Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:30, 29 January 2010

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 :-)

Archives

Template:Multicol

• Archive1 7/7/2004 - 6/15/2005
• Archive2 6/15/2005 - 9/6/2005
• Archive3 9/6/2005 - 1/01/2006
• Archive4 1/1/2006 - 5/31/2006
• Archive5 5/31/2006 - 8/15/2006
• Archive6 8/15/2006 - ~11/30/06
• Archive7 11/30/2006 - 1/31/07

Template:Multicol-break

• Archive8 2/01/07 - 5/17/07
• Archive9 5/17/07 - 8/31/07
• Archive10 9/01/07 - 12/31/07
• Archive11 01/01/08 - 06/30/08
• Archive12 07/01/08 - 09/30/08
• Archive13 10/01/08 - 12/31/08
• Archive14 01/01/09 - 06/30/09
• Archive15 07/01/09 - 12/31/09

Template:Multicol-end

Thanks for your welcome message

Thank you for your welcome message and useful references for creating pages.
Best wishes for 2010
Anthea Strickja (talk) 09:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Review Geology of the Rocky Mountains?

Hi, Vsmith. If you have the time and inclination, could you review my recent changes to Geology of the Rocky Mountains? I've added new material that makes the article less US-centric, but I'd like to make sure that I have not introduced any errors. Thanks for any help you can give! —hike395 (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Took a quick look and fixed a couple minor bits. Looks good with plenty of room for expansion. May take a closer look later ... Vsmith (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Those two redlinks, Frontrangia and Uncompahgria do need bluing. More for my to-do list. Don't wait for me though ... go for it. :-) Vsmith (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits! Please feel free to expand... In a quick look around USGS, I could not find any specifics on Frontrangia and Uncompahgria, so I'll leave those articles for you. —hike395 (talk)

You got me thinking ... (dang-it) so I dug out my copy of King's Evolution of North America (revised ed. - but still kinda dated) and King does provide good info on Frontrangia and Uncompahgra (uses different names tho'). So I'm now armed with a good source for those -- and tons of good info for expanding the current article. See what you've done :-) When will I do it? good question, but maybe I need a good project to keep me outa the drama over climate change... Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Re Germanite

- I believe that Z should be 1 and not 2, given the formula as cited, which is Cu₂₆Ge₄Fe₄S₃₂.
Z=2 is appropriate for the formula which is given in some sources, Cu₁₃Ge₂Fe₂S₁₆.
Otherwise the density comes out wrong (Molar mass 3192.216g and a=10.586 angstroms gives D=4.4677 with Z=1).
- Yes/No? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strickja (talk • contribs) 05:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems we have a disagreement in sources - or maybe just an error. The Handbook of Mineralogy states Z=2 (that's what I was using), whereas Mindat states Z=1 which agrees with your calculations - I've chenged it to Z=1 and cited to Mindat. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for sorting things out with those ignota versus incognita pages. See my talkpage, for my request that you fix things properly (a request you suggested that I could make).

Regards,–_⊥Noetica!– 13:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: See this section I have just added at Talk:Australia.–_⊥Noetica!– 23:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Energy storage

Where is the line between a reliable source showing applications of a technology and a commercial link? If there is no bright line, should we offer readers the benefit of the doubt? I'm not saying you accused me of spamming, but if one of these storage systems has the potential to radically alter the economics of non-demand sources like wind and daytime-only solar, shouldn't we show all we can to readers? 99.55.163.191 (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read reliable sources. A company website which exists to promote its product or service is not a reliable source for anything except an article on said company. If that company's storage systems has the potential to radically alter the economics of non-demand sources like wind and daytime-only solar - then it will be covered in a secondary source. And that secondary source would likely be a reliable source (assuming it's not just a blog post or some such). So, the bright line you mention is that primary source bit. Vsmith (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand that a primary source like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnQSURnzPHQ might be controversial for the statistic that it works with 80% of HVACs, but isn't it a reliable source that the technology exists? They are only once-removed from their implementation, but aren't they twice-removed from applications in general? 99.55.163.191 (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you read WP:RS? Who said anything about youtube? It's even worse than some random blog. But, I'd suggest taking it up at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard - if you feel I'm being too strict or mis-interpreting here. Vsmith (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you are being too strict, but only 40% more strict than I think you should be than would make sense to take it to RSN. 99.55.163.191 (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Now that I see you have also scrubbed mention of even more application examples from the more specific article thermal energy storage which I referenced in a question, I think you have been about four times more strict than would warrant review on RSN and I ask that you please reconsider so it need not be reviewed by third parties there. Did you know I just asked a reference desk question referring to that article? I feel very disadvantaged now by your removals, whether they were commercial or otherwise. It seems that you feel the transition from ordinary to good article can work with a lot less cruft than in my experience seems to be optimal. Sure it's cruft, but most of the cells in our bodies aren't us. Why should that be any different for an article maturing from start to good? 99.55.163.191 (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Four times ... by all means seek another opinion, that's why I suggested RSN. Don't quite know what the cruft stuff was about? Vsmith (talk) 03:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I intend to take your advice and look for secondary peer reviewed sources on the question first. 99.55.163.191 (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

and are both very interesting. 76.254.70.144 (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

As are and . 99.25.112.22 (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

I am deeply sorry for the bad judgment i have used. I will try to stop my actions of trouble so i can bring more peace to you. This is a very powerful website and its a disgrace have done what i did. yours forever in bed,

scholar33 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholar33 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, glad you recognize the problem. Will be watching for some constructive edits. Vsmith (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Well that was a brief career, indef'd already ... Vsmith (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Macromonkey

You blocked him last April, he says he'd like to reform now. How do you feel? Daniel Case (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering the blatant personal attacks, harassment and multiple sockpuppetry this user has been involved in, I am not inclined to unblock. However, if another admin decides to unblock I would not object. If done, mentorship would be advised along with perhaps a ban from the controversial topics that he seems unable to edit peacefully. Vsmith (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Antelope Canyon

Why did you delete my contributions on the 'Antelope Canyon' Page???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sneezypixie21 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It was unsourced and quite simply trivia. Put it in the Britney Spears article if you have a source, it is irrelevant to the Antelope Canyon article. Vsmith (talk) 02:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: socks

Re, your message, as far as I am aware, and how I have read things, this is how the situation looked, and still looks, to me:

1. New editor comes to article spamming.
2. Said editor meets opposition
3. Realizing they are not going to win, the editor attempts to appear as someone else, signing their signature as if they are someone else.
4. Realizing that such attempts wouldn't work because of signbot.. or perhaps some other reason, the editor brings in a sock in order to try and appear in the majority
5. Another user(me) sees a pattern, and files a SPI case. The editor and his sock are subsequently blocked indefinitely
6. An IP, obviously the blocked editor, subsequently appears, even announcing they were the blocked editor and erases all mention of the master account and sections of other editor's posts mentioning the master account

Long story short, the editor attempted to get their way, and tried lying to do so. They were caught red-handed, and proceeded to lie some more after their master and sock accounts were blocked. I don't see how it could have been handled any other way.

As to the archiving of the discussion, I kind of forgot my specific label, so instead I added in a resolved tag and an archive box, on top of your hat.— Dædαlus 02:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it all went rather fast - two days from my welcome note to indef. with not much helpful advice or explanations along the way. So it be... moving on.

Anyway your resolved tag looks good to me. Vsmith (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Lawrence Solomon

Beat me to it on that PA - thanks :). As I stated over there, I am not sure that the BLP concerns raised are sufficient to invoke the policy, but I am open to the article being reverted to a different Wrong Version if you think they are. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 19:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Will take another look at the BLP stuff. I just logged CoM's block at the sanctions page, probably be some complaints about it. Vsmith (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems the current "wrong version" contains some questionable sources, that seems to be the focus of the edit warring, - but the content added doesn't look negative toward the subject - so don't see sufficient BLP concerns to do a "wrong version" switch. Vsmith (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I had concluded that you were not invoking the probation, as I do not see where they were notified of it or are otherwise obviously aware. Certainly it is unnecessary to do so in this case, though, so I suppose no harm done. I also did not invoke the probation in blocking GoRight, but it got logged there anyway; I am ambivalent about whether it should be, but I suppose since much of the disruption occurred in the topic area I can see the sense for historical reference.

That was pretty much how I saw it - thank you for the sanity check. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't "invoking the probation", just noted that the article was under probation after the fact - so tho't it best to log it there. Hopefully that won't confuse things - or result in wikilawering or some such by others (oh wait, that user is also currently blocked). Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Upon finally reading the log, I think your reasoning and explanation are solid - good work.

As an aside, I think this may be the first time I have actually talked to you despite what seems like years of seeing you around on various physics articles. So, hi. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, hi! I've seen that odd sig of yours around a bit and when you jumped into the probation game, I thought "Now it gets wild!" Just took a look at your user page and followed to the climate change recent changes page ... dang it - added a few more to my bloated watchlist. Charge on... Vsmith (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Copied in total from tariq's talk by tariq

== Unblock courtesy ==

The courtesy of a note on my talk would have been nice. Vsmith (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

As it happens I had come to your talk page to remind you that, as the article is under a probation that specifically focuses on the kind of WP:BATTLE issues in play here, much stricter standards apply, and you should not overturn such a block without first discussing it with the blocking admin. --Tasty monster 16:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, please, guys. I don't care if the article is under probation, a fact which was already noted on the talk page; the double-standard in speech was obvious. Three admins agreed that Vsmith's characterization of ChildofMidnight's comments were a gross exaggeration. What else needs to be said?

The start of this thread speaks volumes about the firm grip on power admins feel so privileged to hold. Am I really getting a complaint that I didn't notify someone on their talk page that his action was undone, even though the matter was thoroughly contested on a page that that someone no doubt was watching? If you were interested in what happened after your action, you would have followed the page (as it appeared you did, as you saw what happened less than half an hour after the fact). If you weren't, you would not have done so. Yes, it would have been a courtesy, much like saying "thank you" to someone who held a door for you is a courtesy. It'd be great if I did that, but don't chase after me if I forget/choose not to. You look silly. And, more importantly here, it looks like you're a bit offended that someone undid your action. I'm not interested.

And this thing about the remark? So what? You (Tony, you modification added after my response below, vs) know as well as I do that both you and I have said worse things on better days on articles with similar restrictions. It's human nature, and no one cares except the person who is unhappy they were called out and the people who just want to get the oppportunity to brush off their block buttons. I get it. We're admins, and ChildofMidnight is not. But I am not going to sit around while petty, albeit snarky, comments like that are punished -- and that's what it was, punishment. If you still have a problem with the way I handled the situation -- perhaps for not notifying X, Y, and Z, or because it was I, not someone more heavy-handed, who handled the unblock request -- please post in further detail in someplace I can blissfully ignore you. -- tariqabjotu 17:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

End of copy.
Nice. An admin who hasn't a clue what courtesy means. And no I don't believe I've said worse things on better days on articles with similar restrictions. If I have, please refresh my memory. And your comments above are quite incivil e.g.: ...and the people who just want to get the oppportunity to brush off their block buttons. And yes, you may blissfully ignore this. Vsmith (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Cave of the Crystals

Hey there, I met you a few moons ago and you seemed like a pretty nice guy. Yesterday my daughter told me about some...very huge crystals...and when I looked it up on wikipedia it 'bout blew my mind! I would like to expand the Cave of the Crystals wikipedia entry and would like a mentor. I am not a geologist, but usually have rocks in my pockets. I have added a "Discovery" section, and would like to do a "Geology" section next. As far as I have been able to find, there is very little information, so I'd like to stretch it out as much as possible, using basic crystal information. I'd also like to change the name of the article to the Spanish name. Can you help? Gandydancer (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The page is on my watchlist, so I had noted your edits. Don't know 'bout mentoring, but I'd be willing to check edits (before or after you make them live. Gotta be careful with the stretch it out part with an eye toward WP:SYN. Also note a couple of refs used are likely not reliable sources. Seems I chopped a bit of copyright vio stuff there last week. As to the name change - I'd suggest posting a note on talk and see if anyone objects. When I get a chance, I'll do some looking around for likely refs. Vsmith (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick search turned up an article from Geology: April 2007, v. 35; no. 4; p. 327–330; doi: 10.1130/G23393A.1; titled Formation of natural gypsum megacrystals in Naica, Mexico. Quite a bit of technical info and a ref list for more. I find it quite interesting as my thesis project way back when included anhydrite and gypsum veining of an ore deposit. One of the refs re: the mining district was by my thesis advisor, didn't know he was involved in that area. Also one of the refs included was to a 1927 article, The selenite caves of Naica, Mexico: American Mineralogist, v. 12, p. 252–256, so the deposit has been studied for quite awhile. So detailed technical stuff is available - just not as websites. I'm a member of GSA so have access to the Geology article if you want some mind numbing technical stuff. Vsmith (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest and information. As for the "stretching", I would like to briefly explain how the cavern may have been made and the crystals formed. Nothing technical. I'll read everything that the links provide and see what I can do. Most likely I will post it on the talk page for you to take a look at. Anything you come across would be great. Again, thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought you could help me if I put it on the talk page. Where is it now? Gandydancer (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Just left a note on your talk. User:Gandydancer/Naica. Vsmith (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it will make it easy to work that way. About the questions, they were not to you, they were to myself, things to answer as I went along. Perhaps everything I write will not go in the article, however I DO LOVE GEOLOGY and I want to get as a complete picture for myself about just what went on all those years that those crystals were forming. On the other hand, I know that some people complain that something may be too indepth, but I don't look at it that way. I feel that if a person did not need to push their mind a little, that is not so good. Geology is a wonderful thing, it can give you x-ray vision and enable you to time-travel. Gandydancer (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll put my comments/answers on the talk page there and leave the subpage as your time-travel experience :) Don't get lost in the Deep time. Vsmith (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Orogeny

Thanks for the help here and on Mountain building. Brews ohare (talk) 05:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome. Dang it, I was about to shut down a couple hours ago and get some sleep, then I saw your comments and work and ... wasn't planning on that, gotta sleep. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Density

Please take a second and follow the link to supermassive black holes. As you can see, it is well known and documented that the density of them can be similar to ear at sea level depending on size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikev (talk • contribs) 00:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"...can be similar...", methinks that is the key. Vsmith (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It can be more, it can be less. The formula is described in the link. It is simple multiplication. It can be similar, and it happens to be the same when the radius equal the solar system. Please calculate for yourself. It seems you fix abuses. I am puzzled why you want to erase this piece of interesting and well documented fact. I am not going to get into an editing war here. Anyway, I am an astronomer working on high energy physics, and in my field this stands up to peer review. Please leave the entry in, and if you disagree with the established radius, please provide your radius, and supporting documentation.Erikev (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

To be precise: The solar systems bowshock to interstellar wind is 200AU away, and the tail may extend 700EU. A black hole with radius 350EU will have a density of 1.2kg/m^3 and a mass of 18 billion suns. See black hole classification by mass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikev (talk • contribs) 04:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have read that article (Supermassive black hole). Seems the density is only discussed in the lede and is unsourced. A major problem (I assume it was a misstatement) was the Varies inversely with mass. bit, an obvious error. Now I'm not an astronomer (teaching it at the HS level does not make an expert :-) and I'm not going to base edits on my own calculations. I do know that density varies directly with mass. As this bit of info is unsourced and has been challenged, it would require a citation (and a bit of relevance) to be re-entered. Just because it may be "interesting" to some doesn't mean it belongs in the list. Yeah, the calculation would be an interesting exercise for astronomy students, but I'm not teaching now. What reliable source discusses the density of a supermassive black hole and the significance of the density of one with radius = radius of the Solar Syatem? Vsmith (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It is spelled out in multiple articles on Misplaced Pages, and I gave you the references. It should also be obvious from a concept as simple as Newtonian escape velocity (set Ve=c). OJ 287 happens to be 18 billion solar masses.

See also Monster Black Holes Soon to Collide

So now we have three separate Misplaced Pages articles as reference as well as Sky and telescope, as well as a simple high school do it yourself math. Did you even look at the references in the original edit before you deleted it? The reference was to Misplaced Pages own article with the formula in black and white. How much clearer can it be?

I copied the reference from black holes here so you dont have to click the link:

"Black holes are commonly classified according to their mass, independent of angular momentum ${\displaystyle J\,}$. The size of a black hole, as determined by the radius of the event horizon, or Schwarzschild radius, is proportional to the mass ${\displaystyle M\,}$ through

${\displaystyle r_{sh}\approx 2.95\,M/M_{\bigodot }\;\mathrm {km,} }$

where ${\displaystyle r_{sh}\,}$ is the Schwarzschild radius and ${\displaystyle M_{\bigodot }}$ is the mass of the Sun. A black hole's size and mass are thus simply related."

I do not write this because I care about this edit. What I care about is the success of Misplaced Pages. You have 80000 edits. They day I stand corrected is the day I learn something new, but it takes character to accept one it wrong.Erikev (talk) 11:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Good morning, have you yet noted the error I mentioned above: Varies inversely with mass.?? And no, other Misplaced Pages articles are not references - read WP:RS. The Sky & Tele article doesn't mention density unless I've missed it (gotta get my first cup o caffeine finished). Don't rightly know what your character note is s'posed to be implying ... but I must have lots of it, been wrong quite a few times over the years and accepted lots of 'em. Vsmith (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The sky and telescope article gives m=18 billion suns and d=700 a.u. I quote: "Not to scale. In reality the large hole is 170 times the diameter of the small one, and even the large one (700 a.u. wide) is about the size of a pixel at the scale of their separation here."

and

"galaxy OJ 287 in Cancer is thought to have two supermassive black holes in its nucleus, one of them possibly the most massive such object known in the universe... 18 billion solar masses"

and Supermassive Black Holes where I quote "The average density of a supermassive black hole can be very low, and may actually be lower than the density of air. This is because the Schwarzschild radius is directly proportional to mass, while density is inversely proportional to the volume. Since the volume of a spherical object is directly proportional to the cube of the radius, and mass merely increases linearly, the volume increases at a greater rate than mass. Thus, average density decreases for increasingly larger radii of black holes."

It is about 223,000 articles found by google that includes "black hole" and "density less than air"

I will not discuss this further. Probably ten intelligent scientists would not be able to convince one ignorant person. Erikev (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA in regard to your last sentence above. And you are still ignoring my main objection: Density is not inversely proportional to mass. Why are you refusing to discuss or recognize that error? Vsmith (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

On a quick skim, I think that what Erikev was trying to say above is that:

${\displaystyle r_{sh}\propto M}$

${\displaystyle V\propto r_{sh}^{3}}$

${\displaystyle \rho =M/V\propto M/r_{sh}^{3}\propto M/M^{3}=M^{-2}}$

Where ${\displaystyle \rho }$ is density, ${\displaystyle M}$ is mass, ${\displaystyle r_{sh}}$ is Schwarzchild radius, and ${\displaystyle V}$ is volume.

Which actually puts it as proportional to the inverse square and not the inverse, so you've got me. In any case, to Erik: insults always reflect poorly on the giver, please be a gentleman. And if you would so kindly explain this ${\displaystyle \rho \propto M^{-1}}$ business, or at least where I erred in my above assumptions, I at least would appreciate it. Awickert (talk) 07:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. And I got that up above, basically my objection was the placing of density varies inversely with mass with no explanatory text in a basic list of densities. I was not successful in getting Erikev to see what I was objecting to. Seems he's left over it - which is too bad. Vsmith (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for telling you what you already knew :-). The placing-in-article-without-explanation thing is what I was going to get at if he replied. It is too bad if his behavior here was not characteristic of his behavior on Misplaced Pages. Ah, well, happy Friday! Awickert (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Collapsing

We both know your POV when it comes to climate change, but if you are going to label my edits as "personal attacks" for referring to his off-wiki activities then collapse the entire conversation - not just the part you don't want other people to read. If someone is going to put out Connolley's "expertise" as an excuse to violate wikipedia policy then I'm going to correct the record on what his expertise actually is. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)