User talk:Vsmith: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:20, 10 February 2008

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

Hidden copyvio

Thanks for this deletion. I had simply assumed it was written by a contributor and had no idea it was a copyvio. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure 'bout the copyvio bit. It seemed rather odd to paste a large "quote" as a hidden comment - I assume you were intending to use/summarise it within the article space? Better to userfy it to a user/work subpage seems to me. Is this common practice for you? Material "published" even in blog form should be considered copyrighted material, you did provide inline links, but the main one didn't work for me. Vsmith (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, after further digging. Seems the long Kuhner bio bit was added by Special:Contributions/69.143.32.190 on Dec. 6, within the infobox(invisible in article), at the same time as User:Jkuhner began editing the Insight (magazine) page. Rather a mess :-) Vsmith (talk) 15:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgotten how useful it can be to paste rough, unfinished material into a user subpage. Also, I simply assumed the Kuhner quote was okay instead of doing the digging that *you* did. Once again, thanks for correcting *my* errors! :-)

I myself am not so interested in writing a bio of Kuhner. He seems to be a lousy editor of a second-rate web magazine. I wrote off Insight several years ago and get my news from wire services, network news shows, and of course The Washington Times. (Not to mention The Guardian and a few other UK news sources.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DohgonCarbon

WHY YOU DID DELETE WHAT I PUT IN THE CARBON PAGE! I AM ANGRY BECAUSE EVERY THING I DID ON THE ENCYCLOPEDIA IS DELETED BY PEOPLE! MUST YOU BE ELITE TO USE THIS SITE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DohgonCarbon (talk • contribs) 16:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't SHOUT. The material you added to carbon was deleted as unsourced nonsense. Now if you can provide a source for it, please do so. Vsmith (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bentonite

I can see how the image I put on there may be considered spammy and a couple of references unreliable and I have therefore removed them, but I refuse to remove the mention of medical benefits with the reference to about.com. On there website, they link to the follwing research:

Sources

Abdel-Wahhab MA, Nada SA, Farag IM, et al. Potential protective effect of HSCAS and bentonite against dietary aflatoxicosis in rat: with special reference to chromosomal aberrations. Nat Toxins.1998; 6:211-218.

Ducrotte P, Dapoigny M, Bonaz B, Siproudhis L. Symptomatic efficacy of beidellitic montmorillonite in irritable bowel syndrome: a randomized, controlled trial. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005 Feb 15;21(4):435-44.

Santurio JM, Mallmann CA, Rosa AP, et al. Effect of sodium bentonite on the performance and blood variables of broiler chickens intoxicated with aflatoxins. Br Poult Sci. 1999; 40:115-119.

PDR Health. Bentonite. <http://www.pdrhealth.com/drug_info/nmdrugprofiles/nutsupdrugs/ben_0308.shtml>

Jason7825 (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Pyknometer

Hi V! I do not understand why you changed the entry as non-glass pyknometers exist. Please see the link below. I do not work for the company. What do you think remove glass from the description or add steel as well?

http://www.ejpayne.com/productdetails.asp?ProductID=PYK&Section=SANITARYWARE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.147.121 (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidense that you have edited that page - the edit I reverted was made by ip 81.153.31.16 who was in a revert war and has been blocked as a sockpuppet. I will check out your link and consider changes to the article. Meantime, as you seem to be a sock of a blocked ip - I'd just suggest cooling it - or perhaps a range block is in order? Clue, if you are blocked for whatever reason as one ip and you return to edit as another ip, you are a block evading sock - can't get any simpler than that. OK, now I see you've been blocked at this ip as well, so - I can't do it :-) Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello V. Yes I have fallen foul of a trigger happy admin., but I wil not go into details here other than to say I am not a sockpuppet as despite using different IP addresses I have never hidden that I am the same person. I would say though I was a little taken aback to see that whilst I posted quite a polite comment your reply was titled "reply to clueless sock." I don't think that was necessary when I was mearly starting a discussion with the aim of improvimg an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.64.40 (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really are clueless ... geez - how about doing a reality check. Note, the article has been modified per your request. Now stop the nonsense. Vsmith (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi V. I am aware the article has been modified. I am at a loss to comprehend that nature of your reply: "clueless", "reality check", " "nonsense." I just don't understand why you need to speak to me like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.66.183 (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maby a range block should cull the nonsenses, this seems to be Disruptive editing. --Hu12 (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of Ripenet - that'd be fun :-) Vsmith (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would save the project some bandwidth:-D--Hu12 (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowstone National park link

