User talk:Materialscientist

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

Hello. I'm not sure where to respond to your comment. I apologize because I'm sure this is the wrong place but I had trouble finding the right place due to the myriad of little pictures on here.

I appreciate your intention of deleting my comment because you thought I was promoting a company. I understand that Wikipedia is not a place for product advertisement. The reason that I listed the company that provides GHB hair testing is that it is the only one I am aware of that does GHB hair testing. If there is another company, I would hope that they would add themselves to the list. I am in no way affiliated with the company. I joined this site today for the sole purpose of editing the wiki pages on GHB hair testing because it is not well known. I would like the victims of date rape drugs to be aware that they can have GHB hair testing. By providing the name of the company that does the testing, I am facilitating the process.

If you could please repost the edit that I spent time and care making, I would greatly appreciate it. If it is somehow more bureaucratically palatable, you could change it to "Toxicology Associates, Inc." is one of the first companies to offer this service. It is scientifically admirable, as well as helpful for victims of date rape drugs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Congruency (talk • contribs) 00:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why Eureka Electrosoft Page Deletion

You have deleted my page because of its no importance. This was not a real reason because you have deleted an important Article by virtue of Students. The Article did not promote any thing.

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

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.

José María Moncada Tapia

Up-loading photo in Spanish Wikipedia. Not an easy task. Can I send the photo to you? (José María Moncada Tapia (8 December 1870 Masatepe - 1945 Managua) was the President of Nicaragua from 1 January 1929 to 1 January 1933.) If so, how do I make it happen? This photo belong to our family and has not been publish outside of the Nicaraguan Nation Achieves. So it requires exclusive use rights by me. Or with express permission from the following person(s) Omar Moncada Tapia or Oscar Moncada Tapia his sons...Thanks so much for your assistance.ManicalCritic (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Ok brah, cool edits, but if we know that the 1,3 millons is to low, and the 3,5 millons are too high, even if the most recent, we have to left only the most accurate for not confuse more, the 2 millons, and in the source clarify that there are most estimates.

If you dont wanna add the "174,000 "turks" emigrated between ok, i thought was a very trusty source, cuz is from 1970 argentina goverment, and the other one is from a source less trusty, in those times almost of people of arabic heritage were under ottoman rule (turks). we can put.... from 1857 to 1940, 174,000 people of the ottoman empire, mostly lebanese and syrians, emigrated to argentina ^[1], i think that is clear and not so confusing, understandable — Preceding unsigned comment added by User60092678 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brah i saw you dont response to my comment here (upper) and you were ok with those changes, i read your comment, about the ref, fuente nacional de migraciones, 1970, i extract from here: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inmigraci%C3%B3n_en_Argentina#Cuadros_estad.C3.ADsticos is a featured article, so i thought is correct and about the 2 millons i thought we agree is the best choice we can put for not confuse, due the 1,3 milllons and the 3,5 millons have a big difference, and we know both are wrongs, so put the more accurate and left the ref with all the information you wrote i see like the best option — Preceding unsigned comment added by User60092678 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(i) Wikipedia (Spanish or English, FA or not) can not be used as a reference. (ii) While the numbers vary too much, we may not just say "I believe 2 mil is the best choice, so I put it". This is called original research. Materialscientist (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bro, i think if the article is a featured article the sources are verified and we can use in others articles, and i dont understend why you make a ref with 3 links, clarifying that the estimates varies a lot, and in the article put the two we are pretty sure are wrongs and just let the more acuratte outside the article

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]

1803 Tbilisi 'census'

Ronald Grigor Suny may be a published scholar but as I stated above, given the contentious nature of the subject at hand I am not willing to trust Armenian/Georgian authors on their words alone - I am going to need a second reliable source that confirms that the added 'census' took place and how it was administered. I understand that Suny is a scholar at an American university but he comes from an Armenian family and given user:rast5's accusations of "anti-Armenian demographic policies in Tiflis, I want to stay clear of either Armenian/Georgian works on this table.I honestly see no other way of putting an end to constant accusations of Armenian victimization and the pathetic competition between Armenians and Georgians on these forums as to who was oppressed the most during this period of history.

