User talk:Double sharp/Archive 6

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.

The article History of fluorine you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:History of fluorine for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our champion, for the second year running, is Cwmhiraeth (submissions). Our final nine were as follows:

1. Cwmhiraeth (submissions)
2. Hawkeye7 (submissions)
3. Sasata (submissions)
4. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions)
5. Casliber (submissions)
6. Adam Cuerden (submissions)
7. Miyagawa (submissions)
8. Piotrus (submissions)
9. Ealdgyth (submissions)

All those who reached the final win prizes, and prizes will also be going to the following participants:

• Casliber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for four featured articles in round 4, worth 400 points.
• Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 20 good articles in round 3, worth 600 points.
• Another Believer (submissions) wins the FL prize, for four featured lists in round 2, worth 180 points.
• Adam Cuerden (submissions) wins the FP prize, for 23 featured pictures in round 5, worth 805 point.
• Sven Manguard (submissions
  ) wins the FPo prize, for 2 featured portals in round 3, worth 70 points.
• Hawkeye7 (submissions) wins the topic prize, for a 23-article featured topic in round 5, worth 230 points.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 79 did you know articles in round 5, worth 570 points.
• ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 23 in the news articles in round 4, worth 270 points.
• Ed! (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 24 good article reviews in round 1, worth 96 points.
• The judges are awarding the Oddball Barnstar to The C of E (submissions), for some curious contributions in earlier rounds.
• Finally, the judges are awarding Cwmhiraeth (submissions) the Geography Barnstar for her work on sea, now a featured article. This top-importance article was the highest-scoring this year; when it was promoted to FA status, Cwmhiraeth could claim 720 points.

Prizes will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition. While it has been an excellent year, errors have opened up the judges' eyes to the need for a third judge, and it is with pleasure that we announce that experienced WikiCup participant Miyagawa will be acting as a judge from now on. We hope you will all join us in welcoming him to the team.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. Brainstorming and discussion remains open for how next year's competition will work, and straw polls will be opened by the judges soon. Those interested in friendly competition may also like to keep an eye on the stub contest, being organised by Casliber. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 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. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

elements
Thank you, Ds, for quality articles on chemical elements, such as

Am Brunnen vor dem Tore [de], - you are an awesome Wikipedian

!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the most unexpected and greatly appreciated honour! (The translation will happen sometime this month, probably.) Double sharp (talk) 08:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess it didn't...sorry, I must have forgotten about it. (・_・;) (Well, I did say "probably"...)　Double sharp (talk) 03:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I've been updating 'Start' class 'Top' importance articles, among which are two-dimensional space and three-dimensional space. I've added a couple of things to two-dimensional space, and I think it could be an incredible article, but I don't want to focus on the wrong things. What is the main idea behind the articles? Are they lists of all important properties of those spaces in different areas of math, or is it specifically restricted to polygons and polytopes? Or a mixture of the two? For instance, would complex analysis and calculus of parametric equations be appropriate for two-dimensional space? Brirush (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Would say the former. If it's relevant, it's fair game. Double sharp (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Where and how was this concluded? -DePiep (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox fluorine#please cut the crystal forms. Beta is less stable and only exists near the melting point. Alpha is the stable state, which I left. Double sharp (talk) 10:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

...while over at

WT:ELEM TCO started a talk battle to rm them all. That is called multi-forum. Anyway, was this rule applied to all infoboxes? Was this rule applied to all other data? Better: what is the rule? -DePiep (talk

) 11:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The rule is, simply stated, to only include the most stable state, or if that won't work, the state that is stable at STP or for the largest temperature range. It's a logical extension of not including every single allotrope of sulfur in the infobox, but just the ones you are likely to see. Double sharp (talk) 12:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Avengingbandit 02:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Now this isn't really any where because of its insignificance in modern music, but demisemihemidemisemiquaver (I'm going to initial that, because it is hard to read), or dshdsq I would think is 256, because, shdsq is 128, hdsq is 64, dsq is 32, sq is 16, and a quaver is a 8, no? It is like a pattern in a way.—SPESH531Other 23:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

If no reliable source uses that name, I would not put it in the article. Also 128 is sometimes quasi-hdsq, so it is not completely clear how the pattern would be extended. Double sharp (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

A psuedo-quasi-hdsq? Wow, can we keep this going :) until we get to 1,024? Kind of like googol, googolplex? Sandbh (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Why 1024? Because it's the highest that's actually been used? Finale supports 4096, it's just a matter of time before someone writes "Rolling Your Head on the Keyboard when Finale is Open: 1st Movement". ;-)

As long as we're on this silly note (pun intended), I suggest "pen-pqhdsq" for 512 and "fere-pen-pqhdsq" for 1024, by just ungrammatically adding more Latin words meaning "almost" to the front of the word. ;-) Double sharp (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

