User talk:Nergaal/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Inappropriate Move

I believe that your move of linear (N/A) to diatomic molecule was inappropriate and reverted it. If you believe that the article could be Incorporated into diatomic molecule, that can and/or will be done. It is still unacceptable to just ignore others in the wikipedia community and simply take matters entirely into your own hands.

Jokermole (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"Lithium, sodium, potassium, rubidium, cesium, magnesium... all react spontaneously with oxygen ... to form oxides..." Is that true?

Are you sure? The situation is probably more complicated than indicated by the statement. Also, "spontaneously" has a tricky meaning. Etc etc. It might be worth reading up on M + O2 reactions. Describing the reality can get complicated though, I realize. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

User HolyShiznik

I am tired of his vandalizing edits on Romania. He ignored all the notices about his edits. What is the quickest way to make sure he is banned from editing that article? Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked him indefinitely. He'd also forged a praising comment under my name! - Jmabel | Talk 16:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sentence that needs to be polished

Hi Nergaal, I think that "Although now actually popular within Romania, gymnastics has brought many successes." sounds bad. I don't want to interfere, can you please change it to make more sense. Thanks. -- AdrianTM (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks that's much better. By the way do you have any numbers about gymnastics popularity, on what do you base your assessment? -- AdrianTM (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that gymnastics is part of the sports that are not very popular in general, it can still be relatively popular if you compare that with numbers from other countries, I think less harsh statement would be appropriate indeed. -- AdrianTM (talk) 03:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, that reference seems messed up. -- AdrianTM (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jonathan § 01:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia articles even if your ultimate intention is to fix them. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Infoboxes are fine as they are. Jonathan § 01:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Uuo infobox

Template:Uuo infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Jonathan § 01:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This is your only warning.
The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Jonathan § 01:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

You are notified of a request for arbitration is being opened in the case of your deleting my comments in the Romania discussion page.--mrg3105mrg3105 12:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of legitimate talk page comments

Please do not continue to remove legitimate comments from Talk:Romania, as you did here. The removal of legitimate comments from talk pages, especially when written by editors with whom you are engaged in content disputes, is considered to be extremely disruptive. John254 15:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Romania: 3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Romania. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. I am putting this on both of your pages (you and Mrg). Hopefully now it will all be calmed down and everyone can get back to working towards a positive outcome. Narson (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Leave the troll alone

Hi Nergaal, I had fun with your arguments, but I think it's better to leave the guy alone, let him publicize his ignorance by himself, otherwise some admin who is lacking humor sense might punish you. Personally I think disruptive rants and copy/paste like that should be promptly removed from talk pages, but now that's there let it be... I asked him for specific references and explanation. (there should also be a rule: "if you don't know shit, don't open your mouth because you might end up eating it")-- AdrianTM (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, what I placed on the page was a prod, rather than a speedy. I will now likely request an admin speedies it based on the 'should be in sandbox' criteria. Narson (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Rivers

Thank you for your suggestions. However, the Wikipedia Rivers Project has decided a long time ago that there is no criterion to be used as a minimum accepted lenght or size for rivers. All rivers, regardless of size, qualify for separate articles in Wikipedia. This has been decided after discussions on the issue. I don't know where you found the rule of 100 km, but it is definitely not what the Rivers Project has agreed upon. As far as the Ceptura River is concerned, you may have noticed that it is a river which is listed in the Romanian Directory of Rivers, meaning that it is considered important enough by the Romanian Water Authority. The information about the rivers wil be gradually increased after the network information and the links indicating the tributaries of each river and the mouth of each river will be identified and included in the articles. In the meantime, if you have information on the Ceptura River or on any other river, you are welcome to contribute with the appropriate information. Afil (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Adminship

Hello. I've seen your work around plenty, and I think that you would make a good admin. If you'd like, I can nominate you over at WP:RFA. Let me know of your decision. Anton Tudor (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You would do well to note that a nomination by a brand new editor with c. 20 edits to their name on the same day they were created is unlikely to succeed. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 15:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

