User talk:Vsmith

the Moon

2nd quarter, 65%

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 :-)

Hi, I haven't visited the Newcastle page in a bit and noticed you had removed an old newspaper I had included as sort of color and to show the referenced "scampering" that was indicated in the article. I was kind of puzzled why you took it out and I would like to add it back, but wanted to get your take on this before I changed anything. I think it provides a neat bit of historical context to go to the tornado section, especially considering how odd the quote sounds to modern ears. Anyhow.... looking forward to hearing from you on this. -- Avanu (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it (as long as it is a "reliable source", that was a while back and it isn't on my watchlist ... Vsmith (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your restoration of the articles Gourd Creek and Beaver Creek (Little Piney Creek tributary) and made them redirects again. The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mill Creek (Little Piney Creek tributary) was clear, it was determined that these subjects did not merit separate articles. I am shocked that you, as an administrator, would flippantly disregard that consensus and act unilaterally to revert that decision. ✗plicit 00:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah "flippantly disregard" - ain't that cute? And "shocked" ! I simply created articles about two valid streams based on their existence and the evidence on relevant topographic maps. I'm shocked that a group of wikipedians would take it upon themselves to destroy and delete valid articles about existing streams. Those deletionists routinely work to destroy Wikipedia as a comprehensive encyclopedia. As a editor and admin I take Wikipedia seriously and have worked for nearly 20 years to improve and expand this project - I assure you there be no "flippant disregard" here. So take your phoney "shock" and shove it. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Haydite, Missouri 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/Haydite, Missouri until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

MB 03:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to explain why you reverted my edits on Paracel Islands with no reasoning? –Aidan721 (talk) 00:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a bunch of underlined spaces ... couldn't see a need for that. Vsmith (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's the proper formatting for infobox parameters per WP:INFOBOXNAME. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Vsmith for your edit to Zebulon, North Carolina, correcting the GNIS citation links with better code! It wasn't a large edit or anything, but the town means a lot to me and I love to see any edits benefitting the article, as it doesn't get many. I really appreciate you spending you time to fix this. Thanks again! 😁 --Johnson524 (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vsmith

Thank you for creating Wakefieldite-(Ce).

User:Scope creep, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Any chance of an image.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Scope creep}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

scope_creepTalk 17:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an image - and don't think I have a specimen of wakefiedlite (either Ce or La) in my collection. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vsmith

Thank you for creating Wakefieldite-(La).

User:Scope creep, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hi, would this not be better in a table in the Wakefieldite article.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Scope creep}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

scope_creepTalk 17:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon,

I am wondering why the additions to the etymology of the word Ardeal has been deleted, together with reference? The source, and a few other etymologists, support the theory of this word deriving from a Proto-Indo-European etymon, yet, on the main page only the variant from Hungarian language is recognised.

Hope to hear from you soon!

Kind regards, Adrian Aristeus01 (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that your wording was a bit confusing and your referencing was quite simply a mess. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'll try to do better. Thanks! Aristeus01 (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vsmith 👋 Stateless Nations Article become a controversial page as people of certain ideology, regardless of the neutrality of Wikipedia, have added and removed many names from the list of this page without providing any reliable source, to avoid this, I request you to lock this page. Shubhdeep Sandhu (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. And if I were to do so, I would undo your recent addition first. We don't do this sort of thing. Sorry 'bout that - Vsmith (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you deleted all the sources from the Amhara page that the user yonasJH deleted. Why? I don’t understand? 2A00:A040:194:C4AF:709D:E8CF:7C32:6DF6 (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know I reverted edits by someone evading their block, as is standard practice. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vsmith, I made an edit regarding Ango's publication detailing the first wave theory of light and I attempted to provide the reference, which I suspect was clumsy in execution. Regardless I think it was a relevant and factual edit that was also fascinating and I am wondering why it was deleted? Yours sincerely, Jonathan - fellow geologist/geophysicist Jcdownes (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but what was the specific article you are referring to? Vsmith (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christiaan Huygens. "With regard to the wave theory, both Huygens and another author, Pierre Ango (1640-1694), a professor of mathematics at Rouen, had studied the experiments of Jesuit Ignace-Gaston Pardies, described in a manuscript which was never published. These experiments seem to have suggested to Ango and Huygens their wave and light theory. Ango published in 1682 a work which was actually the first hypothesis that stated the wave nature of light, and Huygens had a copy of this treatise in his library [https://bibnum.education.fr/sites/default/files/37-foucault-analysis.pdf>" Jcdownes (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems when I try to go to that website I get a warning about it being unsafe ... so decided not. Vsmith (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the book which I referenced provides his own sub-references:

4. L’Optique, by P. Pierre Ango, Paris, Michallet, 1682 (on line in Google Books).

5. Catalog of the Huygens sale, Moetjens, La Hague, 1695, page 13.

Should I use those instead?

Regards,

Jonathan Jcdownes (talk) 03:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Best to cite the source you used. At least that is what I would do. Vsmith (talk) 12:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

you reverted my tagging of this sentence as "incomprehensible". Do you not agree that so many of its constituent terms and phrases make so little sense taken out of the context of the referenced research paper that the whole thing ends up conveying essentially zero worthwhile information to a typical reader? Maybe I just didn't pick quite the right tag? To be clear, the sentences immediately before and after are just fine; this one sorely sticks out.

Cheers,

- 2A02:560:582D:CE00:75A0:2629:82EB:98FE (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a direct quote of a "scholarly" source. And, yes it is rather poorly written as is all to common as such ... Vsmith (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except it's not formatted as a quote, and searching for it in the pdf comes up blank. More like someone skimmed some of the jargon and stuck it together with garbled grammar. Either way, as it is, it adds no value whatsoever to the article. A quick look at the paper itself makes me think that its prose is fine, and that it's indeed potentially relevant to this article. Maybe get rid of the silly sentence altogether and stick the source someplace else?

