User talk:Materialscientist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:NIMSoffice)
Jump to: navigation, search

Ram Gopal Varma[edit]

Hello again, any chance you could protect the above, currently under attack? Many thanks. Denisarona (talk) 06:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

== A beer for you! Hello material scientist today you have edited the page Delhi police. But iam very sad and held you responsible for deleting what I edited in the page Delhi police. Because I have given enough sources for what I have edited in the page Delhi police. But it seems that without verifying my sources you have deleted my edition of the page. You are not an Indian then how much you knows about the Delhi police? Iam warning you that in future please ask me before deleting my Wikipedia edited pages or lines. Otherwise I have to take strong action against you.

New[edit]

I need your help admin sir plz visit the article talk page of Siege of Sirhind I have a doubt regarding the article Shah439 (talk) 08:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Richard Dreyfus[edit]

Hi there....you asked for the source regarding my addition to the article on Richard Dreyfus - I was watching Larry King show (april 24 in Russia (that is today)- maybe it was on 23 april in USA) on RT and heard mr.Dreyfus words myself , so I just added it to the wiki article - I think it was very interesting info that he said - how can I provide a source for that? - you probably can get video of that show on RT site? - as an editor you may be more interested in updating the stuff that you are editing - I am just an ordinary person, sorry - it is up to you wether to update the article or not. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.252.74.147 (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Rasulnrasul. I noticed that you recently removed some content from All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — Preceding undated comment added 13:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla[edit]

Why not add pending changes? It's been protected many times. --George Ho (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow the logic. It's been protected many times because of persistent vandalism, and thus pending changes would only increase the load on reviewers. PC is efficient in low-traffic articles and/or where IPs bring useful updates (like footballers, etc.). Here the knowledge is stable, but there is an infinite flow of personal opinions on the priority of his inventions. Materialscientist (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The article can be semi-protected and pending changes simultaneously (especially when semi-protection expires). --George Ho (talk) 02:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Technically we can do that, but usually we don't do that. Materialscientist (talk) 06:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen‎[edit]

Why are you deleting content without stating any reason and without replying to previous warning. --Rasulnrasul (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Probably not my place to butt in, but I just looked at the edit in question and the edit he removed was unsourced and poorly formatted. So he is not in the wrong. Yes maybe there should have been something in the edit desciption, but the revert was valid.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 19:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Question about way to deal with reports[edit]

Hi, and thanks for the enormous amount of work you put into Wikipedia! I don't even know how you find time for it all, but it's very much appreciated. One thing I've been wondering about for quite some time, and it's not particularly related to you but to how admins deal with reports. Most pages where reports are filed, be it vandalism or edit warring or page protection or something similar, it seems most admins start with the latest report rather than with the oldest. This creates quite large discrepancies, I've noticed, where some reports are dealt with in a matter of minutes while others linger for hours or even days. I'm no admin but I have quite a bit on experience on user psychology and process treatment, and this practice of starting with the latest rather than the oldest almost certainly plays a part in the backlogs that often arise. It's humanly natural to think "Hm, that has been there a while, it can wait" and so no admin touches it, just focusing on the most recent report as well. That is, if admins function like normal human beings, and I believe it's the case ;) There can of course be other reasons (I could think of several on the top of my head), but all things considered, weighing pros and cons, it would probably be beneficial for the project as a whole if admins dealt with reports on a FIFO rather than a FILO basis. Just a thought. Keep up the good work!Jeppiz (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

"(2015)" vandal[edit]

Back as 2602:306:25A5:88E9:80F8:367D:FA5C:261A (talk · contribs) --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 03:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This one 2602:306:25A5:8459:B829:A3B4:8593:A767 (talk · contribs) just showed up. It has been reported at AIV so it might be blocked by the time you see this. MarnetteD|Talk 17:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Pasir putih[edit]

I think it needs to be made clearer why Pasir putih was deleted, especially if someone wants to re-create the article. Its a place that should have an article. -- haminoon (talk) 06:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It was not deleted, and its content can be easily restored by any editor. That said, it was a test page that shouldn't be restored without a cleanup. Materialscientist (talk) 06:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Rapid vandalism account[edit]

Would you mind looking into Bobbertybob over on WP:AIV when you have a chance? Thanks! Interference 541 (talk) 06:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I did, and it is not a clear-cut case. The editor is aggressive, but not unreasonable. I guess he/she edited a lot before as an IP. Materialscientist (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Death Threats[edit]

Materialscientist, can we get this user's contributions removed from public view? Thanks! - Amaury (talk) 06:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done by Gogo Dodo. Mlpearc (open channel) 06:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mlpearc: Looks like one was missed. :) - Amaury (talk) 06:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
@Gogo Dodo: ^ ^ Ping. Mlpearc (open channel) 06:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I left it because Nishidani chose to respond to the troll. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Change to an article[edit]

Hi

you said to let you know if i disagree with an article change or think you made a mistake. My problem is I can't add a citation because I don't know which article you are referring to or how to find it.

