User talk:Materialscientist

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

Ratings

Do you agree with quality and importance ratings at the Talk:Hiromichi Kataura and Talk:Mitsutaka Fujita? --Nano lab (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I found another rating in Talk:Optical properties of carbon nanotubes. --Nano lab (talk) 06:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Organic metal

Hi again, you will notice that this article and some related ones are strangely written. The problem historically is that few editors at Wikipedia knew much about the topic and none were willing to contend with user:Pproctor, who maintains that his coworker or boss named McGinness has been overlooked by history and should have gotten a Nobel Prize. A few articles were strongly dominated by Proctor, usually indicated by the same image of the melanine-based device that you see on the organic metal page, it is sort of his trademarked homage to McGinness as is the emphasis on an (obscure) article by Hush that credits McGinness with a significant role in the field. The highlighting of the work by Weiss (Aust J Chem) is also intended to deflect glory from the Alan MacDiarmid et al Nobel. My guess is that all wikipedia articles on organic metals need housecleaning and rewriting, so your efforts are welcome.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

A request

I saw claims of plagiarism on a group of people made by user "Dian john1" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dian_john1. Although I am a part of this group, I am not going to discuss this issue there, since Wikipedia is not a place to make such claims and rebut them. "Dian john1" is trying confidentially to disseminate lies and slander on people in the public place, devoted to scientific discussions. Could you please remove this discussion from Wikipedia? Thank you in advance. Sincerely yours, Yaroslav Filinchuk, 27 Feb. 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.103.2.224 (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Moscow

I was asked to review good article nomination Moscow by user:SkyBon, whom I know briefly from his previous GA nomination Russian language. What worries me is that I see the same story repeating: he made 1 edit into a well-written article, nominated it and then could not cope with the review comments. You are one of the main contributors to this potentially excellent article (Moscow), and I was wondering what do you think about it. Russian is fine with me, but I can't type cyrillic. Zhdu otveta. Materialscientist (talk) 05:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Я думаю, что еще рановато номинировать статью на хорошую, много спорных моментов (сейчас, например, обсуждаем с пользователем User:Ezhiki инфобокс о Москве - спорные моменты - агломерация, высота над уровнем моря) ( смотрите здесь - talk, (Infobox Russian federal city), также о многих фактах нет ссылок на источники. К тому же слабоваты некоторые разделы - Religion, Demographics например. Сделать статью GA очень долгая и сложная работа, у меня, к сожалению, нет сейчас столько времени, да и свободно писать по-английски, я, к сожалению, могу не особо. Если у Вас есть время и желание довести статью до уровня GA, то я буду только за, поддержу и помогу вам чем смогу. Texmon (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

COROT-1 nomination

Hey, Materialscientist.

Well, I figured COROT-1 was ready for good article status because I have been looking at other articles. HD 40307 and HD 2039, for example, had passed a while back; for stars like COROT-1, I figured there simply wasn't enough to expand it into a Solar System-style article.

I'll work on improving other articles of the type, but I feel my efforts in further expanding COROT-1 are limited. Thanks for taking the time to look at it, though. Jayhawke (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Elementbox fix

Hi, here's how I fixed the element box: a look at phosphorus reveals that the elementbox is not coded directly on the page, but uses Template:Infobox phosphorus. That template, in turn, uses another template to format the box, Template:Elementbox. Digging into the innards of the Elementbox template shows that it only implemented one set of parameters for the boiling point, as opposed to the three for the melting point. So it was just a matter of making another copy of the boiling point parameters and renaming them appropriately (suffixing "2"). You can look at the history of Template:Elementbox to see what I did. I did have to make one ugly hack to avoid the use of #expr, since that wouldn't let me write "(red)" to indicate the allotrope in the parameters, since that wouldn't parse as a number. So the Celsius value has to be hand-calculated (not too big an annoyance, the same thing is being done for the melting point parameters).

Anyway, this really is the first time I made a non-trivial change to a template, so you might want to ask someone more skilled to take a look at the result and fix up any glaring bugs I introduced in the process. :-) Hope this helps.—Tetracube (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Congrats...

... on your successful FA nom of Synthetic diamond. I remember reviewing this as a GA nom, and I am impressed with the speed and quality of the improvements made. I'm glad to see it on the front page. Keep up the impressive work. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 17:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Pre-emptive congrats

I won't be around much over the weekend, so I thought I'd jump the gun and be the first to warmly welcome you to the admin team. (Sure it's not official yet, but I'm old and crusty and can thus get aware with this sort of crap.) You'll have fun, no doubt. Cheers Manning (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA

I think I can congratulate you on the successful adminship request (expired but not closed yet). Hope you will continue to spend at least some time writing articles. Ruslik_Zero 07:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Your Request for Adminship

