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.

Dear MaterialScientist,

Thank you for your commitment to intellectual integrity, I would suggest you check Dan Winter's former website (www.danwinter.com) for a range of testimonials and court decisions that support the use of terms such as "fraudulent" or "dishonest" which might otherwise be considered mere personal opinion.

Regards,

dopadog Dopadog (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

Season's tidings!

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

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)

I was successful this time around. Thanks for your help. The one thing I was unable to do, was to ad the info that this is a family photo and I also don't know how to place the photo at his site.ManicalCritic (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

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) 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)

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)

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)

Frohliche Weinachten und Gluckliches neues Jahr

Christbaumschmuck an einer Nordmanntanne (fotografiert in Baden-Wurttemberg, Deutschland)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

More dark matter/energy sock puppets

Thanks for the quick response at Dark matter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Another sock, Unclejoe0306 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), seems to be intermittently active at Dark energy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Their edits were reverted but they haven't been tagged/blocked yet. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• cu Calabe1992 03:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

If you could be more specific than me over at the SPI, that would help. Calabe1992 03:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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 <:ref>[Fuente Nacional de Migraciones, 1970]</ref>, i think that is clear and not so confusing, understandable — Preceding unsigned comment added by User60092678 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

(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)

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by User60092678 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

No, wikipedia articles can't be used as references. FA review looks at all kind of things and can easily miss one fact. Besides, FAs are edited after the review, and at this stage all kind of unexpected things happen. Materialscientist (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok brah i think the source is pretty trustly, more than the one you left in the article, but what about what you put in the table, i dont know why you still putting the two wrongs when you know are bad, and you dont left the accuratest, i mean i can deal with dat if you put the three estimates, but putting two? and the wrongs ones? — Preceding unsigned comment added by User60092678 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You ok with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by User60092678 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

C'mon bra, just let me put in that way and i will not touch again the article, , there is two way, no one is wrong, the edition of that article is important to me cuz i research a lot, dont depress me, for do it like your way — Preceding unsigned comment added by User60092678 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
• 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)

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)

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", (Template:Lang-ru) 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Happy 2012!

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

"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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Rev Del

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

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

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

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)

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.

Calabe1992 04:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

A beer for you!

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Seven times

Good job checking the ref. Now I caught it as well, but I think someone needs a talking to here. Prodego ^talk 08:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Vishnuvardhan

It's not seven "Best Actor Awards". Only five! none of those sources are reliable. They were copied from WP at some point of time. See [20], [21], [22] and above all his official website says only five best actor awards. --—Commander _{(Ping me)} 10:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps there was a mixup of Filmfare awards (5) and state awards (7). Yes, quality of sources is a problem with Indian actors. If you can, please correct the article. Materialscientist (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

User talk:97.119.195.53

Talk page block is needed; he's insisting on removing the block notice while blocked. Calabe1992 01:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK Queues

Hi MSC, the queues are empty and there are four full preps. If possible, could you promote at least one set to the queues? Thanks Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yogo reshoot

Your attention is requested here: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Reshoot_of_Yogo_sapphires. PumpkinSky talk 23:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yogo reshoot 2

Pls see Talk:Yogo_sapphire#Round_2_of_reshoot for new ones. These are much better if I can say so myself. Input appreciated.

Sk8rownot

He did it again.I think he should be blocked--Shrike (talk) 09:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Range being used

207.204.233.0/24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Easy rangeblock. All abuse from this small range.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Thank you for your work here at the administrator's vandal board. 71.146.26.8 (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Requesting restore

Could you restore File:Club Atlas de Guadalajara logo.svg? It was deleted from Commons per possible copyvio, and I don't have SVG to re-upload it. Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Restored. Please fix the license and other templates. Materialscientist (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Rangeblock on 178.63.0.0/166 / User talk:178.63.213.60

Hi, there is some discussion of the block on User talk:178.63.213.60. As the last unblock decline clearly was totally off-base, it would be great if you could talk to the user yourself, as the blocking admin :) Maybe allowing account creation would be possible? Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I posted the following without noticing that the above had been posted while I was checking this out. It seems that Tnxman307 did likewise. I am merging 3 sections on the same topic into one. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC) There is an unblock request at User talk:178.63.213.60 in connection with a range block you placed on 178.63.0.0/16 (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BlockList?wpTarget=178.63.0.0%2F16&limit=50). My impression is that there is no basis for an unblock, but since you know far better than I do the reasons for blocking, perhaps you could assess the unblock request. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

This user has requested an unblock for their range, 178.63.0.0/16. Looking at the checkuser data, I believe this rangeblock can actually be limited to one IP, unless the entire range is a misconfigured proxy range. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks! TNXMan 16:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

<Edit> It looks like a couple of others beat me here! TNXMan 16:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Since Tnxman307 has the benefit over me of seeing the checkuser data, that could well be a more reliable view than the one I expressed. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Let us talk here. The open proxy port http://p4fb.com/ (might not be the only port) currently resolves to 178.63.68.79. I have little doubt that 178.63.199.7 (talk · contribs) was an open proxy, and maybe 178.63.68.167 (talk · contribs). The range is wide but not busy. Materialscientist (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked subranges 178.63.199.0/26 and 178.63.68.64/26, and for now see no problem with unblocking the /16 range. Unfortunately, user:zzuuzz is away and can't weigh in. I won't be able to do much proxy checking for some 8 hrs from now. Materialscientist (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. On the basis of what has been said, both by you and by others, I have lifted the /16 block. It can be reblocked if you or zzuuzz come up with evidence that makes that seem necessary. I see that 178.63.68.167 (which you describe as "maybe" an open proxy) is subject to a global block, due to expire on 19 July 2012. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Aha! (I am checking the proxies there and couldn't understand why the IPs I was checking didn't show in the rangeblock, but it was lifted). Some other blocked proxies are: 178.63.130.214 (talk · contribs) 178.63.140.209 (talk · contribs) 178.63.231.0/25 (talk · contribs) 178.63.52.85 (talk · contribs) 178.63.118.156 (talk · contribs) 178.63.130.214 (talk · contribs) 178.63.97.34 (talk · contribs) . I can add that I couldn't connect through some IPs listed as proxies, but they show up in past/current blocks/blacklists. A rotten range. Still checking and blocking individually .. Materialscientist (talk) 09:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

More: 178.63.68.167 (talk · contribs) 178.63.85.213 178.63.100.211. Enough for now. Google shows tons of hits for "proxy 178.63." Many of them are volatile or available some 33% of the time. I bet zzuuzz would block /16 for 5 years. My current mood is to let it stay for now. Materialscientist (talk) 10:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

oxohalide

The DYK thing has sunk into a morass of misunderstandings. Can you help, please? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Did_you_know#Oxohalide Articles created/expanded on December 27 Many thanks, Petergans (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I won't review this nomination because I edited the article - not much, but someone might pick it up as WP:COI - will do as a last resort. I believe the referees are friendly and you can fix it all easily. I see in your replies at T:TDYK a reflection of my attitude of 2 years ago. After experimenting much with DYK (tried different hooks, topics, images, analyzed stats) I reconsidered. While many issues seem ridiculous, they are not, it just takes time to understand and accept them.

