User talk:AwesoMan3000

A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, AwesoMan3000. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Reify-tech (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

June 2015
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Citrus taxonomy. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. ''Do not change the titles of cited articles. You have repeatedly changed the title of this article to misspell one of the words.'' Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Spelling changes on Citron and many other pages
We do not change the original spelling of wikipedia pages to suit the nationality or preference of the latest editor of each page. Please see the section of the Manual of Style that deals with this, WP:ENGVAR. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015
Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Orange (fruit). Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(ring-ring)  16:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Four-leaf clover. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Four-leaf clover. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. ''Please read about how to contribute to wikipedia, in particular WP:SOURCE. A advertisement for a company that sells four-leaf clovers from a particular species is not an appropriate citation for a statement that most four-leaf clovers come from that species. Nor is an advertisement a suitable citation for any statement in wikipedia.'' Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

And stop edit warring. Competent editors are prevented from reverting your silliness, but it does not go unnoticed. You risk being blocked from further editing.Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Four-leaf clover. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Reify-tech (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I was not inserting a spam link. I was requested to give a reference to a commonly-known fact, which I did, and apparently adding references is equivalent to spamming. Seriously, does everyone have to force me into being seen as the goddamn devil? AwesoMan3000 (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You probably could have used a better link (it looks like you added a link to a clover shopping website even though there is information included too), but I think the speedy revert-and-warn behavior is worth investigating. Dustin  ( talk ) 22:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see that Sminthopsis84 left an explanation behind explaining why the link is inappropriate. I question Reify-tech's warning because it assumes you are (and calls you) a spammer which does not appear to be the case, but all that aside, I would suggest that you do another search and see if you can't find another source from a non-shopping website if you can. Dustin  ( talk ) 22:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I can understand that.
 * Some examples of sources are this, this and this. Which one should I add? - AwesoMan3000 (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * None of those is appropriate. The notion that Trifolium repens is the only, or the best, or the most common source of four-leaf clovers is a misconception, and as your suggested sources demonstrate, an Internete meme. The wikihow page is particularly astonishing because it shows multiple images that are misindentified. (Wikihow, is, in any case, never an appropriate citation for wikipedia.) The real Trifolium repens looks like this. The page Clover has a lead image that is unidentified to species level, "Trifolium sp.", but (and I say this is a botanist) is most likely Trifolium hybridum. The statement that you inserted from your own knowledge, is, in fact, false. Trifolium repens may be the most common source of four-leaf clovers in a particular pasture, perhaps a pasture that has been seeded with that species, but it would not be so in another pasture where T. hybridum or another of the "about 300 species" mentioned on the clover page predominates. I think it should be clear that many people can't tell one species from another.
 * Spam links are any links from which someone may benefit when they are added to wikipedia. The link you added was for a company that sells four-leaf clovers. It is definitely a spam link. did not overstate. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, please spend a serious amount of time carefully reading from the links that were provided for your benefit above in the section called "A belated welcome!". Serious editors who are trying to improve wikipedia tend to be short-tempered when they come across someone determined to re-add poor-quality material after it has been corrected or deleted. You need to think more carefully, and avoid edit warring. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Apologies. I think I stated that T. repens is the most common plant to be recognised for its clover mutations, but I have indeed found them on red clover plants. I was also suspicious of the wiki how page as well, as basically all of the four-leaf clovers I've found in my life did not have heart shaped leaves. (what plant even was that? it did look like some clover related plant).

As a serious editor for multiple other wikis this is fairly embarrassing for me. Apologies again. - AwesoMan3000 (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to hear that you want to continue editing here. That plant is surely an Oxalis, perhaps O. stricta. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Urtica dioca subsp. galeopsifolia
Flora Europaea, amongst other sources, clearly shows this is distributed widely in Europe, so Category:Flora of Europe is correct. I've now added a source for the distribution.