I have also noticed that the same author was recently included in the chart by you as a source for the 1876 'census', which I completely missed. I would like to see an alternative source for this data from a source unrelated to Armenia or Georgia, through familial ties or any other. I'll try to search myself--Andriabenia (talk) 08:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the 1897 census was the first systematic, all-Russia census, and it had its faults (such as lack of ethnicity question). Local sensuses were conducted for centuries. And were criticized. No census is ever perfect, and the accuracy is still improving. This does not mean we should discard old data (because they didn't have helicopters to get to remote areas, etc. :-). We go by reliable sources. When we have Suny presenting some data on one side, and yourself saying that there was no such census, and Suny comes from an Armenian family and is therefore biased on the other side, we stay with Suny, simply because of the core WP:V and WP:RS policies.

For the sake of personal discussion, (i) Suny was born in the US, and we know his grandfather was Armenian. If you have reliable information on his family, please include in his article. (ii) It is more than logical that Russians conducted a local census right after annexation, which is what Suny probably used. Materialscientist (talk) 08:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not particularly care about where Suny was born because there are plenty of foreign-born Georgians that have been accused in the past of being biased. All I'm trying to do is minimize this possibility. If I go and find a Georgian source that says something different from Suny, what is going to happen, we'll have two entries? So the table that's already bigger than the paragraph it's in will grow further? Or are we going to spark another debated on which author is considered more reliable based on what generation immigrant he/she is? Why go through all this trouble when we can simply remove Suny and keep the rest of the sources.--Andriabenia (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the kind of potentially nationalistic irrelevancies that your leniency solicits to this abandoned article.--Andriabenia (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted. The relative size of the paragraph and table are irrelevant - the whole paragraph can be a table, if it summarizes data better than bare text. Materialscientist (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this. I did not want to get into another edit war. He, on the other hand, is blocked for another two weeks and apparently already trying to evade it.--Andriabenia (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2012 (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 (partially my fault, since I used the wrong image on a talk page in the first place). Thank you. :-) —C. Raleigh (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the image was removed. Thanks! —C. Raleigh (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Why wasn't User:Messwein blocked? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 08:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why should they be blocked? Materialscientist (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained, repeatedly uploading copyrighted images without copyright information and edit warring to add them to the article. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you might be right. I thought this was a newbie who obtained personal permission from the image copyright owner and did not know how to convert that into a valid license (it is a common problem even with experienced users - yes, I saw your trying to explain the problem). There was edit warring, and I thought it was stale for reporting. Thus this user is blockable if they resume warring. Materialscientist (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

script for raw link conversion

How do I do the raw link conversion? Like to run script over Michael Wolff (journalist)

TCO (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The link is here. I personally prefer the interactive option, No. 3 ("and Plain links") Materialscientist (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dan56

Hello. I'm having trouble moving User:MisterMisunderstood back to User:Dan56. I think it requires an admin to first delete User:Dan56 and User:MisterMisundertood and their talk pages, can you do that please? --Bryce (talk | contribs) 05:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Materialscientist (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --Bryce (talk | contribs) 05:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

78.40.233.10

78.40.233.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Was my behavior with 78.40.233.10 appropriate? The IP started commenting out text in articles which I reverted with wp:hg. He then started reverting the wp:aiv which I also reverted. Then commented out my user and talk page. Seemed to know his way around. Thanks for all of your work! -Jim

There is one long-term vandal who blanks articles, user pages and talk pages by commenting them out. Maybe it is xim. He/she should be reported to AIV ASAP (will be blocked with fewer or no warnings than usual). Materialscientist (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yogo pre-FAC review

We have someone looking at this for FAC preparation. Casliber is commenting on the article talk page. Here's a comment about the mineralogy section you may want to look at. PumpkinSky talk 12:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber's edit PumpkinSky talk 12:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Hi, I'm with the Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2011. I've been working on the Olympic marmot as part of a project, and now, multiple reviewers have told me that it's ready to be reviewed for GA! I nominated it, but User:TCO suggests to recruit reviewers to facilitate the process, and he directed me to you and a few other users. I would like to ask if you weren't too busy, to do the GA review for the Olympic marmot. I'd really appreciate it! I'm going to ask a few of the other names he gave me about this too, and whoever has the time to get to it first can review it. Thanks! Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Although you are incidental here, I'm required to notify: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence#Evidence submitted by SandyGeorgia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy 2012!