Thanks

119.235.71.78 (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

World Race[edit]

The information on the Hot Wheels World Race page is completely wrong. Please revert it back to the changes I undid, so the team names are "Wave Rippers, Dune Ratz", not "Cheese Cutters, etc." Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gclark23 (talkcontribs) 05:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Yes check.svg Done thanks! - NQ (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Possum picture[edit]

Hi, I've noticed you've reverted my picture of the Australian possum because you said the other one had better contrast. If you prefer I can adjust the contrast of mine or I have others if you want to look at them, but I think it would be better to have a day picture rather than a night picture with the flash, as the colours are more real etc. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iacchi86 (talkcontribs) 08:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Trichosurus vulpecula 1.jpg is a much cleaner shot for composition and lack of distracting details; night/day colors are a weak argument. I won't change contrast in your image, because it won't help much. Materialscientist (talk) 08:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Well-overdue thanks[edit]

Hello MS, I was just looking through the revision history of my user page and (for the first time) noticed this little matter, and wanted to thank you for the block that followed. It seems from the vandals contribs it was one of a number of socks of a troll that has been hounding Johnny Cash for ages under both IP and a string of quickly-blocked auto-confirmed accounts. On a side note, I took a looking at that article when look at said contribs, and it would seem the vandalism has continued unabated in the intervening months. I'd say the page could benefit from some semi-protection until the vandal gives up and goes away, but honestly he'll just create more socks to block. Tedious this one is. But anyway, thank you for the swift action on that! Snow let's rap 08:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

User talk:50.46.123.24 (ON THE CATALYTIC OXIDATION OF AMMONIA TO NITROUS OXIDE)[edit]

Dear "Material Scientist"

Why did you revert my change to the "Nitrous Oxide" Article; I deleted the"Ostwald” part/ link about oxidizing ammonia to nitrous oxide? You are clearly ignorant on the topic. An Ostwald oxidation is a process for making NO (Nitric Oxide). It is NOT a practical way to manufacture N2O (Nitrous Oxide). (Although it can produce some small amount of N2O as an unwanted byproduct, apparently). There is a special catalyst system for which you can prep N20 from ammonia using a completely different catalyst; see the footnote alluding to the Japanese patent. One might think that a “Material Scientist” might have caught the catalyst difference; and it’s implications?). I don’t know if the process ever became commercially viable. I made no note on why I did the “Ostwald” deletion because it did not occur to me that someone would just blindly revert back to a gross error!

I was the original author of at least the bulk of the ‘preparation’ section of the article years ago. What little was there before was grossly inadequate and misleading; (dangers of the process were not emphasized). Much of what I wrote was inspired by the master-work N20, Nitrous Oxide/N20 by Edmond Eger II, Elsevier, 1985: (A copy of which I am holding right now.) My entry about the oxidation of NH3 to N20 was inspired by that text; page 29. The footnote to the Japanese patent appears correct. I have been in chemistry since the seventies, I had spent many weeks in academic libraries studying N20 production, hazards and toxicity years before Dr. Egers published his great book; pulling a lot of what I already knew and more into one source. Me and my main partner in crime actually ran the pyrolysis of ammonium nitrate to nitrous oxide prep reaction at a kilogram scale multiple times; but that was decades ago, before Oklahoma City. . . It not a trivial thing to avoid blowing your self up, starting fires and otherwise poisoning your self with this process. That is why I wrote the article. To discourage amateurs from lightly going stumbling into, almost literally, a minefield without proper knowledge and skills.

In the last several years all sort of stupid little changes were made to article, degrading it from what I consider my superior original; which was very carefully thought out based both on study and practical experience. Nobody seemed to be policing the article then for all those lame changes? Such as why did this dink put in this totally obscure HISTORICAL reference to some unknown guy in Jersey that I never heard of making nitrous first. This was a process/prep section; not a history section!? And on an on. . .including deletions. But I just bit my lip and shined. Until this gross error.