:) yes I noticed it, but I still find it cute/funny. Anyways, I don't have time for admin stuff. Nergaal (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Macau

I think that user:Josuechan addressed your comment and concerns on the page of Macau FAC. Wish you could come back here and reconsider your slight objection. Waiting for you! Coloane (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Article class of Carbon

I believe that article Carbon is not an A-class article. You first changed the WP1.0 to A-class on this edit and then changed the WP1.0 to B-class and the Elements Wikiproject class to A-class on this edit. This was done on 2007-12-04. Because you changed one to A-class then back to B-class and the other to A-class, I was not sure of you motives. On 2007-12-30 I put the article up for Peer Review. When requesting the peer review I did not state my concerns with it being listed as A-class; I just wrote that is was listed as A-class. [1] The first Peer reviewer said that he thought it was a B-class article [2]. I then changed the talk page to say the article was indeed B-class[3]. Now you have changed its status to A-class again (this time changing both templates properly) with these two edits [4][5]. I would like you to explain why you think the article is A-class and not B-class. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 22:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. But instead of demoting it, I think it would be better to expand it. Carbon is at least as important as oxygen and will be as difficult to bring close to FA standard as that article has been (oxygen has been worked on for several months now by several people). I wish I could help, but I'm a bit burnt out on element articles right now and need to work elsewhere for a while. --mav (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't like this sentence

Hi since you are a very active editor of Romania, this sentence doesn't make much sense to me: "Romania started a series of political and economic reforms that peaked with Romania joining the European Union."

Does it mean that the reforms peaked, or that joining EU is a reform? I would say something like "that lead to Romanians admission into European Union" what do you think? -- AdrianTM (talk) 06:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the point is that this slowing down of the reforms should not be treated in the intro (besides it's not yet an Encyclopedic fact, the reform might even speed up *rolls eyes*). Anyway, in intro we only need to say that there were (some) reforms since communism, Romania is not longer Communist and it entered into EU. I think that's the idea that we need to convey, it NPOV, it can't be contested by anybody and it doesn't enter into unnecessary political details. Political and economical details should be treated in their respective sections. -- AdrianTM (talk) 07:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it's much better, I tried to simplify the sentence a bit, if you don't like please free to revert. I also am not sure of English use instead of "allowed for Romania to join" I would say something like "allowed Romania to join", or even "allowed Romania join EU" but my grammar is crappy... -- AdrianTM (talk) 07:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, makes sense. -- AdrianTM (talk) 07:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer to format references, that's a pain. Consider yourself served. :) AdrianTM (talk) 13:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A request

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edit(s) to Dwarf planet, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. ‎ And please don't forget to provide an edit summary as this greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field - please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you. Ødipus 03:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Nergaal, could you please do as requested in the above comment? It is quite difficult to assess the changes to an article when you have dozens of edits that encompass relatively minor tweaks, especially without any edit summaries. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I will tr, but you can check multiple edits at once rather than one-by-one.Also, except for referencing, I am done with the article.Nergaal (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

From your reply it appears you don't quite appreciate the nature of the request. The technical possibility of checking multiple edits at once isn't the issue. It's about an act of courtesy that you might consider extending to your peer wikipedians, those that share your interest in making a good Dwarf planet article, and also those that just have it on their watchlist. People mentioning it is intended to convey that the unsummarized frequency in which you're currently hitting the save button 'isn't cool'. Ødipus 11:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Nergaal, please please please leave at least a brief edit summary with each edit and check your edits before hitting the submit button. Many subsequent edits to the same section with no comments, as you've been doing to planet make it really hard to follow what you're doing and to read the history page. I would very much appreciate a little bit of effort on this point! Ashill (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Galician

OK! Sorry! The Ogre (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Romania Comedy

