User talk:Roentgenium111

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Roentgenium111, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Gary King (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Your recent changes to Ununoctium[edit]

Hi! I wanted to ask why you decided to remove information from Ununoctium without specifying a reason. Was it incorrect? SkyLined (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

On the noble gases talk page we argued that Ununoctium should not be considered a noble gas until there is evidence that it has similar properties to the six other elements of group 18. Thus I removed the "(noble gases)" in the Uuo introduction.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That makes sence then. I've tried to adjust the wording on the page to put the statement around it potentially not being a noble gas nearer the statement that puts it in group 18, but couldn't think of anything that made sense. I either end up duplicating information or moving something else that then makes no sense... oh, well. Thanks for the info! SkyLined (talk) 10:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Solar System[edit]

I noticed your recent interest, and would like your contribution to the talk page on Talk:Solar_System#New_List. -HarryAlffa (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Natural satellites[edit]

Hi,

If we describe the table as having dwarf planets in bold, then your revert is fine. But currently we say that bold = hydro. equilibrium. Objects aren't in hydro. equilibrium "by definition" because they're dwarf planets, they're dwarf planets by definition because they're in hydro. equilibrium. Eris is assumed to be in hydro. equilibrium because it's more massive than Pluto, and Makemake and E61 are assumed it be in hydro. equilibrium because their absolute magnitudes are less than 1. Many others are assumed to be in hydro. equilibrium as well, but we have no problem italicizing them. What we could do is say that bold = hydro. equilibrium or an assumption of hydro. equilibrium for naming purposes. However, if we did that, we would need to bold E61 as well. Or we could say bold = hydro. equilibrium or accepted as a dwarf planet by the IAU, in which case we would not need to bold E61. kwami (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite get your point. My reasoning is the following: 1. IAU classifies Eris, Pluto and Makemake as dwarf planets. 2. By IAU, an object is a dwarf planet, if it has achieved hydro. equilibrium (+not having cleared the neighbourhood). It follows logically from 1. and 2. that Eris, Pluto and Makemake have achieved hydro. equilibrium (in IAU's opinion, of course). I don't know any source which disagrees with this. However, IAU does not (yet) classify EL61 as either dwarf planet or as having reached hydrostatic equilibrium. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

heaviest element[edit]

If you could find a RS for the claim that 170-210 is the theoretical limit of elements, that would be appreciated. As would the reasoning, which you hinted at Talk:Extension_of_the_periodic_table_beyond_the_seventh_period. It looks like there may be 3 issues: the physical limits due to drip lines, tied up w the presumed Island of Stability, and the theoretical limits for neutral atoms and for nuclei. Thanks, kwami (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "RS"? I gave a reference for this statement in the article (currently reference [4], Encyclopedia Britannica). I must admit I don't know the reason why this is believed to be the limit. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
WP:RS. The EB isn't much more accurate than Wikipedia; we certainly don't want to use them for esoteric claims about physics if we don't have to. I agree it's better than a bald claim, but there's no way to tell if the info is peer reviewed, dated, rejected, or adjusted. I can ask at the physics project. kwami (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't see what's "esoteric" about this claim. Also, according to WP:RS:
Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion.
So, since I only used it for an "overview" statement and we (unfortunately) don't have secondary sources available, I think the use of EB as a reference in this situation is quite appropriate. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
It's acceptable lacking anything better, just not terribly reliable. Physics could easily have moved on since then, esp. considering how sensitive such estimates are to the models used. Considering the general unreliability of any encyclopedia, including the EB, it would be better to get something peer reviewed that can be verified by the reader. kwami (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

H1N1 Outbereak in Norway[edit]

I cannot see what you mean by deleating irrelevant information, as what you deleted is highly relevant to a pandemic in Norway, it is all numbers by the Norwegian government, and should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notelitten (talkcontribs) 10:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The article I deleted this information from covers all the 200 countries in the world, so we can only give an overview of the situation in each country. The Norway chapter was one of the longest, so I tried to shorten it. (I did the same for my own country Germany, by the way). But you may create a separate article "Swine flu outbreak in Norway" and put the deleted information in there if you think it noteworthy, and put a link to it in the main article. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Overpopulation - your question regarding my charts[edit]

Hi Roentgenium111 - just to let you know that I noticed your question yesterday, indirectly addressed to me, that you posted last November on Overpopulation Talk.

Perhaps another time you could also mention it on my talk page so it's easier for me to notice? Anyhow please do take a look and see if I have now put your mind at rest?

