User talk:Cosmium

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome!

Hello, Cosmium, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Tellyaddict^Talk 20:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue and red

I have left a message on the List of stars by constellation discussion page. --- Safemariner 04:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding message boxes

Hi. What's with adding the 'you have a new message' box to articles about stars, like you did at Betelgeuse? Such boxes have no place in the article space and will need to be removed. — BillC^talk 21:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to First point of Libra

Your recent edit to First point of Libra (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 23:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nearest stars, constellation template, etc.

Are you the anonymous editor from the IP address 69.220.114.19? He/she/it has filled {{{neareststarname}}}/{{{stardistance}}} variables with grossly wrong information. For example, in Andromeda article, Upsilon Andromedae (distance 43.9 ly) was listed as the closest star. The actually nearest star, Ross 248 (distance 10.32 ly) is more than four times closer. I don't think there are any constellation that don't have a star closer than 40 ly. If the slots were meant for the nearest bright stars, it should be mentioned in the template.

About the constellation template: Do you think the newly added variables are useful? For example, is it important to know how many Bayer/Flamsteed-numbered stars there are in a constellation? And what "main stars" mean, if not bright stars? I think the original template was much simpler and clearer. Don't sacrifice quality over quantity.

PS. If you have questions or comments for me, you can always write them on my talk page (that's why it's there). Never add messages or such in article space.--JyriL ^talk 00:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The number of main stars in the constellation means the number of bright stars that make up the star diagrams. Few of the main stars are faint because it can have Bayer designations, sometimes have a Flamsteed number with no Bayer designation. Sunlike stars and less luminous stars are sometimes make up the main stars with Bayer designations because it is very close to Earth, such as Epsilon Eridani and Tau Ceti. It is important to know how many Bayer/Flamsteed stars in each constellations because it is the bright stars that have genitives in the names. For the number of nearby stars, nearest stars, and stardistance, it can only be counted for only BF stars. I added the number of stars with planets because to see how many stars in each constellation contain planets, in the responding data, the number in bold means the number of BF stars with planets, number in italic means the number of variable stars with no BF designation that has planets, and the number in standard figure means the number of other stars with planets, these stars don't have Bayer, Flamsteed, nor variable designation, and finally there is the sum of the number of all types of designation stars by adding altogether of three designation-type stars as it shown the figure in parenthesis under manipulated data. This totals the number of all designation-type stars per constellations that has known planets. Cosmium 20:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind a planet count, but it is important to know how many planets orbits a B/F/variable star? After all, HD numbers are much more often used in the scientific literature than B/F designations. The "main star" parameter sounds terribly arbitrary, and in my opinion it is unnecessary: there are several ways to draw constellation lines, depending on your artistic taste. I wouldn't give much importance to Bayer/Flamsteed designations, either: they're more like proper names than true catalog designations. The constellations have changed a lot since Bayer and Flamsteed made their star atlases, not to mention that they never saw many of the southern stars and that some constellations were created later. That's why there are constellations that have Flamsteed numbers without Bayer designations or vice versa. What's worse, many B/F stars lie outside the constellation they were originally assigned; for example, 3 Arietis actually lies in Pisces. There are also some erroneous designations, like 102 Virginis, which lies near the center of Pisces. Finally, the number of Bayer designations vary depending of the source: does the star α CVn include one or two Bayer designations (α CVn versus α¹ CVn & α² CVn)?--JyriL ^talk 07:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Nearby stars and nearest stars

I may fix some of the nearest star parameters, but not the number of nearby stars. I don't think we need that parameter at all.--JyriL ^talk 22:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noble gas

Do you have a source for the data you added for Ununoctium? If not, I'm going to revert your edit, because I very much doubt that any experimental work that could give these numbers has been done. This element has been synthesised in numbers of atoms you can easily count, not in bulk. --Bduke 04:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by looking in Apsidium to find melting point and boiling point, and density (it is indicated in red marker with arrows pointing away from predicted density at both sides.) The mass number for Uuo would be 314, which is predicted to be most stable. I was finding the density by sorting the densities of all lighter noble gases. I used a density of helium as a divider. All of those noble gases down to radon are divided by the density of helium. Then I divided consecutely between every two and square root. Then I averaging the last two digits and two digits after the decimal point. Then I subtracted to get the difference in every two consecutive digits. I did a further, even fuzzier calculation and I get 14.68 for the density of ununoctium. But in Apsidium, the calculated density for ununoctium is 13.65. So I used 13.65 as a better choice. Cosmium 04:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calculating an estimate yourself is original research and it is not allowed. WP needs firm sourced experimental data here and I do really doubt that they have been measured. Estimates are not allowed either unless you clearly state they are estimates and give a source to an outside reference that published the estimates. What is Apsidium? Whatever it is, you do not cite it in the article. Go back to "N/A" for these values. It is safest. --Bduke 05:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced information or create bogus redirects. Femto 18:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tidy up

If you make a mistake such as Starbox Short, please clean up your own mess by marking the article {{db-author}}. -- RHaworth 15:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the Starbox Short in 29 Aquarii article because there are star catalogue lists on top of the starbox. I moved the star catalogue from top to correct place by editing and leaves as a starname on top of the box. Cosmium 00:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Element names

This message is regarding several recent edits of yours to Wikipedia talk pages on elements. Please do not use Wikipedia to promote wishes of yours. The world doesn't revolve around you. Georgia guy 21:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Original Research

Perhaps no one has pointed this out to you before, but original research, including declaring new names for undiscovered elements, is not allowed on Wikipedia. See the policy Wikipedia:No original research. Controversial edits must be reliably sourced - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to publicize your own ideas. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 23:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Element names

Please stop revealing the names you want to propose. I told you already 2 weeks ago. Wait until IUPAC confirms names for elements. Georgia guy 22:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that! I made the hypothetical and proposed names of the rest of elements to 118 and beyond. I have the hypothetical and proposed names of these elements on all periodic tables I made, but no IUPAC systematic names. Cosmium 18:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just leave it up to IUPAC to give official names of elements. They already named Element 111 Roegentium. Georgia guy 22:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roegentium? Whoa. Roentgenium, you mean. :p Femto 13:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop.

