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.

Impact factors and infoboxes

Hi, I noticed that you updated several IFs, but then also removed this from the body of the text, together with what often is the only independent reference that an article has. Please don't do this. An infobox provides a rapid overview of what is in the article. And while we don't repeat basic bibliographic info (ISSN, OCLC, etc), it is no problem to say something about an IF. In addition, the reference avoids the article being tagged for having no independent references or no references at all. As for ranking info, that can easily be updated at the same time that an IF is updated and there is no need to remove that info either. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

In practice, having a duplicate in the body is bad because it is easy to miss it during updates. I don't see a difference between the impact factor and other infobox parameters - they are all assigned by some authority. In other words, the reference to Journal Citation Reports is a dummy, because there can be no other source for the impact factors (in reality impact factors are issued by ISI - no-one may or can "calculate" them), and it is not possible to directly link to that database. Materialscientist (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. There's a fundamental difference between an ISSN and an IF. The former is just assigned in a kind of arbitrary way (it says something about which publisher or something like that, but otherwise doesn't convey any info), but the IF is something that is calculated by a reliable source. That you or I cannot independently redo those calculations is immaterial. And even though one cannot directly link to the database, neither can we do that for a print source and we can still use that as a reference and the JCR certainly is a reliable source. Putting in those references has been a lot of work and provides needed sourcing to journal articles, so I'd really appreciate if you would not remove them. Thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Impact factors are assigned by the ISI and no-one else (yes, sort of calculated, but in a non-transparent way). Thus adding a ref "Journal Citation Reports 2011" is not "a lot of work"; it could be done by a bot and is simply redundant. Materialscientist (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I find that a strange reasoning. So each time there's only one possible source for something, we don't cite it? And the refs are usually much more detailed than "JCR 2011" and go something like: "<ref name=WoS>{{cite book |year=2012 |chapter=JOURNALNAME |title=2010 [[Journal Citation Reports]] |publisher=[[Thomson Reuters]] |edition=Science |accessdate=2012-06-29 |series=[[Web of Science]] |postscript=.}}</ref>". I don't see what is redundant about this. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

When there is only one source, and the data are integrated into the infobox, that source can be simply included into the infobox or impact factor wikilink. The ref above is incorrect. Journal Citation Reports is not a book. It is a regularly updated electronic database. It has no sections/chapters/editions - instead, specific datasets can be extracted from it through search menus provided by the interface. Thus the output table/page depends on the input. Materialscientist (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is all wrong. The JCR has been around for a long time and for most of it existence, it was a print publication. One volume (or book, or whatever you want to call it) was (and still is) produced annually. It contains for each included journal a section that present the different citation metrics (impact factor, immediacy index, etc), together with details on their calculation. For different fields (Neuroscience, Archeology, etc) it has a chapter that presents tables with rankings based on these different metrics, containing only the journals that are included in that specific category. I don't know whether ISI still produces the print edition, but the JCR still is organized in the same way. And even though it now has online search possibilities that permit you to, say, list all journals whose titles start with "A", the journals are still basically organized by categories. So, yes, I think a category is a "chapter" of the "book" JCR. This goes even more so for the individual "chapters" about the journals, because there you cannot modify the content by formulating your query different. For each journal the same information is displayed in the same way. So its not like PubMed, where the list of articles depend on which keywords you enter. It really is a book, just that nowadays it is in electronic form, much like encyclopedias for centuries were books and only recently have gone online (and you wouldn't call WP a "database", now would you?) By the way, having said all this, I don't think things would be much different if JCR really was a database, it would still be a reliable source and citable. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

