intent - sorry 'bout that. On a battleground article such as quackwatch choose your wording carefully. And as pointed out later, Arthur Rubin had implied that it should be removed. Now, as it stands you have no cause for worry - unless you revert war, then 0rr kicks in. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I truly only meant that I will revert once accordingly. I felt that the "once" was implied. There is no mention of again and again. I really do sincerely appreciate the apology, but I would also ask that you please rescind the warning officially since it was based on a misreading of my true intent. Further, please note that Artur Rubin agreed to reverting to the last stable version (one which includes the Hufford review) after he implied that he was in favor of removing it. [4] Again, I thank you for your continued attention here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, do nothing that can be interpreted as edit warring and no problem. I feel that all the regulars on that page should be warned also. My thoughts are that the page should be on a 1rr (with the same definition of revert as on WP: 3rr) and enforced rigedly. The alternative will likely be full protection at some point. Vsmith (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. As it is no problem, would you mind removing or amending the entry at Talk:Quackwatch#Admin_log to reflect that this warning was given to me in error/misunderstanding. Otherwise, I know when our conversation here is long forgotten, editors will point the listing and claim that I did something wrong. Also, if you wouldn't mind stating something to that effect (that the warning given was based on a misunderstanding) at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Quackwatch. Then, if you'd like to issue a warning to everyone, then feel free to do so. I just feel that I was improperly singled out and that it will be used to my detriment in the future if you don't clear the air now. I really appreciate it and thanks again for your help here! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I expected, a user is already continuing to claim that my intent was to edit war [5] even though I have stated quite clearly that wasn't my intent but rather based on a misinterpretation of what I had written. I would really appreciate if you could swing by and clear the air. Thanks again, Vsmith. :-) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I said "if I misunderstood your intent..." Perhaps I did, however the implied threat to edit war was there and was quite clear in its stated meaning. My apology was for not being able to read your mind and find the unexpressed intent. As I stated previously, the warning stands and as long as you don't edit war - nothing happens. Your continued bickering with other editors along with calling them liars as such remains problematic. If an editor makes comments which lead to to an incivil response from you, that editor "wins". Ignore such potential baiting and concentrate on article content. I feel all of the regular "warriors" on the quackwatch page should be directly notified or warned of the new 1rr restrictions to be certain they are aware of them. Then any edit warring should receive quick and increasingly lengthy blocks. Now, stop bickering with other users and concentrate on article improvement. Vsmith (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vsmith, how is that I implied edit war. You are clearly inferring this from the text. I am telling you that my intent was to "revert once accordingly"; however, you are reading into my comment to mean "revert over and over again accordingly". Would you not agree that it is an assumption of bad faith to continue to believe that was my intent even after I have told you what my intent was? I accepted your conditional apology because the condition applied. You did in fact misunderstand my intent and thus I accepted your apology. If you are taking back that apology, I really don't know what to say other than I apologize for misunderstanding your intent. Regardless, your warning to me is only justified through the assumption of bad faith. As such, I am asking you nicely to please rescind such a warning, and instead, if you wish, extend an equal warning to all of the regulars. But singling me out on the basis of bad faith is - IMHO - not behavior becoming of a good Wikipedian. So I am asking you nicely once again, please go to the ANI board and state that your warning to me was based on a misinterpretation. That's all. I think that is an extremely reasonable request given the situation. I would greatly appreciate it. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1RR discussion

I feel that all the regulars on that page should be warned also. My thoughts are that the page should be on a 1rr (with the same definition of revert as on WP: 3rr) and enforced rigedly. The alternative will likely be full protection at some point. Comment copied from above for continuity with new section. Vsmith (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with 1RR. How about we say for 30 days, and then check if anything needs renewal? If you'd like to go ahead and announce a 1RR on the page, that'd be fine with me. Or, I can file the paperwork, either way's good. :) --El on ka 01:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a go. I will support, but as noted above we need a clear definition of 1rr as there were several disgruntled comments about the earlier definition of 0rr on the page - in other words, use the standard revert definition from 3rr page. 30 days seems reasonable - with the option of extending if battling continues. The regulars should be notified and held on a tight leash. Newcomers to the page should be notified on their first revert. Vsmith (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest getting consensus from the Wikipedia community before making new conditions of editing. There is an admin noticeboard. QuackGuru 01:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom cases noted provide the backing. Vsmith (talk) 01:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You admins do realise that 3RR gives you the power that you are discussing - without involving or invoking anything new? Shot info (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Power goes to the head :-) Before using all that power it's nice to warn the battlers, no? Vsmith (talk) 01:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with you or any admin issuing warnings. I have a problem with any admin making up policy (0RR, 1RR) as they go along. 3RR gives you all the ammo you need. Problem however is always, other admins forever questioning each other, defending their particular editors, requesting reductions etc. etc. Shot info (talk) 03:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my experience with other discretionary sanctions, I'd recommend not warning every editor who happens to pass through the page, for a couple reasons: (1) Many editors regard such a notification as a warning, and react negatively, with a, "What did I do to deserve that?" Also, if word gets around that anyone who edits a certain page is going to get an ArbCom warning, more editors will just stay away. (2) Refraining from issuing formal ArbCom notifications keeps that admin card still in the hand, so it can be played later rather than too soon.

