User talk:Vsmith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Archives

[edit] fast facts

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)

[edit] External link list of beaches

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)

If you find a Wikipedia article to be incomplete or lacking, the proper course of action is to improve the article by adding appropriate content. So work to improve rather than by spamming with commercial external links, especially if you are associated with those sites. Thank you, Vsmith (talk) 10:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Iguazu Falls external link

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 — [1] — 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)

Spam includes added ext. links with little additional info or relevance - usually added by anon in an attempt to increase their fav site's hit count or just pushing their site or their fav sites. Whether we call it spam or not, there was no reason to keep it per WP:EL. Broad-brushing away :-) Cheers. Vsmith (talk) 01:12, 23 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)

[edit] generating content box

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

A table of contents is automatically generated by Wikipedia when more than three section headers are present - see WP:TOC.
Vsmith (talk) 10:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for the editing and also the links Rabin (talk) 02:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Galápagos Islands task force

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)

[edit] Busy

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)

[edit] Thanks!

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)

Been playing here since July '04. Age doesn't matter - just be sure to add verifiable content and cite your sources. Cheers - Vsmith (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for tackling GET

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)

Are we havin' fun yet? Hey, easy on that expert stuff - might go to my head :-) Keep watching, I expect howls of objection soon. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whole-Earth decompression dynamics

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)

Please see the afd page. Vsmith (talk) 03:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This may be redundant as I added this to your talk page

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)

Hmm... and you want to send me a copy of your book... so I can see the truth no doubt - no thanks, I'll remain in the dark :-)
...presents a more fundamental approach than the so-called scientific method... Wow!!
Vsmith (talk) 03:54, 7 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)

[edit] WFM

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.WFPMWFPM (talk) 05:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Why should I promote anything, not in my job description. The Janet arrangement is an interesting alternative, but I doubt its use would do much to solve our education problems - that's quite a naive assumption. Vsmith (talk) 13:26, 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. WFPMWFPM (talk) 04:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed an improperly added bit promoting your own original research (at least so it appeared to me). Your edit had messed up the format of the section and we don't add links to talk page comments within article pages. Please read the how to pages in the welcome message Wwheaton added to your talk page and learn the way we do things. Can't learn no younger... Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 13:26, 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.WFPMWFPM (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] curiosity

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)

The page is on my watchlist and the recent flurry of activity got my attention. A dozen reverts involving five users in about 24 hours which followed and extended an anons edit warring. All involved need to back away from the revert button and discuss. Vsmith (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
gotcha. if you would, please, put Alternative medicine on your watchlist as well. I've been making some major changes trying to bring it back to NPOV, and I am getting a lot of resistance from the same players. I don't want that page to fly off the handle either. --Ludwigs2 04:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I need another page... gonna be 8000 on that list soon. But not tonight, it's past my bedtime already. Vsmith (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)