VG. I can find pene- in the OED ('nearly, almost, all but'; 'pen-' if in front of a vowel) but not 'fere,' although I haven't looked closely. So, so far we're up to "pene-pqhdsq" for 512, or 'p2' for short :). Sandbh (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. 'Sub-' may be the closest: 'Prefixed to adjs. or pples. of a general character, as in L. subabsurdus {somewhat} absurd, subobscūrus subobscure; e.g. subanalogous, somewhat similar; also sub-historical, sub-literate, sub-mature, sub-moral, sub-solid adjs. (The precise force of sub- may vary contextually from 'only slightly' to 'not quite, all but'.)' So, that would yield a "sub-pene-pqhdsq" or an 'sp2' for short, as in "Double sharp, may I have an sp2 please?". Ta da! Sandbh (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Any relation to sp²

hybrid orbitals? ;-) Double sharp (talk

) 03:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course! Sandbh (talk) 08:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Would've posted an illustration of those, but alas there were none to be found on Wikipedia. (T_T) Double sharp (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Indium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heavy metal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

On November 19, I expanded and updated every element articles I have on Wikia, including that I updated atomic masses to more reasonable values. I know you told me about oxidation states for g-block elements like 128 and you said it shouldn't be this high. But I see that in the article

Hi , Please notice, ip user 111.243.0.198 and ip 114.39.7.129 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/111.243.0.198 , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/114.39.7.129, Vandalism a lot of articles , please stop these ip user , thank youMBINISIDLERS (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Double sharp. This is the call for votes notification I intend to post to the project. Does it look OK to you?

Please indicate your support or otherwise, for the following proposals:

A: To show the group 3 elements as comprising Sc-Y-Lu-Lr

B: To colour Sc-Y-Lu, and the lanthanide series, as rare earth metals. (Lr would be shown as an actinide).

C: To categorise the group 12 metals as poor metals.

Rationales and considerations

A. Sc-Y-Lu-Lr

• IUPAC doesn't have a position on the composition of group 3
• A number of chemists in the 1920's and 30's assigned Lu rather than La to group 3 on the basis that the chemical properties of Y, and Sc to a lesser extent, were closer to Lu.
• That La and Ac are sometimes shown as group 3 members appears to have originated in the 1940s based on electronic configurations and the concept of the differentiating electron.
• Arguments as to the composition of group 3 should turn upon more than the single concept of a differentiating electron.
• There remains a reasonable body of physics and chemistry-based evidence favouring the assignment of Lu and Lr to group 3.
• Eric Scerri has recently presented arguments [1], including those based on the construction of the long-form of the periodic table, supporting the assignment of Lu and Lr to group 3. IUPAC have since asked him to form a working group with a view to making this change official.

B. Rare earth metals

• 'Rare earth metals' is an officially recognised IUPAC collective name for Sc, Y and the lanthanides.
• A failing of the IUPAC definition of a transition element ('An element whose atom has an incomplete d sub-shell, or which can give rise to cations with an incomplete d sub-shell.') is that La, Gd, and Lu should all be counted as transition metals. However they are instead routinely recognised as lanthanides or rare earths, on the basis of their common properties. Same thing happens with Ac, Th, Pa, U, Np and Cm. They meet the IUPAC definition of TMs but are instead recognised as actinides, again on the basis of common properties.
• A majority of UK-based chemistry syllabi according to Jim Clark of chemguide.com, don't treat Sc and Y as transition metals because they don't form transition metal ions (i.e. those having incompletely filled d orbitals).
• References that treat Sc and Y as transition metals usually include words to the effect that, or which imply that, the group 3 metals are "atypical" TMs as they demonstrate very few TM properties. Often the group 3 metals are included in the chapter or section dealing with the lanthanides or rare earths, on account of their related properties.
• By colouring Sc, Y and the lanthanides as rare earth metals we sidestep the 'are-group-3-elements-TMs-or-not debate', and associated differences in periodic table representations, whilst remaining IUPAC compliant. The debate can be noted, for example, in the group 3 article (e.g. in terms of the differentiating electron, they could be regarded as TMs however in terms of their overall properties they are closer to the lanthanides). We also avoid the need for mixed categories.
• Most of the rare earth metals are not particularly rare however deposits that are large and concentrated enough to be worth mining are rare, hence the continuing relevance of the name. The near-ubiquity of the rare earth metals in modern technology, combined with supply concerns, has also raised popular interest in this previously lesser known category of metals. [Related quotes: 1. 'Basic rare-earth science has not been a focus of most U.S. research centers for quite a long time, "but suddenly it has come roaring back…"; 2. 'The rare earths are very much…of strategic importance to the defense industry…'; 3. 'During the past twenty years there has been an explosion in demand for many items that require rare earth metals…global demand for automobiles, consumer electronics, energy efficient lighting and catalysts is expected to rise rapidly in the future. Rare earth elements are heavily used in all of these industries and their use is expected to rise.']