Dear Materialscientist,

I have closed your recent RfA as successful per the consensus of the community. Congratulations, you are now a sysop! Please make sure you're aware of the Administrators' how-to guide and the items on the Administrators' reading list. Finally, please don't hesitate in contacting me if you need anything. Best of luck in your new position! —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm really glad to see another scientist in the admin corps. Please don't hesitate to ask for help, and best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 15:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Congrats, MS! --Dylan620 (contribs, logs, review) 20:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Dang. Didn't even know you were up for RfA, or I'd have voted for you. Congrats also. SBHarris 20:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the mop crowd, don't let mopwork interfere too much with your content work. Glad the "canvas" drama fizzled out. Enjoy the "power" B-) Vsmith (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well done, but of course, it was never in doubt. Feel free to ask if you need to know where anything is kept (careful with the delete button, it's right where the "watch" button used to be - so far I've managed not to permanently "unwatch" anything by accident, but give me time). SpinningSpark 22:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Too bad your stuck with the pepper spray/mop combo instead of the flamethrower/mop combo. Stupid budget. Anyway, congrats! Abce2|This isnot a test 23:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Congrats on your successful RfA. ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N. 07:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I need to jump in and say "congratualtions" as well. You will do fine, I am sure. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations from me too. If you ever need any help just say the word. --John (talk) 01:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Pile on congrats. /mav recalls asking Jimbo eons ago about becoming an admin. His reply was something to the effect of 'I don't really know you, but haven't heard anything bad, so sure, why not?' Boy, those were the days when it really wasn't a big deal to be an admin. Now you have to go through an excruciating interview process and public beating. --mav (talk) 03:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Congratulations. Racepacket (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Hey Materialscientist, congratulations on achieving administratorship. All the best to you, and I hope you continue to contribute content. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK - prep 1

I see you have prepared Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1. I have taken a look at it and it seems to be in order. Just remember that as soon as you upload an image from Commons, fully-protect it. And in the upload form include {{c-uploaded}} directly above the copied information from Commons. And remember, when filling a queue with your prepare set, cut+paste the whole prep area, not only the hooks section and it will be fine. :-) Regards SoWhy 14:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Same goes for File:Zigzag coral (Madrepora oculata).jpg which you added to queue 5 today. Although the queues are cascading protected, images may not be affected by this for several hours (see Bugzilla:18483) and thus need to be manually protected before adding to a queue to avoid a vandal taking advantage of this bug. Regards SoWhy 09:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK medal

Thanks. But I am a little uncertain as to what you mean by your comment. Do palaces/monasteries, museums. observatories and towns/counties not appeal to you? What exactly does then? Its not as if I write about comic books or video games or anything. Well I think I don't write about topics which are beyond our expertise but help towards it. They are typically on solid encyclopedic subjects but the country they are about may seem obscure to the western eye because I insist on trying to see us from a neutral world viewpoint. But it isn't really. Of late I've been expanding articles about districts/counties and have not been nominating them for DYK. Himalayan 11:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that we also need to be looking at what articles get the most traffic and improving them. Unfortunately given the way people are they generally tend to always be on popular culture, sex and a lot of topics that most traditional encyclopedias wouldn't have. You probably don't know but I have been expanding the Clint Eastwood article, so it is not as if I am stuck in obscuredom all the time! This article gets 6,000 odd hits a day so in a week it will have been viewed by 42,000 people. But sticking to fully expanding other articles which may get a lot of hits but don't interest me, paid editing might get me to do it... TThis is the reason though why we still have truck loads of stubs about world topics outside the "popular" zone because there just arne't enough people interested in them to expand them. To date wikipedia has relied on the contributions of a few individuals who are interested in seemingly obscure countries and topics and they do the brunt of the work in expansion, but for it to all be a big success, quality, we really need more numbers. BUt I am in the frame of mind that if the articles which get a lot of traffic and are cared for by a lot of people then they don't need me hanging on to them and I should be doing my best to try to even up coverage elsewhere... I just try to give wikipedia information about parts of the world they otherwise would not know about, as much as for myself than anybody else. I personally would like to know more about rural counties in say Tibet or Ghana or something than reading about some all-star American baseball pitcher or sitcom star... Yeah its balancing what is personally fun to you and what interest you and doing it in a way which maximises interest and benefit to others. Everybody is different, so it is not always easy to assess what or what not is useful to others, but I have actually had many emails from people in places like Nepal, Guatemala, Slovenia and all over the world who have said they are grateful for my work on their part of the world which has given them a chance to expand on what I have started so even if the majority of readers couldn't give a damn about Likir Monastery for instance, I am sure that some people somewhere who are going to northern Indian on a trip or are interested in Tibetan Buddhism will be very grateful to have an article about it or just those who like browsing and learning about any topic!. The problem is catering for all interests and possibilities and maintaining quality. Personally from my viewpoint I think the work I do adds to the interest and depth of wikipedia even if some of them seem very obscure. If there is a particular article you'd like to see expanded on a core topic like a major river etc please let me know, I'll be glad to help! I'd be happy to help you expand some articles on earth science/geology etc, it is a shame there aren't more interested in it because these are the real topics we should be covering!! Just let me know if you want an article expanded, as long as it isn't mathemetical/physics oriented as although I got A grades in school about them, they give me a headache! Earth science, geology, astronomy and ecology are subjects I am highly interested in. Himalayan 12:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You in the states I gather? Get some sleep!! Its lunch time here! Best regards. Himalayan 12:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

86.96.226.89

Please don't block addresses such as 86.96.226.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which originate in the United Arab Emirates; the whole country is funneled through just a few IP addresses. Instead, unless it is totally out of hand, monitor anonymous edits and revert them. This one is an address used by Emirates Telecommunications Corporation, but there is also another provider. Fred Talk 15:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've also unblocked 86.96.227.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for the same reason. Please do a whois on addresses before you block them. This one is also Emirates which uses 86.96.226.0 - 86.96.239.255. Fred Talk 12:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Tunable nanoporous carbon