<indent>Sorry, I can't make time for a proper answer. Indeed, the entries for individual journals are chapter-like, but impact factors can be retrieved as various tables through search queries - this is what I meant by database. A reference "Journal Citation Reports XXX" will suffice, as indeed, JCR is absolutely reliable, but I believe this should be integrated into the infobox (e.g. as a link to the impact-year). I'll have a look at the formulas they give on monday, but there is an obvious trick to them: while the formulas are trivial math, the crucial variable (number of cites) is basically defined by the ISI (they've got various "correction" procedures, and simply taking citations by year from WoS won't give the impact factors). Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The trick is not all that difficult. For years I was EIC of a journal myself and every year I was able to predict our IF within 1 or 2 decimal points. The corrections are made by looking at citations with typos in them. These don't get assigned to the correct article in the Science Citation Index database. So you first use "search" to get all "correct" citations (you can use the citation analysis tool for that) and then use the "cited reference search" and only look at the unlinked references and manually count the numbers of citations. Then you combine the two searches and you come pretty close to what the JCR gives. Discrepancies occur if there are citations with typos in the journal name (ISI finds them, we can, too, but it's a lot of work) or when counting the number of "citeable articles" in a given year (sometimes it's debatable whether an item is going to count as "editorial" or "article"). If there are a lot of these cases, the discrepancy between estimated and "real" IF can become quite large, of course. However calculated, the IF is a unique value assigned by a reliable source and should be referenced. And although the references I have placed in many articles all look pretty much the same (but so do references to, say Encyclopedia Britannica), they are not identical. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

JCR is the customary source, but they are not "absolutely reliable". There is a good deal of possible variation over how impact factors should be calculated. The definition is due to Eugene Garfield specifically, not ISI in general, and ISI calculates them on the basis of its particular range of journals and assumptions. A. The basic assumption for the classical impact factor is its 2-year basis for citations. (thus the wording impact, not influence--it measure the initial effect,) This fits very well fields like molecular biology, but not fields with longer citation patterns. So in fact, ISI also calculates a 5-uear impact factor. It is also possible to use their data and calculate for any arbitrary time basis--the explanatory material in JCR explains in detail how to do so. B.The factor is not a reflection of the total universe of potential citing journals in the world, but of those particular journals that have been chosen for the JCR set. Citations appearing elsewhere do not affect the JCR facto . Thus the IFs are gross underestimates for journals that may be included, but which are primarily cited by other journals the ISI does not cover, as for most third world journals. Though a Chinese language journal may be included, most of the citation on it will be from other Chinese journals that are not included. Therefore, both China and Japan also calculate national-based impact factors for their journals. (The ISI IF however does have validity, if it is taken as measuring the immediate influence upon the world wide core scientific community. )C. It is not necessarily obvious what is a citable item. The basis does not include items in journals such as editorial introductions and announcements which would not ordinarily be cited anywhere--this can be quite large in some journals. If they are not totally excluded, the impact factor will be lower than it would be if a narrow definition is chosen. D. journals Published in multiple editions need the citations combined if the scientific contents are the same. ISI attempts to do this, but their completeness varies. E The IF of a journal is affected by the proportion of review papers it publishes, because these normally have considerably higher citations. The pure review journals thus have very high IFs, but many journals have a few such papers. Again, ISI gives directions for eliminating this variation, though few people do so. (the most prevalent fraudulent manipulation of IFs is not self-citation --whose effect can, btw, also be measured--, but the addition of a few commissioned review papers to an otherwise primary journal.) F.There are also the errors that Guillaume mentions.

Additionally, I consider JCR impact factors when given as raw numbers without consideration of subject to be utterly meaningless. They were never intended as numbers valid across the entire range of subjects, but only for comparing journals of a certain type within a particular subject having uniform citation pattens. There's been an immense amount of work by various people trying to normalize this: there is no totally accepted standard, the most widely used is the so-called Eigenfactors they & Scopus publish. I always give the data by saying "the Impact factor for 20xx, as calculated by JCR, is x.xx, placing the journal nth within the m journals in the field of whatever. The citation needs to be to the database as a whole. (I have been customarily assuming the 2-year IF, which is relevant to most of experimental biology, but probably I should start saying so specifically. I think it wrong to give then umber without citation. It is a number calculated in a particular way, not an observable fact of nature. (I should mention that Garfield & ISI are well aware of all this--his collected works, online, discuss all of the variation and interpretation problems. He has always written against naïve use of the data. There have been universities --and countries--saying that the only papers that count for funding are those published in journals of IF about a certain value (one value I've seen is 1.5) for all fields. This is nonsense. ).

