User talk:V1adis1av

Proposed merge of isotope tables

As someone who has maintained Isotope table (complete) and/or Isotope table (divided) in the past, your input is needed. User:Greg L is proposing (and prematurely executing) a merge of the two tables, each about 50k, into one table of over 100k. I am opposing it, and no other editors have commented yet. Please come to Talk:Isotope table (complete) and offer your opinion. Thanks, JWB (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

V1adis1av: What do you think about option #3, which would keep the best of both worlds and would leave only one article? In case other options get added and the numbering gets changed, here is a historical version to show which option I’m talking about. Greg L (my talk) 20:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

atomic weights

Hey thanks for the help here, but next time make sure you add the {{cite journal}} template too. Nergaal (talk) Today, 11:32 am (UTC-4)

Mononuclidic elements

Hello. I note that you have extensively corrected the information on numbers of isotopes of each element in the article Isotope, and that you have left unchanged the statement that "27 mononuclidic elements have only a single stable isotope". Could you also look at the article Mononuclidic element which seems to say that there are 19 (plus 3 with one very long-lived isotope). Which of the two articles is correct please?

If somehow the difference in wording means that both are correct, then I think the difference needs further explanation. Dirac66 (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this note, I changed these words in the article Isotope. Of course, the elements with one stable and one long-lived radioactive nuclides cannot be considered mononuclidic. --V1adis1av (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PHYS

Hi, I notice that you had some interest in physics. Might I interest you in joining WikiProject Physics?Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 07:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your invitation, but I prefer not to join any formal communities. Is there a good reason for joining, if I can contribute to the physics articles without it? --V1adis1av (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the biggest reason to join IMO, is because the project acts as a central place to discuss things and provide lists of physics-related things. There are various behind-the-scenes things going on (like recruiting efforts, article assessment, etc...) but most people don't care about that, and simply edit articles as usual. But they still come to the physics project when they have questions, want opinions, notice problems with an article, wants to know if anyone can find a reference for something, and things like that. There's also the Article alerts for the project, which tells you about things Article for deletion, Peer reviews, etc. Mind you you can benefit from all this without "formally joining", but by placing your name on the member list, you let others people know how you can help them as well. For example if you know a lot about lasers, and list lasers as one of your interest/areas of expertise, then some users might ask you questions about them just to make sure they didn't write something false or misleading. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of neutrino experiments

I noticed that you left a message with regarding the expansion of that list with other neutrino experiments. I've merged the two lists together, so it should now be easier to expand it, add missing information, correct mistakes (if there are any), etc... Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of mononuclidic element

The Commission on Atomic Weights and Isotopic Abundances (CAWIA) of IUPAC defines an element as monoisotopic "if it has one and only one isotope that is either stable or has a half-life greater than 1×10¹⁰ a" (see [1], p. 708, where also the list is presented: "The following 21 elements are considered to be monoisotopic in the evaluation of the atomic weights: Be, F, Na, Al, P, Sc, Mn, Co, As, Y, Nb, Rh, I, Cs, Pr, Tb, Ho, Tm, Au, Bi, and Th."). Thus, vanadium, rubidium, indium, lanthanum, europium, lutetium and rhenium should be removed from the list, and bismuth should be add. The radioactivity of several nuclides of these elements has nothing to deal with their natural occurrence. --V1adis1av (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This commission does not distinguish between monoisotopic elements and mononuclidic elements, and says they are often used as synonyms. [2]. Well, they may be, but sometimes they are not. The list you give, and this commission gives, is basically what we give as the 22 mononuclidic elements, which are those used in metrology (they list one less than we do, so that needs to be harmonized-- we're going to have to remove Pa-231 or else mark it as not recognized by IUPAC as of 2003, but noted by NIST in 2005). The problem with IUPAC's sloppy usage is that it leaves no word for the elements that have only one STABLE isotope (what we've called, and may others call monoisotopics-- they have ONE and only one stable isotope-- like beryllium but surely not like thorium-- or bismuth).

