User talk:Imminent77

Hello, Imminent77, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Tuanminh01 (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply] Getting started Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Help directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

I have granted the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Gilliam (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Gilliam Thank you! --Imminent77 (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit. Adam9007 (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam9007: Hey sorry about that, I thought I was reverting all the Australias. Thanks for catching that! Imminent77 (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you made an error, put it back or Iwill curse you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.169.240 (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@86.22.169.240: I went back and looked at the edit in question, I am 100% sure it was not reverted in error. --Imminent77 (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! This is an IP user whose contribution you reverted. I have not, to my recollection, made any edits to any pages using this IP address. I have an account that I use to make contributions instead. I did check the contributions history for this IP address, and did see the unnecessary and immature edit there. This is a new computer, so perhaps someone who held this IP address previously made that edit? I appreciate your efforts in fighting vandalism. Thank you, 100.0.105.218 (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is User:Max0987654321 confirming that the above is me. Max0987654321 (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Max0987654321: Hey! Yes it is most likely that someone had previously held the IP address and had made that edit. --Imminent77 (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate you taking down facts I'm putting about my town Troyflyergay (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong Marshallband (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marshallband: The fact that you are vandalizing Sandra Day O'Connor High School (Helotes, Texas) --Imminent77 (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's only for today because they are trash talking about or marching band on twitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshallband (talk • contribs) 23:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marshallband: That doesn't mean you can vandalize wikipedia --Imminent77 (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to leave it up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshallband (talk • contribs) 00:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

_{Note: I moved this under it's own header as it was put into another conversation by mistake --Imminent77 (talk) 13:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)} [reply]

Hello, Imminent77: I agree that my comments/edits to my father's page were less than neutral; the content of my forthcoming work is both an expose' and memoir. If you deem that inclusion of the content/summary of my forthcoming autobiography needs revision, I'm happy to accommodate and honor your standard of neutrality in my remarks. Thank you for your integrity, time and consideration. ~ Sincerely, Byron Crews

@107.9.33.190: Hey I am going to leave some information on your talk page, an introduction to wikipedia and some information on neutral point of view requirements. Feel free to ask me any further questions you may have here or on your own talk page --Imminent77 (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The body of the article says his birthday is June 1, 1903, while quick facts on the side that I tried to change says January 13, 1903. He is in fact born on June 1, 1903. One cannot simply have two birthdays. Jkorpan (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for changing the birth date to the correct one! Generally when making changes to dates on Wikipedia it is a good idea to include a source that shows you are changing it to a correct date. That way it ensures that the correct date does not get changed to an incorrect one in case of discrepancy within the article. --Imminent77 (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not doing anything wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucasd3333 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Am I to assume you are a wikipedia admin?

I wish wikipedia admins would be more even handed in both edits and how you "discipline" people trying to help your organization.

I tried initiating a debate on the talk page about an advertisement for Brad Delong (who is neither Harry White, nor John Keynes, and Delong isn't really an economist except in academic title). The wikipedia entry is supposed to be about Harry White, not about Keynesian policy and not about whether one academic agrees or disagrees with the Bretton Woods agreement.

Harry White was a delegate of the US government -- President Harry Truman, 500+ members of Congress, dozens of other Treasury officials. It wasn't Harry White prevailing over Keynes (Truman or others would have sacked White if so). It was the US government, en mass, prevailing over Keynes. The US government agenda (hardly hidden) was to lend money to western allies and extend US influence (and limit Soviet influence); what does Brad Delong's political agenda about neo-Keynesian policy have to do with Harry White? NOTHING!!!!

Do whatever you are going to do. Many economics departments prohibit the use of wikipedia by students precisely because of crap like this. Yeah, I said crap. Deal with it if you are an adult. Go cry in your safe space if you are another Peter Pan like Rjensen. Most of wikipedia's readership has to live in the real world, not in academic theory.