"Please go vandalize another page than Romania." You wrote this on Motion of Lotion's talk page. That's a good piece of humor. Are you a member of WikiProject Comedy? Basketballoneten 18:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Go look at that user's edits and you will understand my "suggestion".Nergaal (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

just so you know

umm... I'm not sure if the chatter on your images page is vandalism or not, so I didn't remove it. Just wanted to make you aware that it is there. Thingg^⊕⊗ 02:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks, it was a hard-headed user that I had problems in the past :). Nergaal (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy effort

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. Ødipus 11:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Planet

I will try to go back to read it. My primary oppose rationale stands. As you had not edited the article, it was unwise to nominate it. I believe you should withdraw it, talk to Serendipodous, and consider a nomination in a few weeks. Marskell (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about the fact that you'd made just two edits, the day prior to nomination. Giving it that last push is good. Being gung-ho about FAC is good. Premature nominations are not good. Ruslik overcame the magnetosphere gap in three three edits (though he always needs copyediting, his detail is exceptional). With proper discussion, this issue would have been taken care of prior to nomination. I don't doubt your commitment at all, but I continue to urge withdrawing this. Marskell (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

My basic stand is that an editor not responsible for material should not nominate the material for FAC. That's perfectly simple: even if you understand the subject area, you are not familiar with the specifics of writing and sourcing in the Wikipedia article. Use this tool to find out who has edited the article most. If active, post to their talk: "hey, this could be FA." Discuss, then someone nominate, when it's ready. If the other person is most involved, let them nominate. In this case, I'd advise posting to User:Serendipodous and asking "what do you think? wait a couple of weeks or keep going?" He's a very friendly fellow. Marskell (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As regards nominations I don't really have a problem with a newbie nominating an article if they feel it is worthy; even if the FAC fails I still think that it is one of the few times when serious attempts are made to discuss and improve an article, and articles almost always come out of them better than they were. Lord knows this article has had precious little genuine discussion since it was created. I do think it was nominated a bit prematurely, though the subsequent push has helped a great deal. My main issue with it, which has been true since I started working on it, is that it feels cobbled together and ramshackle. It jumps from one theme to the next, a bit of history, a bit of science, a bit of politics, a list of shared attributes, but lacks a central theme to unify the whole. I don't think that, after finishing this article, the reader is left with a clear idea of what a planet is. This might be a fault of the word planet itself, which has always been somewhat arbitrary, but I think there might be some way to draw the article together. I was thinking of employing history as the unifying theme, in the similar fashion to Definition of planet, which I also wrote, but it would require locating some very hard-to-find information, such as the first recorded observations of planets in motion. Serendi^podous 11:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you think, now that the name origins section has been split off, that the para now in a note can be put back? I found a source for the info that might please Ashill. Serendi^podous 20:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The first line was taken directly from "The Theory and Practice of Ancient Astronomy," which is cited in the text. I had to remove the citation when it was shifted into the reflist, because you can't have a ref in a ref. The second can be trimmed. I'll give it a go. Serendi^podous 20:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oxygen

I'm done for now - time for bed. Please continue. BTW, once you are happy with the article it would be great if you would state that you support the nomination. :) --mav (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problems

Hello, Nergaal. Concerning your contribution, Image:Nonmetals at 3 million atmospheres.png, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material without the permission of the author. As a copyright violation, Image:Nonmetals at 3 million atmospheres.png appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Image:Nonmetals at 3 million atmospheres.png has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at [[Talk:Image:Nonmetals at 3 million atmospheres.png]] and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at [[Talk:Image:Nonmetals at 3 million atmospheres.png]] with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on [[Talk:Image:Nonmetals at 3 million atmospheres.png]].

