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.

Vandalism! Help! SOS!

There is vandalism on CSI: Miami (season 10). Could you fix it? 71.202.132.106 (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Tom Zenk vandal

(posted here since the thread disappeared while I was replying to it) It looks to me like someone rather clever and quite funny wants to make a fool of this wiki; the edit to Hothead Paisan was undetected for seven months or so. I suppose I had vaguely but unrealistically hoped that people here would have powerful tools to deal with this sort of stuff (blocks on the IP addresses? alarm bells on the word "Zenk"? bots that can be programmed to search for certain editing patterns?). My concern is that the frequency is perhaps not so low, that many other similar edits may be slipping through undetected. Thanks for taking an interest, anyway. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 02:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This happens. The frequency is low and we can't block the IPs. A common solution is put the relevant articles on the watchlist and revert. When the frequency becomes too high, ask semiprotecting the article(s). There is a solution with setting an edit filter (many wikipedia editors can to that), but I've only had a brief look and can't tell whether it is feasible to have a rejection algorithm without collateral damage. Materialscientist (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Krishnamurti article

What to do about this? I saw that you have also picked up on the WP:OWN aspect of 65.88.88.xxx's behavior. The article now has the distinction of being the longest non-list article in WP and 35th overall. [1] When I tried to address this some time ago on the talk page, (I suggested Summary Style) I got incredible abuse in return. I wonder about an RfC. Several editors have raised concerns on the talk page (one other admin) but it runs them all off. "It," by the way, appears to be some sort of a collective (maybe two people, maybe more) that operates out of the New York Library. It wasn't a bad article two years ago when this entity began editing. Now it is a morass of trivia. Would you be willing to assist in tackling the problem? Sunray (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I need more time and information to give a useful reply. I picked up this article yesterday because of length and had a look how to lighten the code (random exercise in coding). It is very important to not alienate editors (IPs or not) who are motivated to help here, thus right now I am cautious (there are many "own-like" cases like this around WP). As an editor, I do believe much of that formatting nitpicking (templating games) should be trashed to lighten the code - nobody cares about the difference between {{em}}, {{italic}} and good old '' marks, same with dashes, and perhaps with many other things in there. As an admin, I would rather let my edits wasted and go fix another article - thinking this one is stable. However, if this is not just between me and that editor then it's a different story. Materialscientist (talk) 03:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I have said, I think that the problem is way beyond simply this aspect of template use. However, the IP has now reverted me once more. I make that four reverts by them, so I will report it. I will argue that it should be reverted to your last version and locked until the wider problems can be addressed. Sunray (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I didn't know who to turn to for advice, so I figured I could as well talk with the person who banned and unbanned me! I have always wondered if posting a detailed edit summary is important, especially if it is a minor edit. And what would qualify as a "minor" or "major" edit? I understand it must be a blurry line. If you'd be so kind, could you take a look at the edits I made while reading Mexican Drug War relating to my above inquiry? Did I tag the edits right? Also, are my edits OK? I certainly hope so. Since this article is so developed and referenced, there is not much more to do than to correct the prose. I have been enjoying coming back to editing life BTW, a 2 month ban will do that. No hard feelings at all though, I guess it looked like I deserved it! We all have slip-ups. Thank you! :) Mattaidepikiw (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. A general answer. (i) Marking or not edits as minor is indeed .. minor :-) and there is no clear line. I often mark an edit as minor because it didn't change the article content, but it might have reformatted a hundred references and changed the code length by some 100 kB :-). Some editors find it misleading when an edit which changed some crucial ideas in the text is marked as minor; thus when in doubt, don't mark as minor. (ii) I find edit summaries very important, even though I mistype nearly all of them :-) and most of them contain one word. A blank or nonsense edit summary is always suspicious and might even trigger a quick revert. When I began editing, I just blindly set up a flag in my wikipedia preferences (to alert when the summary is blank) and then gradually started understanding the use of it. Not only helpful for others, it helps me a lot, when I desperately need to find some past edit. Materialscientist (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thanks, if I have other matters, I'll make sure to drop a line if I have a problem. I am a regular editor at Uncyclopedia, so I know a bit about wikis, but let's say that the editing here is quite different, hence my inability to add new content to stubs about cycling and climbing articles, since I really don't understand the various referencing methods, templates and such. Would you have an WP:??? you could point me to for that? Also, I guess I'll let go of the little jokes in edit summaries as I did on the Mexican Drug War article, although the edits I made were dead serious. Mattaidepikiw (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With time, I realized that WP coding is not difficult - not because I've learned the coding, but because I've learned what coding is acceptable :-). There are many citation and formatting styles, and some are getting reverted only because the "reverter" doesn't appreciate that. Most important is to come here helping in good faith (and keep learning with every edit) - then the same editors who would have reverted you will fix your blunders instead. (forgive my philosophical rants). Yes, there is this old problem that the edit summaries can be misunderstood (as anything else we write :). There is a good practice, when you rewrite the whole article in a single edit, and it is important to explain the changes, and the edit summary box is too small for that, leave a short note in the edit summary and expand it at the article talk. Materialscientist (talk) 04:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some DYK? Nom assistance

