User talk:Vsmith/Archive27

Hello, V - I was just reading Murchison River (Western Australia), and I made a few copy-edits. I noticed the term "gigalitre" in the lead, and since I didn't know what it was, I did a search, and it led to a section in the article on Litre. I tried to put in a conversion template to gallons, but it didn't work, so I just put in a link to the section in the Litre article. Does it make sense (for American readers) to give an equivalent in gallons? If so, how would one do that? Also, since this is a measure of flow, isn't flow expressed in volume per time unit (minute, hour, day, etc.)? I don't see a per time unit.  – Corinne (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Corinne: try {{convert|217|Gl}} and {{convert|1806|Gl}}, which emit 217 gigalitres (7.7×10⁹ cu ft) and 1,806 gigalitres (6.38×10¹⁰ cu ft) respectively. I expect that you tried to use {{convert|217|gl}} - unit abbreviations are case-sensitive (for the simple reason that "m" (milli) and "M" (mega) are so very different in scale). The convert template does however permit a capital L for litre, for clarity, even though it's supposed to be a small l (because of confusion with a capital I not to mention the figure 1 in some fonts), so |GL may be used instead of |Gl as in {{convert|217|GL}} → 217 gigalitres (7.7×10⁹ cu ft)

As an aside, for large volumes, the term "cubic metre" is normally preferred - 1 m³ is approximately equal to 1000 litres or 1 kilolitre, so one gigalitre is one million cubic metres. But if your source uses the term "gigalitre", stick with that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in ... I was busy last night and didn't check here. Vsmith (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13

Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

• A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
• AfDs that receive little participation should now be closed like an expired proposed deletion, following a deletion process RfC.
• Defender, HakanIST, Matiia and Sjoerddebruin are our newest stewards, following the 2017 steward elections.
• The 2017 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Góngora, Krd, Lankiveil, Richwales and Vogone. They will serve for approximately 1 year.

Technical news

• A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
• Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
• A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.

Hello! I'm an employee of The Doe Run Company and I'm seeking to update the company's article on Wikipedia as it has become outdated. I see you've edited the article in the past, so I was wondering if you'd be able to review a handful of edits I suggested on the article Talk page here. I know I shouldn't make any changes myself. Thanks! TS at Doe Run (talk) 14:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Well ... seems while I was sleeping ... another editor took action on this ... thanks for your work. Vsmith (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

They did. Thanks so much for your time! TS at Doe Run (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Until an editor added a link to 42nd parallel north to the article I had just finished copy-editing today, Dire wolf, I didn't know there were articles on latitude lines. I looked at the map of the world with the red latitude line going around the world, and I was surprised to see that while most of the U.S. is below the 42nd parallel, most of Europe, and in fact most of Asia, is above it. In thinking about the area of the U.S. that is below the 42nd parallel, I realized that much of it gets a lot of snow and very cold temperatures in the winter, but the areas below the 42nd parallel in southern Europe and southeast Asia, except for the high mountains, have a generally warm to hot climate. Do you know anything that would explain this difference? It probably has something to do with geography, but what?  – Corinne (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Gulf Stream and North Atlantic Drift ... :) Vsmith (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

And Mississippi Basin and Hudson Bay. The Great Lakes are colder than the Mediterranean Sea. Things get different if you empty the Great Lakes and get California under water. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Some weeks ago I saw a story somewhere about a prediction that global warming eventually will diminish or end the Gulf Stream, resulting in a much colder Europe. Can't come up with a citation, though. Sca (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

See Scientific American article and Yale: Environment 360. Vsmith (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Ot the Cold Blob ... Vsmith (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Aha. Thanks. This may be the story I saw. Sca (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey vSmith, someone edited the article Mechanism of sonoluminescence and added 3 external links in the body. You reverted it using twinkle but forgot to warn him. I noticed this while I was warning him for another article where he did the same thing! I've issued a warning for using external links in the body but I thought you would want to warn him for self promotion (as you said) as well! Regards Yashovardhan (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Seems I left the user a note with a link to follow ... as for a warning template or some such - naw just a note :) Vsmith (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, my apologies! Didn't realize! Yashovardhan (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

New Ip, old account?[1] Doug Weller talk 08:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

obviously not "new" ... Vsmith (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi VSmith

Regarding our lengthy discussion during early February this year, as found at your user talk page under the archived section No 26 on Dolostone. As indicated in the discussion, you were open to the idea of changing the title of the page to "Dolomite (rock)" which by all accounts is a more universally accepted term compared to "dolostone" which appears to be much more restricted (or localised) in its use. As previously mentioned, it would be far better that you facilitate the name change as you have far more expertise, experience and knowledge on how Wikipedia works than myself as a novice. I realise that we are all volunteers and that our time is precious. I am sure that you would be able to facilitate this page title change far quicker than myself. I am more than happy to make any wording changes within the page to reflect this title change and I would make sure that the word "Dolostone" remains in the first sentence as the alternative name which is in use. I am also happy to chase up more references etc to add to this page.

As far as I can see, I have honestly and truthfully answered all your queries/questions relating to this subject and hope that you are able to facilitate this transition. As specifically pointed out by others, on the Dolostone talk page the term dolostone is not the preferred term used internationally by geologists or speleologists. Dolomite (rock) is the best compromise to cover this mineral rock. Best regards Newcaves (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Seems that dolostone is perfectly valid title as it is a real term and avoids confusion and made up terminology. In other words I remain unconvinced that a change is needed. If it pains you to write it ... then simply use dolomite (rock) in your writing as clicking that automatically brings up the dolostone page which lets the reader learn about the rock while avoiding rock/mineral confusion. Vsmith (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi VSmith

For me the object of the whole exercise of explaining that the term 'dolostone' is not used internationally by geologists nor speleologists, was to clarify that the term 'dolomite' or 'dolomite rock' is most commonly used in conversation and internationally in scientific papers when referring to the rock form or karst areas or caves within it. Wikipedia is suppose to reflect the most universally accepted terms and that should include titles of pages. It is unfortunate that your comments now are contradictory to your previous comments, as this does not provide inspiration to new wiki editors (beginners) like myself to worry about trying to add to the wiki pages. I refer to your post 12th Feb 2017 where you state: "To me the rock is dolostone, but I know that it isn't universally accepted. So I would have no real problem with dolomite rock instead of dolostone - we just need to be clear and avoid using dolomite when referring to the rock." I know that you watch many pages closely (including the dolostone page) as you have edited a considerable amount to it over time. Hence, I suspect that even if I could prove 100% to you that 'dolomite' or 'dolomite rock' is the correct title for the page, it would be instantly reverted if I were to change it. My only motive is to do my little bit to help make wiki better for the lay person who does a quick search for info. I have the resources at hand for accurate info on subjects related to caves and speleology, hence just wanted to do my small and one may say insignificant bit for Wiki. Searching for 'dolomite' or 'dolomite rock' and being redirected to the 'dolostone' page is not the best option. This is like searching for the 'sun' and being directed to a page titled the 'nearest star' because a minority of people may use this term. Please don't take this as criticism, but I hope you see what I am getting at.Newcaves (talk) 05:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Yup - I see. Prefer clarity over confusion. Vsmith (talk) 11:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately your 7 word one liners don't equal clarity in this instance. Newcaves (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that ... yeah, I could've posted a long bit of blather, but don't care for blatherin' ... keep on truckin'... Vsmith (talk) 12:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, V - Is this edit to Sanidine right?  – Corinne (talk) 02:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Nope - zapped. Vsmith (talk) 11:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

What do you think of this edit to Jayco, Inc? (I have it on my watch list because I copy-edited it a long time ago.)  – Corinne (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

No clue - that article seems more advertising/promo than article. I tend to ignore those. Vsmith (talk) 11:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

V - ? [2]  – Corinne (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem - good change. Vsmith (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, V - Look at this edit to Who (pronoun), and then look at the vandalizing editor's talk page.  – Corinne (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocked - thanks. Vsmith (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi VS, I noticed last night someone section-blanked this section in the atmospheric Methane article with the comment that he was an expert on the subject. I googles his name, "O W Wingenter" and that appears to be true. I also looked at the reference for the section and wonder if it is correct, normally the ref would be considered a self-published blog. Not asking you to revert yourself but suggest we tag the section for rewrite or ??? Gotta go to work now but will look into this more later. (I'm NOT an expert on the subject of Atmospheric Methane but am very interested in the danger of a huge arctic methane release due to global warming.) Oh, last night I also noticed that the section in question was added to the article shortly after the article was written by a major contributor to the article, i.e., probably NOT the author of the reference. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I left a note on User talk:OWWingenter regarding the removal and the need for solid refs. Vsmith (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that your administrative authority would allow you to move lead(II,IV) oxide (a term I never heard used outside of Wikipedia) to "red lead", which is currently a redirect. Just a thought. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

hmm ... never thought about it. Assumed it was an accepted IUPAC name (?). Vsmith (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll just poll editors and see where we get consensus-wise. IUPAC thing is possibly secondary. Possibly no one is interested esp as there are few inorganic editors.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I am reinstating the quotation from composer Samuel Jones about his "Palo Duro" symphony, and am sourcing a quotation from Larry McMurtry's Dead Man's Walk. There is more to a canyon than geology; cultural associations also matter.NicholasNotabene (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

You need to find a secondary source for that - rather than your reading. See WP:Primary. Vsmith (talk) 03:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

"Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages. "

Apparently you lack two of the qualities needed to decided what sources are appropriate. The question is whether Larry McMurtry, a Pulitzer Prize-winning novelist, makes a significant reference to the Palo Duro Canyon in his work. No secondary source is needed to verify that fact. Quote: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source."

19:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicholasNotabene (talk • contribs)

"Apparently you lack.." Gee thanks for the compliment :) And where have you discussed this on the article talk? And I would say that yes a secondary source is needed for the significance of a novelist's comments in his book to that canyon. Vsmith (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you tell me what YOU want for YOUR article on the Palo Duro Canyon, instead of being a jerk and reverting my edits wholesale. I have responded to your monosyllablic complaints and gotten no response.

19:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicholasNotabene (talk • contribs)

My - and now you rush to insult. Geez ... Vsmith (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

TheDJ

Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
• The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
• An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
• After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

• After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
• Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.

I just saw that Isambard Kingdom had placed the "Retired" banner on his/her user page on April 14, 2017. I was sorry to see this. I haven't followed his/her edits closely, but I have never had any problems with this editor, and s/he has always been cordial in replies. I was curious about the note that appears below the "Retired" banner. I don't know what led up to this. Out of curiosity, I looked at the revision history for the user page, and I see a pattern of people leaving silly comments, and even the entire article on the real Isambard Kingdom Brunel, on the user page. There are some really strange comments, including [3]. Also see the edit on 15 September '15. I wonder if this editor has been subjected to harassment or outing. Is there anything you can do to persuade this editor to continue with the project?  – Corinne (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I recently got an email that you reverted the part of an article on Crystal Healing I edited. I'd be grateful to know the reason for that ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeridotWitch (talk • contribs) 13:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Email? Seems I reverted an ip edit for blatant promotion of pseudoscience. And did the same for your recent edit. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

Administrator changes

Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim

Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
• Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.

Technical news

• You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
• There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
• Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)

Miscellaneous

• Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

Hi Vsmith, with reference to [[User talk:Jsamwrites#May 2017]]), What do you suggest for galleries added in some articles, for example: Volcanoes of Kamchatka? After taking a look at description of each image, (File:Volcanoes of Kamchatka-113321.jpg, for example), it is difficult to find a correct caption. It is sad that some of the above mentioned reverted articles have no gallery and the images added gave different points of view (as required by WP:Galleries and were not repetitive). I would like to get your feedback before making any similar future edits. Jsamwrites (talk) 08:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi VSmithThere is a need to briefly indicate that the chemistry shown on this page can be substantially different if the pH changes. I think my short note was very appropriate. I take your point that at the top is section there is a link to the main Calthemite page, however if readers just see the basic chemistry there is no indication that there is additional chemistry which can come into play.I would much appreciate it if you would revert your deletion OR write something short in your own words to indicate that there is additional chemistry which can come into play if the pH changes. Regards, NewcavesNewcaves (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Seems the "See main" link at the section top should be adequate for those interested in more detail re: cathemite formation & chemistry. Any interested reader should be aware of that link ... and if not, well we don't need to hold their hand. Just assume your readers have some basic smarts. :) Vsmith (talk) 02:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately many readers don't know the finer quirks of wikipedia and wouldn't even have an indication that there is so much more to the chemistry. I short note to say the chemistry can change with pH and where to find it, is very appropriate.Newcaves (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Anyone curious about the details and savvy enough to know what ph is, should be expected to be aware of that link up top as it would be obvious that "more in depth" coverage would be found there. Such "More in-depth chemistry ..." commentary is not needed. Vsmith (talk) 02:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

As pH is not mentioned in the existing section, then it should be. As you say, this will indicate that readers will have to search further a field - i.e. back to the main page, to find the additional chemistry. Hence, I will add a few words to include pH influencing chemistryNewcaves (talk) 06:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou VSmith- appreciate your latest edit - Good idea to link these words to other pages. RegardsNewcaves (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi VSmithThanks for your message. It seems a bit harsh to delete my sentence about greenhouses though. I linked to the product guide of a website that explained the difference between timber-framed and aluminium-framed greenhouses - it is not a 'shop' page. There are plenty of links to commercial website elsewhere in Wikipedia that have been left alone - eg. http://scheelwindows.com/hybrid-2/ which is blatantly trying to sell windows. Any chance you could reconsider? Regards, DIY Dinah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DIY Dinah (talk • contribs) 13:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Not likely, and see WP:Other stuff - I'm quite aware that there are other commercial promo links on other articles. And ... maybe I'll take a look at your other example ... or not. Vsmith (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

and... looking at your editing history, I see you have a "habit" of using promotional/commercial websites as sources. I'd strongly suggest that you stop. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Vsmith,

My name is Dustin, and as a part of a final project for my Geomorphology class at Humboldt State University we are each required to turn a Geomorph stub into an article. I saw that you have deleted my edit, and responded that it was a mess. I was wondering if you would be willing to look over my writing and help me organize it a bit more? If my article is not published I receive a zero for our final project. I understand my writing on geomorphology may not be the best, as I am not a geology major and am taking this class as an upper division elective to fulfill a general education requirement. If you would be willing to help me out it would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

Dustin Wallis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drw298 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Replied on Drw298's talk. Vsmith (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, V - What do you think of this page move? I kind of like the title "Endorheic basin".  – Corinne (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Moved it back. Thanks for the note. Vsmith (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. What do you think of the last sentence of the lead in Aral Sea? It reads a bit awkwardly to me, but I'm not sure how it could be improved.  – Corinne (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Made a stab at it ... better? :) Vsmith (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is better. Thanks.  – Corinne (talk) 03:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Good Morning, I am new to submitting to Wikipedia. I tried to put in references appropriately with no success. I also obviously had some other issues that I need to correct before submitting. I am hoping you have the ability to retrieve the corrections that were made yesterday, 05/16/17 and hopefully email them back to me. I had the opportunity to speak in person with Jim Papadakis who opened the cave to the public. He suffers from Parkinson's and it took a painstaking couple of hours to get the corrections in about Caverns of Sonora while I was interviewing him. My lesson - write it out first and do not use the original as a " rough draft". So I am praying/hoping I can get a copy of what was done yesterday. I did not have access to a printer. Lessons learned. Thank you for your time and efforts. With Gratitude, Kathy SloanKathy Sloan (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

To use your interview as a reference, it must be published in a WP:Reliable source. Your interview notes do not qualify. First - get it published. As for the material you added the other day, simply click on the page history link and you can access any previous version of the article. Vsmith (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, V - I have to ask you about this edit to Heinz Pagels. I don't understand the reason for the addition of the "Fact" tag or the edit summary. The text only says the cause of Pagels' death is similar to a dream he had. Why does "the similarity" have to be sourced separately from the sources of the real cause and the dream? I don't see reference numbers, but I believe the sources are there. Both the report of the accident and the dream are in the New York Times obituary, which is in one of the external links.  – Corinne (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't really know, maybe the "Eerily, the accident is disturbingly similar ..." is in question. Who says the disturbingly similar bit or the Eerily, ... I'm clueless here :). The edit summary used seems to indicate just that. Vsmith (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, I think this edit to Elaine Pagels is strange. I think it is true that she is best known for her writing on the Gnostic Gospels.  – Corinne (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the Best known bothers someone ... omit the "best"? As the edit had no summary - just revert and ask for a reason in your edit summary. Vsmith (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, V - I just saw this. I re-read everything and decided to leave a comment at User talk:Ashmoo#Heinz Pagels. I'll look at the other one tomorrow.  – Corinne (talk) 02:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure? It's listed in the state's geological survey stratigraphic column. Abyssal (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Not surprising, however the article text is all about the St Peter in the midwest with no mention of WV or other occurrences in the subsurface. Vsmith (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like the article needs expansion rather than my additions being removed. Abyssal (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Go for it. But please avoid such an obvious disconnect between the article text and infobox data. Vsmith (talk)

