User talk:Materialscientist

Please leave your message at the bottom of the 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 previous message.

Ratings

Do you agree with quality and importance ratings at the Talk:Hiromichi Kataura and Talk:Mitsutaka Fujita? --Nano lab (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I found another rating in Talk:Optical properties of carbon nanotubes. --Nano lab (talk) 06:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Organic metal

Hi again, you will notice that this article and some related ones are strangely written. The problem historically is that few editors at Wikipedia knew much about the topic and none were willing to contend with user:Pproctor, who maintains that his coworker or boss named McGinness has been overlooked by history and should have gotten a Nobel Prize. A few articles were strongly dominated by Proctor, usually indicated by the same image of the melanine-based device that you see on the organic metal page, it is sort of his trademarked homage to McGinness as is the emphasis on an (obscure) article by Hush that credits McGinness with a significant role in the field. The highlighting of the work by Weiss (Aust J Chem) is also intended to deflect glory from the Alan MacDiarmid et al Nobel. My guess is that all wikipedia articles on organic metals need housecleaning and rewriting, so your efforts are welcome.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

A request

I saw claims of plagiarism on a group of people made by user "Dian john1" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dian_john1. Although I am a part of this group, I am not going to discuss this issue there, since Wikipedia is not a place to make such claims and rebut them. "Dian john1" is trying confidentially to disseminate lies and slander on people in the public place, devoted to scientific discussions. Could you please remove this discussion from Wikipedia? Thank you in advance. Sincerely yours, Yaroslav Filinchuk, 27 Feb. 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.103.2.224 (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Moscow

I was asked to review good article nomination Moscow by user:SkyBon, whom I know briefly from his previous GA nomination Russian language. What worries me is that I see the same story repeating: he made 1 edit into a well-written article, nominated it and then could not cope with the review comments. You are one of the main contributors to this potentially excellent article (Moscow), and I was wondering what do you think about it. Russian is fine with me, but I can't type cyrillic. Zhdu otveta. Materialscientist (talk) 05:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Я думаю, что еще рановато номинировать статью на хорошую, много спорных моментов (сейчас, например, обсуждаем с пользователем User:Ezhiki инфобокс о Москве - спорные моменты - агломерация, высота над уровнем моря) ( смотрите здесь - talk, (Infobox Russian federal city), также о многих фактах нет ссылок на источники. К тому же слабоваты некоторые разделы - Religion, Demographics например. Сделать статью GA очень долгая и сложная работа, у меня, к сожалению, нет сейчас столько времени, да и свободно писать по-английски, я, к сожалению, могу не особо. Если у Вас есть время и желание довести статью до уровня GA, то я буду только за, поддержу и помогу вам чем смогу. Texmon (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

COROT-1 nomination

Hey, Materialscientist.

Well, I figured COROT-1 was ready for good article status because I have been looking at other articles. HD 40307 and HD 2039, for example, had passed a while back; for stars like COROT-1, I figured there simply wasn't enough to expand it into a Solar System-style article.

I'll work on improving other articles of the type, but I feel my efforts in further expanding COROT-1 are limited. Thanks for taking the time to look at it, though. Jayhawke (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Elementbox fix

Hi, here's how I fixed the element box: a look at phosphorus reveals that the elementbox is not coded directly on the page, but uses Template:Infobox phosphorus. That template, in turn, uses another template to format the box, Template:Elementbox. Digging into the innards of the Elementbox template shows that it only implemented one set of parameters for the boiling point, as opposed to the three for the melting point. So it was just a matter of making another copy of the boiling point parameters and renaming them appropriately (suffixing "2"). You can look at the history of Template:Elementbox to see what I did. I did have to make one ugly hack to avoid the use of #expr, since that wouldn't let me write "(red)" to indicate the allotrope in the parameters, since that wouldn't parse as a number. So the Celsius value has to be hand-calculated (not too big an annoyance, the same thing is being done for the melting point parameters).

Anyway, this really is the first time I made a non-trivial change to a template, so you might want to ask someone more skilled to take a look at the result and fix up any glaring bugs I introduced in the process. :-) Hope this helps.—Tetracube (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Congrats...

... on your successful FA nom of Synthetic diamond. I remember reviewing this as a GA nom, and I am impressed with the speed and quality of the improvements made. I'm glad to see it on the front page. Keep up the impressive work. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 17:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Pre-emptive congrats

I won't be around much over the weekend, so I thought I'd jump the gun and be the first to warmly welcome you to the admin team. (Sure it's not official yet, but I'm old and crusty and can thus get aware with this sort of crap.) You'll have fun, no doubt. Cheers Manning (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA

I think I can congratulate you on the successful adminship request (expired but not closed yet). Hope you will continue to spend at least some time writing articles. Ruslik_Zero 07:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Your Request for Adminship

Dear Materialscientist,

I have closed your recent RfA as successful per the consensus of the community. Congratulations, you are now a sysop! Please make sure you're aware of the Administrators' how-to guide and the items on the Administrators' reading list. Finally, please don't hesitate in contacting me if you need anything. Best of luck in your new position! —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm really glad to see another scientist in the admin corps. Please don't hesitate to ask for help, and best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 15:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Congrats, MS! --Dylan620 (contribs, logs, review) 20:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Dang. Didn't even know you were up for RfA, or I'd have voted for you. Congrats also. SBHarris 20:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the mop crowd, don't let mopwork interfere too much with your content work. Glad the "canvas" drama fizzled out. Enjoy the "power" B-) Vsmith (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well done, but of course, it was never in doubt. Feel free to ask if you need to know where anything is kept (careful with the delete button, it's right where the "watch" button used to be - so far I've managed not to permanently "unwatch" anything by accident, but give me time). SpinningSpark 22:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Too bad your stuck with the pepper spray/mop combo instead of the flamethrower/mop combo. Stupid budget. Anyway, congrats! Abce2|This isnot a test 23:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Congrats on your successful RfA. ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N. 07:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I need to jump in and say "congratualtions" as well. You will do fine, I am sure. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations from me too. If you ever need any help just say the word. --John (talk) 01:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Pile on congrats. /mav recalls asking Jimbo eons ago about becoming an admin. His reply was something to the effect of 'I don't really know you, but haven't heard anything bad, so sure, why not?' Boy, those were the days when it really wasn't a big deal to be an admin. Now you have to go through an excruciating interview process and public beating. --mav (talk) 03:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Congratulations. Racepacket (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Hey Materialscientist, congratulations on achieving administratorship. All the best to you, and I hope you continue to contribute content. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK - prep 1

I see you have prepared Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1. I have taken a look at it and it seems to be in order. Just remember that as soon as you upload an image from Commons, fully-protect it. And in the upload form include {{c-uploaded}} directly above the copied information from Commons. And remember, when filling a queue with your prepare set, cut+paste the whole prep area, not only the hooks section and it will be fine. :-) Regards SoWhy 14:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Same goes for File:Zigzag coral (Madrepora oculata).jpg which you added to queue 5 today. Although the queues are cascading protected, images may not be affected by this for several hours (see Bugzilla:18483) and thus need to be manually protected before adding to a queue to avoid a vandal taking advantage of this bug. Regards SoWhy 09:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK medal

