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.

Hello, Materialscientist. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals/Draft capitalization guidelines

User:ZooPro has suggested that I request your feedback and/or modifications to this proposal. If you think that it has worth, I would like to post an RfC, notify relevant groups, then announce it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style. If this is unlikely to be helpful or achieve anything, please be frank. I won't be offended.

Quick links:

• Original discussion
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)#Capitalisation of common names of species
• Wikipedia:PROPOSAL#proposal
• Discussion between ZooPro and Anna Frodesiak at Anna's talk
• Discussion between ZooPro and Anna Frodesiak at ZooPro's talk

This message has been sent to:

1. User:Anthony Appleyard
2. User:Donlammers
3. User:Innotata
4. User:Intelligentsium
5. User:Materialscientist
6. User:Mokele
7. User:Rlendog
8. User:Ucucha
9. User:UtherSRG
10. User:Visionholder
11. User:ZooPro

Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Page Move

Could you do a simple page move for me? I can't cause it is over a current redirect. If you would, please move WJCN to WHRE. Thanks! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but the article bears no sign of WHRE. Why moving? Materialscientist (talk) 08:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

WJCN was bought by WHRO-FM and they changed the calls to WHRE. I was in the process of flipping the information over, but I always go backwards and do the move first. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank ya, Sir. :) Greatly appreciated. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Mass density

Please read the IUPAC tables in the Green Book (2nd edition). The ONLY unit for mass density is the kg/m³. See page 12th at Classical Mechanics and once again at page 42nd: General Chemistry. No other unit is allowed. ZJ (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Some IUPAC rules are ignored by the entire scientific community, including publishers. This is one of those. Materialscientist (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Another source NIST table 2. How to get coherent system of units. In other hand let me quote them: For example, the derived unit for the derived quantity molar mass (mass divided by amount of substance) is the kilogram per mole, symbol kg/mol. . Many of scientists use tables and books from the XIX-th century. The cgs is used by Gauss.

I say only that we cannot deny the readers of WIKI, using and undestanding the SI units (among earlier used units, of course). We will break the coherency when using constants to miltiply or divide numbers when result must be calculated. ZJ (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

BLPs

What's the deal with BLP expansions again? For instance how much would i need to expand Jens Blauert to qualify? What about Yeshayahu Yerushalmi? Expand beyond a stub?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You need 3520 bytes of prose (5x expansion) for that article, because it has a reference. If it had none then 2x would be enough (unreferenced BLP elimination drive), but still, the total length of the article should be >1500 bytes of prose. I hope you have the script installed, for prose length calculation, or its not always trivial to tell by eye. Materialscientist (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Nono, it was me who added the reference as part of the unreferenced BLP elimination drive. It was an unsourced BLP previously to both of them. So how much further do I need to expand them? Note I've already added some text to the Yerushalmi article..♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You would normally need 2x expansion in this case, but the article should still be longer than 1500 bytes of prose (no matter the expansion number, 2x or 20x), thus 1500 in both cases, but if you nominate them for DYK, please do mention that those were unreferenced BLPs and thus 2x expansion - this is a new rule. Materialscientist (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hokey dokey, thanks. P.s the new DYK system is running a lot more efficiently than anticipated...♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

.. despite a recent departure of a few key members, which can always happen, and I am much much less active there as I used to be - this is why we need some stability with DYK rules, so that the walls would stand if people are gone. Materialscientist (talk) 07:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes and also it deepens the interaction between more people in community in being more conscious of the work of others. I don't know why I initially reacted so strongly against, maybe I was thinking of it as too authoritarian... I've expanded the two anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Actually there might be a problem with not enough articles for people to review....♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

RD2's

Thank you for removing the edit summary from Bay View, Milwaukee. I didn't know that this could be done without completely undo-ing the edit. This user is hiding behind an IP address and has left similar vulgar nonsense in several other edit summaries as well. Again, thank you. VitusKonter (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

User talk:142.25.110.165

Please insert cork in closest hole. HalfShadow 22:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah; nothing left but the refreshing scent of pine. Marvelous. HalfShadow 22:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Errors in Did you know?

• ... that the development of the Chengdu J-20 fighter aircraft may have been assisted by cyberespionage?

That is on the front page right now. Note the use of the word "may", which could mean anything. Did you know? I may be the king. I'm not, but that's because it's not a fact. I know we're blocked in China and everything, but I don't think you should be linking a project to espionage without solid proof. If it were a BLP, we wouldn't use "may have been involved in terrorist activity" as a hook. Being China's first 5th gen stealth fighter is solid enough, let's not throw muck. 188.222.170.156 (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I would have appreciated an answer on that page, and not just have it removed at the time up with a note in the edit summary. 188.222.170.156 (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The habit is to remove comments from WP:ERRORS when the item is gone off the main page - can't help with it, like it or not. I read the sources of that article as US Government knows for sure that information has been stolen from contractors of that project, but they don't know what exactly was stolen. Materialscientist (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you don't watch the errors section, fine. But that doesn't make it a good DYK hook. You use the word "may" because you do not have the evidence to commit to anything stronger. Anything with "may" in is correct, you don't even need a source, because you're not asserting anything. The development of the J-20 "may" have been assisted by Al Qaeda - that sentence is just as correct, you're not presenting the reader with a fact. Instead you are throwing mud - John Siegenthaler may have been involved in the JFK assassination, nothing was ever proven. When there is already many interesting hooks available to use in the article, please avoid accusations. 188.222.170.156 (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, we prefer to have a solid fact anytime we can, but those are extremely difficult to state in this particular case, for confidential and political reasons. So if you object the sources are correct then discuss it at the talk page of the article, as this affects its factual content. If you object the diffuse formulation of the DYK hook - it is your right, but we can't run ahead of the US authorities, which confirmed the fact of systematic espionage, but did not launch an official complaint. Materialscientist (talk) 05:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

And so for confidential and political reasons, you used a hook tying the aircraft's development to criminal activity. I hope you choose future DYKs more carefully. I didn't even raise the issue of sourcing, but your poor quality of hook. Incidentally, this is what you have "One question that may go unanswered for a long time concerns the degree to which cyberespionage...", and "Former U.S. officials say the attacks appear to have originated in China. However it can be extremely difficult to determine the true origin because it is easy to mask identities online."