PS -- I can't believe how many editing wars Rjensen has been in (according to his talk page) -- on subjects outside of theology (supposedly his area of expertise). Why is an academic theologian pretending to be an expert on real world economics? Other49states (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Other49states: I am certainly not an admin, just someone removing vandalism. The edit that I removed of yours was definitely vandalism, I have no idea what this other stuff is that you are rambling on about. --Imminent77 (talk) 02:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Imminent77: If you are not an admin, and you don't know what the discussion is about -- then mind your own business. The whole page is full of vandalism, and more importantly it is false and misleading political propaganda that should never have been allowed. Other49states (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why you edited the externals links on my page? All links are legit and I am authorized to use them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngelSepulveda1 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hi,

Want to know why I can't hyperlink my artist to her demo reel, show's official pages and why did you remove the links. All links are legit and authorized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngelSepulveda1 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AngelSepulveda1: Hello, I removed the links you had added as adding promotional external links in line is not allowed. You should read over WP:EL about the rules regarding adding external links. Also it sounds like you might have a conflict of interest, if this is the case you need to read through WP:COI. --Imminent77 (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

_{Note: I moved this under it's own header for clarity}

Hi imminent77, I just think that information is inappropriate to be noted as part of San Fransisco's wikipedia profile. Acknowledging the existence of criminal organisations and/or groups that effect places where people work and live (in a negative way) isn't really encyclopaedic material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholaspetridis (talk • contribs) 14:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nicholaspetridis: Hello Nicolasperidis, I reverted your changes last night due to a large chunk of sourced material being removed without an explanation, which is generally considered a form of vandalism. I'm not really sure if that is a valid reason to remove that section of the article, it is not my area of expertise. I would recommend opening a discussion on the talk page and try to gather a consensus whether it should be removed or not, I do not feel it is my place to make the decision. You might want to make a Request for Comment (details how to can be found here: WP:RFC) so that people can see your proposed removal. If you need/want any help with that let me know and I can assist you. Cheers --Imminent77 (talk) 16:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to make a quick change to celebrate my parents moving to Water Valley, take a screenshot and immediately delete the edit... you're too quick for me! Won't happen again.

-Jilli — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.1.125.205 (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy Imminent77, Looks like you were too quick for me to ninja edit in the citation. Sadly, much the page itself lacks any citation as Anderson has been mostly relegated to references in larger collections about historical Magicians. Hopefully, the sources are enough to satisfy this reversion, however, Anderson is well known to be the first (recorded) magician to ever pull a rabbit out of a tophat.

Have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herpderp5002 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it [1]

Asm20 (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry,I am new to this editing thing on wikipedia. I have a source-http://www.pr51st.com/election-results-2/ but i just don't know how to mark it in the article. Do you mind doing it for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.198.11 (talk) 03:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@69.123.198.11: I went to add the source for you, but I see that you have already added it. I put in welcome guide on your talk page that has some information about getting familiar with wikipedia and some guides on editing. I hope that you stay and make lots of useful contributions to wikipedia! Cheers! --Imminent77 (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Imminent77: I have no intent to be hostile, but to be blunt. We editors have a choice here - contribute to Wikipedia or contribute to something it is not (like a technical journal). By dropping a 20,000+ byte edit onto an existing article and then seemingly asking for advice or praise seems ill-advised. And then when nudged to reshape this thing into something that matches the guidelines, you seem to beg off as being too advanced. I could be more subtle, agreed. But when someone makes a huge edit and then asks for suggestions, that behavior suggests that they require bluntness. In any case, I'll lay off being the evil one on this case. Happy editing.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Smokefoot: Mocking my knowledge of the subject matter in your comments/edit summary does come off as hostile. I do want feedback on my writing as this is my first large contribution, and I plan on implementing the suggestions to reduce the technicality to improve the article. (It might take me a bit, it took me over 2 weeks to write that edit in my sandbox) It was not my intention to make it seem that I could not reduce the technicality due to my knowledge of the subject matter, sorry if it came off that way. Thank you for taking time to make a reply to me on my talk page. Happy editing. --Imminent77 (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize sincerely for seeming to mock your knowledge. I have no intent to insult you, but it was my intent to shove you toward the encyclopedic tone. I could go on, but the main thing is that in whatever inept way, my intention is to help to program here. --Smokefoot (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Smokefoot: Thank you for the apology --Imminent77 (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SpeedFan's Wikipedia article is one of the top result for a google search about "speedfan aleternatives". The article does in fact propose alternatives. But if you do researches, you will find that NONE of the supposed alternative offer the same feature set as SpeedFan.

SpeedFan purpose is to control computers fans speed.

Open Hardware Monitor purpose is to "monitors temperature sensors, fan speeds, voltages, load and clock speeds of a computer." Not control fans speed.

Motherboard Monitor is a utility designed by Alexander Van Kaam for Microsoft Windows that provides live information about the state of a motherboard and other hardware, including temperatures, voltages, fan speeds, and more.

