User talk:Eudialytos

I am currently a Professor of mineralogy and geochemistry at a scientific institute in Poland (https://www.ing.pan.pl/pracownicy/lukasz-kruszewski). I have ceased in correcting oceans of errors and long-lapsed informations in mineralogy-related pages and informations (including mineralogical data in some chemistry-related ones) due to ignorance of some of the so-called "specialists" here.Eudialytos (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Error correction and scientific discussion in Wikipedia
After some years in Wikipedia, trying to correct errors in the field of geology (mineralogy and geochemistry), I am finally convinced that there is no space for sci-discussion here. Authorities like the International Mineralogical Association also does not seem to be relevant. The constant reverse actions of my changes show that time spent here is simply wasted. I am a mineralogist/geochemist, but this (and this is not new to me) does not seem to be relevant, too. Please remember, that you write about discussion with the International Mineralogical Association, which was constituted many years ago exactly to set the correct names of mineral species. IMA does not recognize "tantalite", "columbite" or "polycrase" (IMA list of minerals can easily be reached in their webpage). May I ask a question: what is more RELEVANT: a correct species name, or choosing extravagantly precise and long citations instead of a simplified (and still correct and "at root" ones)?Eudialytos (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * What for?!?!Eudialytos (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Aqualite
 * added a link pointing to Oxonium


 * Ilyukhinite
 * added a link pointing to Oxonium

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This is useless due to extreme ignorance I've experienced when meeting the cement-wall of the so-called moderators or "wiki specialists"...Eudialytos (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Ways to improve Fontarnauite
Hi, I'm Peter SamFan. Eudialytos, thanks for creating Fontarnauite!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. The page you created is a stub.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Peter Sam Fan  &#124; talk    19:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for the tips. It is unlikely for me to upgrade this and other of the mineralogy articles I have added in Wikipedia, due to some misunderstanding activities of some "specialist" users (as you can read from my Talk page, e.g., below). Eudialytos (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you!

Become Autopatrolled
I recommend that you request Autopatrolled permissions. All of your articles that I have patrolled are of good quality, so I can see no reason why you would be declined. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Ethanlu121 (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your suggestion, I will consider this.

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you. As you can guess from the text below, I was strongly discouraged to continue editing and/or making new articles, thus I've quit doing this. Eudialytos (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent minerals
Hello Eudialytos. Don't create new articles about approved minerals without a complete description, approved minerals with their complete description available are more important. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Chris, thank you for your tip. Full description is available in full original papers. I don't have an access to full papers, but I also wouldn't like to "manifold" informations that are already available in their original sources. The "stub" articles may, however, be expanded in future.


 * Hello Eudialytos. rruff.info/ima/ has many references: . American Mineralogist as well. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I was told that it is highly suggested to give the original references (original papers). I track new mineral discoverites and mineral systematics. My articles here are stub-type, but my idea is to complete information about a huge number of still new mineral species, plus to give some interesting informations, that is, unique features of these minerals.


 * Post Scriptum: Only 255 of 5107 valid minerals don't have a complete description yet. IMA2009-042 (anatacamite), IMA2009-088 (chromo-alumino-povondraite was resubmitted as IMA2013-089), IMA2010-049 (steedeite was resubmitted as IMA2013-052), IMA2010-062 (mayenite was renamed to chlormayenite, IMA1963-016), IMA2012-013 (tellurocanfieldite), IMA2012-037 (cadmoxite), IMA2014-043 (cobaltogordaite) got discredited. Approved minerals with an article on Handbook of Minerals and an image available on (c:Category:Minerals) are more important. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Steedeite and chlormayenite are approved species. Handbook of Mineralogy is, indeed, a good source of information, but it lacks data on some most new minerals and recent chemical/structural changes/redefinitions. Formulas of many minerals have changed recently. Afghanite on HOM is reported as hexagonal, but recent structural redetermination shows that it is actually trigonal. Comancheite's formula also changed, etc. I personally find Mindat as the most "fresh" information source, as it usually includes recent changes in minerals chemistry & structure redefinitions. But a HOM + Mindat + other sources would definitely give a good result. Btw, you may check argentopyrite. Regarding photos, I don't have an access to them. Cheers! --Eudialytos (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The most fresh information are from rruff.info/ima/ and mineralienatlas.de. You too have access to commons.wikimedia. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Chris, if I read a full paper then may I add informations from this paper (With reference, of course) on Wiki?
 * I don't see a problem. If it is not Original Research and if it has a peer-reviewed reference than it should be ok. Note: a chemical formula on rruff.info/ima/ is many times from the latest revision. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks.Eudialytos (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation page
Hello, Eudialytos. When you changed Hashemite from a redirect into a disambiguation page, you may not have been aware of WP:FIXDABLINKS, which says:
 * When creating disambiguation pages, fix all resulting mis-directed links.
 * Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.

