Jump to content

User talk:Double sharp/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Talkback

Hello, Double sharp. You have new messages at Talk:Saturn.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Anderson - What's up? 20:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Double sharp. You have new messages at Talk:Saturn.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Anderson - What's up? 20:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Chinese periodic table

It's an awful kludge really, and you may well not want to use it, but I played with some pretty monstrous CSS there, just for fun... . Begoon talk 17:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Quenya elements

Hello, Double sharp. You have new messages at De728631's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Unbiquadium

Hello Double sharp, I added some comments on Talk:Unbiquadium. Please have a look. Pamputt (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 July newsletter

We're halfway through this year's penultimate round, and the competition is moving along well. Pool A's Canada Sasata (submissions) currently leads overall, while Pool B's Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) is second. Both leaders are WikiCup veterans, and both have already scored over 600 points this month. If the round were to end today, London Miyagawa (submissions), with 274 points, would be the lowest-scoring participant to make it through. This indicates that participants will need a score comparable to last year's (573, the highest ever) to qualify for the final. The high scores this year are a testament both to the quality of participants and to the increased focus on significant content (eligible for bonus points) in this year's competition. So far this round, both Sasata and Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) have made up over half of their score through bonus points, with, for example, high importance FA koala earning Sasata a total of 440 points (from a multiplier of 4.4) and high-importance GA sea earning Cwmhiraeth a total of 216 points (from a multiplier of 7.2). Other articles on important topics submitted this round include a featured article on the Norman conquest of England by Wyoming Ealdgyth (submissions), and good articles on Nobel laureate in literature Henryk Sienkiewicz, Nobel laureate in physics Hans Bethe, and the noted Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū. These articles are by Poland Piotrus (submissions), Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions) and Sturmvogel_66 respectively.

Other than that, there is not much to report! If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Jupiter

I'm quite sure Jupiter's cloud belts are prominent. I was reading through this book that the cloud belts are quite notable.--Anderson I'm Willing To Help 19:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course they are. But does it really have to be linked? (Isn't "prominent" a fairly common word?) Double sharp (talk) 06:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
By prominent, I mean notable. So i was placing a link to notability. Because if i linked just Prominent, It would point to a disambiguation page.--Anderson I'm Willing To Help 21:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
You're misunderstanding me. It is a common word, so it does not have to be linked anywhere. It is also not a technical term. Also prominent ≠ notability. Something can be notable without being prominent. Double sharp (talk) 09:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Moons and rings of neptune

Hello, Double sharp. A reply to your request at the Illustration workshop has been made. You may view your reply here.
If you are satisfied, please copy/paste the following code and add it to your request: {{resolved|1=~~~~}}

Fama Clamosa replied to your request. Is the svg image complete now, or does it still need any adjustment? Thanks. Begoon talk 11:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{GL Illustration reply}} template.

Categorizing images of tilings on Commons

Hello, please take a look at this and this page. — Stannic (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nonmetal

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Nonmetal you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Adabow -- Adabow (talk) 06:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nonmetal

The article Nonmetal you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Nonmetal for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Adabow -- Adabow (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nonmetal

The article Nonmetal you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nonmetal for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Adabow -- Adabow (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Aluminium oxide may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | BoilingPt = 2977 °C (5391 °F; 3250 K)[<ref>{{Cite journal | first = Raymond | last = Roew | contribution = Adipic Acid | title = Handbook
  • ] (i.e. 2/3 of the Al are surrounded by 4 oxygen neighbors), and 1/3 5-coordinated, very little (<5%) [[octahedral]] Al-O is present.<ref name = "Skinner2013">{{cite journal|title=Joint diffraction

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Commas...

I undid the removal of the conversion function on the oxide page since I added some info. I left your undo of my changes to the Al page. The comma is the standard group separator in the English language. It certainly makes numbers easier to read. I put things back since there probably needs to be some discussion or standard setting before we start changing things around. The style guide seems to agree with me...

