User talk:Double sharp

"You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I may not watch your talk page and I will likely unintentionally IGNORE your reply if you do not ping me in it, use Template:Talkback, or copy it to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! I also prefer to keep the conversation in one place and not split across multiple pages. Thank you.

The following users watch my talk page (feel free to add yourself to this list if you do so too).

• Tomruen
• Sandbh
• Basemetal (on and off but always when I initiate a conversation; IOW no need to ping me)
• R8R Gtrs
• YBG

Liszt

The article indeed sucks - but every time I try to steel myself to deal with it, my heart aches and a drowsy numbness pains my sense (I'm sure you know the feeling).--Smerus (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I know it rather too well. Unfortunately it is hardly alone among composer articles in sucking, what with the lapsing of the Schubert article into tabloid-speak and the confused-first-year partial summary of Haydn's musical style in his article (I'm almost afraid to look at those for Mozart and Beethoven). Well, I suppose we have to start somewhere, although looking at the impressive bibliography list for the Chopin article I am not sure how much help I could be for fixing up the Liszt article!

(It is hardly a problem confined to music, BTW; the phosphorus article is about as terrible, and despite having written many chemistry articles on Wikipedia I still can't bring myself to actually deal with that one. I was hoping to escape that for a moment by looking at my other interests on WP; obviously it didn't work.) Double sharp (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Well at the moment I have promised to try to improve Claudio Monteverdi - and then I will have to resume Johannes Brahms where I've done the life but can't face the music......so FL and the others will have to wait a bit.......Smerus (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

For sure, Brahms is pretty difficult to write about: I am still not sure I understand his music well enough to write a lucid, sourced exposition about it. I have made some brave noises about rewriting Haydn (which I think I understand better), but it would also be my first time actually writing something biographical and it certainly still scares me a little, even though I logically know that that's a rather silly reaction. Still, the work that has been done on the already-FA composers makes me confident that when I run into problems on that (and I certainly will when I get around to it), there will be a great deal of help coming my way. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Keep me in touch.....Smerus (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

But of course! Double sharp (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Smerus: If I had to put a finger on just one thing I've been sorely missing in some of the composer articles is a sort of "what-to-look-for-in-the-style" guide – the composition sections tend to look like a list of works and when they were written with nothing else. I certainly like that information, but I almost think I'd want to know something about "signature" elements of their style in the sense of the principles that tend to be at work in their music, hopefully with some illustrative musical examples. Even an FA like Francis Poulenc is not exactly forthcoming about this: it tells us the main aspects but I almost wish there was a musical example or two in there to see it for myself – and now I start to wonder why nothing is said about why he is categorised as a "neoclassical" composer (the term isn't even used once in the article proper!). I don't claim to be an expert on Poulenc's music, but when I finally get around to courageously tackling Haydn I shall try to address this – I am pretty sure I know what is going on there, at least, and know where to find sources for it. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I tried to do something on these lines in the Chopin, Alkan and Meyerbeer articles, and am still pondering how to deal with this for Brahms having rewritten the biography section.Smerus (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Smerus: Chopin's been treated well, of course (though may I suggest a quotation from the end of Op. 50 No. 3 for his chromatic harmony? ^_-☆). I think another difficulty in Brahms is just how many allusions there are in his music to earlier composers (and any ass can see it): many times it feels like one needs to understand how some conventions are being honoured almost in the breach (and the ones played straight are so outdated that they actually sound new). So explaining some of what he was doing ends up going on about what the earlier convention was, which seems to create a problem of how not to go off-topic. Double sharp (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thorium

