User talk:Materialscientist

Please leave your message at the bottom of this page. I shall reply wherever you prefer (my usual habit is to reply here if the answer is short). If I replied on your talk page it means I am watching it, and there is no need to add {{talkback}} template or quote the previous message.

=Mudarahmed

in nanocrystals or in bulk crystals the inner core starts after three to four layers and its structure is to have a constant lattice parameters in the both nano and bulk. the nano case has slightly larger lattice constant. this phenomenon is validated experimentally and theoretically see references in Mudar A. Abdulsattar, ‘Size effects of semiempirical large unit cell method in comparison with nanoclusters properties of diamond-structured covalent semiconductors’, Physica E 41, 1679 (2009). this phenomenon is not influenced by surface tension of any surface effects since the core part is a way from the surface by more than three layers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mudarahmed (talk • contribs) 05:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC) One of the publications in the subject is in physical review (b)(Mudar A. Abdulsattar and Khalil H. Al-Bayati, ‘Corrections and parameterization of semiempirical large unit cell method for covalent semiconductors’, Phys. Rev. B 75, 245201 (2007)) which has an impact factor 3.5 also the number of publications on the subject is now more than 5 publications with the same number pending with reviewers. such number of publications means that this subject was evaluated carefully by many reviewers and has good bases to be believed in. other publications are: N.H. Aysa, M.A. Abdulsattar, A.M. Abdul-Lettif, 'Electronic structure of germanium nanocrystals core and (001)-(1×1) oxidised surface', Micro & Nano Letters 6, 137 (2011). Noor A. Nama, Mudar A. Abdulsattar, and Ahmed M. Abdul-Lettif, 'Surface and Core Electronic Structure of Oxidized Silicon Nanocrystals', J. of Nanomater. 2010, 952172 (2010) Mudar A. Abdulsattar, 'Mesoscopic Fluctuations of Electronic Structure Properties of Boron Phosphide Nanocrystals', Electron. Mater. Lett. 6, 97 (2010). Mudar A. Abdulsattar, ‘Size effects of semiempirical large unit cell method in comparison with nanoclusters properties of diamond-structured covalent semiconductors’, Physica E 41, 1679 (2009). most of nano journals are new journals which explain their law impact factor. self-citation can be ruled out by the number of publications on the subject. deleting the information added to the wiki will make the information in the wikipedia not up to date, incomplete and deficient. in addition I do not think you are specialized enough in the precise subject under investigation to make the dicision to delete the present information. finally pardon me for defending what is right for the wikipedia. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mudarahmed (talk • contribs) 05:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Here some references about the experimental part that agree with the theory: C. Wen, Z.H. Jin, X.X. Liu, X. Li, J.Q. Guan, D.Y. Sun, Y.R. Lin, S.Y. Tang, G. Zhou, J.D. Lin, Guang Pu Xue Yu Guang Pu Fen Xi 5 (2005) 681. Olga A. Shenderova, Dieter M. Gruen, Ultrananocrystalline Diamond: Synthesis, Properties, and Applications, 1st edition, William Andrew Inc., 2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mudarahmed (talk • contribs) 05:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC) please follow this link to see the first experemental reference http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16128062 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mudarahmed (talk • contribs) 10:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC) for zin-blende see the reference Author(s): Liu ZG, Bai YJ, Cui DL, Hao XP, Wang LM, Wang QL, Xu XG

Source: JOURNAL OF CRYSTAL GROWTH Volume: 242 Issue: 3-4 Pages: 486-490 Published: JUL 2002 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mudarahmed (talk • contribs) 11:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK question

Hello Materialscientist, I'd like to ask you a question please. I wrote 2 new articles, and nominated those for DYK in April Fools' Day holding area. Do I have to nominate them in a regular DYK too in case they are not promoted for April 1? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You can copy an April 1 nomination to the regular DYK suggestion page, but with a clear disclaimer that you're unsure whether it fits April 1 and thus nominated in both places. But, then be prepared that someone can promote it regularly, and then it will not be available for April 1. Materialscientist (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Neon and an IP vandal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:72.9.29.34 not only vandalized neon, but did it starting with an indef pagemove! Clearly this is an old and very experienced vandal. That account needs killing, and neon needs sprotection.SBHarris 18:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Steven, there is no use getting mad with vandals - you'll burn yourself too soon. All edits of that IP were reverted in a second, and blocking it is useless because they edited for a few minutes and will hardly ever return to that IP (if they will, they get blocked though). We can always revert anything. Blocking and semiprotection are last-resort measures. Materialscientist (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm already burned out. I do see your point on "single edit" IPs who are sometimes rotating IP vandals moving on, but often they are not. School IPs are coddled. As for articles, I frankly disagree with you. It took 2 hours 40 minutes to sprotect 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami, as though nobody could figure out that it wouldn't be a high profile place for a hundred IP users to annouce that Godzilla is loose in Japan again. What, nobody saw that coming? Doh! Actually, it is simply that an old idiot policy is loose on Wikipedia, again. One that holds that anybody should be able to immediately edit anything, until a tidal wave of bad edits forces us to admit how bad an idea, that is. I do actually have a sense of humor, you know, but enough is enough. About the 10th time I hear it, no joke is as funny as it was.SBHarris 01:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

(i) We do have attacks on some (random) articles every day, and sometimes, on weekends especially, there might be no admin around. If you notice an attack (vandal edits at a rate above ~5/hour, just post something at WP:AIV and someone will take care of it quick. (ii) We sometimes foresee 4chan attacks, but usually act when its there - no use living in fear, some highly visible pages get a lot of help while on the main page. (iii) A very efficient vandal fighting procedure is to bring an article to FA/GA level. Then the vandalism is much easier to spot/revert (or lock the article), and, strangely, well-written articles just don't get vandalized so much, for whatever reason (my experience, say, with diamond and synthetic diamond). Your help is really invaluable in this process (I mean fixing science). Materialscientist (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

DEADCAT April Fools

Hi Materialscientist, I was going to review your nom for Diethyl azodicarboxylate in the April Fools DYK, but the article still needs to be expanded alot. I think that the hooks people have suggested are great and it would work well with April Fools, but the article needs work. My main issues are the expanded length, and that the article does not say it is called "DEADCAT" only "DEAD". I really hope you can get this one expanded, it would be great!--Found5dollar (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Expanded. Materialscientist (talk) 11:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

hardness

Thanks for responding to my request for expert verification in hardness and Mohs scale of mineral hardness, but please provide more support for and information about your edits in both those articles and on their talk pages.

