User talk:RockMagnetist/Archive 9

< Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10 >

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  11 -  12 -  ... (up to 100)

Glad to come across

...a fellow phys science faculty member still giving time here (though I have left the academic game, now)/ Cheers, bonne chance. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Pleased to meet you, Le Prof. You seem to be thriving - some professors have a hard time adapting to Wikipedia culture. RockMagnetist(talk) 05:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Earthquake sensitive

Hi. I'd be interested in any comments you might have re Draft:Earthquake sensitive. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:infobox mineral

Hello RockMagnetist. Could you change the positions of 'crystal symmetry' and 'crystal system' on the template:infobox mineral, please. It should be 'crystal system', section 'general' and 'crystal symmetry', section 'identification'. Thank, regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Chris.urs-o, I'd be happy to do it, but I'm curious: Why don't you just edit it yourself? RockMagnetist(talk) 16:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It is semi-protected, and only the documentation page is visible. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

But semi-protected means that IP users and new users can't edit it. You're autoconfirmed, so you're good to go. I don't see anything but the doc page either - I think that is typical of infobox pages. However, rather than hold you up with arguments I will make the change. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input!

Wanted to thank you for weighing in at Talk:List of giant-monster films‎. I think other opinions were sorely needed. DonIago (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad that my input is appreciated by both sides. I hope that you'll consider my middle way. RockMagnetist(talk) 20:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems that even if I was open to it (and I'm not saying I'm not), the other editor is not interested in reconsidering their stance; their uncivil comments aren't exactly helping matters either. But then, my failure to make headway with them was why I asked for other editors to get involved in the first place. I'm guessing the best thing I personally can do right now is stay quiet on the subject; but let me know if you feel otherwise. DonIago (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

True, I'm not sure if you can help on the talk page, but you could help by adding citations (e.g., to the Godzilla movies). RockMagnetist(talk) 20:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

If I get the time for it, I'll see what I can do, certainly (regrettably, there's good reason why most of the work I do here is gnomish). I don't know whether you want to address why the link the editor provided wouldn't be appropriate for inclusion in any case, or leave that one hanging...much less whether you'd like to point out that their tone continues to be less-than-constructive (prior to your and Eric's involvement I gave serious consideration to unwatching the article and walking away from it). Thanks again for getting involved in the situation. DonIago (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

At least we've moved away from the ranting and on to confusing the heck out of ourselves? :p DonIago (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's collaborative confusion. Gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Geology

Your articles have been quite helpful for students like me.Thank you very much. Kunwar Rabindra (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I'm glad they helped. RockMagnetist(talk) 02:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Frederick Vine

Hi, sorry I killed this gentleman prematurely. I read in this book that he died in 1988, and I couldn't find any source providing any information, one way or the other. If I do find one, I will edit with proper reference. Sorry... Avneref (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Deleted comments?

Hello RockMagnetist,

Chris Oxford here.

Yesterday I decided to have a look if Editors are discussing something new and interesting on Talk: Mineralogy, and suddenly I have noticed, that our own Hope Diamond discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mineralogy) has been vandalised!

Someone had erased from the text replies of two Wikipedians, who took part in this debate.

The reply of the Editor DESiegel, where he is saying: "I disagree .." in regards of my statement that the picture of Hope diamond inappropriate in the article Mineralogy, has been deleted.

If some one is thinking, that Wikipedian DESiegel was not right in this case, then this person shall come up with a weighty objections, but not to delete DESiegel response.

The same was done to the response of the Editor Huon, who although, as opposed to Editor DESiegel, agreed with me.

Illogical actions of the unknown devastator possibly indicates, that this person even did not have any particular goals or desires, but to make a joke, as now, because all these gaps, discussion sound pretty strange, just like a conversation with the voices, generated by the own imagination, or with the subjects of paranormal origin.

Of course this is not the end of the world, but I have never encountered such a phenomenon personally, and therefore decided to ask you what to do in this case?

