You removed my edits on the page for Abdelrahman Mansour. Please note I am a new wiki editor so was still trying to figure out a bunch of things online (saving, referencing etc). So I will re-add the edits and I hope you leave them as is. Every single change is backed by references and links. thanks!
You removed my edits on the page for Abdelrahman Mansour. Please note I am a new wiki editor so was still trying to figure out a bunch of things online (saving, referencing etc). So I will re-add the edits and I hope you leave them as is. Every single change is backed by references and links. thanks!
== Article authorship vs. ownership... ==
I'm curious about Wikipedia policy or convention or whatever when it comes to the obvious conflict between the idea that nobody owns a Wikipedia article and editors and administrators who make a specific point of taking credit for authoring them. Is that not declaring ownership?
I also question the practice of reverting edits, calling edits "vandalism" and blocking editors for "policy" violations relating to sourced and verifiable and reliable and cited information in edits and the lack thereof while simultaneously taking credit for authorship of and therefore ownership of articles with tons of content that is completely lacking in those "required" citations and sources. And then content-protecting the article, elevating its status even further with FA and GA and now I guess VA ratings. I could see it maybe if the subject was something difficult or impossible to find elsewhere and actually pretty much everywhere there's a public library in anything from a small grade school to a large university and even most bookstores will have several different reference or at least educational works on the same subject.
The specific article I looked at was "Diamond" and since you claim authorship credit and apparently are some sort of "expert" (a former boss always said an "ex" is a has-been and a "spurt" is a drip under pressure - truer words were never spoken and I'm not an "expert" in a profession I've been in for almost 25 years) or "authority" on "materials" and diamond is a form of carbon etc, isn't your article pretty much blatant NPOV? And isn't it a textbook example of the double standards many people have cited as a reason no amount of money could HIRE them to edit Wikipedia for after doing it for free for months and even years before realizing all of the rules go out the window when certain Wikipedians decide they don't apply to EVERYONE?
Have you published anything else on "diamond" during your "career"? Have you self-plagiarized or plagiarized others in "your" article? Honestly, how much of what you know about that single topic "diamond" didn't come straight out of somebody elses writings and into your article sans sources? I guess I find the arrogance of deciding the internet could not live without an encyclopedia period pretty amusing and the super-arrogance that an article on "diamond" is VITAL to it to the point of being above editing and the rules for editing and the policies and principals of Wikipedia itself just amazing. I'm relatively certain that if I go pick up any other "D" volume of any other encyclopedia every written I'll find maybe a half of a page devoted to "diamond" and most of that will be the basic science stuff. And because it will be and is pretty much "public domain" and has been for a LONG time, I'll bet there won't even be any citations of sources apart from maybe ones for any images used.
Since I'm not about to waste any more time "vandalizing" articles with what I know are either fake facts or outright lies or that misrepresent the truth or are sorely in need of some context and color and conversational communication of information when citing a "source" would take longer than the instant revert it would get even if I did THAT correctly, I've decided to stop editing altogether and contribute to Wikipedia by reminding those elevated individuals who obviously possess if not own Wikipedia that real encyclopedias are written, published and then put out there to be used and judged on their merits and in some cases criticized and in some cases praised and rightly so in each case but are always FINISHED. Is that even a possibility for Wikipedia? If you're an expert and you're going to write and article and claim it on your Wikipedia pages as your work and put your "user name" on it, why not put your REAL name on it, finish it, call it down, lock it down and THEN submit it and let it stand until somebody writes a better one or thinks they have and puts theirs out there too.
I think Wikipedia nutjobs tend to forget that there are a LOT of encyclopedias. Try try to "create" a single one by "editing" out what a few don't like is an exercise in futility. Especially given the relative popularity of "encyclopedias" throughout history anyway. Probably billions of pounds of paperweights for the most part, since the "educated" few decided what the unwashed masses should know if they cared to look it up. Now we have even more conceited people deciding that maybe 10.000 previously published articles on "diamond" weren't getting it and people are just too dumb to do a focused Google search for things like that so....WIKIPEDIA!
The online encyclopedia anybody can ignore a hell of a lot easier than a big stack of old Brittanicas in the basement storeroom of their grandparents' house as they clean it out after they die...
Revision as of 22:24, 6 April 2017
Please leave your message at the bottom of this page, for example, by clicking "new section" at the top. I shall reply wherever you prefer. If I replied on your talk page, it means I am watching it, and there is no need to add the {{talkback}} template or quote the previous message.
If you came here because I reverted your unsourced change, cite your references in the article you edited; there is no use bringing them here.
I turned off most notifications in my preferences, and therefore can't see pings, sorry.
Iyarkai
Hi,
I am Rathienavelu Kumar (alias) V.R.Kumar, Producer of the film "Eiyarkai"
Let me first thank you first for writing an article about our film "Eiyarkai" in Wikipedia.
When I came across this article, I found some mistakes, which needed correction.
So, I made the necessary corrections, which I found you had reverted back.
I think, the corrected version will be more appropriate.
Rathienavelu Kumar
== Response ==please explain to me who you are. I thank you for deleting an edit I was suppose to have written. You can reach me through my email. cbelcher200@gmail.com. I look forward to speaking with you.
Yes! It's TazP1978 again & u wanted more clarification on Hale & Pace Xmas extravaganza starring Harry Enfield. Well if u go to BFI.org & check under the listing of the above, it will not only show the cast but also the year of release!!!!
I have received a number of messages from wikipedia (including you) saying that my edits of "Ghassan Alsulaiman" were unacceptable.
However, I have never made any edits to that page-subject or any other pages on Wiki.
I have no idea who Ghassan Alsulaiman was or is. Is someone using my identity to make changes to wiki text?
Best regards
John (username Spenc2f)
Streetlife
Hi this is Rtefahte.
I noticed twice you have removed my reference to the site www.mystreetlink.com as a viable alternative to Streetlife/Nextdoor.
This wiki is giving free advertising to Kahuti an american neighbourhood site as the only alternative to Nextdoor which is not true.