Real Temp is a temperature monitoring program designed for all Intel single Core, Dual Core, Quad Core and Core i7 processors.

My edit was neutral and factual. The version that was restored is false and misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.163.145.124 (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Imminent, I saw your WikiProject comments and discussion with Smokefoot about the Stöber process, and thought I'd offer some thoughts / advice which you are free to consider or ignore.

• The expansion is impressive and thank you for putting in so much effort. Dropping large changes in in blocks can lead to strong reactions, so sometimes doing the series of edits in article space is a less controversial approach, however. Also, highly knowledgeable editors can struggle for sufficiently clear writing to a non-technical audience, especially in the lede.
• I'm glad to see the section above between you and Smokefoot. In my experience, Smokefoot has the best interests of the project firmly in mind and his comments are worth serious consideration. However, he can be overly blunt and I have learned to try to put aside when I feel criticised / attacked as that is not his intent in my experience. He has strong views on sourcing and overly-technical language and his points are usually worth addressing even if his manner can come across as harsh. I have clashed with him at times but have also developed considerable respect for his views.
• I think the mathematical treatment is probably too technical. I'm happy to try and help edit the article, and I would lengthen the lede and avoid technical terms with piping, such as by changing something like "[[monodisperse]] particles" to "particles of [[monodisperse|uniform size]]", especially in the lede.
• I don't know if you are aware of the DYK project but the expansion would qualify to appear on the main page. I can help with this too, if you wish.
• As one example, I wrote the rhodocene article, and at both the GA and FA stages more history and less-technical material was added. I would never have put some of that in for my typical writing,. This is how it appeared when it was on the main page for DYK (except red-link to image was an actual image), here is how it appeared when it made GA, and here is when it made FA. This is an case of my experience, it may not be a great example, but it gives some flavour of the change in a technical article to suit the needs of readers. Technically knowledgeable writers don't write much for a non-technical WP audience, and it is a skill like any other which needs practice and development.

Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia, and I'm happy to help if I can. Good luck! EdChem (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdChem: Thank you for all of the suggestions above! Today I have been going through the article and doing some copy editing to clarify some of the technical aspects of the article. I just finished up doing a fixing in the Morphological variations section. I noticed that you made some edits to the lede and one step process. Thank you for the help, the lede definitely sounds much better now and gives a better representation of what is contained in the article. One of the sections that I am having some trouble with is the kinetics section, I realize it is too technical, however I am not really sure about the best way to go about improving it. If you would have any suggestions on that I would be glad to hear about them!

I have heard about the DYK project, however I am not very familiar with it and therefore did not intend on submitting this change to it. Also I read through the rhodocene article revisions, it definitely helped me with understanding the addition of non-technical aspects to an article and how to make an article appealing to a wider audience.