If you have time, please take a look at Bill Smith (Fell runner). I passed it for DYK?Review but then some paraphrasing issues were caught. It seems the creator (7&6=thirteen) has been trying to fix the issues. They have subsequently contacted me about its status but I feel that since I passed it at first I am not an uninterested party. Would appreciate any help you could give. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otium

This is my latest article. Feel free to make any improvements. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded article. Any ideas for a DYK hook?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made it more concise. Does it need more "fine tuning"? Good Article possibility?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Organometallic chemistry

Hi, when you have a moment, please check this edit. I don't know enough about chemistry to say if it is vandalism or not. Thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answer To Your Last Revert Off Edits

Hi Dear I Completely Knows That This Image Is Tagged By Some Bots To Move It To Wikimedia Commons But As My Reason States To Add That Template Is That U May Be Did Not Realized That They Are Orphaned Files Which Are Not Part Off Any Article And Leaving Orphaned Files As It Is To Make Server Load High Is Not So Good And You May Also Agreed To Me That Using Vandalism Word For The Edit Is Not That Worth Heavy Edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.125.72.87 (talk) 12:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request no delete of Ottawa Chito Kai for the following reason:

This page should not be speedy deleted because...

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (I am attempting to flesh out the Chito Ryu style of karate 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chit%C5%8D-ry%C5%AB' as it relates to the Ottawa area in Canada. I have been studying the history of Chito-Ryu in Canada and have read the history in Canada starting with 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masami_Tsuruoka' which took me as far as his students from Ottawa. Further research revealed that 'Ottawa Chito Kai' is one of the few remaining schools which was founded by one of these original students & still practices traditional Chito-Ryu style karate. As this is my first wikipedia article, it is taking some time to learn the structure.) --Tecknomykle (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tecknomykle (talk • contribs)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For removing the accusation of me being a sock puppet of myself. I saw that the vandal a similar thing to you. Anyway, thank you, and happy editing! pluma Ø 00:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Showing my appreciation for the speedy block to User:60.242.185.107. Continue to fight all the vandals. Thanks! :-) Allenjambalaya (talk) 07:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COINAPO

I don't know if you noticed, but Cruiso had prodded that page in the past [2]. Although the formatting and tone fixes are an improvement, I still feel that Cruiso's reasoning was correct. The series of informal workshops described there does not seem to have received independent coverage. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The images and overview of inorganic nanotubes there might be useful (in other articles). The project itself might not be notable. Materialscientist (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty certain that the "action" is not notable (it's not a "project" in the classical sense: COST only provides money to organize small meetings, summer courses, and a few reciprocal visits; a budget generally around 150 kEuros). I agree that the nano part may be useful. Do you have a suggestion (perhaps you can do this merge yourself)? Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, for delay, will try to make time this weekend and copy this info into right articles. This seems one of those cases when wishing to describe their project on wikipedia they spent time on composing a wikipedia article and donated useful images. We should use such efforts for a good course :-). Materialscientist (talk) 09:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took what I needed from COINAPO to inorganic nanotube (with much rewriting, which was a quick job and more polishing is needed). The only use from COINAPO is potential updates with new images and results (if significant). Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:98.214.90.102

Hi. I've declined the unblock request and reblocked as indef. I redacted the abuse, but I'm not sure if it should be revdel'ed - I've never had to do this since I got the mop. Perhaps you could take a look. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. MuZemike changed your block already. Indefinite block of an IP is usually a mistake because IP can be reassigned to another person. I usually set duration based on the editing history and whois parameters (except for open-proxy-like cases). Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 07:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concern over action taken against new account

Hi. You may have noticed my comment(s) regarding User:Poooooooooo123. If not I must now consider that you have. I was concerned by the swiftness to block indefinitely considering:

The user had made only one edit.
The user had received no warnings.
The user had not been contacted at their talk page regarding either their edit or their name.
No effort was made to encourage the taking of a new name (before or extra to the block notice).

On Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism one of the four Important! Your report must follow these four points: points was totally ignored. Namely:

The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop.

Wikipedia policy includes Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers and Wikipedia:Username_policy#Dealing_with_inappropriate_usernames leads with Talk to the user and Request for comment. Neither were done. For the record: This shows the report and its removal post blocking

I'm quite sure I don't need to point out every little detail on every relevant page (since you're the Administrator, not I). My concern is that although the user did vandalise; it was minor and somewhat pathetic. They weren't active after their one edit at 00:22, November 6, 2011 for more than an hour before blocking at 01:46, November 6, 2011. They were hardly active and persistent. They may have (with encouragement) apologised, changed their name and gone on to do good work. I think there is little chance of that now. I wonder if you consider your action to have been a little aggressive and anti WP Policy?

I feel honour bound to mention that I am so appalled by how this user was dealt with (incidentally I have no personal attachment to the user and was only interested by why a first and one time vandal was being reported at AIV) that I may take this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents if I feel the need. Please don't get the wrong idea about my intentions. I am not so dim that I can't see that vandalism and people called poo are inappropriate (although unless we are in playschool I hardly think the later could be considered offensive). It is how those issues are dealt with that concerns me. Without following simple rules like: Don't bite, Talk to the user, Warn, warn and warn again etc. etc. this project starts treading thin ice. Under it is cold, dark and quite frankly not very pleasant. I sincerely hope you don't think of this as any kind of personal attack. I am contacting you about this simply because you did the blocking. I would react the same way toward any other admin.

All the official stuff out the way. I like your photos. fg ^t _c 05:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've raised several issues, and pages can be spent discussing this. I am always keen to hear comments from the user and grant or assist with an unblock. There is no use taking this case as a policy decision (nearly all my blocks are done on individual basis). What is the purpose of mentioning that I may take this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? You can always do that without telling me in advance, and you are always welcome to resolve anything you have against me here. I am also curious about what is your basis for stating that They may have (with encouragement) apologised, changed their name and gone on to do good work. (I have some practical experience with that and would be interested to hear yours). Materialscientist (talk) 05:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As stated: I feel honour bound not policy bound. I am talking to you about it because I feel it is the decent thing to do not because I must.
As stated: I have nothing against you. This is about the way the decision was made not who made it.
They may have. Whilst the person in question is alive, concious and both physically and mentally able, they may do any number of things. I am referring to the possibility that talking with the user about their behaviour could lead to them being enlightened.
My practical experience is far reaching and long lived. Dealing with people is no different here (on-line in general or on Wikipedia) than elsewhere. However it is not my experience or indeed yours that I am asking/commenting about. It is your recent actions regarding a specific case.

That said: What is your justification for blocking this user bearing in mind they made only one edit and then were quiet; They were not warned; They were not encouraged to change their name (their name being mentioned as part of the reason for the report); There was no RfC on whether the name should be considered inappropriate; In fact it seems that almost none (if any) of the primary considerations when dealing with new accounts were considered or acted upon?

Feel free to decline to answer if you wish. fg ^t _c 06:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I have no hard feeling in this case and thus asked what do you propose? I had reasons for a block and doubt that this user came here in good faith or will return, whether kept blocked or not. We can only speculate what would or will happen, and I would prefer to hear from the user first. But you came here, so if you don't have a proposal, here is mine: I'll unblock the user upon your request if you'll watch them. Materialscientist (talk) 06:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to keep my eye on the user if unblocked.

That said. I would like to add to their talk page a considered warning for their last edit along with a selection of useful links etc. (e.g. {{Welcomelaws}}) and a link to this discussion in order to simply establish that they have an opportunity to put the block behind them. They may prove to be unworthy of our support and in that case I'll be the first to request or support a request to have them appropriately reprimanded.

