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.

Can't resist

OOOh, a freshly archived and clean talk page to deface! PumpkinSky talk 01:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Merry X'mas~!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®}is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas!

Materialscientist, I hope you have a Merry Christmas and hope your day is full of the true spirit of the day.
Plus, good food, good family and good times. :) Have a Great Day! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Spread the joy of Christmas by adding {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/MerryChristmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Continuation of coordinated attacks

Hello, the Coordinated attacks hounding my edits have continued.

Please see:

GRC:[1]

Church of St peter: [2]

Mary's Tomb:[3]

Ecce Homo:[4]

Cathedral of St James: [5]

Church of St. James Intercisus:[6]

Church of the Holy Sepulchre:[7]

Lutheran church of the redeemer:[8]

Christ Church: [9]

Ghajar: [10]

Category:Parks in Jerusalem: [11] (I created this cat)

Kfar Haruv: [12]

List of bees of Israel and the occupied territories: [13]

Every single edit by the IPs and shady sleeper accounts is a revert of my edits. Except at the category which was a revert of User:nableezy, though I created it.

This is obviously a continuation of the organized attack, hounding my edits and reverting everything I do.

I ask that you please revert all these illegitimate vandalism edits, protect the articles, block the IPs, and put the articles on your watchlist.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this has nothing to do with you, but is a broader Israel-Palestine issue, with a group of IPs pushing one point of few. I'll see what I can do, but do think about seeking support somewhere at WP:ANI or even Arbcom (maybe there was already a resolution on this particular issue). We can't go berserk (with reverts/blocks) in such cases. Materialscientist (talk) 05:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what can I do now? for example: here the IP removes a consensus sentence about illegality of Israeli settlements and replaces it with falsehoods misrepresenting the source [14] he also ads "Jewish village Haruva that existed during the Talmudic era, over 1500 years ago." despite not adding any source to support this. This was done by another Ip before: [15], I pointed out that he needed source for the change and that the illegality sentence has consensus, it was reverted again by a long time non neutral editor who has also been blocked for half a year and topic banned for one year for using a sock within the A-I conflict, (it was recently lifted) so I know where these kinds of edits are coming from. He claimed that I didn't explain my edit, despite that I did in the edit summary:[16] And now it has been reverted again by this IP without addressing any of the points I brought up, that the sentence has consensus, and that the changes recently done are done without adding any new sources.

Considering all other articles, all of them shows up at the exact same time to revert my edits. This is obviously a collaborated attack, they obviously are not here to edit constructively and are not going to listen to reason, they are just going to continue to revert over and over and over again. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frohliche Weinachten und Gluckliches neues Jahr

Photo from Baden_Wurttemberg, Germany.PumpkinSky talk 12:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrosilicon

Thanks for the help at Ferrosilicon. The CAS number was commented out but I didn't know why so I uncommented it and moved while I was working on layout. Thanks. RJFJR (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buckminsterfullerene

Dear Materialscientist,

I would just like to thank you for your formatting into the Buckminsterfullerene page. I may have made some more edits in the meantime, but you cleaned up that page, even adding an informative table on the subject.

Thanks, Rifasj123 (talk)

Khrushchev

As often Federal departments hire contractors to do photography I'm cautious about adding stuff just because it's on a government web site. In this case, the flikr page says "some rights reserved". It's quite possible it is PD, but it's hard to be sure without more info. If you disagree, let's talk about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw. Either they mistagged and it is PD, or they did not and it is indeed "Some rights reserved" (= CC-BY) - either way is allowed on wikipedia. Materialscientist (talk) 11:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CC-BY? Not sure what that is. I did search the national archives and didn't come up with anything but I need to look further. No objection to the image but like to straighten out the licensing issue first.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to link [17]. In the past, I have also encountered some USgov (or other official) channels on flickr and tried to find those flickr images on their website (images were clearly PD-old), but failed - maybe this is why they go out on flickr, using it as a depository. Materialscientist (talk) 12:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems logical; the Nixon Library was planning to do much the same thing, but one of their AV specialists is fairly clueful about such sites. I will send the contact person a message from the Flikr page. In the meantime, I will leave it to you whether to put it back in. If you do, can I suggest you move it to the discussion of Khurshchev's US visit in the article, if there is room enough there?(Wehwalt)

Not fighting either. I just feel an obligation to maintain FAs and check what goes in. It's not a big deal either way; I suspect it is PD. Shouldn't be too hard to check out. Many thanks for your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and do appreciate that. I just felt like leaving a note that it is not a matter of my interest. The image is unremarkable, but, as all images, contains many little details, like white suit, decorations, facial expressions, etc. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 13:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Structure, please

In user:Petergans/sandbox I have nearly finished preparing an article on oxohalides. I wonder if you can find the structure of F₅AOAF₅ (A=Se or Te) in your database. The interest lies in whether the A-O-A part is linear or bent. Many thanks,. Petergans (talk) 12:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. No, we haven't got it in the database, but I'll check web of science, in some 12 hrs. Extra hints for searching are welcome. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 13:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found it in one of the text books being used as sources. It is not in Wells, so I though it might be in your database. Search terms Selenium (Tellurium) oxofluoride or oxyfluoride? Petergans (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the additions. I've added a few bits and it's now ready. Would you be so kind as to give it the once over for typos etc. before posting to main WP. My typing is getting worse and worse!

