Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, MadeOfAtoms! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.
If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Polyamorph ( talk) 10:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Keep up the good work. All articles benefit from a new set of eyes, especially longer ones (articles, that is). Agreed: references to answers.com and many related "regurgitators" should be removed.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 13:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
(This represents my experience only, and it is not entirely serious.)
– MadeOfAtoms ( talk) 09:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the efforts of taming some of our many articles. I have long been taught, by stern organic colleagues, that there is no such thing as a chiral center because the concept pretends that only part of the molecule is chiral. And even if there were such a thing, it would be called a stereogenic center, a term that directs to Stereocenter. On that note, is there a map of all of our articles on chirality?-- Smokefoot ( talk) 02:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Please elaborate reasons for this reversion. I would like to know the difference between configurational isomerism and spatial orientation of molecules. CrafterNova ( talk) 13:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@ MadeOfAtoms: I see you mentioned about spatial arrangement in the article and in its short description. So instead of reverting all changes made by any user in one or more edits, most commonly it's better to edit those revisions, make corrections and inform user(s) accordingly. Also, we need adequate points making differences between chemoselectivity and stereoselective, or else these 2 articles should be merged into a single article. — CrafterNova talk 05:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)) 16:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, there has been a recent objection to the merger of Alkane stereochemistry into Conformational isomerism so I was wondering if you would be willing to rejoin the discussion again since the consensus was made a year ago but I want to ensure that this current objection is heard by the original participants of the discussion before I merge and remove this from the backlog. Thanks! - Karthanitesh ( talk) 00:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Since you mentioned that at the Talk:Periodic table RFC: it's not remotely standard (even though a bunch of serious voices like Henry Bent and Eric Scerri like it), but you might be interested in Charles Janet's unorthodox way to deal with that. He put the s-block on the far right of his table (1928), rather than the far left.
f1 | f2 | f3 | f4 | f5 | f6 | f7 | f8 | f9 | f10 | f11 | f12 | f13 | f14 | d1 | d2 | d3 | d4 | d5 | d6 | d7 | d8 | d9 | d10 | p1 | p2 | p3 | p4 | p5 | p6 | s1 | s2 | |||
1s | H | He | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2s | Li | Be | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2p 3s | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | Na | Mg | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3p 4s | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | K | Ca | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3d 4p 5s | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | Rb | Sr | ||||||||||||||||
4d 5p 6s | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | Cs | Ba | ||||||||||||||||
4f 5d 6p 7s | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn | Fr | Ra | ||
5f 6d 7p 8s | Ac | Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | Nh | Fl | Mc | Lv | Ts | Og | Uue | Ubn | ||
f-block | d-block | p-block | s-block |
Double sharp ( talk) 00:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to explain that I provided those two references because my point was that the trimer is only observed under specific experimental conditions. Those two papers actually agree with one another. But I didn’t notice that the trimer was already mentioned below, and the revert made sense. Still, I think that the article should explain that under conditions of low vapor density only the monomer is observed, whereas the trimer can be seen at higher density. If you don’t mind, I’d like to have a try at that. KeeYou Flib ( talk) 21:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
No, this is good! Keep going by all means. KeeYou Flib ( talk) 22:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Your edits in silicon made me think you could help my accuracy in the computer program article. I synthesized different sources to write the MOS transistor section here: Computer_program#Very_Large_Scale_Integration. Could you check it for accuracy, please? Timhowardriley ( talk) 11:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Hey just to let you know, Maestro2016 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) the main contributor to Mosfet and Mohamed M. Atalla has been banned for being sock puppet of Jagged 85, a well known vandal [ [1]]. You can see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85 and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85 for more info about him. I suspected he was Jagged 85 sock puppet but now it is established. If you want to join clean up that would be great. I would start clean up soon. The amount of erroneous information is enormous, so some articles probably had to be stubbed just like in previous Jagged 85 cleanup, but we'll see. DMKR2005 ( talk) 20:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Hey, just wanna let you know I started discussion here about what to do with MOSFET and MOSFET applications articles. Feel free to chip in. DMKR2005 ( talk) 20:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, MadeOfAtoms. You don't know me, but I stumbled on some edits by Herravondure, who I also don't know, involving "de-orphaning" articles. I know nothing about that process, but discovered that you and another editor educated Herravondure on May 2 about those types of edits. But I can see that since then, there have been many edit summaries showing "Successfully de-orphaned!", not to mention the hundreds done prior to your inquiries on the editior's talk page. I just wanted to see if you could review some of Herravondure's de-orphaning edits to determine if they're being done as you instructed. I thought I should let you know in order to prevent an ongoing problem. Thanks much. Stoarm ( talk) 13:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
This might amuse you, if you haven't discovered it already. Looking at the
Sirius article's source, I couldn't see the infobox distance. Perhaps it was looking it up somewhere, I'd have to check the template. Eventually I read in {{
Starbox astrometry}} (!) that "if dist_ly and dist_pc are omitted, but parallax is present, then the object's distance will be computed from parallax and, if present, p_error"
and now I am properly impressed.