- 2A02:560:582D:CE00:75A0:2629:82EB:98FE (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you lastly removed thousands of written sources from the Wikipedia page of the Amhara people because you claimed it was “poorly written” which make no sense. it wasn’t poorly written and now the page is closed. 213.137.70.40 (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"removed thousands of written sources" I think not eh? Vsmith (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You removed many sources from the page of the Amhara people because you claimed it was “poorly written” Tamart0290 (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And who are you? Seems this claim is your only post. Vsmith (talk) 23:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

in August 31 (which is 15 days ago) you removed many sources from the page of the Amhara people. And you wrote that the reason that you remove it was because it was “poorly written” Tamart0290 (talk) 00:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So? and again who are you - just go edit something and quit this harassment. Sorry 'bout that ... --Vsmith (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you, but I want to edit all the stuff that you removed from the page of the Amhara people on the 30 of August. I did edit request multiple times but no one took a look at this or even bother to. Can you please open the page of the Amhara people so I can edit they stuff that were removed? Tamart0290 (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no - the page was protected by another admin - based on disruptive editing. Vsmith (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the* Tamart0290 (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. So can’t you edit back all the sources/informations that you removed on August 30? Tamart0290 (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because that page got closed right after your removed all the sources. Tamart0290 (talk) 03:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you* Tamart0290 (talk) 04:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand. ok. The page is closed and you can do about it. But why can’t you put back all the sources that you removed on August 30? Tamart0290 (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand. ok. The page is closed and there is nothing you can do about it. But why can’t you put back all the sources that you removed on August 30? Tamart0290 (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the user yonas J deleted all the sources that i edited on the page of the Amhara people. Why is that happening? those are well established sources. it is not the first time that He is doing that. Tamart0290 (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that user is going around willy-nilly creating wikilinks, I've left warnings for WP:OVERLINKING on their talk. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, an Admin who doesn't reply. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 17:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ... replied, roll on down the line. Cheers back atcha. Sorry 'bout that - was busy elsewhere ... --Vsmith (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia.

Could you please explain your reasons for this revert? If i understand correctly, single crystal (no hyphen) is the noun form, single-crystal (with hyphen) is the adjective form, and the subject of the article is the thing (noun), not the adjective. While the grammar as you restored it is correct, i find it confusing; the comma after the hyphenated single-crystal makes that read like a noun form, which makes the appositive phrase or monocrystalline read like monocrystalline is a noun (like tourmaline or gasoline), and then the next word is a noun (which can also be an adjective), which is just jarring.

Also, i have observed that Wikipedia tends to start each article with a sentence that includes the name or names of the article's subject in bold, which would generally be the noun, not the adjective. The way you restored the bold text reinforces my incorrect impression of the bolded terms being nouns instead of adjectives.

i hope this makes sense and you can explain to me how my edit was inappropriate, if it was inappropriate. Cheers! --173.67.42.107 (talk) 05:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to restore your edit as I wasn't aware of the reasoning ... cheers, Vsmith (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice back yard! 86.140.233.62 (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I see you reverted an edit done by user 180.71.27.249 on the Moldova page. The first passage of the article now reads: "The unrecognised Russian puppet state of Transnistria lies across the Dniester on..."

Shouldn't it be just "unrecognised Russian state", or another lesser charged wording, to keep the tone politically neutral?

Cheers! Dhyana b (talk) 04:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hudson Bay Lowlands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The correct Mount Risou is in France (the coordinates are OK) but the link point toward a mountain called Mont Risoux in Switzerland witch is not the good one ! (I'm also retreated science teacher at secondary school !). I did not find any good link to the correct Mount Risou, so I prefered no link at all and the correct writing of Mont Risou, Hautes-Alpes, France. Best regards and thanks Philippe Lospinguinos (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Normchou. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Eco-terrorism, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Hi, I restored the version before your last revert. Please refer to the source if you still have any doubts. Normchou ^💬 16:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Vsmith,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove this man on caliphate list he is not a muslim and don't play with muslim hearts please 37.159.107.6 (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue who "this man" is or what edit you are referring to ... Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One of your edits were copied and pasted with too much info!!! Jpoe9900 (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eh ... which one? Vsmith (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I saw this edit and checked the change, and the GNIS doesn't appear to list those coordinates, which are quite far from the city, just over 70 miles to the east of the city. Was this a typo in the edit, or am I looking at something on here wrong? I didn't want to mess with the changes without asking first. Thanks. - Aoidh (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The coords were from the GNIS page - I picked the average (sorta) from the four given. They are all within a two minute range. Could be the gnis has an error - will check with a topo map. Vsmith (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked the topo and Buford is at the intersection of four quadrangles at 34 07 30 N and 84 0 0 W. So I'll keep my edit. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well ... I see I had longitude at 83 instead of 84, so fixed it now ... sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All good, thanks. - Aoidh (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i am extremely sorry for my poor writing so i apologies for it but the reference has a very good evidence about the atomic view by Chinese philosophy.You can help expanding the article by using this link https://www.jstor.org/stable/6621 Cuando de hyiopi (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Mud Center, Indiana. Not welcome at da SD (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That be a rather odd comment. Please explain the problem at Mud Center is your view. Thanks in advance. :) Vsmith (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Vsmith: Disregard the warning. It was made by a vandalism only account that spammed similar warnings across a number of user's pages. I'm going through reverting their edits now, which is how I found this conversation. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, noticed your interest in Enid and in teaching. I’ve been trying to get a separate page for the Autry Technology Center in Enid, but have run up against a reviewer who thinks it isn’t “notable” enough. You might want to check out the Autry page, then click on the deletion discussion page link, second line from the top and—if you agree the page should stay—leave a comment recommending that it not be deleted. Thanks. TulGuy (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently on Jan. 8, 2023, you deleted 4 entries I had previously made to Deer Lodge's Notable People. You also made it impossible for me to simply undo what you did. May I ask why? Please advise! In lieu of a satisfactory reply I will add them again, and lodge a complaint. Thank you. (By the way, if it was you who linked James H. Mills to James Henry Mills, please note that the former was long dead when the latter was born.) Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 06:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that Mills error - so it goes. Vsmith (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And your reason for deleting the other 4? Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Took a look and cut some excess as details are to be found in linked articles. Keep the list entries brief. Vsmith (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Words fail me. Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 04:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive my perhaps non-neutral replies. Although I've had a Wikipedia ID for some time, I rarely contribute, and I do appreciate the hard work that dedicated admins like yourself perform. I did ask for a third party opinion and was properly rebuffed. I really just want to understand how to deal with the notable people in the Deer Lodge article. Again I apologize. Thank you. Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. To "deal with the notable people" is quite simple (maybe); just find a valid reference or two which support their notability and write the article. Local or regional news articles would be most likely - unless the are widely known (or notorious). Vsmith (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Appreciate your attention to this matter. Does your rewrite refer only to the Deer Lodge, Montana article or to separate articles for each person which would then be referenced by the main article? Articles supporting notability can, as I recall, be dicey. Most of what I've been able to find on one of them consists of newspaper articles in the New Northwest newspaper, which was Deer Lodge's only newspaper at that (1870's, 1880's) time. (Note that this is NOT The New Northwest article in Wikipedia.) As I recall, Wikipedia frowns on newspaper articles, preferring secondary sources. I wouldn't want to waste our time if newspaper articles are excluded. Your take? Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Bad me. I see your reference to local or regional news articles. Can I take that as an endorsement of the sort of newspaper articles which I described above? One qualifying factor might be that all issues of the New Northwest are available for searching on Newspapers.com. Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the bye, James H. Mills was the long time owner/editor of the New Northwest, among a number of other things. Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you have a grasp on what is needed - charge on and have fun along the way --Vsmith (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC) And separate articles would be the best if supporting refs are available. Individuals can be mentioned within the article (without having their own article) assuming the added content can be referenced. Vsmith (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. Keep you posted. Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotten the impression that you're familiar with the geography of the Douglas/Ozark county areas. I've been working on Battle of Clark's Mill, and want to make sure that the geography I've pieced together from the sources is correct. The article before I added sources made reference to the Bertha area, but the sources I consulted all refer to the Bertha area as just the location's relative position to Rockbridge, so I guess Bertha didn't exist until after 1862 maybe? One of the sources (Nichols), claimed the blockhouse at Clark's Mill was on "Big Beaver Creek", but maps I looked at show that Creek being out by Arno and not near Vera Cruz as well. So that claim is not in the article. Not even Elmo Ingenthron's old Borderland Rebellion book that focuses on the Springfield-to-Arkansas area has much to say on this one, largely just quoting the Federal commander's report.