Regards, Chris Oxford Chris Oxford (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Chris Oxford: Nothing has been deleted. The editors commented on your talk page and you replied at Talk:Mineralogy. It is indeed confusing, so maybe I'll add a couple of links to your talk page. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello RockMagnetist, Great thanks, that you pointed out to me this error. Regards, Chris Oxford.Chris Oxford (talk) 08:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Microsoft academic search logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Microsoft academic search logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Magnetosphere of Earth listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Magnetosphere of Earth. Since you had some involvement with the Magnetosphere of Earth redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dual norm

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dual norm. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Your help desk response

You seemed to object to a link to a section in an article. The way the person who asked the question wanted to do it may have been incorrect according to the guideline you pointed the person to. However, I saw nothing wrong with "(see below)" which I added to the article Digital television transition in the United States, which is very long. What are your feelings?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a little lazy in that communication. I think I may have read your "The absence of a MoS page discouraging it" as something like "The absence of a MoS page related to this issue," so I just posted the guideline without discussing how it applied. The bottom line seems to be that, if it makes sense in a print-only version, it's o.k. So the example that @Voltteri mentioned seems fine. I like that your example provides a link to the section for easy navigation, but I think it would be better to name the section instead of just saying "below" (someone could move it so it's above or split it from the article). RockMagnetist(talk) 17:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I should probably discuss this with more people, but does this look proper?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks great, except for the hash mark, which I took the liberty of hiding. By all means consult other people - I am just giving you my interpretation of the MoS. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't like it. It looks like you're getting sent to another article. I'm not sure who to ask.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Establishing notability for a scientific organization

Hi, Rockmagnetist. The article International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy has been nominated for deletion on the grounds of non-notability. It also has been tagged for lack of non-primary sources. It seems to me that it is a notable subject, albeit within a smallish group of scientists, so I've been trying to find citations to establish that. I've added a couple of references, but I'm having a hard time finding online sources.

Guidelines exist for academic people and for companies and organizations, but it's difficult to extract from these exactly what should apply to specialized scientific organizations. Do you have any suggestions about 1) applying notability guidelines in a case like this and 2) sources to check into?

Or is it just not notable after all? — Gorthian (talk) 02:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Gorthian, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Yes, it is notable, and already has excellent sources in the article to establish this. This is a misguided AfD. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, good. I added two of those sources, but I'm still unsure enough about notability that I wanted to check first. — Gorthian (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

They're good sources - thanks for adding them. Some might quibble that the Encyclopedia of Geomagnetism and Paleomagnetism is a tertiary source, but it's written by specialists in the field. RockMagnetist(talk) 02:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Article for Deletion/Keeping

Hey hope you are doing well. There is a page you have contributed to that is being considered for deletion: List of Christian Nobel laureates. You are welcome to put in any input on the issues by going to the page and clicking on the link for that article. Jobas (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Jobas, thanks for letting me know. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

JAmodel

Hi RockMagnetist, JAmodel page is not promotional. If it looks like, please suggest corrections. Thank you in advance, Best regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnetic models (talk • contribs) 04:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Magnetic models: I suggest you first talk to the person who added the tag (Ubiquity). I'm just enforcing the rules. If I have time tomorrow, I'll try to weigh in. And if you want to contest the deletion, you should click that button soon. RockMagnetist(talk) 06:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you in advance for help with corrections. I implemented some minor corrections, but I am afraid it is not enough. Best regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnetic models (talk • contribs) 21:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I did try to help, but had no success; see my comment at Talk:JAmodel. Minor corrections won't solve the fundamental problem, which is that adequate sources don't exist. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the solution is to remove the article and link the github repository in the external links section of the article about Jiles-Atherton model? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnetic models (talk • contribs) 21:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Article Mineralogy.

Good afternoon, RockMagnetist,

Yesterday I visited the article Mineralogy and noted, that the list of the Mineralogical Societies is not totally complete, so, I decided to ask if it will be OK, from your point of view, to add the following general ones:

