User talk:159.63.167.146

May 2014
Hello, I'm Oxfordwang. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Mediation, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Oxfordwang (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
Hello, I'm Frosty. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Rula Jebreal with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —Frosty ☃ 23:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your edits to Peter Gelb
Please read the notice at Category:Antisemitism and do not add this category to the article again. again. Voceditenore (talk) 08:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Metropolitan Opera, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. Categories must also be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. --I am  Kethrus    Talk to me!   20:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

November 2015
Hello, I'm Wikiisawesome. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to William Dalrymple (historian)— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. /wia  /tlk  04:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at William Dalrymple (historian) with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. /wia  /tlk  04:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

tick-tock model
If you re-add the roadmap to the Tick-Tock model, then you should also remove it from List_of_Intel_CPU_microarchitectures, otherwise we will end up *again* having to keep the same roadmap in two different articles synchronised. -- Pizzahut2 (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Added templates now so the roadmaps can be in both articles. However templates don't work with the visual editor, which is bad because for tables that's really needed. -- Pizzahut2 (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Arthur Kornberg
Encyclopedia.com isn't reliable (Identifying reliable sources) and the source doesn't say that Kornberg had affiliation with UC Berkeley. Ber31 (talk) 07:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

-- As I said, in this case it is impossible to work in a professor's lab without proper visitor's title. The lab is a school property. It is NOT private. It belongs to University of California, Berkeley. It is common for a professor to list the visitors to his/her lab in the group website.

It is possible to work as a researcher for a very short period without being employed by a university. For instance, Donald Glaser researched at University of  Chicago  and  worked  on  liquid-hydrogen  bubble chambers  with  Hildebrand  and  Nagle for a short period - he wasn't employed by Chicago. University of Chicago has a liberal way to count Nobel laureates, yet it doesn't count Glaser. Without reliable source, Kornberg shouldn't be included. Ber31 (talk) 08:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

-- I said "it is impossible to work in a professor's lab without proper visitor's title". Arthur Kornberg was working with Horace Barker in his lab at UC Berkeley in 1951. A. Kornberg was a visiting researcher. I have added more sources. It is common to include a Laureate with online descriptions such as those of Arthur Kornberg as a visiting researcher/visitor. Words like "official employed" rarely appear in online sources for any Nobel laureate.

For Donald Glaser, I believe your source is "http://hst-archive.web.cern.ch/archiv/HST2005/bubble_chambers/BCwebsite/articles/02.pdf". However, take a closer look here: "http://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/roho/ucb/text/glaser_donald.pdf" (page 56):

"Well, there wasn’t any competition until I was well under way, and then it was inevitable that everybody was going to do it. I wanted to work on hydrogen, so I went to Chicago, and I started a collaborative project because they had cryogenics, and it was near Ann Arbor. So I worked with them..."

It is quite clear. Donald Glaser, as a Berkeley scientist, was doing a collaborative project with UChicago scientists in Chicago & Ann Arbor. There was competition too. This is why University of Chicago does not count Donald Glaser as a laureate.

159.63.167.146 (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The sources that you have used are wrong. As I pointed out above, encyclopedia.com isn't reliable and the other source doesn't say that Kornberg had affiliation with UC Berkeley. You need to find a better source. Ber31 (talk) 06:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Kornberg makes the cut! Horace Barker was a top biochemist of his time, and Kornberg was a researcher in his lab in 1951. Ber31 (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

August 2017
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Columbia University. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.