Delimiting (grouping of digits)

  • Numbers with five or more digits to the left of the decimal point (i.e. 10,000 or greater) should be delimited into groups so they can be easily parsed, such as by using a comma (,) every three digits (e.g. 12,200, 255,200, 8,274,527). A full stop (.) should not be used to separate thousands (e.g. 12.200, 255.200) to avoid confusion with the decimal point.
  • Numbers with four digits to the left of the decimal point may or may not be delimited (e.g. 1250 or 1,250).

Decimal points

Shortcuts
  • A decimal point is used between the integer and the fractional parts of a decimal; a comma is never used in this role (6.57, not 6,57).
  • The number of decimal places should be consistent within a list or context (The response rates were 41.0 and 47.4 percent, respectively, not The response rates were 41 and 47.4 percent, respectively), except if the quantities were measured with different precisions.
Well, here's my arguments:
First of all those numbers at the Al2O3 page had 4 digits before the decimal point, so my version without the separators is explicitly allowed by the MOS (while allowing yours too).
Second of all, not all of our readers come from countries that use the comma = separator and dot = decimal point convention. This is particularly confusing with cases like "2.645 years" (it's been known to happen; see Talk:Californium). So I would dearly love to get 8,274,527 changed to something like 8 274 527, which isn't confusing. (It's less of an issue for numbers above 999 999 as numbers can't have more than one decimal point, but we should be consistent IMHO. Numbers below a million should decide our format for all numbers.) Double sharp (talk) 10:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Help editing

Hello ,

Can you help sourcing this page [LCT] ?

Thanks--Uskudargideriken (talk) 12:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thulium

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Thulium you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of King jakob c 2 -- King jakob c 2 (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Origin and occurrence of fluorine/GA1

Reviewed, leaning promote, but with an issue I'd like to talk through. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Origin and occurrence of fluorine

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Origin and occurrence of fluorine you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Double sharp. You have new messages at Talk:Origin and occurrence of fluorine/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WikiCup 2013 August newsletter

This year's final is upon us. Our final eight, in order of last round's score, are:

  1. Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer who has contributed on topics of military history and physics, including a number of high-importance topics. Good articles have made up the bulk of his points, but he has also scored a great deal of bonus points. He has the second highest score overall so far, with more than 3000 points accumulated.
  2. New South Wales Casliber (submissions), another WikiCup veteran who reached the finals in 2012, 2011 and 2010. He writes on a variety of topics including botany, mycology and astronomy, and has claimed the highest or joint highest number of featured articles every round so far this year. He has the third highest score overall, with just under 3000 points accumulated.
  3. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 WikiCup champion, who writes mostly on marine biology. She has also contributed to high-importance topics, seeing huge numbers of bonus points for high-importance featured and good articles. Previous rounds have seen her scoring the most bonus points, with scoring spread across did you knows, good articles and featured articles.
  4. Canada Sasata (submissions), a WikiCup veteran who finished in second place in 2012, and competed as early as 2009. He writes articles on biology, especially mycology, and has scored highly for a number of collaborations at featured article candidates.
  5. Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), the winner of the 2010 competition. His contributions mostly concern Naval history, and he has scored a very large number of points for good articles and good article reviews in every round. He is the highest scorer overall this year, with over 3500 points in total.
  6. Wyoming Ealdgyth (submissions), who is competing in the WikiCup for the second time, though this will be her first time in the final. A regular at FAC, she is mostly interested in British medieval history, and has scored very highly for some top-importance featured articles on the topic.
  7. London Miyagawa (submissions), a finalist in 2012 and 2011. He writes on a broad variety of topics, with many of this year's points coming from good articles about Star Trek. Good articles make up the bulk of his points, and he had the most good articles back in round 2; he was also the highest scorer for DYK in rounds 1 and 2.
  8. Scotland Adam Cuerden (submissions) has previously been involved with the WikiCup, but hasn't participated for a number of years. He scores mostly from restoration work leading to featured picture credits, but has also done some article writing and reviewing.

