Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:45, 20 December 2009

Please leave your message at the bottom of the page. I shall reply on your talk page. You can also write me an e-mail.

You are awarded: The Barnstar of Diligence

I hope you don't mind me placing this here. You are welcome to move it to where ever you want. I hope you will put this front and center (under your templates) on your user page.

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I award you, Materialscientist, the Barnstar of Diligence for your major contribution to the article entitled: The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question? This was an exemplary accomplishment of a tedious task. With unflagging diligence you rewrote all 70 citations for this article. This not only results in a smoother operation of the page on Misplaced Pages, but this boosts the asthetic quality of the article signifigantly. A tip of the hat to you! Ti-30X (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The Adopt-a-user-Barnstar

		The Adopt-a-User Barnstar
		Materialscientist I award you The Adopt-a-User Barnstar as a Wikipedian editor who goes above and beyond expectations as an adopter. Though we have never formally established the adopter to adoptee relationship, it has evolved into this. Your experience has guided me through turbulent and calm waters. Ti-30X (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ratings

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

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

Organic metal

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

A request

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

GA Moscow

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

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

Technetium

Nice addition to the technetium article! That is one of my older FAs that really needs a good refactor to be in compliance with modern FA standards. Your addition of a 'Compounds and chemical reactions' section helped that along very nicely. Again, thanks! --mav (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

COROT-1 nomination

Hey, Materialscientist.

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

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

Elementbox fix

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

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

DYK for Neodymium(III) chloride

Hey, thanks for your great work on expanding that article! I'm very fond of that article, since it was one of the first I worked on when I joined WP - I figured no one would ever read about such an obscure compound, so it would be good to practise on! Anyway, I think you've nicely filled in the obvious gaps, and the article really looks quite nice now, so I think that will draw more people to read it. Many thanks, Walkerma (talk) 06:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, we chemists appreciate what you do! Even NdCl3 has ca 2000 people per year reading it, which makes the work worthwhile in my book! We have traditionally been quite weak in materials science - we have had a few anon or occasional contributors, but their work has usually been written in an overly technical way (sometimes almost incomprehensible to most readers!). So I think your work nicely complements the work of the mainstream chemists, and it's really important stuff. Thanks again, Walkerma (talk) 06:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Venera 4

An excellent article. Well written, informative and interesting. MangoMango (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Obuda synagogue

I did the edit you suggested. I thought briefly of adding links to other Misplaced Pages pages about significant buildings in the Austro-Hungarian Empire whose roofs, bells, gutters, etc. were melted down for muniitons copper, but decided it was unnecessary clutter. what do you think?Historicist (talk) 12:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I will put it in, but you probably misunderstand the impact of WWI in Europe. No war has ever seen anything comparable to the industrial murder production lines of of WWII, but It was a life-and death struggle for the Austro-Hungarian Empire. There were shortages of food and everything else across the Empire, and, although the documentation on the district of Galicia is poorer than for WWII, it is certain that hundreds of thousands of Austro-Hungarian civilians perished at the hands of the Russian Army, in both mass murder incidents and because of starvation, but directly because the Russians burned whole towns, destroying granaries and leaving people to freeze and starve to death.Historicist (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I added a bit more, thank you.Historicist (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits on Multiangle Light Scattering:

Thank you for all of your help with the Multiangle Light Scattering Article. Your work and editing are very much appreciated. Thank you again, Wyattech.

File:Irrdiamond.jpg

Many thanks for the image. Please keep up the good work. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandal-fighter extraordinare

Cybercobra has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

I'd like to applaud you for your diligence in reverting vandalism to the articles on the elements; I see your vandalism reverts in the history all the time. Keep up the good work! (Seriously, it's ridiculous how much vandalism they get as a group). --Cybercobra (talk) 04:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:TiO2crystals.JPG

File:TiO2crystals.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:TiO2crystals.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Misplaced Pages, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Misplaced Pages, in this case: ]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

File:GaAscrystals.JPG is now available as Commons:File:GaAscrystals.JPG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 09:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

File:GaSstructure.jpg is now available as Commons:File:GaSstructure.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 09:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Wurtzite mineral.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Wurtzite mineral.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Zn3P2structure.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Zn3P2structure.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 07:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Adamantane.JPG is now available as Commons:File:Adamantane.JPG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Tausonite.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Tausonite.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

References

References for the hook in the article Mineral industry of Colombia have been placed. Koven.rm (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Gömböc

Very interesting - something I've never heard of. Thanks for your contribution. --BorgQueen (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ernest Archdeacon

Wow. Great image, from the mists of history! Thanks.

Shows how accurate the drawing was, used the same photo and interpreted a piece of fence/bank/background as extra metalwork. Thanks again. Autodidactyl (talk) 08:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

AuCl

Thank you for the nice representation of our old crystal structure

Jcwf (talk) 02:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Congrats...