More generally, "political" distribution categories, like Category:Flora of the United Kingdom, are deprecated for plant articles. We prefer to use the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions; see WP:PLANTS/WGSRPD. Since plants don't respect the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, the "United Kingdom" is almost never an appropriate distribution category, although the islands of Great Britain and Ireland may sometimes be. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hydrogen chalcogenide (December 24)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by APerson was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Hydrogen chalcogenide and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Hydrogen_chalcogenide Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:APerson&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Hydrogen_chalcogenide reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

APerson (talk!) 17:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Hydrogen chalcogenide, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Double sharp (talk) 08:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Hydrogen_chalcogenide help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

hydrides
I don't regret creating the group 13-17 articles but please. Stop. Past those the groups are really not the best way to describe them and some of the groups in the transition metals do not have stable hydrides at STP at all. Already I think group 1 and 2 hydrides should be just considered salt-like hydrides, along with Eu and Yb, and can fit in a section of an article about hydrides better than their own articles.

Some others may get somewhat annoyed with this sort of 'copy-paste-add-one' strategy of article spamming without understanding why it's not the best of ideas. I'm not, because I remember when I started editing here and didn't know enough and did things like that. But number-of-articles count is not everything, and neither is having a complete series when there is no need.

You should think instead: if I am writing hydride, what classes of compounds are there, and which are usually compared? Which classes are so well-known as to be able to develop like the group 16 hydrides? If you cannot yet answer those questions, perhaps you might like to wait and read a bit more first? I understand that you seem very enthusiastic about editing chemistry on WP. That is very welcome, but perhaps you might like to start with something a little simpler first, or at least make sure you know how the major chemistry texts deal with a set of compounds. (After all, my first chemistry article was group 1. You can't get much simpler! ^_-☆) Double sharp (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Article propagation - useful?
As only one of many editors, I do not find the articles or the content that you are contributing either useful or insightful. A lot of what you are contributing seems like routine school kid homework stuff. We could create definition after definition, but I dont think that such material helps readers. If you are determined to contribute, and are still learning the basics, a good way to start is to rely on a major reference book such as "Chemistry of the Elements" or an advanced treatise on inorganic chem. Or if you are determined to re-re-redescribe simple themes, consider contributing to wikis in other languages where such elementary information is lacking. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I can only express my support for Smokefoot's sentiments. I like your enthusiasm, but I think you could contribute even more effectively if you read some of these sources. (Some snippets should be available on Google Books as a start.) Double sharp (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Please consult your chemistry colleagues ...
We are a community here, and each helps the other when we are unsure etc. So please consult some of your chemistry colleagues before adding anecdotes. Comments like this "Although it is not a binary compound, it [sulfuric acid]] can still technically be classed as a hydrogen chalcogenide due to the fact that both oxygen and sulfur are chalcogens." probably would be deemed unhelpful clutter by most editors. One could add such comments, endlessly almost, to many articles. The remark does not really help that reader who is trying to learn about sulfuric acid, IMHO. Similarly, it seems misleading to encourage readers to see similarity of the Pt(IV) salt chloroplatinic acid and the volatile Pt(VI) species PtF6. Those kinds of test edits can be made on the Talk page or in a sandbox. That way, we all get to learn from each other without interfering with the readers' experience. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hydrogen chalcogenide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Protium. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

H2Se2 is a very specialized molecule ...
We can see that you are keen to edit and contribute. One idea, a crazy one I know, is to find someone to talk to about edits. Who knows, maybe someone could give some advice on editing or on the subject matter? It is conceivable.