We say goodbye to eight great participants who did not qualify for the final: Poland Piotrus (submissions), Idaho Figureskatingfan (submissions), Ohio ThaddeusB (submissions), Michigan Dana boomer (submissions), Prince Edward Island Status (submissions), United States Ed! (submissions), Florida 12george1 (submissions), England Calvin999 (submissions). Having made it to this stage is still an excellent achievement, and you can leave with your heads held high. We hope to see you all again next year. Signups are now open for the 2014 WikiCup, which will begin on 1 January. All Wikipedians, whatever their interest or level of experience, are warmly invited to participate in next year's competition.

This last month has seen some incredible contributions; for instance, Cwmhiraeth's Starfish and Ealdgyth's Battle of Hastings—two highly important, highly viewed pages—made it to featured article status. It would be all too easy to focus solely on these stunning achievements at the expense of those participants working in lower-scoring areas, when in fact all WikiCup participants are doing excellent work. A mention of everything done is impossible, but here are a few: Last round saw the completion of several good topics (on the 1958, 1959 and 1962 Atlantic hurricane seasons) to which 12george1 had contributed. Calvin999 saw "S&M" (song), on which he has been working for several years, through to featured article status on its tenth try. Figureskatingfan continued towards her goal of a broad featured/good topic on Maya Angelou, with two featured and four good articles. ThaddeusB contributed significantly to over 20 articles which appeared on the main page's "in the news" section. Adam Cuerden continued to restore a large number of historical images, resulting in over a dozen FP credits this round alone. The WikiCup is not just about top-importance featured articles, and the work of all of these users is worthy of commendation.

Finally, the usual notices: If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 05:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Shiny things and more

The Quarter Million Award
For your contributions to bring Alkali metal (estimated annual readership: 290,000) to Good article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Double sharp (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
This editor won the Quarter Million Award for bringing Alkali metal to Good Article status.

Sure, enjoy these :)

Re F GANs, thanks for taking care of them. I don't wanna step in. You see there's more to add, I see it too. I couldn't stop if I stepped in. So I'm not.

Re F itself, I'll duplicate my offer to come and help me with F, 'cause I'm busy now, and it's not getting any better (more like it's getting much worse) And a company will make it easier for me, 'cause I always feel like I've forgotten something with this article.

Re metal FA, I will be in after F is a FA. If you start before me, e-mail me, I have a pdf you might like (not uploaded anywhere in the English sector of the Internet, at least I haven't seen it... Ullman)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thulium

The article Thulium you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Thulium for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of King jakob c 2 -- King jakob c 2 (talk) 11:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I added the references in hiding for an reason. Have you read the references? They are not exactly giving the facts quoted in the sentence before. The two or three sentences about the mice have to be reworked to mirror the content of the refs. I have them and will do so when I have time, but for now the statements are unreferenced.--Stone (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry...I'd seen excess refs in hiding before (was it on fluorine), so I assumed they actually supported the statement. Since they don't, and I don't have them...I'll probably wait for you. And plop citation needed on it temporarily. And re-hide them with a more explanatory note. Double sharp (talk) 03:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Good. --Stone (talk) 12:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Origin and occurrence of fluorine

The article Origin and occurrence of fluorine you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Origin and occurrence of fluorine for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey Double sharp. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Quantum graphics sketch.png

Thanks for uploading File:Quantum graphics sketch.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey

With File:IBA nuclear shells.svg, I was just putting the source files away, and I tend to give them a last "once-over" when I do that. The alignment looked a bit off, so I edited it and uploaded a new version - but now I'm not sure, so I reverted again... If you look at the last 2 versions in the file history, you'll see what I mean. The O(6) "spoke" and the U(5) "spoke" don't align in the original slide, or the current version, but the penultimate revision (14:25, 11 September 2013) is one where I made them (and the "divider" in the triangle) align. But then I decided it was beyond my knowledge, so I'd put it back how it was and ask...