I spent a couple days over in Ava for work in 2021, but otherwise don't have any first hand experience with the area. Hog Farm _Talk 05:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bertha is about 8 miles southeast of Vera Cruz on Fox Creek just north of Bryant Creek and three miles northeast of Rockbridge. The Rome area is on Beaver Creek southwest of Ava (~9 miles) and ~15 miles WSW of Vera Cruz. There was Civil War action in the Rome area altho I'm not familiar with the details. One of the buildings from the Rome area was moved and is now located along Hwy 14 near the east city limits of Ava. The museum in Ava has considerable material about the Civil War era in Douglas County (only open on Saturdays last I knew). The museum publishes a journal (1 or 2 issues per year) and some of those have articles about the locations of interest - I have a few of them somewhere ... :) If my memory kicks in with more info ... or whatever I'll pass it along. Will celebrate my 80th birthday in a week - so I might forget :) Cheers! Vsmith (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Iron(II) oxide, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for blocking the IP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.59.36.170 . the user is still editing under his IPv6 range though, could you block that too? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2603:7080:5000:1F:711B:E366:9051:EF0D/64 thanks! --FMSky (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent reversion of my contribution included the comment: “Sorry, but the paragraph was not sourced, if it can be sourced ... then provide a reference.” This is the sort of thing that puts people off contributing to Wikipedia. Reading through the current article, probably 99% of the content likewise have no references. These have all been contributed over the years as the page was slowly developed by well-meaning contributors, and accepted by general consensus over the years by numerous editors making judgment calls, either because the topic was within their area of expertise or because it simply interested them. On what basis have you decided to delete my contribution, but not deleted the remaining 99% of unsourced entries? Is it simply because mine is something new? Something that you've never thought of and thus obviously can't be true? I can easily search through the Internet to find you some relevant sources. But you know what? It's not worth it to me. I just thought it was worthwhile information. Your mindless deletion, undoubtedly justified by some Wikipedia rule, doesn't affect me. Instead, it affects the spread of useful knowledge. What a waste. 115.64.108.207 (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, you changed a name from "Susan Arntz" to "Susan Rants" while updating gnis info. I'm guessing it was some kind of autocorrect error? If so, you may want to disable it while doing other updates. For a split second I thought it was some kind of sneaky vandalism, haha. Woodroar (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that ... I have no clue what caused that glitch. Vsmith (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You made an insightful contribution to the Hindu Kush article, however the page has been a victim of abuse by anon and biased users, trying to alter meanings and context. I had made a contribution as an improvement but it was reverted by an annoying wiki user and I haven’t yet figured out all the tools.

Would you be able to check your contribution and see if can still be added on?

Thank you. IsTruthSweet (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I see no evidence of "abuse by anon and biased users". I took a look at your edit to the page ... and quite simply I would have reverted it. I would suggest that you start by making smaller edits rather than large changes. Observe other user's edits and proceed slowly ... learn by doing. Vsmith (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, came across this user MrHerii (talk · contribs) and not sure what to do about their behaviour. Seems like they have a real focus on Elon Musk, which fine, but they seem to have almost lost grip on reality in some way. They're mostly responsible for this page and its infobox which almost reads like fanfiction that I'm surprised hasn't been deleted yet (Musk family), their user page has had similar fanfic leanings about a Musk Martian Colony [1], and their sandbox looks to be the same and recently they added obviously Nazi inspired iconography to it [2].

Usually if it was blatant vandalism or disruption I'd know where to report it but this is just so... odd that I want a second opinion on it.

Thanks Apache287 (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Would you please refrain from editing against the consensus at the Palmer Report? When users revert your edits, it is best to go to the talk page and attempt to gain consensus rather than engaging in a slow-motion edit war. If you fail to gain consensus, it is against policy to try to war-in your preferred edits into the article. You have attempted to include your preferred version for the article at least six times ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]), and each time you have been reverted . Please ping me if you have any questions :) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the "warning" Dr. Swag Lord - would you mind explaining how my recent edit in which I simply separated the "what it is" from the "what it's been called" is somehow against consensus. Is it not an "American liberal website"? I simply stated what it is separate from the "fake news" accusations. Vsmith (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can help explain it to you! Firstly, your edits are against consensus, because, to put it simply, the consensus disagrees with your edits. Back in October, at least three different admins informed you that your edits violated consensus and/or consisted of original research:

• GorillaWarfare: "Am I having deja vu? No consensus has been reached to make this change in your section above (#What it is ...) so I was surprised to see you went ahead with the change anyway, after multiple reverts and after being informed of WP:BRD. I am also extremely surprised to see such an experienced user arguing for a change based on their impressions after checking the site recently, as opposed to basing this off of what reliable sources say."
• ScottishFinnishRadish: "That would be WP:OR. There is consensus to call it a fake news site in wikivoice sure to the weight of sources identifying it as such."
• Chetsford: "Hopefully no one is making edits based on their WP:OR. The entire article is more-or-less a recitation of various RS saying TPR is a fake news website in different and creative ways. WP:LEAD requires we summarize the content of the article and WP:NPOV binds us to avoid "stating facts as opinions" (e.g. "It has been called a fake news website" [1] instead of the policy-compliant "it is fake news website").