• Hook. Must be as interesting as possible. This will result in promotion and will attract readers. This is the "DYK miracle". Most readers will not edit, some will fix grammar (we always miss something), and a few might spot scientific errors, bring new thoughts, etc. Some of that may be completely unexpected, like finding that the cited source or an image was plain wrong. Good DYK articles are also picked up and translated interwiki right on the DYK day.
• References. The DYK rule is every paragraph should be covered by at least one in-line reliable reference, preferably accessible. This is important for many reasons; say, (i) many stray editors change articles per their liking (vandals, self-made experts, or just people who disagree). Say, if some fact is in an article abstract (even if the article is paywalled) or a linked google book, our WP:RCP guards will click it, verify, revert and hunt down the "expert". Otherwise this may stay forever. (ii) If the material is sourced, its removal will be reverted immediately (an the offender likely hunted down). Otherwise, it may be let gone, if the remover leaves a clever edit summary.

There will always be students who will read the article to learn. Many of them know our working, and understand that a green star in top right corner is good, and a brown star is better; that if an article is unsourced it might be rubbish written by anyone, and that Nature is a more reliable source than Daily Mail. There will also be self-educated scientists who will add poorly written material because it was missing, and will not if the article is comprehensive, etc. Sorry for philosophical mood, this can go for pages. In the end of the day, it is worth writing a WP:GA-class article even for DYK. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments. I knew that you could not review the nomination. A problem with this article lies in the fact that I have drawn together facts about different elements throughout the periodic table. This could make citation ridiculously complicated. In particular, the statement about general methods of preparation is a summary of facts spread throughout the text books and I don't have a single source to cite.

I'm more concerned with content than with form. Unfortunately, in WP there is all this emphasis on form and no control of quality. This is the fundamental defect of the verifiability criterion, which is why I get so impatient with it. Petergans (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a full grasp of the sourcing problem, but guess it is similar to that of metalloid (there is a comment on that on its talk). The DYK philosophy is to push you cite all facts while you still remember where they come from (technically, Harvard referencing is not code-loading for adding multiple citations - you can use first author name + page only). Then others can maintain, understand, and build upon your work. These formal rules compensate for lack of knowledge/time to check the factual accuracy - we have too few qualified and active chemistry editors; some were active at DYK in the past, but probably not anymore. There might be editors who gamed the system by using fake refs, but once caught, all their work might be removed. Scientific checks may come at unexpected angle and time. I recall some IP went through my DYK article (I think samarium) after it was featured and caught very technical errors, like phase symmetry; some were my typos and some were rare and non-trivial errors of our materials database. I also had a few noms on materials which I didn't know well, and those articles were cleaned up some time around the featuring on the main page by some stray editors, I guess researchers involved in those topics. Materialscientist (talk) 11:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Note

Note that I use endless IP's. Note that I can change IP numbers every few minutes or more often. Childish wiki-stalking can lead to being flamed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.211.218 (talk) 13:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Fighting against won't bring you to your goal. Why not working together with other editors? What is your conflict? Materialscientist (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Page move vandalism

Hi. There was a page move vandalism on User:Kudpung. I have reverted the same. But could you please remove the redirect? — Abhishek  ^Talk 14:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Indiawale

Wow, did I mess up. Glad there is someone checking this. It should have been User:76.120.191.254 not user:Indiawale. I must have had previously copied Indiawale and did not get a good copy of 76.120.191.254. 76.120.191.254 had not been doing anything, so I would say don't bother with him. Did you want to reinstate Indiawale? He has been putting up unsourced text, I don't know if it justifies a block. Should I write him an apology? Jim1138 (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Beethoven's Giulietta

This DYK nom just received a picture which actually supports the (disputed) hook exactly. It would need cropping to show. Can you work another miracle? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Add File:Countess Giulietta Guicciardi.jpg to the nom, it will likely be taken, avoid using score images. Materialscientist (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I won't take that one, not only is it ugly, it's not even sure it shows the person. The dedication is not a typical score but a title, we have to see two things "Sonata quasi una Fantasia" and her name in the center as if that was the piece's name - whereas some still believe in Moonlight Sonata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, ugly, it is much better than many other ladies which were featured on the main page ;-). I add an alternative here. Yes, the identify of the person is uncertain, but you can say "possibly her" and honestly add what we know about the analysis of this image. Such image is a good chance for a lead, meaning more people will read your article. Materialscientist (talk) 08:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not my article. It is my fact, a negative one: the sonata was not called Moonlight (until a generation later). Don't you think a "possibly" picture of a lady would be misleading? (Ugly: the face is good,but look at the hand!) Actually, another nice thing on the title page is "Luigi van Beethoven", perhaps that should be included in the hook ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Changed my mind, will (later) propose the portrait, but how do we say "possibly pictured"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe "possible portrait pictured". Materialscientist (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, taken. The lady attracted more than 1.2k viewers without any picture so far, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

User talk:98.21.227.231

Could you revoke talk page access for this user, as he keeps abusing the talk page. Thanks. ─═Klilidiplomus █ Talk═─ 09:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of content from Celebrity Big Brother 2012 (UK)

I have undone your recent edit to this article as the content removed was correct.12bigbrother12 (talk) 03:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I reverted only because it was within a series of edits by otherwise vandal IP (and unsourced). Materialscientist (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

M3 the wolverine

If you don't like the fact that an article has no reference then by all means please add one. I'm currently in Afghanistan and have a really slow internet connection and numerous pages won't even load. So instead of deleting my entry you could have at least tried to reference it, seeing as you have ample free time to erase a recent addition less then 3 seconds after it is writen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blinks (talk • contribs) 11:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I would, but I did not find your addition encyclopedic. It read akin Bruce Lee strength feats. Arbitrary. Emotional. Materialscientist (talk) 11:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Lightning fast