Spam? You have to be kidding. Did you look through the entire section? I spent weeks developing just that one section (I already know you didn't look at all, since the web log shows you only looked at the Overview Page). I spent weeks in Yellowstone photo-documenting and developing the content for that section. I'd like to see a link to something MORE relevant to this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamNP (talk • contribs) 22:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Vsmith (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rock templates

Hello, I am an Italian Wikipedian. I am dealing with rocks. I am planning to develop templates. Looking around I found your templates on Igneous rock, Metamorphic rock and Sedimentary rock. I seem to be a good starting point. Why 'were not used? Let me know. Thanks --Mario1952 (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to modify and use them. I created those a while back, but there was no interest and I got side-tracked and sorta forgot about 'em. Maybe I'll work them up now that you have jogged my memory. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Your work may have better luck in Italy. How Latins say nemo propheta in patria. Ciao --Mario1952 (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for cleaning things up in the Mont Saint-Hilaire article! I'm afraid I'm not quite as good as keeping things clean as I would want to be. <ref>insert footnote text here

And as evidence of the above, I left a reference above rather than a signature. Go me!-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin (talk • contribs) 19:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - fixed that ref tag w/ a nowiki tag. Hope I didn't messup any refs when I combined them into ref name=. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USMC length

I'd appreciate a little consideration for those of us who have older computers. 114Kb total is awfully big, and often causes problems with my browser. I'm somewhat surprised an admin is not more understanding of the situation. I could "Be Bold" and just take an axe to the page,a s some editors have been known to do, but I've chosen not to take that path. There are new editors on pages all the time, and older editors who may have been inactive. Please give this a chance to work. Thanks for your consideration of others in this matter. - BillCJ (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill, dictator here :-) Why not be bold a bit at a time. You mention that a history article exists, just start moving material out of the main article - with a polite explanation on the talk page and see what happens. If someone reverts then ask for an explanation. And I'm aware of slow systems, I access by tele modem when my satellite connection founders and disable image loading to speed things up. The main problem then becomes looong talk pages. Which reminds me, time to archive here, thanks - Vsmith (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection?

Hi Vsmith, at the CU report here, Alison said that a range block might be possible if attacks continue. I think this might this be a better solution than fully protecting the article. R. Baley (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a range block is emplaced and works - then unprotect. Seems the sock attack is not limited to the global warming article. Vsmith (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I can't do it myself, just acting as a "dot-connector" here. R. Baley (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons Greetings

File:DSCN0003-cmas-tree.JPG

Belated Happy Christmas and best wishes for the New Year William M. Connolley (talk)

Thanks, and have a good one - easy on the spirits now, might affect your editing civility. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Happy New Year!

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		For your active work around mineral articles. Rhanyeia ♥♫ 12:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Spam Chop'

I will be instructing my solicitor refrence the printing of libelous material. I will remind you the onus is the on the person who printed the libelous material to prove what they said is true (without any doubt) and not vice versa. Should remedial action or suitable justification not be received promptly I will persue this case. I will be informing the owners of Wikipedia about said case also as this also involves them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biggilo (talk • contribs) 15:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see →Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threats_from_Spammer --Hu12 (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YW ;)--Hu12 (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global Warming

Hello Vsmith. Could you please justify your semi-protection of Global Warming on 2nd January, bearing in mind that pre-emptive semi-protection merely to prevent possible IP vandalism does not adhere to Wiki policy. Thanks, 86.31.45.177 (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aw gee - were you unable to vandalize the page or did you just want to push a pov? Get yourself a username and we can discuss further if need be. AGF?? yeah, bouncing Ripenet anons get little of that here. Sorry 'bout that, Vsmith (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your response suggests that you're not fit to be an admin. I'm going to look at the possibility of you being de-admined. 86.31.45.177 (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My response was the result of the fact that the majority of ip edits from Ripe are throwaway pov pushing or vandalism. Now, I see by your edits elsewhere that you do have a user id, but apparently are "collecting evidence" regarding treatment of ip editors. Hmm... seems to me that you are thus misrepresenting yourself and are simply trolling. Solution: use your damned user id to edit and cut the crap. Now, if you wish to discuss further, use your username and we can talk. Vsmith (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever been on the opposite of an disagreement with ScieceApologist

This user won't give up, even when he is wrong. Anthon01 (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith, I am quite aware of the editing "problems" there, either real or perceived. So, simply leave him alone for a while as he works out his wiki plans and de-stresses over it. Vsmith (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume AGF with SA, while I don't always agree with his tactics. Anthon01 (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Does style guideline mean that all PD-sourced content is best placed in quotes?

