User talk:Materialscientist

Please leave your message at the bottom of the page or write me an e-mail, if it is not for public eyes.

Hello, Materialscientist, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 22:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Scientific jargon

moved to discussion of that page

FYI, I've add the original research tag back, as well as a neutrality tag. I have explanations for both, and proposed solutions (the latter easy, the former harder) for both, on the talk page. -- SCZenz (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

NIMS in wider context

moved to the discussion of that page (National Institute for Materials Science)

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.

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 Wikipedia, 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)

move Maskawa to Masukawa

The above mentioned move was

• against consensus on the talk page to leave the article at Maskawa;
• without edit summary, leaving your fellow editor wondering what you are doing;
• against the press release of the Nobel committee which uses the transliteration Maskawa;
• against the the personal choice of this scientist, who used the transliteration Maskawa in his most cited publications;

Please, refrain from actions that might be interpreted as vandalism. If you think, the article must be moved to Masukawa, revive this, already existing, discussion on the talk page. Thanks Tomeasy _{T C} 07:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I am really sorry for my action. The spelling of Maskawa appeared to me, as well as to any Japanese, a basic transliteration mistake made by a foreigner. I have apologized for that on Tomeasy's talk page and reverted my changes. Never stop learning! NIMSoffice (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Just saw your reply here. No problem. There is nothing on Wikipedia that cannot be fixed or restated. Thanks for your dedication to the article anyway. Tomeasy _{T C} 06:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Publications

Recently you have added several publications as "Reviews (free download)" to several articles. Whilst this is not directly incorrect, this can be readily perceived to be a conflict of interest, where a research group is promoting their publications, or publications of affiliated authors. Whilst wikipedia relies heavily on scholarly works to remain a verifiable source of information, the adding in this manner is probably not the best idea. Editing should not so much be performed as to get publications, such as review articles, into the encyclopaedia, but rather publications should be used to support factual statments that naturally appear in the prose of the article itself.

You are doing good works, and in a very short space of time, so don't let this get in your way! Just be sure to have quick browse of the conflict of interest (COI) policies, which represent consensus among many editors on wikipedia.

Thanks, User A1 (talk) 08:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: The obscured hidden text which follows was shown to be unhelpful. --Tenmei

Click on show to view the contents of this section

It seems likely that User A1's observations were informed by this specific phrase: "Reviews (free download)"; and I would guess that there might have been no comment if you had contributed the same citation in a more conventional, unremarkable format. As you will know, the citations below are yours; and the full text of the cited article has been made readily accessible -- a mere click away for the interested reader who wants to investigate further. While I understand how User A1 reasoned that a prudent mention of WP:COI seemed appropriate -- and the point is well-taken, I would have preferred a slightly different strategy. I suppose I should have followed up my earlier edit of NIMS: and I should have specifically brought the following to your attention:

• "Nanofabrication by advanced electron microscopy using intense and focused beam," Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater. 9 No 1 (2008) 014110; "Fabrication and characterization of nanostructures on insulator substrates by electron-beam-induced deposition," Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater. 9 No 2 (2008) 023002
• "Warm spraying—a novel coating process based on high-velocity impact of solid particles," Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater. 9 (2008) 033002]

If I had simply explained more specifically how to modify and improve your citation style, this issue might never have come to User A1's attention. In this context, I regret that I wasn't more proactive.

For further clarification, please consider the formats used in the in-line citations and bibliographic reference notes at 34th G8 summit. The formats for citations in this non-technical article have been flexibly applied by a number of contributors. I would hope their work can serve as a helpful illustration of the kinds of things you could do in future.

I hope this is helpful. --Tenmei (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the referencing. I wish you believe that I have professional experience in this matter and that there are different styles and no clear conventions on Wikipedia. My policy here is

• to avoid names. However, when I edit someone's page I feel, for now, that I should follow his/her style rather than impose mine.
• To give free sources (provided that they are of sufficient quality).