Once again thank you for the suggestions, and any help with improving the article is appreciated! --Imminent77 (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be able to help. Wikipedia definitely needs more people with technical knowledge, so I am glad you are here, and I hope I can make it smoother for you.  :) I haven't touched the kinetics yet, but I will have a look. I am happy to handle the DYK side, if you like. I can make the nomination and you can see what I do, which means I will take on the reviewing side too. Once you feel ready to do one for yourself (on another article), I can help if you need it. DYK has a rule that submitting an article means reviewing another (the so-called QPQ requirement) but you don't have to do it on your first 5 articles, so you can get used to the process. We have 7 days to nominate from the start of the expansion, so no need to worry about it for a few days yet. Any questions you have, feel free to ask. There are lots of good people in the chemistry areas but, like any area where there are people, getting the social side right really helps. Try to remember that mostly people don't mean to be nasty except to people doing obvious harm (which is not you, obviously) so try to read talk comments with a "this is meant to help me" frame of mind.  :) Regards, EdChem (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdChem: If you would like to do a nomination for DYK that would be great, I would love to be able to follow along with the nomination process to learn how the process is done. And thank you for the advice, I will definitely keep that in mind going forward. PS: The edits you have made look awesome! Cheers --Imminent77 (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help, Imminent. One piece of information (just FYI), adding a ping as you did here does not work as a ping notification is only sent in an edit which contains a signature (~~~~), so if you forget a ping, when you add it you also need to remove your signature and add the tildes.  :) On the DYK, I won't start it until we are done with the article polish, and we need to come up with a fact for the hook to appear on the main page. Something that will be of interest to readers, to entice them to look at the article, add which is directly supported by one or more references. EdChem (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdChem:That is good to know about the ping! Ok I will give some thought to a good fact for the hook on the DYK. As to the polishing is there a section that you think needs more attention then others, or anything that is missing from the article that should be added? --Imminent77 (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on it, sometimes it is easier for someone who didn't write the text to see how to improve it. I am leaving the kinetics until last because I am still not sure what to do with it. Does it all belong here, or should it be in the article on particle aggregation, say? I suggest you look at the edits I'm making to check I am not changing the meanings - you are the expert on the content, after all. I try not to be precious about changes I make, so if you disagree, change it or ask!  :) Some of it is removing words / phrases which are repetitive or redundant, it makes for easier reading IMO. On what is missing, I am trying to include why a reader might care about what is written, so anything on that is welcome, and maybe a section on applications? If process P is used to make product X, putting that in the lede and with a section on applications at the end can make for a much more interesting article for a non-expert. Just some thoughts.  :) EdChem (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An image like Scheme 4 from here might be a useful addition, illustrating how the formation of micelles results in voids / pores. Maybe some useful images on commons, too. EdChem (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdChem: I am not sure the sets of equations are general enough for particle aggregation as there has been some simplification of them making assumptions of the Stöber process. I will have some time tomorrow to work on editing the article so I will take a in depth look over the edits you have made to ensure that you have not changed the meaning as you suggested. Also I will try and find some additional figures, and if I can't find any with suitable permissions I might make them myself. As to an application section, I thought about including one, but the applications are for the silica particles not the process so I figured they might be more appropriate in the silica/mesoporous silica articles instead of the Stöber process article. Even with that do you think it would be relevant to include, it would be fairly easy, many of the sources contain what applications the particles were being designed for. --Imminent77 (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdChem: I have made a pass through the kinetics section and removed some of the equations and left just the base equations that directly influence the nucleation and aggregation kinetics. I think the removal of the derivation of them from the general model makes it a bit easier to follow. If you could give it a read over and give me some feedback/suggestions it would be much appreciated. A bit later today I will do a read through the rest of the article and try to find some pictures. --Imminent77 (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, no problem. I've added a little on applications, and want to add a couple more things. I don't think details are appropriate, but I do think some mention is relevant when applications specifically indicate using a Stober approach for preparation. I'd like to lengthen the third paragraph of the lede by a sentence or two. I accept that the kinetics are too specific for the general article, but we might be better moving them to the end as readers' eyes will cloud over at mathematics. Applications can be useful for DYK hooks - "did you know that the Stober process is used to make nanoparticles used to deliver drugs inside cells?" / "did you know that the Stober process is used to make aerogel thermal insulators which are lighter than air?" - stuff like that. The kinetics section might be better if the point that it allows the conditions for a particular set of desired properties to be predicted was strengthened. It's an obvious implication to us, but then most readers know less about kinetics than I know about the government structure in Botswana (FYI, that is essentially nothing). I doubt we can get the picture slot of DYK, we'd need an image directly related to the hook which is recognisable at small size, but images do help with article quality. If you want to put in the effort, you may be able to get it to GA. EdChem (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How are you feeling about the article as it stands now? EdChem (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdChem:I am feeling pretty good about the article, it is considerably more polished, less technical, and more complete then it was after my first expansion. I agree it could use an image example of the templating for mesoporous silica, however I couldn't find one with acceptable permissions and have not yet had a chance to create one myself. --Imminent77 (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That image is desirable but not necessary for DYK. I think I'll start the nomination later today. I also think you can drop the peer review request as I think it's mostly done, and maybe ask for a GOCE copy edit before putting it forward for GA. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing about the peer review, and have subsequently closed it. I am interested in following along on the DYK process to get a feel for it. --Imminent77 (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Starting a DYK nomination

1. Go to the page on which nominations are hosted, at t:tdyk. In the instructions section near the top, enter the name of the article and click the "create nomination" button. That starts the page Template:Did you know nominations/Stöber process with a blank template, which you can see at Template:NewDYKnomination.