Active work on lead finished for now, and I'd want to tackle on thorium. Now is the time to begin with. (Or next week at worst.) I've shortly listed what we need to do at Talk:Thorium/PR_continued#Road_map_towards_FAC. Are you ready to go on?--R8R (talk) 10:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'm ready! (Oddly enough I didn't get the "new messages" orange bar for this, which is why I'm slightly later than usual at replying.) ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I'm a little aworried about me not getting back to it. I want this one done; I feel like I could've done it a while ago already but there just always seems to be something that could be done instead; sometimes, in retrospect, I think I could allow myself to invest this time into Wiki. I also want to get you to do it as well becuase you've repeatedly indicated you wanted to do it as well :) So how about I set up some weekly tasks to be done, for example, to stimulate you and myself? Or maybe you have some better suggestions?--R8R (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Weekly tasks will be fine and good; in fact, the main reason I haven't got back to it is that you seem to be working on one bit of it at intervals yourself, and I didn't want to jump in there too without knowing what you were trying to do yet. With those tasks made clear I do believe I shall be able to contribute to finishing it up properly. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Delighted to read that. In part, I've moved slowly recently because the Production part has never been particularly interesting to me. At first (back in the fluorine times), I just tried to avoid it. Now... it seems dealable, very much so; but this dealing is very dull. I get to learn a practice, which is usually easy; and then I have to do some mind athletics to tell that story in your own (different) words. Usually, one or two good sources are enough. So it is easy and boring. It doesn't have to feel this way, though: I was feeling this way about History first and now it seems one of the, if not just the, most interesting sections in an article.

Maybe you could help me out or even take this on? Especially if you find a way to add creativity to this writing, this should be good and interesting. It has happened between me and History, so it is certainly possible. Maybe you're even reading this thinking "come on, what is there not to enjoy about industrial production?" ;) There is Ullmann to begin with; then I'd just recommend checking if any more recent sources have anything to add and that should be it. You can see lead for a recent example of a good Production section. This is easy, as I said.

If you agree (which I sincerely hope you do), I could go for applications. Even if just the non-nuclear ones, for now, at least.--R8R (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'll check out the sources later today when I get back and see what I can come up with for production... ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 03:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

So, how did it go?

As for myself, I think I may be able to finish off the Applications section today.--R8R (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I've got to digest it a little more, but I think I can get it done tomorrow. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

That would be good. I'm afraid I'll have to postpone the description of the non-nuclear applications until sometime soon; I hope that "soon" will be tomorrow.--R8R (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2017‎ (UTC)

I should really stop speaking of exact dates on WP, because then things emerge and they get pushed back. >_< In the meantime, I have a question: from your summary and the original Stoll chapter it seems like acid digestion is a rather old-fashioned method today among the main Th producers, perhaps because of its lack of selectivity: it certainly gets the Th out, but then you need to purify all the lanthanides out as well. And the purification aspects tend to go into a lot of detail on specific compounds, because of the different complexing abilities of Th⁴⁺ and UO²⁺
₂. So I'm wondering if we need to give long, separate sections on each of them following Stoll's original order; I might consider instead talking about the main current method and its chemistry in detail, and then briefly summarising some important historical or lesser-used ones. But I'll wait for your feedback on this. Double sharp (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

We certainly don't need long sections; that never was the plan. The length of Concentration should be about same as that of Lead#Primary (or maybe even less than that); same for subsections. If the book itself summarizes the lengthy descriptions, for the purposes of Wikipedia writing, you don't need (though, of course, you still may) to look for the details. As for order, I presume the general order is fine. While the newer method is more appealing technology-wise, the older one is cheaper. This is why it is still used (according to Stoll) and we should follow. Remember you don't need to make the text long; you only need to describe the basics. Details could be mice if they matter; I think you'll feel it if they are. Compare this line from lead: "During initial processing, ores typically undergo crushing, dense-medium separation, grinding, froth flotation, and drying." with what it could be: "During initial processing, ores typically are usually crushed to obtain a powder of a small grain size. Then the powder is introduced into a dense medium, in which the lighter parts of the ore float while the heavier drown; this removes some impurities. Then [I'll stop here, you get the idea]."

To sum up, I don't think we need to add much text; certainly, we need to add less than one screen (my laptop has a screen resolution of 1600x900).--R8R (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've done it! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Nice!

Content-wise, here's what I think we have yet to do: we should specify in Applications that the tungsten alloying is the only use that hasn't had thorium replaced by other elements. Haven't written that myself because I'm not entirely sure if that's true. That's what our lead says, though, so we definitely need to check on that. Toxicity/Chemical is very weak. Perhaps you'll want to add a sentence or two on Th's physical and/or chemical characteristcs in the lead section (you don't have to, though, but you can). That should be it.--R8R (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Seems like lanthanum has finally replaced thorium even there, based on some recent welding books I found on Google Books. T_T Double sharp (talk) 14:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

It also seems like the reason why the chemical toxicity of thorium is not well-studied is because it hydrolyses too readily to form the insoluble hydroxide, in which form it just passes through you for the most part and comes back out intact. As a result, if you have ingested enough thorium that chemical toxicity would manifest itself, it should not be your primary concern, because radioactivity (especially from the daughters) would already be causing significant damage. One interesting tidbit I did find is that the poor solubility of Th also does delay excretion, but even that does not seem to impact health detectably in plausible amounts. I have added some of this information to the article, but I am not sure the section can be expanded much further because of this reason. You're better off worrying about the radium, radon, and maybe also actinium that are among its daughters. So now I'm wondering: should we go into detail about that? In one sense it is deeply related to Th, as most of your radiation intake comes from the Rn, Ra, and Ac that come out, which because of their chemistry enter the body much more easily than Th itself. But they are not Th isotopes, so I'd like to hear your take on this and how much we should write on that. Something like Radon#Daughters perhaps, if at less length? Double sharp (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Would you take a look at Thorium#Potential use for nuclear energy? It feels like something's missing but I can't realize what. I don't want to tell the whole story of what a nuclear energy station is, becuase we're talking about a very particular case, but it may be incomplete somehow still. Could you tell what?--R8R (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Taking a cursory look, I agree but still cannot quite put my finger on what exactly is lacking. With some luck this shall come to either of us soon in a flash of insight. Perhaps I shall look at what the old version said, to see if it said something that would address this and might be salvaged from the former quasi-shipwreck. Double sharp (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Langue sacrée, langue parlée

Hello. You have translated several film articles from the French for me in the past. Would it be possible for you to please kindly translate this one too? The poster is here. Many thanks! Current IP: 79.182.75.201 (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

OK: it looks fairly short, so I may be able to get it done today (but note the may ^_^). Double sharp (talk) 11:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Great. Please feel free to take your time. Nobody is in a hurry.79.182.75.201 (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

And apparently I jinxed myself by saying that, so that I suddenly found that I needed to do something new IRL. I will try to finish it sometime early this week, at least. Double sharp (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

No problem.--79.182.75.201 (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I have submitted a draft for another one of her films here. After it is approved, could you please also upload the DVD cover? Many thanks once again!--79.182.75.201 (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

No problem, although that will have to wait for it to be approved to meet WP:NFCC. Double sharp (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Great!--79.182.75.201 (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

By the way, any chance for you to approve the submission? And, after both articles are ready, would it be possible for you to also create a Category:Films directed by Nurith Aviv plus a Template:Films directed by Nurith Aviv? Thanks! Current IP:--79.179.204.145 (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not particularly well-versed in the AfC process; how would I go about doing this? Does it suffice to simply move the article into the mainspace, since it seems to be ready already? Double sharp (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

You could ask here. I think these are the instructions.--79.179.204.145 (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Traduire article approved!--79.179.204.145 (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Just making sure you haven't forgotten about the requests :)--79.179.204.145 (talk) 10:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Right, thanks; there's been way too much stuff coming over this week. I'll do it now. Double sharp (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Superb.--79.179.204.145 (talk) 10:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Double sharp (talk) 11:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks so very much. Now just the template for her three films. I'll expand the article now.--79.179.204.145 (talk) 11:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, now that's done too. Double sharp (talk) 11:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks once again!--79.179.204.145 (talk) 11:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and, of course, the link to the French Wikipedia article should appear on the the left. I can't manage to figure out how to do so myself. Thanks.--79.179.204.145 (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Double sharp (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Cheers.--79.179.204.145 (talk) 13:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome! Double sharp (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

One more thing, if that's not too much of a burden. I've written an article about a poem: could you, please, upload its book cover? A great many thanks, again!--79.179.204.145 (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Double sharp (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!--79.179.204.145 (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

And, can you please also upload the cover for this book, too? Thank you.--79.179.204.145 (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Have you seen my latest message?--79.179.204.145 (talk) 10:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have. It's just that I can't upload it from my phone, so it will have to wait for about another hour or so. Double sharp (talk) 10:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

No problem whatsoever. Just wanted to make sure you haven't missed it. Thanks again.--79.179.204.145 (talk) 10:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Double sharp (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!--79.179.204.145 (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Praseodymium

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Praseodymium you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Parcly Taxel -- Parcly Taxel (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Praseodymium

The article Praseodymium you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Praseodymium for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Parcly Taxel -- Parcly Taxel (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

On dynamic groups and reclassifying Jupiter's irregular moons.

I apologize for the long message.

Here, I decided to help you along in reclassifying Jupiter's irregulars. I ran a computer program with the definitions of each group, throwing each moon at it with its orbital elements (mostly inclination and eccentricity) and letting it classify it as Ananke, Carme, or Pasiphae group based on that. In weird cases, I used common (not-so-common?) sense to figure out where it most likely belonged.

Feel free to leave your comment below.

Here are the results.

Themisto - ?!?!

Leda - Himalia

Himalia - Himalia (duh...)

Lysithea - Himalia

Elara - Himalia

Dia - Himalia

Carpo - ?!?!

S/2003 J 12 - ?!?!

Euporie - Maybe Ananke/Pasiphae, but I can't find any relation to either. My program also gave up on this one. Seems to be who knows?!?!

S/2003 J 3 - Most likely Ananke, as an outer member.

S/2011 J 1 - ?!?!

S/2003 J 18 - Ananke/Pasiphae (mixed) The eccentricity is a bit low for Ananke. Also a bit close in to be Pasiphae.

S/2010 J 2 - Ananke

Thelxinoe - Ananke

Euanthe - Ananke - WHY ARE YOU SAYING PASIPHAE ON WIKIPEDIA?!?!?! It's probably a member of Ananke, just on the outer edge.

Helike - Ananke/Pasiphae (mixed results) More likely Pasiphae due to its low eccentricity.

Orthosie - Pasiphae. Its low inclination relative to the Ananke group suggests Pasiphae.

S/2016 J 1 - Pasiphae

Iocaste - Ananke

S/2003 J 16 - Ananke

Praxidike - Ananke, but my program suggested Pasiphae. The eccentricity is a bit low for Ananke.

Harpalyke - Ananke

Mneme - Ananke

Hermippe - Ananke

Thyone - Ananke

Ananke - Ananke (duh...)

Herse - Carme

Aitne - Carme

Kale - Carme

Taygete - Carme

S/2003 J 19 - Carme. Outer edge, though. My program suggested it didn't belong to a group.

Chaldene - Carme

S/2003 J 15 - Pasiphae. With such an extremely circular orbit, it's obvious.

S/2003 J 10 - Carme

S/2003 J 23 - Pasiphae

Erinome - Carme

Aoede - Pasiphae. A bit (or far?) too elliptical for the Carme group.

Kallichore - Carme

Kalyke - Carme

Carme - Carme (duh...)

Callirrhoe - Pasiphae

Eurydome - Pasiphae

Pasithee - Carme

S/2010 J 1 - Carme

Kore - Pasiphae

Cyllene - Pasiphae

S/2011 J 2 - Pasiphae. Its eccentricity and inclination match those of an Ananke group member close to the edge. But it's way too far away.

Eukelade - Carme

S/2017 J 1 - Pasiphae

S/2003 J 4 - Pasiphae. Only choice. Why do you have it marked with a question mark on Wikipedia? It's definitely Pasiphae.

Pasiphae - Pasiphae (duh...)

Hegemone - Pasiphae

Arche - Carme

Isonoe - Carme

S/2003 J 9 - Definitely Carme. Nothing else fits.

S/2003 J 5 - Carme

Sinope - Pasiphae

Sponde - Pasiphae

Autonoe - Pasiphae

Megaclite - Pasiphae

S/2003 J 2 - ?!?! There doesn't seem to be anything for this one. Maybe a more distant member of the Pasiphae group at best, but it does seem to orbit eerily alone.

Hope this helps you. ;-). 8.40.151.110 (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not my classification for some of the odd cases, but directly from Sheppard's website; after all, he is the discoverer of many of these tiny moons. The question marks for some of the unnamed moons are because their orbits are not known very well yet; so even though some look like really good members of their groups now, this could change (perhaps in 2018 with the next round of observations). Incidentally, the Pasiphae group is more like a case of "no strong dynamical clustering" than a real group.

Euanthe is indeed an Ananke group member and I am sorry for introducing the confusion; I must have made a copy-and-paste blunder and then propagated it everywhere. Well, time to change it now! Double sharp (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, wait: I did mark Euanthe correctly as an Ananke group member in {{Moons of Jupiter}} and the main article. Are you sure you didn't make a little slip-up there? ^_-☆ Of course, I greatly appreciate the work you have done here! Double sharp (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I just checked your list against Moons of Jupiter and Sheppard's website. Every case matches, except for the question marks I applied to the "lost" moons (Sheppard even more prudently does not categorise them, since their orbital elements are not known well enough to use them as the primary basis for grouping). Thank you for all your hard work on this! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

No problem! And the Euanthe confusion was because I accidentally read the next row. (See my talk page.) I guess you really did classify all of them correctly. Now to update the articles of some of these moons, some of which still have the wrong classifications on them. I mean, I would do it, but I don't have that kind of patience. 8.40.151.110 (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that many changed, so I may have gotten all of them already: but I'll go through and check them all again. Double sharp (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done They should all be correct now. Double sharp (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@8.40.151.110: In case you're still interested in this, it might be interesting to try factoring in a (semi-major axis) and ω (argument of pericentre) – the first is essentially the only way to make sense out of the Uranians, and the second is also involved in Lidov–Kozai oscillations. Double sharp (talk) 07:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

On reclassifying the nonmetals

		Fluorine Award
		In recognition of your formulation of the principle that a category must be definable without making reference to another category, thereby completely ending the debate on reclassifying nonmetals in favour of the status quo. The End. Parcly Taxel 06:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Rejected proposals for superheavy names

Here. It was a surprise to me the Dubna team didn't give up of russium and kurchatovium from the past. Though I think the rules are overly strict: for one, I have never heard of "leosium."--R8R (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit sceptical of this, to be honest. How come flerovium was okay for element 114 but not for element 116? Double sharp (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought so, too. Maybe they went pushy on that one, though? Also, I remember that O wanted to name an element after Flerov and the element was named after the Flerov Lab, so that could be a compromise?--R8R (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The compromise idea makes sense. I'd want to know where these guys got their info from before feeling completely comfortable about reporting it, though. Double sharp (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Unbiunium

The article Unbiunium you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Unbiunium for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Geojournal -- Geojournal (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Systematicelementname

Template:Systematicelementname has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Manganese

I think you revert was fine, but I'd like to let you know of another class of Mn(VII) compounds, namely there are imido complexes of heptavalent manganese. For example chloro tris (tert-butylimido) manganese. For more in formation see Non-oxo chemistry of manganese in high oxidation states. Part 1. Mononuclear tert-butylimido compounds of manganese-(VII) and -(VI) http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/1994/dt/dt9940001037#!divAbstract OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the paper! This is quite cool, though I still think it may be more important to make it clear that Mn^VII and high oxidation states like that mostly have only oxo chemistry; it's not like Tc^VII or Re^VII. I'm still thinking if there may be a place to cover this: I think the chemistry section is a little small and could be expanded to discuss Mn complexes in each of its oxidation states. ^_-☆ Double sharp (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

New messages.

Hello, Double sharp. You have new messages at 8.40.151.110's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reverts

Hi Double sharp, sorry about the reverts. I haven't finished my response yet to your first comments (for which, thank you!). I can't finalise my own line of thinking, at the same time as responses come in to my unfinalised thoughts. (Actually, I probably could but I feel that the quality of the exchange would deteriorate markedly). I hope you can understand. Sandbh (talk) 06:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course I understand; I just inattentively didn't notice your note at the top. In any case, my comments are there in the history, so they're not lost. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 06:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I thought that might be the case. I'm thoroughly enjoying the discourse. I'll let you know when my response is ready. At least you will have done half of the work in formulating a reply already! Sandbh (talk) 06:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course. You're very welcome! Double sharp (talk) 06:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Good news; my response has been finalised, and is ready for your consideration. Sandbh (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Calcium

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Calcium you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Parcly Taxel -- Parcly Taxel (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Calcium

The article Calcium you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Calcium for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Parcly Taxel -- Parcly Taxel (talk) 04:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 July newsletter

The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year. Coemgenus and Freikorp tied on 288, and both have been allowed to proceed, so round 4 now has one pool of eight competitors and one of nine.

Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to 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. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Progress meter

Not sure what you had in mind here, but it gives rise to the following: Our various Periodic Tables by Quality tell us that the current state of things, but it might be nice to see something about the progress over time. Maybe a series of graphics showing PTQ at 6-month intervals, perhaps, or a stacked bar graph that shows the number of project articles at each level of quality over time. Not sure if this is the sort of thing you had in mind, but it's what came to my mind. YBG (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I was thinking of a sort of "thermometer" where the mercury (lol) would rise higher and higher as whatever article I was working on got closer and closer to its mainspace launch – perhaps to persuade myself that User:Double sharp/Silicon is actually coming soon (it's a huge and important element and despite having started in earnest on its GA push almost a whole month ago, I am still not very happy with how it is at the moment in the sandbox – the minerals are important and scary!). So it was more intended as a personal thing.

Mind you, I rather like your idea too, although getting back the really ancient history (like the first periodic table FA) may be difficult. Even for the first PTQ revisions, I think there was no such thing as C-class back then, and for a long while (up to 2011?) we had A-class between B and GA rather than GA and FA, so the scale is not directly comparable. You can at least look at the file history of the PTQ image to see some of it – despite my caveats, it is nice to look at how it looked at the close of 2010 (just before I joined in January 2011) and see how far we have come since then. (My personal goal is still a completely green PTQ before the decade is out... ^_^) Double sharp (talk) 02:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Think we can launch this one before the start of August if everything goes according to plan – failing which it shall likely become my eighth wiki-birthday present, so either way, it'll be fine. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 07:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

File:New Zealand TW-17.svg

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thank you, and I am likewise honoured to have gotten the chance to join 314 others in supporting such an excellent candidacy as yours! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 07:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Group 12 as post-transition metals