Many thanks Barryz1 (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi again Roentgenium111, in response to your further observation & questions I put in a whole lot more time and effort to reply. Please do take a careful look through and give me your thoughts. Hopefully we are now in agreement but if not I'd be very interested indeed to know your detailed thoughts on the subject; Population falls due to Plague shown on Charts. Thanks a lot Barryz1 (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


Extension PT[edit]

Hi, Roentgenium111. I'm a native Vietnamese and maybe I would make wrong spelling and grammar. Could you remove the grey "ions" in the page "Extension of the periodic table beyond the 7th period" inside the block color. I've deleted elements with Z>173. Bye and thank you very much for help.58.187.50.254 (talk) 12:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Should the transactinide category be included as an additional color on the Wikipedia table?[edit]

Your thoughts would be appreciated here. Flying Jazz (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

German federal election July 1932[edit]

I did the best I could, but your revision is better. I just happened to look at the article and happened to notice the explanation of that edit, that the sentences being deleted were "meaningless" when they were anything but. The sentences read like they were written by a German native speaker and they also assumed a certain level of knowledge about parliamentary government that is not possessed by most Americans, so I was trying to restore the information in a way that it would not get deleted again. Marrante (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I imagined something like that. It was good you made that edit, since this important fact definitely belongs in the article. In case you were worried, I didn't want to criticise your edit with my edit summary. I just wanted to give reasons for mine so that it would not be reverted. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I just finally made it back here to see your reply to my post above. Thanks for explaining your edit because I did think there was an implied criticism a bit (because of the quotes around "central point", which can be sometimes be a kind of sarcasm) but the edit itself really did explain it better and you were right about what I had written. Anyway, I made it back here again because I wanted to thank you for restoring that sentence. I saw the deletion and explanation, but hoped you'd fix it and felt you'd do a better job than I would anyway (which you did). I'm having trouble enough right now, just typing on a schleptop kezboard. ;-> Marrante (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
By way of a thank you, I will tweak your comment. (Would that you could return the favor, but we're not supposed to write in other languages here. Or more accurately, would that my German were as good as your English!) Marrante (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Scientific truths[edit]

its not absurd to quote the scientific truth on same sex marriage. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.136.59 (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If you have a scientific reference for the sentence I deleted, feel free to re-add it. To me it sounds absurd - you could as well claim that disallowing children to vote invites the public to discriminate against children, or something like that. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be up on Kepler's findings[edit]

I was wondering if you could give planet a read through to see if its info is up to date? Thanks. Serendipodous 21:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I've roughly looked through it and it seems fine to me. I will look at it in more detail later (probably in two weeks' time).--Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The claim that COROT-7b is the smallest known super-Earth is outdated, that's now Kepler-10b. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Elements 109, 110, 111[edit]

While I agree that the chemical properties of these elements have not been found out, IUPAC specifically defines the transition metals to be elements in groups 3-12 ([1], p. 51), so Mt, Ds and Rg would be transition metals regardless of their chemical properties by this definition. (For the systematically-named elements, IUPAC does not mention anything like this, so the current colouring is correct. I would think that [2] is not a reliable source.) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 07:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. But you're not quite correct: On that page, IUPAC says that these elements are "commonly referred to" as "transition elements" - so 1. they don't call them thus themselves (the list of IUPAC-appproved element categories on p.51/52 does not include this category), and 2. the notion of "transition element" naturally does not imply anything about chemical properties, while "transition metal" (which is the term used in the table I recently edited) implies that they're all metals, which is yet unknown. So I'd say that 109-111 are transition elements by definition, but not necessarily transition metals. (BTW, I'd rather oppose changing the category name in the table to "trans. element" since the colouring is supposed to show chemical similarities, not pure formalities.)
Finally, Wikipedia does not in general consider IUPAC as the most authorative source. Otherwise, we would have to stop the periodic table at copernicium (112), since this is the last element whose discovery has been acknowledged by them. (I considered doing this some years ago, but it was met with strong resistance by other WP editors.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Oops - this is what I get for not reading carefully. However, since the current periodic table at Template:Compact periodic table is relatively stable, we may have to bring this up at WT:ELEM. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 12:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
BTW, can you give me a link to the discussion where you considered stopping the periodic table at Cn some years ago? Double sharp (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I think it was this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements/Archive_8#Proposal_to_remove_undiscovered_elements_from_the_periodic_table. I was editing as an IP back then.
(Thanks for finally establishing the "uncolouring" of 109-111, BTW - I had already given up on it before since my edits had been continuously reverted without explanation.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome! Double sharp (talk) 12:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Kepler-11 system illustration, comparison with inner Solar system[edit]

Crystal Clear app gimp.png
Hello, Roentgenium111. A reply to your request at the Illustration workshop has been made.
If you are satisfied, please copy/paste the following code and add it to your request: {{resolved|1=~~~~}}

You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{GL Illustration reply}} template.