Thank you very much for your feedback, I really appreciate it! This has been an interesting assignment for me, I had to find a "green" topic and write a Wikipedia article for my college Technical Writing course. I will definitely work to correct the mistakes and errors you have pointed out, but I would like to ask for your advice regarding avoiding sounding opinionated because of mentioning the one institution/company. I was unable to find any other companies that had any relation to the technology and felt that it was important to mention the one that is directly using the subject. Would it be better to be a bit more ambiguous about what organization/company is using the technology and instead use the first reference on my list for that sentence? Once again, thank you for your offer for help and for leaving feedback, I look forward to your response, just leave another message on my talk page please.

Kt57 (talk) 10:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I'd like to apologize for that little mistake. I clicked your name instead of your talk page, and once I realized what I did I went back to undo the changes. I am afraid I am still getting used to WP's messaging system as well as article writing. Also, I do not have much knowledge about the general field from which my topic originates nor any chemistry background (I'm actually an IT major). This is probably taboo for WP editing but I had to go through and try after doing some research on the topic, so it will also take me some time to improve the article. Thanks again for the response!

Kt57 (talk) 10:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

User: Achodesign

Hi MS. I'm new in creating pages in Wiki and I'm trying to make a page for a band called Macrophone, but everytime I make it, i have this error message: "A7 Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject" even if I'm not ready with the whole information. I don't know what to do, so please, tell me where I'm doing wrong.

Thank you and Happy Holidays! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achodesign (talk • contribs) 17:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK

Thanks for your work at DYK. I know our editors enjoy having their article work featured and I appreciate your efforts in making that happen. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Leonid Kharitonov (actor)

Hi Materialscientist. Any chance you could take a quick glance at this new page, which is currently nominated on DYK (26 December)? Thanks.--Storye book (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Materialscientist, for your kind assistance and advice. The page Leonid Kharitonov (actor) has now been corrected and made acceptable for DYK. It took all day as I speak no Russian whatsoever, and Google Translate delivers gobbledygook. But we got there! Please could you now check it again and re-consider it? Thanks.--Storye book (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Materialscientist - I accept your final judgement on the above article for DYK, but please could you kindly let me know what is wrong with the new sources, so that I can correct the problem? Thanks.--Storye book (talk) 11:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the information about referencing. I'll see if my Russian friends can find a book-biography. How much time have I got before the article misses out on DYK?--Storye book (talk) 11:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

A week - excellent. Thank you.--Storye book (talk) 12:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

URGENT - After great difficulty (Russian-speaking friends have been on holiday and just come back) I have now added the printed-book inline reference to the article as you required, and edited the text to fit. It's still on the Template talk:Did you know page listed under Dec 26. Please check it out urgently for DYK? Thanks.--Storye book (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again, Materialscientist, for your kind help.--Storye book (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Your Message on the Van Flandern Article

Hello. You left me a message regarding the Tom Van Flandern article. You mentioned an edit war, but I'm not aware of an edit war on that article. The article has actually been quite stable for a long time, judging from the article history. Perhaps you're referring to an on-going discussion on the Talk page about what Steve Carlip's paper said in response to Van Flandern's claim about superluminal propagation. But this is just a (admittedly rather pointless) discussion on the Talk page, not an edit war in the article.

It's true that in the past couple of days someone has been proposing to change the long-standing reference in the article to Van Flandern's personal web site, suggesting that it be called the "Meta Research" web site, but this was discussed thoroughly over a year ago, and consensus was reached based on verifiable publically available records that "Meta Research" was simply Van Flandern's self-incorporation for his tour guide business. He gave lectures and sold video-tapes explaining his theory about how extra-terrestrial beings had scuplted "faces on Mars", and explaing why how we can harvest infinite free energy from the flux of faster-than-light "elysian" particles streaming through the universe, etc. All of the articles on the "Meta Research" web site were written by Van Flandern. Even the "corporation" (whose legal minimum of seven board members consists of himself, his wife, his son, and a few friends) lapsed years ago. "Meta Research" is a fictitious organization. There is no verifiable information (primary or secondary) about it, other than the public records that I mentioned, which clearly show that it is not (and never was) anything other than a name that Van Flandern liked to put on his letterhead to give the impression that he was backed by some kind of scientific organization. He wasn't. This is verifiable fact. The statement that you and Akuvar (and Van Flandern's son) are trying to insert into the article is not verifiable, so I don't think it meets Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion in the article. Accordingly, I'm opposed to including it in the article, and I have explained this opposition clearly on the discussion page. Neither Akuvar nor you have done the same, so I think it is you and Akuvar who ought to take the advice you offered to me, i.e., you should give your verifiable justifications for your edits on the Discussion page (as I have done).

If you have any questions about any of this, feel free to leave me another message. If you would like to review the previous discussion of this topic, with the citations of verifiable sources, check the very end of the first archived Discussion page for the Van Flandern article. 6324xxxx (talk) 04:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Materialscientist, thank you for getting involved. Let me start by disclosing my COI. I am Tom's eldest son. Last year, after my father died I engaged in extensive discussions with user 6324xxxx regarding content in the article about Tom. While I disagree with most of user6324's assertions above, I do agree the article has been stable until recently. While I and numerous other editors have expressed objections to user 6324xxxx's slant in editing this article, I have not participated in the discussion for some time as the content had stabilized without user 6324xxxx's most inflammatory edits.