Maybe it doesn't matter, in which case the penultimate revision looks "nicer" - but maybe it does, and the spurs are not a straight diameter line for a reason. So I put it back how it was - but obviously the "straight line" version is still there in the history to revert to if desired. (You might need to do browser cache flushing/refreshing/purging stuff if you don't see any difference.)

I hope that made any sense at all. Geometry is hard in words... Begoon talk 14:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Probably doesn't matter, I think. Double sharp (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
That's what I thought (hoped?), really - I'll put the nice, straight aligned one back then, it's a bit 'prettier'. Thanks for the quick response. . Begoon talk 14:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Exceedingly quick indeed! :-) If it was to separate visually the atomic number (the only reason I can see), then yours is better anyway, so I'm not sure why Kratz did it the way he did... Double sharp (talk) 14:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Possibly because spirals are hard... That looks like a simple diagram, but drawing evenly spaced spirals in Adobe Illustrator is, surprisingly, a pig of a thing to do, because the built in spiral tool does logarithmic swirly things where the spacing decays exponentially per turn, and just tracing them with curves looks crap. You have to cut concentric circles in half then offset and rejoin them - it was a bundle of fun for a little drawing. I'm glad I did it before beer o'clock - it came with its own built in head spin. Begoon talk 15:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Bismuth: citation was provided.

I must take exception to your statement "it is not even cited".

You will find those very words in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_T._Seaborg#Return_to_California

I admit the reference should have been attached to "Seaborg's technique", not "Glenn Seaborg", and "#Return_to_California" needed to be added. Joeinwap (talk) 10:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Thanks for clearing up that misunderstanding. (Though it would indeed have been much clearer if the reference had been attached as you suggest.)
But I still think it shouldn't be in the article. Firstly, it is not a characteristic (where you placed it), and it is not even a very useful application. So I don't think it belongs in the Bi article. Secondly Bi was not known in the ancient world and thus it's not particularly evocative of the Philosopher's Stone. It might fit better on the Pb article, if any successful nuclear transmutation of Pb to Au ever took place. So I don't feel it belongs in this article. Nuclear technology has not developed to a point where this is useful.
(Looks around for an article) We do have Synthesis of precious metals, where I note that Seaborg's Bi-to-Au transmutation is listed under the section for Au (and it fits very well there, naturally!). I added the cites there from the "Return to California" section of Seaborg's article. Double sharp (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

TeO

Great work on tellurium monoxide. The original article was way too extravagant and flimsy. The contraction was skillfully achieved. Maybe others will learn that writing good chemistry requires more than Googling for content. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Axiosaurus deserves much credit too for it (he wrote the lead). Double sharp (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Since you use the RSC's resources so much...

...I thought you might be interested in this: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Wikimedian-in-Residence_at_the_Royal_Society. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't really look too much there anymore for alkali metal. If I ever get around to start helping you on alkaline earth metal again I might. (Hint: I most probably won't remember to unless I have by then gotten group 1 to FA, or you start working on it again first – even if it's just one or two content-adding edits – because otherwise it either won't cross my mind or won't cross my watchlist and it will stay undone.) Those RSC pages are good for the basic chemistry stuff which is very obvious, as it provides a quick-and-official citation, but generally they tend to stick to the common elements; e.g. their page on the chalcogens only covers O and S. I did mine as many quick facts out of there as I could, though. (Incidentally, if you have any idea where they got their atomic radius predictions for the superheavy elements, I would like to know that too. :-)) Double sharp (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

PoF6

Here are three hits from Chem Abs on this compound:

  • Atomic-number dependence of relativistic effects on chemical bonding Full Text

By Onoe, Jun From Advances in Quantum Chemistry (2001), Volume Date2000, 37, 311-323. | Language: English, Database: CAPLUS The at.-no. dependence of the relativistic effects on chem. bonding has been studied using the difference (ΔPB) in the bond overlap populations between the relativistic and nonrelativistic DV-Xα calcns. for various XH diat. hydrides (X = Cu, Ag, and Au) and XF6 hexafluorides (X = S, Se, Mo, Ru, Rh, Te, W, Re, Os, Ir, Pt, U, Np, and Pu). The at.-no. dependence of ΔPB suggests that the abs. values of ΔPB roughly increase with order (αZ)2 for Z up to about 80, and the higher order term (αZ)4 should be taken into account for Z larger than 80, where α is the fine structure const. (α=1/c, c is the velocity of light). (c) 2001 Academic Press.