It would be a great help if you would check the other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "Hashemite" and fix them to take readers to the correct article. Thanks. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for the note. That's not me who changed it. I had a problem with creating the page "Hashemite", which is a mineral. I will try to fix what you've suggested to fix. Regards! Eudialytos (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please do not change the nature of a longstanding redirect without first obtaining consensus in a discussion; also, please do not turn an existing redirect to a disambiguation page without first establishing consensus that the current redirect target is not the primary topic of the term. Many terms have multiple meanings (e.g. Florida (disambiguation), Iron (disambiguation), Apple (disambiguation)), but still occupy a primary topic. Cheers! bd2412  T 23:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, will do. Sorry.

Speedy deletion nomination of Manganoblödite


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Manganoblödite requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. GABHello! 00:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This is yet another example of the fact that Wikipedia is NOT about the true science, but rather about the so-called moderators / "wiki-specialists". This is useless and has nothing to do with true acience. This represents the wiki-typical extreme ignorance I've experienced when meeting the cement-wall of the so-called moderators or "wiki specialists...How do you expect the wiki to grow and get better with such an activity, and also when my constant issues were ignored???? Eudialytos (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Florencite-(Sm)

 * Hello. I don't like this. Homologous mineral series should only have an article for the root name. Please avoid this. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I deleted ref bot and disab bot sections. They are done and the talk page needs a clear overview. Standard procedure is to create an article in your sandbox and move it afterwards to the main space. I asked VSmith to delete redirect cyprine (mineral). Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. I've added florencite-(Sm) as a separate article just because it is a separate mineral species; though it to be important as this is one of 2 samarium minerals. "I deleted ref bot and disab bot sections" - could you please tell me what exactly are these bots and which article does they concern? "Talk page needs a clear overview" - for which article? "Standard procedure is to create an article in your sandbox" - did you mean ANY article? Sorry, didn't know that. Thanks for cyprine action. Eudialytos (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Everything is still on your User talk:Eudialytos page > View history
 * Ref bot, I fixed a referencing error on the abenakiite-(Ce) page.
 * Disambiguation bot, I fixed these links to disambiguation pages, as well.
 * Mineral articles are small, if you need more time. When you can build it up in your sandbox and move it to the main space afterwards. If you save it on the main space and it is not ready then you get a speedy deletion nomination.
 * Most REE homologous series have Samarium, florencite-(Sm) has just Samarium as dominant REE. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Eudialytos (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Florencite-(Sm), florencite-(La), florencite-(Ce), and florencite-(Nd) are separate mineral species.Eudialytos (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Latest additions
Hi, your latest additions to the chemical elements pages have a very minimalistic reference. Most of the articles have a well established reference format. Could you please use the format normally used in the articles please? The exact subpage would be a much better reference with accessdate and all the other information needed. --Stone (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for the suggestion. I would do so, but my previous work here was strongly underestimated and misunderstood, so I won't spend as much time on these issues as before.Eudialytos (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

For the bauxite page a better ref might be taken from the gallium page itself. It might be also possible to add text from that page. --Stone (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Same answer as above.Eudialytos (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Link spamming with the useless link to www.mindat.org "previous work"? Have luck with beeing "underestimated and misunderstood".Stone (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really sure what you mean by "useless" in this matter.... "www.mindat.org" link will switch to a page with easily-searched mineral phrases (or is such a search a case of indolence, maybe).
 * It is obvious from how you create references in articles you have very limited understanding for what those references are used: The reference should point to the page on which the fact is actually present. To put a general wep page there does not help. This can go to see also section. --Stone (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Really? I would like to kindly inform you that I have published some 20 or maybe 40 regular papers (not just an e-article) and I do know how the referencing should look like. Please remember, that we are in the Internet and not in a journal. OK, let's conduct an experiment. I have already introduced some changes into the "Cerium", "Yttrium", "Tantalum", and "Niobium" pages, this time giving THREE (or four) PRECISE references. I wonder how long these changes will "live".Eudialytos (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And you doesn't seem to know how links are actually working... This and other cases of your "activity" only confirm that at least some topics "realized" at wiki have nothing to do with true science...... Eudialytos (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring notice
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * This is not me who is right. Seems like the International Mineralogical Association is NOT right to Wikipedia... If so, what is the Wikipedia actually?Eudialytos (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
 * This will finish my trials to improve the still wrong mineralogical part of the Wikipedia.Eudialytos (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Great, thank you. Feel free to engage in a discussion, say, on Talk:Barium should one arise.--R8R (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Some things are rather obvious. One is obvious to me: some well-accepted rules (in a thing called science) are not having their counterparts here... seems like there is science (International Mineralogical Association, to be more specific) and Wikipedia.Eudialytos (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Reply
Hello, just wanted to let you know I've replied to your message about Cesium on my talk page (not sure if I did the "ping" correctly, since you don't have a user page). Thanks. Jessicapierce (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry - can't find it. Seems like it was deleted or sth.
 * Regarding the "good will" in changes - this is not the case. This is the science case: http://elementsmagazine.org/archives/e4_2/e4_2_dep_mineralmatters.pdf (for instance)Eudialytos (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