In any case, removing information taken from a serious publication like Nature (and even removing the reference to it!) is a very bad idea. I can understand that you probably have the article at your disposal and can provide a better summary or that it was even summarized incorrectly, but don't simply remove it. Worse still, simply claiming that a Nature article is opinion definitely looks very suspicious, at the least. In addition, please explain both in the articles and on the talk pages why the existence of nanodiamond would not indeed require an adjustment of the Mohs scale if nanodiamond is indeed harder than normal diamond since the scale now ends at the hardness of normal diamond. Thanks, Espoo (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for delay, I have posted a brief explanation at those talks as you asked. In brief, it is a pure speculation added long ago by a banned editor. The cited reference does not say anything like that. I can email you the article if you wish. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Aluminium selenide

Hi there. The structure image you created shows heavy JPG compression artifacts. Could you please upload an improved version (PNG file to Commons)? Thank you. --Leyo 17:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

My first drawings were all clumsy like that an I am gradually fixing them. Can't do that now, will do later. Materialscientist (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no particular hurry. :-) --Leyo 09:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

pH

Hi, thanks for the edits on the section I just rewrote on the pH page. Very nice edits. I understand why you changed "-" to "−", but why did you change "≫" to ">>"? I thought I was doing the right thing by using "≫". Cheers! Klortho (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I might be utterly wrong on that. My only reason was that ≫ is not displayed on some computers (when editing the code) whereas >> is. Materialscientist (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Cat Organ

Thank you thank you thank you thank you

		The Special Barnstar
		Thanks for semi-protecting Cat organ

I have no affiliation with Cat organ but I was trying to stop that vandalism. I could not figure out how to get it semi-protected.Ryan Vesey (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

In case of an an attack (rapid changes, 5/hour or so), do post a message at WP:AIV (or WP:ANI). If vandalism is slower (say 5/day), you can request semiprotection at WP:RFP. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

121.1.31.102

The user on 121.1.31.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) returned today, and it's still the same old MO of adding unsourced edits. I've given the guy another final warning. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you finally block this address for the second time, with an even longer time frame than 55 hourse? Despite the warning yesterday, he once again added unsourced info (I know this because there's no trusted online webpage to prove his edit). Please action or reply ASAP. Thank you. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 07:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle Installation

Hi, I'm having trouble installing Twinkle. COuld you help? 149AFK (talk) 11:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

What exactly are the troubles? Are you installing it in preferences or in your script file? Materialscientist (talk) 11:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I clicked on Twinkle in the gadgets section of preferences, but the sign TW does not appear on the banner with read, edit etc. 149AFK (talk) 08:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried to refresh your browser cache after enabling Twinkle? Materialscientist (talk) 08:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Not having much luck, though. Is using Internet Explorer something to do with it? 149AFK (talk) 08:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Forthug

Hello Materialscientist,

User:Forthug was plocked as sock puppet of User:Sergo-Sergo. But user Sergo-Sergo is sock puppet of User:Kevorkmail see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kevorkmail/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kevorkmail. Geagea (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

I was going to give you a barnstar but none of them seemed adequate. The speed at which you respond to AIV reports, especially those I've been submitting, is astonishing. I am in awe of you! Thank you very much. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

A new article

I am thinking that you might be interested in this [1]. I had to do a lot of digging. It will take awhile to finish. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Raver

Thanks for putting an end to that. This was deliberate introduction of false information; the cited reference had nothing to do with the assertion. Have a good one! Seaphoto^Talk 07:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Typo?

Hi,

I noticed in my RFA that you said "not once" when you probably meant "many times" or something equivalent. Cheers Fæ (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Fixed. Materialscientist (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Kasaragod Town

PLease move to simply Kasaragod. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

removal of text from Cycling

I'm just wondering about the justification for your removal of 'reduced likelihood of causing ..', which seems very reasonable to me. Rather than start a revert war I thought I'd better find out what your thinking is. Murray Langton (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I have merely reverted vandalism there. Please see the article history. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Vandal Eliminator Award
		Thank you for blocking 74.110.161.90 and 98.140.188.76, those two IP addresses that vandalized my user page within a day. Good thing you got them before they became out of control! November Hotel Romeo Hotel Sierra Two Zero One Zero ✈ 04:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Request feedback

Always glad to see your reverts; I never seem to get anywhere before you've been there and fixed everything. I've been reverting some things for awhile now; am I overstepping as an editor into admin territory, or does it help? Please feel free to review my reverts & edits and give me any guidance or suggestions you feel appropriate. Dru of Id (talk) 10:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Many editors cross at reverting and checking recent edits, and admins have no privileges there :) Your help is always appreciated. I have no specific advice, but could help with direct questions/problems. Cheers Materialscientist (talk) 11:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay; I'd recently had the stray thought that it might be similar to cats 'helping', and figured I'd check in with someone who knew what they were doing. :D Dru of Id (talk) 11:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Need rangeblock