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

Pre-emptive congrats

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

RFA

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

Your Request for Adminship

Dear Materialscientist,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LVEM

Thank you for your comments and cleanup. However. there is no exagerations being made about the technique. the LVEM5 could realisticaly image an 80nm sample in TEM mode. We generally recomend 20-50nm (not less). It really depends on the sample type and preperation. It is also well capable of 2nm reollutions and possibly smaller in TEM, SEM and STEM modes. Please feel free to get in contact with me through our website lv-em.com (i dont want to publicly post my email here). Jared lap (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK - prep 1

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

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

Photos in the Léon Levavasseur article

Thank you for adding photos to the Léon Levavasseur article. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK medal

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

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

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

Carbon nanotube

Hello. Thanks for sentence editing of the carbon nanotube. Because there was the Japanese original technology about carbon nanotube, I mentioned it in English. File:CNTBB spectrum.jpg is an image from the press (http://www.aist.go.jp/pr/nanotech2009/pdf/a5_e.pdf). Besides this, a plain image is not found here either.--Azure777 (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Periodicity (metamaterials)

I just created this article Periodicity (metamaterials), if you want to have a look. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 04:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

From Mye Flatley, on Xenon stability

In my research work I use Holden's judgement as published in section 11 of the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. I do not want to quibble with the text books upon which most people rely, or with researchers, or with the literature. It is very common for chemists and engineers to consider isotopes with half-lives in the billions of years to consider those stable. And for their use of course they are. As a theoretical nuclear physicist, I must accept that some isotopes are permanently stable and some are long-term stable. That is a very real consideration in nuclear physics theory. I accept Holden as the referee. In doing so I abandon my own opinions and judgement calls, and I avoid having to make a decision that might be wrong in an uncertain "grey" area. If anyone disagrees they should talk with Holden on the subject. Like it or not, Holden is the world's standard by default. Holden says six permanently stable isotopes of xenon and three long-term stable. That is what I accept whether I want that or not. I respect chemists and engineers for their way of evaluating for practical usage of a material, but from a theoretical standpoint I accept Holden's determination. Now that engineering is decending to the nano level, making finer determinations is needed. Holden is that finer determination for me. Of course this view point, if it is to be taken, should be employed across all of Misplaced Pages, which makes for a great deal of revision. But what is science but constant refinement toward ever greater detail in our understanding? Given our movement toward nanotechnology I think the move should be made. What do you think? My Flatley (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I also note that the table in the "Isotopes of xenon" article identifies long-term stable isotopes as "stable" and then cites their half-life. If an isotope has a long half-life, it is "long-term stable". If you want to clean the xenon articles up, I leave it to you. I do not have the time. I cannot counter quibbling by worldly about it. Ye have the time to do it correctly; it is your responsibility. My Flatley (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The isotopes of xenon doesn't cite an actual half-life for the really long lived nuclides, but a "greater than X" life, which is a lower limit on the half-life (not measured), found by looking but finding nothing. So far, we haven't been counting nuclides with half-lives so long they haven't been measured-- following the dictim of Lord Kelvin who figured if you can't reduce something to quantitation, it's not science! In theory, all nuclides of mass 165 and greater, and all but nine nuclides of mass 140 and greater, are unstable! This would leave us with no stable isotopes heavier than about barium (element 56), if we went by theory. But in theory, protons are unstable, too, as there is nothing to keep them from decaying to positrons and photons, except the fact that they don't (which we call conservation of baryon number, but its an empirical law, not something that seems necessary). So what to do? In practice, we've called nuclides "stable" until somebody comes up with an empirical half-life for the decay and evidence that it happened. By whatever means. I think the longest-lived nuclide we accept as unstable empirically is tellurium-128 with 2.2×10^24 years half-life measured by presense of decay products in minerals. It's another double beta decay one. The longest alpha decay directly observed is the well known bismuth-209, common bismuth (1.9 × 10^19 years), but it was predicted to be unstable long before it was observed to be, and we classed it as stable for all that time (so did chemists). Should we not have? I'm willing to follow either convention, but it needs to be consistant, and it sounds as though Holden is not being consistent, or else he'd list all nuclides over mass 165 as being unstable in theory. SBHarris 22:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I fixed the French Mongolian specialist, although I could use your help with coming up with a shorter hook for Dzongsar Monastery which I've just nominated. Dr. Blofeld 14:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK

Hey Materialscientist, I appreciate all the work you do at DYK, and as far as I can tell you're doing a great job in your administrative capability also. However, I do not understand the problem with the original hook in Bambi effect, and I am puzzled all the more because I thought you had said that you yourself didn't have a problem with it--so you cut that part from the hook because you imagined that others (but none of the other editors at DYK) might have a problem with it? The hook as you edited it has very little interest to it, and won't pull in a lot of views, I imagine. Drmies (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree. If the gay slang part is to be dropped, we'd better use one of the hooks suggested by Agne27 , for example:

• ... that because of the Bambi effect, some people will not eat a whole fish?