C. Group 12 as poor metals

• IUPAC does not recognise group 12 as transition metals
• There is no widely used category name for the group 12 metals
• They are closest in properties to the group 13-16 metals
• 'Poor metals' seems to be the most apt collective name for the group 12-16 metals, given their weak physical characteristics combined with significant nonmetallic characteristics, and the menagerie of alternative names by which they have been called, as surveyed here.

thank you, Sandbh (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it looks very good. Though I'm not so certain about your assertion that IUPAC doesn't recognize group 12 as transition metals; IIRC they allow both definitions (including and excluding group 12). Have they recently changed their stand? Double sharp (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Good feedback. and my bad. By the definition given in the Gold Book they aren't TMs. The Red Book notes, however, that (a) the group 3–12 elements may be called the d-block elements and that (b) these are commonly referred to as the TMs, though (c) the group 12 elements aren't always included (i.e. as per Gold Book definition). Will fix. Sandbh (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• Should our 18-column periodic table show lutetium and lawrencium under scandium and yttrium, instead of all the lanthanides and actinides?
• Should
  rare earth metals
  ?
• Should
  poor metals
  ?

As a member of

Hey, thanks for the welcome message! I did some contribuition on the superheavy elements some time ago... but it seems now on en.Wiki nothing is missing there. You guys did great work. So I think I'll go back to my favourite one Strontium, where I can still add some stuff!... Cheers, AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Strontium is nice! Good luck working on it. (It's one of the many ones I scheduled myself to work on but dropped without starting. Now the only one I'm still sure I'll get around to is Fe, though that is a toughie and will need collaboration.) Especially with barium (GA) as a model. With that we might dare to tackle the most important alkaline earth metals (Mg and Ca)? Double sharp (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cm hydroxide.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Schädel M & Shaughnessy D (eds) 2014, The chemistry of super heavy elements, 2nd ed., http://www.springer.com/en-us/chemistry

I shall be looking for it. :-) Thanks! Double sharp (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Excuse-me, for the iron low-pressure diagram... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.66.73.190 (talk) 12:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Double sharp, and welcome to the 2014 WikiCup! Your submission page can be found here. The competition will begin at midnight tonight (UTC). There have been a few small changes from last year; the rules can be read in full at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring, and the page also includes a summary of changes. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work, and nominated, in 2014 is eligible for points in the competition- the judges will be checking! As ever, this year's competition includes some younger editors. If you are a younger editor, you are certainly welcome, but we have written an advice page at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Advice for younger editors for you. Please do take a look. Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! J Milburn (talk · contribs), The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 17:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Your upload of File:Apeirogonal tiling.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits to the articles I mentioned on the talk page of the classical music WikiProject. Thanks especially for this fix of my edit ... I apparently really wasn't with it earlier today! Graham87 15:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi! You made an edit on Slow movement (music), changing the word "tonality" to "mode" because "tonality" sounds like the tonic has changed. I think "mode" might also sound a bit confusing because it sounds like the key is changing to the Dorian mode, Phrygian mode, etc. The literal definition of tonality is whether or not a key is major or minor, which is why I used that word when first writing the article. Any thoughts/comments on this? Thanks, -Tal Brenev (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I always knew it as tonality being the system (i.e. hierarchical pitch relationships based around a key centre), and mode being the scale (major/minor/Dorian/Phrygian/whatever). In the 19th century and beyond you will find "mode" being used to mean the difference between major and minor keys: this was the definition I was after. Agreed, it can be confusing. Suggestions?

BTW, rondo form is not too uncommon either for a slow movement. You might want to add it. :-) (Sonata-rondo is not common for slow movements at all, though; the only Classical example I know of is in Beethoven's fourth.) Double sharp (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps it would be better to literally state "it goes from major to minor" or something similar? That would eliminate any confusion with either term.