Thanks for taking care of 208.54.87.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), but a rangeblock is needed on the whole range; he's using other IPs in the 208.54.87.* range. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 12:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone has semiprotected the template after I rangeblocked that user. Let me know if he jumps out of the range somewhere. Materialscientist (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Different range this time [2], need you to hit 206.29.188.*. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 13:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

His ranges are quite short and mobile, thus he might jump out again. Then it might be time to semiprotect .. Materialscientist (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

And it seems semiprotection is going on, but I'm not sure it will stop him. Materialscientist (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Question

Do you think you could do a peer review on the Frank Buckles article? I have it at PR but it is really backlogged. If so, please let me know. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 15:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Just when I started editing other started too :-), so I've got edit conflicts and will postpone it. Materialscientist (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Protection of Heavy Rain

Dear Materialscientist,

Thank you for quickly reacting to protect the Heavy Rain article. However, user 173.25.90.176 was able to slide in vandalism right before your protection went into action.

Therefore, would it be possible for you to undo that IP's revision back to mine (Xionbox). BY using Twinkle to remove the edit, I'll most probably remove the semi-protection as well.

Thanks in advance, Xionbox^₪ 23:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Alt Descriptions

I am confused as to why the "alt=" descriptions were added. Are they really necessary? - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 08:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh and honour->honor, that is correct. There is a Brit also working on the page, so some habits die hard. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 08:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If you are going for WP:FAC then alt texts must be there; if not then they are optional, but never harm. I've just looked at the image of Buckles with Gates, and its caption needs rephrasing - it mentions "a portrait unveiling" which is unclear on itself and is not explained in the text. Materialscientist (talk) 09:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, that's cool. I just didn't do that for my first FA, Stephens City, Virginia, so I wasn't aware. Thanks for letting me know though. :) On the one image, I will explain that in text better. Good catch. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 09:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Updated the sections your suggested on the PR. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 09:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This source might be a problem as it is a blog and would run amuk of the RS rules. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 10:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I started replying and got a phone call .. yes, that blog might have copied it from WP, but their other quotes were not same (maybe old WP version though). Why did I start all that - the quote was not exactly same as in your source, and it was odd-looking, with that [W]hen - someone at FAC would have picked this up. Materialscientist (talk) 11:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it was a misread on my part actually. I thought you were doing due diligence and just adding it to be on the safe side. It appears the blog copied us, hence my removal. If this was a misread on my part, I apologize and will revert. I did, though, take those brackets out cause it did look weird and the Flint, MI source didn't have them (probably looked weird to them too), so I think we might be good. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 11:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Poly(vinyl chloride)

I do not understand why you go against right things. The right name is poly(vinyl chloride) which means that vinyl chloride (monomer) has polymerized (please check IUPAC http://www.chem.qmul.ac.uk/iupac/rssop/ss10n11.html#p112). If you write polyvinyl chloride, it would mean that it is a chloride of a polyvinyl (which doesn't make any sense). Thank you and please change it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniblanco (talk • contribs) 15:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

We often deny logic and IUPAC in article names in favor of common use. Polyvinyl chloride is such common use (see, e.g. Britannica). Materialscientist (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Surface Plasmon Resonance

Hi! I added an external link to a company, which is a manufacturer of SPR devices. I have seen similar behaviour (several providers or even a list) in other sites (see QCM, HPLC,...). So would you prefer to remove all company links from other sites too or a more complete list of SPR companies under own header or? BR, Joanka (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)joanka

I am not sure what did you add. Wikipedia in general does not welcome addition of manufacturers links (WP:SOAP), but they might be acceptable in dedicated articles like Biacore. Anyway, such additions are a slippery road because many editors can revert them on sight. Materialscientist (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Buckles Photo

Thanks for the edit - I'd been meaning to do it for quite a while, it was starting to bug me. Connormah (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Andrianov2.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Andrianov2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 03:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		I award you this admin's barnstar for blocking the wonderfully spammy IP that is 96.48.144.49 Your efforts are appreciated! Cheers. Bped1985 (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

HPLC Page

Hi! I added Dionex to the manufacturers list on the HPLC page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_performance_liquid_chromatography) as we were missing (I am a Dionex employee) but am also fine with having the manufacturers section removed completely. I agree that wikipedia must be purely objective in the information shown. In that light, I would recommend that the picture of the Agilent 1200 is also removed, given that there is already a great picture of an HPLC higher up in the page. Alternatively a picture showing the most commonly used HPLCs could be shown. Perhaps you could let me know your opinion on this, and how you see the page evolving.

Thanks,

fsmcleod (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.14.77.134 (talk) 10:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed Agilent from the caption, but would leave the picture as an example of a modern setup. I don't think we have much choice for replacement. Materialscientist (talk) 10:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - that was a good solution. fsmcleod (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC).

DYK for Tsarskoye Selo Railways

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Pushkin (town)

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Pavlovsk, Saint Petersburg

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

RE: Wujiquan

"unexplained prod"? You didn't look at the talk page. That page needs to go; it's just a self-plug for this guy's organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.88.190.216 (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Quite possibly its a self-serving martial art style, so retag it properly. Such concerns are usually addressed by AFD, not prod (there are refs and notability claims, thus prod might be waste of time, but who knows ..). Materialscientist (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Andrianov2.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Andrianov2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Chaser (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible IP sock of a banned editor