 * Not interested. I have spent a lot of time to correct numerous errors in Wikipedia, but this will no longer be continued due to multiple revocations of my edits and misunderstanding of some supposed-to-be-specialist users.Eudialytos (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Christmas
Hi Eudialytos, I appreciate your message. In relation to geochemistry I have a question, which may not yet have an answer, what is the process in which samarium is concentrated in minerals such as Monazite-(Sm)? And, ... do we have an article here on the IMA systematic naming rules?

When I was a teenager I wanted to be a mineralogist, but I did not follow that up. However now I can write about them. I am making some articles on families of substances with more than one anion, for example Fluorocarbonate. I have started a bunch of drafts like User:Graeme Bartlett/fluoride phosphate, User:Graeme Bartlett/carbonate sulfate User:Graeme Bartlett/carbonate chloride, and I find that many of the known substances are natural minerals. This give me a clue that chemists could make a lot more artificial solid chemicals than they have so far. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for an interesting discussion. The process is, in general, a differentiation. It has something to do with the rock age: older rock --> more time for more geological processes. The differentiation (in this case) is separation of the REEs which, indeed, usually are dominated by either Ce (the cerium group, or LREE), or Y (the yttrium group, or HREE). However, I do not study pegmatitic processes, thus I do not know details of these samarium-enriching processes. Samarium is also not the only case of the MREE where a MREE element is dominant: another case is lepersonnite-(Gd), but this is an extremely rare and single-locality, uranium-rich species.