However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. BlnLiCr (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Allotropes of Sulfur

As the initiator of the article I am delighted with its rating. Regarding the references tag - most of the information came from *Elemental sulfur and sulfur rich compounds I (Topics in current chemistry) Ed. R Steudel (2004), Springer, ISBN 3540401911 and Greenwood&Earnshaw - specific points not covered by either are in line references. Adding extra references as suggested would end up with virtually every line being referenced to either Steudel or Greenwood. Seems like overkill. I am not sure where to start, I thought I was following Wiki referencing guidelines. Any suggestions? --Axiosaurus (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Poseidon/Neptune

As far as I can tell from the article on Poseidon, Neptune is his Roman name. Certainly the modern Greek name for the planet Neptune is Poseidon. Serendi^podous 12:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ay no prob. This article is getting better I think. Serendi^podous 13:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

{{Chemical bonds}}

Navboxes should be at the very bottom of the article. I'm in the process of fixing it, but please take note so nothing needs fixing next time. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oxygen and FAC

To answer your question: Tomorrow, I plan to finish-up all the points I feel are keeping this article from a successful FAC. I just finished summarizing ==Biological role== and plan to do the same for ==Compounds== tomorrow. I'll then conduct a copyedit pass and make sure the lead properly summarizes the article. Finally, I will put the article up for simultaneous Peer Review and Chemistry Peer Review for a week, asking what else needs to be done before FAC. Only after that will I nominate the article for FAC. --mav (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

I just wanted to say congrats on a successful FAC for Ununoctium. Thingg^⊕⊗ 21:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me add my congratulations, and to let you know that I responded to your comment on my talk page with the following: "Hi Nergaal, I did notice that you had gone through my comments, but I didn't reply as I didn't really have more to add. When I first commented, I had two issues - content, and whether it was suitable to be an FA given the narrowness of the topic. So, I commented on the content issues, and didn't vote to Support or Oppose because I think I'm too new to be sure about my FA concern. I was going to add a comment to this effect, but found that a decision had been made to promote. I am pleased for you that it was granted FA status (congratulations!) and will bear this example in mind in future cases. Cheers." EdChem (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Dwarf planet GA passed

Congratulations! I just passed Dwarf planet on its GA inspection. A full review is on the article's talk page. Codharris (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone working on the Solar System featured topic

Please come settle the current debate raging over there. Thank you. Serendi^podous 11:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Planet 2

Congradulations on getting Planet featured. I looked over it, and found it a good article, and supported it's FAC. Congradulations again, Basketball110 _{the pages I've messed up completely} 00:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Source

Hi, please have a look in Corneliu Zelea Codreanu article, the User:Dahn is replacing documents and facts with his personal opinion. Adrianzax (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Element infobox templates

Is it your intent to create separate infobox templates for each of the elements and, if so, would you like some help? JPG-GR (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:FAC of Dwarf Planet

It does indeed look better than it did last night. I made my full reply on its FAC. Thank you for reading my comments and trying to improve the article based on that. Juliancolton (Talk) 14:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Saying "probably does not qualify" needs to be sourced as being said by some1 on in a text, if it is a statement based apon other facts then it constitutes original research. Seddon69 (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Just to add what i said, if it states in the sources there that it "probably does not qualify" then you could move the sources to include that statement but only if it is clear in those sources that that statement is given. Seddon69 (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• I am happier with the wording used now, im a little hesitant about it not being sources but if there was a source i would have no hesitation with any other sourcing problem in the article. I will have another look over the article and see if i have any other problems but i expect i should give my support soon. Seddon69 (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: featured articles

Thanks :0 ) But I just nominated Io; it was Volcanopele who did the work on it. Serendi^podous 22:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: planet. I think the simplest thing to do is to briefly mention the ambiguity in the extrasolar section and link to the page you posted. Then maybe it would be a good idea to elaborate on it in the "inclination" subsection of Attributes. Serendi^podous 11:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

NUTS-RO

Now, do tell me, why you insist on having that map in the template? I would really like to know that! ES Vic (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Rùm/Rum

Hello. I moved Rùm (island) back to Rùm. It is indeed a waste that Rum, without any accent, is not used at the moment except as a redirect to Rum (beverage), but that doesn't seem to be related. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on Dwarf Planet

Just wanted to say congratulations on getting dwarf planet up to FA. Good job! Serendi^podous 12:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

I mean one of the ones that are at the top right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedagomar (talk • contribs) 00:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I am going to assess it as is. i think I may have made a mistake as to need for a box. Geoff Plourde (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Buna

Ai un email cumva? AdrianCo (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Replied to your comment

I'm not really a wiki regular, so I just noticed your questions for me. You can find my reply here: 118 Discussion Mitchandre (talk) 01:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence

Hi there. I'm actually agnostic as to which version must be in place, between the one you reverted to, which is substantially what I left in place at the moment Maxim page-protected and froze editing, and the one Avala/ljanderson developed and put in place after editing was permitted again.