	Lightning
	For being lightning fast, four minutes from harassment to report to block. Thanks! Muhandes (talk) 12:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for the fast catch and rapid dispatch of a vandal who spammed in 125K of content on my talk page. I note from the vandal account's edit history that mine was one of only two pages affected. I really appreciate the fast and excellent work! Carrite (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thermochem updates

Absolutely--how should I be citing them? Just a normal citation like I would to any inline text? I was not totally sure on the science-related tables, but I do not mind going back and updating them all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LegacyOfValor (talk • contribs) 05:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• I have just updated the AL2O3 pages with citations--I copied the layout from other pages, hope that works! LegacyOfValor (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• Just saw that, forgot that I can just use the ref tags to avoid duplication. Will clean up as I go. Thanks a bunch for the help, though! LegacyOfValor (talk) 05:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

RE:User talk:212.121.215.60‎

Just a small question as a Huggle user, I've noticed recently that a few admins don't put up Block notices on talk pages. Why? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

From experience, I'd say there is no clear answer, just a few possible reasons: forgot; overloaded by tasks falling at all angles; no use putting a template because of the past history with this user ("long-term abuse", user knows what xe was doing, and will not be unblocked even if requested); block template is already there ({{anonblock}} or {{schoolblock}} - vastly shared IP); maybe some more which I forgot. Some IPs are blocked as open proxies, because they popped up in the list or some user edited from there, even though nobody edited or will likely edit from that IP as anon. We have a bot blocking open proxies, and as I know, it does not put a block template - user gets all unblock instructions in the block window which xe sees when trying to edit. Materialscientist (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thank you for the heads up. Isn't there a Twinkle addon for this? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I can guess (from the issued templates) that many admins don't use Twinkle or Huggle. Materialscientist (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hehe, I see. Thank you. again. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

112.134.66.0/24 etc

Just a quick note to tell you know that I have changed your block to put {{anonblock}} instead, there are legitimates users on these ranges too. -- Luk ^talk 11:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I should have issued a softblock (my bad if not), i.e. effectively anonblock. There were useful contributions last year, but this year was almost all vandalism, as I recall, thus 1 month. Materialscientist (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible :/. I didn't check the dates because the javascript gadget I'm using doesn't sort by date, which is unfortunate. I need to find a good range contribution finder... I could use CheckUser but I think that might get me into trouble :D -- Luk ^talk 14:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This? Materialscientist (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Latest pear and purple Yogo sapphire photos

See Talk:Yogo_sapphire#Latest_pear_and_purple_photos. Hope you think they're better, and just in time for the Great Wiki Blackout of jan 2012! PumpkinSky talk 01:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Jake.edu

It seems that the kid (oh god just look at his user page) is new and wants to make a redirect at SO R@n:D0ᴟ! to the article So Random!. I do not think his request was malformed.—Ryulong (竜龙) 11:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The page does not exist and is not salted, thus what's the request? Materialscientist (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Some filter on MediaWiki:Titleblacklist (or meta:Title blacklist, probably our version) prevents non-admins from making the page because of all of the fucked up letters.—Ryulong (竜龙) 12:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I see. Unlikely search term, thus unlikely redirect, IMO. Anyway, not a valid unprotection request. Materialscientist (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. But it still wasn't a malformed request. Just a bad one.—Ryulong (竜龙) 12:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Kharwar

Another IP has appeared on this page restoring the same information that has been being deleted for the last year. This page has basically become a year long edit war.Andrew Kurish (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Report

If you see a report on AIV about Hellomyybutt (talk · contribs), it's because he's reported at UAA already and the Huggle bug likely will cause it. Calabe1992 04:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It's Ok, after you told me about that bug I understand such AIV reports (they pop up from time to time). Materialscientist (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know what the delay is in fixing it. Calabe1992 04:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I've indeffed Hellomyybutt, but there is an unspoken rule at UAA - wait for the user to edit - if it is a vandal/spammer, a simple usernameblock will only hide that user behind a neutral name. Hellomyybutt did make an edit, but it was only marginally vandalistic. Materialscientist (talk) 04:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, you probably know all that as you haven't reported them :-). Materialscientist (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I reported them prior to their edit due to the disruptive name (was thinking of a Uw-ublock at the time). Then they ended up removing content for no reason anyway. Calabe1992 05:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

On a side note, could you squash this rev that I just came across? Thanks. Calabe1992 05:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Revdeleted. Materialscientist (talk) 05:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks... Calabe1992 05:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Peipus

Please revisit Talk:Lake Peipus#Name_again Lotygolas Ozols (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, obviously you didn't read my explanations carefully. Many outsiders, starting from Encyclopedia Britannica cited, do not call the whole 3-part system as Peipus. On the other hand, I don't see evidence, from reliable geographic sources, that the 3-part systems is commonly called Peipus. Lotygolas Ozols (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did understand the problem the way you described for me. It incorporates a larger problem: how to prove your point to non-experts, being a non-expert myself. Of course, there is beyond commons sense to tabulate "what those 80k refs mean by Peipus". The issue boils down to pinpointing a small set of definitive sources (by me, a non-expert in geography). Therefore, facing a disagreement, I don't speak at the article talk page until I have spare time to seriously dig into this, a rather insignificant (compared to SOPA and pokemon :-) subject. Thank you for your discussion. Lotygolas Ozols (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Avoid

Who r u? and y r u avoiding me from editing wikipedia. And i read ur page infact my fav subject is also science & my father is also doctor just like u............(116.202.161.190 (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC))

Metalloid

Hi Materialscientist, I have asked for an A-class review. I know you are not a WikiProject Elements participant but would appreciate your thoughts, if you have time. Thank you Sandbh (talk) 05:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Will try, but please don't expect much - got mile-long backlog. Materialscientist (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Борщ