218.250.143.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• Hello MS, could I trouble you to take a look at the aforementioned IP editor, keeps reverting without an actual explanation of what is wrong on the page of Parliamentary republic and we have strong suspicion to believe that this might be the IP sock of a banned editor (User:LS C HIST aka User:Scania N113). Thanks. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 12:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a clear relation between these, though socking is often tricky and I might be missing something. Edit warring is blockable (can be reported to WP:AIV or WP:3RR if I'm not here) but not right now, because they haven't edited in a while. Materialscientist (talk) 12:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point, but it is not just me who had noticed the particular pattern of edit, hence our strong suspicion that it is the new IP sock of a banned editor. Anyway, I gather that it would be more prudent to refer this matter to a checkuser for review instead? Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 12:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Surely, checkuser might be able to see something we don't, but it is kind of weapon too strong against an IP - usual purpose of CU is to get IPs hidden behind an account, for (range)block. This IP seems shared, thus even if CU will prove it relates to those users, it will not be blocked for long. Warring block is easier. Materialscientist (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Reference not included

In the article Lactoferrin: I can´t to add the reference to the text that I added. Please if is possible include this one at the end of the paragraph: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20625147 The PMID is 20625147. Thanks at lot. Traveseru — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traveseru (talk • contribs) 14:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Census templates updates

One important thing I suspect you have not even noticed is that the {{ru-census}} template is also integrated into the inhabited locality infobox. Before you think "say whaaa" :), I fully realize this approach is inviting more problems that it solves. It's another one of those ideas which seemed good at the time but turned out to be not so much. Anyway, here's the solution. Please note it is more of a stopgap measure than an actual solution, but it does break the integration and solves the invisible ref problem at the same time. I'll continue working on this further, of course.

I created {{ru-pop-ref}} today, which is basically a collection of the four documents which are most often used to ref the population data (and more documents can be added, of course). The template can be included between the "ref" tags. Also, the infobox template has a parameter called "pop_2002census_ref", which is there to be able to override the 2002 Census reference the template otherwise inserts by default (it was intended for smaller places not listed in that document, but for which Census data is available elsewhere). So, when editing a page with a Russian inhabited locality infobox, you can set "pop_2002census_ref" as follows:

|pop_2002census_ref=<ref name="PopCensus">{{ru-pop-ref|2002Census}}</ref>

which will solve the invisible ref problem (see a usage example in the Izhevsk article). This, of course, is only a solution for pages with an infobox, but with the "ru-pop-ref" template you can expand the {{ru-census}} instances as well. For example, something like

{{ru-census|p2002=1,000|p1989=5,000}}

can be replaced with

1,000 ([[Russian Census (2002)|2002 Census]]);<ref name="PopCensus">{{ru-pop-ref|2002Census}}</ref> 5,000 ([[Soviet Census (1989)|1989 Census]]).<ref name="1989Census">{{ru-pop-ref|1989Census}}</ref>

Like I said, it's by no means a final solution, but it should address your immediate concerns. Please let me know if you have further comments or suggestions.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 23, 2011; 17:18 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, I asked Rich Farmbrough to do an automated run to explicitly add the ref for the 2002 Census figures to all infoboxes which have it and he was kind enough to oblige. The articles which have infoboxes no longer suffer from the "invisible ref" syndrome, and the articles without the infoboxes but with a census template can be corrected as we encounter and edit them. Does this address your concerns? Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 25, 2011; 13:59 (UTC)

I have read this and noticed changes by Rich, just contemplating. There should be more time for that (contemplating) over this weekend :-) Materialscientist (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Noobbody

I would greatly appreciate it if this user's personal attacks could be revdeleted because they are grossly insulting and offensive. Purely disruptive.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

done. Materialscientist (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Now this user is requesting an unblock, but after the further trolling on his/her own talk page, I don't believe this user even deserves to be able to edit it.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

No need to waste time on that - another admin will have a look (normal procedure) and close the case. More worrying would be if they reappear under other accounts. Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Gondere123

Do you think there is grounds to delete the page User:Gondere123? It appears to be a continuation of that user's attempts to assert, falsely, the existence of Chubby language and Ge'ba script, per two of his/her previously deleted hoax pages. Cnilep (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was mulling this point, thanks for bringing this up. Materialscientist (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Not Sure What to Do

This was brought to my attention and I am unsure what to do with it (or why it was brought to my attention as I am not an admin or CU). Perhaps you could take a look. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 01:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, I have reverted one move where there were clear reliable refs for English name use, but many other articles are obscure to decide on the spot. Help from the associated project would be needed. Will ask. Materialscientist (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 02:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Feedback request

Hi, do you mind taking a look over the block for User talk:82.198.231.83? This is the first account I've blocked and it came up using IGLOO so I'd appreciate another pair of eyes on it. I'm asking as I notice you raised the last long term block on this address. Cheers Fæ (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems Ok. Block length is not exact science, and you'll likely develop your philosophy overtime. In case of too many positive contributions from a shared IP, many admins issue repeated short blocks. If there are signs of vandalism-only IP, some admins issue a long block very soon (usually 3rd block, but sometimes even 2nd, when an IP managed to avoid getting blocked over long time). More usual practice is to roughly double the length with every block. I've developed a habit of placing a {{schoolblock}} or {{anonblock}} template on top of their talk after a long block (usually by then the talk page is so long that many don't read the bottom). Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Royalcello

Those edits were vandalism, because he had taken out the fact that Stephen and Jonathan Darlington are brothers which is considered vandalism,he also purposely took out words to make a sentence look very stupid which is vandalism,Yes i am harsh on him,because he is a vandal! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkfireII13 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry

But you have to admit it's true. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.16.5 (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk:70.171.113.184

Is:

• "But as I said before, you can cry all you want, you can try to get me blocked, but not a god damned thing on this earth is going to stop me from *getting the message of free speech out there. It may not be today, it may not be tomorrow, but God as my witness- some day this will get past *you!"

enough to get South Park (season 14) protected? Or you wanna see if it actually happens? CTJF83 06:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I've put it on my watchlist and wanna sit back and observe what actually happens :-) Materialscientist (talk) 06:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll ping you if you miss excessive vand. CTJF83 06:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

212.219.252.209

Hi, Please block this IP. It was on its final warning and vandalised Antibacterial.