Essentially, as explained by multiple other editors, your edit violates 1) our original research policy, since you are going to the Palmer Report site directly and making your independent analysis of the site, instead of relying on reliable sources. And 2) your edits violate our neutrality policy, because you are attempting to state uncontested facts as an opinion--"It has been called a fake news website"--whereas reliable sources are in agreement that the Palmer Report is a fake news site just like reliable sources are in agreement that the Palmer Report is a liberal site or an American site. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, it seems that simply stating what it is - rather than what it has been called by some folks that seem to disagree with Mr. Palmer and prefer to call it a "fake news website" is some how a problem. I'm sorry, but I cannot see a problem with my simple statement - which is factually true - rather than calling it "fake news" or some such. I haven't removed the "fake news" accusations. Rather I simply stat upfront what it is. How is that a problem? It is "The Palmer Report" - not "The Fake News Controversy". Yes, Mr Palmer has been quite strongly opposed to Trump and trumpism and I would expect that Trump supporters might be upset. Time to move on methinks. Vsmith (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what "Trump and trumpism" has to do with your specific edits and I hope you're not subtly accusing me, or any other user on Wikipedia, of being a "Trump supporter". I'm sorry, but I cannot see a problem with my simple statement --I'm sorry but I tried to explain what's wrong with your edit the best I could. I highly suggest you visit the tea house or help desk for additional information on WP core policies! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hmm... So WP:Core policy would support the first line of an article being essentially a ""fake news website" attack, that would seem rather odd. Is that what you meant? And that an editor since 2004 and admin since 2005 needs to "visit the help desk" ... maybe stuff has changed ... eh? My apologies for that "trumpism" bit - that was a bit off. Vsmith (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Core policy would support that. Just like core policy would support calling The Gateway Pundit or Peace Data a fake news website. Yes, "fake news" might sound a bit harsh or negative but that's not the intention. We're simply stating what kind of site the Palmer Report is--just like with Gateway Pundit or with Peace Data. Apology accepted for the trumpism comment. And I knew you were an admin but I didn't realize you have been editing since '04. But policies and guidelines have definitely changed in the last 15 years so it's always a good idea to keep yourself updated and it never hurts to ask other editors for help/advice! :-) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fake bit is still in the lead - just shifted down to the second paragraph -as that seemed appropriate to me - could be moved up to first paragraph - just not the first sentence. And I see that I had removed that bit last fall, had forgotten as at that time I was on chemotherapy (successful) and there be a lot of blanks in my memory during that period. Vsmith (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, if you're comfortable putting it in the lead, what's your exact justification for not putting it in the first sentence? According to MOS:FIRST: The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is.... If the subject is a fake news site, then that should be clear in the first sentence. This is no different than saying Reuters is a news agency or Metapedia is a fascist website. To be honest, I think saying the year the site was founded--2016--is not nearly as important for the lead as the fake news bit. And I am happy to hear your chemo went well. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Gråbergs Gråa Sång has restored your preferred version - can't say I'm surprised. Could you please provide an example or two of what you would consider "fake news" from recent (last 30 days or so) Palmer Reports posts. That would help me understand why it's so important to you-all to have it in the first line. Vsmith (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What PR says or what Dr. Swag Lord thinks about it doesn't matter in WP-land (by which I mean Palmer Report). What independent WP:RS says about it does.

Is stuff like "Many of you are aware that a rogue anonymous Wikipedia editor added the words “liberal fake news website” to the very first sentence of Palmer Report’s Wikipedia page several years ago, and since been blocking all other Wikipedia editors from removing this absurd and libelous claim." best described as "truth", "opinion", or something else? People can differ all they like, it's what people do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of comment-section people on that article have concluded that Palmer's "rogue Wikipedia editor" is me, btw. I don't think that's what he meant, but perhaps I should commemorate it in a userbox or something, it's a bit of a distinction. Also, I wasn't gloating, I was sighing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, sure. Take this article, written the same day as the "Newsweek apology" article. In this article, Palmer talks about how in the recent 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis case (concerning if a web designer could deny services for a same-sex couple), a false document was used. The false document was an inquiry from a gay man--but in reality, the man is straight and never requested services from the web designer. Palmer is completely right in this aspect. But what Palmer states next is completely untrue:
• According to established precedent, this should invalidate the entire case, and the Supreme Court’s ruling should be nullified. Of course this rogue Supreme Court does just whatever it wants and routinely violates the law.... 1) The Supreme Court does not "routinely violate the law" and 2) there is no "established precedent" that the case will be invalidated because justices had already accepted a set of facts that were made in the lower courts and both parties hadn't disputed the lower court findings that Smith faced a "credible threat" by Colorado state law. Even if the document was falsified, it will be too late to re-litigate whether or not Smith had standing to sue Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act in the first place. "The Supreme Court took the case independent of an actual request being made to create a ripe controversy to adjudicate," former federal prosecutor and elected state attorney Michael McAuliffe told Newsweek. "The holding and opinion, now issued, won't be impacted by the new information." [9].

Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hmm ... OK - perhaps I'll just ignore it all and move on ... or not ... By the way what field is your doctorate in ... I'm just curious. I was working toward a doctorate in geology way back when (1970s) - was close, but family came first and I moved on. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I would tell you, but for WP:PRIVACY/WP:OUTED reasons, I would prefer to keep that private. But it's certinaly not a STEM doctorate ;) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this message finds you well. My name is Amanda, and i recently made an edit to a wikipedia page as a new contributor. Firstly , I want to express my appreciation for the work you are doing to maintain the integrity and accuracy of wikipedia artcles. I noticed that you reverted my recent edit, and I wanted to reach out to seek some clarification. As a new writer, I must admit that i may not fully familiar with all the guidelines and rules surrounding wikipedia editing. I sincerely apologize that unknowingly my edit violated the policy, as you wrote can not cite wikipedia articles ,

My intention behind the edit was purely to improve the article's content and provide additional valuable information of the discovery that I still believe is missing . I did not intend to promote anything or engage in any form of bias. As a newcomer, I am eager to learn from experienced editors like yourself, and I would be grateful if you could kindly point out where I went wrong.

If there are specific guidelines or best practices that I should be aware of to avoid similar mistakes in the future, please do share them with me. Your guidance and feedback would be immensely valuable to me as I continue my journey as a Wikipedia contributor and I wanted to ask with respect, can I still add the portion for Gold Sheen Sapphire with more in depth citations .

Once again, I apologize for any inconvenience my edit may have caused, and I assure you that my intent is to contribute positively to the Wikipedia community.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response. Amandawhale12 (talk) 04:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First - we don't cite Wikipedia articles as they are not reliable sources; we may add links to related wiki articles - but they are not valid sources. Second - we must avoid "promotional" content. Parts of your edit appeared rather "promotional" to me. Be a neutral observer when you edit. Vsmith (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I’m a new editor here. Could you let me know what I’ve done wrong as I thought I’d done a decent job updating the intro. You say too many links - is that the internal wiki ones? Please let me know as I enjoy creating content but if it’s going to get deleted there’s no point:(

thanks

Silica Cat Silica Cat (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Silica Cat, taking a look at revisions on Paleozoic, I see the main thing that likely Vsmith was referring to. Wikipedia linking guidelines are that good practice is to link the first instance of a term that is a link candidate, while avoiding linking very common terms like Canada, Europe, river.--Kevmin § 14:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Am I ok to reinstate my edits and take out the unnecessary links then? Silica Cat (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again I’ve looked at undoing the revert but am not familiar with the code. I don’t want to get it wrong so could someone be kind enough to do it for me please. Ironically I only added the extra links because they were in the original article (the one that’s been reinstated!). Thx Silica Cat (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you served in the military at some point in your life, you may please refrain from editing peace pages. The same would be true for all war veterans, anywhere in the world and all through their lives.JohJiggs (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - but that is the dumbest request ever. Those who served know more about peace than anyone. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 02:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your changes because:

• You never started a discussion nor asked for consensus at WP:USCITIES prior to changing GNIS from "Populated Place" to "Civil" class in the infobox of numerous community articles.
• You never replied nor countered my comment in March 2023.
• The GNIS example in the infobox at WP:USCITIES is "Populated Place" class.

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hmm ... let's take an example: Phillipsburg, Kansas. I changed the data based on the current status of Phillipsburg as a city per the GNIS update (485642) which classifies Phillipsburg as a city rather than the older (471927) status which classifies it as a populated place. Seems rather obvious that the Wikipedia article should reflect the current status of the place as a city, rather than the old "populated place" status. I cannot see any reason that would be a problem. Or do you think we should have separate articles? That would be rather odd - the "populated place" is now a "city". Please explain. Vsmith (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no response... perhaps sleeping after a long night of reverting ... or perhaps there is no valid response - just some form of "I don't like it"?? Vsmith (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

I asked you to stop changing GNIS entries, because you haven't established consensus for the GNIS change at WP:USCITIES. There is no rule that requires editors to be on Wikipedia 24 hours a day, nor are there any rules that state you can ignore a request from another editor after a fraction of a day. Also, you personally attacked me with snarky comments, as well as going out of your way to start an edit war by flooding dozens of changes after an editor disagreed with you. Also, you ignored my comments about this same topic back in March 2023, then continued to change numerous articles behind my back. Let me make it blunt to you: stop changing GNIS, stop edit warring, stop insulting me, and establish consensus on this GNIS topic in the talk section of WP:USCITIES. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 12:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, I am simply editing articles to be aligned with their current GNIS listings. How is that disruptive? Vsmith (talk) 12:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening User:Sbmeirow. As you are aware, I am updating a number of Kansas community articles. I find it rather odd that the GNIS IDs for a large number of these cities and communities are the old the old ids, rather than the updated ones. For example the Almena article used the old 471748 GNIS ID rather than the updated 2393927 ID. I thought it best to use the most recent along with the data for the city/community supported by the new ID. I can see no reason for not using the newer classification on all community articles - and can not understand why you have decided to revert some of those changes. Please explain your rational for reverting those changes. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Originally, automated tools added most of the "Populated Place" GNIS entries in community articles around 2007 (per edit history). Both "Populated Place" GNIS and "Civil" GNIS entries have existed as far back as at least 2010 or so, when I first started editing. Back in that era, the "Populated Place" GNIS entries had the FIPS number, but the "Civil" GNIS entires didn't have FIPS number, thus is why the "Populated Place" GNIS entries was prefered. At some point in recent years, it appears the FIPS numbers were copied over to the "Civil" GNIS entries, but I wasn't aware this happened until now. After digging into this tonight, it appears that FIPS is now in the "Civil" GNIS entries, thus your change is less of a concern to me today than a few days ago. At this point, I'll let you continue on your merry little way changing the GNIS number in community articles. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 11:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the research on that and letting me know the results. I do appreciate that. Vsmith (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I recently had user Cullen328 respond to my post on the teahouse with the following reply [10] using hateful and derogatory language. Since I am a new user I am not entirely sure I am going about handling this properly, any help you could provide would be greatly appreciated.

~~~ Dholt123 (talk) 00:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the user in question (Cullen328) appears to have been indef blocked by another admin. Vsmith (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks. Dholt123 (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Supergene (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title and no other topics can be found within a reasonable time.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ogden, Illinois, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anderson, Illinois.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me a reason for the reversion of my change.

I considered this was vandalism by Cambodian authors attacking Thai-related articles. See this discussion.

See the changes made from 2601:601:1b80:8040*.

• Special:Contributions/2601:601:1b80:8040:359d:f3b5:a9ed:78a1
• Special:Contributions/2601:601:1b80:8040:4f77:9d09:6cad:b0d6
• Special:Contributions/2601:601:1b80:8040:7285:eb63:42f9:a5ec
• Special:Contributions/2601:601:1b80:8040:87ce:53e8:74d5:9edc
• Special:Contributions/2601:601:1b80:8040:7d33:5caf:402e:c12e

The source/citations provided from the change are incorrect. According to the same source in another language (TH) (LA), It just was an arbitrary combination and it doesn't mention the actual etymology. Even though it has the correct citation. It should've provided below the widely used word origins.

Also, the "Mekong" word etymology is confirmed in other page localizations. Even the Khmer page of this article mentions that the "Mekong" word is from Tai languages (Lao, Thai)

Thanks. 183.88.33.147 (talk) 08:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that I observed an ip making a change to an article with no explanation and that also removed references and was questionable and I reverted. Simple as that. In the future please clarify your reasons for an edit with a clear edit summary. Vsmith (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:

I believe the image on the Acuminite article is actually iron oxide stained Thomsenolite. Specifically I believe it's a distorted photo of this specimen. [11]https://www.irocks.com/minerals/specimen/34344

I don't know that there is an actual photo of Acuminite.

This sometimes comes up as a photo of Acuminite [12]https://i.pinimg.com/originals/58/09/03/580903f91ebe3252541d352cb8f2f0e6.jpg

However that might actually be Wulfenite from Ivigtut and it is listed elsewhere as such.

2603:8000:1B00:8A20:A02F:D795:898:545F (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vsmith. Or do you like to be simply called "V". OK seriously. I don't know if you remember me. We had a brief discussion probably more than eleven years ago on your talk page about a new editor active in your field. And we may have edited some of the same articles. I just recalled, there was an article I created that had something to with Geophysics or something like that. And you and another editor were probably appalled but were too polite to say so. You both were merely critical. So, seeing your reaction I let both of you know I would request that the article be speedily deleted. And I did so. I think everyone involved was happy with the results.

Anyway, the real reason I am here is I am wondering how much you know about Geopolymers. (Redacted) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. the citation below is not mine. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't really know much about it, sorry 'bout that :) (and yeah that citation just kinda floats alng - don't recall what it was linked to ... Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks very much. This post may have been too long so I shortened it. I started to get caught up with this. It is best not to do that on Wikipedia. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While my descriptions of "Fixed typos" were admittedly undetailed, in terms of the edits themselves, MOS:SUPERSCRIPT states any superscript that does not denote a phonetic transcription and is not in a title, short description, or conversion template should be written using sup templates rather than unicode superscript characters. CoolieCoolster (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, yeah, sometimes the MOS sorta makes no sense - as in "take something simple and make it complex". So it goes ... :) --Vsmith (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Shanghai, West Virginia, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi can you see thi subject and i would ask you if it is notable and thanks Actiondramlovers (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have plenty of reference possibilities. Why do you ask? Vsmith (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

just i would ask you if can help and create this draft with many thanks Actiondramlovers (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the topic has wide and significant coverage in several languages Actiondramlovers (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not in my field of interest. Good luck! Vsmith (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I was looking at Russell, North Dakota and I noticed you add the historical population table, but I can't seem to figure out where you found the data. So any help would be helpful. Bennett27 (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Err no that wasn't you, sorry. Bennett27 (talk) 02:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you be interested in working on this draft with me? I was going to base it off of the Oxford handbook of economic imperialism but I'm not familiar with the literature enough. I could probably squeeze something out, structure it okay, but it'd be low quality Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks, not in my field of interest.--Vsmith (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion on the talk page about your unexplained revert. Please join the conversation! 107.116.165.18 (talk) 05:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I would ask you are interesting in this <redacted crap> and creating article about him ? Ilovethehistory9 (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No ... Vsmith (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Domino, Texas, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you semi-protect Missouri article for a year. 2600:381:7B90:129D:E1A9:DCD4:E8A7:9F5F (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Vsmith (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t archive this post in case the vandalism resumes after this protection and we’ll need to indef semi Missouri article 2603:8080:D03:89D4:D406:99F6:B4C2:6570 (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't the protection to be a year. I want it to be indefinite because vandalism has been going on forever 2603:8080:D03:89D4:E40C:F0FD:39E3:5EA1 (talk) 01:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It will be fine to be a year. 2600:381:7B90:129D:4CDD:6C1A:BB56:4F83 (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism will likely resume after this protection 2603:8080:D03:89D4:B8BB:1CB7:79BA:CEB1 (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please explain why you reverted my change in language to the homo naledi page 2601:14D:8A00:A4E0:3C6D:426:67F2:F28A (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any edits to that page by the complaining IP. My edit there was restoring the word "genders" rather than "sexes". Vsmith (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes, that's the edit i'm referring to. please explain why you chose to change the language back 2601:14D:8A00:A4E0:4197:E232:43CF:E468 (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because "gender" would be the appropriate term. Vsmith (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fly River, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plantain.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Vsmith. I wonder if you could help us out.

Since 9 September, Aaghdam1722 (talk · contribs) has made unsourced changes to many climate boxes (e.g., just in the last 3 days: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]). Even when they add a fresh climate box to an article, it fails verification: they only provide a top-level link with no details on which weather station the data comes from (e.g., [20]). After some sleuthing, I found the corresponding weather station ("Wickiup Dam") and its data did not correspond to the data added by Aaghdam1722 (see [21]). The editor is adding unverifiable data to WP, causing a large amount of cleanup work.

Magnolia677 asked the editor to stop this behavior on 30 September ([22]). The editor did not respond and kept making unsourced changes. I gave the editor a final warning today ([23]) and tried to explain why it's important to source this data and asked them to engage and explain where their data is coming from ([24]). They did not respond, but have continued to make unsourced edits after the warning ([25], [26]).

I believe that a (temporary?) block is in order, to get them to stop this behavior and explain where the data is coming from. I also need some time to clean up their mess, and it would be helpful if they stopped adding to the mess. Do you think the block is warranted? If so, would you be willing to block them? Thanks for any help! — hike395 (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Vsmith (talk) 12:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your intervention!

Unfortunately, after your block, the same behavior of making unsourced edits to California climate boxes has continued with multiple IP addresses that geolocate to the same university in California:

• 131.179.133.42 (talk · contribs) (active 1 November to 5 December, and previously)
• 2607:F010:2A7:2028:10D:9519:6FB4:21DD (talk · contribs) (active 2 November to 4 November)
• 131.179.133.47 (talk · contribs) (active 5 November to 12 December)
• 131.179.133.40 (talk · contribs) (active 8 November to 6 January)
• 2607:F010:2A7:2028:3D08:8882:5CA6:47ED (talk · contribs) (active 11 November)
• 2607:F010:2A7:2028:8DF9:FAA6:82CF:7E9F (talk · contribs) (active 21 November)
• 131.179.133.46 (talk · contribs) (active 6 December and previously)
• 2607:F010:2A7:2028:B4FA:4595:72FA:540 (talk · contribs) (active 6 December to 8 December)
• 2607:F010:2A7:2028:152F:6E2F:25D2:C274 (talk · contribs) (active 6 January)
• 131.179.133.44 (talk · contribs) (currently active)

There are also two other IP addresses that have the same pattern but geolocate to a small town in California:

• 2600:1010:B17E:CDED:9916:618E:4142:1C5 (talk · contribs) (active 24 December through 26 December)
• 2600:1010:B17E:CDED:5CCB:757A:5075:C085 (talk · contribs) (active 26 December through 28 December)

There may be other IP addresses and articles that I am unaware of, will continue to search for and clean up articles. — hike395 (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

might have had something more than vogon poetry - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Border_reivers&curid=442848&action=history. - if the allusion is slippery - apologies JarrahTree 11:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Tabiona, Utah, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Vsmith (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Charleston, Utah, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Enoch, Utah, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am the creator of the majority of the "Fleischerite" article. In the discussion section, I asked somebody to advice me on the decision about the possible image for this article. My proposition was to manually draw/paint the image due to a lack of Internet images older than 70 years or having a Creative Commons license. I asked for advice because I do not know how inevitable use of Internet references will impact the copyrights of that image, and if it will look professionally enough. One user replied me with a recommendation to address you.

Thank you, @Vsmith, for your attention.

GlamorousGeologist (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have little experience with image creation. But, hey ... just go for it. Vsmith (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vsmith. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. The AP (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been dealt with ... Vsmith (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently another admin took care of it The AP (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vsmith! I recently found an edit on this talk page regarding someone impersonating Jimmy Wales. What would be the correct action to do here? Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 15:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vsmith @Cooldudeseven7, this is an active LTA on it.wiki, a spammer easily identifiable by the section titles that he uses. Periodically he is blocked in the other wikis. He then comes here to vandalize and troll the talk of the users who blocked him. Thanks, Torque (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 16:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my real name is Dylan Hackworth, I was putting real information on Mena, Arkansas so why did you revert my edit and protect the article? 2605:59C8:409B:4E10:30E8:F7C:CDAA:96E8 (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but we don't use Wiki articles for promotion. Your edits were quite simply to promote a U-tube account. If you want the info included - then find some real non-promotional references to support your desired changes. Vsmith (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, it's YouTube, not U-tube, also, I wasn't promoting myself, I just added myself. Thanks 2605:59C8:409B:4E10:30E8:F7C:CDAA:96E8 (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. But adding your own name to a wiki article "is" self-promotion, and that can get you blocked. Vsmith (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand 2605:59C8:409B:4E10:30E8:F7C:CDAA:96E8 (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marshall Islands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vsmith. I appreciate the updates to elevation data, but I would prefer the use of tags for uncited mayors and managers (though some are instead covered in the body and do not need to be cited in the infobox per WP:INFOBOXCITE) to preserve the information. Consider using the citation needed tags per WP:PRESERVE so that other editors can instead see and address the problem, rather than outright removal that could cause future problems. SounderBruce 22:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Feel free to re-add those "mayors and managers" to the infoboxes that have sources in the article body as I don't often check for that. Cheers - Vsmith (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is preferred that they are not removed in the first place. Checking the body for a name match doesn't take much time at all; at Bremerton, Washington, it's in an obvious spot. SounderBruce 08:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please try and use the access-date parameter in {{cite GNIS}} to uphold verifiability. And again, Winthrop, Washington should not have had its mayor tagged in the infobox per WP:INFOBOXCITE. SounderBruce 19:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to come up with a better section title since petrology is a term that lots of people are not familiar with. Any ideas? Volcanoguy 17:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is a problem. The section and those following use lots of geologic terminology that the average Joe will be quite clueless about. Maybe "rock types"? but no, it is more than that. In a technical article you have to assume some understanding of the topic or get lost in a sea of explanatory jabber. And just maybe that average Joe might just look up a term and learn a bit in the process. :) Vsmith (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm wondering what the reasoning is behind your recent restoration of Gourd Creek and whether a new consensus that I'm not aware of that runs counter to that found at these two AfDs has been reached? Iseult ^Δx talk to me 00:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simple - it is a valid article about a real stream. The fact that a few deletionists don't like it is rather irrelevant. As far as I know Wiki isn't running out of room. But I suppose it will be gone again - seeing as no celebrity has been known to have fallen into it ... By the way do you watch all those deleted articles or have a bot for that? Cheers Vsmith (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having implemented the AfD's consensus, which I will again, I received a notification that my edit had been reverted. The revert notification, I suppose, has advanced in leaps and bounds. I also see that, upon looking through the revision history, that you have twice restored the article against AfD consensus. Could you explain why you did that then and now, and also what led you to restore this article three years after the last AfD? Iseult ^Δx talk to me 05:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simple: The stream exists and so should an article about it. But it appears that a bunch of deletionists don't like it for some reason. Aw well ... guess I should go find a celebrity to take a swim in it to make it "notable" ... Roll on ... Vsmith (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, your link to the "consensus" above doesn't work. Anyway, what if I write a new article about the stream based on USGS data and DeLorme atlas info. Or would that just be deleted as well? Vsmith (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Link fixed. I appreciate that you disagree with the results of these discussions, but that's consensus, whether you like it or not, and we all need to abide by consensus; otherwise, that's straightforwardly WP:IDHT. Did you keep this redirect in your back pocket for three years to be restored when everyone else had moved on?

If you write a new article about the stream that passes WP:GEOLAND, as the original article failed, of course that article will be kept, and I will be happy to vote keep on it if it does pop up at AfD. You've been on this site for twenty years and have more than 270k edits. You ought to be well aware of notability standards by this point.

As an aside, I did not, in fact, implement the consensus, as I had previously stated; nevertheless, I received a notification. I did not and do not watch that page in any way. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 23:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is that GNIS coordinates are nearly always arbitrary, and fail to point at the locations that they are supposed to. This is to be expected from a large government database, and such databases, even the better ones, run afoul of WP:PRIMARYUSE. A better option is OSM, although I am told it is against the rules to mass-import their data. In any case, it would be best to cease changing the coordinates in articles to GNIS coordinates without checking where they point. Abductive (reasoning) 07:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you edited the Cumberland, Maryland article to change the coordinates that pointed at city hall near the center of town to 39° 38′ 20″ N, 78° 44′ 30″ W. You used the edit summary "per gnis". But the GNIS source provided gives the coordinates as 39° 39' 5.79" N, 78° 45' 29.58" W. You made a similar edit to Tooele, Utah, claiming that GNIS had the coordinates at 40° 31′ 11″ N, 112° 16′ 41″ W, but GNIS lists 40° 32' 21.67" N, 112° 18' 29.63" W. Is there some reason for these errors? Abductive (reasoning) 11:44, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simple: for the Tooele example the GNIS lists a range of: 40-29-13.75 to 40-32-21.67 and 112-14-45.31 to 112-18-29.63 so I simply posted a quick average of the numbers to simplify. How would you recommend doing it? Vsmith (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GNIS says nothing about "city hall". Vsmith (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GNIS is a primary source database widely (and correctly) considered to be riddled with errors. In general it should not be used, especially when WP:Challenged. I and many other editors use OSM as the starting point of the coordinates, and I double check with Google Maps, Bing Maps, and occasionally Yahoo Maps to arrive at a consensus. Those sources do not agree with a crusty government database, and instead home in on the center of town (for example the intersection of North Main, South Main, East Vine and West Vine, which the government of Tooele named), or the town hall. Abductive (reasoning) 17:19, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I use GNIS data and edit a large number of community articles. If you disagree with the coords for any article, then simply provide an alternate source and data and explain your reasoning with the edit. It is really quite simple. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that you are taking an average of the coordinates for the town and nearby objects such as mountains, and putting that into the article instead of the coordinates GNIS gives for the town? That sounds like WP:OR. Abductive (reasoning) 01:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the GNIS data for Tooele, Utah, lists three coordinates; so my approach would be to either average the three or more likely simply use the middle value. Vsmith (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GNIS lists only 40° 32' 21.67" N, 112° 18' 29.63" W for Tooele. You put something else, which pointed up on a hill with nothing to do with the town. In any case, don't you think that it is strange that previous editors have never run a bot or something to change all the coordinates on Wikipedia to GNIS coordinates? That's because they are shoddy, and primary. Abductive (reasoning) 01:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, the gnis data for the City of Tooele (that I was looking at) lists three for some reason (two of those are in the mountainous area southeast of the town). Vsmith (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC) (and they are GNIS coordinates)[reply]

I have nominated Redshift for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _talk 04:16, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is anything you're interested in, but you're one of the editors with the greatest number of editors to the article, so I thought I'd notify you. Hog Farm _talk 04:16, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