French Society of Mineralogy and Cristallography Société Française de Minéralogie et de Cristallographie http://sfmc-fr.org/ German Mineralogical Society (DMG) Deutsche Mineralogische Gesellschaft e.V. | Die DMG http://www.dmg-home.org/ The "Italian Mineralogical and Petrological Society Società Italiana di Mineralogia e Petrologia (SIMP) http://www.socminpet.it/index.php & Gemmological Association of Great Britain (Gem-A) http://www.gem-a.com/component/k2/author/28-gemmologicalassociationofgreatbritain?start=16

and also to complete an existing title "Mineralogical Society" with a phrase "of Great Britain and Ireland"? And, probably, sources of Biomineralogy can be in enriched by the article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35569659 ,describing in its end the absolutely fascinating "SOS" mineral Hazenite "is only known from Mono Lake, California. It forms when the phosphorus levels in the lake get too high, and the microbes in the water, in order to survive, have to start excreting it from their cells." ? I hope, that my text looks acceptable now. P.S. Does it make sense to illustrate phrase from the section Physical properties: "Many crystals are polymorphic" with this picture of quartz from Minas Gerais, Brazil? Quartz from Minas Gerais, Brasil.jpg

Quartz from Minas Gerais, Brasil

Regards, Chris Oxford.Chris Oxford (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, RockMagnetist, I have made a few additions, mentioned in the previous message (1 citation and 3 Associations), hope, that they will be the useful ones. I inform about it, just because you have done a lot of work on this article yourself, and I want all my additions to be correct. Perhaps, Mineralogy soon will be ready for the nomination for a good article. Regards, Chris Oxford.Chris Oxford (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@Chris Oxford: Thanks for checking in with me on the article, and sorry it has taken me so long to reply. Your changes look fine (but I tweaked them a little). I have also added "of Great Britain and Ireland". Thanks for adding that interesting source; to make better use of it, we need to expand the section on biomineralogy. My view is that the article still needs a lot of work before it is GA-ready.

As for the quartz image, I don't see how it illustrates polymorphism. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, RockMagnetist,

Thank you for reply. Very glad, that you see my editing as a fine one. I also don't see how this quartz image can illustrate polymorphism, that is why I did not upload it into the article: I found, that this is not the one, which I wanted to send for your observation, already when the image was sent, and I was so confused, that decided not to appear with another one. I have a couple of ideas about material, which can enrich the article and I will address to you for advise as soon as I organize the material in an appropriate manner. Yes, everything is taking time, but sure, one day Mineralogy will meet the criteria for the good article.

Regards, Chris Oxford.Chris Oxford (talk) 09:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, RockMagnetist,

I would like to introduce to your attention some additions, intended to create a visual presentation for couple of points in the article Mineralogy: firstly, I decided to go for more classical examples of polymorphism, and to use two minerals of identical chemical composition CaCO3 - calcite/aragonite, as a visual material; then, to write a short description, to add several related citations and upload images of these two minerals. Also, to illustrate a magnetic property, I made a photo of the tumbled pieces (bought them myself from locals during the trip) of magnetite from Tortola. And in the end of the section Physical properties, I’m planning to add new citation — fascinating news from the University of Bristol — controlled polymorphism: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2016/may/new-way-of-growing-crystals.html

Following are the texts on the points, mentioned above:

I. Calsit and Aragonit are two minerals with identical chemical compositions, distinguished by their crystallography: calcite is rhombohedral and aragonite is orthorhombic. Another bright example of polymorphs are diamond and graphite.

Calcit Scalenoeder - Egremont, England

BGML - Aragonit

Mineral magnetite (lodestone), from Tortola, British Virgin Islands.

II. A naturally magnetized (1) pieces of the mineral magnetite, called because of this property, a lodestone (2), from Tortola, British Virgin Islands; found in igneous plutonic rocks (3) formations, composed of several minerals, including quartz, plagicase, alkali feldspar, biotite and titanite.(4)

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magnetism&action=history (2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lodestone (3) http://geotripperimages.com/Earth_Materials/plutonic_igneous_rocks.html (4) https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WWWRi2zB9bsC&pg=PA105&lpg=

Caption for Calcite: Calcite is a carbonate mineral CaCO3, rhombohedral by its crystal structure, and the most stable polymorph of calcium carbonate.

Caption for Aragonite: Aragonite is a naturally occurring carbonate mineral CaCO3, representing other form of the mineral calcite, differ from it just by own orthorhombic crystallographic characteristic.

Will be glad to know your opinion.

