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 the {{talkback}} template or quote the previous message.

Warning: Block Evader Impersonating Materialscientist

In case you're unaware of this (and it seems like you may be), I wanted to make you aware of the fact that an IP address, who is now believed to be a block evader, has been impersonating you at many user talk pages, including my own. Although that IP has been blocked, its status as a block evader may not stop this activity for very long, so please be wary of impersonators (this goes for you and for anyone else reading this). RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Was this you?

Hi, I received this barnstar just moments ago from an IP address, but with your signature attached to it. Something seems off about it, so I came to ask just to make sure. Was that you? — ξ^xplicit 00:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It was an anonymous IP vandal who was originally trying to report Materialscientist as a vandal.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

61.241.223.0

This IP is a cross-wiki spambot. See m:User:Mathonius/Reports/"ENDVALUE" spam for details. Can you create a abuse filter to prevent him/her? Some exist filters on other projects are listed in the page above. --Makecat 14:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Created [1], though someone might delete it after some time due to low activity (filtering edits slows down the servers). Materialscientist (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Alan Lowry

Alan Lowry was fired by the Titans days ago http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8836751/tennessee-titans-fire-special-teams-coach-alan-lowry-architect-music-city-miracle-according-reports — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.108.204 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit filter

Hi. I noticed this. You should see this. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspected something like that, and that 523 should be merged into some other filter. My only concern is that the targeted individual is one of those hit-and-run vandals, who create much mess and better be stopped, whereas 271 is log-only filter. Materialscientist (talk) 01:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Filter 271 will stop most spambots dead, and with a minimum of collateral :) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Great, I only don't understand how does it stop edits (i.e. this option is not clear to me in the filter, you can use email if necessary), and why didn't it stop 61.241.223.0 & Co. Materialscientist (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Foster

I am watching the ceremony and the only relevant quotes she said were "I'm single" and "I already did my coming out about a thousand years ago in the stone age", we can't label and choose somebody's sexuality under those quotes per BLP, right? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK queue fill

Materialscientist, right now DYK has all four preps filled but no queues filled, and only 100 minutes until the next promotion to the main page; the bot has just posted its warning to WT:DYK. If you're around and have the time to do a prep to queue move, we'd all greatly appreciate it. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Stalin

Thanks for that! I appreciate your contribution to the article. I'm actually trying to completely revise the whole thing and bring it up to quality standards; aside from a few small details added here and there, I'm the primary author of the lead section as it is written right now (I hope that isn't too grandiose of a claim to make, and I do have a link to back up my assertion). I'm not sure if anyone else would agree that I've actually helped the article in any way, or if my contributions have essentially made no difference in terms of its quality. Nevertheless, I'm doing my part. Kurtis ^(talk) 06:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a core article, with some 10k views per day, sometimes peaking at 60,000 [2]! It is also a contentious topic with numerous experts and points of view. Thus I, and surely many other readers, do appreciate all efforts to bring this article to a proper quality level in terms of coverage, neutrality and sources. The article is somewhat too long. A general solution for this is summarizing some sections, splitting their content into daughter articles. A more specific solution here is reducing coverage of Soviet Union and focusing more on the person - Soviet history should be covered properly in its articles. For example, many orders and policies were only approved by Stalin, but developed by someone else in the government. I also noticed that many book sources lack page numbers. They might be added by random editors and are hard to fix. In such cases I wouldn't hesitate replacing/removing sources. Materialscientist (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. That is actually exactly what I had been planning to do. It'll take some time, and the most difficult thing about it is just how contentious the subject is. But I think it can be done, with time. Kurtis ^(talk) 14:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

good job

Dileepgg (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

188.220.6.221

Worth a talk page block MadGuy7023 (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, he's trolling there too, just as he did last time -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I am Rodney Glunder's manager. You wrote wrong and inadequate information concerning Rodney. Pleasedo not do this again. It's is wrong and destroys his further carrier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M4ymanagement (talk • contribs) 14:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

the ant

Hi. Where is the answer on my comment ? The Ant page.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theantlp (talk • contribs) 16:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Article