If you're going to pick a hook in an article where its "extremely difficult" due to "confidential and political reasons", then don't pick one which links the subject to criminal activity. It's that simple. You wouldn't do it with a BLP, so just don't do it at all. 188.222.170.156 (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

How about sprotecting atomic number?

It doesn't look like the IPs are doing anything but vandalize it, for a very long time. SBHarris 05:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Low editing frequency. I am hesitant to semiprotect too many articles myself, and would focus on higher priorities. Materialscientist (talk) 05:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Your note

Hi there, thanks for making the Robert Burns page Semi-Protected, I was trying to contact an admin as soon as I noticed it was on google homepage! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crowaled (talk • contribs) 00:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks I appreciate your note regarding the usage of {{Barelinks}}, but I intend to continue using it, even if only one or two references are bare URLs. Link rot is a problem for every single reference. This is like saying "don't add {{cn}} if there is only one unsourced statement." If you don't want to fix the problem of the bare URLs--and I know I don't--that's fine, but that's not an argument in favor of leaving them as they are. Without tagging them, they won't get fixed. Please respond on my talk if there's something I'm missing here (entirely possible.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really Seeing that there is a bare URL in a references list (which I now do with almost every article) and adding {{Barelinks}} takes a few seconds. Finding the sources and filling in citation templates and making sure that the citation style is consistent with the one already established in the article takes much longer than a few seconds and often a couple of minutes. A couple of minutes here and there is no problem, of course, but if I added the source information for every time that I added that tag, I would still be filling in citation template fields. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess The barelink backlog right now is 1,644 which is actually miniscule compared to most backlogs and could be fixed in a matter of days with a couple of editors using scripts such as the one you use. After that, it's pretty straight-forward maintenance. I understand what you're saying, but tagging does make it so that other users who are interested in fixing the maintenance problems can do so (sometimes with scripts/bots/etc. as you appear to use.) I'm not interested in fixing those problems, but I am interested in finding them for other editors. Simply put, they can't be fixed until they're found and I don't want to be the one to fix them. That may seem dismissive, but that's just how I prefer to edit and it seems constructive to me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Citing sources reads in part "Each article should use the same citation method throughout. If an article already has citations, adopt the method in use or seek consensus on the talk page before changing it." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

In regards to "Fermi Paradox" the argument that some thing might not be relevant to this "hypothesis" while others are, such as "rare earth" seems silly to be, don't you think?just about everything you can see written on the page are deeply conjectural! perhaps you would agree to some independent moderation in the matter? Infocat13 (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Denstity of Osmium

Hi, I noticed you reverted my changes to Osmium. The original article read:

Osmium is generally considered to be the densest known element, slightly denser than iridium[3] Calculations of density from the space lattice may produce the most reliable data for these elements, giving a density of 22.562±0.009 g/cm3 for iridium versus 22.587±0.009 g/cm3 for osmium.[4]

I changed this to:

Osmium is the densest naturally occuring element, slightly denser than iridium.[3] Calculations of density from the space lattice may produce the most reliable data for these elements, giving a density of 22.562±0.009 g/cm3 for iridium versus 22.587±0.009 g/cm3 for osmium.[4]

This change was reverted back.

The reason I felt the change was required was because seems not as clear as it could be - I felt a reader could understand the original text to be stating that while Osmium is generally considered to be slightly denser than Iridium, some scientists disagree (and think Iridium is denser than Osmium - i.e. conflicting experimental results). I don't think this is the case, but correct me if I am wrong. My understanding is that all scientists agree Osmium is denser than Iridium, but the uncertainty (i.e. the generally considered part) comes into play when talking about possible densities of transuranic elements.

The purpose of my edit was to try and remove the ambiguity. Perhaps it would be clearer to make 2 points: (i) All scientist agree that Osmium is the densest naturally occuring element, and (2) it is generally believed to be the densest of all elements although the density of transuranic elements are not known to sufficient accuracy. Perhaps something like this:

Osmium is the densest naturally occuring element, slightly denser than iridium. It is generally considered to be the densest known element ^{(possibly add some kind of disclaimer indicating some experiments have indicated that there may be transuranic elements with greater densities but unproven, etc)}

...or some other text that gets the same point across - 87.112.145.124 (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts were like this: (i) your correction implied that transuranics are heavier. I believe this is a pure speculation which must be confirmed by experiment, and we are ages away from that (calculations are yet too unreliable in this area, and a mere change in crystal symmetry can make a large difference in density, not to mention radioactivity and other possible effects). (ii) Saying "osmium is the densests" might be Ok, but I like the current phrasing better because this is what we believe in, based on the set of experiments we have at the moment. The difference is small. I've heard some people disagree with that (Os is the heaviest). Materialscientist (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I've heard some people disagree with that (Os is the heaviest). - do you mean ther are scientists that disagree with Osmium being the heavists of the naturally occuring elements - sorry if this sounds silly, I'm not an expert on this 87.112.145.124 (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thorium image

Sorry, I uploaded the wrong one. I had collected some images of Thorium and saved them onto my computer. Is about.com a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackne (talk • contribs) 01:39, 9 January 2011

I believe that this website has the original image: http://www.americanelements.com/thm.html Hackne (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC) (UTC)

Protection

Thanks for protect my page (and for watch me :D). If he continue in my talkpage, do not hesitate in protect it as well. Tbhotch^™ and © 08:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

IP 75.68.138.165

Hello Materialscientist. On Jan 1 you blocked 75.68.138.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for making continual changes to articles that are unsourced at best. As near as I can tell all the edits by this IP are actually introducing inaccurate info. They have returned from their block and continued with the exact same pattern of editing. I fear a longer block may be required. I came to you as you had been the most recent editor to deal with this IP. If you would prefer that I go to the AIV page please leave a note here and I will be happy to do so. Thank you for your time and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 17:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Update: It turns out that, after I had logged off, the IP just would not stop so it has been blocked by Admrboltz so you need not look into this. Thanks anyway and have a great week. MarnetteD | Talk 20:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