Incidentally, I have merged categories oxo(y)fluoride, oxo(y)chloride and oxo(y)bromide into oxohalides and changed all references in articles; can you delete the empty categories? Petergans (talk) 13:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted 3 oxo categories (F, Cl, Br) and will have a look for typos in some 8-10 hours or so, as I must go offline now. Materialscientist (talk) 13:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for great help. Posted on DYK . Petergans (talk) 10:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brezhnev article

Query: is it just the "but" I inserted that you object to? Because it begins two other sentences in the article. Why not take them all out?Rule 56 (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "But" was a trigger. Anyway, I would wait a bit for the discussion to evolve (or decay) and won't bother with simply changing between But and However. I myself try not to follow the writing style of modern newspapers and magazines. It often intends to be catchy, which doesn't mean it re-establishes the grammar and should be followed. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious: what is the authority for your position? I've cited current and historical authors; you folks on the other side haven't cited any that I've seen. Rule 56 (talk) 01:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More dark matter/energy sock puppets

cu Calabe 1992 03:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you could be more specific than me over at the SPI, that would help. Calabe 1992 03:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More on IP serial vandal Ostroski

Hi Materialscientist , please see the thread on my talk page. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reindeers...

Because you said, I was violating WP:COPYVIO and WP:RS policies?? And I didn't understood, how I should too it right (my mother tongue isn't English...) so maybe you can add by yourself this fact that reindeers like to eat fly agarics in wild... Here are sources: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3313331/Reindeers-like-Rudolph-and-Blitzen-get-high-on-magic-mushrooms.html and http://h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/A6084218 (talk) 11:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RevDel Request

Thanks for blocking the IP vandal on Martha Stewart. While I find the last group of edit summaries from them devoted to me somewhat amusing in a sick way, I really don't think they have anything constructive to do with the article or with WP. Could someone kind of... make them go away? Cheers :> Doc talk 12:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Materialscientist (talk) 12:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Doc talk 12:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Email

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Jasper Deng (talk) 06:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Email from Mol Smith

I notice you art the main contributor to Microscopes (& Microscopy). Can you include in your external references please the following site: www.microscopy-uk.org.uk I am the co-founder of this site which is non-profit making and the world's largest online resource foor all enthusiast microscopists and the non-commercial study of microscopic subjects.

I did not wish to mess with your page.

Many thanks and a happy new year.

Mol Smith co-founder - coordinator of Microscopy-uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Molsmith (talk • contribs) 15:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:71.171.112.181

71.171.112.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi Materialscientist. In my opinion, this block might as well be for six months. He's been continuing in the same pattern since September, and the IP does not appear dynamic. EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, feel free to reblock. My current mood is much too good for doing that (myself) :-D. Seriously, either way is Ok with me. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now reblocked for six months with talk access disabled. Hope this good mood won't prevent you from engaging in necessary admin actions :-), EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Can you please stop of mess up with my edits, arab argentines, why you add years to the estimates, is useless, only highlight the big differences beetween sources, a growth of 50% in 2000-2001??!! and a growth of 175% from 2001-???? (17,5% annunal, if we think is from 2001-2011, when argentina annual growth rate is 1%) is crazy!! I will ask to you please undo your edits in that

arabs in argentina are from lebanon (biggest contribution), and syria (minor contribution), and the rest of arab countries make a negligible contribution, and about the 3,5 millions is an estimation obviously wrong and too high, according to lebanese argentine are around 1,5 millions, means that there are 2 millions of others arabs, and we know that the biggest part is from lebanese ancestry, syrian make a minor contribution and the rest of arabs countries make a negligible contribution, for thats is wrong, may you think the 1,3 millions estimation is too low, perhaps, and the 2 millions may be the correct one, and is which have to be left only

and about this part:

"While Arab communities existed by 1864, systematic records did not appear before 1868. From 1891 to 1920, 367,348 people of Arabic heritage immigrated into Argentina"

Is from a source i think is useless when we have this

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inmigración_en_Argentina#Cuadros_estad.C3.ADsticos is from 1970, fuente nacional de migraciones (national migration source)

and says 174,000 "turks" (they emigrated with ottoman empire passaport, but almost all were from lebanon or syria) emigrated to argentina between 1857-1940

so please, fix the things that i say to you, or let me do it myslef, but dont mess up more cuz i really think is more correct and a better, trustly and accurate version

