User talk:Eka-bismuth

Welcome
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Ununpentium, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. "In science, element 115 is distinctly different from element 100, not only by the number, but by all properties, whereas most cultural references simply pick up a nice number (115 because its not yet characterized in science) and do not give a hint why 115 but not, say, 114. Suggest lumping all such cultural references together in one article. Unobtainium is a good example. —Materialscientist " Double sharp (talk) 07:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Adding legitimate references and respective contents as I did was exactly the definition of what is a constructive contribution. On the other side, I´m sorry to say, but your edits removing legitimate references and respective content just to fit to your own subjective opinions was extremely impolite, illegal and obviously unconstructive. The legitimate references mention only the Element 115, doesn’t matter if under a pop or scientific way. While the references are legitimate, like plainly is the case, Wikipedia is not supposed to discuss the merit of their contents; if so this would be bias (as you apparently did) which breaks the current rules. Eka-bismuth (talk) 11:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Double sharp (talk) 11:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * OK thanks; also seen and replied. Eka-bismuth (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Element 115 in popular culture nominated for deletion
Please see Articles for deletion/Element 115 in popular culture. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

3RR
You have been engaged in an edit war on Ununpentium, which has been reported to the administrator's noticeboard. Your participation in discussion about the topic has also been noted, but you are advised not to continue to revert or otherwise add similar content until a consensus has been reached. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 23:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In fact there was an edit war, nonetheless about such 3RR, I hope you have criticized the other editor too because was him who broke this rule first (as you must know). And mainly, by the way, have you noticed that already a consensus was achieved (at 02:10, 4 November 2012) and therefore this notice is outdated and also therefore this noticeboard is without purpose? Eka-bismuth (talk) 00:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have left a note for the other party in this edit war. I see you yourself have continued to revert two articles related to element 115 on November 5. The admin who closes the case may feel that both of you need to be sanctioned to prevent the battle continuing. You can avoid this if you will step back from the articles for a little while to allow consensus to be found. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Point taken. And please believe me, in my case this was not planned but really a lack of attention on the 3RR issue. Anyway it sounds fair to me these warnings (also I changed my mind on Jethrobot's attitudes. He was correct at least on certain things after all), and thanks for your direction. Nonetheless exist more 2 editors non constructively removing text just to frame their subjective opinions in that article (i.e. enforcing their bias). In particular a certain editor repeatedly have made additions without references and removing the style before applied in the article (he is removing and leaving no styles applied in that article, which by the way still needs a lot of work). Besides that editor is incorrectly and repeatedly replacing the Article’s subject seen in the leading paragraph for a kind of biography; however that article is about cultural references of Element 115 (which he is ignoring till now). I have tried to explain this in the summaries, but apparently he is ignoring the explanations. His and other non-constructive edits like those shouldn't be regarded vandalism? Please would be possible to you adverting that editor and the others also? Besides that, I'd like to say that I am happy seeing that all this is being observed and intervened. I hope Wikipedia can use this situation constructively (in particular regarding all future users). Eka-bismuth (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback
Please read why personal attacks on editors are not allowed here.

I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 23:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

&#160;
 * I have no idea of what you are talking about. Where did you see some personal attack? There was some misconception, please reread (whatever you have read) with this in mind. Until here I didn’t mention any editor explicitly, and at most I generically commented only the bad edits and break of rules, and explicit lack of good faith spread over certain Wikipedia’s segments. So, I expect your apologies. About the 3RR above, I hope you have criticized the other editor too because was him who broke this rule first (as you must know), and that only in that case I suppose I was also guilt. In spite of this I have appreciated your last tip (right above) about this, really thanks. Eka-bismuth (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It was about the "nazi dinosaurs" comment made in your feedback, and yes, the other user has also been appropriately notified. I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As said above: I didn’t mention any editor explicitly, and at most I generically commented only the bad edits and break of rules, and explicit lack of good faith spread over certain Wikipedia’s segments. So, I still expect your apologies. Eka-bismuth (talk) 01:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you're in no position to demand an apology. I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 01:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? Think better (really), you should. Eka-bismuth (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Introduction of Element 115 in popular culture
I understand where you are coming from (though I disagree with your reasoning and methods), but the introduction you keep insisting on adding simply doesn't make any sense.