Why are you reverting my changes if I am using facts and reliable resources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliobicicleta (talk • contribs) 03:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal

Article can be read at [3]. Do you have any reason to think this is other than a new editor? Blockable on 3RR grounds, but... Dougweller (talk) 07:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The link asks to subscribe, with all personal details (dummy or not), which I don't want to. I've retained the link in the article and posted my concerns on User talk:Juliobicicleta. Materialscientist (talk) 07:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Weird as I could read it. The trick seems to be to go to it through Google. [4] turns it up as the first hit and it works. The salient bit reads:

What's draining the treasury is debt service, subsidies to the government-owned electricity distribution companies, unjustified public-works programs, and a bulbous public-sector payroll for those beholden to Mr. Fernández as their "patrón."

Consider these facts: CREES says government spending on personnel in 2011, in dollar terms, was up 262% from 2004. Separately, transfer payments to fund public entities was up 608% in dollar terms over the same period. Public works spending is up 288%. CREES estimates that while government revenue will be up 167% in dollar terms for the period 2004-2012, spending will have increased 234% over the same period.

Perhaps not coincidentally, the Dominican Republic now leads the world in important corruption measures. Out of 144 countries in the World Economic Forum's 2012-2013 Global Competitiveness Index, the DR is 142nd in "diversion of public funds" and at the very bottom—144th—in "favoritism in decisions by government officials" and in "wastefulness of government spending."

Dougweller (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that before with the NYTimes, but didn't expect for the WSJ (forgot).

I have no problem with that, just needs adequate phrasing if added. "One of the most corrupt countries" is certainly inappropriate, given it is No. 118 our of 170+ in the global corruption index. Even its neighbor Haiti is much worse in that, not to mention any dark-red country in this map [5]. Materialscientist (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

IP block, Stthomse

At User talk:Stthomse, Stthomse (talk · contribs) who is being effected by the block is requesting an unblock of 212.118.224.151 (talk · contribs · logs · block log). As the blocking admin I figured you might be able to offer some insight. My check of port 80 on the the IP turns up a non-open proxy that appears to be username/password protected, but not an open proxy. Monty₈₄₅ 16:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Unblocked. I can't recall the situation in 2011, but it looks like the proxy is closed/gone. Materialscientist (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

I believe that an IP address user that you recently blocked is now using a new IP address to continue adding incorrect information to numerous pages associated with Billy Joel. I don't know if this would be defined as a sockpuppet (since the user never created an account) but I thought I would ask you. The user's old IP address was User talk:120.145.16.63. The new IP address is User talk:124.182.2.177. Thank you for your help!Jpcohen (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Protection

As you are an admin on Commons, could you protect this file there? Automatic protection doesn't seem to have applied there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Right now it is cascade protected on Commons, i.e. there is no need for protection. Materialscientist (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright, guess there was a lag then. I should try and get the bit on Commons so I don't have to hope for the bot to come through, but if RFA there is anything like it is here I'll be laughed out of the house — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The bot cascade protected that image minutes after your post, so this was not a protection lag, but rather some detection delay. An RFA on Commons is more of a vote than scrutiny. You have to be active part of the Commons community and demonstrate knowledge of licensing issues (not at the RFA, but in prior interactions). RFAs with a sole motivation of helping en.wiki (by using the Commons admin bit) will fail. Materialscientist (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Based on how Commons editors view Pedia editors, that doesn't surprise me. Thanks for the rundown. I'm just worried about the five minutes or so it's open... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

IP vandal/sockpuppet 71.90.221.197

Hi, Materialscientist! I reported user 71.90.221.197 to WP:AIV but my request was deleted by a helperbot, likely because the user is already blocked. I was hoping you could take a look at my request and guide me as to what I should do about this kid.