	Happy New Year!
	All the best! Rosiestep (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DNA nanotechnology FAC

Hi Materialscientist, DNA nanotechnology is finally up for FAC, and I'd appreciate any input you could give. Thanks! Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pic of fire

The reviewer of this is right that it doesn't show well small size, can you imagine a crop that would? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would leave it be - both the image and the article are somewhat weak for a lead. Materialscientist (talk) 07:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's no reason for not approving the hook.PumpkinSky talk 10:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, I said so in the nom, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"LA GALAXY BARCA FOUR THREE

Fair play

Pic of curly hair

Similar situation as Pic of fire, please have a look at Lehms who wrote about gallant poetesses, for the fun of it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look only for fun, someone found a cropped version, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HI!

	AWESOMENESS AWARD!
	hi, i heard you were pretty awesome. i checked out your page and some of your edits. prety cool, bro! i was just wondering how you got the PhD thing and the patrol thing on your page? thanks. your epic, bro! Wikiman461 (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revised request

Wait. I have a simpler request. Let's just delete the article on membrane (selective barrier). I'll steal the pretty picture. We then have two articles. Biological membrane and artificial membrane. I'll have a hatnote at each, referring to the other.TCO (Reviews needed) 00:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was writing to suggest something similar, that is, merge what you need and then redirect Membrane (selective barrier) to Membrane. We may not delete such articles at will. Materialscientist (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about FL DOC page edits

Hello, For the Florida Department of Corrections page, I made this edit on December 30. On Jan 3, a user reverted that edit and cited that it is his opinion that the information is trivia and does not belong. The thing is, an administrator was the one who created that section(titled instances of abuse) so I assumed that it was indeed correct. I will admit I do not appreciate user's opinions warranting reverts. I know we are supposed to be bold, but wikipedian's have varying opinions and that can cause edit wars which I want to avoid. In my opinion, the information belongs there. This is why I am coming to you, an admin. What should we do about this? Is this enough of an issue to go to the noticeboard or some other forum? A consensus may not work because the article is not heavily trafficked. Thanks in advance. KING GRIM LOL YO WHATS UP (talk) 06:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a typical editorial conflict (I can see arguments for and against your addition; it might violate WP:NOTNEWS), and the first step should be talking to the opponent rather than administrator. If and when the talks reach a stalemate, there are boards for this like WP:DRN. Materialscientist (talk) 07:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan National Army

Hi MS!

That editor you were talking to on the talk page of This article, is still edit warring - past 3RR. I'm on my IPhone so it'll take me ages to make a 3RR report. Are you able to make one? Thank you, -- MST☆R ^{(Happy New Year!)} 13:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to reverting him. Reported at AIV. Materialscientist (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious -- why does the "three revert" rule apply only to civilian academics, and not to the U.S. Army, which has reverted back to the approved article text of General Caldwell FOUR TIMES TODAY ALONE?

I'm also curious why you're warning ME, the aggrieved party in this matter, who is trying to uphold the principles of Wikipedia as an unbiased community-based information osurce, and not the U.S. Army, which has obviously hijacked this Wiki entry and is not allowing any changes to it?

You posted on the Talk page that, and I quote you, "disputed is fine." Apparently either it's NOT fine, or you weren't telling me the truth, because you're not permitting any language other than the official U.S. Army version of this article.

You also posted to me that if someone was deliberately eliminating language which disputed the official U.S. Army Wikipedia entry for this topic, it would be dealt with. Apparently, you meant "it will be dealt with by censoring anyone except the U.S. Army from editing this page."

The U.S. Army's "sources" for it's approved Wikipedia entry, alterations to which cannot be made without General Caldwell's permission, are U.S. Army press releases used to support previous U.S. Army press releases. I would submit, given the Pentagon's track record of honesty in publishing information (Pentagon Papers), that a tenured Professor at the Naval Postgraduate School and a retired State Department Diplomat and academic are at least as credible a source as Army press releases about its own success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhokara (talk • contribs) 14:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rev Del

Could you please rev del this? — Abhishek ^Talk 14:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User readded the stuff, so one more link: [19]. — Abhishek ^Talk 14:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We usually don't revdelete spam, even as blatant as this. Materialscientist (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The additions contain a phone number in them which is why I requested for a rev del. — Abhishek ^Talk 13:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Materialscientist. You have new messages at Calabe1992's talk page.
Message added 04:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Calabe 1992 04:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AGF

Hi Materialscientist. Regarding this talk page comment: Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Regards, --Srleffler (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible vandalism

Hi, I have to log off now. Can you check out possible vandalism by 99.229.67.2 on the Right- and left-hand traffic article? Thanks. Denisarona (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Once again, many Thanks for you prompt assistance. Happy New Year. Denisarona (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your block