(Verified from the source.) Ucucha 22:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Please understand, that the hook which I objected would be pulled from the queue by someone anyway. The hook above is Ok with me (mysterious a bit), but I don't see what terribly wrong with mine? It explains the term which I'm sure not everybody knows. Other suggestions are welcome too. Materialscientist (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The hook should draw readers to the article, not give away what it is about. I believe my alt will draw quite some people in who wonder what this is all about, less so than for your hook. Ucucha 22:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested in hearing what kind of complaints would come in for a hook like this (gay slang and all), and what that assessment is based on. The whole fish, by the way, isn't bad. Drmies (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's up, with Ucucha's hook. MS, I hope you know, and I mean this quite sincere, how much I appreciate the hard and sometimes tedious work you do at DYK, and I believe more editors here should be as strict as you are in verifying statements and picking through sources. But I do wonder, sometimes, if your standards of propriety get in the way of a juicy hook--and by "juicy" I don't mean "offensive." Drmies (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Schwaa

I thought the Schwaa hook was a good lead hook. I've never heard before of a restaurant with no staff and found the hook very intriguing. If you feel strongly about moving out, let me know, and I'll pick a new one. Cbl62 (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. Cbl62 (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I moved Schwa down a peg and moved another hook into the lead. On a related point, I had formulated the 2 queues I did this morning with an eye toward timezones. I had intended prep 1 to go to queue 1 and prep 2 to go to queue 2. I put some effort into trying to find a good mix for each time zone and would like to preserve that. Do you mind putting them back in that order (i.e., bump queue 1 to queue 2 and then move prep 1 to queue 1)? Cbl62 (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought I had explained why Queue 1 and 2 should be swapped. They are not more or less equal. When I created them this morning, I gave considerable thought to trying to place hooks in appropriate time zones. For example, queue 1 has hooks of interest to those in Australia, Vietnam and the Philippines. I had put them in line for Queue 2 so they would go live while people are awake in those countries. By switching the order of the queues, you now have those 3 hooks going live while people in those countries are sound asleep -- precisely what I was trying to avoid.Cbl62 (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I had been going by Sydney time. That means the Australia related hook would go live in queue 2 in the 5 a.m. to 11 a.m. slot. If it's in queue 1, it goes live from 11 p.m. to 5 a.m. But my timing was off for the Philippines. I'll just swap a couple of the hooks between queues 1 and 2 to adjust for time zones. Cbl62 (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Materialscientist's Day!

User:Materialscientist has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Materialscientist's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Materialscientist! Peace, Rlevse 00:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Maurice Clemmons

I'd be interested in your take on the Maurice Clemmons hook. Do you think it should be promoted? If you think it's good to go, I left a spot in prep 1 that you can use to promote. Cbl62 (talk) 01:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

99.142 IP

Hi and thanks for blocking the person who was defacing my userpage. He has done it now under two IPs, immediately changing - and he will probably be back.

IPs: 99.142.54.166 and 99.142.56.133 - I'll let you know if any others show up. Is it permissible to block a range of IPs?

Thanks again. --Manway (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

He's back under 99.142.63.63 --Manway (talk) 08:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that same IP won't leave me alone either. Now believe me, as SOON as those 48 hours expire he's just going to be back vandalizing our userpages - you should block him/her for longer. Cheers from someone who got vandalized! RoryReloaded 10:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Has This User Been Blocked? I think He Is avoiding Again.

Has this user been blocked? If he hasn't, he may need to because of his behaviour on various surname related articles has started again. I think he is that LDn fellow. Thanks --Sikh-History 15:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I have had to warn this fellow. His edits are exactly like that of "Lndpunjab" who you blocked. Thanks--Sikh-History 17:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see the comments here, it may interest, you as I think there maybe a Sockpuppet involved. Thanks--Sikh-History 13:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we have another sockpuppet of Ldnpunjab here. He has vandalised so many articles, I don't know where to begin. Thanks --Sikh-History 17:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation, please add your comment here Thanks --Sikh-History 09:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you-

Thank you-DYK- William B. Slaughter=this is very much appreciated-RFD (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Oseberg oil field

Hi there! I appreciate the encouraging message. Thanks a million! Tuscumbia (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yourstandinginit

Yourstandinginit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has groveled piteously and apologized. I am going to unblock him, and will monitor him. Fred Talk 02:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

So much for that... . -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reimposed the original block. Thanks for being patient. Fred Talk 14:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Willie Edouin

Hi. Would you kindly check the hook for Willie Edouin at the Did You Know nominations page? If you don't think it passes muster, can you think of a better hook? Thanks in advance for any help. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

IP 68.224.13.224 blocked

Hi there, I see you blocked User talk:68.224.13.224 (thank you!). I wanted to make sure you know that their other IP (User talk:68.224.14.130) has been blocked for a month.