When I've been working on other ArbCom Enforcement articles, I would usually follow this sequence with a disruptive editor, and then (usually) only go from one step to the next if they continued disrupting:

Explain at the article talkpage, the expected behavior. This would be a general notice to everyone on the page, without singling out anyone in particular. Then if there were continued problems from an editor:
Post a "nudge" at the user's talkpage, advising them in a good faith way about the expected behavior. Then if they ignored that:
Post a "caution" at the user's talkpage, diffing behavior of concern, and telling them clearly what behavior needed to change, and that there might be further consequences if it didn't. Then if they ignored that:
Give them the formal ArbCom case notification (it's a big scary template, and tends to get people's attention). This would also have the dual wakeup call, in that if I had a "list of editors" on the article talkpage, that editor's name would move up on the article talkpage from the "Other editors" section to the "Editors notified of sanctions" section. Then if they continued to disrupt after that:
Diff the disruption to their talkpage, and tell them clearly to stop it, or there's a ban/block in their future. Then if they ignored that too:
On the next infraction, I'd issue a brief ban, tailored to whatever it was they'd been doing. This might be a ban on editing the article, a ban on the article and talkpage, a ban from editing a section of the article (like I once banned an editor from editing the article lead and related image caption), etc.
If they violated the ban, then I'd either expand the scope of the ban, or proceed to a block (rare, but it's happened, usually in the East Europe topic area) But the vast majority of editors will respect a ban. They may complain about it long and loud, but they won't violate it.

Note that discretionary sanctions are a bit of an art form, so the above steps are a general path, so I wouldn't necessarily follow each step rigidly. For example, when dealing with an obvious SPA, I might proceed to a ban very rapidly, whereas when dealing with an established editor, I might pause at one rung on the ladder and give them multiple warnings before proceeding to the next step. But this is tricky to do, as sometimes it's good to give an editor that extra chance, but on the other hand the other editors on that article may get upset that someone is getting special treatment.

Anyway, that's my advice on issuing warnings, based on hard-won experience in this arena. I'm not going to say that I do this stuff perfectly, but I figured I'd pass along lessons I've learned from doing this in the past. Take it or leave it, up to you. :) --El on ka 04:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(update) I went ahead and posted the 1RR restriction, and tried to be careful about defining it. Let me know if you'd like any other tweaks. I also added a restriction about not deleting citations, since that's been a problem recently. --El on ka 05:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Been kinda busy off-wiki for a while, the real world demands attention sometimes. As I've stated previously, we differ in approach. I would more quickly slap a short block rather than all those warning steps. Some of our editors will milk it for all it's worth unless rapid consequenses hit them up side the head, we have experts here at system gaming. Back to the world for a bit now. Vsmith (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. :) BTW, is it okay with you if I unblock Ludwigs2, as long as I promise to keep a close eye on his edits? I think the message has been sufficiently communicated to him, and that a block is no longer needed to protect the project. --El on ka 01:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you are overly? concerned about that block. Is there admin concensus for an unblock, or should I put it up on ANI for review. I seldom block an experienced user and never without cause and consideration of their block and edit history. If there exists a consensus among admins who are not involved with Ludwigs2, I would have no objection.

As an editor who seems to focus on controversial topics with a large percentage of edits in talkspace (only 13.5% in main namespace)[6], he needs to focus on civility and controlling his irritability index. Yes, he states that he is aware of and working on that, but a previous block was reduced based on his assurances of reform. Vsmith (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The block was reviewed by uninvolved admin Jayron32 (talk · contribs),[7] who suggested shortening it, and by uninvolved admin Tiptoety (talk · contribs), who agreed with the idea of reducing it to a ban.[8] Plus of course there's me. Would that meet your standards of consensus? --El on ka 17:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Vsmith (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, thanks for being willing to reconsider. :) BTW, I'm about to try and get another "perennial conflict" article under control, Chiropractic. Would you be interested in helping out as an uninvolved admin? If so, just add your name to the list at Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log and add the article to your watchlist. If not, I understand. It's a real quagmire! --El on ka 14:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Universe

Could you review my revert on the Universe article? It is connected to your revert on CMB. Cheerio. --Friendly Neighbour (talk) 05:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with it. Someone wants to overemphasize the unknown - which is rather obvious anyway. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 10:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we make more explicit the difference between "the Universe", "the universe" and "the observable universe"? Something like the What does the word "universe" mean? section of this article does. Of course, we could start from a discussion on the talk page of the Universe article. --Friendly Neighbour (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't looked, but if the issues haven't been clarified, they should be. Vsmith (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]