Personally, I've found direct dialog with user 6324xxxx unproductive. A review of the discussion history on his talk page documents a prior history of warring. You'll need to review the history as he deleted my posts, labeling them as vandalism (which as I understand it is itself a violation of wikipolicy).

Of equal concern of are the ad hominem attacks by 6324xxxx. User 6324xxxx has made numerous derogatory remarks about both the subject of this article and several of editors. Participating in discussion with this user requires both inordinate persistence and a very thick skin. Unfortunately, all but the most determine editors are quickly dissuaded from participating. I've resigned myself to the idea that there's not really much to be done about it, given wiki's policy of supporting anonymous users. However, I didn't want you to develop the impression that this article was the result of consensus discussion. It's simply a truce between several editors and user 6324xxxx. Mikevf (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Materialscientist, thank you for looking into this article. I have read all your comments on users' talk pages and the article discussion. Our attempts at mediation with editor 6324xxxx in the past have come to no conclusion, usually mediators bow-out when they see the extensive arguments in the discussion pages (both wiki mediators Ecw.technoid.dweeb and ClovisPt have visited, commented, and vanished). You are correct when you respond to user 6324's repeated pleas that editors came to a consensus - we did not. We rarely do. User 6324 makes bold changes to the article based on personal opinion and other editors argue about it in the discussion pages. Our edits get reverted, and he has been caught in violation of the 3 revert rule. He then resorts to circular reasoning, referring back to unfinished arguments as "proof we discussed this and came to an agreement." He commonly resorts to personal attacks and belittles other editors by implying that their knowledge in this area is lacking (I believe you experienced both of these personal attacks by him in the last 48 hours). He is also guilty of misleadingly paraphrasing quotes from sources, leaving out quotes that do not support his current argument and actually inserting his own words into the quote to support himself. Although he commonly uses personal attacks and edit wars that are against wiki policy, I feel the misleading paraphrasing is un-ethical in almost any situation. I have written a completely made-over article comprised of past editor's wishes and have placed it on my talk page for your review as well. It is my hope that after your review we could place this new article on the Tom Van Flandern page and then protect it from further edits. Thanks again for whatever decisions you make. Akuvar (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I just read user 6324xxxx's replies to your comments on user 6324xxxx's Talk page and am now deeply troubled by this process. Editor JuanR who has recently been involved in an argument with user 6324xxxx has not mentioned in his discussions anything about a website regarding "canonical science" but user 6324xxxx seems to know all about it. Perhaps I'm being paranoid but I don't want my life searched and exposed because a user of this encyclopedia has a beef with me. Not only do I think this is a huge violation of outing, but frankly its downright scary. Akuvar (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

CSD article recreated

Graffiti@scit was re-created by same user less than 10 minutes after you deleted it. Same copyvio too. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The "ghost Harold" story

I sent an email to you with a quote that proves there was an alternate ending to Harold and Maude. It's from the book that came with the soundtrack.

Templeclay (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Polistil Page

I noticed you deleted my page on Polistil toys. I am relatively new to Wikipedia, but I have contributed to or made several pages on diecast and model car companies, such as Solido, Mebetoys, Vitesse and others. These sites are beginning to interweave with each other making nice entries and explanations to the diecast toy industry. I thought the Polistil page was a good introduction to the company, explaining different stages in the company's products and their quality and position compared to other companies. I have forty years experience collecting and studying toys. I start pages and then gradually add and edit, improving the entries. I had planned to add more detail, my own pictures, and references to the site and request that you replace the page so I can keep working on it. Thank you. Cstevencampbell Cstevencampbell (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK on the main page

Not to sound rude, but please discuss removal of valid DYK hooks from the main page at WT:DYK or Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors first. One may consider that a technical issue which breaks down some DYK processes (not at the code level though). Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Processes, such as... Archiving? Anything else? -- tariqabjotu 01:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi

DragonZero is repeatedly reverting all edits made by me in any article especialy the article Of Shiho Miyano and reporting my ip for unnecessary reasons and arguing with me i hav made the edits and given the facts to dragonzero of which i had edited and he still telling me this is wrong,that is wrong and even when i say him that its not wrong and prove it to him he undo my edits and after he undid my edits i had corrected the sentences which he pointed to be wrong which in fact wasnt but still he would undo it rather than to correct the mistakes he just undo it and says me that it was wrong that was wrong and after i correct it againg he still does the same thing.i use wiki quite often and add more info many times but this has happend with me first time that i would hav to edit a article so much time for some 3 sentences i added,the only mistake i made was in the first edit in Shiho Miyano that i wrongly wrote the sentences in capital which was later pointed out to me by another ip when i complained to DragonZero that another ip deleted some parts of my edits but rather to just fix it DragonZero undid it again and agin after i corrected all that should hav been i know that i wrote very long to point a single thing its just that DragonZero doing things for unnecessary and disturbing me from 2 days for a simple little mistake i made plz see his Talk Page for more info how he treated me.he just wants to fight me and bcuz i hav static ip my ip changes all the time so sorry for ne problem and sorry for writing so long and disturbing u. ThankYou. 117.197.255.238 (talk) 10:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I know little about articles you edit. Some notes: (i) Registering an account at wikipedia can help - there is much vandalism coming from anons; (ii) Try talking to the users - your dialogue with DragonZero might be constructive; (iii) Leave summary of the changes when you edit; (iv) take it easy when your edits are reverted - wikipedia has high standards, such as all information should be referenced by reliable sources. Also, there are things which might be hard to judge, for example, when you insert ai-chan or ai-kun, it is questionable, because chan and kun are not names in japanese, but simply mean "kid" (like Mr., Ms.), ai is the name. Materialscientist (talk) 11:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