Hi Double sharp

Do you feel like putting this up as a proposal? We don't need to wait for the complete rewrite of the TM article in my view. There is enough support already in the literature to do this, given: the literature is about 50/50; the incorrect conflation by the 50% that get it wrong of the TMs with the d block metals; IUPAC accommodates this configuration; and the way our categories operate is along chemical properties based lines. And we can still include group 12 as PTM, in the TM article, for comparative purposes. Sandbh (talk) 07:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I have wanted to do it for a long while, but have been worried about having two active proposals (nonmetal recategorisation and group 12) open at once, for a project like ours which is running on only half a dozen active members (and often less). If you think it is not a problem, I can start it this week. Double sharp (talk) 07:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this is a problem. You're among friends. The nonmetal article rewrite will take longer. Sandbh (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've done a quick version of this. I tried to cover the important things briefly, since I am rather pressed for time. Double sharp (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't able to follow up as immediately as I would have liked for the above proposal because I'm currently suffering the collateral damage of an autoblock, but as usual your excellently thought-out summary has made that quite unnecessary. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 07:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I am mostly just talking to myself here to pass some time until the blocking administrator logs in again, but I will add here a preliminary response to DePiep's query on Cn: "Yes, Cn will fit OK as a PTM, because chemical experiments have shown that it behaves like a typical group 12 member, and by the group-based definition group 12 would be a PTM group. There was originally room for doubt based on the expected existence of Cn^IV, but given that newer calculations have refuted this (see copernicium) that has vanished." @DePiep: If you would like to copy and paste this for me into the actual discussion, given that I am currently stuck under some collateral damage, I would greatly appreciate it: if not, I shall only be able to do it myself when I get home by 12:00 UTC. Double sharp (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Autoblocked

This user's request to have his autoblock removed is on hold because the reviewer is waiting for a comment by the blocking administrator.

Double_sharp (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

• Blocking administrator: Ks0stm (talk)
• Reviewing administrator: I'm looking into limiting the collateral damage here. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Autoblock log entry: This network has been used improperly by someone on your network. It has therefore been blocked as a precaution to prevent abuse and damage to Wikipedia.
• Double sharp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 180.255.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

Administrator use only:

After the blocking administrator has left a comment, please replace this template with the following template:

{{unblock-auto|1=180.255.0.0/16|2=<nowiki>This network has been used improperly by someone on your network. It has therefore been blocked as a precaution to prevent abuse and damage to Wikipedia.</nowiki>|3=Ks0stm|4=}}

I am not editing from home at the moment, so I may be able to edit normally again later today (from about 11:00 12:00 UTC, give or take some minutes). But given that I shall be and have been by necessity editing from this range on weekdays I would like to request that this remain open even so. (Or it might not work that way; I don't really know, since I have not been affected by this before.) In any case, please do take your time, as I cannot say I am not enjoying this unplanned wikibreak. ^_-☆ Double sharp (talk) 07:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

(Meanwhile I still need to add something about how the numberings of natural satellites have been covered in the MPCs since 9 June 2017, along with some assorted grammar fixes to one of those articles about standard atomic weight. I'd have done it earlier today if not for this; anyway, I'm leaving them here as a reminder to myself.) Double sharp (talk) 09:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

(OK, I am certainly not enjoying it anymore. I would also most humbly suggest that the part of the automatic notice that says that registered users are still allowed to edit ought to be fixed – its truth seems to be very doubtful, though I am still not certain what it depends on.) Double sharp (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Yup, it looks like the autoblock only affects me on mobile. Which poses a problem because nowadays I am usually on mobile, so I'll request to leave this open for now even though I just managed to edit my userpage back home on my desktop. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I will see if this happens again tomorrow; if it doesn't, I will withdraw this request. Double sharp (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Yup: I am on mobile once again (unwillingly) and once again I get hit by the autoblock. Double sharp (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

And now WP is in an incorrect state again from the addition of Hg^IV to list of oxidation states of the elements from old papers and I cannot correct it based on the newer ones because I am still autoblocked. And because it is sourced it will most likely get overlooked as there is nothing that obviously shows that the experiment has been repeated and the results were never reproduced. Sigh... Double sharp (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)