I was just looking at the latest edit to Plate tectonics. I wanted to be sure the change from "also" to "therefore" was correct, so I read the entire section. I was making a few small copy-edits as I went along, and then I thought maybe the last sentence (the one in which the edit was made) really belongs (minus the word "therefore") earlier in the paragraph (right before "Average oceanic lithosphere") as a kind of introduction to the discussion on differences in thickness of the two types of crust, oceanic and continental. I was about to save my edit when I saw that that last sentence gave two thickness figures that were not anywhere near the thickness figures given earlier in the paragraph , so I didn't save my edit. Do you think that last sentence really belongs at the end of the paragraph, or would be better placed before the thickness discussion, or should not be there at all? The paragraph starts by mentioning "two types of crustal material". This last sentence says "two types of crust". Is there something I'm not understanding?  – Corinne (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Took it out - seems that contradiction has been there for 8 years or so. Vsmith (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

There is an unblock request at User talk:IEatpeople4Fun, relating to a block which you imposed. I have posted there asking the editor for further assurances about likely future editing to help decide whether unblocking would be suitable. However, I also see that you imposed an indefinite block for one perfectly ordinary childish vandalism edit. Normal practice in such a situation is to give the editor a gentle warning, and to reserve a block as a possible response if the editor continues in the same way after adequate warnings. Do you have any comment to make about the reasons for this particular block? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

That one edit combined with the choice of username was ample evidence that the individual was not here to write an encyclopedia. I would have no objection to an unblock (although the choice of "future edits" are not encouraging) although it seems a username change should be required as one condition. That offensive username does not inspire trust. Vsmith (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. To a large extent I agree with what you say, and I see the suggested edits in the unblock request as reducing, rather than increasing, the likelihood of unblocking, so that my invitation for further comment was more in the spirit of "well, I'll give you a chance to persuade me if you can", rather than "I am almost persuaded". However, the one point where I really don't see eye to eye with you is the user name. To me, it reads as just a jokey name, and I don't understand why anyone would be offended by it. However, it seems from comments on the editor's talk page that consensus is on your side on that issue, so I will accept that. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey! I thought I'd approach you since you might have a bit of an idea as to the context of this situation (sorry for the troubles by the way! I was reluctant to burden you with this, but it would be best if I got a third opinion since I inadvertently reverted an IP editor thrice on a page without confirming if my judgement was correct or not, which of course violates a WP policy). Recently, there had been an edit war over the external links on the pages Simien Mountains National Park and Semien Mountains. I looked into the matter as one of the participants involved in this contacted me on my talk page. I drew some conclusion based on what information I could find, which I have presented properly here. My initial motive was to leave the external links blank but once I found more information, I decided to take a bold step and re-add the link I found as being the true official website. After I made the change on the page Semien Mountains, they were reverted a few times without any attempt at communicating first. Do you think the step I took was correct? If so, would addition of the seemingly promotional link warrant a page protection (since multiple IP's are involved in this)? Thanks in advance! :) Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 20:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

First - see WP:3rr as you have three reverts there - a fourth could lead to a block - no problem that way, use caution. It seems that semi-protection might be an option for those two pages if the ip edits/reverts continue. Vsmith (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Would the three reverts still classify as edit warring if my attempts to communicate with the IPs had failed and they persisted on adding the promotional link? Because at that point, I think it could be considered blatant vandalism (under addition of spam links) and that's why I thought my reverts were justified. Of course, I'm not going to edit that page anymore, but I just wanted to know out of curiosity if I was in the wrong for making the judgement I made. Thanks for the the quick reply! Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 08:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the IPs have started communicating, which is a good sign. I strongly believe that disputes are best resolved with proper communication. I'm going to keep the 3rr issue on hold for now, till this mess has been resolved. Sorry for dragging you into this! Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 10:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn

ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
• Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
• An RfC regarding the bot policy has closed with changes to the section describing restrictions on cosmetic changes.

Technical news

• Users will soon be able to blacklist specific users from sending them notifications.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2017 elections, the new members of the Board of Trustees include Raystorm, Pundit and Doc James. They will serve three-year terms.

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Why did you delete my edit? My great grandmother Garber created the town.. I've been there many times and know alot of it's history.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.129.26 (talk) 01:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Why did you delete my edit? My great grandmother Garber created the town.. I've been there many times and know alot of it's history.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.192.15 (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

See: WP:reliable sources. We support our edits with references - not what "we know". Vsmith (talk) 09:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, V - I was just looking at the latest edits to Cold seep, and I have two questions:

1) In the edit to which I provided a link, there doesn't seem to be any source attached to the new information, but there wasn't any attached to what was there previous to the change, either; just thought I'd point it out.

2) The first sentence of the article reads:

• A cold seep (sometimes called a cold vent) is an area of the ocean floor where hydrogen sulfide, methane and other hydrocarbon-rich fluid seepage occurs, often in the form of a brine pool.

The first two sentences of the section Cold seep#Comparison with other communities are:

• Cold seeps and hydrothermal vents of deep oceans are communities that do not rely on photosynthesis for food and energy production. These systems are largely driven by chemosynthetic derived energy.

I've highlighted certain phrases. I don't know if it is clear enough between the first statement and the later statements to explain the shift from "A cold seep...is an area" to "Cold seeps...are communities", and then "systems". This shift might be confusing to readers. What do you think?  – Corinne (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

For #1 yeah a ref would be good ... for the other clarify as needed, not a big deal methinks. Vsmith (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I see you recently somewhat edited Aqueduct (water supply). So let's take this for instance

Suppose you found the article with the beginning "An aqueduct is a pipeline constructed to pump seawater upland" (citing a source that precisely do NOT say that), with a big "rain" section including a big diagram of watershed on Earth. So you fix that to current state of the article, with some work. And then someone comes, revert to previous (false) state with a comment "don't play silly game" and NO message on any talk page why he did that.

So, according to you, this is no vandalism? what is it, then? normal behavior?

Just wondering (as i said elsewhere, the name of the inappropriate behavior, whether it is vandalism or some other sort, do not really matter)Gem fr (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Have you read the policy page WP:Vandalism especially the line Mislabeling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful.? Vsmith (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

you didn't answer my question. I answered yours elsewhere, where you must have seen it, but just in case: I DID assumed good faith on the first occurrence, it just seem silly to continue on the second. Gem fr (talk) 08:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

HelloDo you have whattsapp account?I do have some valuable stones, i don't know some of them.Please contact me 00967714156720

Abdullah — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.137.70.209 (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't even know what "whattsapp" is ... sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Or do you work at it. WP is a very unique attempt at bringing people together. If you make the effort to correct something in WP it just might in order to preserve an assumed belief that you have charity in your heart to refrain from putting down others. And if you believe that it was not your intention to do so that by dong it does that so you might consider stopping it. Just because an edit summary may seem so inconsequential it does not negate that it exists in the world and that it can reflect on your integrity.2605:E000:9152:8F00:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

hmm ... no clue, maybe a link to what you are upset about? Or .. just - sorry 'bout that. Roll on... Vsmith (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, V - I was just looking at the latest edits to Cádiz, and I thought I'd point this out to you because of the user name. I don't know about the change in content itself.  – Corinne (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd say the dude's just tweaking ... or just clueless - nah. :) ... will go and leave a welcome note. Vsmith (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I have to object to your reversion of my addition of the movie "The Monster That Challenged the World" tothe "In popular culture" section of the Salton Sea page as being unsourced trivia. It should be evidentthat the movie itself is the source, and it's certainly no more trivial than the existing reference to a video game (aren't most "In popular culture" items rather trivial anyway)? The movie I mentioned has many shots of the Salton Sea, which are certainlyquite relevant.

Please undo your reversion.

BMJ-pdx (talk) 04:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Never mind -- I added a reference.

BMJ-pdx (talk) 06:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

Happyme22 • Dragons flight

Zad68

Guideline and policy news

• The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news

• Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
• A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

Miscellaneous

• A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
• A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
• Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

Hi Vsmith, I have a question (well, two, really) about Page protection. I saw your recent protection of Gender binary, and we may be reaching a similar situation with Discrimination against non-binary gender persons. So my questions are:

1. What's the right way to request that a page be protected? I only found you by accident, because Gender binary is on my watchlist.
2. Is there a guideline page or essay wth some tips that might help me evaluate if a page is ripe for such a request, or if it's too soon?