"Nonetheless persist accounts relating this element to the purported propulsion of UFO’s. Whereas for instance comes in the claim of the disclosure of secret studies such as a sketch showing mathematical equations for the Element 115..."

...this is not good English. In fact, it's pretty terrible English. It makes no sense whatsoever. "Whereas for instance comes in..." is just gibberish. There is no way that could be interpreted as anything at all. You are doing yourself a great disservice by arguing that the article has value and merit at AFD while at the same time insisting on an introduction that simply doesn't make any sense.

Either way, you'll likely end up with another edit-warring warning for reverting the same thing more than three times in the same 24 hour period (it was the same substantive text each time). If you continue to break the 3-revert-rule you may be subject to further sanctions from administrators. I don't think that would be a good outcome for anyone, so can I perhaps suggest you take a step back from the article itself and concentrate on making good, coherent, persuasive arguments at the AFD discussion instead. Stalwart 111  (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry but your observations presented here do not show the real reason for those reversions. As you also must know at this point, that article is about "Cultural references of the Element 115" and not specifically about Lazar. However unhappy editors (also known as WP:IDL) a number of times distorted that introduction to enforce their bias about Lazar; not to mention their removal of references and content along the article. Therefore their attitudes are obviously no constructive and in many cases pure vandalism (as their removals are just done to enforce their subjective opinions). Therefore any reversion on those "bad faith" edits should not be counted as an infraction, but a welcome and correct reversion. And Stalwart111 don’t get me wrong, I agree with some of what you are saying… but nicely saying: please don’t come here to repeat what was already recommended in this same talk.
 * Well, changing the gears, also I am aware how “terrible” is that introduction, I fully agree with you on that. Obviously it should be rewritten. Remember that was other editor who put that introduction over there (he practically copied and pasted it from other article, therefore with not the best intention). My part done over there was more like a minor cleanup and some “wikifying”. So how about you do that? Right now, and as always it is usual, you (and any good faith and unbiased editor) have a chance under this official invitation to show good faith giving a constructive and unbiased contribution. But please remember that that article is about cultural references of Element 115; it is not about Lazar and Lazar already is mentioned sufficiently in the article’s body. By the way, in that article, all contents about Lazar serve to show the context of his allegations, then please don’t do removals of text and references as others done (those were no constructive edits; as matter of fact were vandalism and pure enforcement of bias).
 * In the future is expected more sections incorporated into that article. For instance there is good material on fiction (films, books, romances, etc).
 * You are welcome to show us more of your unbiased edits and good faith using a good English, a better eloquence, an effective wiki-style in the leading paragraph (may be some 115’s image too?). Eka-bismuth (talk) 13:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:VANDAL - if you persist in describing those whom you have a content dispute with as 'vandals', you are liable to have sanctions taken against you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting to see you again in my talk, … and funny, I thought I was talking to Stalwart111. But hey, everyone is welcome here to give constructive contributions. Just to you know, I was talking here about my personal and subjective perception of what I regard vandalism, which obviously not necessarily is equal to that found in Wikipedia’s policy. But I can share also with you that until now I didn’t regard my perception and Wikipedia´s policy as both identical; if so then I would have written the word "vandalism" in the edit summaries, which didn’t happen ever. Then dear, bye.
 * Oh, I was almost forgetting my manners! Thanks for the link; I will research it (really). That said, have a nice day, or night whatever. Eka-bismuth (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to make no particular comment about the reasons behind the edit war or who is "right" or "wrong". It doesn't really matter. There's just no point concentrating on "fixing" an article only for it to be deleted anyway because you didn't spend enough time making your case clear at AFD. AFD is not about some divine truth or a personal interpretation of rules or guidelines. AFD (like most other Wikipedia discussions) is about building consensus (see WP:CONSENSUS). I've seen you make plenty of arguments which comprehensively set out your point of view (though some could do with some improved English / copy editing) but very few that attempt to persuade other editors that the case you are making is backed by policies and guidelines. Simply stating that you don't agree with policy or that you don't think policy should be applied is not a particularly persuasive argument. Repeating your interpretation isn't particularly convincing.
