Fort Towson

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

		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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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

No hurry. Am currently addressing some of the (quite good, in retrospect) feedback rec'd from others. Sandbh (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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!

... 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please can I have a little longer with you. Can you just take a moment to look over this behaviour? [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I am in and out. First clues why the range was blocked: this, slow range [10], with zillions of hosts per IP [11]. Materialscientist (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. I have tweaked that sentence as [12] - can't find much on PoH2 except for [13] and some echoes. Materialscientist (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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!)

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

	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)[reply]

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[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

I believe you can edit that page without asking me, but before doing that consider the following. (i) That image will be transcluded to multiple pages, thus it should be optimized. You file is too large and likely contains lots of useless svg code. (ii) I'm not sure about the improvements, maybe you can ask the relevant project? Materialscientist (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

I greatly appreciate your prompt action against IP user 118.127.68.110. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, but since another IP has now jumped in to try changing the situation, I would venture to say that this subject's notability should now be brought into question alongside the OR and Soap. The reliable third party sources are in fact really limited to a couple of sentences at the end of a newspaper review] of someone else's work. Hardly enough to warrant having an article at all. In the circumstances, I'd be prepared to support its deletion. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 06:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted and blocked, with a purely administrative approach - they might be right and are welcome to discuss the issues at any talk page, but simply going berserk and revert good-faith edits without explanation is not acceptable. Materialscientist (talk) 07:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a long reply, but lost it because of an edit conflict. Here is what I remember saying:

You can tell KidMilo is Ukboxen because he does the exact same things: Removes icons, lowercases words, removes words, takes away info on minor titles, etc.

I'm not sure what you meant by what you said on my user page.

If the division is said in mid-sentence, it would be lower case (Ex. "Bob fights in the lightweight division."). However, it depends on how the sentence is used.

If it is used in the form of a title, it becomes a pro-noun and must be capitalized because it refers to an offical ranking someone holds (Ex. "Bob is the new WBA Lightweight Champion)

Offical WBA (World Boxing Association) website

Quoted from the home page:

"The World Boxing Association Ratings Committee appointed the Super Bantamweight World Champion, Guillermo Rigondeaux from Cuba as the Boxer of the Month."

You can also see, to the right that says "Boxer of the Month", a picture of Rigondeaux, saying:

"Guillermo Rigondeaux (WBA Super Batamweight)"

Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheShadowCrow (talk • contribs) 01:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting the WBA = epic fail. They're so dumb they type "WBA World Champion".

The titles in each report on the front page is in lower case;

http://wbcboxing.com/wbcVersEng/

And the IBO, IBC etc are irrelevant Mickey Mouse orgs which NO credible sources recognize, yet you claim the IBO is a "multi-million dollar " org. You absolute moron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.111.71.103 (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WBC is owned by a Spanish-speaker; English isn't their prime language, so they'd probably make a grammer mistake like this. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of that matters. Wikipedia sets its own convention on caps, which is what I have asked you before, TheShadowCrow. (If you get an edit conflict, hit "back" on your edit browser, copy your text, reload the page, and re-enter). Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has been editing Roy Jones, Jr. as "Arumpunch" This guy has created so many socks after being banned, he should be banned on sight from now on. Where is this convention on caps?--TheShadowCrow (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep us informed .. Materialscientist (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not clear on this: that block log has the block last and future IPs ticked - does that mean any one that account edits from is blocked for 24 hrs only or indef? Peridon (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was inaccurate in my previous message. 24 hours after we blocked a user (with the tick on IP) wikimedia software would lift the block on the IP (but keep on the user), and that would be it if the user stays away from wiki. However, if that user tries to edit again, the software will reblock his new IP (and again lift the IP block after 24 hr). Same will happen to another, innocent user who got caught in an autoblock (sort of got infected by the previous block), i.e. the autoblock can propagate in time. See WP:ABK for details. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thus I would recommend that user, who got caught up in autoblock, to follows the instructions he/she sees when trying to login, if the autoblock is still in place (I located that user in Special:BlockList, but the autoblock is inactive now). Materialscientist (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear,

you just removed my input on the Hydrofluoric acid page. I think this is very important safety information (protective glove materials). I work and am a specialist in this matter, and I could find many misleading information on the internet. Given the specific dangers related to this acid, I found it my responsability to add this section on protective glove. The recommendations are based on tests on protective gloves, but I can't publish those as they link to a specific glove manufacturer.