For WP, I therefore think that the numbers should be given , cited, in text. That we also give them in the infoboxes is in my opinion pandering to those who use the numbers without understanding. That opinion has not been generally accepted here, so I do add them to the boxes when I write a journal article. Infoboxes need to be consistent. I hope the Wikidata project will lead to greater uniformity within and between the different wikipedias. DGG ( talk ) 16:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

PoO2

How's the polonium dioxide GAN? Double sharp (talk) 09:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Uranium

Regarding fallout from atomic bombs, I think that the current version of the article is somewhat misleading. I saw your edit summary. While I am aware of a few pure uranium bombs being detonated, the vast majority of bombs used Pu as the main fission fuel. I recall reading that about 20 % of the fission occurs in the uranium tamper so the vast majority of the fission is of Pu. While Pu is a daughter of U-239, I think that the text is misleading. Of the big H-bombs I do not think that any went for the highest power design which would be a fission primary followed by a fusion secondary inside a U-238 tube to give a fission-fusion-fission design.Dr Mark Foreman (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

As I understood that section upon a brief look yesterday, its purpose was just to say that measurable amounts of uranium in nature originated from nuclear tests and nuclear accidents. This seems factual. Uranium isotopes were not a major product, and this can be briefly mentioned, but is not the topic of that article. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Admin?

Are you? If so, should Philcha's talk page be protected too as he's gone? Thanks. Atum World There's an Acadia for that too! 03:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Vanriperandnies (talk · contribs)

Hi, Materialscientist. I had blocked this user with a username soft block immediately antcedent to your message on their talk. If you would like me to unblock, please leave a message here. I won't get in your way if you want to take another path. Regards Tiderolls 04:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see you around. My current habits are these: (i) I am fine with extension of any of my blocks - no need to ask (unless this is a regular contributor, but I very rarely block those). (ii) When I meet inappropriate username, I warn and/or wait to see their intentions, and then either hardblock or softblock. I don't softblock (allowing account creation) right away because this may not resolve potential problems. (This is why I warned Vanriperandnies). Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 05:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I will unblock and leave a note of my own. Tiderolls 05:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Gerald Anderson

I hope you won't mind, but I need help on taking care of some fanboy who keeps on pushing his BLPvio edits, despite myself trying to clean things up to a more decent state. --Blake Gripling (talk) 10:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism of Saimaa Canal 1 July 2012

I was unaware that if I vandalize Wikipedia, I would get blocked from editing. So Cluebot NG automatically reverted the edit and I put this nonsense on to this webpage again just to take samples. Then, a couple of minutes later the information got removed and I got blocked from editing for 24 hours. I want to apologise for the vandalism that happened yesterday and I will never vandalize pages again. I want to edit many articles and with some references and brief descriptions. 2.122.108.251 (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you considered getting an account? It is very useful for editing. Also, I believe it is much eassier to edit than editing with only an IP address. In any case, welcome to Wikipedia. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Block request

Could you block JulianArbi for edit warring and ignoring NPOV warnings at Andrea Hirata? I'm too involved. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Block evasion

Block history

The above IP is in fact User:Yryriza. The IP's block just expired and they posted this on my Talk page. Please reinstate the block. If there's a more effective way of handling Yryriza (WP:ABK?), that would be great, but, as far as I know, they keep coming back with the same IP address. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales

Did you really protect this page, because it is still editable. I suggest that you protect it more, but before you do so it is probably best to get rid of the text that says you can edit it, because then it will look a bit silly. I agree that the page should be protected though, there has been to much vandalism from today. 178.16.9.51 (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protect Higgs boson for a few more days?

..getting sick of reverting all the silly anon vandelism... Cheers! Woz2 (talk) 01:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

31.6.53.218

Hey, just so you know, the IP is a sock of Rinpoche, and a whole range was just recently blocked because of them. Would you be able to up the block length in light of this? Thanks!