If you are saying that you can only make revisions to the wiki if the site in question has an official news piece written about them then that is blatantly unfair to anyone else out there that doesnt have the resource right now to get in the news!
You should either allow "all" alternatives to be listed or none of them. As it happens we are a rapidally growing network and in the area of Surrey/West London have overtaken both those sites for users and as far as we are aware the only alternative to the two american mega sites to date. If you believe me please care to check our site out.
Lots of people that see this wiki will assume that Kahuti is the only alternative and wikipedia is supposed to stand for correct facts its time this was "corrected"
thank you
Peter (Rtefahte)
need help
hi,
i a trying to post my update with a link of news but i am unable to do that. i have tried doing it many times but at the end the changes do not get saved.please help me in doing that.i updated again but when i go for save changes it does not save .you can type on google for my link " An extraordinary diabetes drug confined to papers" this news was published in The Hindu Newspaper on 22/07/2013.the problem comes in edit summary after it does not save.
Thanks
Alekh99Alekh99 (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alekh99, the reason that your changes to Neolamarckia cadamba are repeatedly being reverted is because the information you are adding is not sufficiently supported by reliable medical references. Please see WP:MEDRS for details. Deli nk (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KathleenLight article peer review
Hi, I see that you have edited on Jaclyn Hill's page. Would you mind taking a look at my draft page about the YouTuber, KathleenLights. Here it is.
I didn't realize you had notifications turned off, and left you a ping there. I was wondering if you could review the unblock request, and if you had any thoughts to their unblocking. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm not entirely sure how this all works just yet, but I cannot understand why you saw fit to revert my very modest change to the Leytonstone page. Since it was a valid edit, links to another Wikipedia page, and is the truth, I've undone your reversion and do not plan to provide any "citation" of this per se, although I have updated the destination page to reflect the change I made. I should expect this will suffice. Please don't make me change this yet again! cheers
Blocked after one edit?
I thought that the system of warning tags was supposed to ratchet up, so that new editors testing the system through minor vandalism could receive at least a couple of warning shots before being blocked. Is that now no longer the case? Here you blocked an editor who had made just one single edit, of puerile vandalism, ten hours previously; been warned; and had made no further edits at all. Why block them in such circumstances? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the "puerile" vandalism that you spoke of, and the article that I saw looked like a building that the vandals had just left, with not a single window still intact, and paint splashed everywhere. Yecht! Scott P. (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No-one's defending that editor - but one edit.....??!! Can you point me to the policy that says that someone who makes one stupid edit should be immediately blocked? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Material Scientist, First, I'd like to thank you for the obviously dedicated and helpful work that you do, trying to keep vandalism here to a minimum, by trying to block those with vandalistic intent. Without dedicated volunteers doing all the types of work that you do, I have no doubt that Wikipedia would fall flat very quickly. Thanks!
Regarding this question, it's my preferred policy, to try to never edit while not being logged in, but yesterday I logged out, and when I next visited Wikipedia, before logging back in, I found that my IP address had been blocked a few days back! I looked up the contributions from that IP address, and found that no contributions had been made by that IP address. Here is the contributions-log I found.
The note said something about "account creation blocked," but the IP address was blocked from any article edits. (Last year, I did once set up a secondary user ID for testing purposes only, and never did actually use it.) So my question is, if you don't mind, why did you block that IP address? Just curious. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) @Scottperry: It was very likely a rangeblock. If you have the "Allow /16, /24 and /27 – /32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions forms, as well as wildcard prefix searches (e.g., "Splark*")" gadget enabled in Preferences, go here and you'll see all kinds of disruption coming from that range on Feb 28th. --NeilNtalk to me16:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As per our previous talk, you said "It was, and still is, unclear how Alan Booth is related to Leytonstone. Your claim that he was born there is unsourced". Your position is mystifying. If you would take a moment to actually click on the Alan Booth page, you would immediately notice that the "claim" he was born in Leytonstone is clearly to be found there, backed by a web source that I think we can both agree is legitimate. Is this not sufficient? If it isn't, why are all the other "notable people" listed on the Leytonstone page still there, when none of them are "sourced". Let me repeat that: None are sourced, not a one.
I think you're holding my change to a seemingly arbitrary and rather unfair standard. If I not understanding something, please tell me what it is.
In any case, I'll revert your change yet again with my proper username account. I'd appreciate it if you could ease up on the throttle a little bit there, mate. cheers
Balance Transaction Reporting Standard (BTRS)
Hi, I am the Executive Director of ASC X9. The BTRS standard belongs to X9 and we were trying to create a page about it because people have been asking about it in the Financial Industry. I have two other people that are working with me to provide the content. I had just started working on it yesterday and the two other people had not even had time to look at it when it was deleted because it was consider "Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes". I have a link on our ASC X9 page to the BTRS page (now shown as broken). How am I suppose to have several people work on the page when it is deleted before the people can even see it? This is my first new page so I would appreciate any help. Steve Stevens, ED ASC X9.
I edited Chamberlain Group's Wikipedia page because the company moved and changed the logo, among other things. This is not an effort to use Wikipedia for messaging but rather accurate company information.
I am happy to hear you saved what you deleted, I hope you can look at Chamberlain Group's website to verify the fact that what I edited is accurate and change it back as soon as possible.
You will see a press release on the site that explains the move, the changed logo, etc.
Please let me know if you have any questions, thank you.
The following should link you to the "news" portion of the company's site that verifies the move and the new address. http://chamberlaingroup.com/news.html
Corrected wrong name spelling was deleted
Hello,
I corrected the title name spelling for this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sireen_Hamsho but you asked for reliable sourcing, Most of sources found are in Arabic, However the title spelling is wrong and should be corrected according to the sources in the bottom of the page. also please advise where to add the extra sources to the article?
nombre equivocado
el nombre Andres Zuno, en la biografia donde lo corregi, esta mal, pues ese es mi nombre, el otro sujeto se llama Andres Macias Zuno.