Thanks 149AFK (talk) 09:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Materialscientist. You have new messages at Nczempin's talk page.
Message added 00:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Okay

Fine... then take the entire part about it being the 2nd most venomous out... If that part stays in the article..then I will keep putting my part in... As I don't like articles that provide misleading information and this one does.

If you take the "the eastern brown is the 2nd most venomous snake in the world" part out than I will stop editing my part in... Or you can fix the opening line so it is clear that it is the 2nd most venomous to mice...

Or you can actullay debate me instead of just deleting my comments without any knowledge f my evidence.. I'm not pulling this out of my ass for no reason...I'm not trolling wikipedia... I am interested in snakes/learning about snakes and I am tired of this absurd test being used to broadly claim that an animal is the most venomous... If every animal in the world suddenly became a mouse... than yes the article would be somewhat accurate( it still wouldn't be completely accurate for reasons I will talk about if you chose to debate) but it would be more accurate if everything became a mouse... But since everything isn't a mouse... it is not accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakefan55 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright... Then let me debate the other two "experts" and I know for a fact I can win the debate... I debated another mod on this very issue( and he was more knowledgeable on snakes than those two) and he conceded...Not an ego trip at all... I have evidence that I can present that proves that different animals react different to different venom's and that declaring that one snake is the most or 2nd most venmous just because it scored that way in one test to mice is absurd.. Of course the brown COULD be the 2nd most venmous to humans( or 1st)...but it also could be 50th for all we know... Hence why I raised the possibility.

Dude... This has nothing to do with proving my ego.. We are arguing about snake venom ld50 accuracy for humans lol..Do you really think that that is something I would care about if I was trying to boost my ego? No... I am legitimately interested in Snakes and am tired of that test being just to claim that a snake is broadly the most venomous when it is tested on 1 animals.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakefan55 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Snakefan55

This user may need to be blocked given all his/her incivility and edit warring.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep. I'm trying to avoid that (their point is valid, but is expressed and pushed through so clumsily!). I and C.Fred might not be able to help as admins here because of involvement. Materialscientist (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Kww blocked User:Brittany Cintron for BLP violations, even as an involved editor.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Such blocks are practiced well in case of BLP violations, vandalism, spamming, and sometimes just for minor disruption. An admin should normally not block for edit warring (3RR, content disputes, etc) if he/she was directly involved in the conflict (well, depends to what degree xe was involved). Blatant violations of this rule may result in desysopping. Materialscientist (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

?Jasper Deng (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. You're a good admin.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Johan se

That user and his companion IP have been trying for like A YEAR to get that copyright-violating image loaded. When are you all going to do something about it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

When I have evidence this is a sock of a change of (warned) IPs. Can't indef an account for uploading a copyvio image (so many true wikipedians have done that at least once :). Materialscientist (talk) 07:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

He's been doing it continuously since last summer. The IP is obviously his, as it started on this same thing last summer also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Era business school

The article was created for the third time by the same user, I left a warning tag on their talkpage.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Do you mind people who change articles to test Wikipedia? You know, like "How alert is Wikipedia", let's change the colour of water into red or yellow . . . Right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.198.233.187 (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:POINT for your answer. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 21:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Khazar Empire

Hello! Some user has moved Khazars to Khazar Empire. It's a highly important article, and the problem is that similar articles in almost all other languages are about the ethnic group, not about the state, as it is seen from their titles. I believe such moves shouldn't be made without discussion. Also "Khazars" gives 4 times more Google hits compared to "Khazar Empire". Could you please move the article back? GreyHood ^Talk 21:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Tricky, because that user might have a point and Google is no help here (can't really compare these 2 search terms). Surely this was a bold change, but a discussion is needed for the counter move (and revert of their rewrite of the lead). Materialscientist (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll make a comment on the article's talk page. GreyHood ^Talk 23:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Please look at my comment here, I've given additional reasons why it should be moved back. Do you think it is enough to wait for more comments in ordinary discussion, or there is a need to start move request? GreyHood ^Talk 23:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Let us wait for comments. A redirect is in place, thus the situation is not catastrophic :-) Materialscientist (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

My talk page

I would like to you to keep an eye on this discussion [3] on my talk page. Thanks. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 02:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Apologies re vand warning

Sorry, seems like there was indeed a glitch in my revert to the Randy Moss article, not sure if it was to do with the Cluebot-NG Rev. Queue or STiki. I will look into it a bit further and try to follow up with the bot-owners. Regards, Aeonx (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I see odd tool-assisted reverts from experienced fighters from time to time. Materialscientist (talk) 02:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

page protection

Another editor has asked me to protect your page. Do you want me to? Can you explain the reason for th request? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 05:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Some IPs sporadically vent on my talk after my reverts or blocks. Low activity, no worries. Thanks a lot for asking - I consider semiprotecting my talk only in extremely rare cases of about 1 edit/minute. Materialscientist (talk) 05:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

RfA philosophy

I would like you to evaluate this essay I wrote about RfAs. The essay might explain why RfAs have such a low chance of passing.