Not sure why you thought it to be not necessary ?

Regards, avandenborre — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avandenborre (talk • contribs) 14:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) See the message I left at your talk page. Calabe1992 14:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Material Scientist Please unblock me , i have engaged with the user kierno and editing page with good references — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorukzn (talk • contribs) 14:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the insulted party, I shortened the block length to two weeks. The article was merely an expired prod, and it is possibly worth a debate, but he is not currently able to debate rationally. If you disagree with any part of this, let me know. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Quite a big stretch of AGF right there. I thought Kuru was going to revoke his talk page access immediately upon his declining of the unblock. Of course, if it continues, the mop can be used again.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I probably wouldn't have done it except the article has been here for a while, and a weak case could be made for it. Certainly reblock if warranted. and let someone else resurrect the article if they care to. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This and/or that may be a sock of this ipeditor you blocked. All are editing Kshatriya. There seems to be a thread of interest in the history of the Punjab.LeadSongDog come howl! 14:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be a bit more explicit with your edit summaries, please? The history of Erik Morales, for example, wasn't very enlightening. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In short, LTA: see UkBoxen (talk · contribs), User38563 (talk · contribs) - a good-faith ruthless warrior. I don't know how it all started, but have some recent experience with him. Materialscientist (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In November, you blocked this vandalizing account.

Today the IP has vandalized a BLP with defamatory nonsense, been reverted, and repeated the vandalism.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

H. J. Mitchell arrived faster than Winston Wolf and more powerfully than The Rock in Walking Tall.

10-4.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could use your help in determining the next step to take in regards to Nadia Turner. For almost three years I have been dealing with anonymous IPs and a couple of SPAs, some of whom claim to be Turner herself, changing the birth year. At first I simply reverted since they had no source and then I found three reliable sources that the article still has in it. I have talked to them on their user talk pages asking them to either join the discussion at the article talk page or add reliable sources to verify what they are trying to change. Instead I get continual reversions without any edit summary, article talk page discussion, user talk page discussion or adding of sources. I then go through the four levels of warning for unsourced templates. In April 2011, you blocked User:Nadiaturner for disruptive editing. Recently a newly registered SPA, User:Zarehasad, and a anonymous IP, Special:Contributions/75.143.152.185. I am not sure if they are sockpuppets of User:Nadia Turner and if a sockpuppet investigation should be started. Or should I take the issue to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to try and get help. Or should I try and get the article protected at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I would appreciate any help you can give me with this current situation and any advice you can give me for any future occurrences. Thank you, Aspects (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to analyze the situation today - sorry, overload. Materialscientist (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotected for a year. Materialscientist (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help, I was starting to get more and more frustrated and until I left a message here and looked back, I did not realize for how long this had been going on. Aspects (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir,

Our website cellularfactory.com has been blocked from the wikipedia. SO I want to get the site back here on wikipedia

please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.94.133 (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain what do you mean by "get the site back here on wikipedia"? Materialscientist (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Materialscientist,

A few days ago I thanked you for your great help on the Nelson Antonio Denis page. I wrote that "I could tell you spent time on it," because it involved a long, intricate series of reflink consolidations. But then I reviewed your edit history and saw how astoundingly fast you were able to do this!

So now I'm thanking you again, lest you think my initial mention of "spending time on it" was a smart-alecky backhanded compliment. I truly thought you'd spent hours on it! I thank you now, for some truly amazing editing. All best, Nelsondenis248 (talk) 05:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do such reference cleanups in free time. All you need is a few browser windows - run the article through reflinks and checklinks, and have a wayback machine in the 3rd window. Then edit the output from reflinks window, but amend it by repairing deadlinks found by "checklinks" tool. If there are some google books links, use this script. Consolidation is mostly done by reflinks (partly manual). Journal references can be additionally cleaned by citation bot (can be run manually). All these tools can be used within one edit :-). Materialscientist (talk) 05:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Said data would would look much better in a table, yes. However, I am very uncertain as to how to create one and where to fit in in the article. Also, I got the data from PubChem. Do I still need to reference it if the link is in the Identifiers portion of the Chembox? Thanks! Rycecube57 05:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

how do I source? The facts I added I knew because I know the person in question personally, so how would I source this? Regards Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.251.252.249 (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should have been published in some reliable source, which is what we need. Wikipedia is designed so as to include only verifiable facts, especially for WP:BLPs. Materialscientist (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me why "renaming should not be used just for fixing a space in a file name", per this diff at Commons? As I hope you understood from my description of the proposal, it wasn't an idle one: it's not just "any" letter space, it's one where you wouldn't expect to see it, and it invites "fixers" to remove it, breaking a link to the image from an article, per the diff I included. I also note that the proposed target for the move is available. I would appreciate knowing why "should not", or should this be "could not"? I'm just after a clearer explanation. Thanks for your time. Nortonius (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In short,

• pros: fixing a space in a name.
• cons:
  • Spamming watchlists; the author might not find the upload later (if a redirect is deleted);
  • several replacement edits are triggered across wikis. This is always problematic in case of database delays, which happen often and unexpectedly - editors see and edit cached pages with all the consequences. There are a few more such reasons, which might be the reasons for the note File:TowerBridge'09.jpg should not be renamed to File:Tower_Bridge_2009.jpg only because the latter looks a bit better. It is quite easy to have the moving privileges revoked over this, and I hesitate moving such files if they are used in multiple projects. Moving unused files is easier to justify. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would have added one other item to your list of pros– saving me from cleaning up after a page "fixer"! ;o) But I understand your concerns now, thanks for the explanation. I've done my best to protect use of the image in said article with a hidden message, any better ideas? No worries if not. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 09:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent help in battling/blocking 'birthday vandals'.

Not sure if it's your cup of tea, but if you feel the need for a little insanity with other scientists and dysfunctional persons of interest, visit RationalWiki

best, --Unicorn Tapestry ^{say} 04:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You actually brought me to [page] which I will study some time. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that File:Archer John Porter Martin Nobel.jpg has an uncertain US copyright status? The file is marked with {{PD-Sweden}}. Due to a change in Swedish law from 25 years after publication to 50 years after publication, everything which is currently {{PD-Sweden}} was {{PD-Sweden}} on the URAA date, so it would seem that anything marked as {{PD-Sweden}} would be out of copyright in the United States. Unlike other copyright extensions in Sweden, the one for photographic images wasn't retroactive. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link the 25->50 years change? I had two thoughts: (i) wait for the URAA debate on Commons to settle, as many images are being deletion tagged there only because the taggers know there is a debate [14], but not the outcome. (ii) I know such files were deleted on Commons in the past, arguing that the Nobel Foundation may not claim copyright, because the image was provided by the laureate, was made in his/her home country, and there may be copyright claimants there. Such claimants were found, say for the Feynman image. Materialscientist (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind my request for 25->50 link and (i) - I was in rush and didn't see what you mean. Yes, PD-Sweden is Ok URAA-wise, I am only concerned by those Commons deletion debates. In other words, non-US photos should be fine, but some of the US laureate images appear on the non-PD US university webpages, with a claim of university photo. Materialscientist (talk) 07:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A user you just blocked, Megakickguy, was using an IP (68.82.19.25 this very morning (for the same pieces of vandalism.) Just thought I'd ensure you're aware. :) Salvidrim! 00:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the help stopping Ukboxen.

I was wondering, are content titles supposed to have no spaces from the equal signs (==*Title*==) or are they supposed to be spaced (== *Title* ==)?--TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter because the wikipedia software ignores them. Removing them saves a byte of article code, which is why some automated scripts might do that as an aside (but off course this should not be done only for removing the space). Materialscientist (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know they both turn out the same. But, to be 100% clear, neither way is perferred over the other?--TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, neither way is preferred. Materialscientist (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You locked the page. Please check the talk page and make the edits. Thanks. 173.79.75.65 (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

==Pluto atmosphere I thought that when my edit request was replied to as fixed, it would show up properly in the Pluto entry. I checked, and it does not. The requested change is to acknowledge priority of the discovery to the Wise Observatory, not to the Kuiper Airborne Observatory; it is the proper way to go. Since I will not be checking this very often, I would appreciate a reply to my Email: noah@wise.tau.ac.il. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.66.222.3 (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just started a discussion at WP:AN about long-term blocks that references three IP addresses blocked by you. I have not intended the thread to address you personally, but since three of the IPs were blocked by you, I'm notifying you as common courtesy. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't the rationale given when the image was replaced. If it had been, I wouldn't have reverted it. But anyway, there has to be a better fair use image than the one we have now. Serendi^podous 10:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand; no observatory is credited, just Hubble. Serendi^podous 10:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a citation crediting the Kuiper Airborne Observatory. Wise Observatory's own website makes no mention of discovering Pluto's atmosphere. If your tormentor can provide a source for his claim, then we can continue this discussion. Serendi^podous 11:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There. If that's not enough for him, he can shove it. Serendi^podous 11:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User TheShadowCrow is trying to vandalize as many boxing pages as he can;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TheShadowCrow

I've proved his edits are wrong, with the most credible sources, yet you allow him to attack all the boxing pages and you undo the reverts I make. He needs to be blocked asap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.105.141.240 (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you delete the old, non-free revisions? Thanks Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• But keep the current one Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Materialscientist (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Linked above. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I'm doing several things right now and don't see any old revision in the above-linked Commons image, thus my question remains. Materialscientist (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I fixed the link Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, caps are important. I've nominating that Commons image for speedy deletion. Materialscientist (talk) 04:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, sorry. I was on a Mac and couldn't figure out the shortcut for copying and pasting. Thanks, I was about to nominate it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. According to your edit summary you unblocked this user. However, they still appear blocked. Just wanted to check in to see if you meant to unblock them. Cheers! TNXMan 18:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what went wrong there - yes, I meant to unblock. I went ahead and unblocked ahead of you, please modify any template as necessary or reply if I did something wrong. Materialscientist (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I could not resist the joke here but you need block him/her/they etc. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide difs linking him to (an)other user? Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The giveaways are:

• Kateri Tekakwitha ‎
• Our Lady of Perpetual Help ‎
• Luis Antonio Tagle etc.

I also saw that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lloydbaltazar has mentioned them now. Also please see User talk:LoveforMary. They never give up. History2007 (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

On February 2nd you reverted my edit on Neodymium citing WP:LEAD

I've read the guideline & I understand that it explains how leads are generalized simplified versions of the main article and shouldn't be over cited. BUT, that doesn't mean that the lead is exempt from the citation policy.

The two 'citation need' tags were added on information not cited in the body of the article (China production volume & glass dye).

So, it's clear that a 'citation need' tag is needed somewhere. Do I put on the information in its mentioned section AND the lead, or just the lead/section?

Hit me back on my talk page please =]

Thanks for staying up late and cleaning up the messes I create for you in AIV. Jim1138 (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only 24 hours? Really? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard safe block for non-kids, to give them a chance. Next block is usually indefinite and is issued much quicker than 1st. Materialscientist (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But all of his edits have been to stalk another User and revert their edits. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to say quickly who started reverting whom, as a few IPs were involved. This user should have been blocked much earlier for warring, just not reported in time (hold on, socks are coming, which might result in indef of them all). Materialscientist (talk) 04:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it's inevitable that he winds up permablocked. Thanks. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You said for my article edit on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus that i need to quote sources i was just copying from other Wikipedia page so in that case what should i do. and how to talk on Wikipedia with persons — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iprathik (talk contribs) 03:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Materialscientist. This is a follow-up to my previous discussion on this page Alchemist51 is back, and is creating vandalism daily for the past few days, and i have been reverting his edits again and again. Please do assist me, and tell me what i can do about it.

Cheers.

Brazilian Tiger (talk) 08:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow this article got off my watchlist, strange. I have warned Alchemist51 and he may be blocked if he continues same style of editing. Materialscientist (talk) 08:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Materialscientist,

Cheers, and thank you so much for your help. Users like him really make me pull my hair, really frustrating. The worse issue is that he is labelled as an "established user" because he has made more than 10 edits, and hence my requests to protect the page temporary cannot work against him. Thank you once again. I apologise for the trouble.

Cheers! Brazilian Tiger (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	suggestions for attitude
	Thank you for the wisdom in a nutshell regarding attitude that you gave us last year, not only for DYK: "friendly and constructive ... stay together and collaborate". You called it "good old past" then, I hope it has a future. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda. I'm really glad to see that some people like you are smiling no matter what :-). I am around, just spreading into numerous maintenance tasks leaves no time for writing and collaborative work. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you have time to watch the photographer's page, to keep me smiling? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MaterialScientist, on my talk page as shown in this diff : ([15]), is the editor Dave in this case attacking me with personal insults? Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 12:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The message is civil. There are completely unnecessary (and unwarranted) threats of a block, but they come from you both. You seem to both admit your mistakes. I would shake hands and go do something else, something positive and constructive. Materialscientist (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]