Thanks, WilliamH has already blocked 31.6.53.0/24 for 6 months while I was offline. Materialscientist (talk) 02:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't even realize it was part of the range. Sorry about that! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for reverting the last edits. I just wanted to let you know, 81.17.18.201 is a proxy out of Pakistan. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought so, but couldn't find any evidence except for behavioral (entry mechanism). Materialscientist (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Rinpoche has been using really standard edit summaries, but the string of numbers and letters right after it is a dead giveaway. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Do we know his geographical base, and whether it is stable? Materialscientist (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

He is operating out of the UK, and France, with a lot of airports as the location of his work. According to Ottava, he is using proxies that pretty much all locate to Pakistan (the latest one confirms this, and it seems to be something rather historical up until now), although he did use one from New Jersey a few days ago (a 216 range). Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Postgraduate School

The acronym of the schools refers to italian name, not english name.--Henry233 (talk) 10:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI

184.161.10.194 was also reported to WP:ANI here. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Bismuth

I changed the linked word into rhombohedral. Clearly it redirects to page Trigonal crystal system. Is this OK now? The picture is OK (unchanged)? An overview is at Template:Infobox element/crystal structure image. -DePiep (talk) 05:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, seems Ok upon a brief look. There is much confusion in the literature where many authors look into the space group, find a 3-fold symmetry axis, and think it is a trigonal/hexagonal class. The lead of trigonal crystal system partly explains the origin of the confusion. While it is not wrong to call the rhombohedral system a (more general) trigonal system, most crystallography-minded sources don't do that. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 05:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Higgs boson

Protection was just taken off and the vandalism is starting again. Any chance you can semi-prot again? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Disagree with protection on the Higgs article. There are valid contributions to be made by non-registered users. If you'll notice, many of the edits being reverted are those being made by registered users anyway. Please remove protection; you are alienating a valuable portion of the Wikipedia community when you do this.Sumostorm (talk) 08:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	okay I agree but please include the name of bose,as he was the man to startf the theory Anurag Chakraborty 06:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

please include the name of bose as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nentu (talk • contribs) 10:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

File:DecayChain Ununseptium.svg

Could you please redraw the image in the style of File:Ununoctium-294 nuclear.svg so that it will be OK for WP to use? It was a nice addition to the Uus article when it was there. Double sharp (talk) 11:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Double sharp (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

3 months since Yobot was blocked

How do we proceed with this? Was there any progress done by the discussions so far? -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

174.84.205.226

Hi Materialscientist! Because you recently blocked 174.84.205.226 for mass genre-warring, and because I had to revert an additional fifteen instances of this yesterday (with no AIV report), and because I now see that this IP has again continued the same activity on at least five additional articles today, I'm wondering if you have any suggestions about what should be done next.  -- WikHead (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

please join wikiproject backpacking

Request for extended Ghana article protection

Hi, Materialscientist, it has been quite a while since we last spoke. What I wanted from you Materialscientist is a big favor. Materialscientist please would it be possible if you can extend the Ghana Wikipedia article protection for 1 more month so that I can sort out the few remaining issues with the article (see here Talk:Ghana#First_reading) which is stopping the Ghana article from being promoted to a "Good article" status. I am going to sort out the issues with the Ghana article so that it can be passed for a "Good article". The Ghana article is just a few "twitches of work" away from being classed as a "Good article" and it would take me approximately 1 month to sort out the remaining issues with the Ghana article that has stopped the Ghana article from being passed as a "Good article". The Ghana article would need to be "protected" while I sort these issues out, because Materialscientist, please believe me that if the Ghana article is not "protected", it would be very difficult for me to work on the article in "peace" because as soon as the article is "un-protected" on approximately 17:15, 7 July 2012, which is today, it would completely be "vandalized to shredders" and would loose its closeness to being crowned as a "Good article". So please Materialscientist, I am pleading with you, can you please protect the Ghana article for 1 more month or however long you believe the Ghana article should be "protected" for, so that I can get the Ghana article "promoted" to a "Good article", as the Ghana article does deserve to be crowned a "Good article". My sincere regards -- MarkMysoe (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