Evaluating a person from their edits, which is what happens at RFA, is such a complex matter that I always take individual approach and haven't written a page on my "RFA criteria" as some editors do. This is by no means to say that such pages shouldn't be written, I just don't feel confident to write (and thus evaluate them). Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 05:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Peer review

You have been invited to review the copper article. I know that you were the one who "hacked" the PR template on Talk:Copper. Since then, I have removed that template, closed that peer review, and opened a new one. Here's the new peer review page: Wikipedia:Peer review/Copper/archive2. I hope you review the article as soon as possible! FREYWA 07:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Helium - protected, needs minor cleanup

RE: Helium[[4]]

I would have fixed this myself but the page is protected. To find this problem search for "sniffer" on the page to find this sentence: "In a simpler test, the product is filled with helium and an operator is manually searching for the leak with a hand-held device called sniffer.[92]"

The sentence has some grammatical problems and should be cleaned up.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.89.52 (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I was not sure what exactly did you mean, and just rephrased much of the helium test part. Materialscientist (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

DYKs

Thanks much. I appreciate the double-header. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Revdelete

On my talk page, I reverted twice edits that refactored comments by others to say really really bad things. This is pure rudeness and the one saying I smell of poo should be revdeleted.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Jobe457

Thanks for blocking. I don't know why I even ask on ANI anymore; usually it's like talking to a brick wall. Only the brick wall is more likely to respond than 99% of admins. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

AGF and hope :-). Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You think something else might be up with this user, since they came back after 2+ years just to attack me? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The pattern is not unusual for a compromised account, but I dug out some incivility from this account in the past, thus not sure. I don't consider this a dead block, i.e. unblocking is possible, but depends on the request. Materialscientist (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) AIV is a rapid-reaction board, thus many reports which are too complex or ill-prepared (insufficient warning, editing disputes, etc.) are ignored. Admins are often risking much trouble when blocking and many were desysoped for that. Materialscientist (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

T:DYK edit

Please be more careful, when you edit Template talk:Did you know. With this edit you just made me DYK nominator, although the nomination was made by 72.74.215.19 (talk), as it can be seen there. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 00:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I saw you cleaned up the article and thought you nominated it. Apologies. Materialscientist (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Nahuel Huapi National Park

MS, please help move this User:Nvvchar/Tierra del Fuego National Park to main space please. Thanks.--Nvvchar. 01:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the wrong request posted for the move. Anyway, I will now expand this article Tierra del Fuego National Park further. However, my request is for this User:Nvvchar/Nahuel Huapi National Park article to be moved to main space.--Nvvchar. 02:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Cellophane

Please explain why you deleted a footnote reference to a published book about an artist who uses the birefringent nature of cellophane. Nvpatentlawyer (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of one reference and addition of another, which looked like an advertisement to me. Please do use WP:edit summaries. Materialscientist (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Three admins?

I liked your comment here about "three admins". I've only been here since October 2010. ;) Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I actually meant Bencherlite who wasn't directly involved in reverting, but was most active in talking to the user about this problem. Materialscientist (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

New possible definition of Thallium Barium Calcium Copper Oxide

Check it out here: http://www.superconductors.org/254K.htm Someone with an account might want to consider creating a new page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.105.124 (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

We know this site, which together with some useful history presents original research unconfirmed by the science community (softly speaking - some might use stronger language on those claims). Materialscientist (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar and question

		The Admin's Barnstar
		You're always there to help at AIV. Many of the vandals I reported and/or warned were blocked by you.

Question: Is the block template "You have been blocked indefinitely for abuse of editing privileges" a generic template for blocks for more than one reason or a reason not listed in the block templates? It seems to be that way.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Both of the above, and the following: many templates can not really explain the reason for the block and I see their primary goal in providing links to the unblock request. Materialscientist (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandal IP

Hi, Please block 203.87.207.66 User talk:203.87.207.66 for vandalising Kris Aquino (on his final warning). Thanks149AFK (talk) 08:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

St Teilo

Can you move page to Saint Teilo. The Teilo page info I will merge.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Moved. Materialscientist (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Problematic user

Could you please delete the pages that have been nominated for speedy deletion. You can find these pages on the user talk page of Moykat123. Also if you think blocking is needed (I do) please do not hesitate. this user has been giving me some problems. Jessy ^(SCG01) 00:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

AfD

Could you please delete the page: George Cooper Filmmaker. The result of this AfD was delete. Jessy ^(SCG01) 01:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I've Got To Ask

How the heck do you block people so quickly?!

Loads of times I've gone to block a pesky IP over the last couple of days only to find you've done it literally a nano second earlier! Keep up the good work!--5 albert square (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. A short answer is training. Honestly, when I started blocking, I often asked myself "how the heck did he know it should be blocked, so long before me" :-). Its always good to know someone is watching. Nowadays, I sometimes ask myself a different question - why wasn't he blocked before for such edits. Materialscientist (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

NO

Okay so you say its perfectly acceptable to quote and use a completely incorrect and wrong source...because it is "all science has"... Lol no thats garbage and I should and will continue to edit that paragraph in until someone debates me..I mean if the ld50 was done on a bunch of different animals it would have some credibility( but then we would see vastly different results between different animals) but its done on ONE animal... a mouse.. It is a joke and has zero credibility and if you wont let me put my paragraph in I will just edit the whole part out of anything that has to do with the ld50.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakefan55 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Please reach a consensus on the article's talk page. Do not edit-war. --43?9enter ^☭talk_☭contribs 04:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that Libyan civil war page back

Thanks for undoing that move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avanu (talk • contribs) 05:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Well done

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		This is a little premature, but I wanted to congratulate you on improving our knowledge of sex with dead cat's arsoles. That's certainly not something that I say everyday! SmartSE (talk) 08:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Clint Eastwood

The editor changed the time period that Eastwood had been active in from 7 decades to 5. 7 is the correct number from information on the page. Jackfork (talk) 10:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If I remember correctly it was the number of decades he has been active in. Which is 7 not 5 count it up. If I'm wrong then change it back if not done already. I'm off to work and don't have time to check at the moment Jackfork (talk) 10:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Kegerator

Just wondering why you chose to remove my edits to the Kegerator page. I can understand if you don't like my reference because it is a guide on a retail site (though the page was non-promotional), but what I posted was accurate information on the types of kegerators that are available to people pre-made and the differences between them. I thought this information would be useful to the article since it only mentions conversion kits. Also, there are other references on the page that point to a retail site. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.16.193.34 (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

EFM

Could you please check my request for abuse filter. If you would check the user rights logs you would see that Mike gave the right to me and then took it away because another user contested this because he thought i should request it at WT:FILTER. Thanks and cheers. Jessy ^(SCG01) 22:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hm .. editing filters requires profound knowledge of the wikipedia policies and the coding language they are written in (mostly the consequences of adding as little as an extra character to the code). Consider that admins (me included) are not granted edit filtering privileges by default. Also take my word that even very experienced admins sometimes cause much damage by inappropriate changes to the filters. Thus if I were you, I would not request such permission until I fully understand all the caveats and consequences. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Advertizing?