NebY (
talk)
00:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
reliable distance measurements up to 5,000 parsecs (16,000 ly). – MadeOfAtoms ( talk) 08:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
"Some astronomers believe that the spiral nebulae, of which the Great Nebula in Andromeda is in our view the largest, are external galaxies, and that our galaxy seen from one of them would present merely the appearance of a spiral nebula."NebY ( talk) 16:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
It may interest you that Ba I has [Xe]6s15d1 at lower energy than [Xe]6s16p1, and that (n−1)d AOs are actually involved in MX2 (M = Ca, Sr, Ba). And at least one paper already calls barium an honorary transition metal. :)
I doubt anyone has investigated Fr or Ra. Though, on energetic grounds, Rb and Cs are also suspicious. Double sharp ( talk) 11:38, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
They all can use d orbitals as valence orbitals to form chemical bonds, when group 12 doesn't do that (excluding rare and controversial observations) so that's incompatible with the strict "d-block" definition. Maybe say
All except group 12 can use d orbitals...? Thoughts? – MadeOfAtoms ( talk) 23:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
A postscript for some closure: I think I was wrong about Cs 5d at standard conditions. (Under pressure it is possible, but that is a different story, considering that then even Xe 5d is possible too IIRC.) Well, it explains why Pyykkö's paper has been cited a lot for Ca-Sr-Ba as honorary transition metals, but the possibility for Cs has been mostly ignored since then in the literature. It's just too unlikely to happen when [Xe]7s < [Xe]5d in a bare neutral Cs atom. :(
Oh well, I learned something indeed. And there's always Cs 5p to hope for. (Even if not, Fr 6p should be more likely. But okay, given the half-life, that is not so much "hoping" as "dreaming". :D) Double sharp ( talk) 18:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Manganese has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. 141 Pr 09:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree it is in the wrong place on the Cr article, but the funny thing is, it is kind of explaining the right thing in general. Because in fact 3d has lower energy than 4s in a Cr atom; knowing that, the natural question is indeed really "so why is 4s filled at all", and not "why isn't 4s completely filled"? The Aufbau is often stated sloppily, but really 4s only comes before 3d in the context of "add a proton and an electron, that's the next element" starting from hydrogen. If you add electrons successively to a bare nucleus, then it is a different story.
In individual atoms, interelectronic repulsion explains 4s occupancy. In compounds this can change. When atoms are positively charged, increased attraction to the nucleus wins as screening is decreased, so Fe2+ (also Cr-like) is 3d64s0. A few times +2 is not quite enough to fix things, but normally it is. The exceptions are La, Gd, Lu, Ac, Th, Pa, and probably 6d metals Lr–Cn which due to relativistic effects truly do have 7s < 6d even in the atom. Truly strange things will probably start to happen at Z > 120 when 5g becomes involved, but we'll need more detailed calculations. Anyway, it's not like it'll be of much practical relevance for a long while. ;)
The whole thing is kind of silly though, because the levels of different configurations overlap, e.g. the lowest-energy state of a Ni atom is a 3d84s2 one, but the average energy of 3d94s1 states is lower than the average of 3d84s2 states. And the fact that 7s < 6d for 6d metals doesn't seem to make any difference compared to 6s > 5d for 5d metals; Lr-Hs behave like congeners of Lu-Os anyway. Personally, I'd rather not emphasise it, and simply follow Feynman's lectures in saying that transition elements have multiple configurations close to each other and that the atom's environment plays a large role. Much more correct than all the teachers asking pupils to remember Cr and Cu. :) Double sharp ( talk) 03:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Anomalies occur in the periodic table when two confgurations have approximately the same energy. This holds for instance for the [Ar]3d54s1 and [Ar]3d44s2 confgurations of chromium (Cr) ... and for copper (Cu) ...