81.108.7.13

The IP 81.108.7.13 which you blocked for 31 hours earlier due to vandalism has inferred that they would vandalise again after the block. Visit their talk page to see what I mean. Maybe a longer block would be necessary although that is your judgement — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheIrishWarden (talk • contribs) 20:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Abouth the Earth

Apart from astonishing me ;-), could you easily mass-revert me? (see my talk). -DePiep (talk) 23:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Troller69max (talk · contribs) on WP:AIV

Hi Materialscientist, sorry I removed my report at AIV just after you saw it. Put it back if you want, just thought I'd let you know. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 07:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

A request

Hello Materialscientist. I have a request at User talk:Bmusician that needs to be done quickly; seeing as you are active at the moment, do you have several minutes to fulfill this request? Thanks, →Bmusician 07:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		You are always serving the community (in fact you deal with most of my reports) and are unafraid of carrying out possibly contraversial actions to protect the Wiki. Thank you :), Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 08:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

User:65.9.15.105 abusing talk page

Hi MS. The ip editor you recently blocked, User:65.9.15.105, is abusing his talk page access by removing the active block notice, and blanking the page or inserting dummy text. AIV isn't really appropriate for amending his block. Would it be possible for you to remove his talk page access for the day, or to refer me to the most appropriate noticeboard to request it? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Materialscientist (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You have mail

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

Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 07:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Block templates

Cannot us block a user who repeatedly vandalizing the page. Please tell new on Wikipedia. Dr.pragmatist (talk) 07:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for guidance. Dr.pragmatist (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Mauigold23

Looks to me like the autoblock is doing what it is supposed to, perhaps this one needs blocked too? Beeblebrox (talk) 05:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Risky - might be a shared IP. Given the meager information we've got, I would just decline the unblock request, as you did. Materialscientist (talk) 05:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

User:DreamMcQueen‎

Hey MS, when you get some time, would you mind taking a look at the above linked user's edits. From what I can see, the user perfer's his own version of how things should look, regardless if they are not the consensus version. He has broken 3RR on several pages, edit warring is ongoing on several, has been to ANI once for one of those edit wars and has broken an OTRS ticket/DCMA takedown at least once so far. Since I have very little patience for ANI most days (today being one) and really don't want to have go there, I was wondering if you could take a look at the edits and maybe have a word with the user. Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Need some help - are you online?

Could you please have a look at the two messages on my talk page from Toluaina (talk · contribs). Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 13:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that :). I would usually have just said that but, silly really, a recent thing which is on ANI has thrown me a little, but not to worry I'll get over it. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 13:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Wwecenarules2

[1] has two accounts. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack on your talk page

Hi again I reverted a personal attack on your talk page, hope you don't mind. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 14:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

This IP Address

Thought I would let you know this IP address belongs to a College, I saw you sent it a message about malicious editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.28.254.57 (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

your rev on hydrogen

Talk:Hydrogen#Addition_to_Mettalurgy, Hi, can i have a proper explanation on this revert ? I think the provided ref is valid. Thanks. Mion (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Problem IP from a library

Resolved

User talk:209.212.5.67 Can anything be done about this IP from a public library? I haven't gone through all the edits, but it seems a common place to vandalize from. Feel free to ignore this post if it is trivial. I noticed you worked a lot on vandals so I thought I would post here and not bother that vandalism board.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Potential {{anonblock}}, but the frequency of edits is too low, and there are too many constructive edits from that IP. Materialscientist (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I just thought I would mention it, in case it is slipping through some cracks.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	This is for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia, thanks Leeboy100 03:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

DNA query

• Please discuss at Talk:DNA#Arsenic instead of phosphorus. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocks

Thanks for the quick IP block on the date changer. Got a quick question for you. It occurred to me when I was reporting him that I was only assuming he had been out on a 3 month block. I couldn't find how long he'd been blocked anywhere. Is there an easy way or maybe you could take it to the administrators and have them include that info in the blocked box? Just a thought. Thanks again and I appreciate the quick responses. Kind regards, --Manway 05:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

If you click on "contributions" of any user or IP, in a top row there should be a tab "block log" that will lead to a list of blocks issued to that user/IP. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 05:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks again. --Manway 05:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Aam Janta Aam Janta

is becoming a tad irksome. Cheers (Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)).

