User talk:Materialscientist

Please leave your message at the bottom of this page, for example, by clicking "new section" at the top. I shall reply wherever you prefer (my usual habit is to reply here if the answer is short). If I replied on your talk page, it means I am watching it, and there is no need to add the {{talkback}} template or quote the previous message.

RE: Kaptrex Polyimide

I edited the page because Kaptrex polyimide had no associated link, and my company (Professional Plastics) holds the registered tradename for this product. If you feel that my product page for this item is innapropriate for some reason, you should at the very least allow a link to the Technical Data Sheet for our product. (see http://www.professionalplastics.com/professionalplastics/KaptrexDataSheet.pdf

Re: Brunei

Please forget about my previous deleted message okay, peace out! Younlo (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC) == re: David Kotz wiki page

David Kotz's wiki page was balanced when someone deleted references to NY times articles with positive information about David Kotz to include only negative information from inaccurate articles. The information was also placed in such a manner to smear David Kotz. It is one thing to add references to news articles, but to do in such a way to make the individual look bad and to not allow the inclusion of any positive information is improper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LIsa36 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Warning: Block Evader Impersonating Materialscientist

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

Was this you?

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

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

61.241.223.0

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

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

Alan Lowry

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

Edit filter

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

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

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

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

Foster

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

DYK queue fill

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

Joseph Stalin

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

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

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

A kitten for you!

good job

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

188.220.6.221

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

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

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

the ant

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

Article

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

Wall Street Journal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IP block, Stthomse

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

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

Sockpuppet?

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

Protection

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

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

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

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

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

IP vandal/sockpuppet 71.90.221.197

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review and verification request

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

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

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

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

Gigabit Ethernet - out of control vandalism

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

AIV thanks

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

You stopped reverting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The previous introduction has NO citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthonyisageek (talk • contribs) 10:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Steve "Guinsoo" Feak

Yeah, so well its the person who was editing it, IP 69.207.17.37. https://twitter.com/RiotGuinsoo/status/285227842118238209 While the rest of the conversations surrounding the reason he got fired are deleted, this remains. Not entirely sure if it will count enough to warrant a change in the wiki article, but it doesn't mean he gave up league either. 69.207.17.37 (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

142.55.218.104 (Sockpuppet)

• IP address user 142.55.218.104 keeps vandalizing the Punisher's page.[9] He/she gives no reson and no reliable sources to prove he or she's point since the page very well describes who and what the character is. Also, I believe that IP address user 142.55.218.104 is a what they call here on wiki, a Sockpuppet since the numbers are almot the same as the last
• 142.55.218.233
• 142.55.218.114
• 142.55.218.78

99.168.75.21 (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Shah puri dialect

Shah puri dialect article containing nine references is being continuously reverted and redirected by user Kwamikagwami without any reasonable argument. Protection of article and blocking of Kwamikagami requested for persistent childish behavior and wasting others time Fantasyworld99 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fantasyworld99 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

fMRS peer review

Hi Materialscientist, I have opened a WP:Peer review for fMRS article. It is perhaps not exactly your subject of interest, but could you possibly look at the article, rate it and suggest the necessary changes? Thanks! --Dcdace (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Puerto Rico and United States Virgin Islands

Materialscientist, I am upset that you reversed my edits. Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands are not states of the United States. There are territories! That is why I reveresed the edit. Please do not change something that you did not do. If you have any questions please email me. tom991

Reversed? Where? Materialscientist (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion is requested...

...at this discussion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the re-eddit (correction)

Thank you for re editing my correction to the Iraq page, I recieved the message and was forwarded here to post a message. One of my colleagues refuses to believe that Wikipedia is constantly reviewed and corrected once people edit the site, but your message and correction has reinforced what I previously said.

Much abliged, and I apologize for the disruption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.133.1.228 (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Queensland University of Technology

Hi there, I just reverted an edit by the same IP that you reverted and warned.

Singaporean rangeblock

Hi Materialscientist. About a week ago you created this rangeblock for a bunch of Singaporean IPs. It seems to have had a fairly wide effect - I'm seeing, on average, three or four UTRS requests per day from users affected by this block (all of them seem to be distinct individuals). Generally I'm just explaining the concept of a rangeblock and sending them to WP:ACC, but I wondered if you might want to take another look at this block and see whether it does in fact need to be so extensive; it's definitely affecting a lot of people. Your call, obviously, just thought I'd bring it to your attention. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 11:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for discussing - I never rangeblock without consideration. This range has an unusually long block log [10], and was abused a lot, and it is only /24 wide, thus I felt a long anonblock is appropriate. Materialscientist (talk) 12:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough - it's no great hardship to keep diverting them to ACC, and a lot of them seem to have potential COI issues anyway. I wonder if some of them might be from another rangeblock to a similar range (working from memory, I'm sure /24 isn't enough to account for the volume of appeals), but the same reasoning would still apply if that's the case. All the best, Yunshui 雲‍水 11:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I have the same recollection that some editors from 220.255.2.0/24 popped up on other ranges, but this is so much mixed up that for now I would treat each range separately. Materialscientist (talk) 11:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems sound. Hey, since I'm here anyway, a tangentially related question: do you know of a way to unblock a single IP from within a rangeblock? I had an instance where I needed to do this the other day (resolved now, since it turned out the entire rangeblock was no longer necessary) and couldn't figure out the best approach - my reading of WP:IPBE is that it only applies to registered accounts, not IPs. I considered undoing the rangeblock and then reintroducing two separate blocks on either side of the single IP, but I'm not sure that's sensible or even possible. Any suggestions for future cases? Yunshui 雲‍水 11:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

We often have this problem at WP:OP, and the only solution I know is splitting the range into subranges and blocking those. Materialscientist (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense; sort of what I imagined would be the case. Shame there's no simple solution. Thanks for the help. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Rangeblock

And here I am, trying to add a rangeblock (I guess that's what it's called). I am currently spending most of my time reverting vandalisms from a bunch of Filipino IP's. see this page. I noticed that you blocked one of them, but the editor just keeps hopping around. Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Many contributions from these IPs look constructive. It is hard to evaluate them because they are unsourced, and you know this topic. Could you evaluate more contributions from these IPs please [11] (this is a wider range than needed, but it covers "your" IPs)? Or just follow the contribution links from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/121.54.54.37. Materialscientist (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as the edits to various Filipina actresses and the like, I know very little. I am fairly certain that when 121.54.54.38 added actress Maja Salvador to the Mazda infobox, and then made her head of the Metro Manila Development Authority, there is a problem. I will admit that there is a range of edits, with the occasional useful one thrown in. I reckon that we are looking at contributions from an internet café or maybe a couple of different ones. But pretty much every single edits which has to do with automobiles has been outright vandalism, or one of a chain of nonsensical but innocuous edits meant to hide and obscure troublesome edits - such as using one ip to add incorrect info, then using another ip to shuffle a few words around elsewhere in the article as protection. It often works.

But the editor is seriously problematic - for a moment they almost had me believing that Isuzu had begun selling a relabelled Hyundai Starex as the Isuzu Oasis, because they had gone in under various ip's to lay groundwork in several articles. Is it possible to do a topical rangeblock? I only looked at automotive related edits in the index list, and I couldn't find one that was useful. Thanks.  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, this is what I wanted. Frankly, I forgot that I've blocked 121.54.54.32/27 in the past, accidentally following a WP:ANI thread, sorry. Reaper Eternal has reblocked this range for 42 days, which will do for now, but from my experience I doubt 42 days will close the matter. If this kind of behavior resumes, you can contact admins who had some past experience with this range, like myself or Reaper Eternal - this will be much faster than a general AN/AIV report. Materialscientist (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks a lot for your help. My watchpage is much calmer now!  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

31 hour block

Hey, can you look at this? I'd call that a vandalism-only account. I left a message to Brianga, but I see that he/she isn't too often around. Widr (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeffed. Materialscientist (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Widr (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Samsung

FYI, I have semi-protected this article for a week so Georgeankit25 & Co. won't continue over there. Maybe he'll switch back to boxing topics though. De728631 (talk) 11:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for Wertasddfsas, I've missed that one. Materialscientist (talk) 11:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Sandra Tsing Loh

Thanks for your message. The addition I made to Sandra Tsing Loh's bio contains the source within the addition. Her essay The Bitch Is Back is named a Best American Essay - the source is the Best American Essay series. I didn't link to it, because that's basically a link to a sales page for the book. This is easily confirmable by checking the book's table of contents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkc212 (talk • contribs)