Hi Materialscientist, I happen to be Russian and IKNOW how БОРЩ sounds in Ukrainian and Russian where it came from. There is no t sound anywhere in this word and newer was! People keep writing it as borscht incorrectly with t! This mass confusion cannot go forever and must be ended. Wikipedia could lead this effort. I would appreciate if you reinstate my edit that you removed. cracpot54 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crackpot54 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC) As may have noticed I did not change the title of the article but I strongly believe that this must be mentioned in the article and I did exactly this.--Crackpot54 (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC) If no one tells people that something is wrong they will believe it is right. People used to believe that the Earth is flat. Today they think differently. If we don't tell them that Борщ has no t sound in it the will continue writing it like this. I agree, this not the only example but I tired explaining people that they are not only transliterating it wrong but also pronounce it wrong just because of this. Transliteration is meant to be an adequate phonetic representation. --Crackpot54 (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC) How about adding the link to pronunciation from Wiktionary: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:Ru-borshch.ogg or http://uk.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:Uk-%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%89.ogg ? --Crackpot54 (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Frankly I am surprised how conservative Wikipedia is. From my experience it was a lot easier to correct mistake in Review of Particle Properties (aka Particle Data Book) than correct Wikipedia. --Crackpot54 (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC) I am a scientist as you are and part of my job is to educate people about what is write and tell them when they are wrong. I thought that Wikipedia mission is to educate people as well. Apparently today I learned that this assumption is not quite correct. --Crackpot54 (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC) As the matter of fact I do correct Russians as well when they write and pronounce things incorrectly when I have an opportunity. --Crackpot54 (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Once again, people would not know that they have misconception if they are not told about that. They will stick to it. There are still some people who think that the Earth is the center of the Universe. Borscht is no different from that. By the way, speaking of holodomor it is somewhat different story. If you think in terms of Ukrainian phonetics it is quite close representation, the sound is semi-silent, pronounced on the exhale but it sounds different in Russian. In this case sound makes difference in meaning depending which language you use. Since the event occurred in Ukraine, it is more appropriate to us Ukrainian transliteration fore it --Crackpot54 (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Unfortunately many people take Wikipedia as a Gospel, they think what is written there must be correct. --Crackpot54 (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Article about geocentrism is actually good example how this can be done properly: In astronomy, the geocentric model (also known as geocentrism, or the Ptolemaic system), is the superseded theory that the Earth is the center of the universe. The key word here superseded As for transliteration of holodomor, as you may know in all Soviet republics, except Russian Federation, there were always TWO official languages, all documentation was ALWAYS in two languages. I completely agree with you that we should work on making Wikipedia better and it does not mislead people. That's exactly what I tried to do. And you are trying to discourage me from doing this. --Crackpot54 (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Now I am really concerned with your statement: in the Soviet Union, a country where the only official language was Russian This is false statement. I wonder if you put that same statement anywhere in Wikipedia. --Crackpot54 (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC) If subject is debatable, then Wikipedia should not take sides but present all points and/or make notes in the article. Otherwise it forces readers to take side of a moderator which is not necessarily correct, unless he is God. I am not alone against t there are quite a few others who voiced their opinions on the subject. A controversy if exists should not be swiped under the rug. --Crackpot54 (talk) 06:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC) I suspect that the fact that Wikipedia called article botscht intentionally or unintentionally served to propagate this particular version among internet users who consider Wikipedia as a reliable source. That way one can easily promote anything, even complete nonsense. --Crackpot54 (talk) 06:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC) I saw that it was you and I think that this part should be moved from talk to the main article. --Crackpot54 (talk) 07:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Names change. Even names of the cities and countries change. One of the recent examples: everybody started calling Mumbai what was used to be called Bombay. And in this case Wikipedia is doing fine, like with geocentrism I mentioned before. But it stubbornly refuses to eliminate t in борщ. --Crackpot54 (talk) 07:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC) It is never too late if there is a reason and will to do something. As I said before, the Earth changed from flat to round. Things change all the time --Crackpot54 (talk) 07:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Actually, I am pretty sure if Wikipedia drops this letter then reasonably soon people will accept this as "the most common spelling". Just because the Wikipedia said so :) --Crackpot54 (talk) 07:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: 84.10.140.247

This user has left some offensive edit summaries at Wikipedia:IPA for Dutch and Afrikaans which may qualify for removal. Thanks. Taroaldo (talk) 07:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, xe left a lot of offense, which is why I said in the block log that I'll review the block duration. Materialscientist (talk) 07:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK issue

Hi Matsci. Since you participated in a previous discussion regarding reuse of PD text in DYK submissions, you may be interested in contributing to a recent discussion on the same topic, here, or the proposal which follows it. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 01:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Botnet trial run?

First Law of Thermodynamics and Second Law of Thermodynamics were hit again by different IPs. Is someone trying out a botnet vandalizing system? It has been hit about once per day replacing some content with "is you do not talk about thermodynamics". Actually it was done quite a few times today. Jim1138 (talk) 06:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Semiprotected for a week, both, will have a look at IPs. They seem to be from US, i.e. more like 4chan (coordinated attack), some maybe simple coincidence - we are heading into the peak vandalism season. Materialscientist (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Links

Why does Wikipedia show commercial links on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2D_gel_analysis_software and does not allow this on 1D gel EP? Please stop deleting the list!

User:84.255.157.120

... has been making a bit of disruptive edits, but more worryingly he's making libelous BLP violations on the Adnan al-Aroor page. Is there something to be done? Yazan (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I've put it on my watchlist and will semiprotect when appropriate - the IPs are hopping over a range too wide. Materialscientist (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Woah, slow down!

You're flooding Recent changes! The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It is Twinkle batch protection job, will autostop shortly. Materialscientist (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

RC is useless right now. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've spammed it for 5 minutes, but I don't see another way to mass protect. You can filter RC to avoid that. Materialscientist (talk) 04:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It's done. Finally.  :) The Mark of the Beast (talk)

Wow, that was impressive. Calabe1992 04:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Clarkthomas152

Would you consider revoking the talk page access at User talk:Clarkthomas152 or protecting the page? The talk page is still being used for advertising purposes. VQuakr (talk) 08:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for the note. Materialscientist (talk) 08:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Troll looking for trouble

• Yourgreatgrandfather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hey, MS... could you block indef this guy? NOTE: Username is considered as highly inflammatory in Singapore. Thanks and best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 08:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

  We are not in Singapore :-). Usual rule - wait for their edits. Soft usernameblock is often counterproductive. Materialscientist (talk) 08:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Not when he has inserted inflammatory/non-NPOV edit into the article page of a Singaporean political party. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 08:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Can you please re-examine the block of this IP in light of the recent edits at Lil' Kim that earnt them the level four warning.

I should point out that I only gave the IP a level 4 warning as they had previously reached level three prior to blanking their page. Cluebot then gave them a new level one warning. I didn't examine their edits otherwise as I expected Cluebot would have gotten it right.

ClaretAsh 12:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I've just checked the edit that earnt the level three warning for vandalism and it doesn't appear to me to be vandalism, merely a minor unsourced claim. ClaretAsh 12:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

If you mean this - it is trolling (prank - you need to know Russian to evaluate it), so as all other edits except for latest two, which I can't evaluate at the moment. Materialscientist (talk) 12:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I won't argue that point. I only read Google Russian which seems to change from day to day. I do urge you to examine the edits at Li'l Kim though as the IP appeared to be reverting existing vandalism to which Cluebot and Vrenator re-reverted. ClaretAsh 12:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, unblocked. Yes, the IP reinstated the past phrasing on Lil' Kim (which is echoed over the internet), but I have no time to understand why it was there at all. The Russian edit might indeed be misguided (some folks believe there is connection between those words). Thanks for thinking (I tend to lose this ability :-). Materialscientist (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Glad to help. I've also adjusted Lil Kim to something more neutral. Now if you'll excuse me, I think I'll wander over to the Cluebot factory and see what's happening there. ClaretAsh 12:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit on Dr. Benoy Shankar

Animaajit (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC) I wanted to edit that section at the earliest; thanks for doing it.

Switching IPs

Hi,

The party who persists in changing Mayra Verónica's page has changed IPs again. I never imagined using blocking rights, but I'm at that point. Would you advise applying for such rights or an admin position? Thank you.

--Unicorn Tapestry ^{say} 17:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I've warned one IP and put the article on my watchlist. Let us see. Materialscientist (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! --Unicorn Tapestry ^{say} 05:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Pages with incomplete DOI references

Do you have any idea how to force this category to regenerate? I've changed some of the pages so they no longer have incomplete doi references (the pages no longer show the hidden category) and yet the entries remain in the category page. I've tried Purge. Please let me know how many entries you see in that category as well.Naraht (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know exact cause, but I know that the replication lag keeps accumulating from yesterday (i.e. some realtime Toolserver databases were not updated for 24 hrs). Materialscientist (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Materialscientist. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.
Message added 10:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bryce (talk | contribs) 10:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Kat Von D

This is a neutral notice of an RfC for a page on which you have been an editor. If you wish to participate, the discussion is taking place here. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Boron

Hello Materialscientist. You've edited at Boron, so you may be aware of the frequent IP vandalism there. I am thinking of putting on two years of semiprotection. (Last semi was for one year). Do you think that would be appropriate? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yes!! Sprotect all element articles until the Sun burns out. Until protons decay. SBHarris 01:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

@Ed: Support semiprotection, because recent IP edits were nothing but vandalism. It is up to you to set the period - there is no exact science about that. I would protect until summer, when the school activity drops significantly and there is more chance for constructive edits. @Steve: I am yet undecided on a long-term semi for all elements, because of a recent series of good grammar-fixing edits to some elements. Materialscientist (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Bah, humbug. Anybody who cares about the arcane rules of grammar, can easily register a username and password and work on other articles, doing good grammar-works, until 4 days pass and they can work on sprotected wikis. I'm tired of the logic of this stupid argument, which you can see partly displayed on WP:PERENNIAL. The logic goes that registration is so easy, that vandals will not stop vandalism, but if required to register, will just quickly register, as easy as pie. AT THE SAME TIME, the argument is made (with a lot of cognitive dissonance) that registration os SO difficult and onerous that valued IP contributors will quit Wikipedia and go away forever, rather than do it. In that view, it's as hard as filing income taxes, as hard as having a root canal. Riiiight.

Here's the thing: it's obviously exactly as hard for well-meaning IPs to register ONCE as it is for would-be vandals to do it ONCE. But vandals (even if they can change IPs after being blocked) have to register many times, since they will be blocked many times. To get around sprotection a vandal must wait four days and make 10 good edits, and he/she loses that time every time he's indef blocked, and has to start over. But the well-meaning IP editor only has to go through that process ONCE. So this is harder on vandal IP-editors than good faith ones. Also, clearly vandals don't WANT to register, since as IPs they benefit from the well-known coddling of IP-editors on WP, fearing that they are shared and that multiple users will be blocked, if the IP is blocked. Since this protection is lost if vandals have to take up a name, clearly, sprotecting articles hurts vandal-IPs, far more than helpful-IPs. The issue is so clear that I don't really know how arguments about it continue. Some world view of Jimmy Wales, maybe. It's very mysterious, particularly as his own BLP has been sprotected forever. Doesn't that sort of admit his view is wrong? SBHarris 02:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Steve, elements articles are well watched. I am more worried with that we (better say I :-) are less active on talk pages, resolving issues picked up by others. Vandalism is more of a problem in obscure corners of WP, and vandals are easier to manage when they are unregistered. Materialscientist (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This totally conflicts with my own experience, which is that IP vandals congregate to school-assigment articles. Every planet in the solar system is sprotected, you know? Now, there may be a clique of vandals doing computer gaming and pop culture, but I wouldn't class that as "obscure." On the contrary, it's where WP's editors "live." Could you explain why IP vandals are easier to "manage"? Do you mean "in theory." In practice, they aren't blocked nearly as often, or as long. SBHarris 20:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

We have a range of technical tools against IPs (whois, rdns, geolocate, WP:rangeblock, proxyblock, etc.) which only WP:CU can apply to users. Materialscientist (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"Cluebot" error

A new user 96.49.75.124 removed obvious vandalism from the Cantarella article. Unfortunately Cluebot reverted this edit and issued a warning. What can be done to undo this error? Denisarona (talk) 13:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed (reverted, blocked, removed cluebot warning). Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

ANI Help

Hey Materialscientist, can you help me with something. I reported a user at ANI, but the admin said it was a content dispute when it was not. I had undone an unsourced edit and reported the user. I was told to go to dispute resolution. I do not believe that was the correct advice because the user never adds a source. The user was given a fair amount of warning, but has carried on.Rain the 1 03:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see recent reports to WP:ANI in your contributions. Did you mean WP:AIV? Note these boards are very different - AIV is the fastest-reaction board we've got, but it can only handle blatant cases (vandalism/spam/socking and such); it is meant for rapid blocking, not for detailed investigation. At the top of WP:AIV page there is a template listing other AN board. I don't know details of your case, maybe WP:DRN will do? Materialscientist (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Please can I have a little longer with you. Can you just take a moment to look over this behaviour? [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] I am confused, I just think that is obvious disruption. What do I need to do to ensure this editor adds sources? It kind of shocked me to be honest, that that someone suggested I should take someone to the dispute board when they are doing something that most people would be blocked for. Like verifiability is basic. And they won't. What do you think I should do.Rain the 1 03:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for delay - vandals don't rest. Such behavior is common for movie articles - they all cite IMDb and similar sources at the bottom, and often little more than that. Thus many editors fill up details from those sources without saying (release dates, durations, birthdates, etc, etc). We don't have a solid policy on accepting that - IMDb is considered Ok for non-personal details, usually not for bio details, but we often don't enforce that in minor articles where nothing better is available. Thus, Boushenheiser should be pushed to sourcing edits and leaving edit summaries; xe apologized on their talk, and I don't feel like blocking them in the current situation. However, we do block editors who keep doing what xe does despite warnings. Materialscientist (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou for that information. I'll perhaps mention the sourcing issue to them tomorrow, maybe see if it can be solved, if that is unsucsessful then start the warnings again and report again if that does not work. I think then they'll have had a fair run. If the case is it does not work, could I come back to you on the matter? Or do you think one of the board would be better suited? I guess I might have been to held up over their past contribs and not thought about what they can offer in the future.Rain the 1 04:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You can post here, knowing pros and cons: I know a bit about this case and in principle am ready to issue a short-term block, but I might be offline, overloaded or hesitant to block (what xe posts does not seem as misinformation). Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Tim McIlrath

I am not finding anything on Google News about this guys death - are you sure it is not a hoax ? Mtking ^(edits) 08:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not finding either, and rolling back all today's edits :-) Materialscientist (talk) 08:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; funny how no autoconfirmed editor wants any piece of this ? Mtking ^(edits) 08:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

This might be a hoax, which is not notable enough to be picked up by regulars, especially during weekend. Materialscientist (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Proxy block

There seems to be an unblock request in relation to a range you blocked. I normally agree with webhost blocks, but in this case, it looks like your hitting collateral damage with regular customers that are not websites. I'm hoping to get your comment at this point. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I am just back online and can't investigate right now. Give me some time, within some 8-12 hrs from now, and see the follow up on the "Rangeblock on 178.63.0.0/166 / User talk:178.63.213.60" above. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I am in and out. First clues why the range was blocked: this, slow range [32], with zillions of hosts per IP [33]. Materialscientist (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and unblocked, over your head, to provide the rationale and take responsibility - that proxy is not really dead, and who knows what comes out next. Why I mentioned 178.63.0.0/16 - a tor 178.63.97.34 (talk · contribs) was blocked there (by you :-P) soon after my block was lifted. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Ya I totally see why you blocked it, i'm not disagreeing with that, its just now that they have collaterial on that range. There might be a smaller range that we can block like a /20, so i'll take a look into that. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 13:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI

here PumpkinSky talk 23:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. This was a troubled editor with some past WP history, editing from an open proxy. Such users are a major reason why I spend less and less time on editing articles. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 05:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Glad to help editors such as yourself. I didn't know about his past, etc. Just that he was way out of line. PumpkinSky talk 03:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Huggle problem

FYI: Huggle occasionally does not put warnings on user talk. It will count the warnings internally and report to AIV but the warnings are not on user's talk. This happened with user_talk:Rachelanytime as well. Multiple Huggle users. She does not seem to be editing, so the problem is moot. Waiting for the next version of Huggle. Just thought you would want to know what was behind the blank user talk. Cheers! Jim1138 (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It is good for me to know, but when dealing with (newbie) users, we have to look with their eyes on the situation. I know some problems with Huggle and Twinkle are transient (server glitches, Clue Bot problems, etc.) Materialscientist (talk) 05:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree re newbies. Jim1138 (talk) 05:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

119.197.33.37

I have been following user_talk:119.197.33.37 I am not really sure why he is getting reverted. I warned him for unsourced content earlier, but he seems to be doing a good job now. He was reported to AIV, but I don't know if that was justified. I added a note to his AIV report on that. Am I missing something? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 06:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

When he was reported, I went through their edits, reverted a few because of lacking sources, but yes, this is a clumsy newbie trying to update articles, not a vandal, and his incompetence is not sufficient for a block :-) (some good-faith editors have to be blocked for technical disruption, POV, etc). Materialscientist (talk) 06:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Trouble IP

The IP user User talk:211.30.13.185 appears to be actively pursuing a campaign of vandalism; see Special:Contributions/211.30.13.185.

Since this user repeatedly removes warning templates to confuse other editors, I recommend giving level 3 or 4 warnings right away if the vandalism recurs in the near future. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 12:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I was actually checking that IP, blocked. Materialscientist (talk) 12:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Users editing articles like newbies?

Dear Materialscientist, I am here to ask for your advice, and help. I am a frequent contributor of wikipedia, and recently i have been reverting and undoing a lot of edits on the page of Tiger versus lion. Not much of edits, just reverting, because recently there are some new users, two in particular who are creating a little bit of "disturbance" to that page. That page is fairly new(in terms of numbers of edits) and definitely requires much more information and assistance from established users. However these 2 users, User talk:Alchemist51 and User talk: Alex gnpi, have been editing the page, adding materials without citations onto the page. In fact, one of them actually added a paragraph using a Youtube video as evidence. And the other, simply keeps copying and pasting materials which have been erased(due to lack of citations) back to the page. I have tried asking for semi page protection, which has been approved, but both of them are apparently "established" users and they can continue editing the page.

I tried reverting the page back to the stable version, but within hours they are edited again, its almost like an editing war. Whenever i revert the page, i explain the reasons for the edit, while these users simply edit the article. Hence i am here right now, writing this to you, asking for your assistance in what i should do. I do not want to continue this "edit war" as i find it pointless, so is there a way to stop them from editing this page for a while? This has been occurring for almost a full week, that is what i came here to raise my concern.

I hope you understand where i am coming from. Cheers.

Brazilian Tiger (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have put the article on my watchlist and will see what I can do with those two editors. Materialscientist (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Jscott57

I've revoked his talk page access, following on him trying to unblock himself and add office level protection to the page. Peridon (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edinburgh_Wanderer

Hello there, I ask that you assess this situation as no other admins have taken the situation seriously & we could potentially lose one highly productive Wikipedian. Please take a look, Regards. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Page protection of IQ and the Wealth of Nations

Your decline noted that there was not enough "recent" vandalism. There have been two incidents in the last week, with a vandalism threat over the exact same content on another page. Please advise. aprock (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

In short, two per week is too few, and a threat may not justify protection. Materialscientist (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess that only leads to the next obvious question: What does not constitute "too few"? aprock (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Writism

Hi material scientist

My name is Asish Acharjee. I am an art curator and had edited an article on Writism, which you deleted last week. The entry on writism was already existent on wikipedia from approx Sept 2009 , But the article was incomplete and needed updation. So with the permission of the copyright holder, Mr Thomas Abraham, I had taken the matter from the official website www.writism.net and uploaded it. However at the first instance it was deleted by 'fastily' on 13 Jan 2012 stating 'unambiguous copyright infringement'. Subsequent to that, I wrote to wikipedia , who suggested that I sent a copy of the legal copyright and permission from the copyright holder. Which I did. Ms Sarah Stierch wrote back suggesting that the website 'writism' from which the matter was taken had clearly mentioned that the contents of the website were copyrighted. So we got back to the copyright holder, Mr Thomas Abraham, who promptly gave us permission to put it in the public domain and removed the copyright notice from the website. Please see www.writism.net to confirm. This fact was communicated to Ms Sarah Stierch . And we uploaded it on wikipedia once again on 26 Jan 2012, making substantial changes in the preamble . The rest of the matter was taken from the writism website as we thought it wiser if the artist speaks for himself in his own words. However, you again deleted it on 27 Jan , citing that it was already deleted earlier - so needs to be deleted again. However between 13 jan ( the date of the first deletion ) and 27 jan ( when you deleted it ), the facts on the ground had changed substantially, with the copyright holder - . removing the copyright notice from official website www.writism.net . sending letter to wikipedia in the approved format, giving permission to put the matter in the public domain. If you would like a copy of the legal copyright as well as a mail from the copyright holder, Mr Thomas Abraham, please suggest an email to send you the scanned copies. I would be much obliged , if you could restore the article on wikipedia, as writism, is turning out to be a major art movement, with the Times of India ( the world's largest English daily), saying " it will likely change the face of painting forever.")

Asish Acharjee Art curator and Historian 122.167.217.118 (talk) 07:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Asish, thank you for note. Please follow the procedure outlined in WP:PERMISSION. People who processed the corresponding emails should become part of the chain (I and other administrators involved with this article are not part of the WP:OTRS team). Materialscientist (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

MS - Here is a relevant discussion. Rgds, Manning (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

File deletion request

Hello, would you be so kind as to delete this file on Commons? (I am not an administrator, or I'd do it myself.) No nomination or formal request for deletion is called for, in my opinion, because the sole reason this tiny file was created in the first place was that an associated article (Trolleybuses in Valparaíso) was a pending DYK at the time, and the editor who created it didn't understand that it's not necessary to create a copy that's literally 100 by 100 pixels in order to provide a thumbnail for DYK. The relevant talk page text is archived here. The file was not used for the DYK, as editors with more experience knew how to create a thumbnail that links to the file page of the full-size original. Someone else created a second derivative from the original, so as to provide a cropped-square version for Main Page appearance, and that version was used for the actual DYK entry. The file for which I'm requesting deletion, File:Trolley en Valpo, 100px.jpg, is only 7 kilobytes, and there's no reason for such a tiny copy to exist on Commons in this instance. It's not linked to anything, and no information would be lost if it were deleted, as the description is just a copy of the information at the file page of the original. Thanks for your time. SJ Morg (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated one crop for speedy deletion, I am not an admin on Commons. Materialscientist (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize you weren't an admin on Commons. Thanks for acting, anyway. I've made a note of the Commons template you used, in case I need it in the future. SJ Morg (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That template is not legitimate in this case because the crops are not identical. I only added it hoping on understanding of the Commons admin (left a hidden explanation in the note). Materialscientist (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the crops were not identical, and I wondered about that (in this specific case). Maybe I should re-post the full request (with my explanation and links, modified for interwiki-ing) somewhere on Commons, but I don't know where to post such a request. Do you? SJ Morg (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

An author of unused image could request speedy deletion, but we are not, thus normal procedure is to go through the full-length deletion process (akin WP:AFD here). I would wait and see if it gets deleted. Materialscientist (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll just watchlist the file page and check it periodically. Thanks again for your help and advice. SJ Morg (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

User talk:174.57.217.119

Hi, you put a block on IP 174.57.217.119 which seems to have expired and they are vandalising again. Could you reblock? Thanks Span (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Materialscientist (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Span (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

PoH2 part

hello,

i have seen you have undone my deletion on the PoH2 part. Maybe its much easier to add stuff to Wikipedia rather than to delete some. Anyway, the person who added the information on that hydride simply copied it from textbooks - but these numbers are just extrapolations from data on hydrides of the homologues. The link on PoH2 explains it fairly well - this compound may exist, but nobody really knows. I do not think that giving illusively precise numbers on PoH2 properties does any help on this topic. Thats why i decided to completely remove that part. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.33.126.163 (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I have tweaked that sentence as [34] - can't find much on PoH2 except for [35] and some echoes. Materialscientist (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Vandal alert.

Hello. Sorry if I have to tell you this on short notice, but can you block 121.1.11.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? Repeat vandal. Please provide action ASAP. Thanks. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 12:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for blocking that malicious IP. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 13:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

ZrF4

1. Does zirconium tetrafluoride have the same structure as UF4?

2. We are using exact same structure drawing in ThF4,ZF4, UF4, and PuF4, but the space group in the infobox for U is different from the others (admittedly, I am not space group heavy). Is that right or a typo or just added precision?

In any case, if they are all the same, may want to use that picture in my article (fits well in placement) and also make a comment in text about the 8-coordinate square anti-prism metal centers (so reader gets some insight other than just complicated looking structure thingie). Just hesitant right now, as not sure what is all going on in there (and in general binary tetrafluorides are poorly understood, even now).

TCO (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The biggest problem in such matters is polymorphism, i.e., even many forms can be metastable at ambient conditions. Here the situation is quite clear: according to our database, UF4, ThF4, PuF4 and ZrF4 all have same structure (monoclinic mS60); among them, only ZrF4 has another form (tetragonal tP40). Our database says C2/c, and I think it is the same as C12/c1. I can redraw some of my old clumsy tests like File:ZrF4tetragonal.jpg - need to do that anyway .. Materialscientist (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I will refer to all sharing same structure, then. The tetragonal phase is a higher temp phase. I don't need to get into that. (leave that for that article). (And understood that with a quench, a different structure might persist at RT. Just given that these are not naturally occuring and just keeping the story, simple, rather make the point about the shared structure!)

Image Licenses

I want to upload images of Club Penguin for the game Club Penguin. However, i tried that months before, an they were all deleted due to improper licenses. Could you please tell me what to do? Thanks. Atum World! Club Penguin alas! (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you link to the images you want to upload? Materialscientist (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Block on 203.52.130.166

Hi Materialscientist, I'm planning on assisting on a Wikipedia editing workshop which is being held at a centre affected by the block you placed on 203.52.130.166. It was placed around 8 months ago and still has 4 months to go. Would you have a problem if I removed this block for the time being? I'll keep an eye on any edits from this IP in the near future. -- Chuq (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Materialscientist (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Question

MS, would you happen to be in the mood to close a ban proposal? Calabe1992 05:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You can always paste a link, and I'll certainly have a look, but will probably decline, unless it is a clear offense (or its opposite). Materialscientist (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - WP:ANI#User:Mr._Curious_Man_ban_proposal. Calabe1992 05:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It has unanimous support.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Much appreciated, had quite enough of this character lately. Calabe1992 05:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

sorry

sorry about on taylor swift page i did not know.sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosemkrm82 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Alloy wheels

Hi Materialscientist,

I have a question about this edit to the alloy wheel article. I've never encountered this before, so I wanted to ask your advice on it, because it seems unusual to link to company web-sites within the text of the article. By the way, is it even necessary to list all of the various brands? Zaereth (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, I almost forgot. I simply deleted the whole list :-). Such way of linking is sometimes tolerated - say, to identify some John Smith who doesn't have a wiki article and thereby avoid possible confusion - but it should not be misused for commercial links, or for linking some company that can be uniquely located within a second via Google. Materialscientist (talk) 04:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Help

Ukboxen is back on an IP number. 178.98.191.155 told me "Think again, asshole" on Wladimir Klitschko. Can I request you put a sub-protection on that page and the Sugar Ray Leonard page? Thanks. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Materialscientist (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Anytime. He just created an account named "AbdulaMu" to get passed the protection and cursed at you. Also, can you protect Sugar Ray Leonard as well?--TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	When I saw you cracking down on User:108.126.121.39 like an avenging admin angel, I thought, "Huzzah! Materialscientist saves the day, again!" It was like that bit at the end of Jurassic Park when the T-rex chows down on the velociraptor, only less bloody. And you aren't a massive saurian. But it was quite similar, emotionally. Yunshui 雲‍水 23:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Anon Block

Hey

You put a block on an I.P address

"Information about the block: account creation from this IP address (188.39.46.34 (talk · contribs)) was blocked by Materialscientist, who gave the reason {{anonblock}}."

The I.P address is for the public Wifi networks in Monmouth (not sure how this works, it's run by the council). I'm running regular Wikipedia editing lessons in the library which means no one can sign up a new user account. Not sure if you have the power to unblock it but if so could you do it?

Cheers

--Mrjohncummings (talk) 11:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Monmouthpedia

Unblocked. This IP was used for vandalism and may be reblocked if it resumes. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 11:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Materialscientist,

Thank you for your editing on the Nelson Antonio Denis page. I can tell you spent some time on it, and I really appreciate it.

Nelsondenis248 (talk) 05:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Protection request.

Hello. Sorry to disturb you, but can you protect the articles Yu-Gi-Oh!: Bonds Beyond Time and Yu-Gi-Oh! The Movie: Pyramid of Light? An Irish vandal using addresses on the 86.43.*.* range keeps removing all Japanese references and credits from these pages. It seems that he doesn't want admit these two are Japanese films. He is doing his vandalism long-term. He is also adding hoax "Digimon Tigers" credits to several voice actor pages. BTW, they're listed in WP:RFPP right now, but I read that it is currently backlogged. Thanks in advance. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 08:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

How to deal with the page User:Siguroardottir?

The page appears to have been copied from Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir with changes that (probably misleadingly) indicates that the user is Jóhanna herself. Since there is an obvious BLP issue, I do not know where to submit this page for deletion---CSD, or AfD? ZZArch ^{talk to me} 12:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hawkins

So I've been looking at the stephen_Hawking article and it turns out you're one of the most active editors - I've raised the idea of putting the article through the Good Article process and would welcome your opinion :) Failedwizard (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm watching it and revert vandalism, but I'm not sure I've read the article, let alone writing something in there :-D. Materialscientist (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem, it looks like this is one of those beautiful wikipedia articles that has grown my many many people making the occasional edit, rather than by one editor really pushing at it. I'm going to boldly put it forward for GA :) let me know if this causes any problems.... (I'm particularly interested in your opinion since you were last to review it for GA :) Talk:Stephen_Hawking/GA3 Failedwizard (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism but not warning the vandal

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. [Here] you reverted the vandalism of an IP editor but didn't warn the editor for misbehaving. Other editors would see your reversion in the log and assume you told off the vandal. Therefore if you don't do so, it may never be done. In this case, I knew straight away that you didn't warn the vandal because he/she had no talk page. I've now done it myself. Please don't do a half-baked job again. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC))

Hi WP Editor 2011, thanks for warning that IP - I often edit nearly simultaneously in several windows and forget to post a template on the talk (I do that manually). Materialscientist (talk) 13:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

User:MyLittlePonytail

Have you seen this? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

No. I very rarely watch talks of blocked users, and am not bothered what they write about me, but since we've got here, I've rectified the situation :-). Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 14:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Mail

Can't remember the template for 'You have email'. Anyway, you have email... Peridon (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Portal/Images/Music

I noticed you recently locked Template:Portal/Images/Music. Could you take a moment to respond to my comment on the talk page requesting corrections to the image: Template talk:Portal/Images/Music#Fix typography --dbolton (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Vandal issues

Ukboxen is back again. As "KidMilo", he has attacked Marco Antonio Barrera‎, Roy Jones Jr. and Nonito Donaire. You can see him saying "Fuck off retard" on the Barrera page. Can you sub-protect these pages and revert his edits on the Nonito Donaire page? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide dif(s) linking KidMilo to Ukboxen? Materialscientist (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• I* attacked the pages??????????

YOU attacked the pages than I had already cleaned up. I simply undid your usual mess, you complete fucking spastic.

I can just create an endless number of new accounts until the admins realize you're a clueless nuisance.KidMilo (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)