User talk:Double sharp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Professor Fiendish)
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).

Hassium[edit]

Hi. Recently, I finished writing dubnium. As I expected, there's little to write and the task was easy. I want to rewrite the part on experimental chem, and once I'm done with it, I'll aim for GA and eventually FAC. Don't even know what principially important improvements I could make, if any at all. Will check for any newer experiments from later than 1999, of course, and see if I can find anything worthy.

This reminded we have a nice gem yet without a star: hassium. Unlike Db and Ts, it's not gonna be a just-because-there's-nothing-really-to-write-about-it FA, but a solid one. Want to go for FA with it, but will not without your approval, since you did much writing there. Would want to you to at least co-nom. If you want to go for it alone, I'm fine and won't object. So, are you in?

(And then there's also Th, I remember.)--R8R (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure, why not? (Although it's a little funny, because I wrote this 4 years ago and I can't quite remember what I've written sometimes ^_^) Double sharp (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Wouldn't call Db and Ts "nothing-really-to-write-about-it". At least Db has enough known chemistry and Ts is interesting (halogen or metal?) to predict about and has a good story. The really awful ones are Mt, Ds, and to a lesser extent Rg which no one seems to care much about and for which there was no media-friendly controversy. (I suppose it's part of human nature that scandals are the best ways to attract interest, but I can dislike it anyway.) Bh is kind of like that too, but at least something is known. All I can say is, a good way to detect that kind of element is when the interwiki links go all the way down past the content and into the references. Double sharp (talk) 10:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Into the stadium[edit]

There's only one question for you re how does the eka-actinium paragraph look now? I reckon we then go to the "ask for comments" phase. ^__^   Sandbh (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it looks mostly fine! BTW, did I show you the paper comparing, I think, (E121)F with NhF and AcF? (It mentions in the first paragraph, IIRC, that the raison d'être for their study is the recent completion of the table with Ts in 2010 and Og in 2006, using those names even before 28 November 2016!) Because I can't find it now, which makes me sad T_T, because I'd want to cite it... Double sharp (talk) 05:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Chlorine[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Chlorine you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 Icebob99 -- Icebob99 (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup December newsletter: WikiCup 2017[edit]

On 1 January 2017, WikiCup 2017 (the 10th Annual WikiCup) will begin. This year we are trying something a little different – monetary prizes.

For the WC2017 the prizes will be as follows (amounts are based in US$ and will be awarded in the form of an online Amazon gift certificate):

  • First place – $200
  • Second & Third place – $50 each
  • Category prizes – $25 per category (which will be limited to FA, FL, FP, GA, and DYK for 2017). Winning a category prize does not require making it to the final round.

Note: Monetary prizes are a one-year experiment for 2017 and may or may not be continued in the future. In order to be eligible to receive any of the prizes above, the competing Wikipedia account must have a valid/active email address.

After two years as a WikiCup judge, Figureskatingfan is stepping down. We thank her for her contributions as a WikiCup judge. We are pleased to announce that our newest judge is two-time WikiCup champion Cwmhiraeth.

The judges for the 2017 WikiCup are Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email).

Signups are open now and will remain open until 5 February 2017. You can sign up here.

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Chlorine[edit]

The article Chlorine you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Chlorine 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 Icebob99 -- Icebob99 (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nitrogen[edit]

The article Nitrogen you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Nitrogen for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bohrium[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bohrium you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back[edit]

On the the day before Xmas, my time. Sandbh (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Bohrium[edit]

Niels Bohr Albert Einstein3 by Ehrenfest.jpg Congrats, it's a
...Wikipedia Good Article! Shearonink (talk) 16:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
@Shearonink: Thank you so much for your wonderful Christmas gift! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bohrium[edit]

The article Bohrium you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Bohrium 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 Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 16:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 25 December[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week seeking nominations (and a new facilitator)[edit]

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact L235 if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

A sea of pings[edit]

The Gulf of Corryvreckan whirlpool of pings :)

I could think of worse things to be drowned in (like a sea of bills, a sea of irrelevance, or a sea of libraries closed over the new year break) That aside, I take it as a sign of good wikipedia friends. Sandbh (talk) 04:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, though when I look at my closest Wikipedia friends in WP:ELEM it seems that the number of disagreements we've had tends to correlate well with closeness today! ^_-☆ Double sharp (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Is the Periodic Table all right (“PT OK”)?[edit]