Second is important because many do not have access to scientific journals and blindly believe the reference "because it looks respectable". Reading the source often reveals it is not. The tag "free download" might be necessary because most scientific sources are not free (and rather expensive). I was accused of promotion in this regard, but one might argue that providing a link to a non-free paper is, on the contrary, a direct promotion to buy that paper on-line. This issue is by no means simple. I do respect your opinion and have mine - knowledge should be accessible (preferably free) and of high quality. NIMSoffice (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course, you are quite correct. Please compare:

• "Warm spraying—a novel coating process based on high-velocity impact of solid particles" Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater. 9 (2008) 033002 (free download review)</ref>
• "Warm spraying—a novel coating process based on high-velocity impact of solid particles," Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater. 9 (2008) 033002]

These two are nearly the same except -- (a) the blue-font/clickable links are positioned in slightly different places; and (b) the bold-font free download review is supplementary text in the original citation format.

Perhaps I am simply wrong? "My" blue-colored words give emphasis to the cited article's title, which is a conventional format I have noticed in citations of periodicals and journals. "Your" format conveys the same information -- assuming that the publication name, the publication date and the article number becomes more quickly grasped by the busy reader. I am quite ready to defer to your preference; and I have no hesitation about restoring the original text.

As you correctly observe, there are no standard conventions. I just wondered what, if anything, might have caused User A1 to pass over your edits without giving any further thought to what you'd posted? Also, I wondered if it might have been the bold-font free which caused User A1 to sense a need to be concerned about WP:COI issues? Unfortunately, I can offer no definitive answers -- only plausible guesses.

In other words, this was never a right-or-wrong dilemma, rather it was one of trying to figure out how to "fly beneath the radar" ...? The fact that your edits are well-supported and thoughtful was never in dispute; and perhaps the reasoning which informs my "defensive" approach has been misapplied? --Tenmei (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No right or wrong here

Forgive my ignorance, I still don't know how is it better to reply - on my talk page, which keeps your comment, or on yours (which might give you the "new message" notice). Regarding the referencing style, I haven't developed my wikipedia style yet. That is why the difference in blue highlighting you mentioned. I don't see any important point in what to highlight because in a journal reference, the article title, journal volume/page numbers and doi are united. Yes, titles might be duplicated, but this is very rare. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I also wrote on my talk page my position regarding adding "free download". Regarding UserA1, I have replied to his edits of my references and he stopped the discussion, instead providing me with useful tips over Wikipedia reference operators :-) I think he understood my citing free-download sources as a blunt attempt to popularize my publications (which in reality are not mine), and that he strongly opposes self-promotion on Wikipedia. Whereas, my purpose, as I mentioned, is to point attention to high-quality free resources on the web. Regards.NIMSoffice (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no standard convention about messages back and forth. You will just have to guess as best you can each time you try to contribute in the future; and maybe sometimes you'll be wrong. Frankly, this is one aspect of Wikipedia I can't begin to understand any better than you do. We all simply find ourselves accepting that this is one of those situations in which "fuzzy logic" predominates. As it happens, our exchange of views in this thread represents another instance of "fuzzy logic" ....

The comparatively narrow range in which you are likely to be contributing to Wikipedia becomes a relevant factor, too. For today, I have restored your original text. Let's see what happens? For now, I'm assuming that I was probably mistaken in my focus on issues which could remain fallow. If not, we'll work together to resolve whatever issues arise. --Tenmei (talk) 04:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Optical properties of carbon nanotubes

On 18 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Optical properties of carbon nanotubes, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- How do you turn this on (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Math notation conventions

Please. Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics). There is a difference between the following two things:

|m-n| = 3k+1 or 3k-1.

|m − n| = 3k + 1 or 3k − 1.

In non-TeX mathematical notation like this, variables (but NOT digits and not punctuation) are to be italicized; a minus sign is not a mere hyphen; and spaces preceed and follow plus or minus signs and the like.

