User talk:Materialscientist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hello material scientist , this is mr Clive Atwell you remove information I my self place on my bio page kindly replace it as everything that was posted are true , my email address is Cliveatwell@yahoo.com you can email me and I'll be please to send you a more indent bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjuniora (talkcontribs) 22:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand how the system work it would be appreciated if you can direct me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjuniora (talkcontribs) 22:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks for maintaining the quality of Wikipedia articles! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Just wanted to let you know that I really appreciate your work, for several reasons, one being that you cover highly viewed areas (particularly India related), where most contributions of anons and new editors are yet substandard, while the number of curating regulars is too low. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 03:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Magomed Aripgadjiev may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • com/olympics/athletes/ar/magomed-aripgadzhiyev-1.html Magomed Aripgadzhiyev]. sports-reference]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Chris Park correction[edit]

Hello, here is a reference for you. You were mistaken in the spelling of Chris Park's name: http://resumes.actorsaccess.com/chrispark

Talk:Operation Protective Edge[edit]

92.222.153.153 (talk · contribs) is back as 62.244.31.16 (talk · contribs) Would you be willing to impart temperary semi-protection to Talk:Operation Protective Edge? Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 07:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Jddjdjcjcjcjcj block[edit]

Please add talk page access to your block of user:Jddjdjcjcjcjcj. He's adding the ad link back as his unblock request now. Meters (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Materialscientist (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
You feature at Jimbo's talk. By the way, YGM. Johnuniq (talk) 10:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Rangeblocks[edit]

Re: Jimbo's talk

To be honest, it's not too difficult for those with the tools to determine whether a rangeblock would cause unnecessarily high collateral damage. Personally, I have denied many rangeblock requests after checking the activity of a range. Best ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

My apologies - I see that you did run a check this time. However, given the limited scope of this vandal, wouldn't an edit filter or semi protection be less disruptive? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I've just got back online and will have a look (I don't recall seeing much constructive from anons on that range, but maybe I've missed some). Note that this is a soft block; the spammer has been targeting the Marciano talk page too, for quite some time; and this range has a history of abuse. Materialscientist (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I followed the link to see what new crime Materialscientist has committed. I have to admit that the intemperate language of the complainant just turned me off immediately: whatever the ins and outs of the complaint, going at it like that just weakens it and makes it look infantile. Just saying. DBaK (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

General notes to DoRD. CU scan is not supposed to be used for common IP rangeblocks. There is a tool showing range contribs that you can activate in preferences, but it is clumsy as it doesn't sort contribs by date. This one was much better, and I use it every time I rangeblock (your "this time" comment goes astray). This tool was great when it was maintained by various users at the Toolsever, but upon its recent migration to wmflabs it was restricted in scanning depth, to reduce the server load. I've talked to HelloAnnyong about this, xe said xe'll have a look. Ping'em if you are interested, and you should be. As to 172.56.0.0/18, it is extremely rare to have this and that complaints after my block. Fishy. Someone is hit, and you might have seen that in the CU scan (I have no history with users on that range). Materialscientist (talk) 23:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you. I'm not sure why you say that CU shouldn't be used for rangeblocks - busy ranges such as this should almost always be checked for collateral damage before blindly blocking them. At any rate, the only experience I have with this particular range is from the numerous account creation requests from the range that I've had to run checks for. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
It is simple: when admins issue regular IP rangeblocks they don't usually need to know about accounts on this range - the blocks either affect only IPs (softblock as in this case), or prevent account creation in the future (anonblock). Thus IP range contribution tools are sufficient (when they work). Materialscientist (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Even when it works as designed, the range contribution tool is very limited, particularly when dealing with wide, busy ranges, and it is useless for determining appropriate rangeblock length. The tool may be sufficient for a narrow, lightly-trafficked range, but when you get to busy /18s and /16s, it is decidedly not sufficient. One only has to spend a short time processing the ACC CheckUser queue to understand what I'm talking about. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Please excuse me if my comments overlap with DoRD, I read this before he responded. I also disagree that CU is not to be used for collateral checks. Of course if we are talking about a /24 of a semi-dynamic US ISP then it really isn't required, but when we jump to the MAN /16 or /17 level, then a check is recommended especially if it's a mobile network because you will be affecting thousands of customers. The abuse needs to be proportional to the number of good edits, or higher. India, is a completely different story also, which I won't cover on WP:BEANS in this location. Far to often do I see 5-6 requests made at ACC in which are from the same /16 or /17, and I CU it and either get "Too many results to display anything, please narrow the range" or I can't make heads or tails of what the original block target is, risking letting them back in anyway. Also determining how big a range actually is as easy as grabbing DomainTools Whois and looking for the shortest range, comparing it with the CU results, and creating the narrowest block possible while hitting most of the abuse. Blocking administrators should really look at this information before they hit block, otherwise they could be targeting another ISP in another city also. I know we can't attain perfection on that, but I like to try. Disclaimer: I come here not because of Jimbo's talk, I don't watch it, but because I follow this talkpage, so I have no foreknowledge of the incidents at hand. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 04:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I went and actually read the thread and came back to make one additional comment. If you look in the log for that range, you see I modified the block to say <!-- ACC ignore -->. That means the range was too big to block, and we could tell what was the original target, or can't tell the difference between one person or another. There is more I could say on this subject, but again WP:BEANS. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 04:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
(EC, yes, I didn't and don't know the range and used the history of edits).