J Robert Oppenheimer

Hi Material scientist, thx for the original suggestion. I found some obvious bias and misinformation on the article. I doubt there will be any need to change any of my recent edits. Everything is pretty self-evident, I think, and we must strive for unbiased and historically correct articles. cheers- Scslate (talk) 08:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC) So much for trying to edit biased and inaccurate info on this page. "Edward Teller was uninterested in working on the atomic bomb during Manhattan Project". Seems to contradict all known sources.Scslate (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Curious

Thanks for blocking that IP who was vandalizing Executive Office of the President of the United States. I was curious, though, why 31 hours? That seems to be a pretty common block length, but I'm curious why not 24, 32, 40, etc...31 just seems odd to me, so I thought perhaps you could explain it. No rush, just curious. Go Phightins! 05:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not exact science. Typical arguments go like this: one day is a typical block length for blatant first-time vandalism. It is changed to 31 h to avoid the same person returning tomorrow at the same terminal (daily routine). Off course other durations are possible, but it is faster to pick up one from the pop-up menu preset by wikimedia programmers. Materialscientist (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of Sakaisinai7

Hi, Materialscientist. There seems to be more sockpuppets of Sakaisinai7. User:Wane43 and user:Qwedfgvbn made edits to ExxonMobil which follows the above-mentioned sockpuppeteer edit pattern. Same applies to user:Dante43 and user:James00723 edits to ITC Limited. Beagel (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Pokemon article edit

Sorry about that- I don't do this often. I was attempting to remove some vandalism/false information on the Pokemon article (an un-cited and, as far as I can tell, false quote about the series being ended) but my connection to Wikipedia was playing up. By the time it came back someone had corrected the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.196.107 (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Quick question

Is it okay for anons to remove block notices and warnings from their talk page after receiving a block? I would revert it myself, but I'm not sure. Thanks! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

They can remove warning messages, but not block or ISP-related templates. I've reverted and revoked talk page access for this IP. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 07:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Your work is appreciated. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 15:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Question from TIU

Thanks for changing our test back to its original form. However, we need to change the photo within the info box (currently the old TIU Seal) to the current logo. Here is the page link: (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Trinity_International_University). This is the Marketing and Creative Services of Trinity International University and we thought it would be easy to do this, but if you could help it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Trinity International University (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)]]

Add a level 2 header for Month Year for warning users

Do you have to add a level 2 header when you warn users when no warnings are found for this month? I could see this edit lacking a level 2 header. Eyesnore 02:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You can choose levels at will depending on the edit. Roughly, 1st - good faith, please read the policies; 2nd - please don't do that; 3rd - do not do that, you'll get blocked; 4th - you're about to be blocked. Materialscientist (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It appears you have misunderstood the question. Eyesnore is talking about the section headers (Month Year as in January 2013) we place above vandalism warnings. That particular header level is level 2; Article titles being level 1; subsection headings are level 3 etc.; not to be confused with the different vandalism warning levels. The question is if these section headers are necessary. I was lurking and noticed you referenced this section below and couldn't help but respond. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 12:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I misread the question in a rush. Use common sense. Levels are not needed for users because they usually get indefblocked before they accumulate more than several warnings. For IPs, I try to add headers whenever I can (not duplicating the same month though), because they help sorting out the past history at a glance. However, I sometimes skip them with a first-time warning because I doubt this IP will return editing, but this is just me (I don't use automatic tools and thus have to type or copy/paste warnings+headers). Materialscientist (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Please block this user forever (again violations)

Hello! Please block this user forever: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:OneLittleMouse (again violations). You earlier blocked him already. And see my contribution to understand better situation. He looking for personal favor. Thank you! - 95.29.88.88 (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC). - 95.29.88.88 (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC).

Moon

On User:Deepblue1's talk page you noted [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Moon&diff=prev&oldid=531340060 This] was odd, please preview edits. I just reverted those edits as vandalism. Maybe they were just test edits. Tomorrow I'll check this user's contributions to see if it's vandalism or just test edits. G'night. – Paine (Climax!)  06:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, heck, I couldn't sleep, so I checked. From his contributions, which are usually music-related, this user seems to know a bit about iboxes and templates, so I don't know what he was thinking when he edited the Moon article. If you check the edit you cited above, you'll see that he copied a portion of the entries at the TOP of the page, including part of the ibox, to a reference down the page, number 61. So part of the ibox was portrayed way down in the References→Citations section. His explanation might be interesting. – Paine (Climax!)  07:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

Hi materialscientist,

Just now, you helped to revert vandalism in Wind and warned the vandal. You gave a level 2 warning as shown here: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A194.103.203.130&diff=535661624&oldid=402318556, which is not appropriate as the user had insufficient activity and prior warning to be given that warning level. I have since revised the warning level to level 1. Thank you! Optakeover^(Talk) 09:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Optakeover. Thanks for helping. I'm Ok with that particular change, but note that some editors don't like when their comments on talk pages are tweaked by others and might turn it against you (i.e. better don't do that unless correcting an obvious error). There is no rule for warning levels, i.e. they are chosen at editor's discretion, see my reply in "Add a level 2 header for Month Year for warning users" above. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 09:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Review my removed link

Hi Materialiscintist,

You removed my external link, it is very useful to users and close related to Article(Laws of Reflection of Sound). So i request to spent your valuable time to review my link again. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paikrishnan (talk • contribs) 06:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Cricket vandalism

Hi - regarding your block of 125.209.149.133‎ (talk · contribs · WHOIS), this is a prolific vandal, using multiple IP addresses, who edits cricket related articles, usually replacing text with wee or nu-tard. His unblock requests are on the lines of "I'm very sorry, i won't do it again". Following an attempt to negotiate with him at User talk:120.148.224.186, I blocked him for six months, therefore any subsequent edits can be regarded as block evasion. I raised the issues at ANI here, but this gained little response. I'd prefer not to semi-protect every article he vandalises, as this will just drive hime elsewhere (I'm adding the relevant articles to my watchlist instead). Can you suggest anything else I can do here?  An optimist on the run! 07:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Generally, IPs with 10 minutes of editing history should not blocked for months unless they are open proxies or tors. If this person can not be rangeblocked (in several ranges), an edit filter should be set up. I need more information and time for either of those options. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 07:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Generally I'd agree with you, but I believe this has gone beyond childish vandalism to blatant trolling. They are aware that they've been blocked long term, therefore I believe extending the block on other IP addresses is justified, however feel free to revert my extension if you disagree. You can see the pattern of vandalism in the histories of Test cricket and Limited overs cricket. I don't know enough about range blocks to attempt one.  An optimist on the run! 07:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

A typical highly dynamic telstra hopper. Rangeblocks are impossible, and filtering would be inefficient (though I'll give a try). On the other hands, edits are blatant, and thus every random recent changes patroller will help. As a result such maniacs rarely last for longer than 18 month or so, and the longer they last the more admins know how to block them. The tools to use are short-term blocks (31 h max) and semiprotection when they keep returning. Long blocks are pointless. Materialscientist (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but as the editing patterns of 120.148.224.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) prove, short term blocks are ineffective against this user. As Boing! sais Zebedee stated here: "Had I been the one to deal with you when you returned to vandalism after your first block, you would now be blocked [indefinitely]" (later amended to "for a long time"). This is why I went for a six month block when I caught them in the act of vandalism when the previous block expired.  An optimist on the run! 12:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

65.183.69.210

Hi! I noticed that User:65.183.69.210 has had three 1-year anonblocks in a row, (the last one by you) and that each time a block has expired, the IP address went back to low level vandalizing and adding of unsourced info -- but not 100%; there are a few good edits.

From the nature of the edits and the geolocation info, it is pretty clear that this is a static IP assigned to Loveland High School in Loveland, Colorado.