Also, "displayed" TeX is indented by an initial colon; thus the second of the following is right:

$\int _{0}^{\infty }1\,dx$

$\int _{0}^{\infty }1\,dx$

Also, note that the title phrase should be set in bold at its first appearance (see WP:MOS). Michael Hardy (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2008 (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)

Review of Good Article nominee

I have placed your nomination on hold. The main thing I'm looking for is for you to expand the lead section to add context. Please see my comments at Talk:Optical properties of carbon nanotubes. Crystal whacker (talk) 04:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I've asked a few content questions at Talk:Optical_properties_of_carbon_nanotubes#More_thorough_review_and_questions. If you could answer them to improve my understanding of the topic, I would be most grateful. It may be possible to improve the article based on contextual information.

I've taken more time on this review than expected because I want to make sure I understand the substance of the topic. With regard to the other criteria, I intend to pass it, but I prefer to wait for responses to these questions if possible. Crystal whacker (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is now a Good Article. Congratulations! Crystal whacker (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Personal Welcome

Hi NIMSoffice,

Welcome! Working collaboratively in Wikipedia is an unique experience---please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or difficulty. I look forward to your future edits. Sincerely, GChriss <always listening><c> 06:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) @Penn State University

ZnO

According to Chemical Abstracts Service, more than 63,000 papers have been published since the year 2000 discussing zinc oxide. You can be sure that most were written by authors who convinced that their paper is special and should be highlighted. So what fraction of these should Wikipedia be citing? My point? References to books are preferred, not to specialized journals. Please strive to use your considerable knowledge of the field to give broadly useful information, supported by general references. --Smokefoot (talk) 01:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I left more comments at Talk:Zinc oxide.--Smokefoot (talk) 03:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note about organic metals. Wikipedia is a vehicle for all sorts of quirks and quirky editors (yours truly) but in the main it is a good thing. One of my goals is to ensure that the major applications of chemicals are highlighted at least in some proportion to their utility. I made a big edit on zinc oxide and will do more based on Ullmann's. The organic metals articles will eventually be rescued by some soul that knows the field and has some (international and scientific) perspective and is not trying to get famous.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Good job on ZnO. Some other editors will probably clean it up further, i.e. big edits typically undergo some annealing. Usually the lede is more informative, giving an brief overview and some highlight(s) that draw the reader. You can appreciate the POV issue with your own referencing, which would lead a reader to conclude that a physics-materials science direction dominates the area, but the socioeconomically important trends are probably far, far more prosaic. The bit mentioning Georgia Tech is blatant sales pitch (we rarely mention foreign institutions): we get such things about the U.S. units, again a POV blemish, but no crisis. Thanks again and keep up the good work.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Organic metal

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

Primary sources

I am a relative newcomer and I would like to get your feedback. I saw you added a small section recently on hydrophobe about the potential applications of superhydrophobic materials.[1] I have been accused of "violating" WP:PRIMARY before and I just wanted to raise a general concern that your contribution may also, IMHO. I see you have added a lot of science content on WP and thank you for that. I am just curious how you have navigated/navigate this policy. It just seems to set a bad precedent when a synthesis of primary sources is applied (as your first sentence appears to do just that, IMHO). As a lot of primary sources discuss their potential applications, but it just seems inappropriate for WP (unencyclopedic) to highlight them. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I also noticed your heavy reliance of primary sources. You should be able to provide better sources. Anyone can find narrow primary sources. Primary sources are difficult to remove and generally describe narrow scholarship. Inexperienced readers are misled. My recommendation is that you focus on more general references. If you are unable to do that, then ask for help. If you think that an article is in trouble, a collegial approach is to describe your concerns on the talk page and invite comments and suggestions. Several editors have access to non-primary sources (like texts and encyclopedia). There are several excellent general sources on materials science that we can list for you, if you are unfamiliar with this area.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the main ideas conveyed above. I would have reworded the last sentence, however. It seems to imply a consensus implying your ignorance of science =). I'm sure it wasn't the intended effect. -Shootbamboo (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Also I responded at my talk page. -Shootbamboo (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

GA review closed; zinc oxide not listed

I wanted to thank you for submitting zinc oxide and earlier optical properties of carbon nanotubes for review. I learned a lot from both articles and from the sources you included in them. I'm sorry to say the result of my review was that more citations are still needed in the "production" section. Nonetheless, I respect you as a good teacher of your craft. Crystal whacker (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Failed GA for Crystallographic defects in diamond

Just letting you know that I have failed this article for reasons I've gone into in general on the talk page, and will be more specific about later. Daniel Case (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for writing back. I'm glad someone has taken the time to improve the accuracy of the article (but it needs to be readable as well as accurate). I have now posted a more detailed critique on the GA review page.

Have you thought about taking this article to peer review first, before a GA nom? Daniel Case (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Zinc oxide

Hi NIMSoffice, I started the GAN review.--Stone (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Crystallographic defects in diamond

The article Crystallographic defects in diamond you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Crystallographic defects in diamond for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Yellowweasel (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

adimin

can i be an adimin--Gonether (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and a request

Thanks for signing up at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add {{Wikipedia:Peer review/PRbox}} . Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

A request

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

GAN Zinc oxide

Any coments to my coments on the GAN process of zinc oxide?--Stone (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Zinc oxide The history section is not 100% necesarry, but a look in the production processes has to be done. --Stone (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Superhard materials

Please see reply on my talk page. Biscuittin (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yttrium borides

Hi the statement that YB6 disolves in water by producing hydrocarbons bust be wrong. Neiter YB6 nor water contain carbon so where should it come from to form hydrocarbons? Boranes would be my guess, but a better ref would be good.--Stone (talk) 09:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Boron carbide

All I was going by was a half dozen articles I read on the internet. If you studied it yourself, I trust that over any article. I will refrain from editing that back in. Thricecube (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and I am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy for the following reason: it is a promotional username for an organization which is forbidden by WP:U. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?

I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance your reasons for wanting this particular name, and what alternative username you might accept that avoids raising this concern.

You have several options freely available to you:

• If you can relieve my concern through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it.
• If the two of us can't agree here, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Wikipedia administrators usually abide by agreements reached through this process.
• You can keep your contributions history under a new username. Visit Wikipedia:Changing username and follow the guidelines there.

Thank you. Lambmeat (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Lambmeat, I am happy to explain this username. Please contact me at my email. Best regards.NIMSoffice (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Element infoboxes

I noticed you added {{templaterefsection}} to a lot of element infoboxes. However, you seem to have forgotten a <noinclude> every time, so now the articles include a stray </noinclude>. Could you please look into fixing this? TIA. —Ms2ger (talk) 13:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I will be reviewing Liquid Crystal, an article you listed at GAN. Comments can be found on the talk page. End of yarn (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

please remove gamma-B from "media discoveries"

You certainly know that what was obtained in 1965 was a polyphase aggregate of unknown/uncharacterized composition. It is likely that this contained the same phase, but we cannot and should not say it with any certainty. The first time the phase was really established as a pure boron phase was in our work. Whether you call it discovery is a matter of semantics, but this does not belong to your list of fake works.

This really isn't the same as Dubrovinskaia's attempts to claim priority for Irifune's work on nanodiamonds, of which she was certainly aware. And of their attempt to do the same with gamma-B. And it's not the same as your cholesterol carrots either.

Please reconsider your whole approach to this story and to your role in Wikipedia.

P.S. Please excuse me if at times I get too emotional. But I really don't understand how you can make so many false judgements. If you don't understand the science of this field, don't edit. If you have funny ethical standards (like "it's OK to steal results if people make mistakes by showing them"), it should be not part of Wiki-pages.

Artem R. Oganov —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoganov (talk • contribs) 00:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

GAR.