Rondo form would probably be a good addition to the article, I'll get to work on that as soon as possible. BTW, I have looked at Wikipedia's template for musical notation, but the problem is I couldn't find how to make a grand staff (for piano scores). -Tal Brenev (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I rewrote the sentence. Hopefully it's not prone to being misinterpreted anymore! Double sharp (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

WP's help page just covers the basics. Read the LilyPond Notation Reference if you want to do more complicated things! Double sharp (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Double sharp (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help! :) The article is clear now, and I'll be sure to read about LilyPond. Tal Brenev (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I notice you're the only one who edits your user page so far, but I was wondering if I could improve grammar just a tad? OneWeirdDude (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure! Double sharp (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Thanks to your data it is now possible to add some missing information to the "Instrumentation" section of the article. I'll do it at some point but if you have too much time on your hand (ha, ha, ok, just kidding) you can do it too. Thanks again. Contact Basemetal here 15:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I've now updated the instrumentation sections of

this section should only include instruments that are part of transposing families or which are normally found in other keys, or this could become a list of every single other instrument that is non-transposing, piano, organ, violin, etc. Did you know there are also triple sharps? Open (in a new tab) the following link, then go to "Pitch" and take a look at "3. Extreme accidentals". Contact Basemetal here

11:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know about them.

Here are some records I'm aware of that Byrd does not have on his page:

I have heard that (but have not seen the score) an 8 sharp key signature (including F) occurs in John Foulds' A World Requiem (1919–21). I've heard of an 8 flat key signature before (with B), but annoyingly can't remember where.

Septuple meter (notated explicitly as 7/4) was used by Charles-Valentin Alkan in his Impromptu, Op.32 No.8 (1849). Double sharp (talk) 12:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

These signatures with double-sharps or double-flats that you give are very interesting. I had never heard about them before seeing you mention them here. I was always told this couldn't happen. That if you have a piece or a section in G-sharp major you write the signature as if it was in C-sharp major and you write the F-double-sharp in the staff. I always thought that solution was illogical and aesthetically unpleasing and I'm glad to see that other people thought so too.

Anyway, as soon as you have definite data do not hesitate to contact Don Byrd. He welcomes contributions to his page (and he'll credit you) and he's a really nice guy, open and helpful. I've had some email exchanges with him about an odd (but logically coherent) way to write accidentals in the 18th c. used at least in some manuscripts by Bach (and I would guess elsewhere). The idea is that if a note is already sharp as a key accidental then when you have a double-sharp you only write a sharp not a double-sharp: the sharp in the staff compounds (adds to) the sharp in the key signature (and the same with flats of course). To stay consistent with the system a natural would have to be written as a flat in the first case and a sharp in the second case but I don't remember seeing an example of that in that Bach manuscript I've looked at. This system has some advantages over the system we used nowadays (where the staff accidental overrides the key accidental) when it comes to sight transposition (transposition "by clef and signature").

Contact Basemetal here 14:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, but I'd like to track down the scores first to be safe. :-) Then I'll contribute it. Double sharp (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

And don't forget to also update Key signature when and if Contact Basemetal here 15:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely! Double sharp (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Double sharp, I was looking for STAP cells (stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency), so I tried a wiki search for Stap and looking here it looks like you created the redirect to Pentagrammic antiprism while STAP looks to be a disambiguation page - which is where I would have expected to end up. I can't find any reference to Pentagrammic antiprisms and the word stap, so I was very tempted to just delete the redirect but as I know nothing antiprisms them I just thought it easier to ask you to look into it. Cheers EdwardLane (talk) 10:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC) (incidentally I'll watch this page for replies for a bit).

Agree, the target should be STAP. Changed it.

Stap is the Bowers acronym. Not used much honestly outside the researchers' websites, but I created the redirects years ago because they are very convenient for userspace work so that you don't have to type out all the superbly long Greekish names like "small snub icosicosidodecahedron" all the time. Now, this is admittedly a very lame rationale, and honestly now I'm fine with them being deleted. For now I changed the acronym redirect to

Stap (geometry). Double sharp (talk

) 10:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem, cheers EdwardLane (talk) 11:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The 2014 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with, at time of writing, 138 participants. The is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2010. If you are yet to join the competition, don't worry- the judges have agreed to keep the signups open for a few more days. By a wide margin, our current leader is newcomer Godot13 (submissions), whose set of 14 featured pictures, the first FPs of the competition, was worth 490 points. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

• TropicalAnalystwx13 (submissions) were the first people to score, for the good article Tropical Storm Bret (1981)
  and its good article review respectively. 12george1 was also the first person to score in 2012 and 2013.
• 2014 North American polar vortex
  .
• WonderBoy1998 (submissions) scored points for an early good topic, finishing off Wikipedia:Featured topics/She Wolf.
• TheAustinMan (submissions) scored the first bonus points of the competition, for his work on Typhoon Vera.
• Igordebraga (submissions) has scored the highest number of bonus points for a single article, for the high-importance Jurassic Park (film).

Featured articles, featured lists, featured topics and featured portals are yet to play a part in the competition. The judges have removed a number of submissions which were deemed ineligible. Typically, we aim to see work on a project, followed by a nomination, followed by promotion, this year. We apologise for any disappointment caused by our strict enforcement this year; we're aiming to keep the competition as fair as possible.

Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may be interested to take part in The Core Contest; unlike the WikiCup, The Core Contest is not about audited content, but, like the WikiCup, it is about article improvement; specifically, The Core Contest is about contribution to some of Wikipedia's most important article. Of course, any work done for The Core Contest, if it leads to a DYK, GA or FA, can earn WikiCup points.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

) 19:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Symphony, D. 708a (Schubert)

nominate ) 08:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Switched (-on Bach) elephants Just saw your Talk:Wolf Chess contribution and made the switch. And George Duke agrees w/ you here. Thanks, Ihardlythinkso (talk ) 02:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC) WikiCup 2014 February newsletter And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were: Treasury Note (1890–91) . Adam Cuerden (submissions), a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work. WikiRedactor (submissions), another WikiCup newcomer. WikiRedactor has claimed points for good article reviews and good articles relating to pop music, many of which were awarded bonus points. Articles include Sky Ferreira, Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus and "Wrecking Ball" (Miley Cyrus song). Other competitors of note include: Hahc21 (submissions), who helped take Thirty Flights of Loving through good article candidates and featured article candidates, claiming the first first featured article of the competition. Natalia Kills discography . Cwmhiraeth (submissions), who takes the title of the contributor awarded the highest bonus point multiplier (resulting in the highest scoring article) of the competition so far. Her high-importance salamander, now a good article, scored 108 points. After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email ) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Polonium image review It's on again. Sandbh (talk) 03:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC) WikiCup 2014 March newsletter A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer Godot13 (submissions) (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist Adam Cuerden (submissions) (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. Cliftonian (submissions), who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith. With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email ) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Bowers short names Hi, I see you have added Bowers' short names to the article on the Kepler-Poinsot polyhedra. Do you have a reliable source for these short names, or are they just pulled off the non-peer-reviewed web sites of current workers in the field? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk ) 17:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC) For the uniform polyhedra, the Bowers acronyms have been published by Richard Klitzing in Symmetry: Culture and Science Vol. 13, No. 3-4, 241-258, 2002. Double sharp (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC) BTW, he also uses the term polychora in Symmetry: Culture and Science Vol. 11, Nos. 1-4, 139-181, 2000. Double sharp (talk ) 11:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC) OK, thanks, I'm sorry to have troubled you. I don't have a copy of Vol. 13, No. 3-4. (not that Symmetry: Culture and Science is necessarily properly peer-reviewed, but that is another story.) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC) (BTW, you have published in it, right? I see a paper by you on icosahedral stellations and dodecahedral facetings in Vol. 11, No. 1-4, pp.269-291. So I was wondering if you know something about their peer review.) Double sharp (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC) I was a reasonably well-known member among the active research community at the time, and my paper was accepted without question. I cannot speak for my colleagues. I would add that a lot of fringe publications around the scientific and mathematical worlds have somewhat cloudy credentials in this respect, it is nothing special to this journal. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC) Eric Scerri Hey, did you see Scerri's post? I thought you may be interested-ish, although I see you may be busy. You can e-mail him at scerri AT chem.ucla.edu regards, Sandbh (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)" (removed "at" sign to avoid spammers) Double sharp (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC) Yes, I saw his post. I think we didn't really have an objection to his proposal, just his argument including the Figure 5? Double sharp (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC) I think he included figure 5 to show---logically---what a 32 column table looks like if you go Sc-Y-La, and do nothing else (i.e. you keep the d-block intact as in the 18 column version). The result is "stupid" since the elements are no longer ordered in Z sequence. This then forces one to split the d-block as shown in figure 6, (which I have seen in at least one text book) in order to maintain the Z sequence. Splitting the d block may seem extreme; on the other hand, there is not much fuss about splitting the 1s block, and moving He over Ne in the p-block. However, He over Ne makes more sense from the pov of the chemistry involved---the position of an element in the PT is not solely determined by electron configuration, as I recall Jensen argued. Same argument applied to Lu Lr (noting greater similarities of Lu to Y) then results in figure 6. I don't see any logical flaws in his argument, but there is more to it than logic. Sandbh (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC) I hear you. Will respond soon. Double sharp (talk) 05:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC) ...I am aware that this does not conform to most accepted definitions of "soon". I must have forgotten about it. I will probably reply tomorrow. Double sharp (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC) And here is the long-awaited response! ( WT:CHEM .) Actually, on reading your comment, I agree with you. But I wouldn't put so much of an accent on Fig.5 as he does, because it is, as you say, a "stupid" PT with the elements not going in order of Z. If I were writing this as an argument I would raise it only to dismiss it. He does treat splitting the d-block as being asymmetrical, and raises that possibility only to dismiss it immediately. He over Ne makes chemical sense, however: and therefore I think splitting the d-block, extreme as it is, can't be dismissed that easily. You would need an examination of chemical properties to see if it is warranted: Jensen does this, and comes to the conclusion that it is not. That is IMHO a better response to the Sc/Y/La/Ac option. Now of course he only examines group 3 as a transition metal group, and therefore compares it with the following d-block groups. Since the differentiating electrons between the group 3 elements and the previous ones are all d-electrons, regardless of whether you consider La/Ac or Lu/Lr, it should probably be taken as a d-block group and judged with the other d-block groups. You could also potentially examine group 3 as a main group, in which case Sc/Y/La/Ac brings out more similarities with the group 1 and group 2 metals. But then you are treading into allowing bifurcation, which leads to the Bayley and Zmaczyński PT, or the short period-table where all the groups bifurcate, because Be and Mg can lead to both an s-block-like (Ca/Sr/Ba/Ra) or d-block-like (Zn/Cd/Hg/Cn) trend. And that argument works for group 4, etc., too, as User talk:R8R Gtrs#Some thoughts on group 3). So Sc/Y/Lu/Lr is probably better if you don't want to show all these secondary relationships. Double sharp (talk ) 07:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for April 21 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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. Crossed pentagonal cuploid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver) added a link pointing to Decagram Pentagrammic cuploid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver) added a link pointing to Decagram It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Fixed Double sharp (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Uniform dual faces Hi DS, I was thinking something that's been missing for a long time on the uniform star duals are the faces, important since they are hard to see due to intersections. They are given here[2], but I'm unsure an easy way to generate them quickly, or at least I can't do that now, but I can see how to do it. Are you interested in adding them, from stella or where ever, now or sometime? Tom Ruen (talk) 11:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC) Hi. Stella can generate them easily (and even will highlight the visible parts for you). I could do this now (and perhaps show pictures of them with one face highlighted?) The hemi duals could be problematic though: I could still highlight a face, but Stella appears to instead show the face for the final finite stellation of the core polyhedron instead. Double sharp (talk) 11:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC) p.s. I really think it makes sense to merge dual stars with uniform stars, since they are integral pairs, and the duals are pretty much unimportant except in relation to their duals. Tom Ruen (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC) Absolutely: it's just that you only merged one, and it looked weird. I think we should merge them all. Double sharp (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC) Okay, I did one for an example, and I think its okay to do gradually. Tom Ruen (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC) OK, I understand what you intended now. Your e.s. "article so small..." probably led to my misinterpretation that you were just talking about DU69. Doing it gradually should be fine. (BTW, how should I show the faces for the hemi duals? Since they are infinite.) Double sharp (talk) 12:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC) Looks like you can't, and not shown here [3]. Tom Ruen (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC) Actually it is possible: Octahemioctacron Double sharp (talk ) 13:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC) Fluorine Revert Hey, quick question. Are the summary sections such at the start of Fluorine not supposed to be sourced if the information is below and sourced? I assume if the answer is yes, then anything in the summary should also below in the corresponding section?Hardkhora (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC) It can either be this way, or it can be that everything in the summary section is explicitly sourced. (Not just one or two sentences: it has to be consistent.) And indeed, our Manual of Style says "Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead [summary] if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". Double sharp (talk ) 01:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC) Great, thank you for that.Hardkhora (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC) No w what? Something good happened. No what? -DePiep (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC) WikiCup 2014 April newsletter Round 3 of the 2014 WikiCup has just begun; 32 competitors remain. Pool G's Czar (submissions) and Red Phoenix (submissions) for their work on the Sega Genesis topic . No points have been claimed so far for good topics or featured portals. 192 was our lowest qualifying score, again showing that this WikiCup is the most competitive ever. In previous years, 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) or 100 (2010) secured a place in Round 3. Pool H was the strongest performer, with all but one of its members advancing, while only the two highest scorers in Pools G and F advanced. At the end of June, 16 users will advance into the semi-finals. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email ) 17:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for May 10 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Popoli di Tessaglia!, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alceste (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Fixed Double sharp (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Re: neptunium yeah I'll try to work on it when I can. Sorry for the long delay btw. The project I was on at work was in major crunch time and it consumed most of my free time for the last four months or so. I'm not so busy now so I should be able to work on it some, but mainly on the weekends. I'll try to work on it as much as I can though. Thingg⊕⊗ 23:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC) No problem! Double sharp (talk) 05:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC) Leaflet for Wikiproject Elements at Wikimania 2014 Hi, I noticed that you and a few others started work on a leaflet for Wikiproject Elements that would be printed at Wikimania 2014. I was wondering if there was any update on that. Kind regards, Adikhajuria (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC) Nobody responded, but I think the contents of the leaflet could be written shortly based on preëxisting material in project space. Double sharp (talk) 04:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC) A question about oxidation states page I have a question about this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_oxidation_states_of_the_elements This page says that- 1) Krypton (Kr) may have the oxidation number of +2. 2) Oxidation number of ruthenium, Xenon, Osmium, Iridium, Plutonium, Curium and Hassium may be +8. I cannot understand these two things. How can a inert gas have a oxidation state at all, and how can the oxidation number of an element be +8? Please explain me these things or improve the article if necessary. Ravishankar Joshi, An Indian Gujarati — Preceding talk • contribs ) 07:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC) The noble gases are not completely chemically inert, and have been known to form noble gas compounds since 1962 with the discovery of xenon hexafluoroplatinate. Since then, argon, krypton, xenon, and radon have been found to be able to form compounds. Naturally, in these compounds, they will have nonzero oxidation states: e.g. the oxidation state of Kr in KrF2 is +2. (It is a neutral compound, and F must have oxidation state −1: thus Kr has to be in the +2 state.) In the argon compound HArF, argon is still in the 0 oxidation state, and therefore it's not shown in the page (H: +1, F: −1, Ar: 0). No helium and neon compounds are known yet, although FHeO− is expected to be possible. The oxidation state of an element may be +8, and perhaps even higher (although no examples of a higher oxidation state are known yet, [IrO4]+ is regarded as a good candidate for the +9 state). You just need to oxidize it enough: O and F are particularly good at this sort of thing, although oxygen is better at getting elements to the +8 state simply because it's hard to fit eight fluorine atoms around a metal atom. The elements you listed achieve this state in compounds like RuO4. Here the oxidation state of Ru is +8, because RuO4 is a neutral compound and O must have oxidation state –2 here. Double sharp (talk) 07:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC) Thank you for giving me an answer Thank you for answering to me in detail. I have two more questions- 1. How can Sodium (Na) be (-1)? 2. Is there any shortcut method for balancing redox equations quickly? (There is one such for simple (non-redox) chemical equations. source: http://www.nyu.edu/classes/tuckerman/adv.chem/lectures/lecture_2/node3.html) (By the way I am a student in science stream.) Ravishankar Joshi -- talk ) 13:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC) Na in the −1 state is one of those rarities that you will almost certainly never find outside a chemistry lab. Here it accepts an electron to form the Na− anion, with a filled 3s subshell. Naturally, it is a very strong reducing agent, and compounds with this anion are mostly very unstable barring exceptional circumstances (e.g. [Na(2,2,2-crypt)]+Na−, where the cryptand isolates and stabilizes the Na+ from the Na−). Compounds where the alkali metals form anions are called alkalides: among the more amusing such compounds is H+Na−, "inverse sodium hydride"! I'd imagine the method outlined at the page you linked to would also work for redox equations: if I'm not mistaken, in the last equation on the page, SO2 is oxidized and O2 is reduced. Balancing only involves the relative quantities of each element on either side of the equation, and their oxidation states aren't relevant, so I think it should work the same way for redox equations. (Naturally, the charge on both sides is also going to have to be balanced, but you probably know that already.) Double sharp (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC) No, the problem I have with the shortcut method for redox is following: The question does not always have all reactants / resultants. i.e. We are not always given H+/OH- and H2O. e.g. 1) S + HNO3 ---> H2SO4 + NO 2) P4 + NO3- ---> PO4-3 + NO2 3) FeS + H2O2 ---> FeO + SO2 We have not been given H+ ion on any of the sides in any of these equations. So, the algebraic method, I think, cannot be used on these equations. This is the problem I have with shortcut method on such equations. (One more thing that I should add -- no textbooks tell us about this algebraic method. They simply say, "The chemical equations can be balanced only by trial and error." They have to be updated, don't they?) Ravishankar Joshi talk ) 15:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC) Since only H and O could be absent, and only if they are in H+ or H2O (is that what you meant?), the other elements present can be balanced first: then you can use the info from there to figure out what is missing, I think. Or you can deduce where the water must be if you recognize the reaction types. (1) and (2) are nonmetals reacting with nitric acid (in (2) the H+ ions are omitted). There doesn't seem to be a unique solution for (1) if water is also a product, so it is probably a complete reaction and can be balanced algebraically. (And I'd probably write S8 instead of S, but it doesn't really matter.) (2) needs water