User talk:Double sharp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipe-tan trifecta sign.png
"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).

I usually archive sections at the top when they have been inactive for over a month (a month is when I will do it, but I may do it earlier if it seems reasonable). This means that my talk page changes in length significantly depending on whether a section near the top is still generating replies. Each archive contains fifty sections, except of course the most recent one which may have fewer (and in that case it is still being filled up).


It's a pity I haven't been around lately and I probably still won't be for some time. Maybe that's one week, maybe a couple of months, depending on how lucky I am IRL. I just wanted to make sure you're still there with thorium; so far, I've made up to ref 14 in History. Hope you'll try to catch me from the other end of the ref list soon. The FAC is nearly there; it could've been completed a couple of months ago if it wasn't for you and me going so slowly. While I can hardly go faster in the coming days, I sincerely hope you can. Can you?--R8R (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I hope I can too, but likewise I am not sure. (Currently most of my editing on weekdays is through my smartphone, on which it is a massive pain to do most things involving references and actual content additions.) I can try to get some of it done today, though. Double sharp (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
That would be great. Actually, I think that pinging you once in a while could be good for the goal to avoid the "haven't done that in a while so another day won't hurt" sitaution.
Speaking of which, I wouldn't mind you pinging me. A couple of times I sort of pinged myself and got some of those refs done :)--R8R (talk) 09:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for not starting yet, though; I have been running to stay ahead of a few deadlines IRL, but that crisis has now been averted, so you should see me start with the references in a few hours. I remember that you had a guide to it somewhere on Talk:Lead that seems to have disappeared now, so I also took a bit of time to look for it (it's this, isn't it?) Also, do you want to ask Sandbh for comments again as usual before the final scaling of Mount FAC? ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 10:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
(...and then my computer broke down...sigh...) Double sharp (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Minor note: I am not sure if I have applied a consistent notation system for page ranges and access dates. To be checked separately.
Hope your laptop will run as intended soon! :)
I am not sure if I want to contact Sandbh prior to the FAC. His comments are always great and welcome, but maybe it would be a good thing to relieve him from having to care about my articles so early. I don't want to distract him from what he wants to do: to develop a new color scheme for us, to rewrite nonmetal, he also has his RL things. I haven't made up my mind on that, but that's my thinking at the moment. (And what is said here is not a polite disguise for anything else; I have nothing against his participation and will rather adore it later, I just don't want to bother him myself right now.) Anyway, I'll gladly accept any comments from him, positive or critical, during the FAC.--R8R (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I've been getting it sorted out, so I think I can get back to it in a few days. In the meantime I have been trying to add stuff on my phone; my attempt to add a new paper to oganesson there is I guess a proof of concept that it can be done, but it's not something I'd like to try again. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that link, it is an interesting essay. I do some editing on my tablet, and like Cullen328, find that I prefer the desktop view, not only for editing but also for reading WP. YBG (talk) 23:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I've just finished going through the reference list. I've removed a couple of pics; replacements are not easily available, so we've got a couple of picless spots. Sorry to have it this way but not too sorry. At this point, we're ready to go for a copyedit and (maybe immediately, maybe after we complete the copyedit) for a FAC. So please give the article a read and think if there's anything you don't like or want improved; now's a good time for that.--R8R (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I was about to say that I got my computer troubles fixed and was ready to get on the references again, but you've already done it. ^_^ Thank you so much!
I'm giving it a read today; in the meantime, we appear to have gotten the honour of getting an Azerbaijani translation. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
No problem. Great to know your computer is up again!
While reading the article, please think if there are pictures we could add. It wouldn't hurt not to but it will be better if we do.
Ooh, interesting. I wonder how did you even find out about that?--R8R (talk) 11:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, I noticed that you removed File:Thorium reactions.svg (which is fine with me; it works better on the spin-off article Compounds of thorium), and I saw that user subpage in the links. ^_^
BTW, on just giving it a look, I suspect that there are significant differences between how the desktop view looks on an actual desktop and how it looks on a mobile; I guess the decay chain image was moved to the left side of the text because it crashes into the infobox on mobile, but it doesn't on desktop. I'm not sure how best to deal with that, or whether it needs to be dealt with at all. Double sharp (talk) 12:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I've moved the decay chain graph to the left because the previous side thing (the infobox) is on the right; that is all.
As for mobile vs. desktop sizes, I did what the guidelines suggest to do, introducing the |upright= parameter.