* 71.90.221.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - IP user, a persistent vandal and blocked sockpuppet, has been deleting active sanction notices from the IP's talk page in vio of WP:BLOCKING, and has been adding nonsense to the IP's talk page in an effort to use Wikipedia to deliver hoax information. "This episode list is on user talk page because there wasn't enough room to put this on its own page on wikipedia." I understand that WP:AIV may not be the best spot to alert to such a thing, but the editor is a vandal, and I'm requesting administrative intervention. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks in advance. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I have disabled all editing from this IP (including their talk page). Materialscientist (talk) 04:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, M. I'm a long-time fan of your work, btw. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: I don't think the talk page block took. IP user is still making edits: [6] [7] Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, my mistake I guess, corrected now. Materialscientist (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Review and verification request

Hi. I need you to review one file/map and one template/article:

1) This map is an original research/work, unverifiable, and unreliable plus full of factual errors. See map file.

2) This is a template about Hazara people, but I think it used on many irrelevant articles. For example Elaha Soroor is a singer and this template also used for this article. I think it's incorrect to put this template on any articles just because of person's ethnicity. Check this edit.

Please verify both of them and if you can answer on my talk page. Also how can I report files for deletion process? Thanks. Zheek (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Gigabit Ethernet - out of control vandalism

Hi, please help here. Even the edits I rv to have vandalism in them. Thanks. Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 13:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

AIV thanks

Thanks for your quick action on 5.102.82.11. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 09:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You stopped reverting

Let me explain the edit. Many actresses in South India work in different industries from the South (Malayalam, Tamil, Kannada, Telugu). It's much more readable, to use just South Indian film industry instead of listing all sub industries in an endless row. Of course there is a need to take care of actors, who don't change the language of the film industry. I hope you got this--Dravidianhero (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NOR. Materialscientist (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not original research. These language industries as mentioned above are known to be part of South Indian film industry. They are organised as such, please take a look at: South Indian Film Chamber of Commerce. --Dravidianhero (talk) 03:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Great, but this does not explain such edits [8]. You probably noticed that many editors of Indian film related articles alter them at will without adequate explanation or sources. Please don't follow this trend. Materialscientist (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes I see it's quite messy in many articles. I'd like to give a clean shape to them. Nithya Menen is a very good example. What I do is I go through her film list and look in how many non-Malayalam films she acted. If there is reason to believe, she works in other languages for commercial purposes, it would convert the actors industry affiliation from Malayalam to South Indian. I think, that's very reasonable and practical to gain more readability in the lead section. As you see Nithya works in all 4 languages of the South and she is definitely doing it commercially. Btw there are always Sources for Nithya Menen being a South Indian actress :)--Dravidianhero (talk) 04:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, but there is another side to it. You've removed a reference on her singing. It might fit better in the article body, but removing is hardly warranted - there is a whole subsection on her singing activities, but none are sourced. Materialscientist (talk) 04:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually I kept the info in the lead section: and playback singer from Bangalore, who works in the South Indian film industry. I thought, the source was unnecessary--Dravidianhero (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Correct. Usually, the lead should contain no sources, because it should be a summary of the article content, which should be referenced in the body. The problem with film/music related articles (not only Indian) is that nearly nothing is sourced, and if sourced then to gossip sites or IMDB, which are not reliable sources for biographies. As a result, we (those who screen new edits) can't easily tell if the editor is a vandal or well-meaning person correcting past vandalism. By default we revert, and this sometimes escalates into blocks of constructive editors, only because (i) those editors do not provide sources and edit summaries, they ignore warnings and fail to engage into a dialogue; (ii) those articles contain no sources to verify their edits. Materialscientist (talk) 04:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this wonderful instruction. Definitely feeling better now. --Dravidianhero (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

"overreliance on a recent primary source; please reconsider and use secondary sources"

The previous introduction has NO citation.