However, care should be taken, when reverting, not to lose undisputed improvements and additions other editors, including me, added in the interim. I suggest you clean up your edits, by going back, and putting in the stuff you omitted. This includes the addition of Zambia, the added information for Czech Republic, and the adjustment of reference for Iceland. There may be some other stuff, but I leave that to your care. Thanks and Best Wishes, --Mareklug ^talk 06:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree to your edits, but I expect my edits to be reverted for a while by some skewed editors. Once the bigger issue is settled, I will add those entries myself. Nergaal (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Liga IV and Liga V

Take a look at these articles created by User:Dan69en: Liga IV and Liga V. These levels do not exist in the Romanian football league system. Below Liga III there are the county football associations, each with its own league system.

User:Dan69en modified the Template:Football in Romania, adding Liga IV (2 divisions) and Liga V (2 divisions).

Even if you consider Liga IV to be the top level of the county football leagues, there are 42 divisions, not 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgar81 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment on content, not persons

I recommend you acquaint yourself with WP:NPA and try to contribute to Wikipedia in a more constructive way in the future. JdeJ (talk) 12:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Roma people

Hi. I just wanted to find out why you moved Roma people to Roma people (gypsies) without discussing it first? Given the discussion going on at Talk:Roma_people#Requested_move, it's probably best not to move the article without agreeing it first. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow or move it unilaterally while discussion about it is underway, as you did to Roma people. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk)

Salut

ai cumva un mail... as dori sa vorbesc ceva cu tine Rezistenta (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

chem Template

Is it possible to do a superscript (as in H⁺) with the chem Template? Plantsurfer (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You might want to head over to Talk: Planet

It's getting pretty weird over there and I could use some advice. Thanks. Serendi^podous 19:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Romanian topics

Hi. Any thoughts on this ? Ha! (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the Month

You voted for Carbon and this article is now the current Science Collaboration of the Month! Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia science article.

NCurse _work 08:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Planet featured topic

A while back you seemed to be contemplating the possibility of a planet featured topic. I thought maybe it might be a good idea, and I wondered if you were still interested. There are quite a few possible options for creating such a topic, but you've already laid out the foundations.

Featured/good articles that could go in:

Planet (this would be the main article, obviously)

Definition of planet

Extrasolar planet

Dwarf planet

Nebular hypothesis

Asteroid

Articles we would need to get up to at least GA class before we could announce the topic:

• 2006 definition of planet
• Cleared the neighbourhood
• Gas giant (this article really needs attention; it's a joke)
• Terrestrial planet
• Minor planet

What do you think? Serendi^podous 13:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think 2006 definition... can be raised to GA without too much trouble. Minor planet will be a LOT harder; I think a case could be made for it to be merged with asteroid, since the terms were initially synonymous anyway. Serendi^podous 10:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you're getting "minor planet" confused with small solar system body. That would be even harder to get up to code, perhaps impossible. Serendi^podous 11:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a start. I've listed my reasons for the minor planet/asteroid merge on the discussion page. If no one responds in a week or so I'll just go ahead with it. Serendi^podous 11:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Discoveries of the chemical elements

Have you thought of submitting this article to WP:FLC? It looks like an excellent list, and I would love to see it pass. Let me know if you need help with anything. Cheers! Gary King (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, great start anyways. I sincerely hope to see it as an FL one day, as it is obvious that you have put a lot of work in it and I think it is an important list. Gary King (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Since we are discussing chemistry already, would you be interested in reviewing Noble gas for GAN? Gary King (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: GAN:Noble gas

