User talk:RockMagnetist/Archive 11

'New Authors'
Hello, RockMagnetist,

I decided to ask you for advice, as I really do not know, how to deal with the situation: for the last several months I've been very busy, and I haven't been even ‘around’ Wikipedia, but yesterday evening I finally managed to check some of the Wiki-spaces, where I participated as a contributor. And in one of them -  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Barnstars  - I read absolutely captivating lines about my own work (you probably remember this episode - you even kindly voted for this Barnstar -   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Barnstars#/media/File:The_Mineralogy_Barnstar.jpg  ). So, from the text, that I read there, it became clear, that my Barnstar is not that kind of some ordinary Barnstars, but a highly freespirited one, with a critical need to have total freedom of choice, that’s why it has decided to find for itself a new ‘author’, and more precisely, not just one, but two. And even not so much this fact, regarding a little-studied the restive Barnstars' behaviour, is really exciting and edifying, but those abilities, that they were hiding up to this very last moment: they... can travel in time, and not just that: they can get there what they want and bring it to the present. You will see it yourself: “The Mineralogy Barnstar is awarded to appreciate the contributions of users to the coverage of mineralogy subjects on Wikipedia. Barnstar proposed by Ynhockey on October 23, 2005, and designed by Mitsukai on March 28, 2006.”

But I think, that it was done without their concern (one of them is an Administrator) so, in my view, it was kind of kidnapping, committed by the left unattended Barnstar, or just an intervention of regular supernatural forces.

But anyway, I would like to restore the order and return every thing to where it belongs, but I have no tool to do it and no knowledge how to make it right.

Can you, please, help?

Regards, Chris OxfordChris Oxford (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Chris, it seems that the attribution was changed in this edit and may have been a mistake - the editor may have been trying to edit the entry for the Taiwan Barnstar. Anyway, I fixed it. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

So, no mystery here any more! Great thanks, RockMagnetist. Regards, Chris.Chris Oxford (talk) 07:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Georg Cantor's first set theory article
Please see note on your DYK review. This does not qualify as a review, since you did not explicitly confirm that the five main DYK criteria have been met. Being a GA does not "automatically" satisfy DYK criteria; in fact, we have sent articles back for GA reassessment when the DYK checks came up short. In future, please review all nominations against the DYK criteria. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup!
Hello and Happy New Year!

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup, the competition begins today. If you have already joined, your submission page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and we will set up your submissions page. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2019, and which you have nominated this year, is eligible for points in the competition, the judges will be checking! Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are, , and. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Coercivity of AlNico?
I noticed in the history of the coercivity article you made this edit which added a reference that you claimed said that the coercivity of AlNiCo could be up to 480 A/m. Then an anon changed it to say that it could be up to 480 kA/m. I don't have access to the reference, so I can't check either figure. Which if any, is accurate? My concern is that neither figure matches up even approximately with any other reference I've been able to find. Do you have access still to that reference to check? GliderMaven (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It should be 30-480 kA/m. You can access the source either by following the ISBN link or using this link. The 30 kA/m is for the original Alnico (see page 146) and Alnico2-Alnico9 are 45-480 kA/m. I guess the 480 A/m was a typo. RockMagnetist(talk) 03:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. While I certainly believe you, I'm still not sure I believe the book. FWIW I can't read the link, it lists it as 'preview unavailable' here. FWIW this commercial reference gives much lower figures for Hc for Alnico2-Alnico9: and are more in line with what I would expect. Or maybe there's different grades of Alnico9 or something weird? Given these uncertainties. I think we need a second source for the 480 kA/m, I'll have a hunt for it. GliderMaven (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I found several other specifications that all wildly disagree with the book but are broadly speaking agreeing with each other. I also noticed that Arnold Magnetic Technologies have a specification for various AlNiCo grades, but interestingly here on P6.7 they specify Hc for Alnico 9 as 109 kA/m, but they also specify the 'Required Magnetising Field' as 480 kA/m, which presumably is the field needed to thoroughly saturate the material. My belief is that the authors of the book had copied from the wrong column. GliderMaven (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Some figures agree. For example, comparing your first source with mine, both give coercivities of 45 kA/m for isotropic Alnico2 and 38 kA/m for isotropic Alnico3. But for anisotropic Alnico5-6, your source gives values between 48 and 58 kA/m while mine gives 120 kA/m. My source credits Arnold Magnetic Technologies, so maybe that can be followed up. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Figures will vary a bit between manufacturers, it may depend on the exact source of material, contaminants, the manufacturing process etc. Just not to that degree. If they credit Arnold Magnetic Technologies, and AMT clearly gives a different number then that proves it's been copied wrong. GliderMaven (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You're probably right. Feel free to make whatever changes seem appropriate. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 Reminder
Hi. I'm DannyS712 (talk), and I just wanted to remind you that you have signed up to compete in this year's WikiCup! There are about 2 weeks left before the first round ends – if you haven't yet made your first submission, there is still time to start; if you have already started, keep up the good work. See your submissions page: here. Good luck!