Indeed, thus blocked. Materialscientist (talk) 11:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

65.255.147.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

How about a block? That 1 revert of yours isn't going to help. AIV is useless as usual at this hour.--Atlan (talk) 09:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Can't block without ample warning - this looks more like editing conflict. Materialscientist (talk) 09:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Changing killer application to Supernumerary nipple isn't vandalism, but and content dispute?? What a joke. What about the vandalism to Hekatonkheires, Dakota Fanning, Níðhöggr and Hough Green? Is that also a content dispute? Yeah, better give a rampaging vandal who has been blocked for the same thing 3 times already (once by YOU for crying out loud) ample warning.--Atlan (talk) 10:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I see you actually left him an edit warring template. That'll show him.--Atlan (talk) 10:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to whatever you're talking about in my pasts edits. S2grand (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)s2grandS2grand (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Raspberry Ketone

Thanks for the "tidy" and helping to squash the constant bombardment of Direct Response Marketing site links. Cadillacula (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, how do I talk to you about Esmeralda of Belgium's page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.42.253 (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

78.85.240.166

Hey you blocked the IP: 78.85.240.166 for vandalising my talk, I think that 24 hours is a bit short for what they did. The context they used is both a personal attack and foul language. I believe the block should have been at least 2 days. It's for you to decide, thanks. TheIrishWarden - Irish and proud (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocks are not sentences. There isn't some scale of offences. Uncle G (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my Talk Page. I appreciate it. Vertium When all is said and done 19:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

user:Mauigold23

I'm having trouble deciphering what's going on here but it looks as though a user you once blocked is causing some issues. Can you take a look at it, please? They've quickly rushed to a L4 warning for removing a speedy deletion template from an article they created. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

Hi! I'm on RC Patrol with you today and AIV has a large backlog, including 2 IP-hoppers, a spammer, and someone who vandalized my talk page after a level 4 warning. Would you mind helping out there? Thanks, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC).

Never mind, Edgar has it covered. Best, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC).

Qualitrol

Thanks. You got the last one. The gentleman in question had put in an entire article about Qualitrol and Danaher Corp. He used his real name, which pops up the fact that he is a marketing intern at Qualitrol.JSR (talk) 02:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I suspected a spam campagin, but didn't have time to investigate - many (if not most) scientists come here to promote something, thus I'm trying not to be overly harsh on that. Materialscientist (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be harsh. It was a concerted spam campaign.JSR (talk) 06:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

No slight to you. And I doubt we are dealing with a scientist here. Marketing people are different, and contrary to scientists hardly convert to wikipedians (I haven't seen any so far). Materialscientist (talk) 06:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

No offense taken. Have a good whatever time of day you are having.JSR (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Indef Semi-Protection Request

Could you Indef Semi-Protect this page in my userspace, please? Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. Materialscientist (talk) 06:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012 Study of authors of health-related Wikipedia pages

Dear Author/Materialscientist

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address edited an article on Paracetamol. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article and or other health-related articles. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please reply via my talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance. Hydra Rain (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Strange page move

Does this page move make any sense to you? This occurred more than a year ago, and I am surprised no one noticed before now. I am currently looking at sorting out some redirects associated with characters on this show, and moving this article back to its original place makes sense to me. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 01:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The Chemistry Barnstar

		The Chemistry Barnstar
		For your tireless and hard-working edits in chemistry related articles, I award you this barnstar.

extra999 (talk) 03:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Wanna organize your user page?

Wanna organize your user page? I can show you how. Tonymax469 (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)