Contents

User talk:Cax17

I am cax17 this is my page. i am a student in high school in wisconsin U.S.A and i am very interested in chemistry and physics and hope to do work with particle accelerators and other chemistry and physics items. i hope to get a major in chemistry and a minor in physics. i am also an amateur astronomer and know a lot about the planets of the solar system. i can name all 118 elements in less then 3 minutes without looking at the periodic table or anything. if you ask me a number ill know right away what element it is the symbol and atomic mass. I am interested in transuranic elements. the most interesting elements i think are: (number is atomic number of element)All of the Noble Gases (Helium (2) Neon (10) Argon (18) Krypton (36) Xenon (54) and Radon (86). Chlorine (17) Vanadium (23) Cobalt (27) Arsenic (33)Ytturium (39) Astatine (85) Francium (87) Actinium (89) Protactinium (It needs a new name) (91) Uranium (92) Neptunium (93) Plutonium (94) Americium (95)Berkelium (97) Einsteinium (99) Fermium (100) all elements Mendelvium (101) through Copernicium or Ununbium(112)Ununquadium (114) Ununseptium once it is discovered (117) Ununennium once it is discovered (119). Most Hated Element: Californium (98) i dont think California needs an element named after it it is not that amazing of a place if any states need an element name after it it should be Wisconsin.

Hi Cax. I noted your comments about the expected properties of ununseptium. However, you should remember/note that ununseptium is only expected to be halogen-like in terms of its position in the periodic table. Current theory/experimental data suggests that the periodic law may well be starting to fail around Z=114 due to so-called relativistic effects. These are due to the very high nuclear charges which can change the behaviour of the orbiting electrons. We will have to wait until the element is synthesized and the halogen chemistry tested in order to know for sure.--Drjezza (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. 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. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 18:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Tom Poquette, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.

• Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
• ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Tom Poquette was changedbyCax17 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.926057 on 2010-12-04T07:05:12+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 07:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide sources for your information, not including an unreliable 11-year-old GamePro article. « Ryūkotsusei » 17:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The wikipedia page for the Neo-Geo Pocket Color uses the same article to back up its sales, and that is okay? You really need to get a hobby. The wikipedia pages list them as over a million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cax17 (talk • contribs)

Those poorly up-kept SNK articles do not set a standard for other articles. « Ryūkotsusei » 09:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016. 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.

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. Please note that said article is also under WP:1RR — which limits users to 1 revert in the 24 hour cycle. If you disagree with changes, please discuss them on the article's talk page. Best, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Cax17 reported by User:MelbourneStar (Result: ). Thank you. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cax17, I respect your passion, but Wikipedia pages are not the place for political discussion in this manner. The page in question is not meant to "lead those to believe they've no reason to vote tomorrow", but merely presenting information as objectively as possible. If you want to discuss why you think your post should be at the beginning of the entry of such a highly-contentious page, please feel free to visit the article's talk page and I'm sure a reasonable solution to your concern can be designed with input from the community. Please bring with you respectable and objective (or at least as objective as possible considering the subject matter) source material so that moderators will see you are contributing to the subject rather than a politicized edit war where you seem to just want to get your point across.

Also, thank you for taking an interest in posting on wikipedia! Charlesblack (talk) 07:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC) Charlesblack[reply]

Thanks I think a post conveying that point is valid. Maybe try adding it to the current paragraph, and de-politicizing it (like, stating that "Senator Sanders has vowed to continue fighting" or whatever source material you find).

Again, thank you for posting on wikipedia. Just try to keep it objective and cite your sources! Yes, there are plenty of places here where sources are not cited or the information is clearly subjective, but these high-profile articles get a lot more attention and moderators try to keep it as objective as possible. Cheers! Charlesblack (talk) 07:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More Edits Assuming you are 66.188.243.203, I think that post is perfectly acceptable, and I expect other folks watching the page to agree. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesblack (talk • contribs) 07:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you made this edit with the summary "nothing here untrue". I'm not saying it's untrue, but I've never heard the term. We cannot accept original research, so if you want the sentence to stand, please add an independent verifiable source to enable us to verify the facts Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind that the Bernie Sanders article is under discretionary sanctions. When you click "edit" there's a notice which appears, which says:

"You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article, must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before making any potentially contentious edits and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page."

These two edits constitute two reverts: [1] (of Spartan7W) and [2] (of myself).

Technically that's a 1RR violation which constitutes WP:edit warring. I'd appreciate it if you undid your edit and tried to get consensus on talk page for your changes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violation of the sanctions already in effect (specifically 1RR and making contentious edits without any consensus) on the page Bernie Sanders, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jill Stein, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. clpo13_(talk) 17:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cax17! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a new WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]