New DYK rules

I recently wrote new articles on John Fryatt and Paul Pyant. I would have nominated them for DYK before, but the new DYK rules have discouraged me from doing so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Which particular rules (there was more than one recenlty) and why? Materialscientist (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Requests for move

• User:Nvvchar/Saint Barthélemy
• User:Nvvchar/Terra Chã

Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Range block

Hey, I've been getting vandalism on OOO, Den-O, All Riders: Let's Go Kamen Rider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for the past few days, and it appears to be an individual in Malaysia who has access to all of 60.51.20.0/24. If he pops up on another IP, could you see if you can block the range? He seems to be the only one using it currently.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference formatting

Just so you know, WP:Inline citations names WP:Parenthetical references as a legitimate alternative to <ref> tags. Ref tags are never mandatory on Wikipedia. See "Editors are free to use any method for inline citations; no method is recommended over any other" and "editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus."

Accordingly, I have reverted your formatting change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but then please provide page numbers all through and format them according to WP:PAREN. I'll revert you for now because of removal of unaddressed tags. Materialscientist (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

And, consider not wasting time, but improve the article no matter the style - there is no use to make a point. Indeed, various styles are acceptable, and separation of refs from text has many benefits. Materialscientist (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I was already adding on the page numbers, and your inappropriate edit warring over citation style produced an edit conflict. If you wanted to "improve the article no matter the style", you could have made some effort to find page numbers yourself. (Both of the relevant books are searchable under Google Books.)

Furthermore, your careless reversion removed a citation that I added in response to another editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for inconvenience - I can neither know what are you doing at the moment, nor access the Sulik book. Materialscientist (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Noinclude

I don't think you intended to remove "noinclude" with this edit. But if you did, the /noinclude should also be removed from the end of WP:ERRORS. Art LaPella (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I deleted noinclude tag by accident, while emptying a subsection, but I think it should not be there in the first place (general tags in subsections, "do not edit below this line", etc.) - this "noinclude" was added to WP:ERRORS only recently. So I went bold and removed /noinclude too - if this causes some categories to be listed twice on talk:main page - I can live with it. Materialscientist (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

note

I believe you may be interested in this AN/EW report. Spalds (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I just noted the timestamp on your warning to TRBIH. It was made an hour before the last revert was made by him to Jim Gibbons. Spalds (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for fixing the reference formatting on Lavrenti Beria. I'm all-thumbs when it comes to using citation templates correctly, so I do very much appreciate it. Happy editing! Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Saint Barthélemy

good evening

my constructive work on Saint Barthélemy did not diserve your (complete) Undo and rvt : you should have read discussion first Talk:Saint Barthélemy and may be discuss first

regards,

Doulcy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC).

I am reading the discussion and working on fixing the article (not my work). Please read my comments at the talk page. Your comments were very useful, but your edits to the article were not. Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

If I have removed references it was only because I went to each reference first (which took some time) but did not find what was actually stated, thus reference was not justified (please read 'References do not fit' in discussion).

If I removed some information it was because it was useless publicity (please read 'Sources - References' in discussion), or the information was wrong, or the information was no more up to date.

Regarding overlinking some names (only one actually but for all its occurrences in the text : linking the wikipedia page for Gustavia), if it is a problem I can correct this.

I do not think I have changed for the worse any reference while changing the reference formatting ?

Repeating that I have deleted only what I have first verified as unjustified, which is actually as well a constructive work, I do suggest that you check the same references from closer; then you should revert your two reversion that I can correct the overlinking problem and also eventually the 'reference formatting' problem. Waiting for the editors who expanded some of the information I have modified to address those concerns might take a lot of time...

I am not moving anymore on this page waiting for your decision.

regards,

Doulcy (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Please understand that I do appreciate your efforts and share many of your concerns (the article is unshaped and does need much work, not unexpected for such a gross expansion, and yes, references are often too bad or missing). My moves simply aim to solve the problem most efficiently, given 5 active editors might be dealing with this article right now. I have replied at talk page of the article. Those 3 other editors are very active and expanded the article for WP:DYK, thus their reaction should be quick. Materialscientist (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

discussion to be continued on Talk:Saint Barthélemy best, Doulcy (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears this editor has some serious grudge issues in supporting the Swedish interests of the island.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I've just given the article a read and a bit of a copyedit and it is nowhere near as problematic as he says. I'll ask Nvvchar to double check the sources and page numbers now but if this person continues to cause trouble he must be dealt with. It should be fine.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Contacting you

I sent you an e-mail requesting some advice. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Can't read email now, will check in about 1/2 hour. Materialscientist (talk) 06:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not see how to contact you, only that you removed my edits of the Depleted Uranium page - the explain the edit portion is too small to deal with the numerous errors on this page - it has always been written by activists following the ICBUW official party line - that all began with Saddam Hussein's propaganda. I remove those things that are totally wrong. I would love to rewrite the entire page or trash it because it is pretty close to unsalvageable. You can write me at DUStory-owner@yahoogroups.com - the bad thing about Wikipedia is that the whole world thinks that it is the internet equivalent of the carefully edited and fact checked Encyclopaedia Brittanica, which I grew up with, but it is not, it is heavily influenced by activists who dominate the pages that they create and edit. Thanks. Roger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.83.227 (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC) PS - if you have a PhD in Physics, then you should know that most of the Depleted Uranium article is written by non-scientists - I welcome your help in fixing it. Do you know Timeshifter? He seems to believe the ICBUW line - I keep removing the Rita Hindin article because it never was sound scientifically and was written under the auspices of the Traprock Peace Center and other anti-depleted uranium activists who fully accepted the Saddam Hussein regime propaganda line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.83.227 (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Higher resolution picture