I have a question about this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mount_McKinley&diff=421274989&oldid=420808587 It appears to be blatant advertizing for a product, but I'm not familier enough with the relevant policies. (Normally, I only revert obvious vandalism.) I expected that someone would've reverted it by now, but maybe I'm wrong. Does this seem OK to you? Zaereth (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't revert. Instead, refactor it so it doesn't read like an ad.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

What a coincidence, someone just pulled it on the grounds of WP:RS. Sorry to bother you. I rarely run across edits like that, so my main reason for asking was to increase my own knowledge. Zaereth (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) (i) I was going to revert this edit but someone got faster, and I would support their edit summary. Only notable ads (say, a famous Coca-cola commercial, etc) are allowed. The border is often vague, but the WP policy is to be more on the ad-free side. (ii) In some highly watched articles, I might leave it to other editors, but I would normally act on such edits - either directly or by asking advice (like I often do at various projects). Materialscientist (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

untitled

International Welding Technologies has spent the last 2 years working with Caltech on a method of rapidly heating the solidifying glassy metals. You do not have the right to delete valid information related to this process without proper inquiry. Please feel free to contact us at 856-435-8004 related to this project before you delete the content! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilrlw (talk • contribs) 01:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia is authorized to remove, at its discretion, any content from its website, and we, the editors, act in its name. You do not have the right to sue us for deleting your content.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Against your persistent attempt to delete it! How is what we accomplished promotionalism and what Caltech did science? They came to us for this technology! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilrlw (talk • contribs) 01:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you get to decide what is a breakthrough. This was not just a project. The technology to do this did not just exist. We spent two years researching it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilrlw (talk • contribs) 02:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:Notability, and show that it is notable. Get your tone correct (non-promotional, see WP:MOS), and most of all, if you post it, please do so at the correct article. I highly suggest you read what Materialscientist and I left on your talk page.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Neilrlw

This user seems to be using the sock Mark33111 to evade WP:3RR.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No direct evidence of socking (one was advertising, another was blanking). That said, and noting that I am not a fan of the WP:DUCK policy at all, this does look like a duck. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not blanking that's the problem, it's [5].Jasper Deng (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Missed that. Materialscientist (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You may also be interested in my edit warring accusation against Neilrw at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I went to block Mark33111 and found they are already blocked per your SPI case. Nice to see things getting done. (One thing to note - I do make mistakes, thus question my actions whenever suspicious) Materialscientist (talk) 03:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You may want to extend the block because HelloAnnyong did not know that the material was advertisement-like too.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Its Ok like it stands - that advertisement is questionably blatant. Edit warring and socking are much more evident, but this block is more or less adequate for the first time. Materialscientist (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

In any case, problem solved for now.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Materialscientist. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors.
Message added 02:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please get your vandals straight

My reason for not being able to edit from 208.54.37.76 is given as "Block evasion: 208.80.74.50", but I am not the same person. 208.80.74.50 defaced a page calling some random person "gay" as an insult. I would not stoop to that level of juvenile humor; I only troll at a higher level. Thank you, and have a great day! Signed, your bored friendly local troll. 208.54.37.62 (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, apparently I accidentally reverted that vandalism by 208.80.74.50 back after you reverted it. I had meant to add in that many human beings were disassembled. Still, not the same person; that is a completely different netblock owned by a completely different organization. 208.54.90.63 (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK

Do I have to review an article every single time I nom? Its just it gets a little wearing, especially if you've just spent time expanding articles.. I don't mind doing it most of the time but often there are not that many articles left to review anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The rules oblige you to, but you can skip reviews from time to time - some noms get promoted without quid-pro-quo reviews. Materialscientist (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Arsole

The DYK project (nominate) 00:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for voting by the community

I would like to request your opinion here. Thanks and cheers. Jessy _(talk) ^(contribs) • 00:44, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

RogerO SD

This user has been doing lots of personal attacks, POV-pushing, and adding BLP-violating content. See his/her contributions and talk page. Most editors are fed up with him/her.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

WT:Did you know#UFO

The conversation there has come to a screeching halt and Mbz doesn't even know why the hook is wrong. Could you please comment? Mbz is also defending his use of File:Jafr alien invasion.jpg which is photoshopped and misleading. At the very least the Arabic text should be removed. Marcus Qwertyus 04:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Sodium ethyl xanthate

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Batman Province

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Diethyl azodicarboxylate

The DYK project (nominate) 08:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Malus baccata

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey there

Hey, Materialscientist. I blocked a narrower range for those harassment IPs: 85.210.96.0/21. --Bsadowski1 22:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