Do you think this is enough to justify an indefinite schoolblock? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 30 months. Materialscientist (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Various block templates

Should you use different block templates, such as {{subst:uw-voablock}} with block comment "Vandalism-only account" for accounts that are used only for vandalism? They should not be used on IP users. Eyesnore 00:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't fully understand the question. {{subst:uw-voablock}} is only suited for registered users with no constructive edits. It is not always trivial to evaluate all edits, thus I typically use {{subst:uw-block3}}. Let me know if you noticed that I mistakenly tagged an IP with indefblock - this is rare, but happens :-). Materialscientist (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page and also blocking the IP. If you don't mind, could you also indef-protect my user page, IPs and new users has been vandalizing the user page specially after the warning they get after vandalizing other wikipedia pages. Thanks. Torreslfchero (talk) 10:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Panchakanya

Could you please help me in transferring this article to Panchakanya to the main space from my User:Nvvchar/Sandbox 2, the article starting with 12 January to date? The article is under a disambiguation page and is to be transferred to the Panchakanya (five heroines of Hindu epics). If not possible, it could be shifted under a new heading Panchakanya (Hinduism). Thanks.--Nvvchar. 09:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Moved to Panchakanya (Hinduism). Let me know if you need the old content+history of that sandbox - it is very easy to restore it. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 10:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much.--Nvvchar. 12:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah uhm

I don't remember making any edits on Cubic zirconia. Someone else must have, I share my IP address with other people in the building and I actually have a user account for wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.90.23 (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Tunisia

The 1st paragraph (that I deleted) from the Human rights section, has its 1st source from a non reliable website and using an edited video that has disputed origins, especially when no local media nor respectable international media reported any beheading in Tunisia. The second reference is about an IFEX report that was published before the revolution. The 3rd source and following assertions are too general especially with the use of the term Islamist -the governing coalition has ministers from Ennahdha party, an Islamist party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.96.163 (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

User_talk:Dy11111#Stop_editing_Chemboxes

Hi there

Would you like to take a look, and comment? Thanks. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Gotta run, but will look later today. I guess Dy11111 was blocked for unsourced tweaks of chemboxes and you're considering an unblock (or want someone to review an unblock request). I'll need to have a thought on that - I recall seeing some good-faith socking on wikignoming with chemboxes (can't recall username(s), stumbled upon that accidentally and saw a socking block), so I am a bit confused. Materialscientist (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I understand why you blocked them, but I don't have all information (IP edits, presumably also made in block evasion) and thus don't have much to comment for now. Granting unblock is quite common in such cases (good-faith incompetence), but the unblocking admin would need to monitor their edits for some time later, which is not for me (in my current daily schedule). Materialscientist (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I can do all that, but since the community has been rather aggravated, I wanted those involved a chance to comment prior to unblocking. Thanks all the same. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Norrington

Hi, I don't any interest in joining the Wikipedia community or learning the lingo etc. I've provided accurate neutral information about my life and work to which someone else with wiki-skills could add citations and links. My edit was undone for the stated reason "we can't verify your accuracy cleanup, please see WP:V and provide references" - hard to understand how the previous contributors to the Stephen Norrington page were "verified", especially in light of the inaccurate information contained therein. How does one prove one is the real deal? Any citations I could add would simply be links to much the same online material the previous contributors have cited. My interest is only in having the most accurate neutral information out there. Please avail yourself of the information I've posted at any time should you feel it will improve Wikipedia's accuracy. It will also be available at www.stephennorrington.com - best, SN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VFXEditor (talk • contribs) 02:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Visa policy of Vietnam

Hi MS, thanks for the block of 118.70.182.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), they have just started spamming from another IP 118.71.43.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Would you be able to block that one as well please? It might also be worth semi protecting the page, but hopefully the blocks will do their job. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Ozone layer

Its not unsourced - its sourced to a paper in Science (this I think http://hub.jhu.edu/2013/01/31/ozone-thinning-and-ocean-circulation) and its not OR. But its very new and not necessarily suitable William M. Connolley (talk) 09:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, this was the main reason for my revert - I could surely recover the source. Recentism, and I felt the unsure phrasing was unencyclopedic - it is appropriate when we can't know something (like in astronomy results). Otherwise I have no objections. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 09:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

67.169.46.25

Hi MaterialScientist. I note that you imposed a block on IP 67.169.46.25 at the begininning of December. I received a request for help concerning this IP from User:LoneWolf1992 on my talk page. There's not much I can do, I've warned both parties about edit warring and suggested LoneWolf contacts an administrator or ArbCom. Perhaps you would care to see if there is anything further you think should be done. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd be glad to help, but edit warring is not my cup of tea. No spontaneous ideas in this particular case. Materialscientist (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response. FYI, after another appeal for help I've reported it on the administrators' notice board. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Look who's back...

User:LIZ TAYLOR (who you may remember as User talk:Liztaylorcollection and User talk:Designer Liz Taylor from last month) is back, obviously not having learnt her lesson, and up to the same stuff that got her blocked before. Mabalu (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, blocked. Materialscientist (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Nickst

Was wondering whether is was actually your intention to remove my report of this user from WP:AIV in this edit? You'll note the report had been unaddressed by an administrator when you removed it, and the only response was by the user in question. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Intentional removal, a case too tricky for AIV. A new debate is open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IFFHS World's Best Goalkeeper (2nd nomination). CSD may be declined in such case, unless it is endorsed at the AFD. Note that user may remove almost any message from their talk per WP:OWNTALK. Materialscientist (talk) 06:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

First AfD was for another (not my) article without sources. It is not a repost. It is a new article with new good sources. See new AfD for this article. WP:SD is not needed here due to WP:AfD considerartion. NickSt (talk) 11:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Negative - the article was sourced and was rather similar in content to yours, but all sources in the old version were from IFFHS (i.e. all primary). I think this article should pass a proper AFD, but it could also be speedied, so be prepared. Materialscientist (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Just FYI, my comment about the talk page was not intended as a reason for intervention, but to explain to the evaluating admin why the warnings I was referring to weren't on talk page. I suppose I should have been more clear on that. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

korn

Hey I requested page protection on korn due to issues on it. Here's my report:

Indefinite semi-protection: The genre wars are over. However, the sources for when they formed SPECIFICALLY say it was 1992, NOT 1993. However, random IPs keep coming in and constantly changing it to 1993, and even when you switch it back, it comes again. Additionally, there is also persistent vandalism. I'd say protection for quite a while just so nobody vandalizes the page.

ANYWAYS, can you make sure to keep an eye on that page making sure nobody changes the sourced formation to 1993 when it's actually 1992? Thanks. I'll be as well.

Ihy34 (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI regarding persistent KK

Re your revert and your warning at User talk:83.22.32.133: I have added on their talk page a little overview of the previous intances of similar talk page nonsense. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 09:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Mistaken vandalism reversion

Hello, you rolled back this edit to 1946 Pilbara strike. I almost missed it myself, but the user who made the edit provided an edit summary which showed that he/she was trying to help out Wikipedia. After some quick Googling, I found out that both of the books were legitimate and edited the article accordingly. Graham87 16:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't mean the edit was incorrect or vandalism when reverted, just malformed, and had no time to verify and fix. Materialscientist (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

With respect, I think it would've been better to at least move the text up to a better place, then. Or perhaps use a custom edit summary when reverting the edit. I don't know about other users, but until relatively recently, I never checked diffs of rolled-back edits, especially those made by reputable and prolific vandal fighters such as yourself, because I thought it was generally a waste of time. Oh well, what's done is done. Graham87 06:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

This is an atypical case, as I try to explain non-trivial reverts (i.e., yes, looking through reverts would be searching for a piece of glass in a sandpile). There is too much vandalism and dubious edits lately - overloading our vandal-fighting corps. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 07:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

User:202.189.78.58

I misread the history of this user and misreported their transgressions. I'm very sorry since I feel I have built up a level of trust in my reporting and really let you down here. I apologize for the error and will double check my work in the future. Jojalozzo 03:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for banning vandals!!!! Cmckain14 (talk) 03:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Guam vandalism

Thank you for keeping your eye out on the Guam page. Sprinkler21 (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Sprinkler21

Your revert of Mug.

I must say your arrogance is truly breathtaking (it probably has something to do with your Ph.D.) If I introduced incorrect facts to the article, please list them here. Your revert, aside from the minor issue of reintroducing a needless redirect, has reintroduced stylistic and organizational errors. Truly messed up! Wahrmund (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The odd edits on Louisiana places by the IP's

Hi. Thanks for getting this one too. Should I take this to ANI? it is obviously not going to just go away, and the fact that the actor is switching IP's now is disturbing. It appears to be a competence or possibly age issue, see User talk:12.197.247.250#Fairview Alpha, Louisiana City for why I think so. It should be obvious after you read that. Gtwfan52 (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

List the target articles with long history of dubious changes, and I'll semiprotect them. Materialscientist (talk) 10:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Fairview Alpha, Louisiana--already protected
• Natchitoches, Louisiana‎--use your best judgement on this one as it has a fair amount of good edits and is relatively busy
• Kraft, Louisiana
• Wood, Louisiana
• Campti, Louisiana

None of this is real long term...three weeks maybe, and all but F-A and Natchitoches less than that. I would bet the farm that the three IPs so far are all the same person. Thanks for the motivation to clean up my watchlist :) Gtwfan52 (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Missed some:

• Frierson, Louisiana
• Gloster, Louisiana

Additional IPs involved:

• 12.197.241.243

Thanks again Gtwfan52 (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I've tried a rangeblock on 12.197.240.0/21, post on my talk if this doesn't work. Materialscientist (talk) 10:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

These might not be the rubes I am thinking they are. This edit shows at least some sophistication. Gtwfan52 (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• It gets deeper. The link on the talk page of ****.250 above was actually posted by User:123lilbrad. The other editor who has been working on this with me, User:Gene93k, thinks they are one in the same, and his edit history indicates pure vandalism. Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

  Blocked. Materialscientist (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Help request

What can we do about a "falsified" picture, like this one? Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps nothing, the tag is fine. You can nominate it for deletion, this will attract more editors to the discussion; the current talk page seems like this is not a clear case. Materialscientist (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Markp1949

I think he might have used unblocked a/c years ago, such as Markp84 and Markp93. Arctic Kangaroo 03:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. They are too old for checkuser. If you want them blocked, some convincing diffs would help (I am not asking you to spend time on that - it's all up to you). Materialscientist (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

If so, then perhaps I just keep an eye on them for a while. Strange editor though, why he want to create so many new a/c when his old ones aren't blocked? Arctic Kangaroo 03:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Now, Markp1948 claims he is not a sock of Markp1949, and says that Fhp203 had broken the 3RR rule as an IP then as an a/c (Fhp203). Markp1948 also claims that Fhp203 created Markp1949 to attack him on his talk page and has asked me to check the IP addresses of the 3 accounts to verify their identities. Howeer, I donno how and need your help on this. Thanks. Arctic Kangaroo 04:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Markp1949 is clearly a sock - it is hard to say for sure whose sock, from a brief look. Someone who is working around WP:SPI might know better. Materialscientist (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

India Statistics Vandal

Hi! The India Statistics Vandal has been around for about a year now randomly changing statistics, mostly airport runway lengths and floor space areas, and mostly to exaggerate them. Some of his favorite articles, e.g. Dubai Airport, has been protected, but he still finds unprotected articles to vandalize. His latest reincarnation represents the typical list of his favorite articles. Beside blocking his latest IP for now, can I ask you to protect these latest articles on "pending review"? HkCaGu (talk) 10:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Rangeblocked 61.17.0.0/16. Materialscientist (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

This vandal seems to hop between home and school/work or something. Can something similar be done to the 121.246 range? See the latest two IPs. HkCaGu (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for protecting my user talk page to prevent Mangoeater1000 from continuing to vandalize it. 72Dino (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Privacy request

I'm looking for an admin who is online at the moment. There's a request needing revdel/oversight at the help desk here. I emailed oversight a couple of hours ago, but all the volunteers there seem to be offline. Can you hide this revision with revdel please? -- John of Reading (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Materialscientist (talk) 11:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

need help with user who removes "Speedy delete" repeatedly from his own article

Hi,

Please see Iam RSR, a new article I tagged for lacking info on the subject's importance. User:Iamrsrandhawa passed his own article in the new article queue, and now is repeatedly removing the "Speedy delete" tag from his article. What should I do? Thanks! Star767 (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind! User:Mean as custard took care of it. Best, Star767 (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

AC power plugs and sockets

Hi Materialscientist, my recent link change in the article AC power plugs and sockets was no linkspam, as you call it, because it's a simple update of the URL. I am the owner of both users.telenet.be/worldstandards and worldstandards.eu. I'm currently in the process of moving to a new domain (worldstandards.eu) and I plan to erase the users.telenet.be/worldstandards URL in the near future. My website is currently hosted on two domains, but the contents is identical. Cheers, McGregor4 —Preceding undated comment added 18:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Norrington

"You don't have to learn wikicoding. All I ask is to add references with the specific statements you added, bare urls will do, we just need to know which source supports what. Your edits did look as if you replaced referenced information with unreferenced." - my edits are all unreferenced, as is all the information on the Stephen Norrington page as it currently exists - there are, of course, plenty of links on that page that link to further inaccurate information on the web (such as statements by actors or press releases published in trade magazines that were written by me to advertise some project or another - encyclopedia-worthy sources?) but it's not possible, of course, to provide truly reliable sources of information about individuals - all information, especially when it comes to motivation and personal life, will be necessarily anecdotal, heresay, rumored or slanted - there's no way I can definitively prove to you that what I say is true, that I am who I say I am, or that the info I've provided is anything other than buffoonishly self-serving. It's also worth noting that the initial contributor to the Stephen Norrington page (Mr.Do!) has been blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. Surely that implies the entire page should be deleted, for how can anything there be trusted, right from the get-go?

"We only evaluate edits, we can't see whether they are vandalism or good-faith attempts to correct factual errors. Editors who screen new additions simply have no time to research the topic from scratch." Then why have a policy about verified sources at all? Much of the verified information currently available on the Stephen Norrington page (and the info referenced therein) is directly or indirectly anecdotal. My anecdotal information was intended to supersede the existing anecdotes. Perhaps anecdotes have no place in an encyclopedia at all. Wikipedia is a wonderful resource but, when it comes to "life history" information about living people (as opposed to numerical info like, say box-office receipts), if this process is anything to go by, fear of libel seems to compel policy that preserves existing anecdote over new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.43.36 (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

G. Hannelius protection

Don't know whether it was my RPP or whether you just happened to also notice the repeat vandalism; thanks for putting a protect on it either way. Was getting fed up seeing all the stupid IP edits. Cheers, Chris W. (talk) 01:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Good grief! I see you single-handedly running AIV and then I turn around and see you protecting pages. You're something else! By the way, you are hereby forbidden from taking any time of from Wikipedia. If you do, you must line up 10 administrators to fill your shoes :) In all seriousness, thanks for what you do! Go Phightins! 03:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Sheradio

That user is not only involved in their own article, but that username indicates promotion and sharing by multiple users. I don't know what you think, but I think and indef block is better than 24 hours. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 05:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I try not to deter knowledgeable editors. I don't know if this is the case here, thus 24 h block, to remind them about using sources and edit summaries. We'll see then. Another admin might feel differently about this, which would be Ok with me. Materialscientist (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Materialscientist. I'm TosinMeb I notice that you are a recent changes Patrol Officer & I want to let you know that I don't believe I was vandalizing the article in anyway & that the real population of Canada (which I changed from: (35,002,447 to 35,066,217) is infact the current estimated population level of Canada as of February the 10th 2013 of this year, the reason I believe this is because of another wiki article I was following called: "Population of Canada by year" which is clearly states that the formula for the population of Canada can be further broken down into an annual growth rate of 1.238%, or a daily increase of "1,137 individuals." I believe by consistently following this formula/ page we should be able to ascertain the population level of Canada each day. As for the article itself, as correct as it may be/ seem I too would also like to talk in depth with the user who is administering all the recant changes to it because it still says: 2012 (Est.) (when it should clearly say 2013 (Est.) because Canada's Population as you see only just hit the 35 Million milestone in the latter part of last year, & by the given formula its correct, but the year of the estimation isn't, & so I tried to edit that page as well, but it seems Wikipedia admins are rather stingy & uncooperative, please respond back if you agree with me? Furthermore since Canada's population clock was recently removed I believe that it is important to have the most precise/ up to date estimation round to clock to avoid confusion for people still seeking that information, thank you for your cooperation!

Regarding Yemen

Hello,

I am talk I noticed that the article Yemen has some errors and is not applied to real life. I am a Yemeni and all what I changed was absolutely right. Should I provide a citation for thing in which I am a first source? Thank you. MSZ1412

11 February 2013  

Dear Sir what if I have the resources in different language ? I am a certified translator.

how is that ? Because I found the English info is not recent.

11 February 2013  

OK, how can I add the resource, and sorry for the repeated disturbance.

Thanks

11 February 2013

Dear I want to start editing page which are in need for grammar editing. How can I find them.

12 February 2013

request for administrator attention?