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2. With 56 contestants qualifying, each group in Round 2 contains seven contestants, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for Round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:


 * 🇺🇸 L293D, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with ten good articles on submarines for a total of 357 points.
 * Pirate_Flag_of_Henry_Every.svg, a WikiCup veteran, came next with 274 points, mostly from eight featured pictures, restorations of artwork.
 * 🇩🇰 MPJ-DK, a wrestling enthusiast, was in third place with 263 points, garnered from a featured list, five good articles, two DYKs and four GARs.
 * 🇺🇸 Usernameunique came next at 243, with a featured article and a good article, both on ancient helmets.
 * Flag of the United States Library of Congress 2.svg Squeamish Ossifrage was in joint fifth place with 224 points, mostly garnered from bringing the 1937 Fox vault fire to featured article status.
 * Ed! was also on 224, with an amazing number of good article reviews (56 actually).

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews on 143 good articles, one hundred more than the number of good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Well done all!

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk).

File:Lodgepole Pines photo by Ansel Adams.jpg
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Please participate to the talk pages consultation
Hello

Our team at the Wikimedia Foundation is working on a project to improve the ease-of-use and productivity of wiki talk pages. As a Teahouse host, I can imagine you’ve run into challenges explaining talk pages to first-time participants.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis – to ask questions, to resolve differences, to organize projects and to make decisions. Communication is essential for the depth and quality of our content, and the health of our communities. We're currently leading a global consultation on how to improve talk pages, and we're looking for people that can report on their experiences using (or helping other people to use) wiki talk pages. We'd like to invite you to participate in the consultation, and invite new users to join too.

We thank you in advance for your participation and your help.

Trizek (WMF), 08:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please participate to the talk pages consultation - link update
The previous message about the talk pages consultation has a broken link.

The correct link has been misinterpreted by the MassMessage tool. Please use the following link: Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019.

Sorry for the inconvenience, Trizek (WMF), 08:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:English language for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:English language is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:English language (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 23:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Molecular magnets listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Molecular magnets. Since you had some involvement with the Molecular magnets redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Ansel Adams
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Demining
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Demining you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of RecycledPixels -- RecycledPixels (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Looking forward to it! RockMagnetist(talk) 16:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Demining
The article Demining you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Demining for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of RecycledPixels -- RecycledPixels (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, done in record time! Thank you for your review; I'll be happy to fix the "picky" issues for free. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You made reviewing it very easy to do. It is a very well-written article.  RecycledPixels (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Wim Hof article
Hello RockMagnetist, you recently reverted my edit on Wim Hof for changing the word "committed" to "completed" referring to a suicide. You alluded that this was in contrast to vandalism rules. I think you've misunderstood the rational for my edit. The term "commit" in reference to suicide is a bad descriptor, the reason for this is that commit given the historical context of suicide confers criminality. Changing committed to completed, provides a neutral descriptor that is not connected to social or cultural influence and doesn't provide unnecessary judgement on the person who completed suicide.

I'd be happy to hear your response and hopefully we can find common ground. MrWardington (talk) 09:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reaching out to me. You're right, I thought that "completed suicide" was incorrect because I hadn't heard it before. But that was just my ignorance, as a minute or so of search made clear. I have reverted my revert. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Demining
Hello! Your submission of Demining at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Removing empty edit requests
Hii I've no idea why u reverted two edits of mine using TW but it again reinstated those empty requests back into the talk page of water. U should be careful when u accuse someone of removing talk comments I followed the links and I don't think im deliberately altering some comment. If u think u should revert my edit as an shower of an IP address please go ahead and revert other edits in page history. pls don't accuse me of my good faith editing. Empty edit requests with nothing convincing of changing article which don't solicit response should be delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.182.185.200 (talk) 04:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

ALSO after reading some policies after you reverted my edits show you against acted policy: Not a forum unambiguously states to remove comments off-topic or not contributing to discussion of encyclopedia, whilst it maybe convincing that u acted with consistency of Talk page guidelines u should remember it doesn't cover the fact of -templates in talk page discussion if only it contains more then the transfusion of material directl provide by templatijg into pages. I do c that the content u reinstated wad of a single purpose account which states the only purpose is to a single page. That added a signature and no actual request was given https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Water&diff=886586060&oldid=886077538 u just reverted it by saying removing other userr's comment without saying which comment I removee. Pls state correctly or don't abuse ur tool it would not take time to review the edits ant not use ur admin toool as said in admin accountability one should be responsible for their use of tool and u used it incorrectly without reviewing the edits. It's totally inappropriate and this is by their AR less new people contributing Herr without reading any policies as the newbies are then stuck there forever without any discussion. th3y maybe also correct in observingtheedits and edits may also be correct. Pls take care with ur admin tools or else the arbitration committee the SUPREME COURT of Wikipedia will review yoir edits instead. Thnax u.--223.182.185.200 (talk) 05:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to try to unpack all of that garbled message, but I'll respond to two points. First, I am an admin, but I was not acting in that capacity: just about anyone can revert an edit. Second, you're right that those edit requests had little or no content, so maybe it was o.k. to delete them. I won't revert you again. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 Reminder
Hi. I'm DannyS712 (talk), and I just wanted to remind you that you are a current participant in round 2 of this year's WikiCup! There are only a few days until the second round ends – if you haven't made you first submission for this round yet, there is still time to start; if you have already started, keep up the good work. See your submissions page: here. Good luck!

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 05:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk)

DYK nomination of Island of stability
Hello! Your submission of Island of stability at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Adequate term in English
I hope you can help or you can make a contact to someone who can. I am looking for the adequate translation or technical term for the German word de:Hüle. I thought about Karst sinkhole but it seems to be to general and does not match exactly. Same as Karst pond or Karst Waterhole these come close (I think) but... is there a matching expression in English which does come closer? My rough description of the term is: In a Karst region caves in the limestone will build up and collapse over the millennia. Thus a doline forms at the surface. Whith time going on, a watertight ground in the doline may form (clay, leftover vegetation) and water starts collecting in that past doline and may form a pond. This pond is called Hüle in theSwabian Jura region. Do you happen to find an exact translation to English? --Pentachlorphenol (talk) 05:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is well outside of my expertise, but what it's worth, here is my impression. I followed your link to the article, and the translation seems to be saying that it's mostly a man-made feature, although perhaps the ponds are generally in karst features. A German-English dictionary translates Karst pond as Karstsee, and every other term involving Karst also has Karst in the translation. Since the article is saying that they are only found in the Swabian Jura and Franconian Jura, I think that it may be more of a geography question than geology. I would suggest asking over at WT:WikiProject Bavaria or WT:WikiProject Geography. But it's possible that there is no English term and you'll need to use Hüle. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 May newsletter
The second round of the 2019 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to scored 32 points to advance into round 3. Our top four scorers in round 2 all scored over 400 points and were:

Other notable performances were put in by Barkeep49 with six GAs, 🇺🇸 Ceranthor, 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski, and  Canada Hky, each with seven GARs, and 🇩🇰 MPJ-DK with a seven item GT.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber (1210), our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three DYKs. He also made good use of the bonus points available, more than doubling his score by choosing appropriate articles to work on.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 Kosack (750), last year's runner up, with an FA, a GA, two FLs, and five DYKs.
 * Pirate_Flag_of_Henry_Every.svg (480), a WikiCup veteran, with 16 featured pictures, mostly restorations.
 * Zwerg Nase (461), a seasoned competitor, with a FA, a GA and an ITN item.

So far contestants have achieved nine featured articles between them and a splendid 80 good articles. Commendably, 227 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2019 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. The judges are pleased with the thorough GARs that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular
   

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Demining
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Geophysics
Portal:Geophysics, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Geophysics and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Geophysics during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Island of stability
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Your recent edit of WP:BIOP#Participants--how did you do that?
diff here. You separated out the members list into active and inactive users. Did you use some sort of automation or tool to help you do this? I'm trying to revamp WP:BIOL's member list the same way and then port it over to the WPX version. But we have a LOT of members and I really do not want to do this by hand. Any tips? Prometheus720 (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disappoint you, but it was manual. I did a mouseover of the contribs link for each user, and if the most recent date was more than a year ago, I moved the name to the inactive section. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a more automated way to do it, though. RockMagnetist(talk) 20:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Primulaceae
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 Reminder
Hi. I'm DannyS712 (talk), and I just wanted to remind you that you are a current participant in round 3 of this year's WikiCup! There are just over 2 weeks until the third round ends – if you haven't made you first submission for this round yet, there is still time to start; if you have already started, keep up the good work. See your submissions page: here. Good luck!

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 19:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk)

WikiCup 2019 July newsletter
The third round of the 2019 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round needed to score at least 68 points, which is substantially lower than last year's 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:


 * 🇳🇫 Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with 500 points derived mainly from a featured article and two GAs on natural history topics
 * Adam Cuerden, with 480 points, a tally built on 16 featured pictures, the result of meticulous restoration work
 * SounderBruce, a finalist in the last two years, with 306 points from a variety of submissions, mostly related to sport or the State of Washington
 * 🇺🇸 Usernameunique, with 305 points derived from a featured article and two GAs on archaeology and related topics

Contestants managed 4 (5) featured articles, 4 featured lists, 18 featured pictures, 29 good articles, 50 DYK entries, 9 ITN entries, and 39 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and it is imperative to claim them in the correct round; one FA claim had to be rejected because it was incorrectly submitted (claimed in Round 3 when it qualified for Round 2), so be warned! When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)