Si ud. esta hablando del articulo Andrés Zuno en ingles, el nombre de este articulo, a mi parece correcto. Este pagina aqui no esta un buen lugar para preguntas en español. Si ud. tiene mas preguntas sobre esto, por favor use mi talk page.
Edit reverted, article supported with sources and references
Hello Again,
this is regarding the changes I made on this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sireen_Hamsho, I found sources and added more references. still working on it, However I couldn't correct the name in the Title, I added a link to the official person page with the right name spelling. Please check and let me know if it need more citation.
With a Quickness
Just wanted to stop by and comment on how fast you seem to be reviewing recent changes. I have gone to revert many changes only to have Twinkle tell me you already had made the changes within the 10-15 seconds I was reading the changes. I aspire to match your blinding speed. Haha! Operator873 (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
reverting unsourced additions dammages the wikipedia comunity
i can understand the reversion of un-sourced edits, however when someone contributes to an aria which has not been fully described you are needlessly removing content, if you disagree for some reason with the information provided then please cite your own source in a correction. my edit on saponification requires only a basic understanding of chemistry to understand, you can find people confirming that fatty acids and their salts have differing melting points based on their degree of saturation in any school textbook. it is extremely basic, i will re-edit with a source but in future please contribute by adding a source yourself for obviously accurate information like this rather than removing it on the basis of the lack of a reference. if you feel that this is not in the spirit of Wikipedia and that every edit must be cited then the vast majority of valuable contributions would need to be removed on this basis. i hope you understand that this is intended as constructive criticism and not a personal attack, i hope we can continue to work to provide a practical balance of volume of content and effective referencing.
i apologise for my lack of formatting knowledge in this messaging system. this is not original research and is proven every time you melt a stick of margarine, sources for this are abundant as it is required to learn this at the age of 12 in the UK (here is some revision material used by said children http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/aqa/plantoilsanduses/vegoilsrev4.shtml). the lack of a source was admittedly laziness on my part however reverting the edit rather than providing a source oneself or running a google search to confirm the wide acceptance of this archaic and well understood fact appears to be highly counterproductive. citing every edit is a commendable goal however it is impractical if we intend to have abundant information on a topic, furthermore if that is to be required of me then it should be required of everyone else, a quick look at the edits to the vast majority of pages will show that this is not the case. 91.202.137.70 (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to somehow "contribute" here, then make WP "better" not more of a lazy person's mess, requiring Mom to bail you out and do your dirty laundry for you. Do your own wash here. Scott P. (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
reverting changes
i'm a newbie of sorts, but if there is a statement in an article that is unattributed, and i know it is wrong -- either because it's about someone i know personally or a subject on which i am an expert, it seems like my changing it would be a positive thing, and your reverting it would be negative. if you feel my change is erroneous, or have other info, of course. but if you don't see attribution, i cannot see why reverting it is better than just noting that someone should find atttribution. in the cases of the two articles you reverted, i don't know where formal notices of these things are printed, but i know 100% that my changes updated old information. I wish you would leave them and simply note that if someone has an article they should append it. i'm going to reverse your reversals. i know these updates are correct. I'll also work to find attribution besides my insider knowledge of the things i'm fixing.
Your logic, capitalization, and knowledge of "wiki-syntax" here, all appear to me to be a bit "revertable" here. I would work on rightfully attributing all of these qualities to yourself dilligently first. Scott P. (talk) 10:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Certain editing patterns are either halted or at least tagged by the site though edit filters. If a user's edits are repeatedly halted by an edit filter and all of those edits were obvious vandalism, there's no point in waiting for them to make an edit that registers. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(ec, thanks to Ian) It merely points to an edit filter log (repeated or egregious attempts to vandalize) - I know this is not the right block summary, but it is the closests from our standard selection list. Materialscientist (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add the citation, but I'm not sure how. The book is Osprey Duel: Mirage III vs. MiG-21, Six Day War 1967 by Shlomo Aloni (2010), Osprey Pubishing
materialscientist - I'm the person who made the addition to this page, which you deleted. I was an area resident during the entire time the store was open and was a regular customer, visiting several times a week. My addition was based upon personal recollection from MANY visits to the store over the years it was in operation. It is accurate. Can you claim the same knowledge?
Purely behavioral - it is Hurricane Electric, and if you know their most common customer types, please let me know. I have some history with vandalism from Hurricane Electric IPs, and I've ran a CU on this range. Editing pattern (frequency, target articles, edits) looked like school vandalism. Materialscientist (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Revision
I have no idea as to what is going on when I was notified the page I was suppose to edit, on Bitty page, was deleted. Well I thank whoever deleted. I really want to know what is going on. Clifton Belcher (talk) 06:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You recently removed some information, the removal is unbecoming. If a gold medal is awarded during L.L.B course, it is not published. Hope you won't do it again. Wiki222222 (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure the appropriate way to respond. I am sorry that I cannot provide a source. I am the source. I am a molecular biologist. I do allot of advanced alloy research on my own accord. When I make little discoveries; I sometimes like to make a note on wikipedia in case anyone finds it useful. Many of my edits and additions wouldn't exist as they have not ever been published.
Mykki Blanco article
Hello -- just a heads up, it seems STiki mistakenly flagged some edits to this page as vandalism so I reverted your removal. Thanks all the same for all your work to keep Wikipedia accurate and vandalism free! Behemothing (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notable people?
University of Hertfordshire reads like an advert. Reliable source for false rape allegation? Try ECHR.
You undid changes bt me on Floyd McKissick Jr, Page
Dear Materialscientist,
I removed an accusation on Senator Floyd McKissick wiki page that was unsubstantiated and therefore considered libel. Not sure if you are paid by his opposition but you just added back a sentence without any credible source to support it. That is libel.
The other one was that I altered some wording in the other post to make it more accurate since wording which was used is intentionally misleading. You changed it back. Are you paid by his opposition?