Did you see? Sandbh (talk) 11:27, 2 January 2017‎ (UTC)

No, I didn't see this (I was away for most of December, remember?). But this is nice! I particularly like the statement that using a 15-element f-block from La/Ac to Lu/Lr makes perfect sense if you count the f-elements from f0 to f14. (Though I would argue that we don't start any other block with 0 electrons occupied.) Prof. Pyykkö does raise a good point that by the time the g-block starts there is so much overlapping between 5g, 6f, 7d, and 8p that the block assignments get blurred: so I'd probably put E121 below Ac and then unfold the rest of the series to E155, E157, or whatever. I only wish that he had done a little more comparing of the models beyond oganesson. Double sharp (talk) 12:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nitrogen[edit]

The article Nitrogen you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Nitrogen 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 Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

RFC closed[edit]

Hello,

I have closed an RFC you participated in at Template talk:Periodic table#RFC: Should this table follow the IUPAC version for lanthanides, and actinides?. Consensus was found for using the Sc-Y-La-Ac periodic table. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

IUPAC submission[edit]

Oh my, I just sent it. Going to have a lie down now. Sandbh (talk) 01:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hooray! It was a great pleasure working with you and R8R to write it. Double sharp (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Congratulations! Good work! YBG (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you YBG. Scerri has acknowledged our submission, commenting that it was a "great piece of work which will be extremely useful at the IUPAC meeting in San Francisco" (April 2–6). Woo-hoo! ^_^ Sandbh (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Great to know. Looks like you'll at very least get a sensible response, which I am happy about.--R8R (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Dubnium[edit]

As I said, I won't argue. I'll just share my concern that the section still talks a lot about "element 105." It seems natural to me to call it "element 105" in the 1970s. (In fact, I would be okay with "ekasilicon oxde" given appropriate timing.) Should be all or nothing. It seems unnatural to do the change to me.

Would love any input from you, response or action.--R8R (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I find it natural to call it element 105 when we follow the discoverers and get into their mind, but in that section, we're discussing chemical properties. To me those are timeless, and while it is interesting to see when we discover them, the chemical properties are always the same, no matter if they are discovered on Earth now, or a long time ago in a galaxy far far away (sorry, couldn't resist). But that's just my opinion and others might not agree. Maybe we should discuss it on WT:ELEM as a general question of style applicable to all elements (except the really old ones like Fe)? Double sharp (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
We may. I'll type this response and temporarily leave the computer, but I'll take part later if you initiate the topic there. Nonetheless, we still have to do something about dubnium. I won't insist it should be my way (I'm not into defending myself on this). I just want some consistency. What would you suggest?--R8R (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I would personally suggest following chronology for only the history section, as I think I did for nobelium, but that's just my preference and I'd follow whatever consensus decides on it. Double sharp (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead[edit]

Sandbh is leaving comments to work on on tge talk page. I'm going to be busy for the next couple of days. Could you take care of them? --R8R (talk) 10:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll go through them tomorrow. Double sharp (talk) 14:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Sandbh's pre-FAC review is almost over and should end in a few days at worst per my estimate. I'm asking you to initiate the FAC once it is over.--R8R (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