2. Fill it in. Because it is a x5 or more expansion, the status is "expanded". You can add as many ALTernate suggestions for the hook as you like, but put your preference first. (It will be referred to as ALT0 by convention.) I have added extras later because images are involved and more complex, but put in one without an image. This was my completed template:

{{subst:NewDYKnomination

| article = Stöber process

| status = expanded

| hook = ... that silica [[aerogel]]s can be prepared by the '''[[Stöber process]]''', and are powerful enough [[thermal insulator]]s for NASA to use on a [[Mars rover]] and to protect a flower from a Bunsen burner (pictured)?

| ALT1 = ... that [[mesoporous silica]] [[nanoparticle]]s are prepared by the '''[[Stöber process]]''' and are used in preparing [[biosensor]]s and [[drug delivery|delivering medications]] to within [[intracellular|cellular structures]]??

| author = Imminent77

| author2 = EdChem

| image = File:Aerogelflower filtered.jpg

| caption = Aerogel thermal insulator protecting a flower from a Bunsen burner

| comment = I will post source information once I have the ALTs in with another possible image

| reviewed = QPQ to follow

}}

which produced this.

3. The new nomination needs to be added to the correct date (when the expansion started, here 17 November) on t:tdyk [2], and also the the article talk page [3].

4. You would not be required to review another article under QPQ rules, but as nominator I am. You can see past reviews I've done at User:EdChem/BLP. You will need to do reviews once you have been involved in 5 nominations.

5. Including sourcing information in the nomination is new and what is required has not been agreed. I tend to the more comprehensive comment style (as you can see when I expanded the nomination: [4]), if you look at other nominations and discussions at t:tdyk you can see how others act. Some reviewers are much more rigorous / comprehensive than others.

6. By all means, if you want to suggest other ALTs or comment otherwise, or ask questions, go for it! EdChem (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your Level 2 warning at User talk:PantherBF3.

But he already had multiple Final Warnings.

Check the talk page history and please check his block log.

Can an administrator please block him indefinitely now?

Sagecandor (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sagecandor: The warnings from Huggle are automatic and they must not have noticed the other warnings. I have noticed there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring about the incident --Imminent77 (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you! Sagecandor (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the list of valid parameters for that infobox, Template:Infobox person#Parameters, religion is not one of them. - Mlpearc (open channel) 01:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mlpearc: I was just reverting the removal of the entire infobox as you can see here[5]. I did the revert automatically with Huggle so it restored it how it was before. I was unaware of the incorrect parameter. --Imminent77 (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NP :P - Mlpearc (open channel) 01:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to put interesting facts about the town I'm from Troyflyergay (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry,my brother was on the computer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.234.67 (talk) 03:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The renaming was added to the section entitled "Controversy." The added content is an example of the controversy surrounding the building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LetsBeReal (talk • contribs) 04:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, uh, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to respond to this, but I figure this works. I got a message in November saying I vandalised a page on Homo sapiens, in regard to this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homo%20sapiens&diff=748225072

I don't think I've even been on that page, let alone edited it. I don't get it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.230.93 (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

_{replied on users talk page} --Imminent77 (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop undoing my edits on Same Ol' Mistakes. Review Wikipedia policies on notability.--Frogsareamphibianstoo (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please figure out the difference on a page you tagged of mine. there is a difference, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadinga (talk • contribs) 02:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fadinga: Hello, that was not the reason that I had tagged it. It was a short article and when I had clicked the citation no page would load. Hence why I thought it was a hoax/vandalism. However after re-examining it I realize that it was not and that I had made a mistake in that tagging. Sorry about that. Happy Holidays --Imminent77 (talk) 03:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ah ok. I guess Huggle doesnt exsctly work. Sorry for my attitude because I thought that was a joke at first. anyways happy holidays :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadinga (talk • contribs) 03:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Imminent77. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Stöber process at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome!  – Corinne (talk) 02:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Imminent77 -- You'll have seen that I completed a copy-edit of Stöber process. I know enough science that I can usually figure out what is meant in science articles, but I am not a scientist. I worked as carefully as I could, but I hope you will go through my edits and check to be sure I did not introduce any errors. I looked especially for any unclear sentences. There are two things I'd like to ask you about:

1) I'd like to ask you about a sentence that appears in the first paragraph in the section Stöber process#Mesoporous silica:

• The surfactant forms micelles that are incorporated into the silica particles during formation.

It is not clear what formation is being referred to with the word "formation" at the end of the sentence. I assume it refers to formation of the silica particles, but it could also refer to the formation of micelles, and in fact you use the verb "form" there, which kind of draws the reader's attention back to that part of the sentence. There are several ways to clarify this. You can't just insert "their" before "formation", because you've got two plural nouns ("micelles" and "particles"). You could insert "the latter's" before "formation" if "formation" is referring to the formation of silica particles. However, that is a bit stilted, or formal. Another way is to use a different verb at the beginning of the sentence (creates, produces, transforms into, etc.), which would reduce the connection between the noun and the verb. Another solution is to change "during formation" to "as they are being formed". You can, of course, use more than one of these solutions. Here is a possible re-wording:

• The surfactant produces micelles that are incorporated into the silica particles as they are being formed.