Is this RFCstyle listing the preferred way to handle this low level, slow-burn dispute about cite style?

User:Doncram is acting on a conviction that PD-source tags are tantamount to a representation of plagiarism. He has been engaged in discussion on several article talk pages, a template talk page, and a style guideline discussion page, listed at RFC. He has stopped blanking PD-sourced content, but continues to exhort editors, and revert their reverts, insisting that PD sourced content needs to be enclosed in quotes with intext cites to conform to Wikipedia style guidelines. --Paleorthid (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't really know where the best discussion forum for this is. I'm not fond of long pd text dumps, but am aware that a lot of the early article building was accomplished that way. And, I've clashed with SEWilco a time or two over it. We do need to re-write a lot of the outdated 1911 pd material, as time permits, but don't think the idea of large block quotes is a solution. Vsmith (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Job Vsmith!

Hi Vsmith,

I have been observing the entry Aristotle and I discovered that the day before yesterday you reverted Sunshinyness version:

(cur) (last) 13:39, 21 January 2008 Vsmith (Talk | contribs) m (61,677 bytes) (Reverted edits by Sunshinyness (talk) to last version by 129.67.115.253) (undo) (cur) (last) 11:42, 21 January 2008 Sunshinyness (Talk | contribs) (61,240 bytes) (undo)

For removing the following:

From the 3rd century to the 1500s, the dominant view held that the Earth was the center of the universe (geocentrism). This scientific concept, as proposed by Aristotle and Plato was later adopted as dogma by the Roman Catholic Church because it placed mankind at the center of the universe, and scientists who disagreed, such as Galileo, were considered heretics. This erroneous concept was eventually rejected.

Good Job!! It's thanks to people like you that wikipedia is becoming reliable!

I got curious and read what follows:

Who Geologist - MS, 1975, The University of Arizona. Currently a "torturer of teenagers" (high school science teacher) and a dabbler in almost anything scientific. {B-)}

[edit] Long, long time ago In what seems like another universe now, I was a U.S. Marine - spent almost two years in 'nam. Radio op with MAG-36, chopper outfit, mostly in and around Ky Ha copter pad north of the Chu Lai airbase. Took a trip to 'nam aboard the USS Princeton (CV-37) in August '65 and flew back stateside June '67. Just in case anyone from that universe is surfing around wiki. Damn, that was a long time ago!

I have been in the italian Navy long long time ago as well.

I would be interested in knowing you better... if you are a facebook user please poke me. I consider myself another dabbler in almost anything scientific. °O) I will be in the New York facebook network for a month.

Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 09:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Maurice, and thanks for the kind words. No, I don't have a facebook account and am a long way from NY. Happy editing (sorry for the delay replying - distracted for a bit) Vsmith (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number48

You may wish to review Number48 in light of your previous actions, specifically [1]. PouponOnToast (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for the "heads-up". I saw this note between classes, but didn't have time to investigate and act then (live physics students to torture :). Now I see 48 has been indef'd. A well deserved block. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you Vsmith for responding to my AN/I report with corrective action. Much appreciated! --MPerel 02:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. However, I made the block decision prior to seeing your ANI post as other events called his talk page to my attention. Vsmith (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment, I know I'm not a 3rd party to this, but I think that essentially telling another user to go kill himself [2] is hostile enough to merit a longer term or indefinite block. --Veritas (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering just that - I blocked for a week, but I or another admin may well extend the block. You are correct and I'd suggest posting a similar comment on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Morgan_Wright where I left it open for other admin review. Vsmith (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And another thank you for following up with the stronger indef block which is certainly warranted in this case. --MPerel 04:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Morgan is editing again as 67.189.204.157 (talk · contribs) since this IP is in the same location as the other and clearly has the same interests. --Veritas (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and has been given a 1 week block by User:Black Kite. Vsmith (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

Hey, I reverted an article due to some vandalism and saw the user's talk page where you blocked the user for previous vandalism. 162.40.102.209 (talk · contribs) is the target IP. Just letting you know he/she is at it again. Esoxid (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

about periodic table structure

from jc perez sorry, Dr Smith there is not a self promotion. I consider only that adding PREDICTIVE FORMULA paragraph increase a bit wikipedia periodic table knowledge and data... Thanks jc perez —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean-claude perez (talk • contribs) 07:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

predictive equation of periodic table: detailed data from jc perez

sorry for figures and graphics formula (I could send you a full text including them by email if you send me your email adress: jeanclaudeperez2@free.fr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean-claude perez (talk • contribs) 10:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Figure 1: Conventional Empiric Mendeleev’s Table and new “X“ and “K“ diamonds-like modelling structures.