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and Wikipedia:Protection policy

and I've watchlisted that 2nd page (Discrimination ...) also. Vsmith (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks on both counts. Mathglot (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Vsmith! Sorry I don't know that External Links are Prohibited in Wikipedia. I Tried To improve the Article that why I made external Links. I take care in Future that this mistake won't happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colleges.Uttarakhand (talk • contribs) 12:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

External links aren't "prohibited" - they are fine in an "External links" section, but are not usually acceptable as inline links within the article text. Perhaps more of concern is your username - which suggests a connection to the subject of your edit. Simply, we aren't here to promote. Vsmith (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I just discovered this interesting article, on the Casiquiare canal. I'm fascinated by how a natural canal could connect two major rivers. Is there any possibility of finding a satellite or aerial image of this canal? That is, could you find one? If I looked and found one on Google images, I wouldn't know how to get it into the article.  – Corinne (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Check out the google maps external link - zoom out a bit and follow the winding stream. Don't know about sat images, the region has a heavy forest cover methinks ... Vsmith (talk)

Hello again, V - I just made a few copy-edits to Whitewater river (river type). I saw that "Clearwater" was a red link. I looked to see if there might be an article on it, but, according to the disambiguation page for Clearwater river, there is no article for "Clearwater river (river type)". I thought, if you ever have nothing to do, you might like to write an article on this. :)  – Corinne (talk) 03:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

By the way, would you mind looking at my edits for a minute? Do you see the place where I changed "e.g." to "such as", and removed parentheses? I wasn't sure if the part that says they originate in the Andes applied to both rivers (and all five tributaries) or only to the second river (and last two tributaries). I'd like to be sure the sentence is accurate. Thanks.  – Corinne (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

hmmm - whitewater ... rapids fast current: blackwater .. slow current w/heavy sediment (mud) load: clearwater would be anything in between. Is it a term used in classifying ... don't rightly know. Maybe tommorrow - past bedtime now :) Vsmith (talk) 04:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The article Blackwater river explains the three types. A blackwater river is not one with heavy sediment.  – Corinne (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Well that do clear up my muddy thoughts :) Maybe need Clearwater river to be a link to a section there.? ... so it now does :) Vsmith (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't it go around in circles? The link goes to the disambiguation page; you click on "Clearwater river" near the end of the list and it goes to that section. Is there really a separate article on "Clearwater river"?  – Corinne (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Yup, not ideal, but as there is no article Clearwater river, and I'm not sure there would be enough info to write one (maybe wrong ...) just a link to a section with some info. The see also is to the dab page ... again not ideal. Vsmith (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh. O.K.  – Corinne (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi V, I see that you have reverted the changes I had made at https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Individual_and_political_action_on_climate_change#Carbon_Conversations This is disappointing as the description of the Carbon Conversations project is far from correct. As a co-author of the Carbon Conversations Handbook: In time for Tomorrow? (ISBN 978-0-9931211-0-4) I had hoped we could ensure that the entry reflected the intentions (and practice) of the project. Best, Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldfin (talk • contribs) 10:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Simply adding an inline external link to a website just doesn't cut it - and if you are associated with that website, then see WP:COI. Vsmith (talk) 12:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm pinging you because you protected Discrimination against non-binary gender persons recently when an IP-hopping editor was repeatedly adding unsourced/original research and edit warring without discussion. The protection expired today and they are now back. Already left warnings, I don't know if this qualifies for a report to AIV or 3RR at this stage or if maybe you could handle it... Funcrunch (talk) 23:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Acroterion has taken care of this as you can probably see. Sorry your talk page got caught up in this too. Funcrunch (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Well dang ... I go out to mow the lawn and enjoy some sunshine and miss all the fun :) Thanks and/or "sorry 'bout that" ... ;) Vsmith (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

Administrator changes

Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 ^{(first RfA to reach WP:300)}

Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

• Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
• A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (permalink).
• An RfC (permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.

Technical news

• LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
• The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.

I recently added an image to the top of my talk page that I found in an article. I thought it was interesting, and I kept the caption that it had and added a link to chlorite. I just now took a look at the chlorite article and was puzzled. The description of the substance didn't seem to match what was in the image. Is chlorite an actual mineral that one can find in the earth and sculpt? If so, perhaps this image would be a good illustration for the chlorite article. What do you think?  – Corinne (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The link you want for the image is Chlorite group - the rather common Mg silicate minerals (clinochlore is the most common), rather than the chlorite ion chemistry article. Tweaked it for you :) Vsmith (talk) 10:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

As chlorite is a soft mineral 'twould be easy to whittle ... and the resulting artwork would be subject to damage as it can be scratched with your fingernail. Vsmith (talk) 11:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh... Thank you for fixing the link in the caption on my talk page. In this image, is the chlorite the roundish white ball near the bottom of the crystal? That's weird. How did it get inside the crystal?  – Corinne (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The chlorite is present as green diffuse bands within the quartz crystal, the white "ball" must be a reflection of the lighting. The chlorite grew with the quartz - presumably deposited in diffuse layering along the crystallographic planes from the mineralizing solution as the quartz crystal was "growing" from that same solution. Vsmith (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, very interesting. Thanks for explaining.  – Corinne (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Under the bimetallic strip artical, you show a Curvature equation. What is "h" in the numerator?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B148:D0E7:EDBB:26FC:100F:849D (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

height or more sensibly: thickness Vsmith (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the information you provide for me when I am in an educational mode of thinking. Many of my thoughts are confirmed through your scripts and insights as written Wikipedia translates your personal absolutes pertaining to such as what life is.

Thank you for the invite to join your efforts to clarify issues of which all persons need to understand,. However I am not certain I am a person that is qualified to assist Wikipedia in the culmination of works of History, as well as my understanding and depiction of those works as I would discern them and pass on to public interest.

Thank you.

Shirley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100D:B110:742A:1B69:8398:C822:536D (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I noticed these two sections on the talk page of Gandhara, and I wondered if the poster might need help dealing with the "IP hopper":

Talk:Gandhara#Edit wars by sock puppet, and

Talk:Gandhara#Translation Edit War.  – Corinne (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Seems the article has been locked for a week. From the edit history perhaps a couple of edit warring blocks might've been a better solution - now they seem to be just throwing insults around on talk ... gah. Sorry 'bout that. :) Vsmith (talk) 02:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks for looking at it.  – Corinne (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, V – I'm in the middle of copy-editing Eastern South Asia. In the first paragraph on Bangladesh in the section Eastern South Asia#Geography and climate is a sentence regarding the delta at the Bay of Bengal that uses the word "fissured". I'd like to substitute a more colloquial or more accurate word. The word that comes to mind is "criss-crossed", but I think there might be a word that is more commonly used to describe the pattern of streams and rivers in a delta. I looked in the article on River delta but couldn't find the right word. Can you think of a better word than "fissured"?  – Corinne (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Seems a better image would help:

"On the south is a highly irregular deltaic coastline of about 580 kilometres (360 mi), containing many parallel rivers and streams flowing into the Bay of Bengal ..."

Vsmith (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I chose the one on the right. What do you think of the caption I wrote?  – Corinne (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Good, I like the Mouths of the Ganges phrase in the image page description. Vsmith (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I do, too. Let me see how it looks if I add that.  – Corinne (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC) What do you think of this? –

(a) The river delta – often called the Mouths of the Ganges – flowing into the Bay of Bengal in 2001.

or:

(b) The Ganges river delta – often called the Mouths of the Ganges – flowing into the Bay of Bengal in 2001.

or:

(c) The Mouths of the Ganges flowing into the Bay of Bengal in 2001.

It's strange, though, that the phrase "Mouths of the Ganges" is nowhere mentioned in the article on the Ganges river.  – Corinne (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe: The complex Ganges river delta – often called the Mouths of the Ganges – flowing into the Bay of Bengal in 2001. Vsmith (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hadn't read the Ganges article - the "Hydrology" section is quite complicated especially the 9th paragraph:

"In the Ganges Delta many large rivers come together, both merging and bifurcating in a complicated network of channels. The two largest rivers, the Ganges and Brahmaputra, both split into distributary channels, the largest of which merge with other large rivers before themselves joining. This current channel pattern was not always the case. Over time the rivers in Ganges Delta have changed course, sometimes altering the network of channels in significant ways."

Vsmith (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Wow! Yikes. Well, I think a simple caption is enough, don't you? (See what I wrote as the caption.) But is it correct to say that a "river delta" flows into a bay? I thought only a river flows into a bay. If so, how would you modify the caption?  – Corinne (talk) 03:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, V – In the caption for the lead image in Parts-per notation, should "10 000" be "10,000"? If not, what is "10 000"?  – Corinne (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Changed it for consistency w/ the image. Omitting the comma: 10 000 (coded as {{val|10000}}) is common form in math/sci circles. Vsmith (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, V – I was reading Totenpass and made a few copy-edits as I was reading. I saw in Totenpass#Examples three sets of figures express ranges with "by": the first was inches (with fractions), followed by the equivalent range in centimeters; the second was in millimeters followed by the equivalent in inches; the the third was only millimeters. I thought I'd see what the ranges looked like using the conversion template. I know how to express a range using "by" in the conversion template (from Template:Convert), but I couldn't figure out how to express the 1.5 inches in the conversion template. It kept saying invalid number. (I used 1.5, not 1-1/2.) Also, the first range is inches yielding metric; the second is metric yielding inches; and the third is only metric. I thought some consistency would be good, but don't know which to put first. The article is about a German term for an ancient Egyptian object. Can you help?  – Corinne (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I've tweaked it - switched to all metric first for consistency and seems it is a German term. Twiddle as needed. Not sure what the problem you had with 1.5 was ... works for me. Vsmith (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!  – Corinne (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm just finishing up a copy-edit of Eastern South Asia. In the Northeast India sub-section of Eastern South Asia#Geography and climate I see the abbreviation MSL used. I figured out that it means "mean sea level". It's not explained or linked. I have two questions:

1) Is "mean sea level" different from "sea level"?