So I'll do two things: 1) remove one nuclide from the mononuclidic list (Pa-231 unless NIST defends it strongly), 2) add the IUPAC reference you found above and note that IUPAC sometimes uses "monoisotopic" when they mean the more-specific word "mononuclidic" and that "monoisotopic" thus has TWO non-compatable definitions in use, out in the community. Thanks for bringing this up. I think IUPAC should have addressed the point! S B H arris 18:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am sure you will do the best. I will turn back to this discussion in a week or so -- unfortunately, I have no time now. Only I would like to emphasize that if we have two different points of view from so respectful institutions like NIST and IUPAC, both should be present in the article. Also take into account that a stable (observationally) isotope can once be found unstable after more sensitive measurements, and the element can became monoisotopic, in your variant of definition (like it had happen with Eu recently). --V1adis1av (talk) 11:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protactinium as a mononuclidic

Why protactinium is here? Two nuclides of Pa exist naturally, Pa-231 (family of U-235) and Pa-234/Pa-234m (family of U-238). --V1adis1av (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because Pa-234 has a half-live of 6 hours-- too short to be found naturally even as a decay product, or used in measurements of atomic weights, from nature nuclide sources. Enough Pa-231 exists in uranium beds (half life 32,000 years, about the same as plutonium-239) to be separable and useful as a mononuclidic standard, at least according to NIST, 2005. The half life limit is somewhat arbitrary, but 6 hours is certainly too small to find any weighable isotope in nature. S B H arris 18:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in a mineral with U/Th=1, a ratio of Pa-231/234 is 6.4e6 in equilibrium (taking into account half-lives of mothers and daughters and the isotopic abundance of U-235), and no influence on the atomic weight of Pa can be found from Pa-234. However, if U/Th is <<1 (it can be ~1% in some minerals), Pa231/234 is less also. --V1adis1av (talk) 11:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Sagittarius A* (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to AGN

Sagittarius B2 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Suzaku

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promethium (talk)

Прочитал твою (на русской ВП сам просишь, если что, всегда можно на "Вы") критику к моим замечаниям в статье о натуральном прометии. Вообще-то, я несогласен, хотя у меня есть смутное ощущение, что кандидат может понимать немножко лучше меня в своем профиле :) Надеюсь, дальнейшая дискуссия пойдет дружелюбно, я никого учить не собираюсь, а лишь надеюсь во всем разобраться при помощи профессионала. ОК?

Итак. Т_α/Т_β≈3,6×10⁸. Верно? Логаримф по основанию два от этого числа равен примерно 28,4. Другими словами, за то время, что альфа-распадется 1 атом (после 1 периода полураспада, как округление модели), бета-распадется 2^28,4 (≈350 000 000) атомов. То есть, если у нас найдется примерно 350 млн атомов прометия-145, один из них распадется альфа-распадом. На 1 моль (6×10²³ атомов) найдется 10¹⁵ таких атомов. А лютеция, между прочим, 2 кг в год делают, а сколько его спрятано еще... :) То есть предпосылки, по моему мнению, вполне есть. Хотя это и против здравого смысла (меня тоже смутило). Может, я в чем-то ошибся? С удовольствием выслушаю критику :)

Могу (позже) попробовать придраться к тому, что написал ты, только не сейчас, но вообще готов попробовать. (По-моему, такая странность кроется в том, что это математический закон, экстраполированный на реальную жизнь с ограничением на исключительно целые числа атомов...имей мы возможность дискутировать о наличии 0,01 атома, таких странностей бы не было)

Да, и вот еще. Хотя 1966 год и правда уже дряхловат, логика же не поддается времени, только точность измерений (ясен пень, улучшается, чем дальше живем). Плюс я не нашел того, что ты утвержадешь в книге (ни единого слова "бета"). Можно мне номер страницы или (а лучше - и) цитату? Даже если я и не прав, этот факт тожде можно было бы включить :)

Надеюсь, мы сможем мирно продолжить дискуссию здесь и по-русски. Just in case, if you got anything against, we may switch back English and go back to the original talkpage. OK?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Видишь ли, тут дело в том, что если ядро может распадаться по нескольким каналам с парциальными временами жизни τ₁, τ₂,..., τ_n, то общее время жизни τ удовлетворяет равенству 1/τ = 1/τ₁+1/τ₂+...+1/τ_n. Следовательно, общее время жизни всегда меньше, чем любое из парциальных времён жизни. (Можно точно такую формулу написать и для периодов полураспада, они отличаются от времён жизни только множителем ln2 = 0.69..., просто удобнее обсуждать именно с временем жизни). Формула почти очевидна, т.к. постоянная распада (т.е. количество распадов в единицу времени в пересчёте на одно ядро) λ=1/τ, и, следовательно, общая λ=Σλ_i, где λ_i -- парциальные постоянные распада; например, если по разным каналам имеем в среднем 4, 3 и 0.1 распада в год на ядро, то общее λ=7.1 распадов в год на ядро. Итак, допустим, у нас есть 1000 одинаковых атомов, каждый из которых с вероятностью 0.999 распадается по бета-каналу, и с вероятностью 0.001 испытывает альфа-распад. Это означает, что λ₁=0.999λ, и λ₂=0.001λ. Пусть для определённости общее время жизни 1 год (следовательно, парциальное время жизни для альфа-распада будет около 1000 лет), и в данной выборке случилось так, что через какое-то время 999 атомов испытали бета-распад, и остался один атом. Вот теперь посмотрим на этот атом и решим, как он распадётся и сколько проживёт. Думаешь, он обязан испытать альфа-распад и прожить 1000 лет? Нет, у него остались всё те же 999 шансов из 1000, что он распадётся по бета-каналу, причём проживёт он примерно 1 год (в среднем, конечно) от данного момента. Можно для ясности обратиться от атомов к людям; пусть в какой-то популяции люди живут в среднем 70 лет, причём из каждой тысячи человек в среднем 999 помирает от инфаркта, а один -- от случайного попадания кирпича в голову. Это можно чисто математически представить таким образом, что среднее время жизни для гибели от инфаркта равно 70/0.999, а для гибели от кирпича -- 70/0.001, т.е. 70 тысяч лет. Тем не менее очевидно, что если мы возьмём выборку из 1000 человек и подождём 70 тысяч лет (или даже всего тысячу лет), то ни одного из них мы, конечно, в живых не застанем. Атомы заменять людьми -- это, конечно, сильное упрощение, т.к. распределение сроков жизни у людей неэкспоненциально, но общий смысл, думаю, понятен -- если бы у нас был шанс отыскать в наше время созданные на заре времён атомы прометия, которым была уготована судьба испытать альфа-распад, то у нас был бы и шанс встретить на улице дожившего до наших дней престарелого неандертальца, которому суждено умереть от какой-то очень редкой болезни.

Насчёт книги давай попозже, она у меня на работе. --V1adis1av (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Переварил не сразу, но, думаю, понял. Для ясности: то есть вероятность альфа-распада в 0,001 не приведет к тому, что каждый тысячный атом претерпит именно альфа-распад (в идеале)?

Без проблем, пережду, сколько надо. Только дай знать (хотя бы и тут), как найдешь ее :)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Не совсем так. Если у нас вначале тысяча атомов, то из них через какое-то достаточно длинное время 999 испытают бета-распад, один -- альфа (в среднем, конечно). Сейчас я в командировке, книгу в понедельник посмотреть, к сожалению, не успел, когда вернусь и погляжу, отзовусь (пишу из аэропорта). --V1adis1av (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Отняло время, но я понял. Даже нашел ошибку в изначальных суждениях. Тут точно точка, осталось только разобраться с книгой :) Огромное спасибо. Удачи в командировке :) --R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Credo Reference account is approved

Good news! You are approved for access to 350 high quality reference resources through Credo Reference.

Fill out the survey with your username and an email address where your sign-up information can be sent. You'll receive the email within about two weeks.
If you need assistance, ask User:Ocaasi.
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Credo article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Credo pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Credo accounts/Citations.
Credo would love to hear feedback at WP:Credo accounts/Experiences
Show off your Credo access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Credo_userbox}} on your userpage
If you decide you no longer can or want to make use of your account, donate it back by adding your name here

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 19:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Credo account access has been sent to your email!

All editors who were approved for a Credo account and filled out the survey giving their username and email address were emailed Credo account access information. Please check your email.

If you didn't receive an email, or didn't fill out the survey, please email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com
If you tried out Credo and no longer want access, email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com

If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me. I hope you enjoy your account! User:Ocaasi 15:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied temporary list

I moved the Russian list to User:V1adis1av/List of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv people/Russian list; we typically stash this sort of thing in user space so they don't show up on search engines and the like. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 07:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks! --V1adis1av (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (November 2014)

Hello Wikimedians!

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

DeGruyter: 1000 new accounts for English and German-language research. Sign up on one of two language Wikipedias:
- English signup
- Deutsch signup
Fold3: 100 new accounts for American history and military archives
Scotland's People: 100 new accounts for Scottish genealogy database
British Newspaper Archive: expanded by 100+ accounts for British newspapers
Highbeam: 100+ remaining accounts for newspaper and magazine archives
Questia: 100+ remaining accounts for journal and social science articles
JSTOR: 100+ remaining accounts for journal archives

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).

This message was delivered via the Mass Message to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (December 2014)

Hello Wikimedians!

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

Elsevier - science and medicine journals and books
Royal Society of Chemistry - chemistry journals
Pelican Books - ebook monographs
Public Catalogue Foundation- art books

Other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team.00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).

This message was delivered via the Mass Message tool to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

A new reference tool

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

The Wikipedia Library

Call for Volunteers

The Wikipedia Library is expanding, and we need your help! With only a couple of hours per week, you can make a big difference in helping editors get access to reliable sources and other resources. Sign up for one of the following roles:

Account coordinators help distribute research accounts to editors.
Partner coordinators seek donations from new partners.
Outreach coordinators reach out to the community through blog posts, social media, and newsletters or notifications.
Technical coordinators advise on building tools to support the library's work.

Sign up to help here :)

Delivered on behalf of The Wikipedia Library by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hypercharge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charge. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, V1adis1av. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, V1adis1av. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, V1adis1av. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes, Issue 31

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 31, October – Novemeber 2018

OAWiki
Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
Global branches update
Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes, Issue 32

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 32, January – February 2019

#1Lib1Ref
New and expanded partners
Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
Global branches update
Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!

Proposed merge of isotope tables

Merger

atomic weights

Mononuclidic elements

WP:PHYS

List of neutrino experiments

Definition of mononuclidic element

Protactinium as a mononuclidic

Disambiguation link notification

Promethium (talk)

Your Credo Reference account is approved

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!

Your Credo account access has been sent to your email!

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Userfied temporary list

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (November 2014)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (December 2014)

A new reference tool

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Books & Bytes, Issue 31

Books & Bytes, Issue 32

Books & Bytes, Issue 33

Books & Bytes Issue 34, May – June 2019

Books & Bytes – Issue 35, July – August 2019

Silatch/Ilmarinen

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Books & Bytes – Issue 36

Books & Bytes – Issue 37

Issue 38, January – April 2020

Books & Bytes – Issue 39, May – June 2020

Books & Bytes – Issue 40

Books & Bytes – Issue 40

Books & Bytes – Issue 41

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Disambiguation link notification for December 9

Books & Bytes - Issue 42

Books & Bytes – Issue 42

Category:Hypothetical nuclei has been nominated for merging

Books & Bytes – Issue 43

Books & Bytes – Issue 45

Books & Bytes – Issue 46

Books & Bytes – Issue 47

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Books & Bytes – Issue 48

Books & Bytes – Issue 49

Books & Bytes – Issue 50

Books & Bytes – Issue 51

Books & Bytes – Issue 52

Books & Bytes – Issue 53

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Books & Bytes – Issue 54

Books & Bytes – Issue 55

Books & Bytes – Issue 56

Books & Bytes – Issue 57

Books & Bytes – Issue 58

Books & Bytes – Issue 59

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Books & Bytes – Issue 60

Books & Bytes – Issue 61

Books & Bytes – Issue 62

Nomination for deletion of Template:AtWt2021

Books & Bytes – Issue 63

Books & Bytes – Issue 64

Books & Bytes – Issue 65