MissMJ (talk) 07:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dealing with Kepler too, I've just been asking for sources about this diff of yours : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mesoplanet&diff=next&oldid=555677396 ONaNcle (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
u rally rock <3 Hamees (talk) 11:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Number of discovered extrasolar planets is reached 574[edit]

Number of discovered extrasolar planets is reached 574. If you editing article about new (recently discovered) extrasolar planet, would desirable insert info in this articles:

List of extrasolar planets detected by timing
List of extrasolar planets directly imaged
List of extrasolar planets detected by microlensing
List of transiting extrasolar planets
List of extrasolar planets detected by radial velocity
List of planetary systems
List of exoplanetary host stars

--Lacpurnis2 (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Number of discovered extrasolar planets is reached 684[edit]

Number of discovered extrasolar planets is reached 684. If you editing article about new (recently discovered) extrasolar planet, would desirable insert info in this articles:

List of extrasolar planets detected by timing
List of extrasolar planets directly imaged
List of extrasolar planets detected by microlensing
List of transiting extrasolar planets
List of extrasolar planets detected by radial velocity
List of planetary systems

--Lacpurnis2 (talk) 06:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Ununtrium[edit]

At Talk:Ununtrium there's a question I asked twice, and the 2 sections are separated by only one section in between. Can you answer it?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I can't, but I would be interested in an answer as well...--Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Any Wikipedians that you think might be able to answer it?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

High Earth orbit[edit]

Excerpt from the source:

Definition: A High Earth Orbit is any orbit above geosynchronous (above 35,786 km). A Highly Elliptical Orbit is an orbit of low perigee (about 1000 km) and a high apogee over 35,786 km)

Excerpt from the article:

A High Earth Orbit is a geocentric orbit whose apogee lies above that of a geosynchronous orbit (35,786 kilometres (22,236 mi)). Highly Elliptical Orbits are a subset of High Earth Orbits.

Are you suggesting that the source say that both the perigee and apogee of a High Earth Orbit are above geosynchronous ? If not what exact claim of the article do you think is unsupported (or contradicted) by the source ? Bomazi (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

An "orbit above geosynchronous" to me means that at least the mean orbital distance (if not the perigee) is above 35,786 km, not just the apogee.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Cn[edit]

The only thing I would find is: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375947400006898 Nergaal (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Mus (card game), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Comparing (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) 10:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For doing so much to help pages pertaining to chemistry, I thank you. ThePeriodicTable123 (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Natural isotopes with half-life under an hour[edit]

I got a list of those for Z ≥ 81 from the respective lists of isotopes. (The Au and Hg lists didn't mention any more, so I stopped at Tl. There must be more, though – 206Hg is absent, even though IIRC it does occur naturally from decay of 210Pb.) Currently, the missing isotopes from List of nuclides are 206Tl, 207Tl, 208Tl, 210Tl, 211Pb, 214Pb, 211Bi, 214Bi, 215Bi, 211Po, 212Po, 214Po, 215Po, 216Po, 218Po, 214At, 215At, 216At, 217At, 218At, 218Rn, 219Rn, 220Rn, and 222Ra. Double sharp (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Terrestrial planet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ceres (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) 14:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Extended periodic table limit[edit]

Previously there seemed to be a large consensus that elements higher than Z=173 cannot exist which seemed to be backed by large number of scientific articals. Why is the limit now z=218? Robo37 (talk) 09:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know; I haven't edited that article for a year, when it was still 173. You'd best ask this question on the article's talk page, or ask the editor who actually made that change. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
173 was based on a misunderstanding of the theoretical calculations. While it's true that at Z>173 the 1s states enter the negative continuum, that in itself does not stop the atom from existing. Instead the atom remains stable and bound if the 1s shell is not ionized, and the 1s states mixed with the states in the negative continuum to form a bound "resonance" state. Double sharp (talk) 07:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

move request for 79360 Sila–Nunam[edit]

I opened a move request in Talk:79360_Sila–Nunam#Requested_move. You are receiving this notice beause you have made substantial changes to the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited West German federal election, 1961, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Faction (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) 09:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Could PH2 b Be Potentially Habitable - Or Not?[edit]