At this block, I note the ISP appears to be {{Checkuserblock-Synetrix}}, if that's relevant to your handling. Should that template be applied on the talkpage? LeadSongDog come howl! 19:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that template is reserved for cases when a WP:CU check determined that the IP was used by a sockpuppet(eer). I have no CU rights and can't check that. Materialscientist (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, the /doc leaves a lot to the imagination, but the rendered message seems fairly verbose. If it's only for use when a CU has been done on the specific IP, rather than the range, then either the /doc or the message should probably be changed to be more clear about that. It doesn't take a CU to determine that "This IP range is the site of repeated abusive vandalism attacks" after all, and the IP clearly is registered to Synetrix. What more would the CU add? I've asked at the TT page.

p.s. Thanks, in any case, for the needed block. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Genocide talk page archive 1

I've realized that some parts of the Armenian Genocide archive was deleted. I have the originals. I want to reinsert the deleted parts, I don't know whom I should contact about this therefore, I went ahead and did it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theirmen (talk • contribs) 06:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep deleting my edits and who are you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theirmen (talk • contribs) 06:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't have a direct link to any website because as I said before, the original website is deleted but i have the word document which contains the deleted discussions. That's why the text is unformatted and if you stop reverting my edits, I'll try to format the text. If you have looked at the edits I have made, the information on when and who made the comments is given. How would I know that you are an administrator?Theirmen (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theirmen (talk • contribs) 06:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at these versions of the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armenian_Genocide&oldid=11142504 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armenian_Genocide&oldid=10693921 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armenian_Genocide&oldid=10514339

between topics titled as "Fresh Overhaul" (which is the last topic of archive 1) and "Coolcat Stop It" (which is the first topic of archive 2) some 30 topics are missing from the archives. namely:

28 Fresh Overhaul 29 Fresh Overhaul -- Dialogue Continues 30 Raffi's "good, reputable sources" 31 Numbers changed by 213.39.165.161 32 Torque is at it again 33 Master Propagandist at Work 34 Torque's supposed "big picture" 35 Answering Mr. Torque [again] 36 Part I before a mediation, the Malta tribunal that never was 37 Part II before a mediation, 1894-1897 statistics. 38 Archiving 39 Rewriting the Armenian genocide section. 40 Comparing the propagandistic factor of Raffi vs. Fadix 41 Is it irrelevant to consider what took place before "1915"? 42 Analyzing Raffi's and "Zero Credibility" Fadix's claims 43 On Fadix's huge essay, "the Malta tribunal that never was" 44 The Real Malta Tribunal 45 About Fadix's 19th century Statistics 46 The Relevant Statistics 47 Other Notes 48 Message to Mediator 48.1 Answer 48.2 Torque's Reply 49 The soapbox 50 Fadix' Analysis 51 Coolcat's Refactor 52 That an Armenian Genocide occured is not a matter of debate 53 Deconstructing Fadix 53.1 Answer 53.2 Torque's Reply 54 An Impartial Western Observer Who was a REAL EYEWITNESS 54.1 Fadix Answer 55 Denial of Armenian Genocide is absolutly no different then denial of the Holocaust 56 Text moved from article 57 administration 58 I deleted some parts 59 Coolcat STOP IT

Thanks, that is precisely what I wanted to do but I didn't know whom to contact. Theirmen (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli settlements: something strange going on

The article on Kiryat Arba (and others) Israeli settlements seems to have multiple IPs removing content, specifically, content on international community considering the settlements being illegal. Also Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues/Archive. Legality of Israeli settlements had content removed. Should I keep reverting this as I discover it? Anything else I should do? Thanks for your help! Jim1138 (talk) 07:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is usual to have a group of IPs (like 4chan) editing those (Israel-Palestine hotspot) articles within a short time. Usually this needs semiprotection, but there are too few edits yet. What are the other articles? Materialscientist (talk) 07:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not keep track of the other articles. I'll put in a protection request if I start seeing many of them. Thanks again! Jim1138 (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those edits may come at a high frequency of up to one per minute. If anything like that, report to AIV (which is faster) rather than RFPP. Materialscientist (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Been fairly quiet. Efrat and Har Gilo also had that content removed. Most IPs only edited once. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 09:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ [Fuente Nacional de Migraciones, 1970]

[1] [Fuente Nacional de Migraciones, 1970]

[1]