your edit - in the future please use edit summary e.g., "used in text", because when reviewing recent edits my first urge was to revert yours, because you removed a perfectly relevant additional subject. --Altenmann >talk 17:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I see you're one of the top contributors on the geography page and have a background in geology. The sections for geology and planetary science need a bit of TLC and citations, if you have time/interest I'd appreciate some help flushing them out. If not, no harm, have a great day! GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there! I see that you removed Gabriel Riener from the listed mayor of Ferdinand, Idaho. I did happen to find a source, but... it's obsolete, as he hasn't been the mayor for at least a couple years. I've done a perfunctory Google search and cannot discern who holds the seat. BOTTO _(T•C) 23:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is often the problem with mayors or other politicians in wiki articles - someone adds a politician name with no source ... and doesn't "watch" the article to provide an update. So it goes ... --Vsmith (talk) 23:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I decided to revisit the topic once more and I actually found the Mayor, as of October 2023, so I added him. I've otherwise found no indication that it's anyone beside Ralph B. Wassmuth. BOTTO _(T•C) 19:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, for the articles of Jenkins_Creek_(Nodaway_River_tributary) and Owl_Creek_(Arapahoe_Creek_tributary) you added "|format=dms" to my coord template. I am happy to use that on future articles I update or create going forward. Is there somewhere that has formatting standards that says to use that? Thanks. SamuelNelsonGISP (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about "formatting standards", but it seems that essentially all articles providing coords do use "dms" rather than pure decimal degrees. Vsmith (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know; I haven't noticed that. I'll set it up like that going forward. SamuelNelsonGISP (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vsmith. I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	! NWSSupporter (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The coordinates you insert into the Boyden, Iowa pointed 70 km away from the town. How did this error occur? Abductive (reasoning) 09:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I used an average of the coords provided by the GNIS data for Boyden (43° 11' 20.82" N, 96° 0' 11.34" W and 43° 11' 23.44" N, 95° 59' 42.30" W). What reference are you using? Note: I am aware that the GNIS data can sometimes be in error. Vsmith (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked the Boyden topographic quadrangle map and the GNIS data is in agreement with it. So what is your source? Vsmith (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your coordinates pointed to a farm field in Turner County, South Dakota. As an admin, suppose there was a user who kept adding incorrect information on, say, the area of towns to Wikipedia. This user keeps making errors and even when it is pointed out them, they continue, even admitting that the source they use has errors. But then they start making even larger errors, and don't even see how what they entered is incorrect. As an admin, what would you do? Abductive (reasoning) 16:07, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The coords I provided agree with the USGS topo of the region and the Delorme atlas of Iowa and were an average of the data provided by the GNIS. I have double checked and the coords point to Boyden, Iowa. Vsmith (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, have you looked at the article history? I corrected the coordinates. You seem to again be saying that you are engaging in WP:OR by averaging datapoints from a deeply flawed primary source, and then entering such OR incorrectly. Abductive (reasoning) 16:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ha "deeply flawed" ... we seem to disagree a bit ... Vsmith (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was it your method of averaging coordinates that caused the error? Abductive (reasoning) 10:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I took another look and yeah - I was in error. My apologies. Vsmith (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2025).

Administrator changes

• DDima
• Gimmetrow
• Huon
• Johan Elisson
• Spangineer
• The Land

Interface administrator changes

0xDeadbeef

CheckUser changes

L235

Oversight changes

L235

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to determine whether the English Wikipedia community should adopt a position on AI development by the WMF and its affiliates.

Technical news

• A new feature called Multiblocks will be deployed on English Wikipedia on the week of June 2. See the relevant announcement on the administrators' noticeboard.
• History merges performed using the mergehistory special page are now logged at both the source and destination, rather than just the source as previously, after this RFC and the resolution of T118132.

Arbitration

• An arbitration case named Indian military history has been opened. Evidence submissions for this case close on 8 June.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 17 June 2025. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!
• An Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in June 2025, with over 1,600 drafts awaiting review from the past two months. In addition to AfC participants, all administrators and new page patrollers can help review using the Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
• The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in June 2025 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

Why would you delete the notable person of Air Force Lt. Colonel Ronald Eugene Stein? Was it because there were no references?

He is a Vietnam Hero who was awarded a Silver Star.

The Silver Star Medal is the United States Armed Forces' third-highest military decoration for valor in combat. He received the Silver Star in Vietnam for saving his commanders life.

Ronald was born in Roberts. He grew up and went to high school in Roberts. He met his wife in high school in Roberts. He is buried in the Roberts Cemetery.

Here are your references: https://www.heraldandnews.com/obituaries/stein-ronald/article_38f7741b-01bc-5cce-862f-942afe4b55ce.html

https://captainbillywalker.com/war-stories/the-chu-lai-incident/

veterantoveteran.com

Please put him back in the Notable People section.

Mark Baker Mmssrbaker (talk) 04:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there were no references at the time. You are free to add his name back into the article with your references. Vsmith (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I understand now that I needed references. I have added it back with three references. Mmssrbaker (talk) 04:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I see you have edited Winnsboro, South Carolina, a few years ago, and that you edit a lot of US city articles. Would you have a moment to look at the edit history at Winnsboro? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 10:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed the some of the notable folks were removed. While some of those could be argued to be not that notable, the removal of Dennis Kouhns, the only serviceman from Ogden to be killed in the Vietnam War, would not be one. Curious as to what was wrong with the reference other than I possibly did a poor job of citing? The reference was out of the Ogden Reporter if I am remembering correctly. I did just come across an article that the Des Moines Register ran at the time of Kouhns' funeral. If you feel the Reporter ref was not up to snuff, are you good with adding Kouhns back in with a ref to the Register? Thanks for your consideration. THX1136 (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An aside that just popped into my brain. What brought you to the Ogden Iowa article? Curiosity, nothing more. Hope all is well.THX1136 (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was part of a general update I did on Iowa cities. Feel free to add Kouhns back in ... he doesn't have a WP article (likely the reason I removed his listing). Vsmith (talk) 11:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I served in Vietnam with the USMC from Sept. 65 through May '67. Vsmith (talk) 11:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Thank you for your service also. I will likely dig up the Register article again and possibly the Reporter also, citing both. Hope all is well. THX1136 (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2025).

Administrator changes

NuclearWarfare

Interface administrator changes

L235

Guideline and policy news

• Following a talk page discussion, speedy deletion criterion G13 has been amended to remove "Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text."
• WP:Manual of Style/Superscripts and subscripts was upgraded to a guideline following a RfC discussion.

Miscellaneous

• The 2025 Developing Countries WikiContest will run from 1 July to 30 September. Sign up now!
• Administrator elections will take place this month. Administrator elections are an alternative to RFA that is a gentler process for candidates due to secret voting and multiple people running together. The call for candidates is July 9–15, the discussion phase is July 18–22, and the voting phase is July 23–29. Get ready to submit your candidacy, or (with their consent) to nominate a talented candidate!

Hello. I was looking around at Wikipedia:Database Reports and a block of yours caught my eye. You blocked User:Buplish for 3 years, which gave it a mention on a section about unusually long user blocks. I'm not sure if it even matters that much, but based off your block message, it seems you meant to indef them. Considering they kept spewing nonsense on their talk page after the fact, they might decide to come back and add more crud once the block ends. Lynch44 01:56, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]