So check out the facts before you just jump on a change. Maybe when this happens somebody actually knew better. Edit things you actually know about; (or at least don’t if your not gonna even spend 5 minutes on Google checking out the basics facts)

Paul

Try to be more careful, i.e., when deleting text don't break the prose flow and leave an ample edit summary. I don't object what you're saying, but it's not that clear either - the article was saying "cf. Ostwald process", not that the Ostwald process was used for the production. Materialscientist (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Material Scientist:

I get it now. I see your point. It's the use and meaning of the abbreviatin of "cf." I had never seen this abbreveiation and neither had my wife; and this this after reading many hundreds of peer reveiwed articles.

This is way too obscure and I think most readers would just assume that the Ostwald hyperlink links to the actual japanese process. Come-on! a rare latin abbreviation for "confer" is gonna be generally known to mean "compare" or "contrast!" Wikipedia is lately becoming the opposite of concise and clear, all over the place in general, by the use of the use of rare and obscure vocabulary, jargon and abbeviations. This is Obfuscation not Edification.

Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.123.24 (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Cf. is one of those few Latin abbreviations/words that are very common in (scientific) literature. I do encounter it daily. Materialscientist (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Declined AIV?[edit]

You removed a report in this edit. Can you please explain why you declined TheRealSingapore's report? Two level 4 warnings and a block by Bishonen seemed sufficient to me. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Their edit did not seem like blatant vandalism to me, and I guess some other admins would say the same. You can re-report, but I'd ask Bishonen instead. Materialscientist (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Since then they've done more. I've given another warning. I'll report if it continues. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Muscovite[edit]

I am writing to you, as you have been prolific editor of the above page, and a basic error needs to be corrected, perhaps preferably by active contributors of the article.

The error is that this article is a duplication of a much more extensive and complete article under the title of Mica, a duplication, which is unnecessary and creates confusion.

I would like to suggest, that the two articles be merged and either the Muscovite article, or the MIca article to become a redirection. Regards, LouisBB (talk) 06:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Muscovite is a mineral from the mica class; contrary to mica, it has well-defined properties, as can be seen in the infobox. Also, while muscovite is exclusively mineral, mica is also a well-known electronic material. I don't think it is reasonable to merge any of these articles. Materialscientist (talk) 06:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. In the article 'mica' is mentionned but not in the taxobox, nor as the group of minerals in which muscovite belongs. Perhaps this ought to be included, especially as 'muscovite' is mentionned in the 'mica' article as one of the two most important mica-s. LouisBB (talk) 09:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Bain & Co report is inappropriate?[edit]

Hi Materialscientist, you rolled back https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diamonds_as_an_investment&diff=cur&oldid=659147008 . The referenced report published by Bain & Co (http://www.bain.com/) details out many aspects that are very relevant to the topic of this article. Bain & Co as a reference is appropriate, and I therefore would ask you to reassess your decision. Maybe you reverted this edit due to the second link which was included as an example. If that was the case, then could the edit be reinstated without this last link? You also reverted a few other edits. All of them are factual, I can provide alternative sources/references if needed. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamantexpert (talkcontribs) 07:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

My reverts aimed not at the edits, but at the external links you added - bain.com pages are spam by the standards of this wiki (see WP:SOAP). Materialscientist (talk) 07:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick answer. A report by bain.com was already cited and still is reference number 3 in this same https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamonds_as_an_investment . Bain & Co is one of the Big Three management consulting firms, their reports are cited throughout many industries. If the problem is the format of the reference (PDF vs web page), then the full report that I was referring to can be downloaded at http://www.bain.com/Images/BAIN_REPORT_The_Global_Diamond_Report_2014.pdf . Would this PDF version be acceptable for this wiki? I did not see anything in WP:SOAP that disqualifies Bain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bain_%26_Company) from being cited as a source? Just trying to be helpful here, I am new to wikipedia and wish to contribute my expertise in the specific industry of interest. (BTW i did not find how to reply to your reply, therefore appended as an edit this section) Diamantexpert (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


Masta Wu article[edit]

Hey, could you revert Masta Wu to what it was before the trolls attacked it? The most current troll free version is april 24th 13:43 made by the masta wu user. Thanks

(talk page stalker) Prior to doing so, you might have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masta Wu. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for move to main space[edit]

Can you kindly move this User:Nvvchar/sandbox/ Podyjí National Park to the main article Podyjí National Park?--Nvvchar. 10:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. Materialscientist (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey Materialscientist![edit]

I want to know something, the reason why you set page protections to expire in 2016 instead of 2015, I want to know why, thanks to me if you tell me a reason! 216.145.89.11 (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Hi I just undid a revision you had done to Bangladesh as the change you had done had changed the GDP figures Engine Gone Loco (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Please examine the changes and the cited reference for GDP figures. Materialscientist (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)