(a) If not, should this be changed to "sea level"?

(b) If you think there is a good reason to use "mean sea level", do you recommend writing out the phrase or using the abbreviation?

2) Either way, do you think it would be a good idea to link to the article on Sea level?

In the section on Nepal just below this, what do you think of the use of "terai" instead of the English "southern lowland plains", or just "lowland plains"? If you think the English is better, which phrase would you use, and would you put "terai" in parentheses?

Thanks in advance.  – Corinne (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Fiddled with both. Abbreviations such as "MSL" should be used sparingly and only after being defined in the article.

The use of a local term such as "terai" should likewise be defined in the article before being used. Appears the Terai is a specific name for the region rather than a general term and should be capp'd. Vsmith (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. Looks good.  – Corinne (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

If you have time, would you mind reading my first point at User talk:Fez Cap 12#Eastern South Asia? The pertinent edits are here. I felt that the continued repetition of "subregion" didn't sound very good, so I changed some instances, but not all, to "region". I thought that after one or two uses of the "subregion", it would be clear enough that when the word "region" appeared, it referred to this subregion, Eastern South Asia. What do you think? Should I have left them all "subregion"?  – Corinne (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Vsmith (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks.  – Corinne (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Vsmith

I wasn't sure whom to turn to but we have communicated over the years on occasion. I came across this page https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/TrueFacet and wanted to know if I did my proposition to delete correctly. Would you be so kind and check it out? It's the first time I've done this.

Thank youGem-fanat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gem-fanat (talk • contribs) 19:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks OK. Vsmith (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, V.  – Gem-fanat (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello V – I was just looking at the latest edit to Nitra (no idea why this is on my watch list). I usually look at edits that say "fixed grammar" because often it is not grammar that was changed or the grammar was made worse. In this case, someone added a piece of information about a train connection, including the name of the train line. It also contains a grammatical error. I thought the addition of the train line might be promotional. The information about the connection might be useful, but it is unsourced. What do you recommend? Feel free to revert, change, add a tag, etc.  – Corinne (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Fixed and requested cite. Vsmith (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, V.  – Corinne (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, V – I was just looking at the article on Chiapas, and I added conversion templates in the section Chiapas#Geographical regions. I noticed a red link near the beginning of that section that reads "Mullerried classification system". Have you ever heard of this? I did a Google Search and saw a few references to it. Maybe this could be your next project. :)  – Corinne (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Seems a bit obscure ... a system developed a half century or so ago and seldom used. I had never heard of it. The ref used is a 2010 article in Spanish ... and my Spanish - not so good, so I'll pass. :) Vsmith (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I was trying to change a red link at the beginning of the History section into a link to a section in a Wikipedia article that would be better than a red link. I found links to the Tzeltal people and the Tzoltil people in a paragraph in Indigenous peoples of Mexico#Population statistics. Since I couldn't link to both T articles, I thought this was a good compromise, at least temporarily. However, I forgot to add a pipe and create a real phrase that would fit into the sentence. I didn't think what had been there said enough, so I did a Google search for "Origin of the name Chiapas". I found this. About five paragraphs down I found this:

• The name Chiapas is believed to have been derived from the ancient city of Chiapan, which in Náhuatl means the place where the chia sage grows.

First, is this a reliable source? If so, I'd like to add this, either as a quote or as a paraphrase, but I have no idea how to add the citation. Can you help me?  – Corinne (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks reliable to me. Simply use <ref>[http://www.houstonculture.org/mexico/chiapas.html ''CHIAPAS - FOREVER INDIGENOUS'' by John P. Schmal, the Houston Institute for Culture]</ref> or some variation thereof ... Vsmith (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!! That was the first time I have added anything to an article (except translating an article from the Portuguese wiki on Fernando Monteiro de Castro Soromenho into English, mainly in this edit) or added a reference.  – Corinne (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

And now ... you are hooked ... :) Vsmith (talk) 02:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I was just looking at the latest edit to Helianthus and saw that, in the edit just previous to this, an IP editor blanked the entire article. In looking at this editor's user contributions, this is only his/her second edit in nine years! Would it be advisable to place a warning on the user's talk page?  – Corinne (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Drive by one hit wonders ... usually a waste of time. My take - revert and ignore. Vsmith (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

O.K. Will do so next time. This one's already been reverted. Thanks, V.  – Corinne (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you take a look at a question from an IP editor regarding a possible link to a malware site in an article at User talk:Apokryltaros#Hide Virus? I'm hesitant even to look at the linked article to see if it has been dealt with.  – Corinne (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Content and link hidden. Vsmith (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!  – Corinne (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

In response to: Again ... please read WP:SELFCITE. Vsmith (talk) 02:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)To extend this: Wikipedia is not the right place for the nonsense you published in some predatory open-access journal."where c is the numerical value of c in cgs units" - do you really think the cgs units have a fundamental role in physics? Does the Moon suddenly change its orbit if we use inches instead of centimeters in calculations? --mfb (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

1. Sorry about the selfcite, but otherwise its a long article.

2. If you read the article you should realize it is pure physics and logic. The only reason cgs units occur in G is those were the units Cavendish used in 1798 to measure G. Gravity acts via curved space and our space is very flat, so gravity acts elsewhere and only its effect is observed here. Gravity acts circumferentially at the strong force scale via the EM energy propagating rectilinearly adjacent to a particle scale event horizon, not via mass in our space. The EM energy is c^2 distant from all radials that project into our space as shown by m = E/c^2. It is also relativistic by alpha^2/3, this reduces the Strong Force between two electrons by (alpha^-2/3.c^2)^2 and appears as a radial attraction...gravity. The classical ratio "strong Force/gravity" for the electron is 5.707 x 10^10. As alpha^-2/3 is 26.58, simple math gives c = 2.9989 x 10^10. Same as in cgs units. Had Cavendish used 3 x 10^8 meters for his measurements we would have a different value for G as fundamentally gravity is not force in observer space and has dimensions of Force/c^4. Circulating E = hbar.c/r and circumferential F = hbar.c/r^2 = E^2.hbar.c/E^2.r^2, So radially F/c^4 = m^2.hbarc/E^2.r^2, rearranging gives F/c^4 = hbar.c.m^2/E^2r^2. The gravity attraction constant is hbar.c/E^2 where E^2 = [alpha^-2/3m.c^2]. The only reason I used a foreign journal to publish is that US journals are very dogmatic and refuse to accept that G is not fundamental regardless of all evidence to the contrary.

Please read the article. I assume your background is Physics, as is mine (U. London, UK). Physics will not progress unless logic replaces all dogma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillOakley (talk • contribs) 21:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but we don't use Wiki for self-promotion. And I don't care 'bout your disagreement with "US journals". Vsmith (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

What you discuss in your article is a dimensionless ratio (the 10^-44 number), the ratio between electric and gravitational forces between particles. This ratio cannot depend on our choice of units. But the formula you give to evaluate this number does depend on units. It cannot be correct. Your comment here doesn't make any sense either, you repeat the mistake with units and mix it with random powers of things, using words in ways different from their use in physics, and combine everything in an incoherent mix of formulas. --mfb (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but could you look at this edit to Koreanic languages? What are those things added in place of the reference material?  – Corinne (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't know what the ip was trying to do ... just reverted. Vsmith (talk) 01:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks.  – Corinne (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

Nakon • Scott

Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

• ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
• Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.

Technical news

• You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
• Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
• In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

• Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

Howdy. I was wondering if you would contact me about information regarding Manes / St.George/Hillhouse Hollar area in Missouri.