I do not recall a paper on the IMA systematic naming rule. There is also not a single rule: mineralogy, as chemistry or any other science, is complex (which I tried to explain to a chemistry-based "moderator" here; but he was stubborn and ignorant in his finding of chemistry being "above" mineralogy). As you noticed for yourself, many (actually most) minerals are complex, multi-cation and multi-anion compounds. Some are true salts, some are not. Some represent new types of matter, both in terms of crystallochemistry (quasicrystals: decagonite, icosahedrite) or magnetic properties (quantum spin liquids: herbertsmithite, vésigniéite). This unique characteristics of herbertsmithite was largely not addressed before the finding of this mineral, although its synthetic counterpart was, almost certainly, known before. There is much more to come; 110-115 is a yearly mean no. of new mineral species; large part of them represent new types of structures. I am really glad and I admire that you wrote these drafts on such complex salts/minerals. I wanted to study chemistry, but I was suggested to go to geology. I sometimes "miss" chemistry, but I know it would be impossible for me to study both... there is a lot of maths in chemistry which would undoubtedly be harsh for me (-; Eudialytos (talk) 12:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am interested in many of the sciences. For Chemistry I studied at first year in university, and the maths there was quite simple. For geology I only studied this in year 12. However now I am reading an optical mineralogy book. I am now up to the section that talks about measuring 2V in biaxial crystals. If you actually calculate the ellipsoids or use Fourier transforms in crystallography, the maths will be there.
 * I suppose I have mixed chemistry and mineralogy in my writing at times, for example in leonite. It was interesting to find out all the chemical things that a natural mineral substance could do. Though for most rare minerals I suppose this is not investigated. But in most cases I think we should have a separate article for chemical versus mineral (and even a separate one for the rock), eg sodium chloride, halite, (but not quite the rock=Salt tectonics). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea, because IUPAC and IMA are a separate instances. And people often mix minerals with no-minerals.Eudialytos (talk) 01:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. If you read what is below, you will notice why I will, again, cease on adding any corrections to Wikipedia. What takes place here is ridiculous....Eudialytos (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Graeme. Thank you for your effort in the below discussion. It was not understood by the unfair user below, so I decided to cease my whole activity here. It is worthless. Good luck in your own activity. Eudialytos (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I understood perfectly. You have a bee in your bonnet about what you think are "correct" names for minerals, and set out on a crusade to educate what you saw as ignorant Wikipedians about what you think is "correct". Unfortunately, you didn't take the time to familiarise yourself with basic Wikipedia policies like WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. You then got terribly upset when somebody didn't accept that you knew best, and inconveniently insisted on having sources for the opinions you inserted into the encyclopedia. That's really unfair, isn't it? It must have been particularly galling for you when you realised that the sources you relied on showed that cleveite is recognised as the name of a mineral, and that you couldn't find a single source that stated that "uraninite is the correct name for cleveite". Sorry to see you go: you might have been useful in building an encyclopedia if only you had bothered to learn a bit more about how to contribute constructively. --RexxS (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Helium
I was struck by the changes you made to Helium today, as something I was unaware of. However, Helium is a Featured Article and is therefore held to the most rigorous standards of sourcing. Would you be kind enough, therefore, to add citations to the sources that you obtained your information from, please? Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course, I could. However, in 99% of the chemistry-related sites of Wikipedia (which are usually at a very high level), when a compound is listed (with its name and the link-making brackets added), then there are no citations added. Let me give an example, from exactly the Helium page: "This is due to the very high nuclear binding energy (per nucleon) of helium-4, with respect to the next three elements aftern1 helium." There is no citation for "helium-4". OK, we may say, this is a general knowledge. But so is true for mineral species. Another example, also from the Helium page: "On Earth it is relatively rare—5.2 ppm by volume in the atmosphere. Most terrestrial helium present today is created by the natural radioactive decay of heavy radioactive elements (thorium and uranium, although there are other examples), as the alpha particles emitted by such decays consist of helium-4 nuclei." And, again, no citations (to IUPAC) for the names "thorium" and "uranium", but also "alpha particle", etc. As chemical names like thorium, uranium, helium-4, etc., are given without citations to IUPAC, such should be true for mineral names, which are governed by IMA - the mineralogical counterpart of IUPAC. IUPAC is for chemistry, IMA - for minerals. Mineralogy, however, use(d) to be treated as a "minority" in Wikipedia, and a large number of old (that is, wrong) names are still present. I've began correcting them, but even with sources linked there seemed to be a misunderstading (in, particular, that the IMA rules are different from the IUPAC rules, i.e., they are separate; as such, they are at the same level of significance). The IMA site is https://www.ima-mineralogy.org/, but the best related, and user-friendly source, is Mindat (www.mindat.org); most other sources (including most of the mineralogy books) are incorrect, because they're obsolete (there is a strong evolution of mineral systematics in the recent, say, 15 years). Eudialytos (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem with your analogy is that we have in the article sources using names like "clèveite" (see https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspl.1895.0010) and no sources other than yourself for your contention that the "correct name" is uraninite. Compare that with the statement that "the binding energy of He-4 is much higher than that of the following three elements", where the reader is directed to the article Nucleosynthesis which illustrates that fact clearly and sources it to ISBN 9783527627370. In the former case, the reader is expected to take your word for it; in the latter case, someone can verify that the statement is supported by a reliable source, as required by WP:V.