Regards, Chris Oxford.Chris Oxford (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Next day P.S.(!): Citation (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magnetism&action=history somehow has appeared instead of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetism I have corrected it in my draft already.Chris Oxford (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Good Evening RockMagnetist, I checked everything again, in my view it looks pretty good so, I placed all this material into the Mineralogy article. Regards, Chris Oxford.Chris Oxford (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Please dont apologise

You are correct - I got carried away - and the self referencing is an issue (the back story on projects not having enough signs of activity would be a 3 page essay, not needed here) - to give you an adequate explanation as to why I felt the need to tag the talk pages and put things on main space, is irrelevent here, I have a terrible flu and wont be editing like i was last week, for a while. Thank you for your consideration JarrahTree 00:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome! I think the level of activity in projects varies over time. WP Geology was very active a few years ago, but for now there is not much discussion. That may not be bad - they may just be editing articles. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

wow it made sense what i wrote, phew, brain addled by flu fever, now headaches, it never ends JarrahTree 09:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, RockMagnetist. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Category talk:Violence against men

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:Violence against men. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Mineralogy Barnstar.

Great to hear from you, RockMagnetist! Thank you so much for support and appreciation of the design. So, it looks like - there is a hope, that Mineralogy will have its own Star. I’m delighted by the idea to connect the Star to the Projects, mentioned by you, but in turn, have no idea, how to do it.

A very good evening and great thanks again.

Regards, Chris.Chris Oxford (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Chris Oxford: Easy enough to connect it: Just display it on Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocks and minerals - see, for example, the Geology barnstar at WikiProject Geology. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello RockMagnetist, Thank you for your advice, but can I do it now or the discussion should be closed first, what will mean, that the Barnstar has been approved; and what should I do to close the discussion if there are 5 supports and no objections? Thank you in advance. Regards, Chris Oxford.Chris Oxford (talk) 22:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Chris Oxford: I don't have any experience with barnstars, but clearly there is consensus for adding yours. I looked around for guidelines and found the Barnstars 2.0 guidelines, which says that you'll need to create a PNG file with transparent background. Then you could go ahead and add it to the table of topical barnstars, with N/A for the Barnstar 1.0 column, and start awarding it! It would be a good idea to advertise its existence at the Geology and Rocks and Minerals projects. 17:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2014 Oso mudslide

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2014 Oso mudslide. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi RockMagnetist.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, RockMagnetist. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Issues of the Evolution v.s. Creation Debate

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Issues of the Evolution v.s. Creation Debate. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Weigh-in Needed from Eds with Science Background

The issue of "junk journals" has come-up in a scientist-related AfD, e.g. my latest comment. I don't think this is receiving due consideration from many of the panelists, but would appreciate a heads-up in case I'm over-emphasizing this. Thanks. Agricola44 (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC).

The Mineralogy Barnstar.

Hello, RockMagnetist,

Thank you so much for your support and advises in regards to Mineralogical Barnstar. I created a PNG file with transparent background, added it to the table of topical Barnstars and placed Mineralogical Barnstar at the pages of the Geology and Rocks and Minerals projects. I think, that the description of this award accurately determines the contributions to Wikipedia, which were made by you. I know from my own experience how difficult it is to find time to organize even a small fraction of the right material, and I believe that the volume of your contribution is huge and very valuable, and therefore with a great pleasure I award you this brand-new Barnstar.

Merry Christmas and a Very Happy New Year!

Regards, Chris Oxford.Chris Oxford (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

	The Mineralogy Barnstar
	The The Mineralogy Barnstar is awarded to appreciate the contributions of users to the coverage of mineralogy subjects on Wikipedia. Chris Oxford (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Chris, I am really touched by this barnstar and your kind thoughts that accompany it. Thank you, and happy holidays to you too! RockMagnetist(talk) 04:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and Thanks for All the Cookies

Thanks for the welcome to Wikipedia. I've picked up a couple of tricks along the way - but theres's much left to learn. Scootplums (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. There is indeed plenty to learn, and these days I'm often having to re-learn it! RockMagnetist(talk) 04:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Field equation

Hi, the page you merged on October 2015 is being grown again by an IP user. Can you have a look? Thanks scope_creep (talk) 10:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Scope creep, thanks for letting me know about this. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)