Hello, I really like your picture of Zn-Mg-Ho Diffraction. Could you make it available in higher resolution? Thanks. Michbich (talk) 09:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I've left the lab where I kept these data, and this is the only copy I have (it was cropped a bit). The image was scanned from a photo slide - we haven't got a CCD which can handle diffraction patterns (need a very high dynamic range). Materialscientist (talk) 09:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Space.com

Thanks for informing me on this. I've replaced the space.com ref with a nasa.gov news article. I hope it qualifies as reliable enough. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

User:JediJeremy

I have extended your block of User:JediJeremy to an indefinite one for block evasion and sockpuppetry per this edit and this one. Trust you don't mind but let me know if you do. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked IP reappeared on different IP

At 04:17 on 10 January 2011 you blocked 82.40.216.101 with an expiry time of 72 hours ‎ (Violations of the Biographies of living persons policy)
Exactly the same allegation about Billy Rankin, and removal of much of the rest of the article, has just been posted from 64.64.14.44. an account with only two other edits - one a blanking at a different article.
Could you please consider permanently blocking both IPs? Thanks
Arjayay (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The same RV has just come in from another IP 115.160.161.236 - As, so far, they have all been IPs, perhaps semi-protecting is the solution?
Arjayay (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(tps) Semi-protected for 1 week. Hopefully they will find better things to spend their time on :) Calmer Waters 17:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect information on the page on Denmark

Please stop reverting the Denmark article to incorrect information. The article that is referred to in note nr. 12 says that 80,9 pct. of the entire population of Denmark are members of the state church - not 80,9 pct. of the ethnic Danes. That number is approximately 88 pct - see talk page.

He's back....

See this edit. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposition 19 (1972)

Hello. I would like to create an entry for California Proposition 19 (1972). I see that you created and then deleted an article on this topic. Could you please share your experience and perhaps some of the elements that you feel would result in a robust contribution? Thank you. Pubplcy (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Never worked on this topic. I might have deleted some article in an administrative routine, but can't trace it without exact name. Materialscientist (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The deleted article was "California Proposition 19 (1972)" Pubplcy (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

No such article was ever created on this wikipedia, as far as I can see. Materialscientist (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Not this again. Helium needs you

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Helium&action=historysubmit&diff=407401504&oldid=406993460 SBHarris 03:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I know, I'm watching them all. Frequency (of IP edits) is too low. Materialscientist (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

What is the point of watching something increase inevitably, like a house-fire? I could go through the backlogs of helium and show you what happened, each and every time it was unprotected. Why repeat history over and over and over and over like in Groundhog Day? What could possibly turn out different, the next time? Do you think Andie MacDowell is eventually going to come across, or something? Not trying to be TOO sarcastic, but I do not understand this rationale. Anyway, I see Vsmith has fixed it. SBHarris 03:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Current WP policy is not to lock it, hoping that some anons bring something positive, and sometimes they do, even for FAs. Helium is much less vandalized than many many other pages I watch. I do protect them, but carefully, as experience tells one wistleblowing anon is enough to make a big deal out of it. If you noticed, Vsmith protected it until 27 Jan, which is nothing. In case of scientific articles, I usually wait for a solid case and protect for longer. Materialscientist (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Just give me your IP vandalism threshhold (# per day) and I will tell you (based on past experience) when helium will exceed that. Place your bet. SBHarris 03:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Malibu Lake

Any chance this could still be valid for DYK?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

(i) nominate ASAP, saying that whereas expansion is not 5x, the past versions earlier than 7 Jan were unreferenced; (ii) expand - it is odd that an article about lake has only literally a few words in "Fauna and flora". Materialscientist (talk) 12:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Nice work on Vittorio Erspamer. I expanded Erspamer's home town of Malosco. Difficult though. Have I managed a 5 times expansion of the prose? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC) PLease let me know if it is a big enough expansion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Practically all of the hits are in Italian so I'd really be struggling to expand it further without using google translate to extract the important facts.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Itaal Shur‎ images

Hi, thanks for brightening the Itaal Shur‎ images I uploaded into Commons earlier today. They look much better now. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Article size idea

I just saw your edit to the Evolution article and noticed your comment about the size. If you'd like, I can go through and convert a lot of the journal citations to {{cite doi}} tonight. I just did it for the Lemur article, and it shaved off 10kb from the file size. With this article, I'd expect to shed even more.

Just let me know if you want me to do it. It will take a few hours for me to generate and fix up the citations when and if I do it. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem with cite doi/pmid is that a single misprint can erase much of the article with no obvious clue where is the problem (sad experience). For this reason, I do avoid cite doi/pmid as much as possible. Materialscientist (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Every citation I create I ultimately fix up and add to my watchlist. But it's up to you. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You're quick

I hadn't even managed to correct my botched 3RR report and you'd blocked him. Thanks for keeping a lid on this. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Query on csd procedure

Hi, I hope you don't mind - I selected picked your name out as a active admin and I was wondering if you could give me a second opinion regarding speedy deletion. I recently listed the album Pulse_(Thomas_Giles_album) for speedy deletion (as it hasn't been released yet and the reviews regarding it are not RS, so it doesnt meet GNG) under A9 db-album. However the deletion was rejected as the album's artist had an existing page (See User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ) and the description of the A9 asks for no notability AND no article (copied below). This seems to make no sense to me as the next sentence states that the standard is lower than notability.. Am I interpreting this wrongly? or should the 'and' below be changed to an 'or'?

A9. No indication of importance (musical recordings).