 * Whether you like his being here to comment or not, AndyTheGrump is correct - removing gibberish is not vandalism. It doesn't really matter how you interpret the word "vandalism", Wikipedia interprets it a particular way and that interpretation is outlined quite clearly at WP:VANDAL. You have accepted (above) that the content in question is "terrible", you have read WP:VANDAL and I think you understand that removing the terrible content is not vandalism as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Describing it as such will probably result in a block because that would be considered a personal attack. Later claiming you interpret the word differently would probably not be given a lot of weight. Though you might still disagree with the interpretation (and you are free to), you now clearly know it's against the rules so doing it again would be a fairly bad idea.
 * You are, of course, free to take our advice or not, as you see fit. My only aim here is to help get you away from an edit war and refocus your attention on activities that need your attention in the very near future. Longer-term content disputes (should the article be kept) can be resolved from there. Stalwart 111  (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry hear that from you. But obviously you have free will to make your interpretations of my personal opinions as you like. Unfortunately in this moment most of your interpretation of them is a distortion of what I have said and done at Wikipedia. But, as said, of course you have the right to have your subjective opinion and make your failed interpretations as anyone.
 * Wikipedia´s policy is that which I most have read in these last days and applied everywhere of it; and most of time in a successful way. Many times seems that I am not only learning the policies and protocols but also teaching other editors (my delusion? may be). Obviously I am not perfect and eventually I make mistakes. But I think that my wikigrades are OK and my mistakes are expected, as well as until here, tolerable. Hopefully from here to some years I will be perfect (just kidding). Besides, as anyone can check in that debate, I have spent time more than enough making clear why that article fits perfectly well the Wikipedia’s criteria to deserve own room. Unfortunately consensus doesn’t rely only on abiding policies, but a lot on what the crowd wants or not (WP:IDL), and this is explicit on several manifestos over there. See Stalwart111, I am not so naive, … so, regard me as the worst psychologist in the world and as well this unasked conclusion: you are sometimes in contradiction because you are trying to please at the same time civility and one's bad faith. This is really hard and unhappily many times you unwitting end along with the latter. But hey, such is the life. All good for all. Eka-bismuth (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what your question is (you suggested you had something to ask on my talk page)... Needless to say, I never suggested you were "naive" and my interpretation of your comments at the AFD were exactly that - an interpretation. If you think your comments there are helping to build a consensus then that's fine. Everyone has a different way of making a "convincing argument" and you are entitled to approach AFD in any way you see fit (provided it complies with WP:CIV and WP:NPA which are not-negotiable). My suggestions were from my perspective - the style of argument that would convince me at AFD. Stalwart 111  23:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely! Don’t worry about it, and just to be clear, please don’t confuse my boldness with some lack of interest. In fact not only learning policies but also spotlighting the necessity of effective practice of them (such as WP:CIV and WP:NPA) for the community is among my attributions in this mission of last hour. The thing is: sometimes we have to use some harshness in a polite way; which is complex but possible (though, as you stated, you prefer other methods). Eka-bismuth (talk) 12:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Eka-bismuth, you are invited to the Teahouse

 * Very cool! Your invitation Ryan Vesey, was really appreciated. I will see what I can do to attend. All the best. Eka-bismuth (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Note that I have not named you, or asked that any action be taken beyond closing the AfD. I suggest you take this opportunity to reconsider whether your actions have been of any use to anyone - it appears unlikely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Humm... that was a polite and interesting note; thanks! It not sounds so grumpy (kidding), but still needs a bit of work. Eka-bismuth (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Element 115 in popular culture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phoenix (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks bot. Already done. Eka-bismuth (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)