“Are there NUMBERS in the NATURE?” The MENDELEEV’s Table Generic EQUATION.

At IBM initially, then with “geNum” biomathematics Lab. thereafter, we have studied the phenomena of self-organization and global structures emergence such as “Fractal Chaos” for more than 25 years1. Particularly, we have then, since the end of the Eighties, make basic research about hypothetical mathematical structures of DNA and genomes 2 3. Our main question remains: “Are there Numbers in the Nature?” Let us take the example of the famous table of Mendeleev4, no one never had the idea to seek a possible mathematical law which would organize the information and the structure of "the most heterogeneous table of Science". We discovered this law: the equation of the table of Mendeleev. Here is a short summary: We discovered a simple equation which generates and predicts the structure of the table of Mendeleev. This equation predicts the number of elements of any layer of period "p" in the table according to the only value of this period "p". Beyond this mathematical modeling of the periodic table of the Elements, -This equation underlines, in its formulation, the " trace" of the 4 fundamental quantum Numbers. -This modeling predicts the structure of the hypothetical extensions of the table of Mendeleev towards possible Eléments (real) unknown which would be located beyond the last known radioactive Elements5. -This modeling also makes it possible to imagine an infinity of other Elements (virtual) which one could however predict positioning towards the low layers of the table, like their quantum properties. To summarize, if: -c(p) a horizontal layer of elements of the table of Mendeleev, -"p" the period associated with this c(p) layer such as p = [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 … ], -Int(v) the whole part of the numerical value "v". exp: if v=2.35, then Int(2.35)=2. Then, one obtains c(p), the number of elements contained in the c(p) layer of order p, by applying the formula:

Examples : If p=1 è c(1)=2 If p=2 è c(2)=8 If p=3 è c(3)=8 If p=4 è c(4)=18 If p=5 è c(5)=18 If p=6 è c(6)=32 If p=7 è c(7)=32 If p=8 è c(8)=50 If p=9 è c(9)=50 …/… If p=16è c(16)=162 Generic and predictive natures of the equation: Can one extrapolate this law beyond the periods for which it is checked (periods 1 to 7)? Which would be the properties of a hypothetical period 8? Researchers predict the existence of hypothetical Eléments 126 and even 164 78. If these elements existed, they would belong to a "eighth period" (since periods 1 to 7 can contain only 118 Elements). However, the quantum theory "predicts" that such a period 8 "should" contain 50 Elements. Effectively, to the 32 Elements corresponding to layer 7 would come to associate an additional long block of 18 elements, the "octadécanides". As we will see it, it would correspond to the quantum block "g", which contains 9 orbital (m = [ +4, +3, +2, +1, 0, -1, -2, -3, -4 ], these 9 states, compounds with the 2 states of the "spin", lead well to 2x9 = 18 additional Elements). It is exactly what our equation predicts (see details in WEB supplementary information). Graphical structures overview: This equation makes it possible to propose new graphic designs of the Mendeleev’s table6: -« 2-dimensions conventional table » : it is the usual representation in which lanthanides were reintegrated in their place. This table extends by bottom when p increases. -« 3-dimensions X diamonds-like » : this structure underlines the double symmetry of growth of the crystal-like table. It is made of 4 regular pyramids with square bases forming "XX" for face view, "X" for side view, and 2 squares adjacent by an angle in sights of top and below. When p grows, the extension is done alternatively by bottom and the top. -« 3-dimensions K diamonds-like » : This structure is most realistic: it amalgamates alignments by columns of the traditional table with the 3-dimensional structure. We have 4 orthogonal pyramids with square bases. Please visit WEB supplementary information for details. Strong Relationships between the 4 Quantum Numbers and Mendeleev’s Table Equation : Niels Bohr established the relation between the position of each Element in the periodic table and its electronic structure. The chemical properties of each Element are thus totally determined by the distribution of the electrons of this Element. The properties and positionings of these electrons, themselves, are determined by the laws of Quantum Physics. It is related to the wave equation of Schrödinger which establishes these distributions of probabilities of energies of the electron. These waves functions name the " orbitals ". Thus, with any electron identifiers are associated: they are the 4 Quantum Numbers. One successively defines “n”, “l”, “m”, and “s”, the 4 quantum numbers. We show in additional WEB supplementary information that our Mendeleev’s Equation includes strong links with the 4 quantum numbers: One thus finds, in this new concise writing of the generic equation, the explicit trace of 2 among the 4 quantum Numbers: "n" and "m":

= 2 = 2 where m and n are the magnetic and principal quantum numbers of index p.