Actually, I've discovered something else to be done; since your computer is up again, you could help me here. We need to check for dead links in references (see tool for help; no need to fill the missing accessdates, though, because all refs marked as lacking them actually have ISBNs) and add alt text to pictures (see tool for help). This should be it from the technical perspective.--R8R (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I've done the readings on my part. Maybe I could go picky for prose but I'm not feeling like it right now and don't want that to be the reason for another delay. Essentially, I'm now waiting for you to read the article, tackle the problems highlighted by the tools, and then I'll eagerly go ask John (or someone else if he won't be available) for a copyedit. Maybe we'll start the FAC at the same time (depending on what response we get from the copyeditor). We're driving just before the finish line on this race on FAC preparations and we're about to cross it. When do you think you could get to it?--R8R (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
This weekend should be manageable, I think. Double sharp (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
That would be fine.--R8R (talk) 08:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Why is it that the moment I have enough time to do it you've finished it already?!? ^_^ Seriously, this is making me feel vaguely guilty about not exactly having done much of anything to the article recently, unlike you who have been running ahead of me...but at least we can look forward to the finish line, I guess. I promise you a co-nom! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Hey, that's alright. Give it a good read though, your satisfaction with the article and its condition is still required :) Then we can go ask for a copyedit and then follows the FAC.--R8R (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'm still fairly busy, so I haven't given it a good read through yet. But I have given it a slightly less good read through and I haven't found anything about the article and its condition that I'm not satisfied with, so that's something, isn't it? ^_-☆ Double sharp (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't know how "slightly" we are talking about. But generally, it's up to you. I think the article is alright and good to go, I just want you to think the same. If you do, off we go. If you don't, I'll have to wait.--R8R (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, I think everything that needs to be there is there, and everything that doesn't need to be there isn't there, so yes, I think we can go straight to the copyedit now. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Good. Soon enough we're starting the FAC. If you have a spare minute, though, could you take a look at dubnium? I've had enough time not seeing this article to give it a good fresh, the prose was terrible in some parts of it. Oh well. Must be better now. Still, I'd love you to take a look. Not just on prose but in general.--R8R (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I haven't had much time today, but I'll have time for this tomorrow. Double sharp (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you; tomorrow will be great.--R8R (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I gave it a look through, and apart from a few brush-ups I did to the prose, I think we're essentially there. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Sweet; thank you very much! I guess that'll be my next FAC after we start the thorium review then.--R8R (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Wonderful! When do you want to start the Th FAC? I promise you'll get your co-nom this time now that I actually have a clue how to write them. ^_-☆ Double sharp (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I am still waiting for response from John. He's finished with his first round on the article, says he only expects now to make some pickings rather than big prose changes. When he has completed the copyedit, we may begin. In response to your original question, I think, soon enough. Don't think we'll have to wait for too long.--R8R (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I just opened John's talk page; he said (to someone else) that he was very busy. He told me that beforehand, so I expected this; I'm still fine with this but I cannot know if you are. As I said, I am fine with waiting (the bronze star won't get away) but I am genuinely afraid that you might be dying to start the FAC already and are displeased with having to wait. If waiting is good with you, then we'll just wait; I'm sure we'll get a good copyedit if we do. If it's not, however, then please write to him. John seems to be a reasonable man; I'm sure he'll be fine with it.--R8R (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, waiting is fine with me. I have been getting this one up pretty much since September 2014 (not far from π years ago, amusingly); what's another few months? ^_-☆ Double sharp (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you; it's good to be sure you're fine.
I;m considering nominating dubnium in case the copyedit will take long. Would you be fine with that?--R8R (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Sure, please do go ahead! Double sharp (talk) 02:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I just checked, however, and it turns out (I genuinely forgot about that) that the main copyedit was done three weeks ago. I just wrote to John to check what his plans were. While I find that improbable, I can't ignore the possibility that the work is done or is one step away from being done; really wouldn't want to make you wait for another month in that case.--R8R (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Please share your opinion on the recent merge of the Nuclear section into the Nuclear subsection of History. John thinks this was a good move; I think otherwise. You can follow the relevant discussion here.--R8R (talk) 08:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Seen and responded. Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi! Can I assume you're back?
If that is the case, could you finalize the discussion at Talk:Thorium? I entrust you with the power to resolve it in whatever way you find most appropriate. Both John's and my positions are there. Once you've done that, that must be the end of the copyedit or at least close to it. Once it is over for good, we can proceed to the FAC.--R8R (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I'm back. I'll consider both your positions and should have come up with something by tomorrow. Double sharp (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 Done I've considered the issue and I think your version is better, so I've edited it accordingly. (And as usual it has taken a few days longer than what I intended it to, but it's done now.) Double sharp (talk) 12:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Marian Dora[edit]

Hi. You helped me with many film-related articles in the past. Hoping all is well. Recently, I translated an article from the German Wikipedia about a filmmaker called Marian Dora. Here is the only known front photo of him. Do you believe it can be used at his article with regards to the non-free content policy? Thanks.-- (talk) 14:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so, because the first criterion at WP:NFCC is that "no free equivalent is available, or could be created" – and one could certainly be created (though perhaps not easily). Previously I've managed to make the argument for a few contentious ones that while a free equivalent could be created, it could not be done so legally (e.g. File:Polonium.jpg), but I don't think this will make the cut. Double sharp (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for the commentary.-- (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


Hi double sharp, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! ansh666 21:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ansh666: Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Pre-calcium elements[edit]

What I meant with "pre-calcium" elements is that Group 13 is considered as Group 3 (such as boron and aluminium) in high school chemistry, when the simplified "up to 8 valence electrons" idea is used. And in doing so, elements calcium and before are the only elements to be mentioned with valence shells, since in reality post-calcium elements have a completely different valence structure. While Wikipedia is meant to be targetted at an expert level, we get a few high school readers too, and they may potentially think why the real Group 13 is not mentioned in an article named "Group 3 element". Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 06:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I understood what you were getting at, but I also think it would be better to do it with terms that people actually use; currently the hatnote reads "For the other group formerly named Group III (boron group), see Group 13 element.", which I think is clarifies what is going on a little better. (Also, is it really "group 3" and not "group III"? In high school it was always Roman numerals, at least for me – and we certainly did cover the first row of transition metals from Sc to Cu.)
P.S. You won't actually go very far wrong thinking of the valence electrons of transition metals as just being ns and (n−1)d, in about the same way you would think of those of main-group elements as ns and np. Double sharp (talk) 06:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
That time, I didn't know how to hatnote Group 3 to ask about if looking for Group 13, because of my limited chemistry knowledge. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 06:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MM-8 The Key to the Universe.bmp[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:MM-8 The Key to the Universe.bmp. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Ronhjones  (Talk) 11:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:MM-8 The Key to the Universe.png[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The file File:MM-8 The Key to the Universe.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There are two book cover images used in the article. One book cover is used in the infobox and this book cover is used in the Titles section of the article. This book cover fails WP:NFCC#3a in that the other book cover already is used in the article for means of identification and fails WP:NFCC#8 because there is no commentary about the cover thereby doing nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Aspects (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Aspects: Actually, I very much agree with you here: I uploaded this way back in 2010 when I was fairly new and was not so clear about the policy here. I would support deletion. Double sharp (talk) 05:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
@Aspects: In that case I will expedite the deletion of the bmp and png images as "User Request" when I get home tonight. (I don't use Admin password on shared PCs)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 15:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
@Ronhjones: Thank you so much! I would have tagged them under G7 myself, but wasn't sure if I could do that with a prod ongoing (and the fact that my username isn't on the png upload). Double sharp (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
No Problem. All sorted out Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

AICSI listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect AICSI. Since you had some involvement with the AICSI redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Precious four years![edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 08:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 November newsletter: Final results[edit]

The final round of the 2017 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2017 WikiCup top three finalists:

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

  • Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a two-way tie with themselves for an astonishing five FAs in R2 and R4).
  • Good Article – Adityavagarwal had 14 GAs promoted in R5.
  • Featured List – Canada Bloom6132 (submissions) and Japan 1989 (submissions) both produced 2 FLs in R2
  • Featured Pictures – Cascadia (independence movement) SounderBruce (submissions) improved an image to FP status in R5, the only FP this year.
  • Featured Topic – Denmark MPJ-DK (submissions) has the only FT of the Cup in R3.
  • Good Topic – Four different editors created a GT in R2, R3 and R4.
  • Did You Know – Adityavagarwal had 22 DYKs on the main page in R5.
  • In The News – India MBlaze Lightning (submissions) had 14 ITN on the main page in R2.
  • Good Article Review – India Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (submissions) completed 31 GARs in R1.

Over the course of the 2017 WikiCup the following content was added or improved on Wikipedia: 51 Featured Articles, 292 Good Articles, 18 Featured Lists, 1 Featured Picture, 1 Featured Topics, 4 Good Topics, around 400 Did You Knows, 75 In The News, and 442 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.

Regarding the prize vouchers - @Adityavagarwal, Vanamonde93, Casliber, Bloom6132, 1989, and SounderBruce: please send Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) an email from the email address to which you would like your Amazon voucher sent. Please include your preference of global Amazon marketplace as well. We hope to have the electronic gift cards processed and sent within a week.

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2018 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


For your completely irrelevant message of the day: those binary examples that you reverted were ASCII codes, and I was bored, so I ran them through a converter and got:

  • AC was here 11/2/2017
  • Hello there!
  • 5 x 5 = 25
  • This is Binary
  • 00111010 01011110 00101001 (which itself converts as :^))

--Deacon Vorbis (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis: Amusing indeed, though quite irrelevant as you say! Sorry for not getting to this earlier, but I was quite lost for the words at the pointless incipient creativity of this particular vandal. Perhaps he might find something better to do to develop it. ^_-☆ Double sharp (talk) 06:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Please check your email[edit]

Sandbh (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Will do! Double sharp (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018[edit]

So the 2017 WikiCup has come to an end. Congratulations to the winner, to the other finalists and to all those who took part. 177 contestants signed up, more than usual, but not all of them submitted entries in the first round. Were editors attracted by the cash prizes offered for the first time this year, or were these irrelevant? Do the rules and scoring need changing for the 2018 WikiCup? If you have a view on these or other matters, why not join in the WikiCup discussion about next year's contest? Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Singular they and GNL[edit]

One would surely recast the sentence: ""Was it your father or your mother who could hold his breath for four minutes?" as ""Was it your father or your mother who could hold their breath for four minutes?" Sandbh (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

And this one: FRANCIS: "Yeah. I think Judith's point of view is very valid, Reg, provided the Movement never forgets that it is the inalienable right of every man–" would render better as, FRANCIS: "Yeah. I think Judith's point of view is very valid, Reg, provided the Movement never forgets that it is the inalienable right of every person–"? Sandbh (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC) Sorry for the shotgunning. I need to slow down and digest your words slowly. Sandbh (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
@Sandbh: I've moved this to my talk page; strangely I don't get notified when you edit my userpage! I was moved to write that by the linked Language Log article once again suggesting that everyone would find that sentence absurd, asserting that singular they has become part of everyone's natural speech, and giving lots of literary examples. The trouble is that it is not yet part of everyone's natural speech, because the level of penetration of singular they varies a whole lot with dialect, and so your proposed rewrite of the first sentence, I'm sorry to say, ends up making me confused about number agreement. The second example is pretty much how all of it makes me, and no doubt others who don't have this in their natural usage yet, feel: the gender issue keeps getting forced into one's mind by this usage, even though it's irrelevant, because my mental parser expects "they" to be plural and accepts the use of "he" or "she" alone as gender-neutral. I hope that helps explain it. Double sharp (talk) 09:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Double sharp. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Voted (reminder to myself). Double sharp (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)