Jarnail Singh Bhindranwala's original and birth name is Jarnail Singh Brar not Jarnail Singh Uppal, I do not have a citation but I closely know his family and his sons and grandsons use the sirname Brar.
dead links
Hello,
I am new to wikipedia and i am keen to learn. I edited article pregnancy over 50 years by removing dead links. But it was reverted and edited back. Dead links are again on the page like http://ethics.sandiego.edu/LMH/Papers/Papers/Older_Pregnancies.html
Where i went wrong ? are deadlinks suppose to be removed by senior editors only ? Please enlighten and thank you for your time. Shwetarose (talk) 10:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Shwetarose[reply]
I keep removing that entry because it serves no purpose other than to make the reader think that but for some injuries, the impact of which upon their rivalry is disputed, the Federer-Nadal rivalry would not be as it is. Therefore, it violates the NPOV as it seeks to make the reader think that the skewed rivalry is probably due to Federer's bout with mono in 2013 and his back injury in 2013, even though Federer himself has admitted that he was not hampered during those matches in which he face Rafa. I mean just look at the entry:
Nadal's head-to-head advantage is built on domination on clay AND domination during two seasons when Federer had illness or injury, and undertook training recovery that ensued from these issues. The 13–2 record on clay masks the even record of 10–10 on all other surfaces. Nadal's 4–0 advantage in 2008 came at a time when Federer was CLEARLY HINDERED by mononucleosis and the effects of a lack of training[1]. Former No. 1 Jim Courier stated that ""Federer was ill all season long" and that Federer "hid it from everybody because it's his responsibility to not show weakness, and he played through it because of his commitment to the tour. Which was a mistake."
The writer is clearly pursuing a biased agenda. It is curious that he has included Jim Courier's statement that "Federer was ill all season long...and hid it from everybody because it's his responsibility to not show weakness, and he played through it because of his commitment to the tour. Which was a mistake", but neglected to include an article attesting to the opposite, namely that the mono excuse is a myth: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/609550-roger-federer-and-the-mono-myth-of-2008
References
^Cite error: The named reference auto was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Edits to politician (Mayor Philip Levine)
Hello,
I made a number of edits recently to a politician's page (Philip Levine, the Mayor of Miami Beach). However, it appears all of these changes have been retracted (even many that were corroborated with sources and links to reputable newspapers and media sites). Would you be able to explain why all of the edits merited exclusion, or walk me through what was permissible and what wasn't?
Hi, I got your message, but I did not do it. A strange user with no user or talk page made some changes. I assumed them to be a vandal and reverted both their edits. Check the page history. Then I got your message just now. I had no intention of vandalism. Please. I did nothing to deserve the warning. 72.209.198.109 (talk) 06:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Llanbadarn Fawr Community Council:
I am new to editing in Wikipedia. I do not understand the conventions. I am the community councillor with web responsibility. The website link on the site is dead. I inserted the correct link. I have done it again today. No need for further action as it appears to be correct now.
Hi,why you reverted my change.I gave references.. and there is no need to write the net worth of Johnny Depp.Its not necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmed Kamal khan (talk • contribs) 08:05, March 14, 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Sir want to know which way the article must be edited so that can get reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geetika saini (talk • contribs) 14:07, March 15, 2017 (UTC)
user page
I found that you are an administrator. A different user created my user page. Can you please help to undo this page creation?? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
THANKS A TON for your swift action!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Liverpool
Hi. I left a message to GiantSnowman earlier but I realised that he was not online at the moment, so I hope it is alright if I contact you instead (since you are currently active)?
I'm trying to use this template : Infobox Biographie/Entête
{{
| nom = Maxime Rémillard
| image = Remillard_maxime.jpg
| graphie originale = Biographie
| date de naissance = {{date de naissance|17|janvier|1975|âge=oui}}
| lieu de naissance = Greenfield Park
| nationalité = Canadian
| formation = Ottawa University
}}
I cannot find anything online to back up the claim that I work at Robinsons. I have done for a few years and I am a well known in the local community and have friends in America.
Spock's full name
I don't know the page number that Spock's full name is written on because I found it on a Google Books preview that doesn't show page numbers. Does it have to be a page number or can it be a chapter number? --NetSpiker (talk) 05:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't have a canon policy, so information from novels is just as valid as information from episodes and movies. The novel Ishmael was licensed, which means that someone from Paramount had to approve everything that was in the novel, which makes it a reliable source. There is nothing in canon to contradict the name S'chn T'gai Spock.
It has nothing to do with Wikipedia. If the name is not accepted in the canon, it doesn't go in the article. Simple as that. Editing it in, despite objections, is called edit-warring and gets editors blocked if they keep doing it, past a certain limit. Please see WP:3RR. Best of luck. Dr.K.06:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to convert this talkpage into a discussion forum. I suggest you propose this edit on Spock's talkpage and see if editors agree with you. Dr.K.06:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've copied the text before your last post to the Spock talk page. Let's continue the discussion there. You still haven't cited any Wikipedia policy to back up your claim. --NetSpiker (talk) 07:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said: "I suggest you propose this edit on Spock's talkpage and see if editors agree with you." That doesn't mean it will be myself talking to you. Let other people continue this. Don't copy and paste this discussion to the talkpage. Start a new one. Dr.K.07:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Materialscientist, I see that you warned 2.28.238.121 (talk·contribs) earlier about their changes to Let Me Know. It appears they and what looks like an account of theirs, have been blanking portions of Róisín Murphy for no reason. Can you please monitor that page as well and take appropriate action if they continue? I don't know what they're playing at. Ss11209:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Service award for article creation
You are one of a tiny number of editors selected at random from those who have created a good number of articles. There is some preliminary discussion about creating an award for article creation, and your input would be helpful. See the discussion HERE. The posts toward the end are the most germane. Lou Sander (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I followed their trial in the courtroom from beginning to end. The entire thing was politically motivated. Evidence came out at trial that the officers committed no crimes, and that they were being punished for not "going along with the administrations version of events". There is a pending civil suit by one of the officers. I think those whom read the cpd wiki page deserve to know that there is more to it than originally posted on wiki as well as by the media. My edit is in no way to help Sgt Mitchell , but to tell the truth about the responding officers. I am a local Cincinnati investigative reporter Skippy0321 (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I noticed you modified recently the page for Ian McDiarmid and it now requires Admin access to edit (due to vandalism). Would it be possible to have it edited to add The Lost City of Z to his movies (year 2017, role "Sir George Goldie")?