To conclude : -1- The periodic table of the Elements is modélisable. It is structured by a numerical structure of whole numbers. -2- This structure is deterministic and predictive, then, for any period p, it can be calculated by applying "the generic equation of Mendeleev" which we discovered. -3- The generic equation is completely controlled by the four quantum Numbers. -4-This generic equation makes it possible to check the regularity of the common table of Mendeleev, but it can also "predict" and anticipate the existence of hypothetical Eléments now unknown, of which it makes it possible to determine the quantum properties, then electronic and chemical hypothetical properties. Jean-claude Perez #£

genEthics foundation : 7 av de terre-rouge F33127 Martignas France

Email : jeanclaudeperez2@free.fr £ geNum inc : 1134, chemin Saint Louis Sillery Quebec G1S 1E5 Canada References: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean-claude perez (talk • contribs) 10:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belongs on article talk page. Vsmith (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

break

stop deleting what i wrote!!!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Neogotchi (talk • contribs) 07:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry 'bout that - but no. Vsmith (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mole (unit) - and others

I am the user that provided visionlearning modules as external links on some articles a few weeks back. I would like to include a link to relevant material on those topics for teachers and students on the Visionlearning website, an open-source, federally funded science teaching initiative, nearly ten years old. Visionlearning contains peer-reviewed, and freely available teaching resources in science and math written specifically for educators and students. I believe the link to this material will enhance the wiki content as it provides a means for teachers and students to access further information on a topic, and since it is written specifically for an educational audience, will help legitimize the content on wiki in these circles. Also, may I point out that Visionlearning is completely non-profit. oking83

And you are associated with this great site? Enhancing Wikipedia means adding good solid sourced content, not just a link to your favorite great site. Vsmith (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Vsmith, IP address 192.203.136.252 is registered to a public library! 66.99.216.2 (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and... your point is? Vsmith (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Link

You recently removed an external link to Enviromentality (http://environment-policy.info) I added to the entry for political ecology and stated that "links to web sites with which you are affiliated" are not appropriate. I read the guidelines for external links before adding this one and I did not see this rule so I am asking whether mere association with a web site is grounds for removal if the web site is otherwise a worthwhile link. I am not deriving any financial reward from generating external link traffic. Since that time I have also moved from anonymous to being a named user as that may have aroused some suspicion. Otherwise I thank you for keeping Wiki clean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cherson (talk • contribs) 21:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, as I see it, if you are associated in any way with the site - you don't link to it. You may bring this up on the article talk page and see if someone not related to the site feels a link is needed. Vsmith (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block of Hyperbole

His edits don't look like edit warring to me, and I don't see what the issue is (other than some of his strong language regarding the article's content, not any contributors). He's requesting unblock ... have you anything to add? Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend an unblock if the first reference is restored. Quack Guru 03:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Hyperbole_reported_by_User:Orangemarlin_.28Result:_24_hrs.29, the case was initially declined by User:TigerShark based on his interpretation. The additional reverts noted by User:QuackGuru there were considered. Yes, he was editing to improve the article based on his perception - but was fully aware of the 3rr case as he had removed a warning note by User:Orangemarlin from his talk page. Please review the details, if you feel an unblock is in order I would appreciate a note indicating your findings. Vsmith (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After the reverts Hyperbole did some great editing. Unblock please! Quack Guru 03:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. He should not only be blocked for 24 hours, but I think a month-long block will cut out his edit warring. He has a POV, and he won't stop. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 294: / Line 294: @@
 :See [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Hyperbole_reported_by_User:Orangemarlin_.28Result:_24_hrs.29]], the case was initially declined by [[User:TigerShark]] based on his interpretation. The additional reverts noted by [[User:QuackGuru]] there were considered. Yes, he was editing to ''improve'' the article based on his perception - but was fully aware of the 3rr case as he had removed a warning note by [[User:Orangemarlin]] from his talk page. Please review the details, if you feel an unblock is in order I would appreciate a note indicating your findings. [[User:Vsmith|Vsmith]] ([[User talk:Vsmith#top|talk]]) 03:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 ::After the reverts Hyperbole did some great editing. Unblock please! [[User:QuackGuru|<span style="color:#FFFF00;background:black;border-style: double">Quack</span>]] [[User talk:QuackGuru|<span style="color:#00FF00;background:black;border-style: double">Guru</span>]] 03:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
+:::I disagree.  He should not only be blocked for 24 hours, but I think a month-long block will cut out his edit warring.  He has a POV, and he won't stop.  [[User:Orangemarlin|<font color="orange">'''Orange'''</font><font color="teal">'''Marlin'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 04:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)