I will look it over. Please add references to information that you add to the article, because frankly, it is more difficult (at least, for me) to find references for scientific topics. Gary King (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, why was this edit made? Could you link me to the discussion at WikiProject Elements that upgraded the article? Thanks! Gary King (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ha? Did you read the tab on the articles by quality? Nergaal (talk) 09:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Tungsten

Hi! Replied on my talk. delldot talk 09:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey again, left a couple comments on Talk:Tungsten. delldot talk 10:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Euro 2008

Maybe my edit wasn't perfect English, but it was right and I don't see the point in making racist jokes. Go and see that you reversion has been reverted (not by me). Lopo (talk) 07:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

My comment? I don't know what you're talking about. Lopo (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait, do you mean the summary of my edit, where I forgot the ending 'a' in Romania? Don't you see it was a typo? Com'on, reverting a rightful edit, posting racist jokes and accusing of racism a user that you don't know, because of what's obviously a typo? Take it easy, guy. Lopo (talk) 08:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear that, 'cause it means that someone's a worse typist than me, since you misspelled it twice in the wikilink: [[Romani people|Romani]] - Lopo (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

WP: Isotopes

I haven't found the time as of late. Why do you ask? Do you need some assistance? — oo64eva (Alex) ^{(U | T | C)} @ 12:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary

With all the edits you make, could you use the edit summary to summarize what you've done with each edit? It makes it hard to navigate your edits when there is no edit summary. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Suceviţa Monastery, copyright concerns

Hi. This article was tagged in May as problematic for copyright concerns as a duplication of this source. As that source carries a tag indicating it was last updated in 2003, it does seem to predate your creation of this article, here. I can't find a notice on the website that the material is available for re-use. Lacking a release under a license compatible with GFDL, it will need to either be rewritten or deleted. As you evidently were not notified of the tagging, I wanted to let you know as a courtesy in case you wished to address those copyright concerns by pointing out where the compatible license can be found, asserting permission or rewriting the article at the temporary subpage as directed by the template. If you're not interested in addressing these concerns, please let me know, and I'll go ahead and delete the article. Meanwhile, I will make a note at the copyright problems board, where the article was reported, that I've contacted you, and if I don't hear back from you within a day or two will go ahead and close out the ticket. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied at my talk, but rather than direct you there I'll just be redundant. Looks great. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Noble gas FAC

:/ I was going to nominate it... Gary King (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It is called co-nomination! :) Nergaal (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Noble gas Gary King (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for your contributions to Noble gas. It recently passed FAC and is now a Featured Article! :) Gary King (talk) 07:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Radon Good Article review

If you've got time, could you please help resolve the issues at Talk:Radon/GA2 – especially the issues regarding references, because I am not as familiar with the article as you are. Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 05:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm, well the same references can just be used for those paragraphs, too, then, with reference names (WP:REFNAME). Gary King (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

C-Class

You appear to have invented a new class for Chemistry related articles and have changed their classes from Start to C. What is your motivation for doing this and do you realise that there is no such class on the Quality Scale. I have reverted a couple of your edits and left a note on the talk pages of some of these articles. However, you have made over 100 (I haven't counted but there seem to be a lot) of edits changing the class of articles to your made up C-Class. Correct me if I am wrong, otherwise I will have to revert all these incorrect edits. Jdrewitt (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You have reverted all my edits, so I don't have a chance to self-revert. Also, you have reverted my edits to talk pages which did not revert your contributions, here, here and here. This is not civil behaviour. I will await a second opinion on whether your original edits are valid, I may be wrong but either way I'm not happy that you removed my comments from the talk pages. I will await consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals#C Class. Jdrewitt (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, no worries, we'll see what happens at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals#C Class. You may be right but we'll see what the consensus is, okay? Jdrewitt (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Article