In any case, my reason for removing H2Se2 mention in that context is that it is hardly ever encountered (even H2S2 is a rarity, and Se always loses out to S in popularity). This suggestion comes under the guideline WP:UNDUE, it means placing disproportionate weight or emphasis on a minor or anecdotal aspect. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreement on hydrides ...?
Now I thought that we had achieved consensus on hydrides by group to not include elaborate members? Three experienced editors opposed this venture. We realize that you are desperate to contribute, but maybe consider this discussion? --Smokefoot (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Was just moving the template to more appropriate pages (namely from the pages that described the isomers, to the page on the actual straight-chain alkene). - AwesoMan3000 (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages
While I see why you might want to add the name of a game level on a disambiguation page, that's not what disambiguation pages are for. See MOS:DAB to understand the purpose and format of these pages. Happy editing! + m t  00:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Methylbenzenes


The article Methylbenzenes has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable as a class of comopounds, no obvious need as a link-target either. The recent attempt to de-orphan by cross-linking from the individual entries suggests there's nothing outside a walled garden.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DMacks (talk) 11:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Methylbenzenes
[[

File:Ambox warning pn.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]

A tag has been placed on Methylbenzenes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 21:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit to Hydrogen Sulfide
I reverted your recent edit to Hydrogen Sulfide. Most gasses are colorless, so it didn't really add anything. JSR (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I reverted your recent edit to Hydrogen Sulfide. Water, which does not have an odor of rotten eggs is a prime example of a hydrogen chalcogenide. Also, you have likely never smelled hydrogen telluride or selenide. Definitely not rotten eggs, but it will curl your toes. JSR (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Compound of dodecahedron and icosahedron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Decagram ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Compound_of_dodecahedron_and_icosahedron check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Compound_of_dodecahedron_and_icosahedron?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * 10/3 ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/10/3 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/10/3?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Decagram
 * 9/2 ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/9/2 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/9/2?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Enneagram
 * 9/4 ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/9/4 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/9/4?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Enneagram

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Take part in a survey
Hi AwesoMan3000

We're working to measure the value of Wikipedia in economic terms. We want to ask you some questions about how you value being able to edit Wikipedia.

Our survey should take about 10-15 minutes of your time. We hope that you will enjoy it and find the questions interesting. All answers will be kept strictly confidential and will be anonymized before the aggregate results are published. Regretfully, we can only accept responses from people who live in the US due to restrictions in our grant-based funding.

As a reward for your participation, we will randomly pick 1 out of every 5 participants and give them $25 worth of goods of their choice from the Wikipedia store (e.g. Wikipedia themed t-shirts). Note that we can only reward you if you are based in the US.

Click here to access the survey: https://mit.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eXJcEhLKioNHuJv

Thanks

Avi

Researcher, MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy --Avi gan (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Order-5 octagonal tiling moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Order-5 octagonal tiling, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.  Whispering ( t ) 20:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but your recent edits, such as those to 20 (number), appear to be intentional disruptions designed to illustrate a point. Edits designed for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition, including making edits you do not agree with or enforcing a rule in a generally unpopular way, are highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or, if direct discussion fails, through dispute resolution. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics. Thank you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello AwesoMan3000. A complaint about your edits of mathematics articles has been opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. You can respond there if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Order-5 octagonal tiling


Hello, AwesoMan3000. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, Draft:Order-5 octagonal tiling.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 04:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

"Square root of 1" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Square root of 1. Since you had some involvement with the Square root of 1 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 17:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Noble metal
Hello, a couple of months ago I removed the table you added to the article back in 2016, because it was uncited and didn't make clear that the concept is actually really fuzzy (as has been discussed on the talk page). I raised this at Talk:Noble_metal; you may be interested in participating. This is also being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements. Double sharp (talk) 09:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Dihedron article

 * Hi!
 * I read the sentence that you added to the Dihedron article, & that David Eppstein removed because he couldn't tell what it was "supposed to even mean" (his edit summary caught my attention):
 * "This only applies if the distance between the two polygons is exactly 0; for a distance larger than 0, the polygons become infinite planes, in a fashion similar to the digon's line segment faces."
 * Did you mean something like:
 * "[...], a bit like apeirogonal hosohedron's digon faces, having a width larger than 0, are infinite stripes.",
 * please? :-)
 * RavBol (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Periodic table (by noble metals)
Template:Periodic table (by noble metals) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)