  • Force fields for octahedral hexahalogen molecules Full Text

By Labonville, P.; Ferraro, J. R.; Wall, M. C.; Baile, L. J. From Coordination Chemistry Reviews (1972), 7(3), 257-87. | Language: English, Database: CAPLUS The frequencies and force consts. for 27 metal hexafluorides, 23 metal hexachlorides, 11 metal hexabromides, and 1 metal hexaiodide were calcd. by the Urey-Bradley force field (UBFF), the orbital valence force field (OVFF), the modified UBFF, the modified OVFF, and the general valence force field; the calcd. frequencies and force consts. were compared with the obsd. values. The modified OVFF demonstrates several advantages over the other force fields, because of the better overall agreement found for the obsd. frequencies. Definite trends regarding mass and oxidn. effects are obsd. for these compds.; when both effects occur, the oxidn. effect appears to be more important than the mass effect. A dependence of the F, K, and H(D) force consts. from the modified UBFF and modified OVFF vs. the no. of the nonbonding valence electrons and crystal field stabilization energy exists for MF6 and MCl2-6 type compds.

  • Preparation of a volatile polonium fluoride Full Text

By Weinstock, Bernard; Chernick, Cedric L. From Journal of the American Chemical Society (1960), 82, 4116-17. | Language: Unavailable, Database: CAPLUS The prepn. of a volatile Po fluoride is attempted from Po208, half-life 2.93 yrs. based on the method of Weinstock and Maim (CA 50, 13637a). Neutron yields and distribution measurements apparently confirm the Po fluoride formation and its subsequent chem. or radioactive decompn. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Quenya may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

TBH I have much more important IRL things now that I should be doing, but I'll just post once here before running back into the mess

Poetry! Blog title material! Sandbh (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed (especially the "blog title material" part)! Double sharp (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 September newsletter

In 30 days, we will know the identity of our 2013 WikiCup champion. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) currently leads; if that lead is held, she will become the first person to have won the WikiCup twice. Canada Sasata (submissions), Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions)—who has never participated in the competition before—and New South Wales Casliber (submissions) follow. The majority of points in this round have come from a mix of good articles and bonus points. This final round is seeing contributions to a number of highly important topics; recent submissions include Phoenix (constellation) (FA by Casliber), Ernest Lawrence (GA by Hawkeye7), Pinniped, and red fox (both GAs by Sasata).

The did you know (DYK) eligibility criteria have recently changed, meaning that newly passed good articles are accepted as "new" for did you know purposes. However, in the interests of not changing the WikiCup rules mid-competition, please note that only articles eligible for DYK under the old system (that is, newly created articles or 5x expansions) will be eligible for points in this year's WikiCup. We do, however, have time to discuss how this new system will work for next year's competition; a discussion will be opened in due course. On that note, thoughts are welcome on changes you'd like to see for next year. What worked? What didn't work? What would you like to see more of? What would you like to see less of? All Wikipedians, new or old, are also warmly invited to sign up for the 2014 WikiCup.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Signpost Report

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Elements for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day! --buffbills7701 20:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of History of fluorine

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article History of fluorine you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Revert on Boron Template

Why did you revert my changes related to Boron speed of sound? Nicoguaro (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