Thanks. But I am a little uncertain as to what you mean by your comment. Do palaces/monasteries, museums. observatories and towns/counties not appeal to you? What exactly does then? Its not as if I write about comic books or video games or anything. Well I think I don't write about topics which are beyond our expertise but help towards it. They are typically on solid encyclopedic subjects but the country they are about may seem obscure to the western eye because I insist on trying to see us from a neutral world viewpoint. But it isn't really. Of late I've been expanding articles about districts/counties and have not been nominating them for DYK. Himalayan 11:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that we also need to be looking at what articles get the most traffic and improving them. Unfortunately given the way people are they generally tend to always be on popular culture, sex and a lot of topics that most traditional encyclopedias wouldn't have. You probably don't know but I have been expanding the Clint Eastwood article, so it is not as if I am stuck in obscuredom all the time! This article gets 6,000 odd hits a day so in a week it will have been viewed by 42,000 people. But sticking to fully expanding other articles which may get a lot of hits but don't interest me, paid editing might get me to do it... TThis is the reason though why we still have truck loads of stubs about world topics outside the "popular" zone because there just arne't enough people interested in them to expand them. To date wikipedia has relied on the contributions of a few individuals who are interested in seemingly obscure countries and topics and they do the brunt of the work in expansion, but for it to all be a big success, quality, we really need more numbers. BUt I am in the frame of mind that if the articles which get a lot of traffic and are cared for by a lot of people then they don't need me hanging on to them and I should be doing my best to try to even up coverage elsewhere... I just try to give wikipedia information about parts of the world they otherwise would not know about, as much as for myself than anybody else. I personally would like to know more about rural counties in say Tibet or Ghana or something than reading about some all-star American baseball pitcher or sitcom star... Yeah its balancing what is personally fun to you and what interest you and doing it in a way which maximises interest and benefit to others. Everybody is different, so it is not always easy to assess what or what not is useful to others, but I have actually had many emails from people in places like Nepal, Guatemala, Slovenia and all over the world who have said they are grateful for my work on their part of the world which has given them a chance to expand on what I have started so even if the majority of readers couldn't give a damn about Likir Monastery for instance, I am sure that some people somewhere who are going to northern Indian on a trip or are interested in Tibetan Buddhism will be very grateful to have an article about it or just those who like browsing and learning about any topic!. The problem is catering for all interests and possibilities and maintaining quality. Personally from my viewpoint I think the work I do adds to the interest and depth of wikipedia even if some of them seem very obscure. If there is a particular article you'd like to see expanded on a core topic like a major river etc please let me know, I'll be glad to help! I'd be happy to help you expand some articles on earth science/geology etc, it is a shame there aren't more interested in it because these are the real topics we should be covering!! Just let me know if you want an article expanded, as long as it isn't mathemetical/physics oriented as although I got A grades in school about them, they give me a headache! Earth science, geology, astronomy and ecology are subjects I am highly interested in. Himalayan 12:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You in the states I gather? Get some sleep!! Its lunch time here! Best regards. Himalayan 12:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

86.96.226.89

Please don't block addresses such as 86.96.226.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which originate in the United Arab Emirates; the whole country is funneled through just a few IP addresses. Instead, unless it is totally out of hand, monitor anonymous edits and revert them. This one is an address used by Emirates Telecommunications Corporation, but there is also another provider. Fred Talk 15:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've also unblocked 86.96.227.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for the same reason. Please do a whois on addresses before you block them. This one is also Emirates which uses 86.96.226.0 - 86.96.239.255. Fred Talk 12:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Foreign language article

Hi there. What's the best way to deal with a foreign language article that does not exist in its foreign language-wiki? In this case a new article about the library of Alexandria was created in the Albanian language on English-wikipedia. Albanian-wikipedia does not have such an article. I firstly tagged it with CSD#A2, but had to revert my edit after I found out that there is no corresponding article in Albania-wikipedia. Amsaim (talk) 11:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Favonian answered your question by re-tagging it as A10, which is often the case, just takes some time to Google-translate and locate the WP article. If A10 doesn't apply and there is no refs, then it might be A7 (notability) or G12 (copyright) or might be not a CSD case at all, if Google suggests sufficient notability and not a copy/paste job. Materialscientist (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Amsaim (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi. I just wanted to say thanks for blocking the user's I've reported at WP:AIV so quickly. I don't even have time to refresh the page and they're gone. Thanks! -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 12:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Suvarnadurg

You were right: [1], [2]. Ironholds accidentally deleted it. Ucucha 13:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, for digging out the diffs. I don't think Ironholds intentionally deleted that (note the spatial difference between the edits. Weird things happen often at T:TDYK page (kind of software glitched due to edit collisions) and we should watch out. Materialscientist (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I said "accidentally". Yes, it happens more often; a good argument in favor of subpages, I think. Ucucha 17:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

One of your images

I was wondering if you could make an edit for me. I am administrator on Commons trying to clean up some duplicate files. There are two versions of your red-billed leiothrix on Commons Commons:File:Soushityo.JPG and Commons:File:Leiothrix lutea -Tsukuba -Japan-8.jpg. One of our bots has replaced all the uses of Commons:File:Soushityo.JPG with more correctly named Commons:File:Leiothrix lutea -Tsukuba -Japan-8.jpg with the exception of your en user page: User:Materialscientist. As your user page is protected I can not edit it so if you would please perform this edit for me I can then delete Commons:File:Soushityo.JPG so that we only have one version of your file on Commons. Thanks. --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Somehow they multiply :-) I would delete them all bar one (please don't worry, I'll restore my userpage). Materialscientist (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have deleted Commons:File:Soushityo.JPG, so your image is now only at Commons:File:Leiothrix lutea -Tsukuba -Japan-8.jpg. Thanks.--Captain-tucker (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Bad idear

Re: "01:18, 8 January 2010 Materialscientist (talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:SMcCandlish/Sandbox" ‎ (G8: Redirect to a deleted or non-existent page)"

This is not at all a good reason to delete a User:Username/Sandbox[foo] page, G8 notwithstanding. The redirect may have been a temporary test (and on sandbox pages "temporary" can sometimes mean "for 5 months"). A delete like that may clobber several years of test editing, some of which the user may still need access to (I've been known to revert to sandboxes many months old because there was something I needed to test again under known conditions). In this particular case, I don't need the page back (I had it and several other sandboxes of mine speedied not all that long ago), but I would have waxed sorely pissed if this had been deleted last year on the basis of G8. :-) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the note, but please explain your point. Any redirect can contain an ample article behind it, in the history, but that one did not. That said, blunders do happen in deletion, but any admin can revert them right away. Materialscientist (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

76.123.99.101

Apologies, the AIV report was a mistake. He has violated 3RR, though. Connormah (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

POTD 2010-01-19

Hi Materialscientist! Further to this edit and this edit, I was not confused. The template that had been tampered with by Microxsolutions was {{POTD/2010-01-19}}. What took me to it is that I have {{Pic of the day}} on my user page. Seeing no picture, and instead seeing an external link to the other user’s company website, is what twigged me that something was amiss. When I went to {{POTD/2010-01-19}}, it was clearly tampered with as both its template page and edit history showed.

When I reverted the edit, the problem was resolved.

Now, where I may have been mistaken is that the template accessed by {{Pic of the day}} and by the Main Page may not be the same one. Is that the case? And, if so, should I have filed a report with WP:VP/T instead of WP:ERRORS? What do you think? I would appreciate your thoughts since they’ll give me a better understanding of the various dimensions to this issue. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 01:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I am still mulling this point. {{POTD}} is a part of {{Pic of the day}} (both are for admin-only editing) and is linked to a limited number of userpages only. The proper page to raise this issue could be Template talk:Pic of the day or/and Template talk:POTD. Materialscientist (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks MS. I always appreciate hearing from you. By the way, where are your archives? — SpikeToronto 03:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK, AIV and CSD take pretty much of my time from science (that is WP:GAN, WP:FAC, WP:ELEMENTS, WP:PHYS, and WP:CHEM - I used to spend more time there). I still patrol and sometimes brush up 1000+ of science-related articles. Materialscientist (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The motivation for following up on this POTD stuff was that there were two other Administrators that posted on WP:ERRORS whose responses seemed at odds with my understanding of the situation. So, in addition to posting the above comment here on your talk page, I also posted on both of those Administrators’ talk pages. You might be interested in the one chap’s response here. Thanks again! — SpikeToronto 04:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing?

Hello MS, I think this guy → Scania N113 (talk · contribs) ←, reeks of persistent long term disruptive editing... a recent look at his page edit history reveals a problematic IP → 218.188.3.66 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) ←, who has been on my radar for quite some time now. Scania's latest edit is kind of funny too... doesn't look like a newbie to me at all. Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 03:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It is likely (one of) his IP addresses, but the IP is shared, thus can't tell much about WP experience. Editing unlogged is not forbidden, as long as it is not used to bring "two votes" to one story. Yes, we better keep an eye on them, but exercise patience - WP is cumbersome for beginners and many lose temper. Materialscientist (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Not when he has been BLOCKED on two separate occasions whilst later showing my warning template to him. Also, his numerous edits over and over again at/about St. Paul's Co-educational College tells me that he's most likely using a fixed IP. Correct me if I'm wrong but my bet is that CU will definitely confirm this if need be. Whatever it is, my hunch is that this is most likely a DUCK~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 04:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly speaking, St. Paul's Co-educational College is my school, and it is reasonable for me to use one of the computers in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scania N113 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, note this edit entry by him, it's no different from challenging us to do something to stop him. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 04:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I won't think so much about this matter. If they can bring referenced and NPOV material to wikipedia - fine (preferably without disturbing others), i.e., I would focus on their article edits. Materialscientist (talk) 04:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

But not when his claimed figures goes against the officially published ones on the article page of Airbus A340, this was what led to the edit warring by him. The other regular editors had done what they could to provide the reference tags to support the facts so if he so much as twitches any of those without providing a valid source to back his claim, I'm going to get someone to blow him right to mars. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 04:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Cripes~! I don't know why I even said that... must've been the movie I watched last night... --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 04:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I watched that too (earlier though). Materialscientist (talk) 04:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

So is it safe to assume that you'll be the firer? To blow him right to mars, that is. What the heck... too much wasted time spent shadow boxing here, I'd better get back to improve them aviation/military article pages instead. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 05:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Definitely. I stick to positive emotions, and much prefer thinking about a good movie than about a user I confronted :-). Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 05:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

New message to appear at top???

Just curious, is there a rule against this? I mean, we all have the same display layout here on WP, right? So why is this guy so special? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 09:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know any rules prohibiting that. Some users (admins too) section their talk and request to post in a dedicated section. Materialscientist (talk) 09:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, how much you wanna bet with me that this guy is going back to mischief once his block expires in 3 hours time? >:) --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 09:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Dave, I never worried about him, but start worrying about you :-) I watch their talk and will put airbus on my watchlist too, take it easy, there is plenty of work around, and even if he cripples some article, this would be minute and quickly fixable contribution. Materialscientist (talk) 09:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry but please hold your horses and watch, because I know what I'm doing. It's him you should be watching out for, really. And... would it be too much to ask of you to caution him against such, as it might potentially lead to another round of edit warring by him again. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 05:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I am so sorry that I made you think that I am trying to destroy Wikipedia. Actually no, I am not. I am just making real edits. Actually, when I knew that my edits on the page "Pillar of Shame" are wrong, I quickly stopped that and created a new page on a new topic. However, the reason for me to write on your talk pages is that you have never accepted my opinions.

RBI

I don't think I'm in any position to tell you how to do your job but that was really a good block and note also that I subscribe to WP:RBI. Cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 13:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• And should I take this to ANI? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 13:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry to trouble you again but the BLOCKED editor Scania N113 (talk · contribs) is probably back again... → Travel.airbus388 (talk · contribs) ←. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 12:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

  I have to go off-line now. I've blocked that account and do not worry about what they write on their talk. There is a clear sign of trolling, but it doesn't bother me. Article editing is primary. Materialscientist (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Your photographs

I just happened to browse by your profile and noticed your photographs... They're BEAUTIFUL!! Keep up the great work and also on Wikipedia.. Thanks for being a good admin... --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

About A340 Again

Ok, I told you all that even the Airbus official page says so (please refer to my link posted). Also there are some more reliable websites, such as http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/a340-200/. With this kind of support, why can I not make those edits? Scania N113 (talk) 09:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This says 360. The link above is not official Airbus site. Materialscientist (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, please follow this link then: http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a330a340/a340-200. After you reached there, scroll down and you will see a graph. Place your pointer at A340-200 WITHOUT PRESSING IT, and you would see some figures appearing saying that there are 240 seats. Also, please tell Dave1185 to use a better attitude to discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scania N113 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

So now I showed you a real proof, and you denied it. Then how can you show that your sources are reliable then? Then I can say that what you guys insist are inaccurate as well. Please be more sincere if you all really want to discuss. I am prepared, but you are not.Scania N113 (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnsley fern

Hello Materialscientist and thanks for the DYK link!! I got a message that the Barnsley fern was on the Did you know page, but I am not seeing it though. Is this date (21 jan) already in the past for me? I thought if I clicked on the main page I would see it. Of course I want to tell my mother about this, but it would be great if she could see it too! DSP-user (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Great hook and the article. It featured on the main page for 6 hours and now you can find it here. Tomorrow, we'll get stats, how many people watched it. Materialscientist (talk) 12:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment and the link. That is totally cool, and even though my Mom didn't get to see it (neither did I) "Live" on the homepage, it looks great in that link and she was thrilled. And of course so am I! DSP-user (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

Actually I found that the so called consensus is really meaningless because all of you know each other and you are finding unreasonable reasons to turn down my edits. Also, you were trying to find excuses to block me. If this is the case, does that mean I can find some people I know to support my edits? Scania N113 (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, I do not know why you can deny my reliabe edits even it is coming from an official website. So, it means that I can not admit your opinion too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scania N113 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, who on the world says so? The graph is still made by Airbus, is it not? If this is the case, I would say that the graph is more accurate than words. Please do not twist the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scania N113 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK Query

Hi! I see that you're fairly heavily involved with moving hooks from the DYK Nominations page to the Prep areas. I've had a hook for the article History of The Byrds (created on January 16) approved since January 18 but it hasn't been moved to the prep area. I believe I'm right in saying that I'm not supposed to move it myself but should wait for another user to do so. Obviously, as of today (January 21), the article is five days old and I'm just wondering when it's going to appear on the DYK section of the front page? Additionally, there are also other outstanding DYK hooks from the same day that have been approved but not used. Basically, I just want to make sure that I've done everything right and that I shouldn't be moving my hook from the nominations page to the prep area myself. Thanks. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Everything is going normal. The number of nominations is such that it is not possible, at the moment, to feature most hooks 5 days after nomination - some do, but most wait a bit longer. Materialscientist (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

114.76.51.27

Just so you know (since you asked me to keep you posted), 114.76.51.27 (who is one and the same as 58.110.110.131, whom you blocked, and Shafidislam) is again at it again vandalizing Esmé Squalor, having blanked the entire article and later a section today. The previous thread discussing this has been archived I know not where. — the Man in Question (in question) 23:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked that IP. The vandalism is relatively infrequent, and so far it was easier to deal with the users. If it escalates, semiprotection would be an option. Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Versageek

Could you possibly semi-protect this page, due to the recent outbreak of harassment from the new accounts/IPs, for a couple hours/one day? I have a request at RFPP, but nobody has seemed to see it yet. Thanks. Connormah (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I was going to, but while I was blocking the attackers, user:Willking1979 has done that :) Materialscientist (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed. Thanks for your help. Connormah (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Dell Schanze

Is a link linking jail booking details an appropriate external link for Dell Schanze? There's a user who insists that it is, and there have been a lot of IPs recently that have been trying to add in some sort of forum blog link lately. Not sure whether the jail book link is appropriate (I'm thinking not, but I want to double check) and I'm wondering if I should request semi-protection. -WarthogDemon 02:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are asking about this link. I'm not an expert on this topic, but this link seems WP:RS to me and thus should be appropriate (why not ?). I would rather have it as in-lined reference than a loose "external link" though. The changes to that article seem to originate from one editor (IP 208.66.39.66 and Ldsfaithfighter2009) thus no clear need for semi-protection. Their edits don't appear as blatant vandalism, and I would talk to them. Many new editors don't know or understand the WP policies on blog links and BLP. Materialscientist (talk) 02:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Had a feeling I was overreacting a bit, so I'm glad I double-checked. Cheers. :) -WarthogDemon 02:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Dielectric

☺

Thanks for your edit for the introduction. I just needed another fresh "eye" to do some re-writing - so then I can do some re-writing of that - and so on. Anyway, I can go back and work on it. Also, I really appreciate what you did with that image file. That is amazing that it only takes a second. I will look into getting that software, so I can do stuff like that myself. As per your reply - to tell you the truth I didn't think you had any calm blocks of time, at Wikipedia. But, I am glad that you do. I am sure it gives you a chance to work on what you want to work on.

☸

Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I read the introduction to the article (Dielectric) and it is pretty good the way you wrote it. It seems acceptable to me as it is. So, once again, you spontaneously wrote well. A spontaneous, contemporaneous, composition. Also, in regards to unrelated news except for the previous email, I downloaded GIMP - which means happy editing days for me ahead. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What I meant to say in the last entry was that I had read, once again, the intro to the article. That is what gave me a different perspective. Now on to other matters:

What is crystallographic orientation when used in the following context? ->

"For a given solid, except for surface irregularities, such as steps and defects, surface reactivity is often solely determined by its crystallographic orientation. At a reduced size, however, particularly when the characteristic length scale enters the nanometer regime, the situation can change considerably from that of the bulk. For example, in nature, Au is the most stable metal, yet a Au nanoparticle becomes chemically reactive (when the size is ≈3 nm) and can catalyze the oxidation of CO."

I don't see anything in Wikipedia that actually describes this, although I may have missed it. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 06:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Queue 2

The current image in queue 2 is a graph that at this resolution looks just like a blue and red field with some unreadable text around at it. Wouldn't it be better to replace it with a more informative image? Ucucha 07:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, many lead images don't look well as thumbs, but only show something to stimulate clicking the image, and this is one of those. Suggestions ? Materialscientist (talk) 07:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we often have images as bad as this one. What I'd suggest doing is finding a suitable hook with an image in the suggestions page and moving this one back to the prep area. Ucucha 11:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

We have bad ratio of lead/non-lead hooks at T:TDYK (at least at the bottom of the page) - pictured ones are either from articles too short or incomplete. This hook is reasonably interesting. Right now, I am struggling to fill up two preps and maybe will stop unfinished - too many hooks at the bottom of T:TDYK are rather questionable and I can't decide for sure on those topics (i.e. I would just reject some). Materialscientist (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, better to focus on that then. I'd help confirming hooks but don't have much time now, as I'm flying back to America tomorrow. Ucucha 11:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries - 6 queues are filled up (+I have 1.5 preps ready on my PC) - by far no emergency, used to be much much worse in 2009. Materialscientist (talk) 11:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK

Thanks for the note on Brixton Mosque. I'm not really sure of the process, but you might want to consider Anwar al-Awlaki for that page. He has been very much in the news of late for obvious reasons, and I think the article is quite good (and has been the basis it would seem for much of the press on him of late).--Epeefleche (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand - that article is neither new nor was it 5x expanded recently. Materialscientist (talk) 10:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry -- not familiar w/the criteria. It was greatly expanded since the Fort Hood Shooting (probably 10x at least), but that may not qualify as "recently".--Epeefleche (talk) 12:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Swap

So, why? Gatoclass (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

More interesting (IMHO) lead → peak viewing time. Prep2 will go to the 6am UTC time, which is worst viewed. Not crucial. Materialscientist (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a number of political noms at the bottom which I thought to promote, but would rather demote. Help needed with reviewing. Materialscientist (talk) 11:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh. I thought maybe you'd noticed the tag is dicey :) I only noticed it myself late in the piece, and thought of changing it, but then decided to do it later. Gatoclass (talk) 13:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Autoblocked user

I've declined to lift the autoblock at User_talk:119.236.2.105. This could serve as a data point on any continuing sock issues regarding Scania N113. EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Just to let you to know, I don't consider this case a "vandal war", but rather see a disturbed user who needs guidance. Materialscientist (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Mountain Parkway Byway/Discusions from 1-16-2010 to 10-22-2010

Can you undelete Talk:Mountain Parkway Byway/Discusions from 1-16-2010 to 10-22-2010? User:SchoolcraftT screwed up trying to archive Talk:Mountain Parkway Byway and all of the comments from the talk page were in a revision of that page. The page you deleted really actually should be put back at Talk:Mountain Parkway Byway, replacing that page. Thanks! Brian Powell (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Restored and moved. Let me know if I missed something. Materialscientist (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks for your help. Brian Powell (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Italian Argentines

MaterialScientist:

Please, slow down!

You're reverting my having RESTORED categories mass-deleted by a disprutive user, Hubschrauber729 ! Deleting the categories will force me to spend hours putting them back!

This user was admonished not to delete the subject bios' Italian ethnicity category links without seeking consensus. If you systemitically revert the edits, you will also be undoing other fixes, as well, in numerous cases. Most of those categories had been attached to the articles in question for years, and have never been disputed (they wouldn't be, as these are all very easily-corroborated Italian names, and their real names). The user's just pettifogging the articles to disrupt, knowing it takes hours to revert (it's hundreds of articles).

Hubschrauber couldn't care less about "unsupported categories," as he tried to push an Austrian designation on the Michael Klukowski article with no refs, and no consensus (he was ultimately overriden).

If ANYONE doubts the subjects' Italian heritage, they must talk it over in the discussion page, and provide refs to the contrary (it would never happen, though, since these are all Italian surnames).

Please, reconsider, and let's talk if you still have lingering doubts on this, alright? Ask Alexf and Marek69, as they're both familiar with the problem.

Kindly,

Sherlock4000 (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

MaterialScientist:

Exactly, there should be consensus, which is what you should be tellng the user who deleted the cats to begin with (he speed-deleted them with no consensus). These people are all Argentines, where half the population is of primarily Italian descent (I'm not counting those with Spanish, or Slavic last nemas, but with mothers of Italian heritage, for instance, and I checked for stage names, of course). The fact is, if you go theorugh Brazilian, Mexican, or American bios, they almost all have ethnicity category links, and without citations. Strictly speaking, only a blood test can prove ancestry. of course.

You cited Juan de Dios Filiberto, the tango composer. The article clearly states he was born to an Italian man, hardly news in early 20th century Argentina. Along with their 'junior partners', the Spaniard-Argentines, Italian immigrants practically built that country (such as it is).

If anyone honestly doubted the category on those (there on the articles from the beginning, in most cases), they should, as you pointed out, bring it up on the talk page. Otherwise, all the myriad this-hyphen-that ethnicity categories should be deleted (Jewish-Mexicans, German-Brazilians, Lebanese-Chileans, or what have you), since most of those bios also rely on surname extraction.

Please consider reverting your reverts. The burden was on Hubschrauber729 to explain why he needed to disrupt articles no reader had ever disputed (including many Italian-language readers). Otherwise, its selective enforcement, as I mentioned.

Thanks again, Sherlock4000 (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

MaterialScientist:

Only if you'd care to go through EVERY bio with an ethnicity tag, and find which ones are based on "reliable sources " (I could say I'm a descendant of Godfrey de Bouillon (the Defender of the Holy Grail) in a newspaper article, and have that appear as a ref, if I were famous - but it wouldn't be verifiable, now wouldn't it!).

All these people are Italian, no Italian would seriously dispute it, and everyone was happy until this individual speed-deleted them. Why should he get the last word, when he has no idea or interesr on this at all, and why Italians? I don't go into Austrian bios and mess with idiotic points, nor do almost all wikipedians! He deleted without consensus, and you should perhaps demand answers from him.

Cordially, Sherlock4000 (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Lee Baker

You deleted some minutes back. The article's back. The author is vandalising too... ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 13:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw that, but suggest letting the user write - it takes some time to learn writing WP articles and deleting them within minutes only alienates new contributors. Old version was a copyvio, new one (its start) seems different. (I haven't check Google on the notability of the subjects - this could be an issue) Materialscientist (talk) 13:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Good call. C.u ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 13:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

File redirects

To the best of my knowledge, these shouldn't be deleted. Is there any guideline somewhere that advises doing so>? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

There could be uses of the image off-wiki, which would now link to non-existent pages. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Materialscientist. You have new messages at Template_talk:Did_you_know.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Carbon Nanotubes

Could you please stop removing the stuff regarding carbon nanotubes min thikness ? The theory is about FREE STANDING nanotubes grown from FREE STANDING catalysts. The thinner experimental nanotubes are grown inside nano-porous templatess so the problem is completely different. It is a different problem. Please read the following papers. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.195502 http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2730730 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auro69 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll read the papers tomorrow, but right now I can tell that I myself worked with free-standing nanotubes grown on free standing catalyst which are thinner than 1.0 nm (0.76 nm for example, the 6,5 tube). Experiment trumps theory and the latter should not dominate the article on such a topic as carbon nanotube. Materialscientist (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

How can you say that the "latter dominate the an article on such a topic.". How can you say that 4 lines of thermodynamic theory of catalyst dominate a page thousands of lines long ? Are you serious ?

Are they made with Fe or FeMo catalysts ? Is the catalyst encapsulated in a pore ? You should read that paper as they try to deal with thermodynamic equilibrium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.82.240 (talk) 07:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

We can explain things better if this is a source of misunderstanding. You can not just remove text just because you disagree with it. The technique is quite standard in dealing with deactivation and pollution of tiny catalysts. I urge you to refresh your thermodynamics skills before chopping other contributions. What about this ?

Thermodynamic properties of the catalyst can affect the growth of nanotubes. While reducing the size of the catalyst, the contributions of the various Gibbs Free energies (bulk-, surface- and excess tension- free energies) can induce phase transitions causing deactivation of the catalyst [CITE GIBBS, CAHN 1980, LARCHE-CAHN 1981]. In the case of Fe and Fe/Mo catalysts, a recent thermodynamic model was developed to predict the minimum radius of a SW nanotube which is in thermodynamic equilibrium with the metallic cluster. The dimension indicates the minimum size of a SW nanotube growable without a template or a nanoporous substrate. Curtarolo et al. proved that a size-dependend reduced solubility of C in the transition metal catalysts induces a disorder-order transition causing deactivation. Within this theory, the minimum diameter of an infinitely-long SWNT that could be produced in thermodynamic equilibrium with Fe and Fe-Mo catalysts is estimated to be around 0.9nm (Fe-Mo) and 1.0nm (Fe). [CITE Fe/Mo]. Smaller nanotubes can still be grown without achieving thermodynamic equilibrium with the catalyst, but this would affect their lenght. The theory does not contradict reports of thinner nanotubes as they are grown within constrained templates or with confined nanocatalysts where the excess surface free energy balance is reduced with respect to the free standing catalysts [PUT EXPERIMENTAL REFS ABOVE]. In addition to adhesion and support for the growth, confining the catalysts within pores has thermodynamic advantages. The reduced interfacial zeolite-catalyst surface energy limits the Young-Laplace stress inside the particle [REF STONEHAM 80s] and prevents the divergence of the excess surface tension free energy. The phenomenon reduces the size at which the metal catalyst undergoes the disorder-order transition [HARUTYUNYAN PRL and review]. Similarly, accurate treatment of the support can prevent coarsening [NL OTSWALD RIPENING+ link to ripening in wikipedia] between catalysts with different chemical potentials which go like 1/R [CITE CAHN-small-crystal-thermodynamics 1981].

NOTE TO MS: we can remove the details of the 1/R deactivation is very tricky and not appreciated by you. Deactivation goes like 1/R with R the radius of the catalyst. The disorder-order transition in the catalyst is from a random mixture of Fe+C (catalytically active) to an ordered cementite state Fe3C (catalytically non active). The threshold depends on size AND on interfacial energy with the support (that`s the reason you can make smaller NTs but not in the grand canonical ensemble = not very long).

CoMoCat synthesis (Co-Mo catalyst) results in nanotubes with average diameter below 1 nm (typically about 0.9 nm, as I remember); tweaking the synthesis may shift towards thinner tubes so that the (6,5) tube becomes dominant in PL maps. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not in contrast with the theory of SWNTs grown in thermodynamic equilibrium, a priori with unlimited lenght. CoMo catalysts are used at higher temperature than FeMo (Mo poor), and are similar to FeMo (Mo rich). Harutyunyan identifies the crossover between Mo-poor and Mo-rich around the eutectic point of FeMo (~20%), while the theory of Curtarolo-Bolton predicts the shifts of eutecticity in small particles and shifts the ranges, accordingly. For eutectic shift, look at the GT+J phenomenon in http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.75.205426 At the higher temperatures used with CoMo clusters, the surface tension component of the free energy decreases its importance and the induced Young-Laplace pressure "has harder time" to compete against vibrational entropy stabilization of the viscous state of the catalyst. Something similar happens for Ni-C mixtures and for PdCo/PtCo catalysts used in mufflers. Please provide a reference for the "thinner tubes 6,5" grown in a way that "trumps" the theory. Now let`s switch to practicality. If you want to improve my paragraph to make it more simple and readable, feel free to work on the text that I wrote above, and I`ll add references later. If you delete my contribution tout-cour, because it does not satisfy your "personal" understanding of the matter, then you are acting against the open-wisdom mission of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.77.4.43 (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

NOTE TO MS: Hi Materialscientist, could you please respond to my previous question? As I intend to add my contribution to wikipedia regarding the carbon nanotube thickness, I would prefer avoid your censorious sword on my contribution based on arguments that are not scientifically discussed. Please provide a reference for the "thinner tubes 6,5" grown in a way that "trumps" the theory. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.82.240 (talk) 09:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Mason

In this edit, I think it should link to masonry, which is building with bricks or stones, not Freemasonry, which is a social club that uses bricklaying only in its symbolism, not to build anything. If he really was a Freemason, then 1. capitalize "mason" 2. the word "profession" needs some explanation, since Freemasonry is not a paid activity except perhaps among its uppermost leaders 3. the article refers to an obituary in German that says he learned "Maurerhandwerk", which Google translates as "bricklaying" not Freemasonry. Art LaPella (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you indeed. Fixed. No doubt, mason there referred to brickwork. Materialscientist (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Correcting the caption for bixi (tortoise) in Template:Did_you_know/Queue

Hello! I see that you've chosen a different - better, I think - image when moving the DYK nomination for bixi (tortoise) to Template:Did_you_know/Queue. I am glad to see that. However, the hook still says "(contemporary example pictured)", even thought this particular statue is from 1715. Could you kindly reword this to something like "(later example pictured)", which would be more factually correct? This all is no big deal, of course. Vmenkov (talk) 10:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Changed. Nice article. Materialscientist (talk) 10:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Architecture in Sikkim

Hi! You have changed an img in this draft article im my user sand box User:Nvvchar/Sandbox 4. Thanks. Do you feel that the structure of the artcile with Himalayan Architecture would be acceptable to post on DYK? By the way, it was very hard to find a suitable hook for the Buddhism in Himachal Pradesh Article. It took three days to find one. I could not strengthen on the two references for the first hook. Thanks for your variuos suggestions. --Nvvchar (talk) 13:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

A quick answer (sorry, no time for a better one) - I changed that image to a Commons image because I was deleting it at en.wiki; I haven't read the article. Visually it looks good, but File:Eight great stupas.svg seems garbled on my PC in thumb view. Can't tell about the structure right now. I understand the difficulty in finding a hook for Buddhism in Himachal Pradesh; one solution could be to find better rerence for the numbers, another one could be minor rephrasing of alts1-3. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Your Page Deletion Declinations

Hello, upon rechecking to see if two of my proposed pages requested for deletion were in fact deleted, I found my proposed deletion tag removed by yourself, with the comment: (decline CSD: deletion of this page is irrelevant to username). The usernames involved with my two "sockpuppet" accounts are of very personal information to me, and I do not want to see such information available to the public eye. I had created the accounts three years ago in an ignorant attempt to change my username, and was indefinitely blocked. From your point of view, the deletion of the page may be irrelevant to my username Stevenstone93, but to me, it really makes a difference. I am packing up from Wikipedia and I am on my last legs to leave the foundation, and I do not want to see personal information relating to my personal life visible to the public. I sincerely hope you understand my viewpoint, and will consider the deletion the two pages in question. I will place the tags on the two pages once more. I look forward to your reply. Best Regards, --Steven Stone (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• If the two usernames had actually made any malicious edits, it might have been different. But since neither had done any edits worth mentioning (apart from this rudeness), I have decided to accept the delete requests. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 19:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, sir, for taking care of this for me. I was unaware of "the rudeness" in question as it happened so long ago. We all learn from the application of maturity and education over time. I will erase the two Usernames as you have written in your post, RHaworth, as posting the names here in public view will defeat the purpose of removing the two accounts. Once again, thanks. --Steven Stone (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Protect Bosnian Royal Family

Edit war zone. IconicBigBen (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

And you are one of the warring parties. Eeekster (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

He is a sockpuppet of User:Surtsicna/Elizabeth_of_Serbia who had created all the fuss about this page and had banned the author of this page. Both are single-purpose accounts. Surtsicna created: Stephen_I,_Ban_of_Bosnia based on one book by two co-authors, to which he is likely to be one of the co-authors (as soon as this appeared on the article Talk page, this guy cleared all of the contents and minor-edited so to prevent undo). This is clearly Serbian nationalist agenda, backed by a few English editors such as EdJohnston, zzuuzz and FisherQueen. Serbs and English, it's an ages old story in the Balkans. Churchill and Draza Mihajlovic (Nazi collaborator). John Major and Milosevic. Brown and Tadic... Etc. Now Surtsicna as a sockpuppet "IconicBigBen" reports every single user who has a differing opinion to administration as sockpuppets, and his English-only admin buddies go overboard to protect his agenda. We are mostly friends from Europe and US, not sockpuppets from open proxies as zzuuzz allegged, again without proof. Now he even keeps on adding Speedy Deletion tags, on a long and well resourced and well written article. What a shame to allow a "unholy coalition" like this to go on unpunished. 74.117.59.11 (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Socktastic. I've taken the time to annotate in the block log which open proxy made the above edit. It can easily be checked, as can the others. It looks like everyone involved in this bollocks is already banned as a sock of someone or other. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Very well.

My edits toward the article are in no way supporting nationialism, three people agree that this is a hoax. The situlation has been silenced and it seems safe to re-add the template without sparking another edit war. Unless you have any reasons why I shouldn't re add it then I am all ears. IconicBigBen (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

citation bot

can't it be made to at least spit out a usable output that can be put into the text? Nergaal (talk) 03:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured article

I think you should put back the FAOL template, because it is a featured article in Romanian Wikipedia [3]. Thank you. Goldenphoenix2007 (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Technically, we can put {{FAOL|Romanian|ro:Iod}}, but I think it is wrong as it says "improve this article by looking at Romanian one", which are incomparable. Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK White Dacha

Dear Materialscientist - I have added refs and support for Tolstoy's and others visits. Template_talk:Did_you_know#White Dacha. Not sure about your "Sigh" though. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC))

Added extra source - Olga Knipper, Memoir, in Benedetti, Dear Writer, Dear Actress, 37, 270. -Is it OK now? (Msrasnw (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC))

Suvarnadurg

Please use my ALT1 version, which you and Nvchar both approved, instead of the original version, for reasons that would be obvious to a native-born English speaker. Art LaPella (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

My mechanical error during copying. Corrected with apologies. Materialscientist (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox fluorine

Hey Materialscientist. Regarding this edit, I thought all element names were traditionally lowercase. Is fluorine an exception? I think all of the other infoboxen use the same capitalization pattern, so this particular move struck me as odd. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It is hopefully in order now. (I was quick-fixing the edit button and simply haven't looked at capitalization at other elements). Materialscientist (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

thanks for blocking User:MaximusFood! At least they can't make any more mess- would you be so kind as to delete all the idiotic redirects he created? Cheers, HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 03:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

What to do about the edit war about Italian surnames

Hello Materialscientist. There is a case open at WP:AN3#User:Hubschrauber729 reported by User:Sherlock4000 (Result: Waiting for feedback) about assigning people to categories based only their apparently-Italian surnames. A run of wikistalk.py on the two named editors gives the following result. That suggests a vast number of reverts by both parties across a range of articles. I believe that Special:Contributions/76.91.189.163 is also a participant in the edit war. You've blocked him per a report at report at ANI in Archive 522, but the IP resumed his revert campaign after the block expired. I was thinking of proposing an editing restriction at AN on these three editors that would last for 90 days, preventing them from doing any Italian-surname reverts. They could resume only if consensus was found in their favor at an RFC in favor of one or the other position. I would only propose this if I thought at least one other admin would support. What do you think? EdJohnston (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the DYK nomination!

Thanks so much Materialscientist for sponsoring the Economy of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture article I wrote for DYK inclusion on 25 January 2010. It meant a lot to me - I have slaved on that project for months, and I finally am bringing them up to where they are presentable, and this recognition is deeply appreciated. When I first stumbled on the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture article last October, it was a very sorry mess. Here, if you want, you can compare the old version dated 29 October 2009 to today's version. I had not really done much editing in Wikipedia - just a bit of fixing typo errors here and there - but I stumbled on this article while trying to track down the roots of where the Ancient Mycenaean civilization came from. For some reason this article called to me. I didn't know jack about the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture before that day, but it just reached out and grabbed my attention so strongly I couldn't resist. In a way, it was a perfect article for a beginner editor like me to work on - there was only one other editor involved with it, and he was a native Romanian speaker who was having trouble writing in English (as you can tell if you look at that older version), and welcomed my help. It allowed me to dig in and edit away to my heart's content without worrying about a bunch of hyper-critical UberEditors looking over my shoulder and undoing my mistakes - which I made plenty of. Instead, I figured out how to undo them myself. And it was a BIG article, so it really took up my best efforts for a long time. It still does - I'm nowhere near finished with this yet. These past months I feel as if I've come through a similar experience to learning a new highly-technical job on the seat of my pants. A certain point finally came when I screwed up enough courage to finally bite the bullet and just whack away at that article - getting rid of stuff that didn't belong, creating new stuff on my own, and then the ultimate decision to subdivide it into smaller related articles. At that point I feel like I was attending a birth of a new baby - the labor pains went on for about a week, and then I suddenly was the proud father of a dozen new sub-articles, one of which just today was featured on the DYK thanks to you. This whole process has been a fantastic experience for me. Thanks for your part you played in this. --Saukkomies ^talk 06:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please help with CSD F8

The now commons category is severely backlogged 7000+10000+ please help with the deletes.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 08:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you....

For protecting Marin Cilic page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaganjac (talk • contribs)

Cat delete

Hi there. Could you pls delete this category? I created that category but a typo crept itself into the title and so I created a new cat with the correct name. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 13:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked user

Did you happen to notice that the user you blocked User:Dendrilopis is probaby also Hendrixfan24? While Denrilopis posted the AIDS content to the Ledger page, which was reverted within a minute, an IP shows up on the Ledger talk page 1/2 hour after the content was reverted to say the article says that, and then a few hours later Hendrixfan24 went to the Ledger talk page to claim that the article still contained the AIDS content - which had not been returned. It seemed fairly suspicious to me and I marked both user pages with suspected sock puppets. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Computer-Bismarck-screen.jpg

Hi, an image (File:Computer-Bismarck-screen.jpg) I uploaded back in July 2009 was recently deleted. I first uploaded it as a non-free image, but soon discovered that the original copyright holder was bought by Ubisoft. I then switched it to a free image under {{Attribution-Ubisoft}}. However, it was recently deleted from Commons and then removed from its article: Computer Bismarck.

I'm not even going to trying to understand the whole Ubisoft attribution on Commons right now and was hoping you could restore the image to its first version on Wikipedia so I can add it back to the article as a non-free image. Let me know if this is possible. Thanks. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC))

"Deletion and restoration of files temporarily disabled during maintenance.". I'll try later. Materialscientist (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Restored. Materialscientist (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate it. Thanks. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC))

ANI Thread About You

This is a courtesy notification about an ANI thread regarding you. Please see here for that thread. Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Alexander Pentland

The lost ALT problem happened again: see this and Template:Did you know/Queue/4. In addition to a MOS:NUM rule, it sounds as if the bullets weren't injured. I considered fixing it myself, but see B3. Art LaPella (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Corrected. Hm .. this starts worrying me. Off course you can correct my prep/queue edits, but I shouldn't let such thing happen. Materialscientist (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. You will often find my name in the prep/queue edit history. But I think that B3 was intended to prevent me from directly substituting my previously submitted ALT version. Art LaPella (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Wine rating DYK credit

I neither created nor substantially improved the article in question; I just fixed the 'references' section so it displayed properly when the page was originally created. HalfShadow 03:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

James Cudworth

The DYK issues have now been addressed. Mjroots (talk) 11:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for putting Thor (film) up for DYK recognition. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Roman Museum and DYK

Hi Materialscientist. I've got another nice one for you in the DYK nominations for 27 January. I'll be going down to Kent to take the photos this weekend, so will be adding the images to the article on Monday. Please could you kindly check it for DYK?

It represents a huge amount of current political controversy in Canterbury, so all the links, including ext links, are necessary for full information. When exposed to DYK this humble museum article may possibly suffer political vandalism, so it might be an idea to check it now and then to see if it needs Wiki protection. Cheers.--Storye book (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Article seems good and will get better with images. It might be controversial locally, but hardly globally - museums closures due to lack of funds are not unusual - thus I wouldn't worry about political issues, but will keep an eye on this. Materialscientist (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed for your kind help. Yes, I was thinking mainly of potential vandalism from Canterbury. However most of the populace is apparently very much in support of the museum, so maybe it will be OK until the next uproar at the council meeting on 18 February. Thanks for the tweaks. I am not sure about modern multicultural terminology (Common Era) having to be in line with an old quoted document (monument listing written in ca.1961)? The document is central to the controversy, and very awkward to search for online (it took 3 council officials to find it for me), so I had to quote it. Thanks again for your help which is much appreciated, as always.--Storye book (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

On wikipedia, there is no preference for using either AD/BC or BC/BCE terminology, but it has to be consistent within an article. Materialscientist (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info.--Storye book (talk) 12:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Dfksdfksdf

Someone didn't get the memo ... this editor may need access to his talk page blocked to avoid abuse. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Materialscientist (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Always happy to give Anti-Vandalism stars.

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		You acted on the persistent vandal so fast, you made my head spin. But in a good way. :-) FeygeleGoy/פֿײגעלע גױ‎ (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

. . . and another one: Westgate, Canterbury for DYK

My last one for a while (DYK 28 Jan). I wouldn't bother you again so soon, but this one is just as controversial in Canterbury, so is important. Cheers.--Storye book (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you please check something for me? (it requires admin privileges).

Thank you for blocking Niper19405w,jqw; the reason I post is that he/she may own another account likely for similar purposes. My reasoning is thus: I discovered the vandal after his/her edits to Polaris. You may notice that two brand-new users - both registered within ten minutes of each other no less - made similar unconstructive edits, within minutes of each other again. That other user can be found here; can you please check to see if they are indeed the same person and respond accordingly? Thank you. -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 04:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Unlikely: those 2 accounts made edits to two different articles at 04:35 UTC Jan 29. Their edits on Polaris were also inconsistent. Materialscientist (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

An interesting but ultimately meaningless coincidence then. Thank you anyway.

PS

The reason I asked in the first place was because I have been told admins have the ability to trace ownership of an account (like an IP, but more in-depth). Is this actually true, or is it simply rumor? (If the latter, please do tell me; I don't want to waste another admin's time at some later date.) -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 05:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

A few highly trusted WP admins have access to the tool called chekuser (CU) which allows tracking IP addresses associated with user accounts. CU can not be used at random and must be justified. For example, some (certainly not all) WP:SPI request result in CU. Materialscientist (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 05:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Please help

I see you have a Ph.D.

This is a heated discussion in the Talk:Barack Obama page.

There are some people who insists that President Obama is a professor. There are some that want to diminish his achievements. I take the neutral ground.

I think there is confusion between Professor and professor. The difference escapes many people in the general public. Obama was a part time faculty member and was given the title of Lecturer then Senior Lecturer. Senior Lecturer is very honorable but it's not the same as Professor and Chair.

What do you think? Does the average person know the difference between Professor, the title and professor, the generic profession? I think not. To prevent confusion and misunderstanding and not to diminish the man nor inflate his resume, I think that a simple mention that he was on the part time faculty at the University of Chicago Law School where he was a Lecturer and later Senior Lecturer is very honest, accurate, and neutral.

Please help! JB50000 (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Erich Hartmann

I don't get the reason for your recent edit on this contentious statement that is sourced but has attracted a "crusader" who seems to have reversed many unfavourable mentions of Russian activities. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC).

I replied at the talk page of the article and am keen to reconsider. The key point is the strength of the allegation which is being removed. Materialscientist (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there doubt about a statement that is also verified in the authoritative Toliver and Constable biography (1970) that provides an extensive author's note on p. 188. I suggest that removing the statement after it was identified as contentious is exactly the wrong thing to do. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC).

Please discuss that at the talk page of the article. I can only reiterate that strong and sensitive claims require corresponding referencing. This might be a topic of a discussion much wider than the biography of Erich Hartmann. Materialscientist (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

...and with due deference, I would suggest reverting your edit and tagging the statement which was already done in an "invisible" rather than playing into the hands of the original submitter who has a history of removing statements that are not in line with his/her views, claiming "minority" viewpoints and not providing corroborating references. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC).

Not convincing. Materialscientist (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Take a brief journey through the aforementioned editor's edit history to note WP:DUCK. Nowhere is there evidence that the editor supports their revisions with anything other than simplistic commentary. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC).

That editor only pointed to a problem; their actions and editing pattern are another and separate issue, which I'm not happy about, and which I'm trying to discuss at their talk page. Materialscientist (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That is entirely a charitable attribution to the editor's actions; I have no such allusions of altruism here. This is simply a revisionist at work who wishes to cleanse the slate of any and all perceived slights to Russia. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC).

Wow! i've got a fan! who is monitoring me :) Tell me please Bzuk, how does this my edit for example, fits into your ideas about me as a russian nationalist POV pusher?84.52.101.196 (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Please separate two issues: behavior of a certain editor and a specific fact in a mainframe WP article. Materialscientist (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

To make it simple, a bogus claim of "minority view" is instilled into an article, without any verification or reference sourcing. That the claim is one of a chain of similar assertions is indicative of a Tendentious editor. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC).

The solution may come soon, but the (deleted) phrase in that article was taken out of context. Materialscientist (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Google links

I think you are right about the use of the source, although earlier use of the google search sources were deprecated, that's not the case in making an enhance reference or bibliographic notation, see my wavering and final revision in Erich Hartmann. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)