on the RHS or else it can't be balanced. For (3) there needs to be hydrogen on the RHS: it must be in water or else it wouldn't have been omitted, if I understand you correctly. Well, I guess if you're in a hurry trial and error could work better than algebra, especially for simple reactions. For example, in something like Re + F2 → ReF7, it should be quite recognizable that the coefficients have to be 2, 7, 2, by balancing one at a time quickly: Re must be the same on both sides: assuming it is 1, F2 has to have coefficient 7/2, and you can double this to get integers. In the end I think it just comes down to practice. BTW, the usual place to ask questions on WP is the reference desk. Double sharp (talk) 06:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC) I am sorry for asking too many questions. I am now going to put this question on reference desk. May I ask you one more question? Do you know anybody on Wikipedia, who can answer a question regarding Mathematics (Calculus)? (Please tell me the exact use of talk pages, as I am new at WP.) Ravishankar Joshi talk ) 08:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Generally, if you post on my talk page, it means you are talking to me specifically, usually about something I've done on WP. (An exception would be if you're responding to someone else's post in a conversation.) Article talk pages are more for discussion related to improving the article: general questions that are meant to help one understand something would usually go to the reference desk, though, I think. For further info, I think Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines would help. (There's no need to be sorry for asking too many questions – we all learn that way, don't we? But if you post to the reference desk, you'll get more answers because many editors will be there to answer your questions, whereas if you post here you'll most likely get only me.) For a mathematics question, I suppose the usual venue would be the mathematics reference desk. Double sharp (talk ) 08:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC) would you like to join Chinese zh:Wikipedia:WikiProject Polyhedra ? would you like to join Chinese zh:Wikipedia:WikiProject Polyhedra ?zh:Wikipedia:多面體專題 (sorry, my english not good)該專題在中文維基百科已經成立幾年了，但遲遲沒有成員加入，我看到你在英文維基百科Wikipedia:WikiProject Polyhedra是成員之一，且您在Wikipedia:Babel表示您可以"以熟練的中文進行交流。"，希望您可以加入中文zh:Wikipedia:多面體專題的維護行列，您意下如何? 謝謝 I need your help. thank you. --Yu-Fan 宇帆 (talk) 03:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC) I'll go and take a look. Double sharp (talk) 05:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC) I probably won't be able to do much more than look there for another few weeks or months, though. Double sharp (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC) June 2014 Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Neptunium may have broken the syntax by modifying 14 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨) ].<ref name=unc/><ref name=Yoshida702/> The lone exception, <sup>240m</sup>Np, exhibits a rare (>0.12%) decay by [[isomeric transition]] in addition to the beta emission.<ref name=unc/> <sup>237</ the order of the neptunium ions in terms of complex formation ability is Np<sup>4+</sup> > {{chem|NpO|2|2+}} ≥ Np<sup>3+</sup> > {{chem|NpO|2|+}}. (The relative order of the middle two neptunium ions depends on the [[ligand]]s IV), Np(V), and Np(VI) complexes with monovalent inorganic ligands is [[fluoride|F<sup>−</sup>]] > [[dihydrogen phosphate|{{chem|H|2|PO|4|-}}]] > [[thiocyanate|SCN<sup>−</sup>]] > [[nitrate|{{chem|NO|3|-}}]] > [[chloride|Cl<sup>−</sup>]] > [[perchlorate|{{chem|ClO|4|-}}]]; the order for divalent inorganic ligands is [[carbonate|{{chem| {{chem|ClO|4|-}}]]; the order for divalent inorganic ligands is [[carbonate|{{chem|CO|3|2-}}]] > [[hydrogen phosphate|{{chem|H|PO|4|2-}}]] > [[sulfate|{{chem|SO|4|2-}}]]. These follow the strengths of the corresponding [[acid]]s. The acid]] solution: the strength of interaction between the two cations follows the order Fe > In > Sc > Ga > Al.<ref name=Yoshida77182/> The neptunyl and uranyl ions can also form a complex together.<ref It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow talk ) 07:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC) All of these are actually greater-than signs. Double sharp (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for June 29 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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. Neptunium (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver) added links pointing to Matrix (chemistry), Telluride, Ausonia, Electrodeposition, Lactate, Rare earth, Stability constant and Sublimate It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Fixed Double sharp (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC) WikiProject Council/Proposals/Shogi Hi Double Sharp. Thanks for adding your name in support of Wikipedia: WikiProject Council/Proposals/Shogi. I see from your userpage that you are not only a shogi player, but also an experienced editor. Of course, assistance from anyone (shogi player or not) interested in improving and enhancing shogi's presence on Wikipedia is appreciated, but any guidance and suggestions we can get from experienced editors such as yourself is definitely most welcome. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC) Thank you! (I'm not a good shogi player at all, but I'll be willing to help as much as I can.) Double sharp (talk) 06:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC) WikiCup 2014 June newsletter After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's Godot13 (submissions) was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, Casliber (submissions) finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's , whose contributions included featured articles Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round. The round saw this year's first featured portal, with Sven Manguard (submissions ). The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC) Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Double_sharp/Archive_6&oldid=1145982352"