Perhaps no one has pointed this out to you before. Wikipedia's purpose is to describe the established body of knowledge, it is not a place to publish original thoughts. See also Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Regarding your essay at Talk:Chemical element please see Wikipedia:Talk page: "Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." Also, please do not create any more useless redirects for names that you invent yourself. I mean it. And, remember to log in. Those scattered edits from 75.57.108.163 are confusing. Femto 12:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads-up, here is a discussion with essentially your last chance to provide evidence that these names are known enough that all those redirects should be allowed on Wikipedia. DMacks 01:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-directs

Please stop creating re-directs from names no one wants to search for such as Nilnilunium. Nobody knows the element by this name. Georgia guy 00:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was created systematic element names for natural elements because I want too and should have these redirects to wikipedia because all elements should have systematic element names like in superheavy elements. If you don't like to create redirects, then I will have these names in my brain. Cosmium 17:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but WP is an encyclopedia, not your personal crib-sheet. I don't think IUPAC even recommends using those names for two-digit Z, and WP is not a collection of all the world's info anyway. These links are inappropriate. DMacks 17:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helmholtzium was deleted per consensus of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 February 14#Bogus names for chemical elements and twice again per WP:CSD#G4. You will not re-create it (or any other of these names) without providing proper sources as per WP:V and WP:RS. Femto 11:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You knew that helmholtzium is the proposal name for ununbium from scientists, you shouldn't delete that proposal name; like you wouldn't delete japonium for element 113, rikenium for element 113, and moskowium for element 118, whick are also proposal names. There is another proposal name for ununbium-wixhausium--would you delete that. Cosmium 17:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The stuff about helmholtzium was added to the ununbium article from your own IP range. The few references on the web for wixhausium are pure speculation, refer to darmstadtium instead of ununbium, or to no specific element at all, so a redirect is pointless. Japonium and rikenium are sourced in the ununtrium article, directly by the website of the institute that made its discovery. Femto 19:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't expect you to delete moskowium. I thought that moskowium is the sourced article on wikipedia. I observed that moskowium is the proposal name for ununoctium as I see in apsidium.com. Cosmium 21:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it sounds plausible, and I'm happy to create it again - if there is an authoritative citation for the proposal. I can't find "moskowium" anywhere that should be considered an authoritative and reliable source by Wikipedia. Not in their own press release, not in a New York Times article, not on the IUPAC site, in Google News archive, or Google scholar. There are a few tertiary references to an Itar-Tass press release suggesting moskowium as an 'inofficial' name. If someone has access to their archives they could check how 'official' this 'inofficial' is. Until then, per WP:V, I'll put it on the same level as "thistimeforrealium". Femto 14:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

Stop creating redirects from strange, new, unconfirmed or unusual names to elements. If you do not, you will be blocked from editing. >Radiant< 10:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of stars with confirmed extrasolar planets

You are welcome for the discovery year info. User:Spiffy sperry did the majority of the work.--mikeu 21:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elements -> 1s2 -> [He]

I am sorry, but I do not agree with your change of 1s2 -> [He] in the electron configurations. The article is not explaining what is meant by [He], and hence, a novice in the subject will probably not understand 1s2, but for sure will not understand what is meant by [He]. Did I miss a discussion here, that this should be changed? Hope you can clarify. Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I've reverted it. It's originally been written out for clarity. I also note that you've changed it before. [1]. In the future, please discuss disputed changes, don't just repeat them. Femto 13:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to bed later!

Welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as I'm going to bed later!) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Mhking 22:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank God It's Friday! Cosmium 22:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tired of you

Please stop posting your names of elements in Wikipedia. Element 112 probably won't get a name for at least a few more years. Georgia guy 21:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. Stop your element naming nonsense, now. Any further addition of your unsourced original research will be treated as vandalism, and you will get blocked from editing. Femto 22:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll stop creating hypothetical names anymore except for in talk page. Cosmium 22:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you should stop with no exceptions. Georgia guy 23:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, not on talk pages either, please. You already know that talk pages are not a platform for your personal views. Femto 23:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to chemical series

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of an article, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recreating deleted info

You have recently recreated or reposted material at unbioctium which previously was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policies. Please do not recreate this article without prior approval from an administrator or you may be blocked from editing. We ask that you respect what Wikipedia is not. If you disagree with the article's deletion, you may seek an independent deletion review. Adding a ref that does not resolve any of the concerns in the VfD is not a good-faith effort to resolve those concerns. DMacks 03:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced information

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Unbihexium, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Atomic1609 21:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive. If you vandalise Wikipedia once again, as you did to Talk:Unbioctium, you will be blocked from editing. Atomic1609 21:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for vandalism

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. Fire Star 火星 21:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are policies for adding info to Wikipedia articles, mostly involving consensus from other editors who frequent the articles in question. You were blocked because you repeatedly edited while seemingly ignoring most of the warnings and other messages left for you here. Also, we don't discuss the articles or make requests in the articles themselves, this is what the article talk pages are for. You were introducing mis-spellings in your infobox additions as well. All these things added together led to your temp block. We'd like you to be able to make good contributions, but any contributions to our science articles especially are held to a particularly high standard. Please pay attention to what people are trying to tell you and things should go more smoothly for you. --Fire Star 火星 22:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're headed for another

Please stop. If you continue to delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Unbiquadium, you will be blocked. DMacks 20:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]