P.S. It's truly difficult to find good examples of metals(0) in compounds to compare electron shell occupancy with bare atoms. This is mostly because most examples of TMs in such low oxidation states are in complexes where pi backbonding offloads a lot of electron density away from the central atom, so much so that the oxidation state is not a good measure of the actual state of the electron shells anymore. Honestly, the best example of a true nonpositively charged TM is just Au(−I) in CsAu. Maybe we'd be better off teaching the (n−1)d < ns energetic order that is true within chemically relevant oxidation states. Double sharp ( talk) 04:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Not for the first time (thanks to collecting lattice parameters) I wish the heaviest elements were more stable. One could predict some of them would be weird from elementary means: well, first you think about what eka-Hg must be like, and then you realise that the staircase between metals and nonmetals would reach the noble gas group in the 7th period. (Although okay, you'd need spin-orbit coupling to predict eka-Pb being mercury-like.) They would really be interesting elements to study.
But maybe this is asking too much; I already cry for Po, At, Rn, and Fr. :( Double sharp ( talk) 17:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello! I can see you're a regular(ish) editor of the Polypropylene article - it's been vandalised by RedsRedHollow again, but it's so long since I edited an article on here that I can't remember how to do it (also, I see that a manual edit is recommended to avoid alerting this charmer). So perhaps you could do it? JaneVannin ( talk) 20:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, MadeOfAtoms! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.
If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Polyamorph ( talk) 10:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Keep up the good work. All articles benefit from a new set of eyes, especially longer ones (articles, that is). Agreed: references to answers.com and many related "regurgitators" should be removed.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 13:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
(This represents my experience only, and it is not entirely serious.)
– MadeOfAtoms ( talk) 09:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the efforts of taming some of our many articles. I have long been taught, by stern organic colleagues, that there is no such thing as a chiral center because the concept pretends that only part of the molecule is chiral. And even if there were such a thing, it would be called a stereogenic center, a term that directs to Stereocenter. On that note, is there a map of all of our articles on chirality?-- Smokefoot ( talk) 02:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Please elaborate reasons for this reversion. I would like to know the difference between configurational isomerism and spatial orientation of molecules. CrafterNova ( talk) 13:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@ MadeOfAtoms: I see you mentioned about spatial arrangement in the article and in its short description. So instead of reverting all changes made by any user in one or more edits, most commonly it's better to edit those revisions, make corrections and inform user(s) accordingly. Also, we need adequate points making differences between chemoselectivity and stereoselective, or else these 2 articles should be merged into a single article. — CrafterNova talk 05:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)) 16:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, there has been a recent objection to the merger of Alkane stereochemistry into Conformational isomerism so I was wondering if you would be willing to rejoin the discussion again since the consensus was made a year ago but I want to ensure that this current objection is heard by the original participants of the discussion before I merge and remove this from the backlog. Thanks! - Karthanitesh ( talk) 00:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Since you mentioned that at the Talk:Periodic table RFC: it's not remotely standard (even though a bunch of serious voices like Henry Bent and Eric Scerri like it), but you might be interested in Charles Janet's unorthodox way to deal with that. He put the s-block on the far right of his table (1928), rather than the far left.