i havent inserted ai-chan or ai-kun i had just added this sentences " Most Characters calls her Vi(Ref Here) in short.Funimation created the name to sound similar to Ai as in Japan." and a cite "She was credited as Vi in the 4th movie." at first i had added this with the sentence but DragonZero told me to cite it rather than adding it to the article.117.197.243.173 (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This might sound a bit harsh, but it is valid to ask that a new addition is directly supported by a cited reliable source. I know it is a hassle to find those, but this adds much credibility to ones edits. Materialscientist (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

ya but this line "Conan introduces her as this (<-Vi here) in her first appearance in the FUNimation dub of Movie 3." dont hav cite but when i added "She was credited as Vi in the 4th movie" dragonzero reverted it back and when i said him this he just said that the editor proved it to b true and changed the topic.he just dont want me to add ne thing in ne of case closed related article which i observed when i added a sentence to Case Closed Movie 3(about release date) he deleted it right away,whatever i add to ne case closed article he deletes it,even if he finds/been told of something else is incorrect or dont hav reliable source other than my edits he doesnt undo it but to my edits he instantly reverts it back. 117.197.241.238 (talk) 03:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Royal Society

Thank you kindly for your review here :). Ironholds (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I'd seen your deletions - been meaning to thank you for that, as well. If you feel like reviewing other Good Articles, I have four GANs up :P. Ironholds (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Worms Jerusalem BC

I have nominated Worms Jerusalem BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Bdb484 (talk) 06:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Aris Thessaloniki F.C.

you moved the talk page of aris fc to the main article... :P because that worms jerusalem article fc contained the talk page, not the main page... go fix it somehow? Heracletus (talk) 12:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Restored .. hopefully. I recall something weirs happened during those revert moves. Materialscientist (talk) 12:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

thank you... :D Heracletus (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for sorting out my picture in the article "Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank"

I have more pictures to post, so I might need your assistance again!

Medcroft (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Polistil Page Replaced

I replaced the Polistil page with more info. on the brand and details in comparison with other companies. I also have added pictures. Please give any feedback or help you see fit. More detail and references to come. Thank you. Cstevencampbell (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism redux

User:Daviddragon96 has two recent instances of vandalism, which I reverted at Homogeneous (chemistry). I tried to determine if his other "contributions" were also vandalism, but it was difficult to discern concerning two other edits in late December. This users talk page User talk:Daviddragon96 appears to show three other communications concerning instances of vandalism. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 03:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Steve. The user has not been properly warned and hasn't edited lately - we don't usually block right away in such cases, but. I have left a final warning and am watching their talk, ready to block at first sight. Materialscientist (talk) 03:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I am glad you are taking care of it. Hopefully I didn't jump the gun by reporting this to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 04:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I just sent you an email regarding a possible problem with an article. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 07:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

New Year's greetings

Scientist, gelukkig nieuwjaar! Het allerbeste met je goede voornemens--ik speel het safe, ik heb er geen. Het beste, Drmies (talk) 07:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Neen, Ik zie veel goede voornemens in je al, misschien is het gewoon je die merkt dat niet ;-) Beste wensen voor 2010! Materialscientist (talk) 07:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Dank je wel, mijn beste. Drmies (talk) 08:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Tja, ik vertrouw mij niet meer om in het Nederlands te scrijven .. Materialscientist (talk) 08:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Haha, don't worry--I don't even trust myself anymore. But the oliebollen were good--wish you were here to share. Take care, Drmies (talk) 08:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Homogeneity (ecology)

Bratislava; New Year 2005; FireWorks. Click on the image for the best view

Thanks for looking into Homogeneity (ecology). And let me jump in and say gelukkig nieuwjaar! And I hope you had a great Christmas (Ik hoop dat je had een goede kerst).

Ik had een geweldige Chritmas. Met behulp van google vertaler ik kan spreken vele talen. :) Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Problem vandal

Sorry if I disturb you, but can you block 61.8.254.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? It is because of his misinformation by adding unrelated infomation without any source, example is adding unrelated Hollywood studios and channels to Digimon related articles. And he hops IPs doing the same vandalism each time. And I've this vandal myself for more than two years now (since December 2007). BTW, his MO is the same as 125.160.186.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to say the least. Thanks. BTW, the guys still active. And this vandal may be using a proxy because he is based in Indonesia, but he's using an IP based in Singapore. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank You for protecting ITER.