An article about a musical recording that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant and where the artist's article does not exist. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion does not apply to other forms of creative media, products, or any other types of articles

I'd be grateful for an opinion, cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You picked a wrong person, as I know nothing on albums on WP and am not a big specialist on CSD, but as you asked my opinion, here it goes. Notability is not inherited, meaning that a notable author can write a crappy book and it can be deleted. As I understand, this would be rare in music, i.e. if the author is notable (as music author) then his album is most likely notable too. Here the album is forthcoming, and thus might not yet be notable enough, but it will likely become soon, i.e. a prod will likely be declined and by the time of AFD it will get enough coverage. This is a part where I am unsure (an album which is not yet notable). Materialscientist (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your interpretation - its good food for thought. I'm still finding a bit hard to grasp - it seems that as its written, albums cannot be speedied even if they not likely to ever be notable (if their musician has a page); but the musicians can be speedied (which means that we'll have to delete the musicians first and then hunt for the orphans I suppose). Thanks again, cheers, Clovis Sangrail (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be correct - if the author is deletable than his creations will be speedied (with some exception though, some creations have more importance than their author, but again, this seems unlikely in music industry). Materialscientist (talk) 11:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Pyridine

The DYK project (nominate) 12:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Cornforth reagent

The DYK project (nominate) 12:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

WP Elements Triple Crown

See: Wikipedia:Triple_Crown/Nominations#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Elements. Nergaal (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Darrkrevenge

Darrkrevenge (talk · contribs) is fresh off a year-long block and vandalizing again. You're much more experienced with anti-vandalism; could you take a look? (I'm also curious if this person has an amazingly good memory or if they're rotating between accounts...but only checkuser could answer that.) Shubinator (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you :) Shubinator (talk) 04:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

1 year block is sometimes issued when it is clearly a kid, hoping he/she will grow up. Materialscientist (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That does explain the unusually good memory... Shubinator (talk) 04:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not impossible that he/she kept a record somewhere, but indeed, starting so early after the block expiry is surprising, and I would also suspect he/she was active on WP (maybe as IP). Anyway, it looks like random low-frequency vandalism for which I won't bother asking a checkuser. Materialscientist (talk) 04:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

A year ago, when I just passed RFA, an admin asked my advice on whether or not to ask for checkuser, and I gave a confident answer, and only now understood that it was probably correct :-). Materialscientist (talk) 05:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Haha, confidence will get you a long ways. Sounds good to me :) Shubinator (talk) 05:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Nawaz Sharif

This is regarding your recent revert your contributions. A revert you made to Nawaz Sharif appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit/revert may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please don't try to vandalize the article by removing or deleting important matter from reliable sources such as from BBC, otherwise you may be blocked. Please remember to observe this important neutral point of view and core policy. 112.80.149.41 (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. As I tried to explain in my edit summary, those BBC sources might be reliable, but are not clear at all and are not to be placed like a loose list - please link to WP:RS explaining them, avoid explaining them yourself. Materialscientist (talk) 07:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Removing {{Bare links}} from Opera Mobile

Hello, Materialscientist

Thanks for filling in references in Opera Mobile. However, you had removed {{Bare links}} template from the page. (Did reflinks do that or you yourself?) Please do not do so when there is still bare links in the article. Please note that simply being wrapped in {{Cite web}} is not enough. Every citation should ideally have title, author, date, and source information. Fleet Command (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes reflinks sometimes I remove the tag - can't tell. Fixed refs. First two are generated automatically - if you wish to fix them, don't tag (useless), but post a request at Template:Infobox web browser. Materialscientist (talk) 09:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Wikipedia Ambassador Program

I would like to invite you to consider joining the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, which is looking for experienced Wikipedians to be Online Ambassadors. The role of Online Ambassadors is to be mentors for students who are editing Wikipedia as part of class assignments. I know you would be a great mentor and Ambassador, so please look at the Online Ambassador guidelines and you can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. If you are not able to help personally I'd appreciate suggestions of people who you feel have the right attitude and experience, as the Program is starting this month Thank you Thruxton (talk) 12:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for PEPPSI

The DYK project (nominate) 00:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK

Hey, I saw that you guys were in need of something relatively simple that required an admin bit, so I thought I'd help out. I didn;t break anything did I? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The first priority is checking hooks/articles for blunders before promotion - here extra eyes are always welcome. Materialscientist (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Looks fine. {{DYKbotdo}} should be on the first line of the queue set (even before the <noinclude>). Shubinator (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. Materialscientist (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys and, er, hey Shub, long time no see! I'll try to poke my head round the door at DYK when I can, now I know I can do it without breaking the wiki! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, haven't been as active as I used to be, or as I would like to be. I like to think I'm here in spirit with DYKUpdateBot and DYKcheck, even when I've got a busy week. Definitely, help out wherever you feel like :) Shubinator (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

(TPSing:) Hey Shubinator, I was wondering where you were. Nice to see you again. Scientist, now that we're all here, I think you should brew a big pot of coffee, thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

:) Party on MatSci's page. Grab a friend. Shubinator (talk) 03:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Bug fixed

I've fixed this "bug": the bot won't raise errors if the file is cascade-protected, even if the manual protection will expire early. Also, the "DYK is late" messages can now stay on WT:DYK and don't need to be removed. Shubinator (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

A sockpuppet case you may be interested in

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jochen Schmidt. All the best, DuncanHill (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

pH of non-aqueous solutions

Doing a little research, I see that you're right; pH is not limited to aqueous solutions.

I would love to see the pH article address this more directly, but I'm just a humble attorney who hasn't taken a science class since high school. Are you in a position to make a first start at a section, ===pH of non-aqueous solutions===?

I turned up a few sources on Google books --

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

Clearly I don't presume to ask you to do my work for me. Let me know if this doesn't interest you, and I will make the first effort.

I can be reached at user_talk:Agradman. I'm currently on a forced wikibreak but I do check my messages fairly regularly.