DoRD and DeltaQuad, I think you misunderstand my comment and use CU scan to get range contributions from IPs. This is adequate for SPI cases or hard rangeblocks, but not for IP contributions, because those can be extracted from publicly available logs with a proper script, without and time and length limitations of CU logs (sorry if I'm telling the obvious, but ..). To imagine such a script, look here [1]. When this script was hosted at the Toolserver, results were paginated by sets of 50, and their number was enough for many months long evaluation. (I don't recall any limit there. Then the Toolserver died, and the results got limited to 30. We've lost functionality in many, many Toolserver tools, but this can be recovered, I believe.) Materialscientist (talk) 04:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

To speak about the current IP address we are dealing with, since 10 months ago, 153 requests have come in to WP:ACC. Also the range can't even be CU'd there are so many contributions to it. It means within the normal CU expiry time (won't state here) or less 5000 edits or log entries have been made from that range. Your edits that you are trying to block maybe cover 5-10% of that. So we are currently blocking 4500 legitimate edits, saying they need to create an account first. Furhtermore, the range is a mobile network, which would be the hardest to create a new account. Most people will give up before even starting. I think it's inappropriate for us to block such a large range for such a long time. If we absolutely need to stop the vandalism because it is taking a boat load of reverts, if all other options are exhausted, then ok for a 24-72 hour period to let things cool down. We can also do multiple smaller rangeblocks if needed. For example if you look at 172.56.32.0/22, there is someone who was adding spam (at least at glance) to talk pages. If we CU that /22, we find that yes, a lot of the logged out edits are the target of such blocks, but we also have several hundred user accounts, indicating a busy range. I personally would only block such a range for a short period of time. I just think there are more options than just blocking this whole /18, like maybe requesting an edit filter related to this range. If you would like some assistance in formulating a new rangeblock, I'd be happy to assist, but right now I don't exactly understand what your targeting. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok. Unblocked. Let us see. There is one thing I don't understand - why do we AGF from any ACC requests coming from a blocked range, and evaluate the potentially productive activity from their number? Materialscientist (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Because of the multiple people on a range, we tend to look for the identifying useragent that was targeted for the block. Sometimes that is impossible, or not a 100% match, so we can't figure out for sure if the person requesting the account is in fact the blocked user to complete certainty. This is why we AGF. The more someone socks, the harder it is for them to get through ACC. Could you restate your "evaluate the potentially productive activity from their number" question? I don't follow. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

human Average height - juan00000000[edit]

hello you send me a message I did made some changes in the chart because I had prove before I did it. If I'm not right please contact me and explain it to me


material wqhatever who is this. sh*ts annoying. Go f*ck yourself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.154.220 (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Mistake[edit]

You removed my edit with Nigeria's coat of arms and I was also removing excessive information about slavery Jaqoc (talk) 08:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

changes to Michael Berube's wikipedia page[edit]

Hi-- I'm Michael Berube, and I've been having trouble-- here and elsewhere-- with someone who seems to have developed one of those unhealthy internet obsessions. To gauge by the talk page for the entry on me, it has something to do with Rebecca Schuman.

