User talk:Materialscientist
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
- If you came here because I reverted your unsourced change, cite your references in the article you edited; there is no use bringing them here.
- I turned off most notifications in my preferences, and therefore can't see pings, sorry.
- New messages go at the bottom.
209.250.175.169 block
[edit]doesn't this qualify for a ban instead of block? UnsungHistory (Questions?) (Did I mess up?) 18:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean. If you mean Hellocat99 (talk · contribs) then my answer is block, certainly. Materialscientist (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
I mean IP user 209.250.175.169,not Hellocat99,unless you suspect Hellocat99 to be the account of 209.250.175.169? UnsungHistory (Questions?) (Did I mess up?) 18:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
You mean 209.250.175.169 and Hellocat99 are the same person? UnsungHistory (Questions?) (Did I mess up?) 00:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- The IP and Hellocat99 are not the same user. The ip 209.250.175.169 operates on Oakville, Ontario. Hellocat99's IP is 135.26.120.92, which is based in Conroe, Texas. I know this because both the ip and accounts add racist, antisemitic, and homophobic slurs on multiple semi-protected pages since 8/3/23. See https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/135.26.120.92 for more information. 2603:8080:D03:89D4:5D63:1DB:6CFA:DC82 (talk) 23:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Why Did You ip Block christs college
[edit]What did We Ever do Leo7510 (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) It would help if you gave us the article (we have several articles under "Christ College" and even more "Christ's College"). If you mean that Materialscientist blocked an IP from the college then give us the IP. Meters (talk) 06:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- he has blocked the school christs college in nz from editing wikipedia Leo7510 (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- I believe it's User talk:114.23.26.225.
- @Leo7510, the IP ban is listed as being issued for vandalism. This ban only applies to the IP address - not user accounts - and expires in 3 years. Synorem (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
The article Kaushal Kishore has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Dab page with only two entries.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Boron has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
New message from BlasterOfHouses
[edit]
Message added 20:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
BlasterOfHouses (HouseBlaster's alt • talk • he/they) 20:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
New message from Asilvering
[edit]Message added 18:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Courtesy note for an unblocking of a very old block. Cheers. asilvering (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. Unblocking is Ok with me. Materialscientist (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
If you have a moment...
[edit]could you perhaps look into what has gone on at the Enneagram of Personality page today, primarily in its History section? (Asking because in an earlier season, I was impressed by your work in various contexts.) We believe that the carte blanche reversion was too easy of a response, and threw baby out with the bath. We have no opinion on larger matters at that article—we simply found gross misuse of sources, and rampant WP:OR. We are now accused of editorialising, and of OR ourselves, which simply staggers us.
We won't further egage the reverting editor, as we see no point. But the article is not better for having been returned to its earlier state.
[To start, look for the quoted word "remedies" in the Wiltse citation (you will not find it, to aid that, here is a URL for that, which was lacking in the article), and then look to see if the citation of the "Brandon Medina" blog (actually by author = Medina, Brandon) does not point to a source that states the opposite of what the reverted article now again suggests. And the scholarly unraveling goes on from there.]
It is our view that the original edit, which was accepted by a registered editor—the article is protected, we do not know whom—should have been allowed to stand, and not reverted by a single editor objecting to the two of us. We suspect bias against us as a non-registered editor.
Surely, some editing of the product should follow. But reversion, so the errors that existed before our edit be returned—we suggest that pursuing that course was the poorest of options, for the sake of a quality article. The edits were not vandalism, were not editorial, and were not WP:OR (as claimed in the all too brief reverting edit summary). Cheers. 71.239.132.212 (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
You've got mail
[edit]
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 11:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)