I thank you for applying SemiProtection to ITER. In light of the fact that the IP changed radically - from "62.*" to "193.*" - and started integrating escalating edits that appear to refer to the continual reversion here on Wikipedia, you have most certainly helped protect the Wikipedia database, and, by extension, its reputation. Thank you. -RadicalOne---Contact Me 18:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Any time. Note that the "193.*" is still in Budapest, thus it is probably one and same individual. Materialscientist (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Joemama993 on AIV

Could you please take a look at the report about User:Joemama993 on AIV, please. I would really like to get this resolved before bed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems the AIV page has been blanked and another admin is directing me to ANI. So, no worries on looking. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw the report right from your posting, but it is hard to act upon on AIV - the user is trying to edit good-faith (apparently), and one needs to evaluate their numerous edits, which I can't do at the moment. Materialscientist (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I have taken it to ANI. When you have time, please give the post a look-see. Happy (belated) New Year...NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK query

Hi materialscientist, I noticed on Coldplay Expert's talk page that you gave him a DYK for "creating or substantially expanding" the article. Juliancolton created the article, if I remember correctly, and Coldplay Expert nominated it. Was that a mistake, or am I just crazy? :) ceranthor 15:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct. Fixed. Please don't hesitate to drop such messages - the mistake was back in the nomination script and as I haven't reviewed it (only put up into the queues :) I could hardly notice that without you. Materialscientist (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK Backlog

Hi Materialscientist, I noticed you're reviewing some DYK entries recently. There is quite a backlog currently, and I was wondering if you would be willing to review some of the older entries that haven't been addressed (for example, I have one submitted 29 Dec that hasn't been looked at yet). Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The backlog was much better than usual yesterday, but I'll have a look. Materialscientist (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Russian clean-up and British English

Thanks for your assistance with the Russian and British articles that I've been working on. I appreciate it although I wish that I could write in British English more thoroughly so you wouldn't have to come in and clean up behind me. I read them interchangeably so it's hard for me to write that way.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

ARA Uruguy DYK

DYK must have been up for an eyeblink in the middle of the night, I never saw it on the main page, not now in the queues. No pop in views. Actual main page presentation does not show in MP history - only template changes.

Dec 2009: http://stats.grok.se/en/200912/ARA_Uruguay January 2010 http://stats.grok.se/en/201001/ARA_Uruguay

compare earlier DYK view pop

http://stats.grok.se/en/200911/Polygraph_%28duplicating_device%29

Using this search, I get two presentations on main page, but looking at the versions DYK shows same as today.

Any way to see if this was actually shown or did it fall between the cracks?

Any way to correct this?

Thanks, Leonard G. (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Please be patient. The stats for your hook have just appeared, and I have just uploaded it to the WP:DYKA archives (this is done manually and thus there is a delay of about one day). Otherwise, the places to look for "missing" hook are main page history or Template:Did_you_know/Queue. Good work with that article! Materialscientist (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

2.1k views, expected more, probably was on main page only briefly in the middle of the night (PDT) (DYK/Main page management mavens might take a look at this with your prompting). Small issue for me, a bit of a bummer after all that effort, but the article speaks for itself and remains strong. Thanks for your attention, Leonard G. (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Notes: (i) check the stats again in 24 hrs from now (3rd Jan stats might add to those 2.1k; (ii) we switched from 8hr to 6hr long stay at the main page; (iii) yes, timing is important, these after-New-year days, the WP views are relatively low. I have had many my DYKs, which I considered well above average, viewed only about 1k times - I take it philosophically, next time will be better :-) Materialscientist (talk) 02:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Cross of Lothair

Thanks for your edits, but there is no obligation to use p. or pp. - Harvard referencing doesn't - and people are supposed to stick to the referencing style already established. Johnbod (talk) 04:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I accept virtually any style, but exercise common sense: numbers can refer to volumes, chapters, sections, editions, pages, figures, etc., thus defaulting to pages and omitting p., pp. might be misleading. Another thing to avoid is inconsistency - the article used p in some refs. Materialscientist (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well raise that with Harvard! The notes specified n. or fig. where appropriate, & no "p" was certainly the dominant style - for future reference it is the one I use in new articles. Johnbod (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked user script

Hello MS. Hope you have had a good holiday season :-) Since you work often with WP:AIV I thought I would bring up a pretty interesting script:

importScript('User:NuclearWarfare/Mark-blocked script.js');

Once put into your monoscript, it will show any user's signature whom is blocked with a line through it on both talk pages and even on your watchlist. Just incase it might interest you. Kindly Calmer Waters 08:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Martin Landau

According to the listed reference:

"Born 20 June 1928, Brooklyn, New York. Some publicity gives his year of birth as 1931 (sometimes 1932); the actual year is 1928."

