User talk:Eka-bismuth

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Eka-bismuth. You have new messages at WT:ELEM#Ununpentium.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Double sharp (talk) 11:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Element 115 in popular culture nominated for deletion

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

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)[reply]

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 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 none 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)[reply]

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)[reply]