Also, can you link (or define) "micelles"?

2) I also wanted to ask you about something in the section Stöber process#Advantages and applications. Toward the end of the second paragraph, you have this sentence:

• Conduction of heat through the gas phase is poor, and as the structure greatly inhibits movement of air molecules through the structure, heat transfer through the material is poor, as can be seen in the image at right where heat from a Bunsen burner transfers so poorly that crayons resting on the aerogel do not melt.

I am sure that most readers with a solid science background will be able to figure out what this "gas phase" is, but other readers might wonder what it is since this phrase is not used before this. The word "gas" appears only once before this, at the beginning of the paragraph, in the sentence that begins:

• Aerogels are highly porous ultralight materials in which the liquid component of a gel has been replaced with a gas,

but there is no mention of a "phase". Is there any way you can briefly add something, somewhere between that first sentence and the sentence containing the phrase "gas phase", to make it clear what this phase is (and when it occurs)? Well, that's all.  – Corinne (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Corinne: You are correct about (1), the silica network forms around the micelles. Imagine a sponge like the one at right. Micelles are small balls of surfactant molecules, non-polar in the centre, polar / ionic and hydrophilic on the surface. The silica builds around these micelles so there is a structure with huge and interlinked channels filled with micelles and solvent. Calcining burns these to CO
₂ and water vapour, leaving a highly porous and low density solid, like the sponge except strong and incompressible, a "solid smoke" (as NASA puts it). Imminent and I have discussed an image for this process to illustrate. The materials can also be made without the surfactant in which case the channels are filled with solvent, and using supercritical fluids the solvent can be removed to form an aerogel, leading to your second point. With the sponge-like and convoluted structure, free flow of air through the aerogel is greatly restricted as there are not easy / direct channels for gas flow. Does this make sense? Thanks for your comments :) EdChem (talk) 10:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change to address (1): [6] EdChem (talk) 10:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Corinne: @EdChem: Sorry for the late response, I have been quite busy over the holidays, I hope you are having great holidays yourselves! Thank you Corinne for doing the copy edit of the article and thank you EdChem for responding while I was unavailable. I took a look over all of the copy edits and I do not see any that changed the underlying meaning. I hope that I will have some time in the near future to create a proper image to help explain the silica network forming around the micelles, as it would help considerably with the explanation. I believe EdChem has addressed the questions above, however if I am incorrect let me know and I will respond next time I am on Wikipedia. Once again thanks for the copy edit and happy holidays! --Imminent77 (talk) 15:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, just saw this, my corrections were correct, my Grandmother was making Dutch Babies long before they were in any restaurant. They are small and usually made in custard cups. Never seen them made in cast iron, or larger than a single serving size. No where near the size of a German Pancake. They are two different things. So my edit was not only constructive, it was correct. By the way, my gma was a Volga German, born in 1898, in Dolbrinka Russia. They were making these there before coming to America in 1914. She taught me how to make them when I was about 6, in 1970. My mother remembers making them as a little girl on her farm in Troutdale, OR, that would be in the 1930's and 40's. 1Snoopy1964 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1Snoopy1964 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Imminent77. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Metrology at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Good luck with GA and all the best, Miniapolis 17:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the effort you went to for that re-write. It also got others motivated, and the article is much more comprehensible now. Bobsd (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Noticed you were working through Category:Pages with duplicate reference names. I'm also doing that, and wrote a tool to help with that. It's still in beta, but it's at toollabs:yabbr. Once you log in, you get text boxes where you can edit just the parts of the article with the duplicate references. Hope you try it, and feedback welcome! (Ping me if you do test it.) Enterprisey (talk!) 06:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprisey Hey I gave your tool a try today, I liked it quite a bit! I found myself skipping a decent number as a result of not being able to reference the text to make decisions on closing of references, but on the clear cut cases it was a breeze to use. One thing though, it would be nice if you could select a starting position in the backlog. Say if I used it for a while and the next day I return it would be nice to start where I left off rather than having to skip over the ones I skipped previously (Maybe this already exists and I was unable to find it). Overall kudos on creating this tool! --Imminent77 (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Metrology 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 05:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Metrology you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Metrology 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]