That's what I'm going on - the listed ref. Not Google. I asked the IP editor to list his reference, he only states "the almanac." Nothing else. --Manway (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the reality check. I hadn't even thought of that. --Manway (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

One more question - is britannica.com a reliable source? http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1405579/Martin-Landau shows the 1931 date, but with a question mark by it. How would I list that? --Manway (talk) 10:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Russian Zilburs

Thank you for following up on the suspected sockpuppets. Cheers, 99.12.243.20 (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Chlopomania

Would you please pass the similar DYK credit on, to this article's [1] main contributor,[2] who got overlooked in the process? Thanks a million. -- Poeticbent talk 01:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Materialscientist (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK Prep 2 issue

You recently loaded the Prep2 queue, and one of my nominations is in the group (IXL). I notice that the image for the group is up for deletion at Commons, so another image needs to be found. There's also a stray (pictured) in the IXL hook. I'm severely biased (duh!) so I won't change which image is selected. Royalbroil 04:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I changed the image and removed stray "imaged". The new image has no red tail, however, which is a drawback .. Materialscientist (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that looks better (even if there has to be the unfortunate drawback)! Royalbroil 05:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Science barnstar

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		I just want to let you know that there are people who are grateful for you're contributions on science articles! A great deal of science related articles are on my watchlist and it makes me very happy when I see that you reverted vandalism on these articles. Keep up the amazing work! Kind regards, LouriePieterse 11:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Shared credit Thank you for sharing credit at DYK: i didn't deserve it.--Wetman (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikiuser999111

Hi, thanks for the block of his umpteenth sock. That was the second one blocked today; both accounts were created within three minutes of each other, as was this one with a name precisely following the pattern of the others; same name, same timeframe. Would a pre-emptive block be in order? ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 22:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No, but don't hesitate to drop a note if their edits appear similar. Materialscientist (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough ;) ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 22:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise... ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 16:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Rey Fresco

I have a question about the deletion of the Rey Fresco page. As the author of this article, I believe that there is reason for this band to have a page. The article cites national publications, and the band has released an album distributed by a major label. I plan to repost the page. Chrissypan (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Protected warning template correction

Since the template:welcomevandal is fully protected would it be possible for you to correct an issue it is having with leaving the signature. If you simply change out the "~~<includeonly>~~</includeonly><noinclude>~~</noinclude>" with just the four tildes "~~~~". This should correct the problem. Thanks in advance. Kindly Calmer Waters 05:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(i) the proposed change would put my name into the template (ii) I would rather deleted that part at all and sign after the template, as in {{welcome}} and alike, but. For some reason, this was opposed by xeno at the talk page of the template. Materialscientist (talk) 05:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It puts the name of whom ever is placing the template. It states your name because you were using it as it does mine when I tried the change. It would essentially do the sig of whomever editor places the template. At least that is what I believe it is suppost to do; however, it is not functioning and this change would correct it. Its up to you through. Wouldn't steer you wrong :-). Kindly Calmer Waters

This is what happens after the proposed edit, i.e. the signature is apparently inserted into the template itself. I suppose there is a way around this. Materialscientist (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Your right. uggh. Well thanks for trying. I only noticed after attempting to use it earlier and had to manual correct it. Thanks for giving it a shot. Guess I did steer you wrong. Sorry. Maybe can you try this one once <includeonly>~~~~</includeonly><noinclude>~~~~</noinclude> It looks to correct the last problem. Calmer Waters 06:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The result is here - it doesn't seem to work (feel free to edit in that sandbox). Sorry, I'm not knowledgeable in this area. Materialscientist (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Me neither it appears. Thank you for doing that on my behalf, even if it did not bear fruit. It is appreciated. Calmer Waters 06:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Crystal field theory - too harsh?

I think you may have been too harsh earlier today in blocking 202... for deleting e_g and Δ_tet from the article on Crystal field theory. Actually e_g was not defined in the article prior to its use, while the sentence defining Δ_tet was easy to misread. I have now tried to clarify things. It is easy to believe that 202... thought that both were nonsense symbols which had infiltrated the article. We should try to distinguish genuine vandals from the merely confused, who may help us see where clarification is needed. If an edit reads as if one of my students might have written it on an exam, I consider it merely confused. (Answer here please to keep discussion in one place.) Dirac66 (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for feedback. 202.164.55.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked not really for Crystal field theory but for a combination of edits. It appears a shared IP. It might be that the user deleted Δ_tet symbols at random, which made you think why and improve the article ;-). (To be honest, I haven't read that part in detail even though I should be able to correct it.) Materialscientist (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I understand. Today I found another who deserves blocking even more clearly I think. Check out 209.173.17.125 Dirac66 (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Indeed. Blocked. Please don't hesitate to draw attention to such. Materialscientist (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

98.67.61.88

Thanks for taking care of that user, his vandalism was becoming quite annoying. Much appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK Cosmos

Hello. Just so you know, I replied to your DYK comment for Cosmos (book). (Nom Jan 3) Mnation2 (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I replied back at T:TDYK. Materialscientist (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Translation

Coincidentally I came across an image I would like to use from the FOM institute in the Netherlands. First, I am wondering if you happen to know if the Dutch government has a similar attitude regarding Public Domain that the US government has. Works published by the US government are Public Domain. Is this the same for the Dutch government? FOM Institute is a Dutch government institution. Specifically FOM Institute AMOLF. I don't know if you are familiar with these institutions.