That might not help because the true range is /15, which we can't block, the nastiness justifies possible collateral damage, I believe. Materialscientist (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually it's the /21: http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/rangecontribs/index.php?type=range&ips=85.210.96.0%2F21&limit=50. --Bsadowski1 23:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Why not /15? As I understand, the IP assigned by the provider might accidentally fall into a narrow subrange, but might jump over the entire range. Materialscientist (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, maybe 85.210.64.0/18 (not sure). Materialscientist (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the rangeblock. My user and talk pages was under constant attack. DRAGON 280 (TALK/CONTRIBS) 23:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the /18 is a much better block. Might want to bookmark [6], it is one of the most useful tools on the toolserver. Courcelles 23:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It shows the past, not the future (which a rangeblock aims at). I was in and out and haven't had time to think which range was correct, /18 or /15. Do you know on the fly? Materialscientist (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I mean this was the target, but see this. I do doubt Tiscali crosses ranges, but this is what I was asking. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Weary Dunlop

He was a Freemason - what proof do you need? Him listed in books as a Freemason or websites? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelmsford261 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

How does this relate to me? Materialscientist (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting my user and user talk pages

I've noticed that you've semi-protected both my main user page and my user talk page. Here's a barnstar for you:

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I've given you this barnstar for defending my userspace. Thank you! DRAGON 280 (TALK/CONTRIBS) 23:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK

Can you kindly enlighten me as to why this Jurassic Museum of Asturias is not being promoted to Main Page? Are some changes required to make it acceptable? The hook as it is more sober.--Nvvchar. 01:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I see no immediate problem (with the general situation on this nom). The nomination didn't hit the top of the T:TDYK page, and thus some improvement comments may come. The promotion process was partly held off by the 1 April event. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked IP

Regarding User:188.230.134.157 wich you blocked for disruptive editing, see this duscussion, where it appears the user has jumped IPs. Thanks for whatever you can do. - BilCat (talk) 03:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The Mandarax Barnstar of Excellence

		The Mandarax Barnstar of Excellence
		Materialscientist, I am pleased to award this MBE to you in recognition of your outstanding work in many areas. Unlike some people who only focus on a few WikiTasks, you revert vandalism, work on all aspects of DYK, monitor AIV, write articles, and so much more. I've been meaning to give this to you for some time now, but what finally prompted me to go for it was your stellar performance in the April Fools' DYKs. Your five entries, including what is now the most-viewed non-lead hook of all time, were viewed an impressive total of about 114,000 times. Keep up the good work! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Berkelium and Curium

I've given them a through copyedit. Feel free to push them through wp:GAN. Nergaal (talk) 07:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Great, but I stopped nominating for GA/FA long time ago. Materialscientist (talk) 07:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? Nergaal (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Swe41

Thank you very much Materialscientist. I really appreciate your help. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Bandagharka possibly evading block

Greetings, the History tab of Dera Sacha Sauda shows several new editors appearing within days of User:Bandagharka's block, who have edited nothing but said article, and consistently made the exact POV-pushing edits that blocked user did: see history here. Namely, removing any trace of criticism of the organisation (heavily footnoted in the article) and adding very distinct phrases the blocked user employed. Is there somewhere I should report this, or do we have to go add a series of warnings to each of the "new" editors' Talk pages? MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking through their edits. If you can relate some accounts by diffs, that would help a lot. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Move of Japan earthquake article

"Lets wait a bit for comments."

Yes. This is exactly what you should have done before moving then move-protecting an article that has already had lengthy debate on the proper name. If you believe the article should be moved, then you can initiate a Wikipedia:Requested moves process and move the article with consensus. Admins are not supposed to ignore process and then use protection to stop others. Please revert yourself and follow the instructions at the Requested Moves page if you still wish to move the article. SnowFire (talk) 04:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Reverted, with a wish you to be more friendly. It was not a straightforward revert - another user moved article and talk separately, through a ridiculous 3rd name, breaking the talk archives. Further, the current lead is inadequate. Materialscientist (talk) 04:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Incidentally, nice work on the DYKs above. Hope I didn't come off as TOO hostile, but feel fairly strongly on the above. SnowFire (talk) 04:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

...is what I would have written, but edit conflict'd. Well. To defend myself, your move was fairly open & shut wrong by Wikipedia rules - people can move quiet or non-contentious articles on their own, but a heavily edited article that has already had a RM made of it? I feel that even if you weren't familiar with the RM guidelines, common sense would say that move-protection after "endorsing" someone else's move from nowhere would in fact be straightforward. Straightforwardly not okay. The line above on waiting was also rather galling, since you've already moved and are asking others to slow down. THAT SAID. I don't care, since you reverted yourself, and I've certainly made "Wikipedia mistakes" before too. So glad we resolved this issue anyway, although I hope you understand why I came off rather insistent and not friendly initially. SnowFire (talk) 04:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Surely I was neither moving that article nor reverting myself, but fixing the broken move initiated by another user. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 04:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocking My School

Just a quick question, Why have you blocked Hugh Christie Technology College from editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pineapple Head0000 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

IP number? Materialscientist (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Swe41 redux

Hi Materialscientist. Fresh from his expired block he's at it again. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 12:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I saw that, and issued a final warning. Materialscientist (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 12:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Dr.K abuse/victimisation report

Hello Materialscientist, i see that your the admin here, so im going to be blunt with you.

I am intending to file a complaint of abuse and victimisation against Dr.K, and i would appreciate it if you were to be unbiased in your findings, scrapping the fact that I am a new wikipedia user, and that Dr.K is a user with "special contributions".

My reasons for doing this can be found under my comments- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Swe41

So if I could ask you a question, how to I proceed from here on in? Do I make a case against Dr.K or what?

I will inform (politely) Dr.K of my intentions.

Best wishes Swe41 (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Further evidence

Hello again Materialscientist,

It has also come to my knowledge that Dr.K. is purposely deleting my admittedly polite comment, as well as the formal accusations on there, which seems to me that he is trying to hide the fact that he doesn't want people to know that he falsely accused me sockpuppetry.

Have a nice day Swe41 (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)