 * Here's what WP:V tells us:
 * The names "thorium" and "uranium" appear multiple times in the sources used in the article in reference to the elements under discussion. I have not found a source used there that describes "uraninite" as the correct name for "cleveite", and the burden of proof lies with the editor wishing to make the addition.
 * If the additions remain unsourced after a request to provide sources, I'll restore the previous version of the article. If you do wish to continue this discussion, please take it to Talk:Helium, along with the precise sources that you used to make your claims. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The correct name is not my contention - it is a matter of the IMA - International Mineralogical Association. Please show me where at the Helium page is any reference to the usage of the name "thorium" or "uranium". The name "uranium" has the same priority as "uraninite", just other instances are responsible for accepting the CORRECT NAMES. However, to address your suggestion, I am adding the general reference to the IMA and mindat, but I do not think this should be done here. This, again, shows, that there is no understanding (or even a recognition) of Mineralogy (as a separate science) in Wikipedia. Besides, if there is a link to the name, then any user may get any referencing data by simply clicking such link. Eudialytos (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You still seem to misunderstand. The sources used in the article use the names "thorium" and "uranium". The sources used in the article do not use the the phrase "correct name". Unless you provide a source that says uraninite is the correct name for cleveite (as I've repeatedly asked for politely), then it remains purely your assertion. Is that really so difficult to grasp? --RexxS (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous... I have provided the citations so please revert your revertion. And I do not like the term "Is that really so difficult to grasp?". Please, try to, exactly, grasp, my point of view. Ass I've explained above, the question is why is it that names like THORIUM and URANIUM, which are GENERALLY KNOWN (this is, indeed, a GENERAL knowledge) are written (in a number of papers) WITHOUT citing IUPAC, but the mineral names need to be cited. Eudialytos (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The citations provided don't support your changes to the article. The answer to your question, as I've now told you three times is because names like THORIUM and URANIUM are used in the sources but the statement uranite is the correct name for cleveite doesn't appear in any source. I won't restore an unsupported statement to a Featured article. If you want to rephrase your additions along the lines of "cleveite, a variety of what is now referred to as uraninite" or something that can be sourced, I won't object. But please see Talk:Helium for another mineralogist's view, before you get any more irate with me. That would be a good place to make any rational arguments that you wish to muster. --RexxS (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous......... I have given the exact, correct citations....... The citations I've added DO state everything. This is yet another case of an ignorancy towards mineralogy. Cleveite is a VARIETY and as such it is NOT RECOGNIZED AS A SEPARATE NAME. This is a basic knowledge, as is with "thorium" and "uranium". The ONLY correct name of the mineral in question is URANINITE. Here you go: https://www.mindat.org/min-29957.html. And the IMA nomenclature rules here: https://www.ima-mineralogy.org/docs/IMA-Nomenclature-e-Booklet-2019.pdf. But this has nothing to do with what I've addressed above: NO CITATION (of IUPAC or ANYTHING) for "uranium" or "thorium" --> no citation (of anything) for URANINITE. Let me give you another example: do you still call radium "RADON EMANATION". So, do you cite IUPAC when writing RADIUM instead of RADON EMANATION? If so, please show me this.Eudialytos (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The citations provided don't support your changes to the article. The answer to your question, as I've now told you three times is because names like THORIUM and URANIUM are used in the sources but the statement uranite is the correct name for cleveite doesn't appear in any source. I won't restore an unsupported statement to a Featured article. If you want to rephrase your additions along the lines of "cleveite, a variety of what is now referred to as uraninite" or something that can be sourced, I won't object. But please see Talk:Helium for another mineralogist's view, before you get any more irate with me. That would be a good place to make any rational arguments that you wish to muster. --RexxS (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous......... I have given the exact, correct citations....... The citations I've added DO state everything. This is yet another case of an ignorancy towards mineralogy. Cleveite is a VARIETY and as such it is NOT RECOGNIZED AS A SEPARATE NAME. This is a basic knowledge, as is with "thorium" and "uranium". The ONLY correct name of the mineral in question is URANINITE. Here you go: https://www.mindat.org/min-29957.html. And the IMA nomenclature rules here: https://www.ima-mineralogy.org/docs/IMA-Nomenclature-e-Booklet-2019.pdf. But this has nothing to do with what I've addressed above: NO CITATION (of IUPAC or ANYTHING) for "uranium" or "thorium" --> no citation (of anything) for URANINITE. Let me give you another example: do you still call radium "RADON EMANATION". So, do you cite IUPAC when writing RADIUM instead of RADON EMANATION? If so, please show me this.Eudialytos (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I was asked by Eudialytos to assist in this dispute. I can try to settle people down, provide a 3rd opinion, help to work out a consensus on what to do.