OzarkMammy @yahoo

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.187.231 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Contact is here (don't do email w/out reason) - what do you need to know ... or have to share? Vsmith (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. May I ask why you deleted the section in the enviromnetalism page, in popular culture, about using art to raise awareness of misuse of the environment? Was "unsourced" the reason? I thought if I referred to another part of wikipedia, then I wouldn't need additional sources. So would that mean that if I put that section back in, but added some sources, or cites, then it would be okay?Gtravel (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

You would need WP:reliable sources which show the importance of the content relative to the content of the article. Vsmith (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello,An editor deleted a significant amount of the history section on the Springfield article. They claim it was a copyright violation but they also removed material from other public domain sources. The material is not a direct copy from the source in question and the source is a city government work. I believe the issue is only prima facie and the deletion is too broad. Further editing is what is needed. Because the edit/deletion is significant, could you review it as a neutral third party? I don't want to be in an edit war. Let me know if my analysis is mistaken. ThinkHat (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Will take a look later - kinda busy right now. Vsmith (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the bits re: the old wire road and trail of tears was a rather blatant copy/paste from this archived site. No edit warring needed. I would suggest re-writing the material in question using the site as a ref, but no copy/paste laziness. Vsmith (talk) 16:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

and just because a site is a government work does not mean it is free of copyright. Vsmith (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I hesitate to rewrite it because of the reversion risk because I already rewrote several small pieces. I do agree that the old wire road and trail of tears was a copy. A look at the history shows the text had been part of the article for over a year. I still consider the deletion overdone and a lazy way of fixing the problem. Thank you for looking over it and not getting worked up. ThinkHat (talk) 00:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

There is no hurry - wait a bit and do a rewrite based on the source. A complete rewrite of a section would not be a revert, but to ease your concerns just give it a 24 hour break :) Vsmith (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello V – Re West Bengal, do we normally put wiki-links in this type of citation?  – Corinne (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Not normally and not needed. Vsmith (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Thank you.  – Corinne (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, V – Do you think the changes made in this edit are an improvement to Khabarovsk Krai?  – Corinne (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

hmm ... I have no clue what just happened there, hit revert and the world shifted or something?? Vsmith (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Redrose64 Help! What happened?  – Corinne (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

You missed out a digit, that's all - |99317714 instead of |799317714; the corrected diff is this edit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, V – I was just looking at the article on the Permian Basin (North America), and I saw two things I wanted to ask you about:

1) In the lead, figures are given in miles, with kilometers in parentheses.

• In the section Permian Basin (North America)#Delaware Basin, a figure is given in feet, with meters in parentheses;
• in the section Permian Basin (North America)#Horseshoe Atoll, I see kilometres (miles), metres (ft), and feet (metres);
• in Permian Basin (North America)#Upper Permian, km by itself;
• in Permian Basin (North America)#Lower Paleozoic passive margin phase (late Precambrian-Mississippian, 850–310 Mya) kilometres (mi); and
• in Permian Basin (North America)#Hydrocarbon plays, cubic ft by itself and foot (where it probably should be "feet") (m.).

All inconsistent. Do you feel like making them consistent, or shall I? If you don't want to do it, which shall I place first, U.S. measurements or metric?

2) In the section Permian Basin (North America)#Hydrocarbon plays, the word "play" is not used at all. I found an article Petroleum play, but I don't think the link should be in the section heading. What do you think about adding a sentence or phrase about "hydrocarbon plays" to the section, and linking "plays" to the Petroleum play article, or changing the section heading "Hydrocarbon plays" to something else?  – Corinne (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Just fixed the "play" bit and will tackle the unit consistency bits ... Vsmith (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Fiddled a bit ... Vsmith (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks good.  – Corinne (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Vsmith,I've added some citations to this page Ica stones. Thank you for your help and I hope this will work. My main goal is to eradicate some of the overpowering bias and near sarcasm on this page. Thank you again for your input.HoratiaHoratiaNelson (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The "bias" you claim on this page is simply that of the overwhelming weight of reliable sources. The source you provided does not meet Wikipedia's reliable source criteria. There's no evidence that the author is familiar with the field, no editorial control - basically, it's a blog of some random person arguing their perspective. That's great for a blog, but doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Ravensfire (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Vsmith (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying! So, I've been reading some articles about neutrality, reliable sources, etc. and will get back to you with more annoying questions. That's who I am and how I learn so I hope you don't mind! Thank you again for your help.HoratiaHoratiaNelson (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, V – I was just reading the article on the Magdalenian culture, and as I was reading made a few copy-edits. When I came to the last sentence in the article, the one-sentence section Magdalenian#Domestication of the dog, I was puzzled. Here is the sentence:

This geographical area, and both the archaeological and genetic dating of fossil remains, associates this period with the domestication of the dog.

How can a geographical area associate anything with anything? Does this sentence make sense to you? If not, can you re-word it so that it does?  – Corinne (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I've chopped that as it was based on a primary source only and would need further secondary or other sources for inclusion. As to the sentence, it seemed a bit odd - trying to say too much in too little space based on the research paper conclusions. Don't know who added it (didn't trace back in the article history), but would suspect maybe some self interest (?) Vsmith (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks!  – Corinne (talk) 05:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Did you read the website? I think they provide good information. Can you please add them back? or suggest another section that is appropriate for them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juko534 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

hmm and that's maybe why you've been blocked ... Vsmith (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Petrifaction (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petrifaction (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, just so you're aware I've taken over your block of 86.171.202.31 and converted it to an oversight block, and since their edits were defamatory, I've oversighted them all. If they pop up again, please could you let the oversight team know (oversight-en-wp at wikipedia.org or Special:EmailUser/Oversight). Thanks very much, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Vsmith (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Vsmith

I was just looking at the Efflorescent page and checked out the change made by user 182.156.80.45. Now I am no expert in these matters, but this link [4], appears to be a link to a company for the purposes of promoting the company and products. What do you think? Regards IntoCaves (talk) 11:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, it is gone now :) Vsmith (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but my edit was not "pointless". I'm only trying to provide information, and considering the site contains many unflattering claims directed towards conservatives, I'm only trying to give a balance to the site.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Clayton Forrester (talk • contribs) 15:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

hmm ... "balance", and your reference for that "balancing" commentary? Vsmith (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming Wikipedia's editorial bias.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Clayton Forrester (talk • contribs) 20:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I added the section back in, with three sources, including CNN, wilson college, and the United Nations. I think these would qualify as reliable sources.Gtravel (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem

Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
• Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.

Technical news

• You can now search for IP ranges at Special:Contributions. Some log pages and Special:DeletedContributions are not yet supported. Wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*) are also not supported, but the popular contribsrange gadget will continue to work.

Arbitration

• Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
• A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Hello, V – What do you think of this edit to Cloud point? The editor may have a point, but "just above where" doesn't sound like the best writing.  – Corinne (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Tweaked & fiddled a bit ... :) Vsmith (talk) 01:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Tweaked a bit more:
Use {{convert|1.0|C-change}} for a one degree Celsius temperature change.

see Template:Convert#Units_of_difference:_10.C2.A0.C2.B0C_higher.3B_how_much_in_.C2.B0F (yeah, had to look it up as I is forgetful :) Vsmith (talk) 12:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, thanks! You read my mind. I struggled with that and gave up. Also, I wanted to put in the conversion for the range that is given but couldn't figure that one out, either. There's also one with K for Kelvin, but I didn't even attempt that because it would be a three-way conversion (I know there are instructions on that; it was late). I must have looked at this article a long time ago because I had it on my watch list, but when I read "Cloud point", all I could picture was clouds. The olive oil image really helped me visualize what happens.  – Corinne (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, V – I was looking at the last few edits to Arid Diagonal, and I thought that at least "the" before "vegetation" needed to be removed, and, while making that edit, I thought I'd change "over" to "through", but then settled on "throughout". I also thought, since the first part of the sentence referred to quaternary glaciation, present-tense "controls" didn't make much sense, so changed "controls" to "has controlled" to put it a little more into the past (but present perfect "has controlled" still suggests recent activity, so doesn't seem to follow well upon "Together with quaternary glaciation"). Now, upon re-reading the sentence, I wonder if "throughout" is the most accurate preposition. I thought maybe "to" would make more sense since the diagonal was a barrier preventing vegetation from reaching the other side of the barrier. Can you take a look at the sentence and see if you find it accurate, and make any changes you think are necessary?  – Corinne (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The last sentence of the Cause and origin was a repeat. However, it seems the Arid Diagonal controls the distribution of the arid vegetation types into that NNW-SSE band and maybe has not controlled the distribution of vegetation throughout Chile and Argentina. Don't know the wording of the references. Thinking... Vsmith (talk)

How were you able to track my edits on articles, including the one in Kulachi, that article has very few visitors — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.160.179 (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Like I just did, by clicking on your ip in your signature, which links to Special:Contributions/24.13.160.179. Mikenorton (talk) 10:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't have any idea about the content, but in this edit to History of South America, the editor broke up some words. (Is there any possibility that this IP editor is the same as the one whose edits were reverted just prior to this? Both begin 2601.)  – Corinne (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Reverted as vandalism. Both ips resolve to Comcast cable, one in Maryland & the other in Ohio - same, who knows :). Vsmith (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks for dealing with it. What do you think of the addition of yet one more image to Marsh?  – Corinne (talk) 01:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, thought and chopped ... s'pose t'won't be popular with some folks though ... Vsmith (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Isn't there something in MoS to which we can point if necessary?  – Corinne (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Just took a quick look and found this: the last sentence of the first paragraph at MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE ends:

• not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting.

but I'd guess there is more detailed discussion elsewhere.  – Corinne (talk) 01:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

That works, Vsmith (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, V – At Mica, I added two conversion templates. I wanted tonnes to yield equivalents in long tons and short tons, but I only see long tons. How do I get both long tons and short tons?  – Corinne (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

P.S. In the edit just prior to mine, an IP editor changed "colorless" to "colourless" (with an edit summary saying "[fixing] typo"). I read through the article and didn't see any British English spellings, so thought maybe the article is written in Amer. Eng. Can you take a look and see what you think about which variant is being used and make a determination as to whether that spelling should be changed back?  – Corinne (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

zapped that typo fix.