There is one issue we may agree on: The name isn't really very obviously serious. I am of the view that many vandals and infrequent users are simply surprised that they can edit someone else's web site and thus don't really understand what they are doing. I feel this may also be a reason why so many users request name changes. They found it so easy to create an account that they simply didn't take it seriously the first time round.

So here's the sticking point: Should this user (if they should return) be forced to change their name or is it not really offensive or disruptive enough to be considered inappropriate? If you are happy to let it pass, I will keep watch and hope like hell I don't regret this. If you are not happy to let the name pass, how do we proceed? If not already clear: I do feel that it was not created to do them any favours (not serious). My hope would be however that with encouragement and time they may ask to change it. fg ^t _c 07:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Unblocked, leaving them to you. My opinion on this username is that it should be changed. Between us, I have extended experience with vandalism and blocks, but not with WP:UAA. What I know is that UAA reports are normally decided by one admin (admins are too few and too busy to spend hours on every case), and a normal reaction in such cases is do not block right away but wait for an edit to see their intentions. Here we had that edit. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 07:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your involvement. I'll keep my eye well and truly open have no fear (although I do sleep occasionally). The last thing I want is to have encouraged carnage. fg ^t _c 07:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't prevent a sudden rampage - someone will quickly quench that, thus better do something productive and enjoyable :-). I asked you because more worrying is slow nastiness (minor tweak once a week). This does not need constant watching. Materialscientist (talk) 08:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I fully support your blocking of 58.69.5.54. Do you get that often?? On articles it's bad enough but on user pages it's totally out of line (obviously). fg ^t _c 07:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a daily admin's reality. Some edit filters are programmed specifically to filter attacks on certain admins, and from time to time they are hit at a rate of several IPs/minute. Somehow I don't get attacked much, despite the large number of blocks. Materialscientist (talk) 07:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's sad. Wouldn't it be nice if people had better things to do? Maybe the photos calm the attackers down before they reach your talk page and then like cliché cartoon goldfish they simply forget why they came. fg ^t _c 07:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My friend usually wore a T-shirt when going to the tax or city authorities. The T-shirt pictured two angel-cute kids and everyone around was melting thinking they are his :-). I don't believe my userpage is a factor, it is more related to which areas we patrol. "Better things to do" is indeed a key here - somehow, vandalism games are too much fun for too many, at so many levels - a complex interactive game against real opponents, minimum spending and hardware requirement, clearly visible results, neverending possibilities for resetting the game, etc, etc. Materialscientist (talk) 08:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I ~~fear~~ believe you are right. Quick cheap thrills at the expense of others. I said similar to Maryana (WMF) in a short discussion about archiving shared IP's. The education IP's are bound to be host to everything from "I dare ya!" to "I luv ya!" posts (none of which are useful of course). The obvious reward (as you so rightly say) is the instant kudos from their peers. Our parents were right you know? "Kids today...yadder yadder yadder". Now here we are doing the same dance but to different music. fg ^t _c 08:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Michael Knight

A single purpose account (either MMK himself or affiliated) has been removing sourced content and his initial edit summary read "Khatri isn't a filmmaker; everyone who attended the Indievest Dinner Party was labeled a 'filmmaker'". I have tried to discuss and convey to the person why they should not remove sourced info, and advised reading editing policies. Sadly the fact that he is on his 6th revert shows I am not getting through. I am asking if you can either convey this to them as my good faith is being tested severely. As per today he has refered to MMK's personal website (as proof)and the only information on it is a denial addressing wikipedia and emerges just now. Seeing as this person might be MMK I suggested he could contact wikipedia and and submit his objection there. Semi protecting might also be wise. Perhaps you can assist. Nimom0 (talk) 12:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hi im new to this but I am going to repost my contribution to the tony discipline page and jacqueline jossa page which you edited-I will indicate that Tony said in an interview on this morning and loose women about the welcome he got from the ee cast but also Tony and jacqueline are not in a proper relationship but are casually testing the water and they dont really want this categorised as a relationship formally on wikipedia as they dont view it as such-thats why I deleted references to it.I know tony personally and I know this to be the case