No problem! Thank you for allowing me to do the honours! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 06:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Great. So the main obstacle for now is to find some sources of quality to replace both major refs in the second para of Lead#Elemental form (the one about bullets). Will you take it on?--R8R (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
How's this? Double sharp (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I can't find anything to help us cover the principal claims: that bullets are now pointed and jacketed with, for example, copper and that lead is often alloyed with tin and/or antimony to enhance some properties.--R8R (talk) 07:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, it certainly says "Modern lead shot has 1–2% antimony to increase hardness.", and just before this it talks about adding As helps get the bullet into shape. So Sb and As are citable. I'm still looking for something on Cu and Sn... Double sharp (talk) 09:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you happen to know a source to have some per-particle abundance figures for lead in the space?--R8R (talk) 11:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know of any, and I can think of a reason why: the trouble with abundances in space is that stars vary a lot in metallicity (and that changes with time too) and so there really isn't a generic set of abundances for elements beyond H and He unless you resign yourself to considering only the Solar System. Abundances vary significantly across the Milky Way galaxy, not to mention other galaxies. Double sharp (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Believable. How do you think Webelements can provide figures for "the Universe"?--R8R (talk) 11:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Our article Abundance of the chemical elements conflates Solar-System abundances and universal abundances in the first paragraph, so maybe the same thing has happened. For the ten most common elements, it's plausible that this might be measurable, but Pb is much further down, so if I saw a value I would be really curious as to how it was obtained, and would be quite suspicious if it came without such an explanation. Double sharp (talk) 12:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I see. Another question: am I right in assuming that nobody actually checked even the Solar System abundance and only make their educated guesses based on meteorites?--R8R (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, most of it comes from solar spectroscopic studies, according to this paper. Meteorites do help too, as does the nearby interstellar medium, but while the latter is useful for our home region it may not be too reliable extended outside it (which is the problem I related earlier about universal abundances). Double sharp (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

It seems we're only one reference away (replacement for "About Us"). Please find a good replacement and then you may start the FAC.--R8R (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Nice[edit]

User:Double_sharp/Pretty_picture

Wow. Pretty! Saved me the effort, thank you. Sandbh (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome! But I'm not sure adding At is safe. NIST indeed gives a positive standard reduction potential for At+/At, but (IIRC from my note) the one given for At/At is also positive, so I'm not sure if it would correlate well with reactivity in this instance. (Unlike for Po, which does not really "want" to be reduced to Po2−). But, this is a minor quibble: there are other instances where something else is clearly going on (my favourite is how Eu is marked differently from the other lanthanides even though it's by far the most reactive of them).
The At thing was to remind me that I regarded it as a metal. Given I'd expect it'd be a post-transition metal I wasn't fussed about it showing as a noble. Sandbh (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
BTW, does anyone know why Yb isn't very reactive? The reactivity of the lanthanides correlates very well with their metallic radius, with the gross exception of Yb. Double sharp (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

GAN for Seaborgium[edit]

My apologies, but due to changes in real-life workload I have found that I have far less time available for Wikipedia. Since I anticipate this will continue for at least a couple more weeks, in fairness to you I have deleted the GA review subpage I started and put the article back in the queue. I apologize for the inconvenience. Grondemar 01:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@R8R Gtrs: FYI. Grondemar 01:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

As for me, thank you for letting me know. Good luck with your RL workload!--R8R (talk) 06:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Radium[edit]

Hi "chemical" colleague. I've found your edit about number of radium isotopes whose have longer half-life than nuclear isomer Ra-205m. I think it's 24, not 34.--C3r4 ((ask me)) 19:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@C3r4: Thanks for spotting my accidental arithmetic error! I've corrected it now. Double sharp (talk) 07:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Seaborgium[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Seaborgium you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Per aspera ad astra[edit]

Finally, the FAC began. Waited for half a year for this. I thought, however, that I'd get at least a co-nom :)

While the FAC will remain the top priority, I'd want to take your two near-FA articles and bring them to their FACs. This isn't something I'd do without your approval; moreover, I'd want you to take part. On my first look, hassium seems to be the easier target: I only want to rewrite history; maybe there are other things, but they're going to be small pickings. Then (or at the same time) we could go for Th, which is a diamond waiting to be cut into a brilliant. Going to take some effort, but this can be handled. Would you want me to take part and, more importantly, take part yourself?--R8R (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm so sorry about the co-nom! I couldn't figure out how to do it, this being my first time over there. I'll be happy to edit the nomination statement to add you.
The other one is alkali metal, right? Yes, please, I'd love to do all three with you! Double sharp (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
No worries, it's okay. I'll get to display my star once we make it anyway, so it's not all that important.
Oh, right, I forgot about that one. A while ago, I got the feeling that you wanted to keep playing with it; something about how the life is a journey and not a destiny. I'd contract the article if I was to write it; and I will if I am. Are you okay with that?--R8R (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
You're right that I'd like to tinker with it a little more (so it won't be the first we'll get to). Dunno about the contraction: what specifically would you contract? Usually I think of the group article as a place for the common properties of the group, but it's perhaps not the best approach because it leads to hilariously short articles for groups like the pnictogens and hilariously long ones on groups like the alkali metals and halogens. Double sharp (talk) 04:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
We don't need to dedicate a subsection for each trend---we'll do a better job by explaining how all trends change and why in one talk. We don't need to dedicate a subsection to each anion---we'll do a better job by explaining why alkali metal compounds are the way they are in general and how cations affect their properties. Would also contract the Pseudo-alkali metals (this shouldn't be a long section anyway).
The whole article currently looks too long.--R8R (talk) 06:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I understand about that. It does look rather frightening to the reader who hasn't already studied all of this. Maybe when we get to that article I'll create a subarticle chemistry of the alkali metals with the unabridged current version and leave a summary, like I did with Th. But that'll be later, of course. Double sharp (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

FAC chat[edit]

Can you take care of the remaining problems? Those "unreferenced para" claims that I did not object are especially important. Not sure if I'll be able to make further edits today.--R8R (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I think there's a good source for the "In space" paragraphs somewhere in my talk page archives (I think I might have mentioned it while talking to you about nucleosynthesis). I should be able to find that one very quickly; the others should come a little bit later. Double sharp (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Nergaal wants a talk about "double magic" numbers. One question that hasn't been clear to me anyway: how does this double magicity affect lead-208? It's the heaviest known stable nuclide, but still theoretically unstable and still there is a heavier practically stable one.--R8R (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

209Bi, I imagine, doesn't want to undergo alpha decay because that would breach the filled subshell as well as the single proton outside it; it is still single magic, after all. Double magicity is not a guarantee of stability: look at 78Ni and 132Sn, for example. All the shell effects in the world will not save you from having such a terribly mismatched proton–neutron ratio! ^_^ It does do a lot for its abundance; not only is there the cycling factor to deal with if anything does manage to pass Pb, but making 209Bi in the first place is not so likely because the double-magicity means that 208Pb has a very low cross-section for capturing another nucleon (and for this reason it has been suggested to use 208Pb as a neutron moderator and reflector). Double sharp (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I got it why 209Bi is stable. Still, does double magicity do much in lead-208 given that lead-207 is stable as well? I checked and all even-numbered elements with Z>=70 have an even-even isotope as their most stable one; not just lead.--R8R (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it does much except make 208Pb significantly more common, since 207Pb is not unhappy to capture a neutron while 208Pb is (if I may personify the nuclides)! The footnotes give 207Pb a greater predicted half-life than 208Pb, after all, although both of them make Brahma seem like a mayfly. ^_^ I'm not sure what you mean by the "most stable" isotope if almost all the natural ones really are stable; if you mean the most common one, then Pt is an exception. Double sharp (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, right. Wanted to say "all even-numbered elements with Z>=70 have an even-even isotope as their heaviest stable one." :)
Thank you for the reply.--R8R (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

And another one. N also added this comment: "I think fundamentally, it should be pointed out more explicitly somewhere that any heavier elements than Pb/Bi that existed when the solar system formed have decayed into Pb/Bi, except for the relatively small amounts of U and Th. it's a bit unclear right now to non-experts." I definitely think we should follow but haven't thought of a way to do so. Could you help me?--R8R (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd start by noting that all elements outside H–Mo, Ru–Nd, Sm–Bi, Th, and U have half-lives much shorter than the age of the universe, which easily accounts for their absence. The half-life of Th is about the same as the age of the universe, so there is no problem in explaining why it's still there, and U has only had time for three half-lives, so we should still have one-eighth of the original amount. (Of course I know they weren't created in the Big Bang, but the approximation is okay since the numbers are so large.) Their daughters are the elements in the gap of stability in between (Po–Ac and Pa in the main decay chains, with traces of Tc, Pm, Np, and Pu), which now only exist on the basis of secular equilibria with their parents. Double sharp (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
This is an okay story for a general explanation, but as is it doesn't seem very suitable for lead as we have to keep the story focused on lead. Besides, we need to incorporate that into the current text somehow. Could you give it a try?--R8R (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
How about something like "Lead and bismuth are the heaviest practically stable elements. Thus, any heavier elements that were produced in the progenitor supernova of the Solar System have long since decayed to lead and bismuth, with the exceptions of thorium and uranium: alone among the heavier elements, they have half-lives comparable to the age of the universe and have thus not had enough time to decay away completely. As they continue to decay, the amount of lead in the universe is increasing, albeit very slowly." That could actually tie in well with the first paragraph of "In space", come to think of it. Double sharp (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. You helped me realize I don't want this talk in Isotopes at all. We'll get to discuss this in In space.--R8R (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for fixing the mass-number issue; it just gets too long. I suppose the real way to say it would be that any mass number not congruent to 1 mod 4 becomes Pb, and any mass number that is congruent to 1 mod 4 becomes Bi, but I think that's too much detail that distracts from the main focus. Double sharp (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's too complicated so I didn't bother.--R8R (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

There are yet many points to reply to in the review, and while I could use some help with the load, I would especially appreciate your help with this one: Nergaal wants a talk about alchemy. I'd love you to bring it back into the article, but not limiting the discussion to the European tradition, but also extending it to the Arabian one. See also this.--R8R (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I know almost nothing about this, but I shall go do some research! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Great. I'm going not to edit Wiki for a couple of days. I've reacted to many points raised but I hope you help me finish the backlog while I'm away.--R8R (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
No problem. I'll continue looking for a few sources about the Arabian alchemical tradition, but if I haven't got something about that written by tomorrow I'll work on the rest of the backlog first! Double sharp (talk) 13:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Feedback from Scerri[edit]

Hi Double sharp; did you get my e-mail? Sandbh (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I did. I'm going through it and thinking about how best to respond. Double sharp (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Excellent! Sandbh (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Thinking aloud before sending you an actually more definitive version:
Regarding the blocks, I suppose they are to some extent a useful fiction, but then so are a lot of things. I have a nice quote about this: "bonding is not an observable quantity; only bonding distancies and electron density are amenable to observation" (J. F. Lehmann, G. J. Schrobilgen, K. O. Christe, A. Kornath, R. J. Suotamo, Inorg. Chem., 2004, 43, 6905); as a result, even telling us which orbitals are involved in bonding (e.g. all the d-orbital explanations for hypervalence) is mostly of pedagogical value, and obviously a rationalisation of blocks based on that is stacking useful fictions on useful fictions. As p-block elements go, it seems to me that the noble gases are a massive outlier from the rest of the elements in their unwillingness to react, so saying that He fits better in the p-block obscures the fact that its whole group does not exactly fit well in the p-block or any block at all. (If I may speculate within parentheses, maybe the reason people are used to that is because the general unreactivity noble gases gets covered so early in chemistry courses!)
The next three are fine, and maybe we should note that even as group 3 gets ripped from the rest of the d-block, the elements in it are at least next to each other in the d-block, while He is not near any of the s-block elements.
Given how we are stacking useful fictions on useful fictions in creating the blocks, there surely cannot be a decisive argument; we can, at best, assign the blocks to create a compromise table that preserves as many advantages as possible, and when push comes to shove, the chemistry ought to win over the useful fictions, as they did with He, no matter how unnerving or unaesthetic the loss of symmetry might be felt to be. (When I actually send the final version this is surely not going to be one long sentence, but I think that is kind of the entire point we were trying to make; maybe I didn't phrase it well enough. Such are the pitfalls of having thought about things for too long; one's reasoning becomes crystal clear to oneself and to no others! ^_-☆) Double sharp (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
This is timely. Your thoughts match my own. I'll probably be skyping Scerri next Wed arvo my time, to discuss the submission =:o so it would be good to get back to him shortly about his feedback. Sandbh (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Seaborgium[edit]

Seaborgium.svg Congratulations, it's a...
...Wikipedia Good Article!! Shearonink (talk) 08:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 08:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Congrats! And, to speak of the current problems, hopefully this will free you up for some FAC replies.--R8R (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, it probably would; the hilarious problem with Sg is that I wrote it so many months ago (August 2016?!) that I forgot most of it and link rot happened in the meantime. Thankfully there wasn't much to change. ^_^ Hopefully you don't have to wait so long for Db! Double sharp (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Seaborgium[edit]

The article Seaborgium you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Seaborgium 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 Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)