User talk:Gcchemistry

Messages

Gcchemistry (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Well, Should I remove the "Fictional reference" section? Did you check in my sandbox? Are there any more improvements I can make to make the article more interesting and wanted? Gcchemistry (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Note about messaging me

We can discuss on either my talk page or your talk page. Thank you. -Gcchemistry

Warnings

If I accidentally do something wrong, let me know in this section. Thanks. -Gcchemistry

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 Unbitrium, 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. Double sharp (talk) 07:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Improving the user page

Please give me ideas for improvement on my user page here. -Gcchemistry

Edit log

If you edit my user page, please inform me. If I do not get a message that my user page was edited, I will revert it. Thank you. -Gcchemistry

(List your edits to my user page here)

Answered your quiz. Double sharp (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't you make a new quiz if you want to keep my answers to the old quiz on your userpage? :-) Double sharp (talk) 08:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Your draft article

Hey! I just wanted to tell you I moved your draft to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Unbitrium. You can edit it there. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 22:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Gcchemistry. You have new messages at Double sharp's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please also see WT:ELEM#Ubt recreated. Double sharp (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, should I put better sources and better information, or should I wait until it has a more notable feature or until it has a synthesis attempt? Gcchemistry (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

BTW, Unbitrium, by the extended periodic table, is expected to be the element above unsepttrium, which is notable. Gcchemistry (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd wait until it gets a notable feature or synthesis attempt. I wouldn't use "notability by neighbouring elements" – otherwise every element would get an article, even if there's nothing interesting to say about it (like element 164), because it is next to another notable element (flerovium, in this case). Double sharp (talk) 03:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Trust us on this. It may seem illogical at first, but there is nothing about element 123 that would make it any more notable than, say, element 162. No synthesis attempts, no special relevance to the periodic table (e.g. untriseptium, unsepttrium), and no important publications have been released on it. Once someone publishes a major paper explaining its expected properties, or someone attempts to synthesize it, it may become notable enough for an article. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Gcchemistry. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements#Notability for articles for elements after unbinilium.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Double sharp (talk) 10:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

In short, what is said there is that element 127 (unbiseptium) is probably deserving of an article, but the others aren't. Feel free to work on unbiseptium if you want to. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Meta states

They are notated as ^180mTa, and not ^180mTa. Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Unbitrium.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Answers to the quiz

DO NOT go below this point until you answer the quiz.

1. Actinium-217
2. Yes (2)
3. Unbiennium
4. False
5. No
6. Californium

Element 152

Have you considered changing "Francoium" with its awkward hiatus to "Franconium"? (The symbol can stay the same.) Double sharp (talk) 16:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Unbitrium.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Danger ^{High voltage!} 18:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)