Thanks, 75.4.194.121 (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll check this. Just two bits of information (i) I am not confident enough to change definition in this particular area, unless it is clearly said in sources like Britannica or IUPAC Gold Book (such change requires knowing the "atmosphere" in the science field; Britannica says "aqueous or other liquid solutions", and Gold Book says nothing on water at all) (ii) I recall reading that while nearly everybody uses pH for aqueous solutions only, many chemists reserve a possibility for other solvents too. Materialscientist (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Materialscientist and Agradman. I can't resist a debate about anything as strange as non-aqueous pH. You might take a look at nonaqueous titration and inorganic nonaqueous solvent. Applying the concept of pH to non-aqueous solutions sounds like it would be fraught with peril. See this section for some cautions. They say that pH is undefined for aprotic solvents. It looks like User:Physchim62 provided much of the content for that article, so he might be able to answer questions in this area. It seems that you can probably dunk a pH electrode in various non-aqueous solutions, but interpreting what it says is tricky. EdJohnston (talk) 05:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

..something like that :-), i.e. for myself I don't believe non-aqueous pH measurement and concept would works, but I am not confident to push this position anywhere, and when Britannica and IUPAC remain neutral on this, so am I. Materialscientist (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Wales

Appreciate your good intentions at the Wales article, but … You made dozens of changes in three edits recently. As you can see, some of these have been reverted. Please discuss them now, per WP:BRD, rather than reverting the reversion. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 09:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure. First and foremost, the article is overly long and hard to edit, which is why I started editing it in the first place, reducing the code clutter. (This didn't shrink the article much, but at least did some without removing the content). To my revert: centering image captions is unconventional, i.e. personal aesthetic views which add the code (have a look at other FA/GA for a precedent - I know none). Another convention is to drop image pixel size when it is between 200 and 250px so that the browser can choose the width (try and see that it will be nearly same). |right is default which can be safely removed. Materialscientist (talk) 09:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way. Be prepared that the the article might lose its GA status per WP:LENGTH. The highest risk is around the yearly GA sweeps (spring?), and its much up to the sweeping editor. Clint Eastwood is being held off promotion only because of this. Materialscientist (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Wales is long. The article seems to take an age to edit, but this is due to a large extent, to page protection. But it doesn't take long to load just to read. Many of the changes made removed superfluous bytes (e.g. '|right' in right defaulted captions, 'date' in refs where no date was given, etc.) with no negative effects, but some changes had (e.g. removing notes of PDF formats in refs, bunching up ISBN numbers, both of which (I thought) were in accordance with MOS, am I mistaken?). Re: centre: WP:CAP doesn't take a view on it. My view is that the captions appear better centred, than without. Do you disagree? You mention WP:FA - it is a WP:GA, and only promoted recently. Examples of WP:FAs using image sizing include: Henry Moore, Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion, Castle, which seems to be in common use for FAs. The article is exceptionally well referenced – 314 of them, the vast majority web/news cites - which adds considerably to its size. I was under the impression that size limits related to sections, rather than the complete article, but I don't recall where that little gem cropped up, so I am probably mistaken there too. If size is an issue, it would probably be better to tighten up the text, or to remove sections to a “Main article”, with just a brief summary remaining. As you noted, amending codes has had very little effect on its length. Daicaregos (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here: code length and prose length. Prose length is what matters most for WP:Length. It counts text only, without refs, figures, tables, captions, etc., which is now 92,700 characters, whereas typical limit is 50,000 (I use User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js, but there are other tools available). A typical solution is splitting more and more content into daughter articles (economy, history, etc). This should be done by main contributors. Excessive code length slows and hinders editing. Slow editing load is not affected by semi-protection at all, only by the actual number of kbytes of code (loading time for viewing the article is yet another issue, which is the html decoding of the whole combination, including templates, image compression, etc). To me, centering figure captions or not looks the same, but it takes some 200-300 bytes of code (nitpicking :). Referencing hits another technical problem: wikimedia software has a limit on number of templates (close to 600, but the article will crash earlier), thus whereas I do like templated references, I myself use them for journals only (bots can tidy them nicely), and type web-refs as plain text. Materialscientist (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is the length dump for Wales (right number is the software limit):

Preprocessor node count: 144101/1000000
Post-expand include size: 1762715/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 881432/2048000 bytes
Expensive parser function count: 6/500

Not catastrophic, but well above an average long article. Materialscientist (talk) 11:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems well within those software limits. However, if your only concern is the article size, I will set about splitting off some of the content. Please comment on PDF format and ISBN issues too. Daicaregos (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Because of the way the counters are increased, the first three counts will always be less than the limits. If either of these sizes is close to the limit, then it is likely that some templates have not been expanded. Each occurrence of an unexpanded template is identified in the page body by an HTML comment containing an error message.

i.e. the browser simply starts glitching and shouting :). However, well before that, it will become impossible to see a whole diff of an edit on the screen (will get blanks on the bottom - we are not there yet). As I understand, the software autoconverts dashes/spaces in isbn numbers into a monolitic string of digits - thus my removal was nothing more than nitpicking to save a few bytes. In my understanding, format=PDF is redundant (unless it is one of those tricky links which don't end on .pdf but lead to a pdf file) because the software automatically shows the adobe sign if it finds .pdf in the url. Materialscientist (talk) 11:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall having seen such an error message. In this diff, prior to your edits, you can see the ISBN numbers separated (e.g. refs 90 – 92 & 268). Whereas, now they are not. The documentation at Template:Cite journal says “*format: Format of the document at its URL (e.g., PDF, xls, etc.) ...”. If this is redundant it should be removed from the template documentation. Daicaregos (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

blacklist

Hey, if you see that one again, please report its links for blacklisting on meta .. I just blacklisted another link of that editor and now you blocked it for another link with the same rubbish. More info, see m:User:COIBot/XWiki/iranbattery.ir. Cheers. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Boulder Bison

Do you mind specifying which information on Boulder Bison needs a source? I work for the team, it's all correct, but if a source is needed in a specific area I will add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.245.12.100 (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hello. Does the character assasination by an IP occuring in the Sandbox require revdeletion? 75.192.39.251 (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand the question. Materialscientist (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe I've rolled back all the edits in question, but they were (from what I can tell) personal attacks against somebody. I rolled them back so if you decide to revdelete you can see where the edits were easily, but they consisted of stuff like "Winner: Everybody. Loser: <name>" so I believe a revdelete wouldn't be a bad idea. demize (t · c) 03:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I took another look and the latest couple were attacks (Sort of, maybe not I suppose), but the others were just spam it seems - as well, they are not the edits in question unless somebody here can travel to the future :p demize (t · c) 04:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