See here and here for reference. Thanks again. --Mike Allen  02:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Materalscientist

As a fellow scientist please don' be so close minded and mean. What I say is truth. If you don't believe me check it out yourself. If you want at least edit my updates. Are you afraid of the truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldo1323 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

COPYVIO

Please review the edit of Raj231975 (talk · contribs), his repeated introduction of copyrighted text (2nd vio & 1st vio) from the official website of Raj Vir Singh Yadav back onto the article page had been revert twice. Also, he was warned before that there are consequences for this kind of irresponsible attitude. --Dave 06:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I usually don't reply here, but sometimes .. No doubt, the user is copy-pasting and your links above are accurate, but. I think the user simply doesn't understand general copyright issues - many web sites copy content without concern. I'll try to post at their talk (maybe I'm naive here :-) and then see. In any case, this is not destructive to WP. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 06:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

86.96.226.89

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

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

DLC

Nice cleanup. Thanks for your help! Jkeck-wiki (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Keshia Chanté

It looks like the anon is actually making a valid edit, removing a serious BLP violation. Woogee (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Off course (I saw it yesterday and changed my block). Please help them if you can. Materialscientist (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:

I don't understand

Why you reverted the IP and then told all the editors reverting it to stop. You could've simply edited yourself and reverted your own edit, or restored the IP's edit. I wasn't "mindlessly reverting". I saw this and hit the rollback button. Also, please add your userpage to the admin category. It's helpful for sorting. Thanks, Enigma 03:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No, but it's preferable that admins identify themselves as such on their userpages. It doesn't have to do with this case in particular. Enigma 03:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Help?

Please help. FrossBitten (talk · contribs) keeps reverting Keshia Chante to restore the unsourced claims in the lede. He's also making strong warnings to the anon editor, which I have removed from their Talk page. I don't want to get into an edit war (well, at least, I don't want to violate 3RR), but FrossBitten needs to be reined in. Woogee (talk) 03:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Owen Brannigan

We did a major expansion on this article, but I'm not sure if it was enough for the 5x standard of DYK. What do you think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation, front page

Hi. I'm uncomfortable that the copyright violation was left linked from the front page without any action being taken about it. I've raised the question at the Main Page talk page. I think it's important that we arrive at some plan for addressing such situations in the future. Since you were involved in handling the copyright complaint, I wanted to let you know. --Moonriddengirl 17:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the revert

Thank you for the revert to my talk page last night. I’ve been doing recent changes patrol for some time now and had never really had my talk page vandalized … until last night. Thanks again! — SpikeToronto 19:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I saw that you took steps to get the block lifted, so thanks. I am, and always will be, a big fan of Misplaced Pages, and I'll try to be more responsible regarding edit summaries and the like in the future. 72.65.200.7 (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Charles Fryatt copyvio

You may be interested in this discussion about the Charles Fryatt article (at the time a copyvio) appearing on the main page as a link in a DYK hook. There is good advice about where to raise the issue should the situation arise again. Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

MedicineMan555

For clarity...I agree completely that there is a disturbing pattern of presumably self-interested edits by this editor. I do not know if the editor is the same as the subject of their edits, though it is a natural guess. I'll open a direct discussion on their talk page about it. The pattern of image uploads is bad, and the fact that the JoAnn E. Manson article may well be a vanity piece bothers me. I don't disagree at all with your keeping track of it. It may well be that an AfD is appropriate on JoAnn E. Manson, though it feels right on the line. It's attracted attention from no other editors, except an anonymous editor from a Cornell IP address, and this , which might be spam for all I know. I agree completely about the COI concern, in other words, and am pleased with your own diligence. A COI concern should always generate a second-look, and I'm glad you did, but on a third look, from someone not trying to deal with this particular bit of apparent self-flattery, seems link linking the name isn't problematic. Other people--surely quite independently--thought the mentions of Manson were appropriate on those articles, so linking doesn't seem a bad thing. If there's a problem, then it's the existence of JoAnn E. Manson, and not those links to it, in my opinion. Tb (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I am one of those who would be delighted to see much of the strong recommendation language in WP:COI changed to requirements, but it isn't there yet, alas. We can only encourage and review, but not summarily bump, in a case of a clear-cut COI. Here there is only a (very strong) suspicion. Tb (talk) 07:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's put the COI question to one side. Assuming there is a COI here (and I surely suspect there is), then it was inappropriate for User:MedicineMan555 to make the edits. But that doesn't mean nobody should, just that users shouldn't make COI edits of that sort. So, if there were no COI (and there isn't any for me), I think that names are quientessentially the sort of things which links are valuable for, especially for names which are less well known. (No need to link Barack Obama everywhere it appears, but J. Jon Bruno, perhaps.) Adding names to articles gives them prominence, but once added (and User:MedicineMan555 didn't add them) linking is a fairly ordinary thing. I thought carefully about it before reverting anything, I read WP:LINK carefully to see if there was any guidance there about links in references or links to names, and I couldn't find anything, except that links to less well known subjects are generally good. I do understand your concern, and as I said, in dealing with a case of apparent self-promotion, I don't disagree with making the first reaction to simply revert User:MedicineMan555's edits. But I gave it a few hours thought, and ultimately, concluded that while User:MedicineMan555 should surely not have made the edits due to a likely COI problem, the edits themselves were not problematic. I think it is perfectly reasonable for an editor to take as a project the careful linking of biographical articles to their names, and I think it's perfectly reasonable to do that piecemeal. The only problem with those edits that I can see is that they may have been made by the person concerned herself. Tb (talk) 07:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I find conversations on two separate pages difficult to follow, and I can't tell if you're watching my talk page or not. Anyhow, in reply to : Each situation is its own case, but again, I think that the quality of an edit is a separate question from a COI concern. If an editor who obviously has no COI were to make a bunch of such links, I would not object. So in response to your first question, yes, this is its own case, but in evaluating the edits (rather than the editor who made them) the edits don't seem to be a problem to me for the reason I've said. You seem to be saying that the possible malfeasance of the original editor means that the edits are themselves bad. I agree that it makes them questionable, but, having been questioned, it seems to me that I would not object if someone else made them, and so my objection is to the editor and not to the edits. I have far more problems with lots of the content on JoAnn E. Manson than I do with mere links to it, on text which other editors created having no COI. As for your second question, I do not believe that the fourth author should be selectively linked; what I said is that it seems perfectly sensible to me to link all the names provided they are notable. If they are not notable, the proper course of action is an AfD; it would be remiss to permit a non-notable article to remain, but with fewer links to it. Tb (talk) 07:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Grandmasterzel contris

Hi, I noticed you just deleted the page Funny Misshapen Body based on copyright infringement. That's not really the main issue here; the editor had received informal permission to use the text, and could probably get a formal one. However, according to the editor himself, he works for the company that published the book, they have simply put one of their interns on creating articles on all their books. This clearly runs into trouble with WP:COI, WP:NB and WP:NOTADVERTISING. Just noticed you've blocked the user, will you also delete his other contributions? Lampman (talk) 07:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

argh!

Whoops: , thanks. Tb (talk) 07:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope this was accidental

I hope your language, "you'd better talk to me first before reverting my edits en masse." is not a threat. When I first read it, it sounded very hostile, though I am inclined to think you didn't mean it that way and it was just accidentally bad phrasing. There is not a requirement on Misplaced Pages that one there is some kind of permission required before reverting; I acted properly, courteously, and carefully, including careful edit history notations and an invitation on your talk page for further discussion if you so desired. Tb (talk) 07:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No threat whatsoever and only good feelings about your constructive comments, but. When you have a choice between reverting a non-obvious edit and then talk, or talk and then revert, the latter is a WP norm, I believe. PS Consider this too: if MedicineMan were more of a fighter, they could easily pick up your revert as an argument that you're on their side - just my daily WP experience. Materialscientist (talk) 07:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad. There isn't a WP norm of that sort, or if there is, it's brand new. (And your edits weren't non-obvious; it was perfectly clear...you were (rightly) worried about User:MedicineMan555's possible COI problem. User:MedicineMan555's edits were, if we assume good faith, more unclear.) It's like WP:BRD; nothing wrong with reverting, provided it isn't about an edit war, though if a revert might be controversial, it is important to discuss. But there is not in general a "discuss first" norm except for major changes, or particular pages where that has become a consensus because of a history of controversial edit-war-prone edits. I also have experience with "fighters" who would divide into sides and think I'm on theirs; that's why I was extremely careful as well to post my own COI warning, and also to track down the latest image problem. Tb (talk) 08:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello

No worries. I was just annoyed with the way he said "I made it worse" and then said about 4.6 rather 5. It was as if he was delibrately trying to get in the way rather than help the article in good faith. If he had reworded his response rather differently and said can you expand it a little more as I had to remove some irrelevant info I wouldn't have responded like so. Regards.... Dr. Blofeld 11:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm finding it tought to find a good hook for Jacques Legrand that would be suitable. All I can think of is, DYK that Jacques Legrand, a former translator at the French embassies in Mongolia and China has conducted important research into the anthropology of Mongolian pastoralism? A lot of people would probably think, who cares? LOL.11:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, how about .. that Jacques Legrand, a former translator at the French embassies in Mongolia and China, has studied the anthropology of Mongolian pastoralism? Materialscientist (talk) 11:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've made some readjustments. Thanks. Dr. Blofeld 11:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Glad we sorted those issues out. Dr. Blofeld 11:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Everydaynormal -etc.

Is there some way to block that user's IP to prevent him from doing any editing, or at least to prevent creating any new accounts? The tone of his user talk page suggested he was doing this just to see how long before he got blocked. So merely blocking that one account might not be sufficient. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK nom for George Nichols

Thanks for your query; I have responded at Template talk:Did you know#George Nichols (cricketer)

Tunable nanoporous carbon

Thank you very much for your feedback, I really appreciate it! This has been an interesting assignment for me, I had to find a "green" topic and write a Misplaced Pages article for my college Technical Writing course. I will definitely work to correct the mistakes and errors you have pointed out, but I would like to ask for your advice regarding avoiding sounding opinionated because of mentioning the one institution/company. I was unable to find any other companies that had any relation to the technology and felt that it was important to mention the one that is directly using the subject. Would it be better to be a bit more ambiguous about what organization/company is using the technology and instead use the first reference on my list for that sentence? Once again, thank you for your offer for help and for leaving feedback, I look forward to your response, just leave another message on my talk page please.

Kt57 (talk) 10:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I'd like to apologize for that little mistake. I clicked your name instead of your talk page, and once I realized what I did I went back to undo the changes. I am afraid I am still getting used to WP's messaging system as well as article writing. Also, I do not have much knowledge about the general field from which my topic originates nor any chemistry background (I'm actually an IT major). This is probably taboo for WP editing but I had to go through and try after doing some research on the topic, so it will also take me some time to improve the article. Thanks again for the response!

Kt57 (talk) 10:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Legal block

Hi there. I was reading ANI and noticed you blocked this user. Since the template that got put on their talk was the vandalism one, I added the legal-block template as well so they'd have the correct idea of why they were blocked (that you mentioned in their block log). (Although I did change that template after it was subst'd so that it didn't say indef, since they were an IP). Just wanted to let you know. Feel free to revert me if you think it was inappropriate. Best, -- Bfigura 23:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK please help

Re: Template_talk:Did_you_know#Furnace_Brook_Parkway

Pardon me if I sound abrupt, but is this a joke? Both editors are splitting hairs over the name of the parkway. The salient fact is that the stream is named for the furnace. By association, the reservation, and the parkway it serves, are named for the stream. The name for the brook is established in detail in the Pattee history: "(the furnace) was constructed in that part of Braintree which is now called Quincy, on what has ever been known as the Furnace brook." The previously footnoted Eliot biography and the now added Quincy Homestead NHL nomination form both describe in detail the situation of the establishment of the reservation and construction of the parkway which both share the stream's name. It may not be published in the exact words the two editors are demanding in those sources that "the parkway is named for the stream", as those sourced authors certainly must have felt it unnecessary to spell out such an obvious association. The park commission created many reservations, and in doing so it did not feel it necessary to put in writing "x Reservation in y town is named for natural feature x", they simply named the reservations after the natural features they protect, an obvious thing to do. Would, for example, it be necessary to find a source that states exactly that Cumberland Gap National Historical Park is named for Cumberland Gap? The fact that the park is located at Cumberland Gap makes that obvious, just as the sources and the fact that Furnace Brook Parkway serves a reservation defined as preserving the land along Furnace Brook make it's naming history obvious. I am somewhat amused and mildly concerned such words as "inference", and blue linking "original research", are being used to challenge and alter a perfectly acceptable hook. What is the point of this exercise? Please intervene on my behalf and confirm the use of the ALT1 hook rather than the watered down ALT2, which was chosen before I had a chance to respond. Sswonk (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems we have come to agree upon an ALT4 by me, which does not make the claim that the road is named for the brook. Question: is the stringent application of NOR here a factor of the claim potentially being made on the front page as a DYK? Or would the article itself have potential problems, viz. the statement "The parkway takes its name from the course of the stream it follows, etc."? I ask this because it would seem impossible for many such geographic claims to be supported without a source that states the obvious, as I outlined above; there probably aren't any for many places and associated parks, businesses, and so on. I work on many geography and history articles, this restriction seems difficult to overcome, that is finding RS text that for example states exactly "road x is named for feature y". Isn't the London Eye named for London, and where would one ever find a source that would actually say such an obvious thing? It's a little troubling to me right about now. Sswonk (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Clocking overtime?

Hey Scientist, are you ever off duty? Remember, as the Dutch say: the bow cannot always be drawn! (Thanks, BTW.) Drmies (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• I am depressed, Scientist--someone just dared to vandalize Matt Damon. What is this world coming to? Are these people really sniffled by Oryzomyini, as Ucucha might say? Drmies (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Impressive

Very impressive how quickly; yet through, you can prepare these queues! Just think if you had some practice :-). Calmer Waters 09:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Temporary protection?

Hey Scientist, could you extend some temporary protection to Alabama Crimson Tide football? Since Ingram won the Heisman it got a little crazy. Mark Ingram, Jr. is already protected, I see. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, I appreciate it. Take care, Drmies (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Deforestation

Say, could you just block this vandal Ute Rathmann who has hacked away (ironic) at the Deforestation article? 5 times in one day oughta be enough. Thanks for asking him to explain himself on his talk page, but I don't see much hope here. Best wishes, Jusdafax 09:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• I understand your reluctance, which is highly to your credit. But I do notice he's offered no explanation to your request on his talk page, and indeed, those 5 mass-deletion edits are his sole 'contributions' to the project. Perhaps I've been in anti-vandalism too much, but I'd call that a duck. Still, if he's stopped his actions, it's a moot point. Thanks and best wishes, Jusdafax 19:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Marko Vovchok

I've offered an alternative variant of the hook - please, look at the nominations page.--Microcell (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For the good job you've been doing as a sysop! TomA8 00:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Use talk pages

Please use the Wiley mill or Cutting mill talk pages for your discussions. --Zeamays (talk) 02:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Everyday-etc.

Is it appropriate for this character to be editing his own talk page? It's fairly clear he's not here to help build wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of any appeal, his username won't fly. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, they have rights to edit their talk until the editing becomes disruptive. Materialscientist (talk) 05:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Inadvertently Removed Vandalism Report

Hi Materialscientist! With this edit, I reported an IP vandal. With this edit, you may have inadvertently removed it before dealing with it. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 07:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. If you don’t mind, please resond here. I’ll have your talk page watchlisted. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 07:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Not me, not me, its a bad monster robot HBC AIV helperbot7 ! :-D "Your" IP is blocked :-) Materialscientist (talk) 07:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Hey, how about giving that bad monster robot HBC AIV helperbot7 a smack?! Or better yet, its master??!! Just kidding … :) Thanks again! — SpikeToronto 07:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If we smack him too hard, he might crash and we'd have to cleanup AIV board manually - better to keep peace even with robots :-)

(←) The Luddite in me fears their takeover! <fearful shudder> :) — SpikeToronto 07:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Stubborn IP

Could you take a look at this and give it some input? Thanks. --Dave 07:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist, people like Bill and me are always having such nutcase of not "understanding" why we've reverted their unhelpful edit(s) in them article(s) and yet, for some unexplained familiarity with WP they seem so "clever" as to be able to find their own way to WQA to file such reports in bad faith. Well, a quack is a quack is a quack. Cheers~! --Dave 08:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I always feel awkward at such discussions - rarely there is anything to really discuss, whereas there is so much work to do in the mainframe - mere reading through the threads kills so much time. If only the time spent on those threads was diverted to writing or reviewing mainframe articles .. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 08:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Same sentiments here, these IP seem to like to waste our time with such nonsensical interlude when we could put it to better use improving them articles instead. Again, thanks. --Dave 08:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Thanks! HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Renmore

Hi again. Could I ask for semi-protection for this Irish town which has gotten more than it's share of IP vandalism? Thanks for your consideration, Jusdafax 20:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see your reasoning. Thanks again, Jusdafax 23:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)UPDATE: The short-term protection you mentioned as a possibility now seems merited, as there are two different IP-named vandals back at it since I last posted here. The edit history for this one day on the article is quite long. Thanks for any help you can give. Jusdafax 00:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Vulva

I see you are still on at the moment. Could you see what the vandal has done to vulva? It appears to be some kind of redirect? Thanks. Jusdafax 02:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

inflammable vs flammable

Perhaps "combustible" would be the better term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdot (talk • contribs) 04:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that "flammable" may sound better, but I disagree with its use in this context because I do not feel that we should contribute further to its misuse. Fdot (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Atrott all over again

Greetings, Materialscientist; you might want to look at Hans Henning Atrott and the respective disc. I don't know whether or not you're aware of it, but there's a serious edit-war going on; how about protecting the page. Greetings, Lost Boy (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Not yet. The war was yesterday, wasn't it. Materialscientist (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

missing block notice?

Hi- is there a reason you didn't leave a block notice on User talk:58.173.18.123? The only reason I noticed is because that page is still on my watchlist.. tedder (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete Dark Matter

Why did you reverse the edits I made to the dark matter page? Ultima821 (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look. I was only partially joking. This is real. http://theory.fnal.gov/jetp/ Ultima821 (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Good job!

Thanks so much for blocking the user: "24.215.121.145", but I think 72 hours isn't long enough. Is it possible to extend the block to a much longer time? I am too worried that when the block expires he comes back to personally attack my user page every time I revert edits by him. In-fact all of his contributions are unhelpful, and every time a user reverts his edit he goes over to the reverter's user page and makes personal attacks to it. Minimac94 (talk) 07:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Extended to 1 week. That IP was active for 4 days only, thus we have to wait and see. Materialscientist (talk) 07:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

A small award for your tireless vandalism fighting efforts - beating me to the punch multiple times. Awesome work mate. Fancy steve (talk) 03:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: DYK nomination of Kaiane Aldorino

Hi there. I've now added a ref to the article's lead. I hope you can still proceed with this event though it's now classed as an old nomination. Many thanks, --Gibmetal 77 07:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Did Not Appreciate Your Discouragement

As you can see, the Misplaced Pages article on the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search has been updated to include the Results which I had been trying to update before you rudely discouraged me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Cryogenic_Dark_Matter_Search

And this has been reported on by multiple media sources as well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8420089.stm http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/science/space/18dark.html http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/12/two-events-hint-of-the-impact-of-dark-matter-particles.ars

Instead of being so rudely discouraging, you could have instead pointed me specifically to the CDMS article. You could have instead suggested that I rephrase the edit, but no, You instead had to be incredibly rude about it when I was honestly trying to contribute, and as a result you made me miss my opportunity.

If I thought better of you, I might expect an apology.

As it has been updated on the CDMS Page, I feel it is now legitimate to update this on the dark matter page as well, and I will do so before I lose that Opportunity to contribute as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultima821 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: DYK preps

No problem. I noticed the queues were empty but not the {{inuse}} template and decided to use a couple of free minutes to fill the next queue. Once I noticed the prep area had an inuse template I simply reverted myself and when on to other challenges. --Allen3  13:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Hello, I just wanted to send along a quick thank you for your help with my two first DYK self nominations; you assisted/are assisting in both John Torreano and Romanov Tercentenary and I'm very excited to have gotten on the Main Page! I'm a relative newbie so it's a thrill. Thank you for your hard work! HstryQT (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Girabras and images

Hello. I see you blocked User:Girabras. Do you think these, two images he uploaded to Commons are his own work? If he works at Netkrom, then I suppose they could be. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The rude answer is those images are no "danger" to WP (one deleted already) in terms of SPAM, vandalism, etc, and I'm not an admin on Commons, thus I leave it to other admins ;-) This happens quite often - uncertain copyright with COI editors, and its often hard to tell. If the image is somewhere on the internet than it is likely a copyvio and is to be deleted. Materialscientist (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Libertador Building

Materialscientist:

I meant to thank for putting up my Libertador Building article in the Did you know? ticker. It was an honor, and I appreciate it.

If you liked it, you may also enjoy another recent entry of mine, Quinta de Olivos. Some of the possibilities for a future DYK mention include President Arturo Frondizi's secret, 1961 negotiation with Cuban envoy (and fellow Argentine) Che Guevara in the hope of easing US-Cuba tensions, and, for the tabloid-minded, the tunnel President Juan Perón (a widower with a taste for younger company) had built under the property in 1953 for the girls' "discreet access."

By the way, why hasn't anyone on Misplaced Pages written anything on Harding's Tunnel? True, the White House denies its existence, officially, but its been written about on numerous occasions over the years (apparently, the former president had it built to connect the White House to his paramour's residence on 16th and I Streets, and the passageway was inadvertently made public during construction of the AFL-CIO headquarters, in 1953). Puppy love compared to some what went on in later years, though, so I understand.

In any case, thanks again, and please let me know if I can ever be helpful with anything.

All the best, Sherlock4000 (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.3.30 (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Communication 3

I just sent you a relevant email. Ciao! Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I fixed the problem. I am back. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 02:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

hi

how is my editing a talk page vandalism. yer allowed to talk and share opinions on it. in addition how is my stating that cal oxide is poisinis vanadalism. it is. just look at the mdss sheet. if you swallow it you will dies that a posin. and it is corrosive even if dry because its ph13 respond to this

Priyanka Bhatia777 (talk · contribs)

If it is okay with you, I'd like to change the block on this account to indef as it is yet another sockpuppet of Vijay Singh Suryawanshi (talk · contribs). If you check the history of Lord Arka and Bhaarshiva, you will see the sockpuppet pattern on the accounts: changing Lord Arka away from a redirect and removing all of the citation needed tags from Bhaarshiva. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Re your message: I have reset the block. There are only a few sockpuppets that I follow or seem to have this uncanny luck to stumble upon a lot. This happens to be one of them as he is easy to identify and another editor pointed him out to me. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)