Talk:Material properties of diamond/GA1. ResMar 15:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I really feel bad for delisting it when the issues were handled so quicky; usually, fixing a relatively big article with no references turns out to be a lot of hard work hunting down the information. I went in and copyedited the article for minor issues. One issue, though:

• At the end of the article, it goes So, despite De Beers' 1948 ad campaign, diamonds are definitely not forever. Can you provide a brief description of what was in the ad campaign?

The article definetly meets my standards. ResMar 21:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Awickert to review it once it comes up. ResMar 21:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Materialscientist. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I cannot give you permission to include our phase diagram without properly acknowledging the source

Phase diagram of boron is redrawn from our work (Ref. 11), but this is not acknowledged in your text. Most of the phase equilibrium lines on this diagram were calculated by me, the rest were constrained by our experiments, previous experiments and our calculations. To construct this diagram we used information that comes 90% from our own data and 10% from previous works, and this diagram only appeared in our work (Ref. 11). Either remove it or give proper credit to the source. Comment for Kostya from Artem R. OganovAoganov (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Usernames

The following statement may seem as if I'm being critical; let me reassure you that it is no such thing. You're doing everything right. You're a damn good contributor, the type we need more of.

That said, I'm troubled by your username. Grossly inappropriate usernames are typically blocked on sight; you will note that your username is quite specifically not blocked.

However... "office" can be taken to mean that this Wikipedia account is being used by more than one person: that it belongs to the office in general, not to a specific individual. Consult m:Role account for a detailed explanation of what that means.

I'm willing to accept that this is not the case and you're not sharing the account with anyone else, but the name can be taken that way, and so I strongly recommend that you consider filing a request to have your username changed.

Additionally, bear in mind that you and the NIMS may eventually part ways for whatever reason; under such circumstances, would you still want your username to state that you were affiliated with them? DS (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, how about something more specific and personal - "Nick (or whatever) the Materials Scientist", for instance? As for continuity - it is indeed a factor, which is why it's better to request that your username be changed instead of just abandoning an old account and starting over. Henceforth all links to your old username will redirect to your new username, so it's not even like you're concealing it. DS (talk) 03:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good; sorry for the inconvenience. Also, I note that you've enmeshed yourself in the Gamma Boron debacle - you have my condolences. DS (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Request

I request you to review Moscow which I nominated for GA. Fortunately it's general knowledge article and I hope I'll be able to be bold and fix all problems found in review myself. SkyBon^{Talk\Contributions} 19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for proposing Gamma boron discovery controversy for deletion. -Shootbamboo (talk) 20:35, 23 May 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)

ANI notice

Hello, Materialscientist. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --mav (talk)

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)

Unblock and then topic ban for Aoganov

Please see and comment here. --mav (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Your removal of an external link to Oganov's work

Hello Materialscientist. In this edit of the Boron article you removed a link to a report in Science Daily called "High Pressure Yields Novel Single-element Boron 'Compound'", describing the work of Artem Oganov. Can you please explain why you removed it? I did not see you mentioning this removal on the talk page. I am concerned that this removal might form part of a disagreement that you are having with Oganov. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Metamaterials

Thank you for your compliments regarding my work in the article entitled Metamaterial. I notice that at the bottom of every edit page the only requirment for reference tags is <ref> and </ref>. If you look at the bottom of any edit page it says '''Cite your sources: <ref></ref>'''. I believe this is acceptable at wikipedia. I appreciate your advice in this matter, but I look at your way of citing articles as too complicated. If you wish to alter my citation tags, in this article, to suite your preference, you have my permission to do so - I won't mind. Talk to you later. Ti-30X (talk) 04:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

GA BLPs

Thanks for the examples of GA BLPs... they are still scarce however. When I look at the many hundreds of scientists and engineers who have BLP articles on WP, the overwhelming majority are not GA. Until I found a couple recently and the few that you supplied today, I had never seen a GA BLP, which made it difficult to model our recent work after any examples. The Pamela C. Rasmussen example was particularly interesting due to the topic. Birds are marvelous creations!  ⁃ Firewall 12:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability: Talk:Physics of the Impossible

Thanks for asking, Materialscientist. I will have to research that. I can say he meets the notability requirements for number 5. He is a very well known theoretical physicist, he has written at least several books. He is often on television when it is a science show. I believe he is a very important physicist. He is actually a co-founder of string theory - that's incredible in my book, even though I don't think string theory can be proved within the next generation. (I could be wrong).