I guess he got what he came for! Dlohcierekim 08:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Images - Technical questions

Hi, a new editor has asked me some technical questions about adding / changing images in articles but my technical knowledge is minimal. Who can I refer them to? Thanks in advance. Denisarona (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK delay: running over three hours late

Materialscientist, the 16:00 UTC update was over three hours late due to problems with the image being unprotected, so the manual update that you had been planning to do in a few minutes because the bot was going to be down won't be needed until 03:23 UTC. There's a chance Shubinator may have restarted the bots by then, but if you're around, can you please check? With luck someone will have promoted Prep 4 into Queue 4 by then, and there will be something to move to the main page. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've already checked the situation and will be around for the next update. Materialscientist (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HaTikwa

Hi, I saw that you've blocked User:Boldpot1. The activity seems to be connected to a previous sockpuppetry investigation surrounding HaTikwa back in 2011. How should we proceed? -SFK2 (talk) 08:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

David Cunliffe

Hi there. You undid an edit I made to David Cunliffe's page on the basis that there was no citation for it. David Cunliffe's demotion was a major story in New Zealand at the time. I have since added a citation to the story. Thanks. 1.54.97.96 (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

School IP Block

I was in the process of starting a school project with several classes of students who would be editing their high school's Wiki page. When we tried to create an account for another teacher, we realized that we were being blocked from creating accounts. I think I have finally traced the last block, which was for a term of three years, back to you. I realize we are blocked due to student vandalism, but I am curious why we are being blocked for such a long period of time and if there is any way we can pursue this project so that our students do not miss out on this learning opportunity because of vandalism that occurred in 2010. The blocked address is 165.136.230.3 - I already attempted to appeal the block, but I was denied and not given a reason or an opportunity to respond before the appeal was immediately closed. Jcarney 77 (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Jcarney77

I guess you mean 165.138.230.3 - I have unblocked it, but with such requests be prepared that someone will reblock on sight if vandalism resumes - there is little tolerance to school IPs, and the blocking person will not know about your project. Materialscientist (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for blocking a vandal attacking a page I have been editing! Cmckain14 (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

REGARDING THE LASER DIODE ARTICLE:

Now I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, so I apologize if my formatting is off here or if I've misunderstood your explanation, but I'd have to say I disagree with your idea that impedance is misleading to electrical people, considering it is a very important part of any electrical system. I also was not aware that you are in charge of approving whatever goes into the Laser Diode article. Please provide better, more founded reasons for your deletions or leave the data alone. I'm of the belief that common analogs found elsewhere in the real world are an excellent tool for helping with understanding more complex concepts, especially for those who do not "already know", as your statement that "everyone already knows" is universally false regardless of the topic. Wikipedia is used as a resource by many types of people at many different levels of comprehension, which is what drove my decision to include that info. Anything that helps with understanding should be welcome in any encyclopedia (even this one) as long as it's factual and truly applies to the topic. If there is a site policy against the inclusion of analogs please provide reference to it.

All the best

lazord00d

Quote: "I am not "in charge of approving whatever goes into the Laser Diode article" - any edit can be reviewed and reverted. Your initial correction was good, but then you've got carried away. First, have a look through WP:LEAD. The lead (the opening paragraphs) should summarize the article and introduce the topic, repetition is fine there, but it should stay focused on the article topic, which is laser diode, not semiconductor laser. Then, impedance has multiple meanings and thus its use in optics is misleading for general readers (it associates with resistance to propagation, which is not what you meant trying to clarify reflection in the cavity); refractive index is better. The concept of light reflection in a glass is known to everyone. Finally, have a look through WP:NOR. We are not supposed to write essays on what we know, though some clarifications are indeed necessary. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)"

reply

1) A laser diode is a type of semiconductor laser.

2) The fact that the principles governing the reflection of light in glass is the exact same as what is governing this action might not be so obvious to "everyone" in the case of laser diodes. I have seen confusion in the past due to the fact that the mirrors are not physically separate from the crystal which is why I mentioned it.

3) Introducing the difference between conventional laser diodes and OPSLs as the only elaboration in the intro seemed strange to me when the same info was introduced in the first section. I get that repetition is allowed in the intro, but I edit as much to clean up structure and wording as I do adding content. There is room for improvement in this article.

I agree that refractive index is a more accurate term for this application. That is what I was trying to convey, but in my experience the idea of a difference of impedance as the cause of reflected power can be easier to understand. That may not work for everyone here however, you're right on that.

That said, given that you rapidly altered several of my edits in a row, making some changes that don't seem to have truly solid rationale (such as the idea that discussion of laser diodes are entirely separate from semiconductor lasers when other types of semiconductor lasers are mentioned in the lead) I'm hoping that your edits are legit. For the record I disagree with the idea of editing in a manner that attempts to dictate what content is acceptable based on personal opinion and/or emotional response.

Take care

lazord00d

sherfield school

Hi I work for the school IT and are using information that was given to me by staff who have researched the school information so that i could put it on there for them.

Thanks Ben

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for banning the user who was vandalizing my talk page. Cmckain14 (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

your reverts

Why did you revert my edits removing the Interwiki links? Is there any agreement not using the data provided from Wikidata now? -- 109.48.74.139 (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Accident, sorry - I didn't know that Wikidata is already deployed. I am keen to learn how the English Wikipedia will deal with it (bot-assisted removal, etc?), as there is a lot of confusions at the early stage. Materialscientist (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Could you please reset your reverts? -- 109.48.74.139 (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Mass removal of interwikis should only be done as part of a policy. I need a link to such policy. Materialscientist (talk) 02:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there any policy not use Wikidata's Interwiki links? -- 109.48.74.139 (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

No. I saw a discussion at WP:VP that it works Ok for now and that we shouldn't rush mass removing interwikis - that's all I know at the moment. Materialscientist (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The removal of Interwiki links in five articles is hardly a "mass removal"....;-) -- 109.48.74.139 (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, 5 is many enough to generate an avalanche (by others :-). Materialscientist (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons why not. Fighting windmills (i.e. bots :-). Materialscientist (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I could say you are 10 admins in 1, but that would be an understatement. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 06:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

69.248.52.4

Hey hey, good swiftness on the New Jersey-based "Pooh's Heffalump" IP vandal. I lament that I didn't get a chance to report the most recent shenanigans to WP:AIV. While I've been doing my part to suppress questionable edits for quite some time, I gotta say, it's super search-copy-paste heavy! Can you recommend any quick tools for dealing with this stuff in a less mind-boggling fashion? "Yes, 69.248.52.4 is also (search-copy-paste) 173.161.142.201, and (search-copy-paste) 69.248.52.86, and (search-copy-paste) 209.212.4.170 as you can see from this (search-copy-paste) sockpuppet report, etc etc." Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Precious again

suggestions for attitude
Thank you for the wisdom in a nutshell regarding attitude that you gave us, not only for DYK: "friendly and constructive ... stay together and collaborate". You called it "good old past" then, I hope it has a future. - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (7 December 2009, 29 December 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the twelfth recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, it still applies, repeated in br'erly style. I keep hoping for that future and put "Letting go of the past" on top of my talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Laser Diode Article

The pond analogy I referenced obviously represents only one reflective surface as it should only be necessary to describe how a single mirror is formed for the concept to be understood. Baby steps, so to speak. I agree that a pane of glass is more similar to the geometry of a laser diode, however, you are correct there. Personally I don't think we're really conflicting here, merely describing the same physics at different levels of detail. Your statement about gain is certainly relevant. If you have not already, you should edit the article with these improvements. It would certainly be a better use of your expertise than arguing the semantics of other people's efforts here. There are often many ways of describing these phenomena in simpler terms, some much better than others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazord00d (talk • contribs) 15:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Creep (deformation)

Asking you because you were the last person to edit this article before me. What do you think of my addition to the page — does it help or hurt? No need to reply to me with a message; just please look at it and make any needed changes (or reversions) that you can find. Nyttend (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Vio (drink)

Hi. I requested the page Vio (drink) to be protected at RFP due to persistent vandalism. The page is no receiving multiple trolling by an user with US proxies/dynamic IPs. Could you protect the page? Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Disruption by User Dr.K

Hello Materialscientist, user Dr.K keeps reverting my edits on the concerned article and deleting my comments on the high traffic page you referred to. He, as you can see, was also disrupting my page protect request. I suspect he is trying to provoke me to make a misstep to help user Athenean, since Dr.K has no prior connection whatsoever to our dispute. I am not sure what to do. Please advise. Thank you for your help.Devanampriya (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand and respect that you have denied my page protect request. I'm sorry but who were the two regular editors? Dr.K was not a regular editor. Only athenean. Please clarify? Devanampriya (talk) 05:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for advice

Hi MS. Sorry for the embarrassing RFPP brouhaha but the current thread version is wrong because the other editor has changed the sequence of the discussion by altering comments which were already replied to by me and also added a subsequent reply all in one edit. Through his repeated reversions my reply now contains text not in the thread because it was retroactvely removed by the other editor. This is the original version where I replied to his comments: Possible fellow nationalist pov pusher to or alias of Athenean seeking to keep his version.. Then, after my reply, he edited his comments and removed the phrase: to or alias of Athenean seeking to keep his version even though I had already replied to it. What can/should be done now to fix this? Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I simply declined the request and removed the thread, to avoid possible inconsistencies you mentioned. Materialscientist (talk) 05:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Than you very much. That was an excellent alternative solution. Sorry, again, for the faux pas. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you also for you kind words on Devanampriya's talkpage. Much appreciated. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Continued IP user talk page abuse

Found another NPA 1. I've already given him a final warning - and yet his attacks continue. Would you consider revoking his talk page access? hmssolent\Let's convene 11:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I am brand new baby as far as wikipedia updation is concerned so I am likely to make some mistakes, please consider that a lapse rather than an intended violation of policy. May take a day or two to learn the tricks, pl bear with me, rest assured I have no intention of violating any policy. Regards Dr Rawal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsrawal (talk • contribs) 12:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, understood, and I shall make sure I don't violate any of the terms. Do I need to go back and edit the matter that I have already placed, or follow the guidelines in my subsequent work? (talk —Preceding undated comment added 12:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Got it! Shall be careful in adding them now, and shall add pics in those articles alone, where they are really needed. Regards. [[User talk:Tsrawal|talk] —Preceding undated comment added 12:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

New Oldhouse2012 IP sock

Special:Contributions/24.135.79.187 (*facepalm*) Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Edmund White: deletion of biographical event

Thank you. Narrative reset with full reference to event mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.226.60.68 (talk) 09:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hippos

Sorry, I think they were not so bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roburq (talk • contribs) 11:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Picture Removal

Just wanted to find out why my picture was removed? I didn't violate anything, and the picture I used is my own, that I took. I even still have it on my camera. If you can show me what rule I violated, I will take it down. And you can respond on my talk page. Thanks :-) Andy Probably because I just saved the pics from my own website. http://andylindgrenphoto.weebly.com/ Garrett Graham's TD pic was used with my film camera, Nick Toon was using my sister's digital camera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyLindgren (talk • contribs) 00:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

May I email you? Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyLindgren (talk • contribs) 00:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Materialscientist (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	You are just an amazing admin, for many reasons I need not lay out. Keep up the good work. Vacation9 00:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Algeria

Why did you revert my edits to Algeria just now?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

yeah, I was gonna ask that too. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikimiedia software if glitching with me today, and my revert aimed at edit on Yemen, yet I wrote a reply to Underlying lk on their talk. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 06:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It can be debated whether French artists and writers born in Algeria should be considered as part of Algerian culture or not, but if they're included there should at least be a source supporting that view, and the current article doesn't have one. As for your second objection, about the origin of Algerian, that's why I added "but a 80% majority identifies with an Arabic-based culture", as stated in the source. Don't worry about a few glitches, you're doing an excellent job as always in keeping the vandals in check! :)--eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent additions to RFPP

My apologies for not clearly stating that the articles I requested PC protection were already indef semi'ed (most in 2007/8). Regards. Crazynas ^t 12:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Unprotection request

You recently semi-protected Metric system and International System of Units, apparently because a registered user made a request for it. What he didn't say was that he wanted it semi-protected so that he could force his will against unregistered editors, and shortly after you semi-protected them he reverted back to his version. This user treats unregistered users with contemp: take a look at the edit summaries he used when reverting back to his preferred versions [12] and [13]. Please consider unprotecting now so that the content can be put back to how it was before he changed it, and so that discussion can then continue to reach a consensual content. Alternatively, please consider reverting and fully protecting whilst the discussion takes place. Thanks 212.183.128.195 (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

67.218.53.224

Would you mind modifying the block on the IP to not be anon only? There appears to have been only one user of the IP since at least March 2012.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Materialscientist (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. It is my suspicion that the IP belongs to a problematic editor who edits on all of the same pages as this IP.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

John Patrick Williams

You recently messaged me regarding revisions to the John Patrick Williams page. I'm his son and have made corrections to the existing wiki page because of factual inaccuracies or outdated information. I'm not sure who created this page originally, but I've updated the wiki page to a more complete biography — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.7.169.47 (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

famous? studio album

i have created and fully refrenced the "famous?" sudio album what was the reason for you to redirect it. The article has got all the links which show it exists. you have redirected this page twice without any valid reason. i need a valid reason for that page being ridirected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.183.225 (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NM. References to itunes and Amazon merely say that the album exist, they do not indicate that album charted. Materialscientist (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

the album does contain evidence of notability on the discogs link which shows this album exists. What type of refrence is needed to show that the album exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.183.225 (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The key is notability, not existence, see WP:NM. Materialscientist (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

could you please tell me what type of refrence i can include on that article. what website refrence would be good for natability — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.183.225 (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

First try to find evidence that the album charted. This would be a good sign, even if the referencing website is unreliable. Materialscientist (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

AntWiki is a global website supported by all of the major scientists concerned with ants. The Australian page listed at the bottom is now being incorporated into AntWiki as well as most of the images by AntWeb and Antbase. This is visited by more than 5 million readers per year and rapidly growing. It is setting the format for valid species via contributions by Barry Bolton. I can add much more... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary Alpert (talk • contribs) 01:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe start with copyediting its front pages? Materialscientist (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Mike Feinberg

Hi Materialscientist. I recently modified the page on Mike Feinberg and you correctly pointed out that it was a first try at modifying the page. I have practiced proper editing and updated the page. Feel free to take a look at it and let me know if there are other issues I should address. I appreciate you taking the time to point out the formatting errors and in restoring my first failed attempt to improve on the page. For your information, I am a high school student who attended KIPP Academy and I am working on this entry as part of a school assignment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.203.33.130 (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

IP addresses indulging in Vandalism

Two IP addresses, Special:Contributions/92.105.23.94 and Special:Contributions/142.165.134.126, are persistently indulging in Vandalism of South Indian film based pages. Please check out their edit history. Jayakrishnan.ks100 (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Indian cinema is a difficult areas for me - editors change numbers and ratings without explanation and references, and neither the new nor the old values fit to the references, which sometimes don't even mention any numbers. It is hard to tell what is vandalism there - most edits simply pile up something. Materialscientist (talk) 05:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

But we can have a policy of the figures being consistent with the citations provided. You can't just come up with wild numbers contradicting the source. I can see that you had blocked IP 142.165.134.126 on 12th Jan. Just wanted to bring to your notice he/she is still continuing the same. Jayakrishnan.ks100 (talk) 06:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

re: Cosmology page

Hi, Several people, including you, have been reverting the description of Biblical Cosmology to one that is just completely fraudulent and doesn't have hardly a thing to do with the Bible's actual description of the cosmos. It's nearly a carbon copy of the Babylonian one and not accurate at all in terms of what the Bible says (which is why I included Bible references in my revision). Describing Bible cosmology as similar to Babylonian is about as accurate as calling America a communist nation. Isn't wikipedia supposed to be accurate?

All who have reverted it simply do not seem to care about accuracy. They may have good intentions, but their description is not accurate at all. I have MUCH more documentation of this I can add if you wish, even by agnostic scientists. I'm also a professor myself and have done quite a bit of study into the Bible as well as science and history. Wikipedia is very good in many places..but there is unfortunately a bias against historical facts in some areas, sometimes in Christian areas, but not limited to that by any means. I use wikipedia a lot...but we need to make sure it is accurate, not just supporting a prejudiced agenda.

Sorry I haven't contacted others about this..I just figured out how to use the talk pages just now.

Bryan

Dotoree (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Well...

You very recently declined my protection request for African Elephant. You cited -- "Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection." less than 20 mins ago.

Go look at the page now. Protected!

Unlucky. WazzaAzzaw (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

You've asked to protect African Elephant, not African elephant. Materialscientist (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh sorry, there's a huge difference there.. it's not like its the EXACT SAME article. My sincerest apologies. WazzaAzzaw (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the quick answer on WP:RFPP. I had considered requesting a block of the IP, but i have the gut feeling that that is rather more severe than semi-protection of the target; maybe i'm naïve, but i hoped he'd learn.... Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 04:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible sock

I just came across this user: User:Ljupce.zendelov124785694876657 after deleting Real Madrid D. Kind of reminds me of a few of the names related to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of RealMadridCF2012. Maybe just a small coincidence though. Thoughts? INeverCry 04:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for posting. I know RealMadridCF2012 only marginally, via his signature addition of a certain person like here. I don't see that person in the article you've deleted, and thus think Ljupce.zendelov124785694876657 is unrelated, but as I said, I'm not knowledgeable about this user - even not so clever abusers do mutate with time. Materialscientist (talk) 04:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I thought it was probably just a slight coincidence, but I figured I might as well make sure. INeverCry 05:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for unprotecting my user page. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

About deleted external link in article Rosedale Abbey

Category:Rosedale Abbey, I'm no spammer. i produce a local blog of interest to visitors to Rosedale. i cannot see how you can make a judgement about this from your ivory tower. Rosedale is a tourist village and relies on attracting visitors. They need as much info as possible. Please reinsert and stop being a dick. regards, Graham]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr G Marshall (talk • contribs)

(talk page stalker) Hi Dr Marshall, Materialscientist doesn't appear to be on-line at the moment, so I'll take the liberty of answering for him.

I am sure that he didn't intend to accuse you of intentionally spamming, though it may have come across that way.

Wikipedia has guidelines on what are acceptable links to elsewhere in the internet that aren't direct references (in Wikipedia jargon, "external links") in its pages (in Wikipedia jargon, "articles").

The guideline is Wikipedia:External links. Unfortunately your blog does appear to be primarily an advertisement for what appears - and please do correct me if I am wrong - a business that you run in the Rosedale Abbey area. That is why the external link was removed.

@Materialscientist: WP:BITE much?

Peter aka --Shirt58 (talk) 08:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Shirt58, thanks. I have replied on their talk. No I didn't mean to bite right away, and started with level 1. This edit didn't really fit into a "village blogger" pattern. Materialscientist (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, firetruck. What a fuddle. If ever I was on the verge of a WP:COMPETENCE block, now would be time.--Shirt58 (talk) 08:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

You are too bloody quick!

By the time I get around to pushing the block button, you have already done it. So instead I am left declining the ones that aren't vandalism, are stale etc, and it looks like I am a veritable vandalism pacificst :P Viridae^{DON'T PANIC} 07:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I cherrypick obvious vandals that need to be stopped ASAP. Actually, I am not up to blocking, and prefer doing my things elsewhere on wiki, which is why I might not react on something blatant even if I'm online. This is to say that relying on me is not a good idea :-). Thanks for handling difficult reports. Materialscientist (talk) 07:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic but: Hope I wasn't crossing any bright lines re-introducing the complaint I've re-introduced above this thread. (I mean well, but there's an ever-growing body of evidence that I should WP:CHU to User:MrStoopidHead58.) Pete aka MrStoopidHead58 aka --Shirt58 (talk) 08:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Tracy Nelson

Hi, sorry to hijack your thread but I'm new here and trying to respond to a question from Materialscientist who says to "leave a message at the bottom of this page" and I have absolutely no idea how to do that. Help? Teakayenn (talk) 09:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

You did Ok. An easy way to start a new thread is to click "new section" on the top. To reply in a thread you can just click "edit" at that thread. How can I help? Materialscientist (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Vanishing blocks

Just a note that you may be interested in this. It seems to be a bug of some sort, but it's probably something you'll want to keep an eye on. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Disregard this! :) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor

Hey Materialscientist! Thank you for your work recently and being actively involved in making Wikipedia a better place. Anyway, why I'm giving you this barnstar because I saw an unusual expiry time saying exactly "1 year, 89 days, 18 hours, 10 minutes and 48 seconds" for a block user and that really made me laugh. I don't know but that was the first time I saw that kind of time in my almost 1 year in service. Well, thanks and have a nice day! :) Mediran (t • c) 01:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I had the same reaction when I saw this first time, but this is just an old software bug, which reappears from time to time (there other funny ones :-). Materialscientist (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Materialscientist, I am correcting some of the info regarding the geographical regions of this area. Some of the wrong and misleading info did not have sources before so I am correcting them. I will provide sources as i am correcting the mistakes in the articles. Thanks. --LePatro (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

That is what I am trying to correct. Mecca is located in the Tihamah region not hejaz. It is mistakenly thought that to be in Hejaz. Medina on the other hand is correctly located in the hejaz region. There is quite a difference between the two regions. Please let me correct that and i will provide the sources that differentiate between the two region. --LePatro (talk) 03:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

All the books that put Mecca in Hejaz were written lately after the kingdom of hejaz.The name of that kingdom made people think that Mecca is in Hejaz. Early Arabian scholars in their books put Mecca within the region of Tihamah. I will provide more sources from early Arabian books. --LePatro (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit war blocks

I was a little surprised to see that you had placed blocks for edit warring here and here, without either blocking or even warning the other participants in the edit wars, particularly Binksternet, who is involved in two simultaneous edit wars with the user(s) that you blocked. Is there some good reason for this, which I have overlooked? JamesBWatson (talk) 09:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The justification is in the comment "the current photo is agreed upon by majority; see Talk page" - four users were reverting the IPs, vote aside. No, I don't like those blocks and prefer passing such cases. Materialscientist (talk) 09:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I see several problems with that, including the fact that the talk page shows the picture that Binksternet claims "is agreed upon by majority" as being supported by three editors (Apostle12, Mercurywoodrose, Binksternet), while the other one is supported by five editors (Mike Linksvayer, Chimino, 208.121.64.2, Fashionbaby90, 68.181.152.3), which casts doubt on the claim of "majority" support.

.. which is why I said I don't like those blocks (dubious consensus, war about non-issue). Note that Chimino actually reverted the IP and wrote that comment on "agreed". Consensus aside, IPs (which I believe belong to one person) did not follow the civil dispute resolution way and kept warring against several users. Semiprotection was a viable option. Materialscientist (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

If Binksternet uses his edit-warring "pass" on me just one more time on Abe Vigoda, there's going to be some serious problems. I had to go the RfC route before, and I do not need to waste other's time again like I did before. Edit-warring is not acceptable, and must be nipped in the bud every time. Doc talk 09:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggesting block of ip editor of Roger Kahn and related articles

This editor has history of being blocked for numerous violations of policy. Today, however, they have reached a new nadir with this edit: [14]

--Wlmg (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in here. If the editor in question really is Roger Kahn, as xe claims to be, it's too bad xe has been unwilling to comply with basic Wikipedia policies for so long, and despite repeated invitations to do so. The editor's contributions have shown a repeated inability to distinguish between encyclopedic biography and overblown publicity. Which is a pity, because Kahn has certainly been a major figure in American sportswriting, and we've included plenty of legitimate independent reviews and sources that attest to his significance. I did rather enjoy xis suggestion today that I should "try anotrher [sic] field, say fishmongering! I will be glad to buy a herring, or even a gefulte fish, from you." Anyone want to buy a trout? :-) Best--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggesting block of ips and user

Hello. We have some problems here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/K-1

These 2 ips http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/64.183.48.213 http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/76.169.192.77

and this user http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Marie_k-1

are creating a lot of problems on the K-1. He doesn't know the rules on Wikipedia because he didn't read them. He removed sourced info and added his info without any source multiple times. He's pretending that he's some staff member but who cares? First of all, the organization to add this on official site and then we add the correct info. Or this guy to come with press material to prove his writing.

Please warn him first and explain him the rules. Thank you. Ozumi-k1fa (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozumi-k1fan (talk • contribs)

Doug Clark

I made a series of changes to this entry but each time was told they could not be recorded.... What can I do? Thank you so much..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macnamband (talk • contribs) 00:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Beak

Hi Materialscientist: In your recent edit, you removed some publishing information — ISBN numbers, publishing house, etc. —from some of the references (i.e. see the Cere section, for example. You've also removed links to article PDFs, leaving only links to abstracts. Was there a reason for that? MeegsC (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for asking. (i) I haven't removed ISSNs from beak, but removed elsewhere - ISSNs are only needed for obscure journals; whenever doi/pmid/jstor links are available, ISSN only adds clutter. (ii) I have replaced elibrary.unm.edu/sora/ links because they are dead (the library moved). (iii) If there is a web page with a pdf link then I prefer linking it instead of linking the pdf. The main reason is that some users do not want to launch pdf plugin right away, and the web link often already provides an abstract. Also, for the SORA library the web links are much shorter. (iv) Similar to ISSN, publishers are not needed for journal links with doi/pmid/jstor details - that info is easily available by following the journal at the linking site. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, we're talking at cross purposes. First, I'm talking about ISBNs, not ISSNs!! You removed information from a book reference, including the publisher and the ISBN number. In addition, you removed links to PDFs, replacing them with a JSTOR (or equivalent) link that has (free) access only to an abstract. Any chance you'd consider restoring those? I won't get into an edit war, but I do think it's important to provide access to source material where it is freely available... MeegsC (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not remove ISBNs unless they are broken. If you point me to which ISBN I've removed, I'll restore it. I have removed a publisher link to a journal article [15] which is duplicated by doi - doi links are much more stable. Materialscientist (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for blocking User talk:71.125.234.23, the IP vandalized both my as well as User talk:Webclient101 's userpages. Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: Atmosphere and Ethos

DELETED MESSAGE[The school proposes to build character and personality of its students by cultivating inquisitiveness, promoting understanding and encouraging open-mindedness. However, over the years a number of students and family members have raised allegations of hegemony, repressive administration (especially under Fr. Sebastian Nalail, S.J.), dogmatic indoctrination and child abuse against the school. A number of ex-students, including some internationally well-placed and successful ex-students, have repeatedly reported about the school's apathy to children's curiosity, the sub-standard megalomaniac teachers, their inability to comprehend the developing minds of children, and the subsequent draconian approaches to classroom instruction leading to destruction of children's natural curiosity and inquisitive bend of mind. The school has a long history of child abuse, in various forms ranging from suppressing children's curiosity in matters of inquisitiveness to hide the incompetent nature of the faculty, to physical abuse in the name of discipline. The extremely low pay scale ensures only residual college students with undergraduate degrees willingly take up faculty positions in the school, and lacking any pedagogical training or child psychology insight these people play a key role in causing irreparable damage to a child's psychological, intellectual and social growth. However, due to zealous Alma-mater spirit infused through indoctrination from early childhood via dogmatic preachings, most often the victims are led to an ideological state where they are impervious to their own afflictions, which enables the status quo to perpetuate itself. A secular, fair and judicial investigation into the affairs of the school, and the ability of its faculty to impart education, and the consequences of entrusting them with child development has long been in need.]

None of that was either "original research" or "synthesis of published articles". I went to that school. I am an established research scientist, who realizes, in retrospect, the harm done to children under inhuman conditions in schools like the one concerned. I was telling the truth about the serial abuse of child rights that is perpetrated in that institution, and it is sad that "reliable source" is required for things like child abuse. Silencing victim's voices does not vindicate authority. As Neil deGrasse Tyson said, "Facts are true. Whether you believe them or not." Anybody with two brain cells to bang together knows that child abusers do not leave videotapes of themselves, neither do they write confessional letters to be published in the New Yorker. So forgive me for not having "reliable sources". That being said, think about the number of people, children, you are exposing to abuse by participating in the dogmatic self-promotion of an institution and helping them divert attention from their crimes. This is not how 'knowledge' or 'information' is shared. There is a reason Wikipedia is not accepted as a reference in the academic circle. And the moderators are a main part of that. Try and leave behind your pseudo-important sense of responsibility over moderating a dubious source of information, and think like a sentient being. The world does not function by a rule book. It requires rational, logical thought that adapts to situations and circumstances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.148.177.37 (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

You are an idiot. I wonder how you managed to get through grad school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.148.177.37 (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK queue needs loading in the next 30 minutes

Materialscientist, in case you're around, I'm hoping you might be able to take care of this. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Someone tried to do the update, but it didn't go well and had to be rolled back. In case you saw something was going on, it's reverted; if you can try, that would be wonderful. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! BlueMoonset (talk) 07:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Patricia Nell Warren

Hello -- I'm Patricia Nell Warren -- the subject of the Patricia Nell Warren article. I received your messages. I'm new to Wikipedia, but I do understand Wikipedia's very valid concerns about people writing about themselves. The article I edited has been there for years, and it was certainly not unfriendly or wildly inaccurate...but it mostly mentioned things in my life that have little to do with the novels and journalism that people know me by. Numerous people have commented to me about how off-topic that previous Wikipedia piece was. I'd like to see an article that focuses mostly on my writing. So last night I added new material, and did some revisions, that I am confident can be backed up with sources. Your system is complicated, and I would be happy to work with someone at Wikipedia who can provide guidance so my version is Wikipedia-compliant in every detail. If that's not possible, I am okay with my version being deleted. In that case, I will hope for some other individual to come along with an article that better represents what I've done in my profession. Thank you. Patricia Nell Warren Patricianellwarren (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Was not me who made the change, IP Adress conflict with 208.20.166.20

I did not make the change you messaged me about. Next time, please understand that IP addresses change, especially in a workplace (which is where I got this message at). Apparently someone at my place of employment made the change and I got the message because of my IP address. Our external IP addresses change periodically, and I do not know what my last IP was or what my next one will be. We are an international company across the US (NYC, Atlanta, LA), Italy, Germany, Israel, and the Phillippines. This edit could have came from anywhere, but I can tell you for sure it wasn't me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.20.166.20 (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Nina Harmar

You have her name spelled incorrectly. It is Harmar. She is the great, great granddaughter of General Josiah Harmar, First Commander in General, under George Washington. Feel free to check it out. I am her brother, Josiah Harmar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.154.193 (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Fangoh

This user, who you had previously blocked, is apparently editing on a few new accounts now. See User talk:Jamaradia, User talk:Khamrmah, and User talk:Popomamaha. All three accounts (especially Jamaradia) are being used to put very large images (and/or thumbnails) in infoboxes, and this user has yet to make any attempt at communication. ROG5728 (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I first thought to block, but then started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darmahjgari instead. You're welcome to comment. Materialscientist (talk) 03:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Heads up

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Is there a general list of all the bot-reported spam stuff (like the FIFA vandals and this) that is on Wikipedia somewhere? I'd prefer to know better what is and what is not a false positive better in the future. Thanks! Spencer^T♦C 05:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK queue needs loading in the next 35 minutes

I'd planned to be asleep before now, but I'm fixing an issue with the DYK prep areas, and noticed that we have plenty to load, but not one queue. At least there are 35 minutes to go before the bot comes by, instead of 30 as last night...

If you are around and can do something, thank you very much. And thanks for saving our bacon last night. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry and go to sleep :-). DYK was running for years in such mode, i.e., don't worry so much about missed updates. I'll check the preps and fill up a queue if I see no blatant problem. I've stopped doing that maybe a year ago because of potential troubles (promotion of copyvios or other subtle violations on the main page). Materialscientist (talk) 07:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Had to remove a hook from a prep area due to issues raised on WT:DYK, actually, which is why I'm still up. I appreciate you doing this: I tried to get Crisco 1492 do load a queue, but think he was already off to classes by the time I got to his talk page. There's one hook in the next prep set that was a special request timing wise, but since I don't know exactly when the Jerusalem Marathon begins, I'm not going to worry overmuch. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Protection request

Hello, Materialscientist. Would you please edit protect my user page in the same way as you did Evan's? Thanks! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Materialscientist (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

91.64.185.69 is evading his ban on new IP 91.65.180.241

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/91.65.180.241

Please ban his ISP permanently — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.143.187.154 (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Bill Lichtenstein

Materialscientist, You just undid edits to the page "Bill Lichtenstein". With all due respect, you're being duped. Look carefully at the edits you undid. Those edits removed unsubstantiated material and deliberate lies and distortions entered by Lichtenstein himself. Example: google the "United Nations media award" - no such award appears to exist. The page refers to an image of a certificate that says nothing. I got a participation certificate in youth football - does that mean I can claim playing in the World Cup? You're a scientist - where's your skepticism?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.91.199.159 (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Vacuum Oil Barometer

Yes Materialscientist ,you were wrong to take down my barometer posting.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2013/02/large_barometer_at_portland_st.html

TEBennett — Preceding unsigned comment added by TEBennett (talk • contribs) 00:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Draco edit

http://inyenagilgalad.blogspot.com/2007/08/entrevista-draco.html

Between the 8th and 10th questions of this interview Draco addresses his drug abuse, I don't know how to use wikipedia very well, so if you could help me I would appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.67.73 (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

User:SuperQQ

I think someone doesn't like you See here --Calton | Talk 04:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

changes- all new info!

The changes I made were current changes. All new relivent current changes that needed to be added. Also, trying to change the photo, I own the photo! It would be great if you could lend a hand, all info that I added was update info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gena32 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for taking care of the ip vandalism on my talk page and that of several other editors which occurred this day. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk page access

Would you mind taking away talk page access for 200.79.224.72? Thanks in advance. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

intrested in these?

if you received, pls reply. http://periodictable.com/ http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/List_of_compounds 121.7.54.103 (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

85.221.22.136

Could you also block this IP address? It evaded the block of Onanikongen22 (diff). Eyesnore (PC) 12:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Flowers of the world

In spite of multiple warnings, User:Flowers of the world is edit-warring in a number of article while trying to push his POV. He seems to be a fan of Mammootty and his son Dulquer Salmaan. Could you have a look please. Salih (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

4 reverts in 4 hours

Please see the recent edits by StopYourBull at Gun control. I reverted him a total of 2 times on the basis of neutrality issues outlined on the talk page (and supported by four or five different editors). Another editor also reverted him a total of 1 time. He (StopYourBull) has now reverted us a total of 4 times in the last 4 hours, despite a general consensus on the talk page that the content in question has neutrality issues that need to be fixed. ROG5728 (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

IP 79.70.227.213

Just letting you know that I'd already reported the IP here before you blocked the IP. Flyer22 (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

hello, could you please do me a huge favor by telling me why you blocked me, again. Thanks, Jerusalem