It's cited, actually. See Speeds of sound of the elements (data page). The infoboxes doesn't explicitly cite it because it looks unwieldy, so we decided some years ago to have these dedicated data pages listing the data with citation, and all info in the infobox that is already in these data pages doesn't need to be cited explicitly (because it already is). Naturally info in the infobox that isn't in there should be cited explicitly, and we already do this: see Template:Infobox ununoctium for an example. Double sharp (talk) 04:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I got it. But, I still consider that a reference should appear in the main article of Boron, otherwise how will you trust in the information that appears right there? Most of the people won't read these Wikipedia templates, and go into these "dark" way to find the reference that ended to be "G.V. Samsonov (Ed.) in Handbook of the physicochemical properties of the elements, IFI-Plenum, New York, USA, 1968."Nicoguaro (talk) 06:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
We have a link "ref" at the bottom of the infobox that links to these "dark pages". I don't see a problem, considering that the references on the article itself are relegated to the bottom of a page (with links) to avoid disturbing the flow of the content (and I have to wonder how many people actually read them). As for our readers, it's sad, but either they have no problem trusting us anywhere, or have problems trusting us even when we cite. Double sharp (talk) 06:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, I was looking for this value, that's why I asked for the source. I couldn't find boron in materials databases. By the way, is it possible to program a script that reads all these data and make some things like Ashby diagrams?Nicoguaro (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I dunno; I'm not into that kind of thing! You could ask someone else (DePiep? I'm not sure). Double sharp (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I cannot script yet. Maybe there is a spreadsheet-to-diagram converter. What would be the second axis? -DePiep (talk) 09:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
An example could be Young Modulus vs Density, so, one can read the speed of sound of a lot of materials in a single map. Since in List_of_data_references_for_chemical_elements there are lots of information, it would be useful to have some tool to take this data and make some diagrams or something like that, but I have no idea about doing these kind of things.Nicoguaro (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Papers

I could send you Ullman and a few other papers I have if you need those or (especially) if you could upload them somewhere where they could be easily seen for any user, that is, not just downloadable, but viewable (mostly as resources for WP:ELEM, or whoever else). Let me know if you're interested.

I simply have no time, you know I have no time for anything.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thx

Thanks for the topics splits. I can follow. (Writing here not to crowd the element talkpage). Have a nice edit. -DePiep (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Biological aspects of fluorine

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Biological aspects of fluorine you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of LT910001 -- LT910001 (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

keeping the peace

I went and resurrected the Occurrence spinout. I was fine with the initial merge back. But then I just cut another para from parent article (boring stuff for parent). And I read some more about the star stuff, which is really cool. Yeah, it might never get expanded, but let it live.

Oh..and don't let anyone else see this, but having the hatnote helps me move my text down the page versus the gotverdammtelong infobox and avoid a layout clash.  ;-)

71.127.137.171 (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Neptunium

Hey there. I noticed that you did some work on Neptunium recently and I wanted to let you know that I had been working on improving the article in my sandbox for a few days now. I don't know if you were planning on trying to get it to ga in the very near future, but I have already put a fairly large amount of time into revising and expanding the history section and I was planning on starting on the chemistry section after I get out of work today. Would you possibly be interested in a collaboration? If not, it's cool but I didn't want either of us to put a lot of time into something that someone else has worked on. Thingg⊕⊗ 09:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure, let's collaborate on it! (Can I claim bits of the chemistry section? :-P) Double sharp (talk) 10:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. And yeah I don't mind if youeedit the article in my sandbox. As for the temperature question, I am unsure if it's defined, but the other articles about elements use C. Also just a comment, I noticed that the Polish Wikipedia has a very nice article on Neptunium and it might be a useful place to find information and references. Cheers. Thingg⊕⊗ 10:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

thanks, man

comments on the 5th

22:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.44.87.91 (talk)

neptunium isotopes

Hey I ran into a problem that I was wondering what you thought about it. I put the info in User:Thingg/sandbox#arbitrary_break. I have to go to bed now, so if you want to just change stuff now I'm fine with that or I can do it tomorrow. I'm not really sure what the best thing to do to resolve some database inconsistencies. Cheers. Thingg⊕⊗ 01:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I replied. Double sharp (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Aand I replied on my talk page. Thingg⊕⊗ 18:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
heh so apparently I can still use my old college login info to get access to stuff on http://www.sciencedirect.com/. Unfortunately a lot of articles are only available offline, but yeah if you ever want me to see if something you're looking for is available there, let me know. Thingg⊕⊗ 21:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
replied on User talk:Thingg/sandbox. Thingg⊕⊗ 19:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Ditrigonary polyhedon

Typo. Should be Ditrigonary polyhedron (now a redirect). Burzuchius (talk) 12:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Oops. But I can't move it there because that page exists with a non-trivial history. I moved it back to the plural form, which is much less wrong. Double sharp (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Radon.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Radon.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Double sharp wld you mind turning on your 'email this user' even if only temporarily? Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you're planning to send me the paper? It's OK, I'll probably soon find a pirated copy from a Russian website somewhere Ehh...like Nergaal I tend to want to keep WP outside real life. Double sharp (talk) 06:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Cool, let me know when you've read it. Sandbh (talk) 10:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

List of elements

Hello Double sharp, let you edit the sorting for the melting points and boiling points. For example, the ascending sorting of melting points jumps from Helium's 0.95K to Barium's 1000, then to Krypton's 115.79K; you see, the sorting takes account first from the first digit, which is not how numbers are sorted in real life. -- Ktsquare (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Strange. I just got that too! And normally I don't and the software works properly. In any case, I'm going to hard-code it instead with {{sort}}. Double sharp (talk) 14:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, I think I figured out what is going on. Reatlas made an edit to replace the old note templates with standard ones. Unfortunately the new ones also mess up the sorting and I'm not exactly sure if {{sort}} is going to work properly if I encase the ref in it. To (temporarily) resolve the problem, I've reverted it. It should sort properly for now. Double sharp (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
How do note templates (new or old) mess the sorting up ? Anyway, Looking before editing is prudent, say your edit history of that page over mine. -- Ktsquare (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I dunno; I'm not so much of a template editor. DePiep might know. Mostly I just edit content. I will definitely be more prudent with checking next time (and many apologies for reverting you!) Double sharp (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Sandbh is right, we should use {{sort}} in the numeric fields. I don't think the note change matters. Example, atomic weight has {{sort}} now, and sorts OK.
This is the background: table sorting is never numeric. The sorteer does not see a number in "10", ever. It sees two characters just like "ab" are. So it sorts "1, 10, 2, 3" like a dictionary sorts ("a, ab, b, c"). To solve it, we use the sort template like this: {{sort|002|2}}. The "002" will be hidden, and is used by the sorter. Now it will sort above {{sort|010|10}} correctly. Other columns numbers may need more zeros prefixed, depending on the magnitude range used in that column. -DePiep (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

flerovium

yeah, I'll give it a shot tomorrow. Sorry I've been busy irl last week. Thingg⊕⊗ 01:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I'd call it one of the most important transactinides thanks to chemistry and island of stability. Though the others are interesting too (transition metal character for 113, noble metal character for 114, redox chemistry for 115, etc.) Double sharp (talk) 03:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah hmm I think I'm going to try to finish at least the preliminary draft for neptunium before I dive into flerovium and I may take a short break after that to expand neptunium hexafluoride since I've encountered a good deal of content on it that I can use in addition to the content from the german wikipedia (and to check the accuracy of the latter since I will have to rely almost totally on machine translation since I know very little german). But yeah flerovium does look like it will be interesting and it should be waay less complicated than iron lol. Thingg⊕⊗ 01:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I've been thinking about NpF6 for a long time too. While there I may as well expand UF6 and PuF6 as well. Nothing is off the table yet... Double sharp (talk) 08:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The Non-metallic Barnstar

periodic table
The Non-metallic Barnstar for improving the Periodic Table
For the contributions to the 420 day, 400k discussion in metalloids and non-metals from the early days into the closing consensus conclusions. It resulted in an improved Periodic Table.
-DePiep (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Biological aspects of fluorine

The article Biological aspects of fluorine you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Biological aspects of fluorine for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of LT910001 -- LT910001 (talk) 05:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Double_sharp/Archive_5&oldid=1182052737"