It seems the notability requirements are based on fictional works, and this is non fiction. Ti-30X (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The author may be notable; that doesn't make the book notable, since notability is not inherited. I'd welcome an AfD on the book. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The God Particle

Whoa! Good job on that God Particle article. I moved your comment from my talk page to that article's talk page. I think it to be more relevant there. Talk to you later. Ti-30X (talk) 05:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Materialscientist. As a matter of courtesy, this message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wiki something regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ti-30X (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

When you find an unsigned post by another editor, it's better to use the {{unsigned}} template than attempt to reproduce their signature by hand, as you did here. For example:

• {{unsigned|SheffieldSteel}} produces
• — Preceding unsigned comment added by SheffieldSteel (talk • contribs)

Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Materialscientist I left you a positive response to your response over at ANI. Although, I have come to some sort of understanding, I still find some of your behavior bewildering.

I guess we can go back and forth with specifics about both of us.

Or not.

I guess I have some questions. At the same time, I am afraid you are going to fomment trouble if we have a one to one dialogue, to be honest. And, I am sure you have questions too. I will let you know up front that my guard is up right now. Ti-30X (talk) 04:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If you haven't seen it - take a look at # 3 in the table of contents, on this page.Ti-30X (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Something is fixed

Materialscientist - one last message to you for the day. Check this out here and here Ti-30X (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Osmium

Hi Materialscientist, thanks for the help with Osmium! I wanted to get it into the GAN process soon, so if you have any further coments or see problems in the article please drop me a note. --Stone (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Nominated osmium for GA.--Stone (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

added abundance in the continental crust to the occurence section! I hope I got every point.--Stone (talk) 07:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Calcium titanate

Thanks for creating that - moving and sorting takes a bit of time. Was good to see it existed when I went back to fix it. Vsmith (talk) 01:11, 8 June 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)

Boron nitride

Hexagonales-BN is nice to read and although it is full of advertising it has good information. The cosmetic use of hBN is interesting, because I had to produce the stuff myself from urea and boric acid, back in the good old days, and I would not have dared to put the stuff, which was hard like hell, into my face.--Stone (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Bubble tea!

-download ׀ sign! has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:User:Download/Bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Image tagging for File:Si3N4bearings.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Si3N4bearings.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 09:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:SiCpyrometer.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:SiCpyrometer.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 10:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Beryl refs

I've undone the further reading header you added. Those books and websites were used as references back in 2004 before the ref citation style was invented. Therefore, it seems they should still be included as refs, unless the article has been totally rewritten. Vsmith (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thallium oxide

What about the idea of converting the generic thallium oxide to thallium(I) oxide? --Smokefoot (talk) 01:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Peter B. Sunderland

I understand you have proposed deletion of this page. I believe the page should be retained in wikipedia, not deleted. I have today improved this page, for example by including some of the prestigious awards won by Prof. Sunderland. I see that you yourself have noticed his research, as you have added to wikipedia an image of SiC Pyrometry that was recorded by Prof. Sunderland. I hope you will agree that this page should be retained. Thank you. Pbspbs (talk) 03:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

In your proposed deletion, you state that "Search on Web Of Science returns 9 papers with few dozen citations. Title of associated professor and teaching awards do not seem to qualify." I just did this search on Web of Science and found he has 21 journal papers that have been cited 317 times. The teaching award he received is given to one person annually among a faculty of 200 professors. I hope you will consider updating or removing your proposed deletion. Thanks. Pbspbs (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)