AIV

I am so tired of this. Those two accounts are vandal only accounts. It is entirely not necessary to warn vandal only accounts. Just block them instead of mollycoddling them and punishing me for trying to get rid of accounts that have no constructive edits to this damn project.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Look. WP got some rules - follow it, stay calm and have a long, healthy life, or don't follow them, get banned and let them jump all over the place. You'll get burned down very soon if you get emotional over such editors - laugh at their futile efforts, which you can rollback in a whim. Materialscientist (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

But idiots like those are reasons why {{Uw-bv}} exists. But even then, a warning in these cases I don't feel is necessary because they're not going to listen to them like any idiotic vandal. They're not here to edit constructively if their only edits are to insert crude toilet humor, their name or the name of their friends (et c). And on top of that all 3 seem to be related.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Block them or not makes almost no difference - the chances they'll be back from same account or same IP are slim (experience .. not so simple though - I've warned them and am watching the article, thus can issue a legit block as soon as), but, such block would go against current blocking "policies", it can get me in trouble, thus will upset me and deter from reverting and blocking others. Kurt Vonnegut said once good words, but I know them only from translation (maybe you know the original?) - "give me strength to change what I can change, patience to accept what I can't, and wisdom to distinguish one from another". Materialscientist (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, for I'm usually not a talk page stalker, but I haven't cleaned up my watchlist in a few months. Just thought that I'd let you know that's the serenity prayer, originally credited to Reinhold Niebuhr. Zaereth (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!! Materialscientist (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Material, you certainly can block without warning, it's right there in the policy under "Disruption-only", the first bullet point. Now of course you can also choose not to block without warning, and AIV is rather festooned with talk about giving appropriate warnings. In this case I wouldn't have blocked either, as there is not enough of a track record. But if I saw a registered account that had spent months logging in every so often and making sneaky-vandalism edits, and especially if I found edits that hadn't been fixed, then I would definitely consider indefblock without warning. My rationale would be that the editor was showing a long-term pattern and that the risk of further damage was high enough to skip over any courtesy steps. I'm not saying that should be a general habit or anything, and I've often found AIV admins to be a little trigger-happy, just saying that there is a clause in policy that permits blocking vandals without warning. Franamax (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure we can and we do, but see my first comment in this thread. Materialscientist (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Jakethebot now Jakethepage

Jakethepage (talk · contribs) making same edits. You gave thebot a username block, so I guess this is legitimate? But Jakethebot was actually a VOA, so I'm tempted to block this one for the same reason. Dougweller (talk) 07:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I was hesitating, as he wasn't warned at all, and thus blocked for username thinking this might deter a bit. Feel free to block/reblock as you find appropriate. It does seem like VOA. Materialscientist (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked him after finding 173.65.133.20 (talk · contribs), obviously his IP. Dougweller (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Blériot155 F-AICQ.jpg

You uploaded File:Blériot155 F-AICQ.jpg to Wikipedia as it is to appear on the main page. Why is the licence showing it as being PD as it is over 100 years old? The template used on Commons shows that it is PD as being of unknown authorship and over 70 years old (which is the case with EU photos). The problem is that the photo isn't over 100 years old yet, although it can be proved to be over 70 years old. Mjroots (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Same template shows up differently in en.wiki and on Commons (Commons has its own views on cats, templates, etc). You are correct though and I should have checked that after copying. Materialscientist (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the template to {{PD-UK-unknown}} as there doesn't appear to be one for France (I suspect the manufacturers or airline were the original source of the photo). Mjroots (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Angelic acid

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

List of Dye Solar Cell manufacturers

Hello Materialscientist! Why are you deleting the link to the list of dye solar cell manufacturers on the dye solar cell page? Wikipedia is not a directory, so I cannot put the list directly in wikipedia. But working a lot with dye solar cell technology, I think the list is an important ressource and therefore an external link should be provided! BinFlo (talk) 09:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

That list is compiled by "administrator" of the site www.dye-solar-cell.com. Adding such list would contradict basic wikipedia policies, such as WP:RS, WP:ELNO, and a few related ones. Materialscientist (talk) 09:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Vittorio Erspamer

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Bohemic acid

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for sorting out this. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Proxies

I unblocked a couple of those IPs you blocked earlier. I ran a Google search "[1.234.56.789 proxy]" and nothing came up, unlike for the IPs that were blocked before the modifications to filter 383 which produced a load of false positives. Also, while I'm here, we're supposed to hard block proxies (untick anon. only) because editing while logged in from a proxy is against policy. Just letting you know. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I have already left a note for user:Nakon and am going through the list. Note that zero hits on Google is not a proof (experience). Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Well the edits weren't typical of what 383 is trying to catch, so AGF for now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I replied you at my talkpage. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 02:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

24.15.192.53‎

Thanks! :) The anon went silent, so I would watchlist Mrschimpf‎'s talk/user pages for IP jumping. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors

I saw the quality of your contributions at DYK and clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

plosbiology.org

Hello! Chzz suggested that I ask your advice on this. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks

on blocking this user. Maybe a semi-protection on this article would be called for, given the current coverage and the number of 'new accounts' editing it, some not constructively? Not too sure on the guidelines for semi-protection. Cheers - [CharlieEchoTango] 09:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Chinit River

Will you kindly move this article User:Nvvchar/Chinit River to main space of Chinit River? Thanks.--Nvvchar. 13:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Saint Barts

You think that the editor has actually made improvements? He's completely trashed it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Bad luck - persistent editor and poor sourcing in many places (travel guides mostly), which is why I didn't argue. I would either reference it well and oppose, or just move on. Materialscientist (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Performic acid

The DYK project (nominate) 18:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

User talk:I LOVE MãDD3N

Thanks for the quick block--any way you could unravel the sock as well? Blueboy96 23:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Which sock? Materialscientist (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Sadasadasda (talk · contribs)--popped up right after Cluebot warned the first account and immediately vandalized the Madden article. Pretty obvious, I think ... edits were in the same tenor. Blueboy96 00:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Transistor article history

I am familiar with ENGVAR, and I did study the articl history. But maybe you looked at a different era; where do you see the history of this transistor article as being in British English? Dicklyon (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I just checked again, in three steps of 500 edits, and found no British past there. Dicklyon (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Earliest versions were indifferent, but here (about 15th version from the start) we've got colour. I am really indifferent to spelling and actually would favor US there, but we've got to follow the rules, or at least discuss the changes before reverting like this.