If you need Grochala's article you find it here "http://www.filefactory.com/file/198232/n/csr_pdf" . Ruslik (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice work

Hey man, somehow I totally missed List of elements by stability of isotopes becoming a featured list. Nice work! And nice working with you. Post a message on the Elements talk page or my talk page if you want me to peer review more stuff for you. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction in the oxygen article

Hi Nergaal,

I'm writing to you since you made the most contributions to the oxygen article. I found what I believe was a contradiction in it; see Talk:Oxygen#2.2C000_or_5.2C000_years. This was already in the article when it was featured. I just want to make sure I didn't make it worse, since it's difficult to tell which of the two numbers is right. Perhaps you could take a look?

Thanks,

Joriki (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I replied to your reply at Talk:Oxygen#2.2C000_or_5.2C000_years. Joriki (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

FA?

Hi Nergaal, I am currently working on the WikiProject Elements and discovered your page. I am wondering how you got 6 featured articles and a member of the WikiProject Elements to appear on your page. Oh and I borrowed your NFPA 704 Fire Diamond trick...if you don't mind. I consider it a honor to work with someone with over 10,000 contributions. Thanks! Wii Wiki (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Chlorine

Hi Nergaal Have you access to the book Early History of Chlorine from 1944? I have two pdf files. The book is a reprint of the articles of Berteloth Davy Scheele and others.--06:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

ROMANIAN LOCAL ELECTIONS MAP

Well, I wanted to make such a map, but the local administrative borders have change alot since 2004. About 80 to 100 new communes were established and I cannot use the same map (Image:Romania local administrive units.png). Perhaps I will have enough patience to make the neccesary modifications myself in the near future.

User:Andrei nacu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.151.149 (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOTD/WP:LOTM

Congratulations on getting what appears to be your first successful WP:FL during the last month. You may want to get involved in our List of the Day/List of the Month experiment. Feel free to help us select next months lists at User:TonyTheTiger/List of the Day/voting/200808 or nominate your list for consideration to be a LOTD in September at User:TonyTheTiger/List of the Day/Nominees/200809.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

ITN

On 14 July, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article(s) Makemake (dwarf planet), which you created or substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--BanyanTree 23:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for Helium help!

Hey Nergaal, thanks for the help on Helium. I couldn't figure out how to get that darn audio clip to float right. I guess I need more editing practice. --BlueNight (talk) 05:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Period 1 elements

Yeah, you're right, I forgot to list them. However, I deal with numerous WikiProjects on a daily basis so I don't always catch the extra steps :) Gary King (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

RE:PR of Scattered disc

I don't think we will have a peer review of the article, we intend to go directly to FAC. Thanks for the offer, though. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 01:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Credible author

Hello. A credible authors' reference is being "overrided" by edit-warring. I recently tried to add to the telescope article but this editor seems to think that his opinion overrides a VERY credible author in Mr. Richard Powers. I've been blocked before for edit-warring recently, so I don't want this to be another incident on my record.

Anyway, the other editor seemed to have asked his friend-type editors to form a consensus, so I will do the same. The Islamic connection here is, Al-Haytham. He is FUNDAMENTAL to the telescope and the FATHER of optics. By definition, the summary can include him since the radio and electro-magnetic telescopes are derogatory to the average person looking at the article; I wanted to add it to the history section since it looked cleaner. Can you help your fellow InternetHero?? InternetHero (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

FTs

As far as I can tell, Minor planet and asteroid are the same thing. I think Minor planet should be merged into asteroid. But I have to convince the others of that. Serendi^podous 22:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Final three topics

---

I don't think List of Plutoid candidates is necessary, and I've already merged minor planet, so the only one I think is necessary is Cleared the Neighborhood Serendi^podous 08:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Copper

Could you take a quick look over your edits there, particularly in Copper#Modern period? It looks as if you wrote "insulator" when you meant "conductor". Choess (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Cis-Neptunian object

A tag has been placed on Cis-Neptunian object requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. -- Jeandré, 2008-07-31t12:11z 12:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)