User60092678 (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is all great, but sounds more like personal analysis. I agree the article needs fixing, and mine was a quick patch, but we need to build up on facts, supported by reliable sources (so far, most of them are hardly reliable, but I see no alternative and have no time to research this area). I think it is important to mention year (even approximate) of the data, because population minorities fluctuate a lot. It is up to the reader to analyze them (in absence of proper review). The spread indicates spread between sources, not necessarily between years. Adding "174,000 "turks" emigrated between 1857-1940" might be useful information, but it is completely different to the statement of "From 1891 to 1920, 367,348 people of Arabic heritage immigrated into Argentina" because of different years, nationalities, and different sources (again). Materialscientist (talk) 03:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have tweaked the population reference to avoid the year/source ambiguity. Materialscientist (talk) 04:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for blocking that malicious IP. That vandal was really persistant! -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 04:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We meet again...

Hi, I'm the person who started that mini edit war about metallic micro-lattice except now I have a profile. I just wanted to say thanks for with me agreeing in the end. Scientific Alan (talk) 08:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It took me a bit of time to realize what your those edits were aimed at. I haven't heard about metallic microlattices then, and thus showed my usual skepticism :-). Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 08:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help me...

How do use things like bold text? I know how to use them but I can't do it on my 3ds. Also I have to add a new section every time since my 3ds can't load lots of info at once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientific Alan (talk • contribs) 08:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no experience with wikiediting using mobile devices. From time to time I revert mobile edits, which aim well, but do something else (like erasing a chunk of text) because of technical limitations. Maybe this will help. Materialscientist (talk) 08:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tbilisi

the 1897 All-Russian census was the first Imperial survey which aimed to interview every household head and relied upon solicited interview data rather than the lists compiled by local authorities.

the 1897 all-Russian imperial census did not contain a question on nationality, nationality was attributed to populations often through...local analysis of data on mother tongue, social estate and occupation.

[18] Anderson, David. The 1926/27 Soviet Polar Census Expeditions. 2001, p.29.

So if you are a Russian-speaking Georgian family,like mine, they would just say you are Russian. This guesswork has no place on this article.--Andriabenia (talk) 09:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against the Soviet census, all of my complaints are about the Russian imperial census "references", which are either false or based on aforementioned guesswork.--Andriabenia (talk) 09:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize that I did not explain myself well-enough:

1. Since the Imperial census is a complete guesswork - i.e it counts Russian-speaking Georgians and Armenians as Russian etc - I think the table should contain only the Soviet census.
2. Because I see no pressing reason for this table to exist in a section as small as the one in question, instead of adjusting the chart to contain only the Soviet years, I removed the chart altogether. If you want to retain the chart for reasons unknown to me, I'll be in favor of adjusting it only for the Soviet census.--Andriabenia (talk) 09:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Lastly I am in favor of removing not only the 1897 census, but everything before, because as my provided source states, the 1897 census was the first census to attempt interviewing every household, and even that was based on "solicited interview data".--Andriabenia (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are saying about the other sources but at least one of the cited books, one by Anchabadze, does not contain the claimed information.I would very much be in favor of removing that, and keep the others, because I have not had the time to go through them. I previously downloaded that geographic dictionary of the Russian empire but did not have the chance to read it. I would hold on to that source and I'll get back to you as I'm still in the midst of the new years preparations : -).--Andriabenia (talk) 09:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I propose after looking at pre-Soviet data on Tbilisi's demographics:

Remove from the chart information supposedly supported by Anchabadze's book - it is not in the book.
Since "Географическо-статистический словарь Российской империи" has at least some affiliation with the Russian government, keep it, but note that this was a "single day census", (Russian: однодневный перепис) in modern Russian (pg 132 of the same book), and let the readers decide how accurate a single day census is given 1860s transportation, population distribution, and the fact that this is all based on solicited interviews.
For the census of 1897, we should note the scope and imprecise methodology of the census, i.e. no explicit question on ethnicity.

I am willing to make these changes myself and you can take a look.--Andriabenia (talk) 11:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the need for strong sources. That, however, means that for the most part we need to keep Georgian/Armenian sources to the minimum as this often leads to accusations of nationalistic propaganda and potential territorial claims. For this reason, Russian/English sources should be preferred--Andriabenia (talk) 11:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox Edit Notice

Hello, please change the code on Template:Editnotices/Page/User:Materialscientist/Sandbox to {{IUPAC spelling|form=editnotice}}. The current version uses a copyrighted image, which is not allowed outside of fair use articles. Thank you. :-) —C. Raleigh (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]