I didn't go that far back. That's not what WP:ENGVAR suggests. It has been solidly American English for many years. Dicklyon (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Hell (crater)

Hello! Your submission of Hell (crater) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't tell you how fun it is to send you one of these. Now shape up, sir, lest I speedy the whole article. Ha ha ha ha. :) :) :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The fun is all mine, as I fixed and replied before you sent this :-D Materialscientist (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, touché! You win this round, Dr. Nemesis. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

User talk:217.33.68.76

Perhaps it's time to issue yet another school block? --Kudpung (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Kgrave

I think you may want to remove User:Kgrave's talk page access as well, given that xyr unblock requests are, um, not so well formed. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback: Petrb

Hello, Materialscientist. You have new messages at Petrb's talk page.
Message added 05:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— SpikeToronto 05:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ljubodrag Simonović

Hi, there was some doping in the Puerto Rica basketball team in 72 - our article cites a Miguel Coll, drug was ephedrine. Perhaps this is reliable enough to add a couple of comments from the intro about the subject getting sent home? http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc0804/olympics.htm - Its not widely used but we have 25 links to it. The book thats being reviewed and the intro quoted there is written by the subject of the BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see that book in that article .. Anyway, he has COI, thus that book (unless cites other sources) is good only for supporting what he said. We need secondary sources when talking about scandals like that. If we don't cite them in our articles then it is bad for us. Materialscientist (talk) 11:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I just found the link doing a search for the doping allegation, I don't think it is in the article yet. Yes, secondary reports, I will have a bit more of a look later, I think it was a bit hushed up and he was sent home, personally I think without good sourcing it is better not included, I think there is no problem with adding that book review link as an external ... something like  ? .. Off2riorob (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• - Introduction - Olympic Movement and the New World Order by Ljubodrag Simonovic - via northstarcompass.org.

Request

MS. May I again request you move the two articles here User:Nvvchar/Luoyang Museum and User:Nvvchar/Kwango River to main space, please. Thanks.--Nvvchar. 01:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK "review-one-submit-one" system

Was it you who first came up with the idea for the DYK "review-one-submit-one" system? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I've spontaneously suggested it when the project was debating major restructuring of the whole DYK system. It was picked up by others and I haven't further discussed it. Materialscientist (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		The DYK "review-one-submit-one" system is great because it delegates responsibilities to other editors, thus sharing the workload, while giving them an opportunity to learn. As you were the first to suggest this clever idea, (not to diminish the efforts of those who developed it), I hereby award you this brilliant barnstar. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Pinochet article

Did you really mean to make this revert? I can see all kinds of problems with your preferred version, not least that the editor who instated it has 3 edits, all with the edit summary "Correction of Concepts". Franamax (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow who is writing what there, and it is not might fight. My revert was half justified, as I tried to explain in the summary of my follow-up revert. Materialscientist (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you taking a content position or not? If not, you should revert to beyond the controversial change. If so, please outline your position on the article talk page. You are adjusting matters of controversy, and I don't want to see more flare-ups. Franamax (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Half Heusler

You may want to do an article on these materials as they are in the news --Blue Tie (talk) 03:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Help

Hi, the IP adress user that you blocked a few days ago in connection with its edits on the Home invasion in Connecticut has continued to do the same edit over and over again. And when confronted and warned the user has only been sending hateful messages to the concerned users. I think its time for a heavier block on the IP. Please check it out.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK error

Any chance you could sort this out before it gets on the main page? Thanks SmartSE (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It's your call I guess. I like to keep things fair so having rejected expansions before, it doesn't seem right to me, but if you think it would cause unneccessary ruffling of feathers to remove it then fair enough. Piotrus has said he knew it didn't meet the standards and I think it was quite a way off 5x, but like I said, I'm not overly bothered and am about to go to bed so I'll leave it with you. SmartSE (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I literally was just about to go to sleep, when I left the message above. I see that it was kept (at least by checking recent additions) and like I said I'm not too bothered, but would have preferred if it hadn't happened. Sorry if I caused you extra work, this might be the last time I have to bother you for your mopping abilities. SmartSE (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Ha, fun times may be ahead then. I'm still learning to edit so I'm sure there'll be plenty more times in the future when I can come and bother you again ;-) SmartSE (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: DYK for Graffiti in New York

I guess I am somewhat confused here. I certainly did not mean to be disrespectful to anyone, and if you think somebody might've been offended by my comment, please let me know who and I'll gladly say something nice to them. Regarding that DYK, I thought it was declined a while ago, and as I said to the reviewer, the amount of work I'd have to put into what he requested (calculating how much of the new content was new) would be immense and mostly useless, hence my comment about preferring to write another DYK article (and letting this one be declined). I hope that clarifies the issue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Dark Matter - alternative theories

You recently reverted my edit to the Dark Matter page, giving the reason that the sources were not sufficiently reliable. Could you please justify this in the discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dark_matter#Process_Physics_in_.27alternative_theories.27_section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.96.220.98 (talk) 04:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

April Fools' Day hook?

Hi, have you considered saving your Hell (crater) hook for April Fools' Day? I think "... that Hell is named after a priest?" would work fine (either with or without the "priest" link). Sorry I didn't notice this while it was still on the nominations page; it's currently in Prep 1. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I have, but thought it would be too profane. Materialscientist (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Elements Triple Crown

Your Majesty, I am pleased to award this special edition platinum triple crown to WikiProject Elements and its hardworking volunteers. – SMasters (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all your hard work. May you wear the crowns well, and may the platinum crown motivate you to contribute more outstanding articles. – SMasters (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for indefinite semi-protection of Gas

This article is known for heavy juvenile vandalism. The particular set of vandalism that prompted the latest semi-protect was not a spike out of the ordinary. Please consider indefinite semi-protection of the article. Thanks Katanada (talk) 06:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)