f1 | f2 | f3 | f4 | f5 | f6 | f7 | f8 | f9 | f10 | f11 | f12 | f13 | f14 | d1 | d2 | d3 | d4 | d5 | d6 | d7 | d8 | d9 | d10 | p1 | p2 | p3 | p4 | p5 | p6 | s1 | s2 | |||
1s | H | He | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2s | Li | Be | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2p 3s | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | Na | Mg | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3p 4s | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | K | Ca | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3d 4p 5s | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | Rb | Sr | ||||||||||||||||
4d 5p 6s | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | Cs | Ba | ||||||||||||||||
4f 5d 6p 7s | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn | Fr | Ra | ||
5f 6d 7p 8s | Ac | Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | Nh | Fl | Mc | Lv | Ts | Og | Uue | Ubn | ||
f-block | d-block | p-block | s-block |
Double sharp ( talk) 00:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to explain that I provided those two references because my point was that the trimer is only observed under specific experimental conditions. Those two papers actually agree with one another. But I didn’t notice that the trimer was already mentioned below, and the revert made sense. Still, I think that the article should explain that under conditions of low vapor density only the monomer is observed, whereas the trimer can be seen at higher density. If you don’t mind, I’d like to have a try at that. KeeYou Flib ( talk) 21:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
No, this is good! Keep going by all means. KeeYou Flib ( talk) 22:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Your edits in silicon made me think you could help my accuracy in the computer program article. I synthesized different sources to write the MOS transistor section here: Computer_program#Very_Large_Scale_Integration. Could you check it for accuracy, please? Timhowardriley ( talk) 11:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Hey just to let you know, Maestro2016 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) the main contributor to Mosfet and Mohamed M. Atalla has been banned for being sock puppet of Jagged 85, a well known vandal [ [1]]. You can see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85 and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85 for more info about him. I suspected he was Jagged 85 sock puppet but now it is established. If you want to join clean up that would be great. I would start clean up soon. The amount of erroneous information is enormous, so some articles probably had to be stubbed just like in previous Jagged 85 cleanup, but we'll see. DMKR2005 ( talk) 20:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Hey, just wanna let you know I started discussion here about what to do with MOSFET and MOSFET applications articles. Feel free to chip in. DMKR2005 ( talk) 20:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, MadeOfAtoms. You don't know me, but I stumbled on some edits by Herravondure, who I also don't know, involving "de-orphaning" articles. I know nothing about that process, but discovered that you and another editor educated Herravondure on May 2 about those types of edits. But I can see that since then, there have been many edit summaries showing "Successfully de-orphaned!", not to mention the hundreds done prior to your inquiries on the editior's talk page. I just wanted to see if you could review some of Herravondure's de-orphaning edits to determine if they're being done as you instructed. I thought I should let you know in order to prevent an ongoing problem. Thanks much. Stoarm ( talk) 13:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
This might amuse you, if you haven't discovered it already. Looking at the
Sirius article's source, I couldn't see the infobox distance. Perhaps it was looking it up somewhere, I'd have to check the template. Eventually I read in {{
Starbox astrometry}} (!) that "if dist_ly and dist_pc are omitted, but parallax is present, then the object's distance will be computed from parallax and, if present, p_error"
and now I am properly impressed.