Thank you very much!
Benjamin.
non local consciousness
I just wanted to give the readers a relatively new idea relating to the subject which I thing would improve the content of the subject .
Edit Baldeo
Hi you have deleted my write up in the article Baldeo, thanks for making me aware about citation.
I saw you reverted Vasek Chvatal's edits to his biography. Although they violate WP:AUTOBIO, the edits looked constructive to me, and Chvatal has some expertise we could use. Perhaps you could instead try to politely explain why he should leave that article alone in future, and leave his updates in place? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Put a limited need/duration "call for expert" tag
...on the Liquid article, take a look, and perhaps refer to someone who can do this addition? The citations that I provide are poor ones; it needs a physical chemist's touch, but from one that can speak in lay language, and that understands this parlance/usage in OChem, pharmacy, etc. Content for the Zumdahl and pharmacy sources appearing in the tag can be found hidden in a !-- note in this Talk message.
Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The term "mobile" in reference to fluids is usually referring to chromatography, where a mobile phase (a liquid or gas in motion) passes over a stationary phase (non-moving solid) to effect the separation of components in the fluid. The concept has nothing to do with viscosity, there is no viscosity threshold between mobile and immobile (as suggested by the viscosity article). The difference is that one is moving and the other is not. Zaereth (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have cited Biographies of living persons, where it says "any material challenged or likely to be challenged" and is "contentious material" is subject to removal. This is neither. Under what rationale have you challenged this, surely just a particular editor being ignorant of the subject matter isn't grounds for removal.
Policlinico of Milan's changes
Hi, I'm Monica Cremonesi, Communication Manager of Policlinico of Milan
I removed pic in the box because that isn't the Hospital's courtyard, but the University's courtyard. The same about the final gallery that shows pics of University.
Can you restore my changes?
For other questions, please contact me.
Thank you
My changes on "Lists of occupations" has been reversed by you
Hi.
My changes on Lists_of_occupations has been reversed by you.
I changed the page and explained why I did it. That page was incomplete before that. My changes may need some improvements to become complete but it was better than before. Please review it and sorry if I'm wrong.
Wikimedia Movement Strategy
Hi. I'd like to invite you to participate in the Wikimedia Movement Strategy discussions, about our wider movement's overall goals. The overall question is "What do we want to build or achieve together over the next 15 years?", but there are many discussion prompts on the talkpage to get you thinking. It's currently in the first stage, of broad discussion. We hope a wide variety of people will participate, from long-term admins to new editors, from external partners to readers. There are further details in the related metawiki pages (incl. FAQ, calendar and process, list of other simultaneous communities' discussions, etc).
(Also, if you're interested in helping facilitate and summarize the discussions here, and to bring back here the summaries of what the other communities are discussing, in the weeks ahead, please let me know.) Thanks. :) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DYK main page update only partially done; can you complete?
Materialscientist, Maile noticed that DYKUpdateBot was down, but only did two things: he promoted Queue 3 to the main page at about 00:51, and updated the Template:Did you know/Queue/Next to point at Queue 4. That means that the time for the next update is still back at 00:00, 25 March 2017, when it should be 26 March, and none of the DYKmake or DYKnom credits have been handed out to the editors nor the article talk pages or image page credited either. Can you please take care of this? I've posted a note to Shubinator's page about the bot being down, but if you could at the very least update Template:Did you know/Next update/Time—since we're running one set a day at the moment, I'm not so concerned about the 15-minute thing, but this absolutely needs to be updated from the 24th to the 25th before Shubinator turns the bot back on. Right now, if he does, then Queue 4 is promoted over Queue 3, and we'll have an unholy mess on our hands. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Morning! I hope you don't mind taking a quick question. Is it acceptable for a pending changes reviewer to decline 3 edits in a row if the additions are unsourced? Specifically, I'm referring to this edit, which I was hesitant to revert because I wasn't sure whether I'd be violating 3RR. I've left a note asking for clarification on the IP's talkpage here; if you could give me some advice, it'd be greatly appreciated! Cheers, Kevin12xd07:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I noticed that the edit made by me on the page Munthirivallikal Thalirkkumbol was reverted by you. That edit was made well in accordance with the given source. I just restored the information as per source which was altered by someone else earlier. Therefore I request you to restore the edit. You can check the source for confirmation. Thank you. Ananth sk (talk) 08:20, 25th March 2017 (UTC)
My bad for not explaining the error messages removal. They are from 2013 and after refreshing the content of this page I believed they are not relevant no more. If they are please let me know. I will remove them soon and add the explanation this time.
Kate and Anna McGarrigle - Entre la jeunesse et la sagesse
Before reverting my edits, you could have looked at the image of the original cover displayed with the article; that's all the source you needed.
StephenJPC (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Who authorized you to say something that is added is wrong?
Firstly,
I am not sure who you are to say, the content added is wrong in first place. If you have added the initial content, what was the source of truth that was right.
Secondly, here is the proof of what the word meant 'kia' and elaboration of what we got from our through research.
Third, if you own that page and if that gives a legitimate authority to control the information posted on their, that i bother least. How come a materialist is authorized to own the content and legitimacy of the content is surprising.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi.12:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Berman
I got your Soviet-styled message (my edit was not "constructive"). Berman, a thoroughly inconsequential man in entertainment history, here makes a preposterous accusation regarding a brilliant performer. He deserves all the oppobrium one can muster. You will note Berman doesn't merely accuse Newhart of stealing the phone technique. And who are you to delete what I wrote? If you want to play censor, find yourself a position in the, yes, Soviet-style regime you're so well-suited for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4a:8203:d930:6107:9192:1922:dee9 (talk • contribs)
(by talk page stalker)Though Materialscientist does not fly the red banner of the revolution, be assured that others do on their behalf.Perhaps, Comrade, you have failed to recognize the dignity of our editors' collective. The Supreme Council has decreed in WP:NPA that we defer to the people's appointed authorities in editorial decisions. While we have successfully abolished private property and eliminated class as a driver of divisive capitalist themes, we cannot have bourgeoisie intellectuals attempt repeatedly to enact a preferred version of the collectives' text. Chris Troutman (talk)21:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coonagh
..im a beginner ..and clueless on a computer.. just want to add the horse drawn carriage tours to the existing tours that are already listed i.e Angelas Ashes walking tour, historic walking tour and boat tours . If you require sources for the inclusion please see Limerick.ie >Things to Do > Tours > Limerick Carriage Tours > Historical Horse Drawn Carriage Tours of Limerick City Coonagh (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you have more powerful machinery, can you go and revert User talk:JamesBWatson? My work computer can't handle it. Widr (talk) 08:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for writing the Winstanley College page - I think I may be able to help you keep it up to date because I am the Vice Principal and would be able to pass you information. For example, at the end of January the College elected a new Chair of Governors and in February won the TES Best Sixth Form College award; its third education award this year. These are the amendments I've tried to make. I also have up to date info on numbers of students and entry criteria too should you care to update those aspects. I hope we can work together to keep the page accurate. Poss easiest to reply by email to mel.chadwick@winstanley.ac.uk
Mel
External Links deleted
Hi! I had 2 different external links from 2 different wiki pages deleted because they were marked as inappropriate. I think this is false. I added 2 new sources of quality information from a reputable place who would know about the industry I added too. Any help would be great!
Page protection Microscope
Please remove the page protection from Microscope as edit requests don't work (even you ignore them other than to leap to the conclusion that all IPs are vandals), the article is a nightmare, and I am willing to edit it. --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:75 (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with Indian meaning for the given name Kiara. This is not an Indian origin name. Please provide a legitimate source to you information posted on the article.
International Institute for Peace
Dear Materialscientist,
I do not understand at all why my changes are not accepted. It is not true that it was set up by the Kremlin after the WPC. Since 1989 it is totally independent of any politics of any state and this article implies that it somehow is close to the Russian Federation or the Kremlin, which is damaging its work - especially on Ukraine.
I would rather suggest to delete the article of IIP at all than to let these sentences confuse the people and damage the work as well as the reputation of the IIP.
The IIP of 1956 is not to be confused with the one after 1989! The IIP has consultative status at ecosoc and unesco and it is an Austrian non-profit association, founded in 89 with Austrian law! they do not get any sources from any Russian or Austrian(!) political parties or associations. It is financed with a usufruct treaty to three houses in vienna.
Thank you for your acceptance or please contact office@iip.at
March 2017
How do you put in citation?
The changes I made were appropriate as I work for the person who's page it is and someone keeps putting inappropriate information...inaccurate information and in my personal opinion slanderous information. I have worked for the individual for 17 yrs..the university lawyers will be reaching out again. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12Doc (talk • contribs) 11:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Hey 12Doc, since you work for the organization, you probably want to carefully review our policies on conflicts of interest, since failure to abide by them will likely result in some unwanted attention, including accounts and IP addresses associated with your organization potentially being blocked from editing.
Additionally, you seem to be making pretty blatant legal threats, which is definitely not allowed, and will definitely result in the loss of editing privileges.
Finally, you were probably reverted because you removed large portions of cited information, and at the end of the day, we care very much about what the sources say, and really not much at all about what is "authorized". If you wan't the article content changed, you need to discuss those changes on the article's talk page. Edit warring and threatening others is going to get you no where. TimothyJosephWood12:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More vandalism from 12.217.27.194
I see you have warned this user about vandalism in the past. Recently this address has been used to vandalize the article about Okmok volcano, Alaska. Why not block it permanently? It has been used only for vandalism for years. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I dont understand why is deleted de text I added to Carlos Albert biography
Hello, Im triyng to update the Biography of Carlos Albert, with permission of him. All the text is written by Carlos Albert to be updated to the en.wikipedia.org. We did before in the spanish wikipedia, with the same content in spanish and we didn't have any problem about copyright. Can you help me how can I updated the content of Carlos Albert's biography? He is very interested that the info about him, needs to be updated. Sorry about my english. Thankyou!
Materialscientist, I just now noticed that the 00:00 update didn't take place. Can you please do it? It would be great if you could—we want these hooks to go up, because tomorrow is April Fools' Day. Thank you very much for whatever you can do. It's the set currently in {[queue|3}}. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your help. I did ping Shubinator, but in case he doesn't come through before tomorrow's promotion, can I ask you to please stand by just in case? We will be having two sets of hooks for April 1/April Fools' Day, which ought to be promoted at 00:00 and 12:00 if the bot is working. Could you take a look at about 00:05 or so to see whether the bot has started work, and if not, do a manual update? And, if you're around then, at around 12:05? Again, many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wanna explain why you are denying it even though there are university sources (which are GOOD ENOUGH under official wikipedia rules). Never heard anything from you yet you keep blocking.
You fail to recognize that your sources are not reliable for this claim (see WP:REDFLAG). There is no policy on this wiki that says that University webpages are reliable sources by default. Changing articles against editorial consensus by brute force has never worked on this wiki. Materialscientist (talk) 08:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources. Other reliable sources include university textbooks" Materialscientist do you know how to read?
Materialscientist, since for April Fools' Day we'll be needing two DYK sets to go to the main page, the User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates page needs to be edited very soon now to take the time between updates down from 86400 to 43200, so the bot grabs the next queue at 12:00 UTC. I've pinged Gatoclass, but I'm not sure he's online right now. Many thanks as always for your help. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've reverted several edits by 112.207.62.146. I looked at a few of the changes in case this was the Western film vandal (it isn't). The cases I reviewed do seem constructive and match IMDB. Of course, IMDB can be wrong and there's the issue of copyvio, but should we ask a subject expert to take a look at the edits in case we've missed an opportunity to improve the articles? (I'll watch here for replies.) Thanks for all the good work, Certes (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this was an unclear case. A short answer is here, and you might wish to ask Jim1138 for details. I expect any editor to use edit summaries and start communicating when warned, which did not happen. Materialscientist (talk) 09:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. It can make life difficult when someone does make improvements but leaves no edit summary even after being asked. Checking their work can take longer then doing it yourself, so I'm not here to appeal the block. Certes (talk) 10:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed on my watchlist that you've blocked this user: DaZombNomb (talk) but you haven't put the block template on their talk page. Just thought I'd bring this to your attention. Thank you! -=Troop=- (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CU is consistent with Human like you, but I hesitate to block this user based on CU only, and prefer this to be handled with third eyes (SPI, or another admin who dealt with Human like you before). Materialscientist (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Because of the reasons described on Talk:Latur#Infobox, I had to convert the text based inbox into a template. I was wondering, what is the technical dofference between these two formats, and which one is preferred on wikipedia? Would you please let me know? Thanks. —usernamekiran[talk]00:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would a block be appropriate?
Materialscientist, I just gave 2601:805:400:E074:9D9B:28DE:ADEB:E664 a vandalism level 4 template, but looking afterward at the enormous amount of damage done in so short a period while doing necessary reversions, I was wondering whether you'd consider a block. This is someone who is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, and edits run the gamut from changing correct scoring data to invalid scores and averages to changing who won a season to deleting large chunks of valid information, whether in text or in tables. If this behavior doesn't rise to an immediate block, can I let you know if another round of vandalism occurs so you can handle it then? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear MS,
I wrote my MA thesis on Dr. Tarnawsky’s poetry and have been following his career attentively. I mostly reformatted the original entry, to which I contributed in the past, to reflect recent developments in his career, particularly with the publication of his PhD dissertation in linguistics in Ukrainian translation, Znannjeva Semantyka, which I included in the list of works below. So the entry is divided into a scholarly and literary section. Much of the information I supplied comes from his archive at Columbia University. (There was an exhibition of highlights from his collection in March, which prompted my doing the update.) But most of the information comes from his autobiography Running Barefoot Home and Back, which appears in the 2000 volume I Don’t Know, and also from the interviews done with AD Jameson and David Moscovich reprinted in his 2016 book of essays Claim to Oblivion, both of which are listed in the publication section. I will supply this information in my edit to the entry. Please let me know how to incorporate citations.
Thank you!
Karina Zalewska
You reverted my addition to the page of UK television presenter Angellica Bell, on grounds that it wasn't constructive.
My addition was that she is the daughter of Julian Bell, the Leader of the London Borough of Ealing Council. I think this is relevant because she studied politics at university, and appears at many political events in the borough on behalf of the council, as their celebrity endorser. She and her father often appear together to endorse local community projects, particularly those aimed at children.
Hello, After your removal of an AfD nomination by a sock earlier today, there has been a further clumsy attempt to remove the page by blanking and then going 'CSD'. I have reverted, but subsequently saw your edit and wonder if this is another sock? Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your messages. I have sent the photographer's permissions to the specified address to prove that we have the right to utilise these pictures.
Then with regards the below, I don't understand. I, as the Duke of Grafton's Private Secretary, have added the fact that he has had a third child to his biography. How do I cite this?
User talk:Anashkat
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Information icon Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
I understand why you removed my 'update' to Roger Casement's page and was wondering if you have a copy of the actual text - as I do not! Please could you send it back to me and I will include the citation/quote as requested.
The novel is in Swedish and I am not a translator so I provide a sample citation/quote in the original Swedish:
"Det var av fler skäl en annan sak med Roger Casement. På sätt och vis var han landsförrädare. Han hade försökte smuggla tyska vapen till den irländska frihetsrörelsen, det var sant." page 336
and another:
"Myndigheterna hade under rättegången mot Casement låtit läcka ut hans olycksaliga dagböcker, där han pedantiskt noga redogjorde för utgifter, penisstorlekar, somliga penisars egenheter, favoriter bland sydeuropéer och ollonets olika smak beroende på nationalitet." page 337
I understand the excerpts as follows:
'There was something else, another reason, with Roger Casement. He was certainly a traitor. It was true that he had tried to smuggle German arms to the Irish liberation movement.'
and
'During Casement's courtcase the authorities had allowed leaks of his unfortunate diaries where he pedantically and diligently recorded prices, penis sizes as well as any peculiarities, his favourite southern Europeans, and different tastes of penises depending on nationality.'
There are further references in the novel whoever I did not make them all down as I was reading it as was not expecting to refer to them. It was only when reading about Casement after having the book that I thought Wikipedia readers/researchers might be interested to know that he is referred to by a very popular Swedish novelist.
The book is called 'Dandy', by Jan Guillou, published by Pocketförslaget, 2013. ISBN: 978-91-87319-35-8
on tr.wiki [10] adding the image shortly after the sock uploaded it and added it to the corresponding en.wiki article.
This [11] (en: [12]) is about my interaction with HLY on en.wiki (Dom got indef blocked long before on en.wiki), same things HLY used to write.
On en.wiki we have the overlap [13] (HLY and the IP are known to be the same user [14]) on very specific pages, in general very similar interests, also many similarities in style of writing. (Though later avoiding the Armenian genocide denial for which Dom got blocked.)
Since both are indef blocked on en.wiki I don't know whether something is to be done here. But at least on es.wiki there seems to be sock puppetry by this user. So if nothing is to be done here, could you forward this information to the collegues from es.wiki? 84.187.154.251 (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to properly explain the content of my 1349 edit. I did not revert your deletion, I added the references that the previous editor forgot to add. Hervegirod (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Diego Domingez
Dear Material scientist
I recently wrote a small addition to the Diego Domínguez (rugby union) article, as Wikipedia has no information regarding anything he has done in the past 17 years despite him managing at one point one of the biggest rugby clubs in europe!
see here : http://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/37752700Mike Ford replaces Diego Dominguez, there are articles all over the place about him just type his name into google, especially because his successor (Ford) has just been sacked today.
I don't really care about Diego Dominguez, Toulon, Ford or Wikipedia in particular, I just thought I could contribute something but I do care about random people on the internet I do not know accusing me of vandalism, so in future, so this the last time I contribute, and Mr Wales's chances of draining some money out of me have plummeted.
Kind Regards
YURIY TARNAWSKY Page - letter 2
I will reenter the entry for Yuriy Tarnawsky today with the citations I indicated to you. I also feel the introductory paragraph in the entry, which I cannot edit, should be changed as follows:
Yuriy Tarnawsky is a Ukrainian-American writer and linguist, one of the founding members of the New York Group of Poets, a Ukrainian émigré avant-garde group of writers, and co-founder and co-editor of the journal Novi Poeziji (New Poetry), as well as member of the US innovative writers’ collaborative Fiction Collective. He writes fiction, poetry, plays, translations, and criticism in both Ukrainian and English. His works have been translated into Czech, French, German, Hebrew, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, and Russian. His knowledge-based semantic theory argues against decompositional semantics and combines Noam Chomsky’s and Hilary Putnam’s views on language into one formulation.
Thank you!
Hi Materialscientist,
I redid the head teacher changes and added some citations (yep, only ones I could find). I work at the school and can personally attest that Andy Shakos did leave on 31st March, and Mark McElwee has been appointed to replace him. I left out the rather emotional "he was great and went to another school" bit, as it's not technically true; he's actually moved the management of The Dean Trust which is multi-academy trust (MAT) of 10 schools, and not to any individual school.
I would normally say "yes, sure", but I'm not convinced that they turned off that plugin and that its use was unintentional (see comments by others on User talk:Slyfoxninja. I knew about the plugin and the edit filter log before blocking). Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
West Catholic High School
Thank you for taking the time to review the West Catholic High School page. The Academic section has been up-dated to include citations per the referenced links for proper Wikipedia citations. The other sections will be revised to include accurately cited references as well as removing references to other Wikipedia pages that contain incorrect information about West Catholic High School.
External links removed
I received a message that the external links that I added have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Could you please clarify what I violated so that I could rectify?
misunderstanding
hi dude
You removed my edits on the page for Abdelrahman Mansour. Please note I am a new wiki editor so was still trying to figure out a bunch of things online (saving, referencing etc). So I will re-add the edits and I hope you leave them as is. Every single change is backed by references and links. thanks!
Article authorship vs. ownership...
I'm curious about Wikipedia policy or convention or whatever when it comes to the obvious conflict between the idea that nobody owns a Wikipedia article and editors and administrators who make a specific point of taking credit for authoring them. Is that not declaring ownership?
I also question the practice of reverting edits, calling edits "vandalism" and blocking editors for "policy" violations relating to sourced and verifiable and reliable and cited information in edits and the lack thereof while simultaneously taking credit for authorship of and therefore ownership of articles with tons of content that is completely lacking in those "required" citations and sources. And then content-protecting the article, elevating its status even further with FA and GA and now I guess VA ratings. I could see it maybe if the subject was something difficult or impossible to find elsewhere and actually pretty much everywhere there's a public library in anything from a small grade school to a large university and even most bookstores will have several different reference or at least educational works on the same subject.
The specific article I looked at was "Diamond" and since you claim authorship credit and apparently are some sort of "expert" (a former boss always said an "ex" is a has-been and a "spurt" is a drip under pressure - truer words were never spoken and I'm not an "expert" in a profession I've been in for almost 25 years) or "authority" on "materials" and diamond is a form of carbon etc, isn't your article pretty much blatant NPOV? And isn't it a textbook example of the double standards many people have cited as a reason no amount of money could HIRE them to edit Wikipedia for after doing it for free for months and even years before realizing all of the rules go out the window when certain Wikipedians decide they don't apply to EVERYONE?
Have you published anything else on "diamond" during your "career"? Have you self-plagiarized or plagiarized others in "your" article? Honestly, how much of what you know about that single topic "diamond" didn't come straight out of somebody elses writings and into your article sans sources? I guess I find the arrogance of deciding the internet could not live without an encyclopedia period pretty amusing and the super-arrogance that an article on "diamond" is VITAL to it to the point of being above editing and the rules for editing and the policies and principals of Wikipedia itself just amazing. I'm relatively certain that if I go pick up any other "D" volume of any other encyclopedia every written I'll find maybe a half of a page devoted to "diamond" and most of that will be the basic science stuff. And because it will be and is pretty much "public domain" and has been for a LONG time, I'll bet there won't even be any citations of sources apart from maybe ones for any images used.
Since I'm not about to waste any more time "vandalizing" articles with what I know are either fake facts or outright lies or that misrepresent the truth or are sorely in need of some context and color and conversational communication of information when citing a "source" would take longer than the instant revert it would get even if I did THAT correctly, I've decided to stop editing altogether and contribute to Wikipedia by reminding those elevated individuals who obviously possess if not own Wikipedia that real encyclopedias are written, published and then put out there to be used and judged on their merits and in some cases criticized and in some cases praised and rightly so in each case but are always FINISHED. Is that even a possibility for Wikipedia? If you're an expert and you're going to write and article and claim it on your Wikipedia pages as your work and put your "user name" on it, why not put your REAL name on it, finish it, call it down, lock it down and THEN submit it and let it stand until somebody writes a better one or thinks they have and puts theirs out there too.
I think Wikipedia nutjobs tend to forget that there are a LOT of encyclopedias. Try try to "create" a single one by "editing" out what a few don't like is an exercise in futility. Especially given the relative popularity of "encyclopedias" throughout history anyway. Probably billions of pounds of paperweights for the most part, since the "educated" few decided what the unwashed masses should know if they cared to look it up. Now we have even more conceited people deciding that maybe 10.000 previously published articles on "diamond" weren't getting it and people are just too dumb to do a focused Google search for things like that so....WIKIPEDIA!
The online encyclopedia anybody can ignore a hell of a lot easier than a big stack of old Brittanicas in the basement storeroom of their grandparents' house as they clean it out after they die...
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. It's located here. Nothing I'd worry about at all (you'll see); just adding the notice that the IP failed to add per the instructions... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
