User talk:Biochemnick

Welcome!

Hello, Biochemnick, 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 ask your question there. Again, welcome! Femto 12:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetic properties

I've done a quick check with the CRC Handbook, it disagrees with your changes to the magnetic properties of Calcium, Copper, Magnesium, so I reverted. If you have better sources you need to cite them. Femto 12:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm out of town on a conference right now, so I'd like to check on this after I get back when I have a chance. However, I do know that paramagnetism stems from unpaired electrons, something that Copper (but neither Calcium nor Magnesium) has, so that's where my editing came from. There were so many widespread errors in the magnetic properties of various elements on Wikipedia that I felt that such sweeping changes, based on basic principles, were appropriate. Biochemnick 00:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Anthis

Please read WP:BIO, WP:AUTO and WP:COI with relation to the creation of autobiographical articles. (aeropagitica) 15:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL

Please be civil with User:208.255.229.66. Please refrain from undoing his/her edits repeatedly (see WP:3RR) and reporting him/her on WP:AIV; assume good faith. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for incivility with User:208.255.229.66. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another block - Please STOP

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continued incivility with 208.255.229.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 48 hours - please stop

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Please STOP edit warring with User:208.255.229.66, as your efforts are useless; he/she will simply revert them back. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Scientific Activist. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. Will (aka Wimt) 17:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concern, and I'm not sure how to deal with this situation. The other party, User:66.177.173.119/User:208.255.229.66 (the same user), continues to remove huge swaths of the article and relevant (agreed-upon) references and refuses to participate in a discussion on the issue. I submitted the dispute for third opinion mediation, but I'm not sure what else to do. Biochemnick 18:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the debate in question myself, but two users continuously reverting each other is never beneficial. I strongly urge you to wait for a third opinion and not continue with the edit war as it really isn't gaining anything and will lead to you getting blocked again. I warned the other user as well. Will (aka Wimt) 19:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Thanks. Biochemnick 19:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AI

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 21:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

~~Further, AIV is for vandalism, not content disputes and not for gaining an upper hand in an edit war.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 21:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

I found this quite unhelpful. Repeatedly removing sources and text from the same page without explanation is not what one does in a "content dispute" it is vandalism. Perhaps I should have been more patient and given the prescribed warnings, but considering the history... and the eventual outcome...

The real question is why are you leaving this note on this page when I'm the one who posted to AIV? Oh well, at least some other editors stepped up and took care of this. -MrFizyx 22:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, for some reason I thought you were the one who posted to AIV. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 22:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the entry on George Deutsch and The Scientific Activist at WP:COI/N

Hello Biochemnick. Your abilities could be an asset to Wikipedia over the long term. You have apparently not picked up the culture yet and you're at risk of getting into a downward spiral with the administrators. Since you're obviously very capable in the scientific areas, please consider reducing the level of hostilities for a little while. The fact that some of your opponents haven't behaved well either isn't much of a consolation. See the latest update for my own analysis. EdJohnston 17:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NP:)

No problem:) Have a nice week and god bless:) --James, La gloria è a dio 05:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James, La gloria è a dio has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--James, La gloria è a dio 05:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject

Howdy! As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Texas A&M, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Texas A&M University. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks and Gig 'em! ~~~~