 * See if I understand the contention: The sources for the helium article say that it was discovered in cleveite, however "cleveite" is not a current formal name for the mineral, which is now called uraninite. is that the summary? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * According to Mindat.org, a source that Eudialytos wants to use (and I have no problem with), cleveite is still regarded as a "REE-and Th-bearing variety of uraninite.". The source also agrees that "The first portions of terrestrial Helium (He) were obtained during Cleveite dissolution in sulfuric acid". My objection has been, and remains, to Eudialytos changing the article to state that helium was discovered in uraninite (which I feel misleads the readers and mis-states the sources), and adding the phrase "cleveite (correct name: uraninite)". I contend that no sources have been brought forward that contain that phrase, and that Eudialytos' assertion that uraninite is the "correct name" for cleveite is simply editorialising. Helium is a Featured Article and deserves better than that. If you examine the article history, you'll see that Eudialytos has attempted to edit-war his preferred version into the article three times. If you check Talk:Helium, you'll see that I opened a discussion immediately after my initial revert, and that another editor offers an informed view, but there is no post by Eudialytos there. I make that (1) edit-warring; (2) failing to engage on article talk; (3) failing to be cautious when editing a FA. I have now wasted far too much time cleaning up the mess made by Eudialytos, and I'm not exactly predisposed at this point to be forgiving any further. --RexxS (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not know why are you answering this message, as it was not sent to you, but OK. Besides, I have no idea why do you assume that I haven't read Wiki rules.... I am here for some time... I won't even read your (1) (2) (3)'s because I do not feel obligued as you do not read (and understand) my point of view. And what I did actually COMPLETELY filled Wiki rules (unless there is another rule here: only what an "admin" says is fine... huh????). I will, however, again, explain to you, that I not only gave correct references, but I actually gave more references than any other cases like, exactly, URANIUM and THORIUM..... And this brings us to the true error here: your ingnorance for mineralogy, because you do not seem to understand THAT and WHY does it actually exist at all.....Eudialytos (talk) 11:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I answered, who asked both of us a question. You could have replied to that question as I did, and engaged in a structured debate, but you clearly don't understand any of the conventions on WP:dispute resolution. The reason I assume you don't understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines is that you added content and failed to supply references that supported the content you added when challenged. That is despite the quote from WP:V that I gave you above. You made up the "correct name" assertion completely from your own opinion, without a source to support it. That is despite a specific complaint that you were breaching WP:OR. I have read and understood your point of view, so you're lying when you claim I haven't. I saw the batch of completely irrelevant references you spammed into the article, and I even took the time to weed out the ones that were completely unrelated to the content you were adding.
 * If you want to challenge the names "thorium" and "uranium", go ahead and show your ignorance of sourcing (hint:those element names are used in thousands of of sources). You refuse to understand that "cleveite" is used in both historical and modern sources, and you can't assert that uraninite is the correct name for cleveite in a Featured Article without a source to back it up. Find one and then you can insert that claim. Otherwise, quit whining about your inability to accurately summarise sources, and stop calling me ignorant. That's a personal attack, unfounded in any fact. You don't have a clue about how much I know about mineralogy, although you have certainly demonstrated how little you know about Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --RexxS (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There is NO SUCH A MINERAL "cleveite".... I'm a mineralogist for 20 years, do you really want to discuss that with me?Eudialytos (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Your knowledge on mineralogy is NONE, and all this has NOTHING to do with Wikipedia's policy.
 * There are RULES in mineralogy, as in chemistry. Mineralogy = IMA, Chemistry = IUPAC.
 * So, first, go read papers by Nickel & Smith about the MINERALOGICAL policy.................................Eudialytos (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I would recommend a wording change for the proposed additions. It should still say that helium was obtained from cleveite, but after that put in "a variety of uraninite", but I should use talk:Helium for that topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, but I already did that 10 days ago, and I still get this shit thrown at me. You really have to step through the edits to Helium from Eudialytos' first edit to see how bad it's been. --RexxS (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to remind you: it is actually you who started all this "shit", as you call it.
 * Let's make this clear: it is all about your complete ignorance towards mineralogy, misunderstanding, and also a kind of jealousity or sth. Deal with this: there always be people that know sth better than you.
 * Btw: your misunderstanding of science is not an argument againts it.
 * I don't really care about all these "steps back", because I stopped introducing any corrections to Wiki many years ago: it is useless when neither a true science nor academic degrees meets a concrete wall of the ones who will always know better... So, black = white, right?Eudialytos (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

SPI
Casting aspersions without proof will lead to getting blocked. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you explain? The proof is above... And here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?date-range-to=2020-02-15&tagfilter=&title=Helium&action=history Eudialytos (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. You're saying RexxS is socking for making edits to Helium? --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wrong place, Eudialytos. If you really want to complain about my behaviour, take it to WP:ANI, making sure you have all the diffs that support your contentions. I will naturally reply, and you can be assured that I will provide diffs of your behaviour, mistakes and breach of policies, then you can expect a WP:BOOMERANG. --RexxS (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't care anymore, for any diffs or boomerangs or other gobbledegook ideas of this "place"Eudialytos (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

 * I don't think I am an eligible user, because I am not even treated seriously here (see the above posts). Please don't send me such messages and proposals.Eudialytos (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Not interested in ANY activity in Wikipedia. Stop sending me these, please.Eudialytos (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What for if my edits at the wikipedia are ignored?????Eudialytos (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)