I don't write material for my wikipedia page-- I didn't know it existed for its first few years-- but because it is now part of my public profile, I try to keep it professional, so from time to time I check in to ward off vandalism. The recent changes about Regis High School, the war in Iraq, and my essay on the GRE seem to me inappropriate, to varying degrees. Much of the new material on my high school seems fine, if someone is interested in my childhood (I don't know how many wiki entries on professors mention their high schools), but one user's insistence on using the term "feeder school," with a footnote to something not available online, seems excessive. The material on Iraq seems to have come from someone (again, to go by the talk page) who cannot understand how someone could have opposed that war while being critical of others on the left, and at one point it was simply inaccurate. And the paragraph on my essay on the GRE just seems silly-- really, of the 200-odd essays I have written, that trifle gets a paragraph to itself?

Sorry about not marking my changes last time. But I am getting weary of this back-and-forth, and I forgot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.7.105 (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

A cupcake for you![edit]

Choco-Nut Bake with Meringue Top cropped.jpg Thanks for help CutestPenguin {talkcontribs} 11:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Omar Khadr[edit]

Toronto-born Khadr has not been seen since October 2010, when he pleaded guilty before a panel of military jurors in Guantanamo to five war crimes. The Pentagon plea deal gave him an 8-year sentence and chance to return to Canada. So I changed Canadian citizen to Canadian terrorist. He plead guilty to war crimes, I rest my case. People try to say he was so hard done by what about Christopher Speer? Remember him? Canadian of convenience, nothing more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.195.63 (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

WHAT?[edit]

this computer is used by different people inside this internet lab located in our school's library. what edit thing are you talking about? did you made a mistake deleting an article that looks like "fake" and edited by this IP address? what article is that all about? i want to know it. i'm one of the many different users here. and how would you know if that article is vandalized? you better message other IP address , Materialscientist, i guess you've made a wrong move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.78.87.196 (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Problem IPs[edit]

Would you mind assisting with the problems caused by these IPs...

They are all vandalism only accounts operating from the same location and adding the same passage of vandalism to various seafood articles. Thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll watch them and try to help, otherwise nothing to do now (IP hopping over vast ranges). Materialscientist (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

f(x)[edit]

Hi MaterialScientist, can you take a look at this [[2]]. User "Jnfj8r78r" kept on editing out a member of this group and considered her as a past member, when the official news has been announced that she is only on hiatus right now. I reverted his/her posts a few times, but I don't want to start an edit warring. Thanks,--TerryAlex (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

There is some "vandalism" going on at f(x) (band). Thanks.--TerryAlex (talk) 02:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thailand Gross domestic product 2013, PPP[edit]

References http://databank.worldbank.org/data/download/GDP_PPP.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.44.36.48 (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Vietnamvat[edit]

Hello. I'd be very interested to know why, on 25 February 2014, you deleted my User page. It states: "25 February 2014 Materialscientist (talk | contribs) deleted page User:Vietnamvat (G3: Vandalism)". I'm mystified as to why you did this. Thank you so much.

Disruptive talk page edits[edit]

Looks like Thebitc Has Smotherfrickin (talk · contribs) continues to make disruptive pages at own talk page. The user is continuing to save edits with disruptive edit summaries as well so they can get revision deleted. Eyesnore (pc) 01:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Team Barnstar Hires.png The Teamwork Barnstar
Thanks man. we need more people like u see ya!
Why u wanna know ma name (talk) 06:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Dogaintagod[edit]

Hi, it seems that Fernando-the-King is active in these days (see Nico Rosberg history) through IPs (e.g. 111.92.6.160 today) and likely socks (e.g. Dogaintagod): could you take some action against it? Thanks, –Gpmat (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I was carried away yesterday. I've blocked Dogaintagod and a few sleeping accounts. Materialscientist (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Canneto fires[edit]

Back in the news.[3]. You seem to be the only active editor at Caronia. Dougweller (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the humor (maybe too hot down here). Never edited that page. Materialscientist (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)