NebY (
talk)
00:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
reliable distance measurements up to 5,000 parsecs (16,000 ly). – MadeOfAtoms ( talk) 08:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
"Some astronomers believe that the spiral nebulae, of which the Great Nebula in Andromeda is in our view the largest, are external galaxies, and that our galaxy seen from one of them would present merely the appearance of a spiral nebula."NebY ( talk) 16:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
It may interest you that Ba I has [Xe]6s15d1 at lower energy than [Xe]6s16p1, and that (n−1)d AOs are actually involved in MX2 (M = Ca, Sr, Ba). And at least one paper already calls barium an honorary transition metal. :)
I doubt anyone has investigated Fr or Ra. Though, on energetic grounds, Rb and Cs are also suspicious. Double sharp ( talk) 11:38, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
They all can use d orbitals as valence orbitals to form chemical bonds, when group 12 doesn't do that (excluding rare and controversial observations) so that's incompatible with the strict "d-block" definition. Maybe say
All except group 12 can use d orbitals...? Thoughts? – MadeOfAtoms ( talk) 23:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
A postscript for some closure: I think I was wrong about Cs 5d at standard conditions. (Under pressure it is possible, but that is a different story, considering that then even Xe 5d is possible too IIRC.) Well, it explains why Pyykkö's paper has been cited a lot for Ca-Sr-Ba as honorary transition metals, but the possibility for Cs has been mostly ignored since then in the literature. It's just too unlikely to happen when [Xe]7s < [Xe]5d in a bare neutral Cs atom. :(
Oh well, I learned something indeed. And there's always Cs 5p to hope for. (Even if not, Fr 6p should be more likely. But okay, given the half-life, that is not so much "hoping" as "dreaming". :D) Double sharp ( talk) 18:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Manganese has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. 141 Pr 09:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree it is in the wrong place on the Cr article, but the funny thing is, it is kind of explaining the right thing in general. Because in fact 3d has lower energy than 4s in a Cr atom; knowing that, the natural question is indeed really "so why is 4s filled at all", and not "why isn't 4s completely filled"? The Aufbau is often stated sloppily, but really 4s only comes before 3d in the context of "add a proton and an electron, that's the next element" starting from hydrogen. If you add electrons successively to a bare nucleus, then it is a different story.
In individual atoms, interelectronic repulsion explains 4s occupancy. In compounds this can change. When atoms are positively charged, increased attraction to the nucleus wins as screening is decreased, so Fe2+ (also Cr-like) is 3d64s0. A few times +2 is not quite enough to fix things, but normally it is. The exceptions are La, Gd, Lu, Ac, Th, Pa, and probably 6d metals Lr–Cn which due to relativistic effects truly do have 7s < 6d even in the atom. Truly strange things will probably start to happen at Z > 120 when 5g becomes involved, but we'll need more detailed calculations. Anyway, it's not like it'll be of much practical relevance for a long while. ;)
The whole thing is kind of silly though, because the levels of different configurations overlap, e.g. the lowest-energy state of a Ni atom is a 3d84s2 one, but the average energy of 3d94s1 states is lower than the average of 3d84s2 states. And the fact that 7s < 6d for 6d metals doesn't seem to make any difference compared to 6s > 5d for 5d metals; Lr-Hs behave like congeners of Lu-Os anyway. Personally, I'd rather not emphasise it, and simply follow Feynman's lectures in saying that transition elements have multiple configurations close to each other and that the atom's environment plays a large role. Much more correct than all the teachers asking pupils to remember Cr and Cu. :) Double sharp ( talk) 03:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Anomalies occur in the periodic table when two confgurations have approximately the same energy. This holds for instance for the [Ar]3d54s1 and [Ar]3d44s2 confgurations of chromium (Cr) ... and for copper (Cu) ...
P.S. It's truly difficult to find good examples of metals(0) in compounds to compare electron shell occupancy with bare atoms. This is mostly because most examples of TMs in such low oxidation states are in complexes where pi backbonding offloads a lot of electron density away from the central atom, so much so that the oxidation state is not a good measure of the actual state of the electron shells anymore. Honestly, the best example of a true nonpositively charged TM is just Au(−I) in CsAu. Maybe we'd be better off teaching the (n−1)d < ns energetic order that is true within chemically relevant oxidation states. Double sharp ( talk) 04:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Not for the first time (thanks to collecting lattice parameters) I wish the heaviest elements were more stable. One could predict some of them would be weird from elementary means: well, first you think about what eka-Hg must be like, and then you realise that the staircase between metals and nonmetals would reach the noble gas group in the 7th period. (Although okay, you'd need spin-orbit coupling to predict eka-Pb being mercury-like.) They would really be interesting elements to study.
But maybe this is asking too much; I already cry for Po, At, Rn, and Fr. :( Double sharp ( talk) 17:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello! I can see you're a regular(ish) editor of the Polypropylene article - it's been vandalised by RedsRedHollow again, but it's so long since I edited an article on here that I can't remember how to do it (also, I see that a manual edit is recommended to avoid alerting this charmer). So perhaps you could do it? JaneVannin ( talk) 20:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)