In addition, I have tried to use Google translator for the following, but the translation is hard to decipher. Are you able to translate the relevant information contained in the "Disclaimer" on this page: Disclaimer FOM website (Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC))

In short - no, we can't directly copy info from that site. It is copyrighted, and I am not aware of a similar Dutch law allowing re-use of government work as in US. Even if it was allowed, it would probably be restricted to Dutch wiki. That disclaimer is not really about copyright, but all it is saying about copyright is negative for free re-use. You can look through WP:PERMISSION and email the author asking release on wiki. Materialscientist (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks for looking into this. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting page

I have just written to another administrator with whom I've previously had dealings), because I saw that I couldn't immediately delete an article I was working on (Andreas Stenschke). The only reason I saved it prematurely was because the directions regarding references were confusing and not working. I have successfully edited a number of articles in the past and placed references that published perfectly. For some reason, though I used the bracketed ref and /ref, although the footnotes were enumerated, I kept getting a message saying that the ref tags wouldn't work unless I put in a bracketed reference/ tag in (totally different spelling, etc.) I also did the "test" as suggested, and it seemed to work, so I went back to the article and saved it (because they'd told me to save the test page), and the references were still a problem. That's why I deleted the text. It's a good article and, when finished, should be kept, so I hope that the "history" of its quick deletion will not make it suspect. Do you think you might give me pointers as to what I am apparently doing wrong? I can't figure it out. Plus, I tried to figure out how to put photos in, but got nowhere. I was using another article's edit area to copy what they had done (in this instance the subject was actress Deborah Kerr) and saw that when I tried to put an infobox in with the ((infobox)) brackets it just copied the text as is. Plus, I noticed that in DK's case, the reference text was different from the simpler text I'm used to (and which I have used successfully, and which is mentioned in your reference guide). Anyway, this is a lot of info, and I'd appreciate any help. Thanks.Andymickey (talk) 05:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleting my pages

Okay, thanks for explaining that, but this jerk keeps screwing with my page and calling me a puppet. Navalpath (talk) 07:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In Case You Don't See My Note To You MaterialScientist

Please go to my talk page and see for yourself. All best,Andymickey (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Just placed another one on my Talk page, and thanks.Andymickey (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Just placed another response regarding the head shot. Please don't delete until you read my comment on my Talk page. Thanks.

Andymickey (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

csd File:Lightning animation.gif

Not the image, the image is on commons just the description page on wikipedia. A description page that contains just a cat entry [[Category:Free animated images]] the rest of the description is on commons.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 09:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

So? Materialscientist (talk) 10:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I taged the page for csd F2 because its a superfluous description page for a image on commons you declined stating that the image isn't broken i wrought to you to explain the reason. Just like file File:永-order.gifFile:Stereogram Tut Animated Shark Small.gif witch description pages you already have deleted.So i am asking that you do the same with this description page.And if you don't mind this description pages too : File:35wBridgecollapse.gif,File:Australia states evolution.gif,File:Australian states history.gif,File:Breakup of Yugoslavia.gif,File:Korean war 1950-1953.gif,File:Mongol Empire map.gif,File:Ottoman small animation.gif,File:Roman Republic Empire map.gif,File:US LGBT civil rights animation.gif--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 10:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the purpose of deleting the latter description pages? At least some of those do show as animated images in thumbnails. Materialscientist (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the purpose of keeping the description if the file is on commons its not like it has a feature picture tag on it or something its jut a cat tag?--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the DYK note! Kaisershatner (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick note about blocked User:Satgurubhuriwale

As you're the blocking admin and the block reason was the introduction of copyrighted materials, just a quick note to point that the article that prompted the block has actually been released through OTRS. Which means that technically, the reason for which the user was blocked is moot.

While the user doesn't seem to have appealed (and has probably vanished), I'd suggest an unblock in these specific circumstances. Regards, MLauba (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Unblocked. Materialscientist (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for God the Father in Western art

Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain...

You recently moved Mohammed Sadiq (Guantanamo captive 349) to Mohammed Sadiq with the edit summary: "moved Mohammed Sadiq (Guantanamo captive 349) to Mohammed Sadiq: Mohammed Sadiq (Guantanamo captive 349) is an inappropriate name for the subject of the article. Will add {otherpeople} to the article after the move, to provide a link to Mohammed S".

Could you please explain the reasoning behind your move in more detail?

Some other contributors have, in the past, challenged disambiguation suffixes like "(Guantanamo captive 349)". They thought the suffixes like that were too long, and unnecessarily specific.

I've done a lot of the work on the article related to Guantanamo. Back four years or so ago I started to come across Guantanamo articles that needed disambiguation. I added disambiguation like "(terror suspect)" to distinguish them from cricket stars and other noncaptives. But, by the time the first official lists of the captives' names were published, in April and May 2006, it turned out that Guantanamo was full of homonyms. Several dozen of the captives share a name with one or more other captives. Those guys need to be disambiguated. And their disambiguation suffixes needed to be that specific.

I have explained to those who have concerns over apparently overly detailed disambiguation suffixes that, in the interests of consistency, I gave all Guantanamo captives who needed a disambiguation suffix one of the form "(Guantanamo captive nnn)" -- even when they were being disambiguated from non-terrorists. They are the minority. Consistency is important.

Most of the handful of people who had a concern over these suffixes have accepted my reasoning. I hope you will too.

In this particular case the disambiguation page was at Mohammed Sadiq, and shortly before your name another contributor had recently moved the disambiguation page to Mohammed Sadiq (disambiguation). They didn't explain why they thought this move was a good idea. I don't see any justification as to why Mohammed Sadiq (Guantanamo captive 349) should have pride of place over his namesakes.

Was there some other reason you thought the earlier name was "inappropriate"?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I only technically executed the move which was requested by someone. Please bring this question to the talk page of the article. Materialscientist (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Materialscientist. You have new messages at Rochelimit's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.