Copied from Talk:PH2 b#Could PH2_b Be Potentially Habitable - Or Not:

Could PH2 b Be Potentially Habitable - Or Not?[edit]

Apparently, the confirmed exoplanet PH2 b is in the "Habitable zone".(< ref name="arXiv-20130103">Wang, Ji; et al. (January 3, 2013). "Planet Hunters. V. A Confirmed Jupiter-Size Planet in the Habitable Zone and 42 Planet Candidates from the Kepler Archive Data". arXiv:1301.0644v1 [astro-ph.EP].</ref>

One cited reference in the PH2 b article suggests that a "Jupiter-size world" (PH2 b?) could "potentially be habitable."< ref name="Space-20130113">Howell, Elizabeth (January 13, 2013). "Amateur Astronomers Discover 42 Alien Planets". Space.com. Retrieved January 13, 2013. </ref>

This was originally stated in the PH2 b Wikipedia article but has been reverted by two editors: Roentgenium111 with a reason and by Nergaal without a reason. The reason for the reversion given by Roentgenium111 is as follows: ("correct - the absurd habitability claim is (self-)contradicted by the space.com article itself: "Ph2 b is considered much too large to host life." It could only have habitable moons...")

However, the statement ("Ph2 b is considered much too large to host life.") seems to have been written by the magazine writer (Elizabeth Howell) and does *not* seem to have been presented by the scientists: after all, there is no citation for the sentence; Ms Howell, the writer, does not quote the scientists and a search of the original arXiv article does not reveal any mention of the notion (directly or indirectly) as far as I can see.

For myself at the moment, the notion of a planet being in the "Habitable zone" may make the existence of life (as we know it) more likely - such a planet being large (or even being gaseous) should not make hosting life forms less likely. Is there something I may be overlooking?

Any help in better understanding this issue would be greatly appreciated - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

AFD notice[edit]

Nomination of Early anthropocene for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Early anthropocene is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Early anthropocene until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Proportionality principle in Malta[edit]

Yes, there is a proportionality principle, see the last part of this article: Times of Malta. --Glentamara (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, my source [3] on the electoral system doesn't mention any extra seats due to proportionality; but probably the Times article is more reliable. So feel free to add the source (and then remove my tag) to the election template. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Because you asked[edit]

so showing your marked ballot is allowed/tolerated in Canada?

This article doesn't definitively answer your question but it gives a good idea about how relaxed a Canadian can be about it. Personally, it had never crossed my mind how an individual voting openly can indirectly pressure others voting secretly until you explained GDR voting. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference; the different attitudes to this are interesting. Personally, I also don't think a few individuals showing their vote puts much pressure on others, but there's a problem when the majority votes openly... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kepler-62e, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Terrestrial (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) 09:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

"Indentions"[edit]

I'm puzzled about a piece of this edit, wherein you readded italics to the non-planets in the list. Is there a (good) reason why those should be italicized? --Izno (talk) 04:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

My intention for the italics was just to keep them visibly distinct from the actual planets in the list (but I wouldn't mind distinguishing them in some other way). Is there a reason why they shouldn't be italicized? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Because we don't italicize things for no reason? WP:ITALICS explains when it is a good reason. (Besides, I personally see no reason to delineate between planet and non-planet....) --Izno (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, MOS:EMPHASIS suggests using italics for emphasis. It's also used for distinction in exactly the same way in other articles like List of sovereign states and dependent territories by fertility rate (using italics for dependent territories, as opposed to sovereign states). In this case, a distinction is reasonable because the article is only about terrestrial planets, not the Moon or some asteroids; the latter are (presumably) only included for comparison purposes. If we don't emphasize this, the non-planets should be removed completely because they're off-topic. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I actually have no objection to removing the non-planets; it does seem odd to me to include them in a list on a page about planets. :^) --Izno (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I would also support removing them (and maybe instead add an in-text sentence about the continuing trend for solid bodies outside Mars); feel free to do so if no-one else disagrees. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • , KOI 268.01 [Rp=1.75], KOI 1026.01 [Rp=1.77], KOI 854.01 [Rp=1.91], KOI 70.03 [Rp=1.96] – Table 6). A more recent study found that one of these candidates (KOI&nbsp;326.01) is in fact much
  • The Neptune-mass planet [[Kepler-10c]] also has a density >5 g/cm<sup>3</sup> and is thus very likely terrestrial.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of nuclides, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Primordial. 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 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited German federal election, March 1933, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hindenburg. 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) 09:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)