As for tonne to ton (long & short) - simply use {{convert|330|tonne|ton}} which returns both: 330 tonnes (320 long tons; 360 short tons) ... didn't know - just played with it and that popped out :) Vsmith (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, that's great, and good to know. So easy. I hope I remember.  – Corinne (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, again, V – I was just looking at the latest edit to Landscape design, and I wonder whether this is an instance of someone trying to promote a book. How do you determine that? If you think it is an appropriate addition, I wonder whether the "via" should be changed to more encyclopedic language.  – Corinne (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Well ... the ip was in India ... book author was from India ... brand new book - connect dots :) - could be wrong tho' Vsmith (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC) Do you mind if I ping art expert Crisco 1492 on this?  – Corinne (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem ... ping away. Vsmith (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Crisco 1492 What do you think?  – Corinne (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm sorry. I don't see anything related to India or a book. Per Wikipedia guidelines, we're not supposed to provide credit in image captions unless the contributor is notable or if it's relevant (WP:CREDITS) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

and to what are you referring? ... the bit above was not about an image ?? Vsmith (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Corrine generally asks me for help about images, hence the comment. Agree, the edit as it stands is problematic, and the focus on the "eco-communicative theory of technology" is inappropriate for a general article on landscape design. However, the source itself may be worth exploring further, if there's anything directly relevant to the topic of landscape design.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Crisco 1492 Sorry for the misunderstanding. I asked you only because I don't know anyone else who would be interested in Landscape design. Thank you for your thoughts.  – Corinne (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if you would mind taking a look at all the recent edits to Nitra. I assume the editor was taking the numbers from a source, but I'm not sure the source is given. If the source is one that was there already, how can some of the numbers change? Just wondering. I figured you would be able to judge the merits.  – Corinne (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

No clue :) Seems the ref link ... just returns data for where google thinks my location is. That needs fixing. Howsomeever, I decided once upon a time to just ignore weather data such as that. There be limits ... sorry 'bout that :) Vsmith (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Do you mind if I ping Jo-Jo Eumerus on this?  – Corinne (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

as above, :No problem ... ping away. Vsmith (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus What do you think?  – Corinne (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Websites and sources on ongoing things sometimes update and then articles need to be updated as well. What I am wondering is that some of the information (such as the historical low temperatures in October) does not seem to be the same in the source as the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, V – I was just looking at the latest edit to Plate tectonics. I suppose both changes are improvements, but I wanted to ask you about the paragraph, the first part of which is:

• Tectonic plates are able to move because the Earth's lithosphere has greater mechanical strength than the underlying asthenosphere. Lateral density variations in the mantle result in convection; that is, the slow creeping motion of Earth's solid mantle. Plate movement is thought to be driven by a combination of the motion of the seafloor away from spreading ridges (due to variations in topography and density of the crust, which result in differences in gravitational forces) and drag, with downward suction, at subduction zones.

Do you see the phrase in parentheses after "away from spreading ridges"? Something doesn't sound right there. What is "due to variations in topography and density of the crust"? Plate movement? A combination? The motion of the seafloor? I'm not sure "due to" is the right phrase or whether that parenthetical phrase is even needed here. I'm sure the details are explained later in the article. Also, do you think a comma is needed after "with downward suction"? Is it important that that phrase be separated from "at subduction zones"? Finally, I'm going to change the semi-colon after "result in convection" to a comma. Do you think it would read all right without "that is"?  – Corinne (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't quote me on this (I am an amateur with a keen interest on science, not a geologist) but the impression I have is that plate movement is almost entirely driven by slab pull with ridge push and mantle flow being of secondary importance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe replace:

Plate movement is thought to be driven by a combination of the motion of the seafloor away from spreading ridges (due to variations in topography and density of the crust, which result in differences in gravitational forces) and drag, with downward suction, at subduction zones.

with:

Plate movement is thought to be driven by a combination of the motion of the seafloor away from spreading ridges due to variations in topography (the ridge is a topographic high) and density changes of the crust (density increases as newly formed crust cools and moves away from the ridge). At subduction zones the relatively cold, dense crust is "pulled" or sinks down into the mantle over the downward convecting mantle cell.

Vsmith (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I think your wording is pretty good and would be clear to the average Wikipedia reader. I wonder about two things, though:

1) How about changing "changes of the crust" to "changes in the crust"?, and

2) The phrase "the downward convecting mantle cell" is a little obscure. I realize that "downward convecting" ought to be clear enough from what's in the previous few sentences, but is "mantle cell" described anywhere?  – Corinne (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

In case you haven't seen it, you might be interested in this discussion: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Plasma (physics)/1.  – Corinne (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, V – Had you seen this before? It shows current, real-time winds around the world. You can make the globe bigger or smaller, and you can click on the globe and move it to another part of the world (when you do that, there is a slight delay until the winds start moving again). I found it at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#New low.  – Corinne (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I want to put the link at the top of my talk page, either near the phases of the moon thing or at the opposite (right) side to balance the moon, but I don't know how to put an external link among all those curly brackets. Can you help?  – Corinne (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

That is cool. As it is a full webpage rather than an ap based on a series of images ... don't see how to add it. Maybe an image which links to the page ?? I'm not much help there ... Vsmith (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh. O.K. Thanks!  – Corinne (talk) 00:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, V – Have you been looking at Ore recently? I just undid a test edit, but I see the previous editor (red user name) may have had to undo vandalism, just judging from the edit summaries (I didn't look at the edits).  – Corinne (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Kinda crazy there for a bit - seems "red user name" was rather confused ... or just playing, but he did finally revert the vandalism. The 106 vandal (resolves to India) was just playing. Anyway - seems ok now. Keep on truckin' :) Vsmith (talk) 14:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks for looking at it.

 – Corinne (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

That be one neat old truck :) My first wheels when I turned 18, was a black 1959 two-ton Chevy with a yellow "cheese box" bed. My job was hauling milk from local farms to the Kraft receiving station in my small home town. Vsmith (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Why did you take down the athletic alumni portion.. it is correct?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbythebonobo (talk • contribs) 18:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Quite simple: your other edits have been simple vandalism and that edit was unsourced and contained dubious wording. Vsmith (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I AM AN ALUMNI I DESERVE RESPECT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbythebonobo (talk • contribs) 18:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

"Respect" must be earned. And shouting rather destroys respect. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Do you think that it would be OK if I were to create an article on the worlds biggest penis held by Roberto Cabrera?--LipBalmLover (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Why is Roberto holding a big d*** ... and why would anyone care? Got refs? Vsmith (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

Administrator changes

Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is creating an "Interaction Timeline" tool that intends to assist administrators in resolving user conduct disputes. Feedback on the concept may be posted on the talk page.
• A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
• Following a request for comment, Ritchie333, Yunshui and Ymblanter will serve as the Electoral Commission for the 2017 ArbCom Elections.

Obituaries

• The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.

My second revision included 2 citations that are historically factual directly from the USMC. This should not have been deleted.

The last paragraph with grant's quotes about the mexicans is not relevant to the Blood stripe article. It is relevant to the article for the Battle for Mexico City. That is why I deleted it in the Blood Stripe article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.157.243 (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - I've tweaked a bit. Vsmith (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, V – Besides messing up the formatting of the lead, I'm not sure these edits to Iranian plateau are improvements.  – Corinne (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC) Click on the link to the article first to see the formatting.  – Corinne (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Seems the mess has been repaired (reverted). Vsmith (talk) 12:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, O.K. Thanks.  – Corinne (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

As in Zoroaster, things seem to go back and forth between "Persian" and "Iranian". See this edit, and the edits just a few edits back, at Iranian Plateau.  – Corinne (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Tweaked a bit. And yes, some folks is pushing their stuff :) Vsmith (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

What do you think of this edit to Ex nihilo?  – Corinne (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd say - good edit. Theory doesn't really fit there. Vsmith (talk) 12:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks.  – Corinne (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. I see you recently reverted an edit at Santa Cruz County, Arizona. I think a few IP editors have been messing with the demographics. It's hard to imagine there are more Irish in Santa Cruz County than Americans. I searched the source cited for the ancestry edits but couldn't located them. I think the whole section on ancestry (flags included) is spam and should be removed on several articles it was added to. What do you think? Magnolia677 (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I stand corrected...[5]. Never mind. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, V – What do you think of this edit to Sonoluminescence?  – Corinne (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't have done it, but seems ok with respect to Kelvin#Usage conventions. Vsmith (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks.  – Corinne (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

How about this one? The source seems to have been included in the text. The syntax is fine for a while but breaks down toward the end.  – Corinne (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Reverted as poorly written and based on recent primary source. Promotion?? Vsmith (talk) 02:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that you also recently reverted related apparent spam (I just did at two articles). Of interest may be insource:"YAN Kun" which currently shows 17 mainspace articles, with the links added by other ChinaNet IP addresses in the past. However, some other non-Kun similar entries also exist in some of those articles. I guess that if it's spam or not depends on if it's relevant to the article and from a recknown author? Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 02:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Spam or self-promotion (?)... chopped some more. Vsmith (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

I have to say that Zoroaster was not Persian or speaker of the Persian language. The best ethno-linguistic designation we have is that he was the speaker of an Iranian language, used to refer to the Iranian subgroup of the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European language family, specifically Old Avestan. Though both Old Avestan an Persian are Iranian languages (distinct from Languages of Iran), Zoroaster was not an ethnic Persian or a speaker of the Persian language. The term Iranian people in fact refers to speakers of the Iranian languages (distinct from People of Iran), and we can use it as an ethno-linguisic designation for Zoroaster. If you are in doubt, you have to see that the language termed Old Persian is attested only in the 6th century BCE, while Zoroaster's native dialect, Old Avestan, is dated to the 2nd millennium BCE. Thus, although both Persian and Old Avestan are both Iranian languages, Zoroaster was not Persian. Newaccount31 (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm ... and who is Samiur Rahman 2017? Vsmith (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

It's my other account. Sorry for that. Newaccount31 (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

and why do you have two accounts? Vsmith (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

What's the problem with it, unless you sockpuppet? Please don't go into my business. Let's talk about the current topic. Actually, I have a transcription project in Wikisource, that I wanted to do with my own name. Nothing to it. Newaccount31 (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Problem? Don't know, I just get suspicious when a user switches like you did ... sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, glad you understand the Zoroaster stuff. Thanks. Newaccount31 (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I just happened to notice an edit in which the editor removed what s/he terms vandalism from his/her talk page in this edit. I wonder if the editor who placed the two comments on his/her talk page should be blocked or banned.  – Corinne (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Removed/hid some edits. Vsmith (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.  – Corinne (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Again. [6]  – Corinne (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Got it - watching the page now. Vsmith (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Vsmith, Three Sisters (Oregon) is at FAC, and I wanted to get an expert's opinion as to whether any of the geology content (there's a geology subsection) needs to be fixed or fine-tuned at all. Do you think you could give it a look? ceranthor 13:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Will take a look ... Vsmith (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Why did you remove my edit on real life? It was true, and it wasn't on the "Time Travel in Fiction" page. It made sense, didn't it?172.1.94.255 (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

That was an interesting comment, and yeah ... maybe a simple truism ... , but you need to support it with a WP:reliable source. Vsmith (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I know one, but I can't do citations... due to Amazon FreeTime. Here it is: The Astonishing Adventures of Ordinary Boy, book 2. I know, it's fiction, but what it states about time that I did is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30a:c015:eff0:91b3:5935:1649:f8fe (talk • contribs) 20:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, a fiction story on Amazon rather fails WP:reliable sources. Vsmith (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, fiction can't be used as a reliable source. Scientifically speaking, if time moves at all it doesn't progress at a constant rate, according to the Theory of Relativity. Time moves faster for an astronaut in space than for people down on Earth. This has been clearly demonstrated with GPS satellites. For all science knows about time it may not even move at all. Time may simply be a construct of our own minds. (See: User:Zaereth#On Time.) Zaereth (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I was just trying to help. It was not on Amazon. It was an actual book. Amazon FreeTime just keeps me from doing citations.172.1.94.255 (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

And thanks for trying, we appreciate your honest effort; but as noted: a work of fiction is just not a reliable source. Vsmith (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the book itself is not reliable, but the concept made sense, I'm not saying the entire book is reliable, though.172.1.94.255 (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Added Secondary Review — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.10.14.22 (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The content is still promotional and appears to be self-promotion. We aren't here for that. Vsmith (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

an internationally accredited research with a vested voice of excellence on the part of the scientific community is not promotion but encyclopaedic disclosure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.10.14.22 (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

You are promoting a recently (2017) patented concept/invention - that is not our purpose. Wait for 3rd party review article. Vsmith (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

(cc @Acroterion:)FYI that's a long-term abuser at it.wiki who has been asking embarrassing questions about thermodynamics for years while spamming his "inventions", namely a loudspeaker with a RAM and the recently spammed one. There was not way to stop him spamming nor to persuade him that adding an alternator to a wind pump would not double energy production. I warmly advise to use the classical BRI-protocol with him ;) --Vituzzu (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Vsmith (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I noticed two comments by the same editor on Talk:Mafic, at Talk:Mafic#Pronounciation [sic] (do you think the original poster was still waiting for an answer?) and Talk:Mafic#"Rock Spectrum". Regarding the pronunciation of "mafic", I had always thought it was mah-fic, with the "a" in the first syllable the same vowel sound as in "magnesium", but I'd be interested to know if that's right. Regarding the phrases mentioned in the "Rock Spectrum" section, I think the poster has a point. Although the explanation in Felsic is a bit clearer than in Mafic, I think a non-expert would have to guess as to the precise meaning of these phrases.  – Corinne (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

That's the way I pronounce it - as the "ma" in magnesium.

Re-wrote a bit in the mafic article ... needs a ref though :) May tweak the felsic one also... Vsmith (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks.  – Corinne (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).

Administrator changes

Joe Roe

JzG

Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

• Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
• A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is open until Sunday 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC). There are 12 candidates running for 8 vacant seats.

Miscellaneous

• Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
• The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.

Do you personally block people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4natSB (talk • contribs) 00:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Please see the Admin statistics chart here. Vsmith (talk) 11:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

How do i make a edit without someone taking it down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4natSB (talk • contribs) 18:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@4natSB: That's easy! Only make edits that help build Wikipedia, the largest free content encyclopedia in the world. Conversely, edits that damage or vandalize Wikipedia or which are just plain unconstructive, are reverted. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Great Barrier Reef, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Kees08 (Talk) 19:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, V – I was just looking at the article on Lake Van, and while there are several images of the lake itself, there is no image or map showing where the lake is in the world, i.e., in Turkey. I wonder if you could find such an image or map.  – Corinne (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

-There is this blank Turkish province map (Lake Van is the white area in the east) ... Could color the lake blue and add a label ...

Vsmith (talk) 02:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

What do you think of the photo of Lake Urmia taken from an airplane, in Lake Urmia?  – Corinne (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't see a problem with it ?? Vsmith (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

And a Happy New Year. Thanks, Vsmith, for all you do around Wikipedia. I hope your holiday season is a joyous one and the coming year brings many days of happiness and wonder. _{(By the way, if you don't celebrate Christmas then please take it as a Happy Hanukkah, Merry Makar Sankranti, Enlightening Bodhi Day, Merry Yule, Happy Tenno no tanjobi, or fill in whatever holiday is your preference.)} Zaereth (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks ... I just usually call it Bah Humbug Day (hmm ... redlink? ... :) And hope you have a Happy whatever Day too! Vsmith (talk) 00:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays for u too Vsmith.(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4UCmboPWdQ Happy Wild Holidays! | Nat Geo WILD) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Chris, enjoy the season. Vsmith (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, V – Hope you had a nice Christmas and that you are enjoying the holidays. What do you think of the change from the direct, definite verbs to the tentative "may" throughout the article in Cold seep? You know I'm not an expert, but it seems that the use of "may" so extensively suggests that scientists aren't sure of anything.  – Corinne (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

'twas rather much ... de-mayed it :) Vsmith (talk) 03:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

 – Corinne (talk) 02:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).

Administrator changes

Muboshgu

Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned

None

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

• The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
• The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration

• Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Alex Shih, BU Rob13, Callanecc, KrakatoaKatie, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned.