![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Diaeresis (diacritic), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Noël. 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) 09:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Double sharp. As you know, there's that At FAC going on at the moment, but, in some time, it will be over, and there's also that ununseptium article waiting for the spotlight. I came to ask some help from you with that, I hope it won't be too difficult for you (it shouldn't be, but there may also be those RL issues, that's why I'm asking some time before I could actually start).
I think the article is great. It was a FAC in 2012, but it was failed due to prose quality. It's, however, not 2012 now, and some work will be required. I would love you to help me check things against accessibility. I was writing that article with non-technical readers in mind (and it actually turned out to be among the easiest to do so among all superheavies). I don't really expect to get that "oh, wow, I knew nothing, but now I seem to get it" from all readers, but I want it to be at least a stable "well, it's not easy, but I seem to get it." I think History and Naming are fine, and so is Nuclear stability, but those last two subsections need some look at; some examples of what I want to improve are "the valence electron configuration is predicted to be 7s27p5" (because what does that mean? We need to explain it) and "1.67 D" (we say it's a "relatively small" value, but how small, really? Some examples should help a little bit). And also, maybe you've seen some superheavies predictions since then?
I will also check the data available. Wil think how to merge the German experiment into the story (I actually love the story of the discovery the way I wrote it). In the end, will ask for a thorough copyedit.
But that will happen later. Again, the start is not scheduled for tomorrow. What do you think, could you help me with that?-- R8R ( talk) 13:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that I'm basically right. I just can't find my reliable references. If and when I find them I will reinstate my contribution. By the way, if you cube the ratio of the linear dimensions of lead/gold that you gave me, you get 0.55, and 11/19 = 0.58, which is pretty close. Garfield Garfield (posted 19:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC))
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of numeral systems, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Nash. 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) 08:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of numeral systems, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unary. 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) 08:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, do you do those tables all at once, or a piece at a time, or what? I'm trying something similar with tai shogi, a little at a time. OneWeirdDude ( talk) 00:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Concerning this undo action: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:Infobox_thorium&oldid=654788639&diff=prev Indeed, writing out unprecise digits is not correct. But replacing them by zeros (i.e. rounding off) is neither. Both 75380 y and 75383 y are incorrect. You may at most say that the former may suggest exactness in the last digit... though only with a probability of 90%.
In doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2003.11.001 I found 75.38(30) ky. I do not know where I got that extra '3' from; I may have read it wrongly, or I saw a different paper on this. Following this paper, correct would be writing 75.38(30) ky. I don't know if this notation is universal enough. A reminder for any reader of this page: this means 75.38±0.30 ky. The latter notation may clutter the info box too much. One may write 75.4 ky. Realising the uncertainty in the last digit, one may write 75 ky, but that throws away information.
What to do in cases like this: leave it as is, use parentheses, or use two or three significant digits? I'd choose the first in the main text, but there may be guidelines concerning the readability/simplicity for infoboxes?
Thanks for your critical undo: otherwise I would not have found out that the changed digit was not only unprecise but simply nowhere reported (I think). Hulten ( talk) 14:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
{{
infobox ununseptium}}
.
Double sharp (
talk)
15:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. As you might've seen in your watchlist, astatine has been promoted (yay), which brings us back to ununseptium. I want you to help me check the article for accessibility (well, we actually agreed to that some time before). I've got a couple of further thoughts for this article, which I'd like to discuss after the check is done. So, I would love to know whether you are available to start off any time soon (say, in Russia, there are many holidays in early May, so I can't be sure it's not the case in your country, plus you might be busy and stuff). Also, didn't you check if there are some new/other SHE reports?-- R8R ( talk) 18:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
If criteria to shown proposals in Wikipedia is acceptance in public, then proposal by Bruce Martin should also be excluded as this proposal also is not widely accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valdisvi ( talk • contribs) 15:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was
Cas Liber (
submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on
Corona Borealis and
Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.
Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.
The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan ( talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa ( talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · email) 16:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Double sharp. I'm sorry I abandoned the Radium GAN. I was in the process of full-on burnout over wikipedia (which may or may not be over, but at least I'm back editing now) and I left you hanging. I see the review was closed as failing, and that is completely my fault. You did good work there (as you've done in every article I've seen of yours) and it sucks that you'll end up having to take another bite at the apple because of me. I can't make promises to help in the future (c.f. the burnout) but please let me know if you need a hand with anything and I'll do my best to be of some use. Protonk ( talk) 14:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to ask you to see if a para from an article on a Russain politician is neutral. Neutrality is not really an issue when you're writing about something like elements; but when it comes to people, things are different. Actually, I'd like to eventually ask you to help me check the article, whether it is neutral or not (but not now, since even just adding raw material is not over, or even close to that); could you help me with that? (In general, I want to do the whole check later, but that para just bugs me.)
Here is the para (second in the Election results subsection if you need context):
Also, since I came here: After I am done with adding content to the article (which will require some time, because when it comes to people, you have to do more research, I think), when it comes to polishing it, I may, if circumstances permit this, write an element article, or polish one. In particular, lead was on my mind; it is a GA we wrote. The GA reviewer said it was close to a FA (however, to be fair, I also remember being skeptical to that assertion, but we would check it anew anyway); so, would you be interested in FAing it, or a task like that? So, again, not now, and not within a month or two (or three, or even more, depending on whether I will be available for that or not)-- R8R ( talk) 00:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@Double sharp Why did you delete my photo of francium? Yours Truly ( talk) 11:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
The image for Radon actually came from the same source as the image for Polonium ( Ralph Lapp).
-- LL221W ( talk) 06:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Greetings: I've often been puzzled I've had to argue with people who were otherwise extremely musically sophisticated, much more musically sophisticated than me in fact, regarding what I nonetheless regarded as an elementary and obvious fact which is that functionally there can only be 17 scale degrees. Namely in major (in the order of the circle of 5ths): V♭, II♭, VI♭, III♭, VII♭, IV, I, V, II, VI, III, VII, IV♯, I♯, V♯, II♯, VI♯, and in minor: vii♭, iv♭, i♭, v♭, ii♭, vi, iii, vii, iv, i, v, ii, vi♯, iii♯, vii♯, iv♯, i♯. Which is not to say that in C major (for example) a consistent spelling scheme might not require you to use (for example in some chromatic sequences) note spellings like F♭, C♭, E♯, B♯. But to say this therefore requires one to accept (in major) scale degrees IV♭, I♭, III♯, VII♯ seems to me to be an absurdity. What do you think? Contact Basemetal here 15:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey, I've got a cheaty solution: chains of German augmented sixths resolving to each other. If spelt correctly, the roots have to be separated by minor seconds, which makes them get silly quickly (e.g. C, D♭, E
, F
, G
...) But this may be considered cheating, as I've never seen this carried out to a significant extent. The most I've seen is one level (German sixth of German sixth), which you can find for example in the introduction to Schubert's Sehnsucht, D 879.
Another cheaty solution is chains of V/V/V/V... The record in this kind of thing is surely Alkan's Morte, Op. 15 No. 3, with at b.369 and following in my edition ( available on IMSLP) goes through a full circle of fifths starting and ending on E-flat. (That piece also has tuplets over the barline: b.223-224 and 303-304.) Double sharp ( talk) 23:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
H-Pi incidentally, in their exposition of
41 equal temperament, suggests yet another symbol for the triple sharp: ∗ (thus F∗ is a minor second below G
, for example). However everyone seems to agree that the symbol for the triple flat should be
.
Double sharp (
talk)
20:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm reacting here to something you said at the RD.
I don't know why there's no coherent accepted system for qualifying intervals in 24ET but I've noticed that naming intervals based only on their number of quarter-steps (as the table you referenced does) is as incoherent as doing the same thing in 12ET. Those who do seem to have overlooked the fact that an interval in a musical system is not only the physical ratio of the frequencies of two pitches but depends on the names of the pitches in that particular system and that the names are meant to convey more information than just pitch.
For example I don't think it makes sense to ask what the name of the interval made up of 7 quarter-steps is (which is what that table does). The name of the interval C-E
cannot be the same as that of the intervals C-F
or C-D
even though they are all made up of 7 quarter-steps and that will be true as long as the system uses a naming scheme based on seven diatonic letter names (A, B, C, D, E, F, G) and their accidentals (
, ♭,
,
, ♯,
, etc) It would be different if the system was using 12 letter names or 24 letter names. Only in the last case would an interval have a unique name based on how many quarter-steps it spans. Whether a naming scheme (and more generally a notation system) is actually the best fit for the structure of the language, of the musical works, that's another question. (Btw did you note the inconsistency in the "music" template arguments? It should be either "halfflat"/"threehalfflat" or "quarterflat"/"threequaterflat" but they mix the two!)
Incidentally in my post at the RD I said that our usual notation system (7 letter names and their accidentals) with its accompanying system for qualifying interval and its overall logic presupposes a Pythagorean tuning. That was sloppy. In fact I don't think it has anything to do with tuning per se (well, at least, up to certain constraints, eg that system is not really designed to accommodate say two kinds of majors 3rds, eg 81/64 and 5/4): after all we're still using it even though we've moved essentially to 12ET for about 300 years. I think it has more to do with the naming scheme as I argue above. As long as we use our "diatonic" note naming scheme to name notes (that is only the diatonic tones of a key have their own names while the chromatic tones are named as "inflexions" of the diatonic tones), the intervals will have to be named using our usual system of name (unison, second, third, etc.) plus qualifier (major, minor, augmented, diminished, etc) whether we use 12ET or 53ET or a Pythagorean tuning, etc.
Contact Basemetal here 16:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
5th line | X5 | |
---|---|---|
1 quartertone | ||
4th space | X0 | |
4 quartertones | ||
4th line | X4 | |
5 quartertones | ||
3rd space | X3 | |
5 quartertones | ||
3rd line | X2 | |
4 quartertones | ||
2nd space | X6 | |
1 quartertone | ||
2nd line | X1 | |
4 quartertones | ||
1st space | X5 | |
1 quartertone | ||
1st line | X0 |
Treating 24-ET as a 19-limit system that does not handle the primes 5, 7, or 13 (i.e. 2.3.11.17.19), the quarter-tone scale is: 1/1, 33/32 or 34/33, 17/16 or 18/17, 12/11, 9/8, 22/19, 19/16, 11/9, 24/19, 22/17, 4/3, 11/8, 17/12 or 24/17, 16/11, 3/2, 17/11, 19/12, 18/11, 32/19, 19/11, 16/9, 11/6, 17/9 or 32/17, 33/17 or 64/33. (This scheme is from Xenharmonic Wiki, although I added 24/17.) Double sharp ( talk) 15:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Double sharp. I'm just posting to let you know that Moons of Neptune – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for August 7. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 ( Talk) 02:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I wanted to know your opinion on something. If vulcanoid asteroids were to be discovered, would that result in Mercury being reclassified as a dwarf planet due to failing to "clear the neighborhood" of debris? DN-boards1 ( talk) 20:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Pallas and Hygiea are most certainly dwarf planet candidates. -Images of Pallas taken by Hubble show an ellipsoid. It is a rounded object it seems, the question is whether it's in HE. -Both Pallas and Hygiea are of suitable size to be in HE, therefore they are most likely in HE. The only exceptions IIRC are Iapetus and Proteus. All other objects of ~400km or greater IIRC are rounded by their own gravity or at the very least round (not necessarily HE). The odds are that Pallas and Hygiea are indeed dwarf planets. I do not understand why you continue this debate with me. It is generally accepted that Hygiea and Pallas are the most likely asteroids to be dwarf planets. DN-boards1 ( talk) 08:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I asked recently at the Reference Desk (section Humanities because it was about a movie) if the melody of the song in the fiery furnace in Eisenstein's film "Ivan the Terrible" Part Two, was written by Prokofiev or was the traditional tune of a pre-existing Orthodox hymn. According to an article in the Pravda, one respondent supplied the link to, the words of the song are not traditional but were written by Eisenstein, hence I concluded Prokofiev wrote that tune, as he could have borrowed the melody only if the prosody of Eisenstein's text closely matched that of a traditional hymn, which would have been quite a coincidence. However it is obvious Prokofiev wanted his tune to sound like a traditional hymn. When you listen to it, is there something you've heard elsewhere it reminds you of? If you've never heard the tune in Eisenstein's film, the links are here. Contact Basemetal here 19:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The internal angle of an octagon is 135°, so the external angle (in my understanding) is 360° -135° = 225°, and the sum of the external angles is 8 x 225° = 1800°. Have I missed something? HuPi ( talk) 22:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think I'll get too much time to improve the article anytime soon (who knows, though), but to make it easier (at least for me, but surely this'll help you as well if you're in), we would need to conduct a review and see what exactly needs to be done, and I'd love to do it sometime soon. Even if something changed so much you're going to say you'd love to work on this article, but aren't able to (yet I hope this is not the case), I'd still use your help with reviewing it. As Henry Ford once said, "Nothing is particularly hard if you divide it into small jobs," and to get this one done, I would really use breaking the task into pieces. When this is done, it'll be easier to edit the article, and we won't be limited to lengthy sessions, for which we may have no available time, and maybe we'll even able to edit it on the go, if we wish to do so. Are you able to take part anytime soon?-- R8R ( talk) 17:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
About a year ago you helped me translate this article from the French Wikipedia (I have a dynamic IP). Hope all is well. I am currently starting a new film-related project here. Would it be possible for you to please kindly translate these two short articles from the French Wikipedia? Thank you so very much. 46.116.193.166 ( talk) 10:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Are you at ACS 2015 this year? I'm giving a talk later today and figured you might actually be in the audience. This can also be chalked up to my gross over-estimation of how many people go to discipline specific conferences. :) Protonk ( talk) 15:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
It's on! I hope to get a comment form you.-- R8R ( talk) 19:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.
In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far
Casliber (
submissions) in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was
Coemgenus (
submissions) at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.
The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:
The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.
Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!
Figureskatingfan ( talk · contribs), Miyagawa ( talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs) 11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Do you plan to go for FA? On my first look, this wouldn't require much work, given the current state of the article! (Maybe the most difficult part would be to get anyone attracted to review it during the FAC :) I'm currently planning to go hunt some reviewers during the third decade of the month, if nobody shows up.)-- R8R ( talk) 18:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I saw you finished the Ra GA comments. LOL about the tabloid: I don't think I wrote that (as you can see I haven't been looking at it since a year ago, when I got it from C to B-ish). That should be my next project, after we see what happens with E119 (and maybe E120) GANs. (One step closer to making every radioactive element a GA!) Double sharp ( talk) 14:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Square number, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zeroth. 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) 12:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
re: Talk:List of monarchs in Britain by length of reign § Llywelyn of Gwynedd, maybe we should write 1995-01(12)? YBG ( talk) 03:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Uus FAC is kinda on, and Nergaal writes, "The isotopes numbers in the infobox are lacking a ref." I am confident this has been discussed before; and it was decided to assume the refs are in the main Isotopes of... article. But I can't find it. Do you remember it? Could you help me find it?-- R8R ( talk) 16:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi! I got a few points:
If you list 244Pu, 240Np, 240Pu, and 236U as existing, than 240U exists, too.
If 237Np exists in nature, than the Np series should exist, too, though in extremely negligible amounts. The data from 1952 seem to have identified 237Np, 233U, 229Th, and 225Ac.
226Th and 232U may be double beta decay products of 226Ra and 232Th, but the article Double beta decay does not state anything about them.
237U is sometimes mentioned as an intermediate in the chain of 237Np formation, e.g. [3] (in Russian). Burzuchius ( talk) 14:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Ununennium 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
Stigmatella aurantiaca --
Stigmatella aurantiaca (
talk)
02:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
For your edit to my sandbox re transition metals. It occurred to me this morning that some of the platinum metals aren't known for their structural strength so I'll have to fix that. It is surprisingly hard to summarize what the transition metals are without immediately talking about d orbitals. Sandbh ( talk) 02:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2147483647, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Clausen. 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) 10:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | Hello, Double sharp.
Ununennium, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's
Main Page as part of
Did you know
![]() |
Please see my comment on your edit on the discussion page, thanks! Nicole Sharp ( talk) 15:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The article
Ununennium you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Ununennium for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Stigmatella aurantiaca --
Stigmatella aurantiaca (
talk)
03:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
At 12:41, 15 September 2013 and 12:20, 15 September 2013, you made two consecutive edits to Isotopes of copernicium. You added a new <ref name=04Og01> on top of the existing one, and then ref'd it more (<ref name=04Og01/>). It would be difficult for any other user to sort out this mess. Would you kindly clean this up? — Anomalocaris ( talk) 07:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Look at the article. It's saying that the piece actually changes key rather than just a chord change. Georgia guy ( talk) 14:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The FAC is over (I got the star, yay! thanks for your input); do you think you'd be able to slowly (or quickly, which would be even better) fix lead and the issues raised on its talkpage soon?
Also, during the FAC, the question of "element X vs. ununsmthium" has been raised again; I admit I was disappointed after the request of renaming per consensus was brought down to regular requests and everyone opposed, even those who would support it otherwise, so I gave up. Now may be a time to reconsider this; what would you say?-- R8R ( talk) 15:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Deletion to Quality Award | |
For your contributions to bring Copernicium (prior candidate for deletion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ununbium) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Deletion to Quality Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! — Cirt ( talk) 01:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Deletion to Quality Award | |
For your contributions to bring Ununtrium (prior candidate for deletion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ununtrium) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Deletion to Quality Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! — Cirt ( talk) 01:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Deletion to Quality Award | |
For your contributions to bring Flerovium (prior candidate for deletion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ununquadium) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Deletion to Quality Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! — Cirt ( talk) 02:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC) |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Triacontadigon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Isogonal. 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) 11:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I started the work on lead; for now, I am concerned with chemistry. Are you ready to join me (with chemistry or anything else, since I already outlined the future structure of the section; however, feel free to tell me if I am taking too many cherries from the pie)?-- R8R ( talk) 17:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
WikiCup 2015 is now in the books! Congrats to our finalists and winners, and to everyone who took part in this year's competition.
This year's results were an exact replica of last year's competition. For the second year in a row, the 2015 WikiCup champion is
Godot13 (
submissions) (
FP bonus points). All of his points were earned for an impressive 253 featured pictures and their associated bonus points (5060 and 1695, respectively). His entries constituted scans of currency from all over the world and scans of medallions awarded to participants of the U.S. Space program.
Cwmhiraeth (
submissions) came in second place; she earned by far the most bonus points (4082), for 4 featured articles, 15 good articles, and 147 DYKs, mostly about in her field of expertise, natural science.
Cas Liber (
submissions), a finalist every year since 2010, came in third, with 2379 points.
Our newcomer award, presented to the best-performing new competitor in the WikiCup, goes to
Rationalobserver (
submissions). Everyone should be very proud of the work they accomplished. We will announce our other award winners soon.
A full list of our award winners are:
We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2016 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.
Figureskatingfan ( talk · contribs · logs), Miyagawa ( talk · contribs · logs) and Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · logs) 18:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | On 17 November 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ununennium, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that ununennium is the element with the lowest atomic number that has not yet been synthesized? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ununennium. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Diaeresis (diacritic), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Noël. 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) 09:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Double sharp. As you know, there's that At FAC going on at the moment, but, in some time, it will be over, and there's also that ununseptium article waiting for the spotlight. I came to ask some help from you with that, I hope it won't be too difficult for you (it shouldn't be, but there may also be those RL issues, that's why I'm asking some time before I could actually start).
I think the article is great. It was a FAC in 2012, but it was failed due to prose quality. It's, however, not 2012 now, and some work will be required. I would love you to help me check things against accessibility. I was writing that article with non-technical readers in mind (and it actually turned out to be among the easiest to do so among all superheavies). I don't really expect to get that "oh, wow, I knew nothing, but now I seem to get it" from all readers, but I want it to be at least a stable "well, it's not easy, but I seem to get it." I think History and Naming are fine, and so is Nuclear stability, but those last two subsections need some look at; some examples of what I want to improve are "the valence electron configuration is predicted to be 7s27p5" (because what does that mean? We need to explain it) and "1.67 D" (we say it's a "relatively small" value, but how small, really? Some examples should help a little bit). And also, maybe you've seen some superheavies predictions since then?
I will also check the data available. Wil think how to merge the German experiment into the story (I actually love the story of the discovery the way I wrote it). In the end, will ask for a thorough copyedit.
But that will happen later. Again, the start is not scheduled for tomorrow. What do you think, could you help me with that?-- R8R ( talk) 13:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that I'm basically right. I just can't find my reliable references. If and when I find them I will reinstate my contribution. By the way, if you cube the ratio of the linear dimensions of lead/gold that you gave me, you get 0.55, and 11/19 = 0.58, which is pretty close. Garfield Garfield (posted 19:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC))
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of numeral systems, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Nash. 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) 08:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of numeral systems, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unary. 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) 08:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, do you do those tables all at once, or a piece at a time, or what? I'm trying something similar with tai shogi, a little at a time. OneWeirdDude ( talk) 00:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Concerning this undo action: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:Infobox_thorium&oldid=654788639&diff=prev Indeed, writing out unprecise digits is not correct. But replacing them by zeros (i.e. rounding off) is neither. Both 75380 y and 75383 y are incorrect. You may at most say that the former may suggest exactness in the last digit... though only with a probability of 90%.
In doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2003.11.001 I found 75.38(30) ky. I do not know where I got that extra '3' from; I may have read it wrongly, or I saw a different paper on this. Following this paper, correct would be writing 75.38(30) ky. I don't know if this notation is universal enough. A reminder for any reader of this page: this means 75.38±0.30 ky. The latter notation may clutter the info box too much. One may write 75.4 ky. Realising the uncertainty in the last digit, one may write 75 ky, but that throws away information.
What to do in cases like this: leave it as is, use parentheses, or use two or three significant digits? I'd choose the first in the main text, but there may be guidelines concerning the readability/simplicity for infoboxes?
Thanks for your critical undo: otherwise I would not have found out that the changed digit was not only unprecise but simply nowhere reported (I think). Hulten ( talk) 14:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
{{
infobox ununseptium}}
.
Double sharp (
talk)
15:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. As you might've seen in your watchlist, astatine has been promoted (yay), which brings us back to ununseptium. I want you to help me check the article for accessibility (well, we actually agreed to that some time before). I've got a couple of further thoughts for this article, which I'd like to discuss after the check is done. So, I would love to know whether you are available to start off any time soon (say, in Russia, there are many holidays in early May, so I can't be sure it's not the case in your country, plus you might be busy and stuff). Also, didn't you check if there are some new/other SHE reports?-- R8R ( talk) 18:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
If criteria to shown proposals in Wikipedia is acceptance in public, then proposal by Bruce Martin should also be excluded as this proposal also is not widely accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valdisvi ( talk • contribs) 15:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was
Cas Liber (
submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on
Corona Borealis and
Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.
Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.
The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan ( talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa ( talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · email) 16:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Double sharp. I'm sorry I abandoned the Radium GAN. I was in the process of full-on burnout over wikipedia (which may or may not be over, but at least I'm back editing now) and I left you hanging. I see the review was closed as failing, and that is completely my fault. You did good work there (as you've done in every article I've seen of yours) and it sucks that you'll end up having to take another bite at the apple because of me. I can't make promises to help in the future (c.f. the burnout) but please let me know if you need a hand with anything and I'll do my best to be of some use. Protonk ( talk) 14:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to ask you to see if a para from an article on a Russain politician is neutral. Neutrality is not really an issue when you're writing about something like elements; but when it comes to people, things are different. Actually, I'd like to eventually ask you to help me check the article, whether it is neutral or not (but not now, since even just adding raw material is not over, or even close to that); could you help me with that? (In general, I want to do the whole check later, but that para just bugs me.)
Here is the para (second in the Election results subsection if you need context):
Also, since I came here: After I am done with adding content to the article (which will require some time, because when it comes to people, you have to do more research, I think), when it comes to polishing it, I may, if circumstances permit this, write an element article, or polish one. In particular, lead was on my mind; it is a GA we wrote. The GA reviewer said it was close to a FA (however, to be fair, I also remember being skeptical to that assertion, but we would check it anew anyway); so, would you be interested in FAing it, or a task like that? So, again, not now, and not within a month or two (or three, or even more, depending on whether I will be available for that or not)-- R8R ( talk) 00:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@Double sharp Why did you delete my photo of francium? Yours Truly ( talk) 11:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
The image for Radon actually came from the same source as the image for Polonium ( Ralph Lapp).
-- LL221W ( talk) 06:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Greetings: I've often been puzzled I've had to argue with people who were otherwise extremely musically sophisticated, much more musically sophisticated than me in fact, regarding what I nonetheless regarded as an elementary and obvious fact which is that functionally there can only be 17 scale degrees. Namely in major (in the order of the circle of 5ths): V♭, II♭, VI♭, III♭, VII♭, IV, I, V, II, VI, III, VII, IV♯, I♯, V♯, II♯, VI♯, and in minor: vii♭, iv♭, i♭, v♭, ii♭, vi, iii, vii, iv, i, v, ii, vi♯, iii♯, vii♯, iv♯, i♯. Which is not to say that in C major (for example) a consistent spelling scheme might not require you to use (for example in some chromatic sequences) note spellings like F♭, C♭, E♯, B♯. But to say this therefore requires one to accept (in major) scale degrees IV♭, I♭, III♯, VII♯ seems to me to be an absurdity. What do you think? Contact Basemetal here 15:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey, I've got a cheaty solution: chains of German augmented sixths resolving to each other. If spelt correctly, the roots have to be separated by minor seconds, which makes them get silly quickly (e.g. C, D♭, E
, F
, G
...) But this may be considered cheating, as I've never seen this carried out to a significant extent. The most I've seen is one level (German sixth of German sixth), which you can find for example in the introduction to Schubert's Sehnsucht, D 879.
Another cheaty solution is chains of V/V/V/V... The record in this kind of thing is surely Alkan's Morte, Op. 15 No. 3, with at b.369 and following in my edition ( available on IMSLP) goes through a full circle of fifths starting and ending on E-flat. (That piece also has tuplets over the barline: b.223-224 and 303-304.) Double sharp ( talk) 23:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
H-Pi incidentally, in their exposition of
41 equal temperament, suggests yet another symbol for the triple sharp: ∗ (thus F∗ is a minor second below G
, for example). However everyone seems to agree that the symbol for the triple flat should be
.
Double sharp (
talk)
20:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm reacting here to something you said at the RD.
I don't know why there's no coherent accepted system for qualifying intervals in 24ET but I've noticed that naming intervals based only on their number of quarter-steps (as the table you referenced does) is as incoherent as doing the same thing in 12ET. Those who do seem to have overlooked the fact that an interval in a musical system is not only the physical ratio of the frequencies of two pitches but depends on the names of the pitches in that particular system and that the names are meant to convey more information than just pitch.
For example I don't think it makes sense to ask what the name of the interval made up of 7 quarter-steps is (which is what that table does). The name of the interval C-E
cannot be the same as that of the intervals C-F
or C-D
even though they are all made up of 7 quarter-steps and that will be true as long as the system uses a naming scheme based on seven diatonic letter names (A, B, C, D, E, F, G) and their accidentals (
, ♭,
,
, ♯,
, etc) It would be different if the system was using 12 letter names or 24 letter names. Only in the last case would an interval have a unique name based on how many quarter-steps it spans. Whether a naming scheme (and more generally a notation system) is actually the best fit for the structure of the language, of the musical works, that's another question. (Btw did you note the inconsistency in the "music" template arguments? It should be either "halfflat"/"threehalfflat" or "quarterflat"/"threequaterflat" but they mix the two!)
Incidentally in my post at the RD I said that our usual notation system (7 letter names and their accidentals) with its accompanying system for qualifying interval and its overall logic presupposes a Pythagorean tuning. That was sloppy. In fact I don't think it has anything to do with tuning per se (well, at least, up to certain constraints, eg that system is not really designed to accommodate say two kinds of majors 3rds, eg 81/64 and 5/4): after all we're still using it even though we've moved essentially to 12ET for about 300 years. I think it has more to do with the naming scheme as I argue above. As long as we use our "diatonic" note naming scheme to name notes (that is only the diatonic tones of a key have their own names while the chromatic tones are named as "inflexions" of the diatonic tones), the intervals will have to be named using our usual system of name (unison, second, third, etc.) plus qualifier (major, minor, augmented, diminished, etc) whether we use 12ET or 53ET or a Pythagorean tuning, etc.
Contact Basemetal here 16:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
5th line | X5 | |
---|---|---|
1 quartertone | ||
4th space | X0 | |
4 quartertones | ||
4th line | X4 | |
5 quartertones | ||
3rd space | X3 | |
5 quartertones | ||
3rd line | X2 | |
4 quartertones | ||
2nd space | X6 | |
1 quartertone | ||
2nd line | X1 | |
4 quartertones | ||
1st space | X5 | |
1 quartertone | ||
1st line | X0 |
Treating 24-ET as a 19-limit system that does not handle the primes 5, 7, or 13 (i.e. 2.3.11.17.19), the quarter-tone scale is: 1/1, 33/32 or 34/33, 17/16 or 18/17, 12/11, 9/8, 22/19, 19/16, 11/9, 24/19, 22/17, 4/3, 11/8, 17/12 or 24/17, 16/11, 3/2, 17/11, 19/12, 18/11, 32/19, 19/11, 16/9, 11/6, 17/9 or 32/17, 33/17 or 64/33. (This scheme is from Xenharmonic Wiki, although I added 24/17.) Double sharp ( talk) 15:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Double sharp. I'm just posting to let you know that Moons of Neptune – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for August 7. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 ( Talk) 02:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I wanted to know your opinion on something. If vulcanoid asteroids were to be discovered, would that result in Mercury being reclassified as a dwarf planet due to failing to "clear the neighborhood" of debris? DN-boards1 ( talk) 20:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Pallas and Hygiea are most certainly dwarf planet candidates. -Images of Pallas taken by Hubble show an ellipsoid. It is a rounded object it seems, the question is whether it's in HE. -Both Pallas and Hygiea are of suitable size to be in HE, therefore they are most likely in HE. The only exceptions IIRC are Iapetus and Proteus. All other objects of ~400km or greater IIRC are rounded by their own gravity or at the very least round (not necessarily HE). The odds are that Pallas and Hygiea are indeed dwarf planets. I do not understand why you continue this debate with me. It is generally accepted that Hygiea and Pallas are the most likely asteroids to be dwarf planets. DN-boards1 ( talk) 08:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I asked recently at the Reference Desk (section Humanities because it was about a movie) if the melody of the song in the fiery furnace in Eisenstein's film "Ivan the Terrible" Part Two, was written by Prokofiev or was the traditional tune of a pre-existing Orthodox hymn. According to an article in the Pravda, one respondent supplied the link to, the words of the song are not traditional but were written by Eisenstein, hence I concluded Prokofiev wrote that tune, as he could have borrowed the melody only if the prosody of Eisenstein's text closely matched that of a traditional hymn, which would have been quite a coincidence. However it is obvious Prokofiev wanted his tune to sound like a traditional hymn. When you listen to it, is there something you've heard elsewhere it reminds you of? If you've never heard the tune in Eisenstein's film, the links are here. Contact Basemetal here 19:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The internal angle of an octagon is 135°, so the external angle (in my understanding) is 360° -135° = 225°, and the sum of the external angles is 8 x 225° = 1800°. Have I missed something? HuPi ( talk) 22:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think I'll get too much time to improve the article anytime soon (who knows, though), but to make it easier (at least for me, but surely this'll help you as well if you're in), we would need to conduct a review and see what exactly needs to be done, and I'd love to do it sometime soon. Even if something changed so much you're going to say you'd love to work on this article, but aren't able to (yet I hope this is not the case), I'd still use your help with reviewing it. As Henry Ford once said, "Nothing is particularly hard if you divide it into small jobs," and to get this one done, I would really use breaking the task into pieces. When this is done, it'll be easier to edit the article, and we won't be limited to lengthy sessions, for which we may have no available time, and maybe we'll even able to edit it on the go, if we wish to do so. Are you able to take part anytime soon?-- R8R ( talk) 17:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
About a year ago you helped me translate this article from the French Wikipedia (I have a dynamic IP). Hope all is well. I am currently starting a new film-related project here. Would it be possible for you to please kindly translate these two short articles from the French Wikipedia? Thank you so very much. 46.116.193.166 ( talk) 10:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Are you at ACS 2015 this year? I'm giving a talk later today and figured you might actually be in the audience. This can also be chalked up to my gross over-estimation of how many people go to discipline specific conferences. :) Protonk ( talk) 15:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
It's on! I hope to get a comment form you.-- R8R ( talk) 19:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.
In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far
Casliber (
submissions) in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was
Coemgenus (
submissions) at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.
The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:
The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.
Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!
Figureskatingfan ( talk · contribs), Miyagawa ( talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs) 11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Do you plan to go for FA? On my first look, this wouldn't require much work, given the current state of the article! (Maybe the most difficult part would be to get anyone attracted to review it during the FAC :) I'm currently planning to go hunt some reviewers during the third decade of the month, if nobody shows up.)-- R8R ( talk) 18:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I saw you finished the Ra GA comments. LOL about the tabloid: I don't think I wrote that (as you can see I haven't been looking at it since a year ago, when I got it from C to B-ish). That should be my next project, after we see what happens with E119 (and maybe E120) GANs. (One step closer to making every radioactive element a GA!) Double sharp ( talk) 14:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Square number, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zeroth. 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) 12:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
re: Talk:List of monarchs in Britain by length of reign § Llywelyn of Gwynedd, maybe we should write 1995-01(12)? YBG ( talk) 03:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Uus FAC is kinda on, and Nergaal writes, "The isotopes numbers in the infobox are lacking a ref." I am confident this has been discussed before; and it was decided to assume the refs are in the main Isotopes of... article. But I can't find it. Do you remember it? Could you help me find it?-- R8R ( talk) 16:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi! I got a few points:
If you list 244Pu, 240Np, 240Pu, and 236U as existing, than 240U exists, too.
If 237Np exists in nature, than the Np series should exist, too, though in extremely negligible amounts. The data from 1952 seem to have identified 237Np, 233U, 229Th, and 225Ac.
226Th and 232U may be double beta decay products of 226Ra and 232Th, but the article Double beta decay does not state anything about them.
237U is sometimes mentioned as an intermediate in the chain of 237Np formation, e.g. [3] (in Russian). Burzuchius ( talk) 14:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Ununennium 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
Stigmatella aurantiaca --
Stigmatella aurantiaca (
talk)
02:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
For your edit to my sandbox re transition metals. It occurred to me this morning that some of the platinum metals aren't known for their structural strength so I'll have to fix that. It is surprisingly hard to summarize what the transition metals are without immediately talking about d orbitals. Sandbh ( talk) 02:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2147483647, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Clausen. 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) 10:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | Hello, Double sharp.
Ununennium, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's
Main Page as part of
Did you know
![]() |
Please see my comment on your edit on the discussion page, thanks! Nicole Sharp ( talk) 15:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The article
Ununennium you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Ununennium for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Stigmatella aurantiaca --
Stigmatella aurantiaca (
talk)
03:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
At 12:41, 15 September 2013 and 12:20, 15 September 2013, you made two consecutive edits to Isotopes of copernicium. You added a new <ref name=04Og01> on top of the existing one, and then ref'd it more (<ref name=04Og01/>). It would be difficult for any other user to sort out this mess. Would you kindly clean this up? — Anomalocaris ( talk) 07:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Look at the article. It's saying that the piece actually changes key rather than just a chord change. Georgia guy ( talk) 14:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The FAC is over (I got the star, yay! thanks for your input); do you think you'd be able to slowly (or quickly, which would be even better) fix lead and the issues raised on its talkpage soon?
Also, during the FAC, the question of "element X vs. ununsmthium" has been raised again; I admit I was disappointed after the request of renaming per consensus was brought down to regular requests and everyone opposed, even those who would support it otherwise, so I gave up. Now may be a time to reconsider this; what would you say?-- R8R ( talk) 15:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Deletion to Quality Award | |
For your contributions to bring Copernicium (prior candidate for deletion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ununbium) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Deletion to Quality Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! — Cirt ( talk) 01:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Deletion to Quality Award | |
For your contributions to bring Ununtrium (prior candidate for deletion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ununtrium) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Deletion to Quality Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! — Cirt ( talk) 01:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Deletion to Quality Award | |
For your contributions to bring Flerovium (prior candidate for deletion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ununquadium) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Deletion to Quality Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! — Cirt ( talk) 02:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC) |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Triacontadigon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Isogonal. 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) 11:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I started the work on lead; for now, I am concerned with chemistry. Are you ready to join me (with chemistry or anything else, since I already outlined the future structure of the section; however, feel free to tell me if I am taking too many cherries from the pie)?-- R8R ( talk) 17:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
WikiCup 2015 is now in the books! Congrats to our finalists and winners, and to everyone who took part in this year's competition.
This year's results were an exact replica of last year's competition. For the second year in a row, the 2015 WikiCup champion is
Godot13 (
submissions) (
FP bonus points). All of his points were earned for an impressive 253 featured pictures and their associated bonus points (5060 and 1695, respectively). His entries constituted scans of currency from all over the world and scans of medallions awarded to participants of the U.S. Space program.
Cwmhiraeth (
submissions) came in second place; she earned by far the most bonus points (4082), for 4 featured articles, 15 good articles, and 147 DYKs, mostly about in her field of expertise, natural science.
Cas Liber (
submissions), a finalist every year since 2010, came in third, with 2379 points.
Our newcomer award, presented to the best-performing new competitor in the WikiCup, goes to
Rationalobserver (
submissions). Everyone should be very proud of the work they accomplished. We will announce our other award winners soon.
A full list of our award winners are:
We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2016 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.
Figureskatingfan ( talk · contribs · logs), Miyagawa ( talk · contribs · logs) and Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · logs) 18:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | On 17 November 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ununennium, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that ununennium is the element with the lowest atomic number that has not yet been synthesized? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ununennium. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |