User talk:Double sharp/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Double sharp. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi there Double sharp. The p/work for the new image has been approved :) Have added the new image to the Metalloid article. They are a strange looking bunch, the metalloids. Sandbh (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Have a look: Talk:Ununseptium#337Uus. We need some rewriting (one para, not much), info there. Think you could help?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, I've been watching your alkali metal work and am sure you're generally doing good, but probably you sometimes go into unnecesasary details, like there's more isotopes info that I would expect. I'm by no means judging you, rememeber fluorine (though, I don't think it's overdetailed, be it really good or be it just a work of mine) Just have in mind. Cheers--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, I may not be able to write tips for hassium during this week. Not for sure, but it's possible. Will inform you later. (Thankfully you have some other work to do for now)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Those chess variants? ;-) It was just a break from alkali metal. I might (probably will) write a few more of them, though.

Yes, I'm aware of the problem. Soon I'll get to pruning any info that is not really relevant to the alkali metals. Double sharp (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Man, I'm preparing myself to move to another apartment (packing things, cleaning everything up, etc.) plus my education takes a lot of effort (just finished a session). I'm won't be able to help you with hassium within the next week or even two. Hope you're not mad. I've given it a very brief look though, would say that this doesn't look perfect; the thing I still remember is that I'd advise a history section in the lead section.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I’ve seen that you’re responsible for adding predicted properties for period 8 and 9 elements. We know that properties of periods 8 and 9 elements are different from what the periodic trends would tell due to relativistic effects. Densities double as we go down the period for lighter d-block elements, but in the 7d series densities are only slightly higher than the above series. I believe that trend is due to two electrons residing in the 8p orbital. The densest element is Uht (163), whose density is 46 g/cm³, while the densest in the above series is hassium at 41 g/cm³. Notice that densest element in the 7d series is in the 9th column of d-block compared to 9th column for 3d series, 7th column for 4d series and 6th column for 5d and 6d series. Scientists predict densities for trans-superactinide elements as the only physical properties, but shouldn’t they predict melting points and boiling points too? Meanwhile they didn’t predict physical properties for superactinides, but I believe that densities and phase points possibly vary drastically back and forth along that line of elements. Perhaps at least one of those elements may have density less than that of water while at least one would have boiling point more than 1000 K below its melting point. I believe that melting and boiling points for most superactinides would be low compared to most metals due to interferance between filling orbitals deep inside and the outermost orbital containing four electrons instead of two, thus weaking the bonds between atoms of the lattice. In the 7d series, melting points and boiling points might be lower than above two series, similar to 4d series, but with peak further right. In the period 9 element, Uhp (165) might even be a solid with melting point similar to sodium or potassium owing to stronger attractive forces due to the absence of 8p_3/2 subshell. In the p-block of period 9, they may all have low melting and boiling points like poor metals. It is evenly possible that some superactinides and in the p-block series of the 9th period may be semimetallic or even nonmetallic due to extreme relativistic effects. Due to high quantum effects, many different metals in periods 8 and 9 may have wide variety of colors, like the golden color of gold due to quantum effects. Any thoughts about these? PlanetStar 02:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I think you may have meant to leave your support under "Users who endorse this view" and not under "Comments". If this was intentional, please ignore me. If this was unintentional, you may want to move your comment up. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It was unintentional, but someone seems to have moved it up already. Double sharp (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Took my knife & fork to your article tonight, feel free to change anything, or even to undo everything. p.s. I have Q about the notation used, is 1.(RN)d1-c3 preferred Betza notation perhaps!? (Because Pritchard uses 1.Cc3 for the move, which is much simpler otherwise.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

In Betza's articles on the Chess Variant Pages, he tends to use his funny notation in brackets as the symbol for any nonstandard piece (although he does abbreviate "Chancellor" to "C" on the WOTN article). I wouldn't really mind the change, though. Double sharp (talk) 11:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Both Pritchard & Betza use "C" then. (I think it's simplest/easiest for the WP reader.) p.s. Just lemme know if you like me to butcher another, or, to just keep my mitts off! Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I've loaded a new image of polonium to try and bring out the silver color better but still stay within fair use size guidelines. Does it look reasonable at your end? Still not as good as it should be---there is an annoying faint yellow streak runing from about 8 o'clock to 2 o'clock, across the face of the disc. There were more of these running across the rest of the image in a parallel fashion but User:Fallschirmjäger removed them for me. The overall image is better than what was there before, I reckon. Sandbh (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice! Thanks. Double sharp (talk) 08:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Who and when mentioned this point in WP:ELEM? Burzuchius (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It was raised by User:Roentgenium111 at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 12#Naturally occurring isotopes of transplutonium elements. Double sharp (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. Thank you. Burzuchius (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey Double sharp - this is to notify you that there is a discussion starting on the Article Feedback RfC talkpage that has ramifications for the RfC itself. Your input is much appreciated :). Thanks! and apologies if I've missed anyone Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow. (You do chemistry, math/geometry, physics, astronomy, chess, and classical music. You make my head spin! You also know multiple languages!?) Can I ask, what do u consider your forte(s) among those? And did I miss any?) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I have not actually been active in physics- and astronomy-related articles recently, and I haven't actually used anything other than zh, fr, and de when translating stuff on WP. :-) My forte is whatever I feel like doing at the moment. Double sharp (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The kind of math/geometry I've seen you do ... jeepers! (It looks pretty advanced, so I'd assumed that was your forte. No!?) On top of it, the languages! (Impressive.) At least I can beat u in chess maybe ... Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Assuming my knowledge is right:

Hyperbolic tilings with regular polygons occur when the sum of all angles (under the wrong assumption that the polygons are Euclidean) is greater than 360 and less than 720 degrees. This means all of the following regular hyperbolic tilings are possible:

• Triangles with 7, 8, 9, 10, or 11 at a vertex
• Squares with 5, 6, or 7 at a vertex
• Pentagons with 4, 5, or 6 at a vertex
• Hexagons with 4 or 5 at a vertex
• Heptagons with 3, 4, or 5 at a vertex
• Octagons with 3, 4, 5 at a vertex
• Enneagons with 3, 4, or 5 at a vertex
• Regular polygons with any number of sides with 3 or 4 at a vertex

How about semiregular tilings in a hyperbolic plane?? Do you have a complete list of all of them using the above rule?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Huh? {p,q} is possible for any p and q. What gave you the idea that it's not? We don't have pictures for anything with p or q above 9 in Wikipedia, but see this applet. Double sharp (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Spherical tilings: 0 < sum of angles (under wrong assumption that polygons are Euclidean) < 360 degrees.

Plane tilings: sum of angles = 360 degrees.

Hyperbolic tilings: 360 < sum of angles (again under the same wrong assumption) < 720 degrees

What's the wrong info here?? (Technically, per understanding of non-Euclidean polygons the sum is always 360 degrees; I'm just defining it by what the sum would be under the wrong assumption that the polygons are Euclidean.) Georgia guy (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It's the "< 720 degrees" in the inequality you labelled "Hyperbolic tilings". There shouldn't be an upper bound. Double sharp (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Periodic table (pictures), has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. DePiep (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Since you are the creator. -DePiep (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader ( Grapple X (submissions)) had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. 12george1 (submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:

• 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score for an article, with the good article Hurricane Gordon (2000). Again, this is a repeat of last year!
• Buggie111 (submissions) was the first to score for a did you know, with Marquis Flowers.
• Spencer (submissions) was the first to score for an in the news, with 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede.
• Status (submissions) was the first to score for a featured list, with list of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists.
• Adam Cuerden (submissions) was the first to score for a featured picture, with File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg.

Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.

This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:

• Ed! (submissions) was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
• Hawkeye7 (submissions) has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
• HueSatLum (submissions) claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.

Also, a quick mention of The C of E (submissions), who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

	Happy New Year!
	Wow! Looks like they had fun at that New Year's party! ................................Happy New Year, 2013. From Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

On 8 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Way of the Knight, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Way of the Knight, a chess variant invented by Ralph Betza, was an attempt to blend chess with role-playing games? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Way of the Knight. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 08:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

This file was miscolored (wrong squares alternated) I cleaned up, but impatient, and flood-fil paint leakage requires corners marked more than I did. File:Uniform_tiling_4.4.4.6.png Tom Ruen (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Oops... Double sharp (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I replaced File:Uniform_tiling_4.4.4.6.png with a careful coloring from Tyler. I got around the failure of curved edge fills by "fading" the colors of the image, and hand-coloring the tiles with curved edges. I also found its "zoom" is pretty useful, so you can zoom as far as you want near the edges for proper positioning up to your patience. Last I used the zoom to screenshot sections and pasted them into MSPaint back into an image larger than my screen (vertical). So with a bit of patience, Tyler can do ANY uniform tiling for high quality images. The main weakness is you can't shift the center, so the original vertex figure is centered. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Double sharp. You have new messages at Talk:Chalcogen/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

^King Jakob _C2 01:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Double sharp. You have new messages at Talk:Chalcogen/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

^King Jakob _C2 15:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Double sharp. You have new messages at Talk:Chalcogen/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

^King Jakob _C2 21:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there and thanks for the note! I noticed on your user page that you are interested in getting chalcogen to FA (as am I), so I'm open to any suggestions/comments about how to improve it.^King Jakob _C2 02:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

See my answer to your question about this at the ref desk. I live near the UL so could go and have a look at the score they have if there's anything in particular you want to know; or I could enquire about photocopying (the edition is from 1876 so presumably out of copyright) - this might not be for a few days though. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:

1. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), primarily for an array of warship GAs.
2. Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
3. Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:

• Sven Manguard (submissions), whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
• Sasata (submissions), whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
• Muboshgu (submissions) and Wizardman (submissions), who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
• Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic.

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey Double sharp; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Department of Fun/Word Association, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Department of Fun/Word Association and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Department of Fun/Word Association during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.. Thryduulf (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Just saw your period articles comment. This year is is busy, but if I'm freer in 2014, what about doing a joint effort to GA/FA period 6 or any of them? (Was gonna suggest GAing, but FAing won't probably require much extra work on important things, but rather on refs formatting, etc.) Not saying I will do it, but maybe, who knows

Anyway, wanted to ask you about that hassium review. Do you feel the same way I do about it? Like introduction of Intro section, and "detechicalizing" it, and other stuff? I could've tried that with any other SHE article, but a) should FA fluorine first, which is not gonna happen very soon, since I'm gonna be busy again in April, May, and the first half of June (don't know how busy, but definitely busy), and b) it's just sweeter if anyone thinks the same way, and thus will look at it from a little different perspective, because, like, everyone has a little different perspectives.

Also, he's Cherenkov, please, no diacritics, if I'm picky, sorry.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

All right...I will not use the diacritics version next time. (I'm a bit too used to that version. :-))

Yes, I agree with you on the Hs review. It's just that I haven't quite started. :-)

Periods? An interesting idea! I'd really like doing that. Double sharp (talk) 02:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Neat! It's all I wanted to hear--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Double sharp,

In relation to your reversion of my recent edit on the page on chromium, and your mentioning of referencing, there are two main reasons why I have not made a reference here. Firstly, brittleness is an inherent and universal property of commercially produced chromium metal, even of high purity, and, like the property of being able to be highly polished, I felt doesn't need a reference. My own long standing familiarity with chromium metal of various different grades very much confirms this assessment. Secondly, I am currently unsure of how to add references in Wikipedia in the Wikipedia fashion.

Also, I replaced "that" with "which" as in this context, it was grammatically incorrect.

Lastly, it is possible that the brittleness of chromium is due to nitrogen and/ or oxygen impurities: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v178/n4533/abs/178587a0.html , but I felt that adding of the mention of brittleness was necessary as this is such a marked feature of the element as commonly encountered.

Regards

elementperson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elementperson (talk • contribs) 15:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I added the cite. Thanks! Double sharp (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate Miyagawa (submissions) (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's Casliber (submissions) (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr ( Hawkeye7 (submissions)), on the European hare ( Cwmhiraeth (submissions)), on the constellation Circinus ( Keilana (submissions) and Casliber (submissions)) and on the Third Epistle of John ( Cerebellum (submissions)). All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop reverting my edits. A Beroloina pawn is a special version of Berolina pawn—it takes a sexier step. (When Beroloina and Mad pawns go "arm-in-arm" [hanging pawn structure], it's called a "Beroloina–Mad pawn date", with the Mad pawn able to support the Beroloina's sexy steps forward. It's the only structure known to calm and focus the madness of a Mad pawn.)

I'm shocked, shocked you didn't know this already, and that I have to be the one point it out to you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

[Seriously, thx fer fixin' me typo! Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)]

Thank you very much for making me LOL. Double sharp (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

This subvariant featured eight lovely Beroloinas (me thinks!), but unfortunately I had to rename it to refer to only the main variant. ;) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I had a look at this article and added some initial thoughts.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Ping :) --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It is now a Good Article. I encourage you to review another nomination listed at WP:GAN.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 10:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't panic - yet - we have until November!!  :-} --Smerus (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I should finish writing on the études first :-} Double sharp (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I will press ahead with the main article, especially the biographical side - I havce been held up due to the need to earn money and other boring routine matters.....--Smerus (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi,<br\> I'm contacting you because I read your 2009 comment on page Talk:Elongated_square_gyrobicupola.<br\> Can you please check that the image<br\> <br\> is actually an elongated square gyrobicupola? It doesn't look one to me: can you see that triangles and squares are not alternated as they are supposed to be?<br\> Cheers,<br\> Thewarriltonsiegedoc (talk) 02:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Its NOT a Rhombicuboctahedron if that's what you're asking. It is hard to see. The triangle on the left is misaigned with the triangle on the lower right, as an elongated square gyrobicupola should be. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The equatorial belt was top-to-bottom in the original image, near the left of the solid. After Tomruen rotated it it is now from left to right, but honestly I would prefer it the original way so that people could get a feel for the solid in different orientations (and now the colour scheme is rather illogical). Double sharp (talk) 06:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The 'without opus nos.' seem to be in disarray, do you think they should be ordered by date? There are quite a few missing, I think. Best, --Smerus (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is a mess. Agree it should be by date. Double sharp (talk) 03:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

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

--Smerus (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think the essential thing here is always to use exactly the titles given by the composer and/or publisher at first publication. That way they can always be sourced and referenced if anyone queries them. Any anomalies can be explained in the text. And I do think it is very important to sort works by instrumentation - this is the standard for other lists of compositions on Wikipedia. And, for that matter, in sources like Groves Dictionary. It's a lot more useful to readers I think - otherwise they have to scan acres of space if they are just looking for, say, the cello sonata. Best, --Smerus (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with Sven Manguard (submissions) claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and Cwmhiraeth (submissions) claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place Casliber (submissions) and second place Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 16:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I might be very busy in the first half of June, and I'm afraid I can forget about it. So, could you please send me a reminder note in the second half of June?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure.

(BTW, I think you mean "might" instead of "can".) Double sharp (talk) 06:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

And thank you for the correction, it made me check the usage of the modal verbs again :)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the Alleluia op. 25 in F published in Paris in 1844. Where does the number op. 14 come from? There is indeed a gap for op.14 in the lists - perhaps someone has randomly filled it in with this? Best, --Smerus (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems just to be an error. All the modern authorities give it as op. 25.--Smerus (talk) 08:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It occurs to me that "14" could well be a moved-too-far-to-the-left typo for "25". :-) Double sharp (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Double sharp,

is there still some need / interest in the dozenal multiplication table you requested in the WP:GL? It was archived to Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop/Archive/May 2013#Dozenal multiplication table lately. NikNaks an me put quite some effort in it and as far as I can tell we were mainly done to the point deciding whether to use NikNaks version with SVG graphics or my proposal using CSS which looks better but might not work on some old browsers.

Regards, --Patrick87 (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm still (very) interested in this.

I really like your solution, but I'd personally still prefer lousy SVGs that work for everyone to nice CSS that doesn't work for everyone. Especially since these are numbers, and it's rather important to be able to distinguish 12 (decimal 22) from 12 (decimal 14)! (Also, they're also not aligned, like the SVGs, with the Pitman digits having a baseline lower than the normal decimal digits; interestingly, NikNaks' SVGs seem to align better on IE9 and IE10...)

We do also need a blue version of 3, but since that's quite possible with SVGs, I'd still prefer SVGs for this purpose. Double sharp (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually vertical alignment differs from browser to browser, so it will never look correct in all browsers (until one really does a huge amount of CSS hacking and I'm not sure if that's even allowed by the MediaWiki software). That's also independent of whether we are using CSS numbers or SVG graphics, alignment is inconsistent in both cases as I noticed during testing.

Is there anything left to do with NikNaks SVGs? The Arial versions looked quite good if I remember correctly. --Patrick87 (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Would prefer Arial (it looks the best and the most homogeneous with our other numbers). We just need a blue 3. Double sharp (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll look into it tomorrow. --Patrick87 (talk) 05:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I tried to improve the positioning a little bit and created the colored versions. See User:Patrick87/multiplication table. There seems to be a caching issue right now, however, so the black numbers are not shown correctly. The blue numbers look as they will look eventually. --Patrick87 (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks great (IE10). Double sharp (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, great. So let's hope the caching problem is fixed soon. Let me now if anything is left to do. --Patrick87 (talk) 02:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Before you proceed changing the group name as you announced, pls take a look at my response at Template talk:periodic table. -DePiep (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Seen and replied. Double sharp (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Will look, thx. I only came here because it looked like you might go on right away; otherwise, I know, there would not be this need. -DePiep (talk)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of musical symbols, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Longa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Look at the image you uploaded at the bottom of Two hundred fifty-sixth note. It has a key signature in the treble clef with flats on A, E, and A. The first flat should be on B. Is this a common error?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It is on B, it's just positioned much too low. Considering all the other howlers I've seen with key signatures, this one is pretty minor (at least the intention is obvious). Double sharp (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

You said you were going to make sextuple time into its own article, but you didn't. Georgia guy (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Whoa. This is a first; I'm being chased by someone else on Wikipedia to create an article. :-)

To answer your question, I've been rather busy throughout the past few days and so the article will have to wait a bit. Double sharp (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Created at sextuple meter. Double sharp (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

	Hey there!
	Hi Double sharp/Archive 4, I'm from the team behind Wikipedia VI: The Last Editor! We could use your help to get the sixth Wikipedia movie going. You see, our writing team came down with a severe case of writer's block, and we thought that getting fresh voices could help the team get the movie really going. Don't feel bad if you can't help out, and happy editing!

öBrambleberry of RiverClan 15:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I will try to help somewhat. Double sharp (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges. A full list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on will be at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. INeverCry 20:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not appreciate your recent handling of period table group names. For sure, there is no reason to enforce a personal opinionated attitude. Please reconsider. -DePiep (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi - as you see I have been fiddling about with this, but I suppose it should really be upgraded to the standards discussed here at WP:Classical music- which alas seems a hell of a job.....Best, --Smerus (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Double sharp. You have new messages at Brambleberry of RiverClan's talk page.
Message added 13:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

öBrambleberry of RiverClan 13:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alkali metal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Telluride (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

70.181.68.226 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

--70.181.68.226 (talk) 03:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 10:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome. --70.181.68.226 (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

We are down to our final 16: the 2013 semi-finals are upon us. A score of 321 was required to survive round 3, further cementing this as the most competitive WikiCup yet; round 3 was survived in 2012 with 243 points, in 2011 with 76 points and in 2010 with 250 points. The change may in part be to do with the fact that more articles are now awarded bonus points, in addition to more competitive play. Reaching the final has, in the past, required 573 points (2012, a 135% increase on the score needed to reach round 4), 150 points (2011, a 97% increase) and 417 points (2010, a 72% increase). This round has seen over a third of participants claiming points for featured articles (with seven users claiming for multiple featured articles) and most users have also gained bonus points. However, the majority of points continue to come from good articles, followed by did you know articles. In this round, every content type was utilised by at least one user, proving that the WikiCup brings together content contributors from all corners of the project.

Round 3 saw a number of contributions of note. Figureskatingfan (submissions) claimed the first featured topic points in this year's competition for her excellent work on topics related to Maya Angelou, the noted American author and poet. We have also continued to see high-importance articles improved as part of the competition: Ealdgyth (submissions) was awarded a thoroughly well-earned 560 points for her featured article Middle Ages and 102 points for her good article Battle of Hastings. Good articles James Chadwick and Stanislaw Ulam netted Hawkeye7 (submissions) 102 and 72 points respectively, while 72 points were awarded to Piotrus (submissions) for each of Władysław Sikorski and Emilia Plater, both recently promoted to good article status. Collaborative efforts between WikiCup participants have continued, with, for example, Casliber (submissions) and Sasata (submissions) being awarded 180 points each for their featured article on Boletus luridus.

A rules reminder: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on the 29/30 June, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. We are currently seeing concern about the amount of time people have to wait for reviews, especially at GAC- if you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 10:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Whoop whoop pull up/Wikipedia VI: The Last Editor's talk page.

Re [1]: part of the difference is indeed a software limitation in Kaleidotile in which it draws Euclidean line segments instead of hyperbolic ones. But even with correct hyperbolic line segments, the tritetragonal tiling has corners where Escher has smooth curves, because the things that look like triangles and squares in Escher's drawing are not actually hyperbolic polygons, but rather shapes bounded by arcs of hypercycles. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Aggh...I must not have been observing carefully. You are of course right and thanks for correcting me. Double sharp (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

How do you feel about changing compound piece expressions (wherever they might occur) from "–" to "+"? (Ala Chess variant#Rook+knight and bishop+knight compounds. Perhaps it's more intuitive for both reading and writing!?) What do you think? Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Double sharp (talk) 06:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done (But what's this?! Fergus at CV.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

*looks* @!$^...I must have forgotten his name...%#!* *kicks self 42 times* I'm sorry... '_' Double sharp (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the chem templates within normal prose text because they mess up the line spacing. They create apparent paragraph breaks. This is a feature of how close together the lines are within Wiki, so hard to jigger. [Yeah, you can tweak it by making the whole chemical compound tiny...but this as a problem since the Wikitext is already smaller than advised by readability standards! And you are putting Band-Aid on top of Band-Aid.] They are fine in reactions though when set aside with a blank line above and below. But then then basically function like mathtext.

I don't think that the superscript being to the right of the figure causes any hurdle to the viewer. It is how I normally write in MS Word and have never gotten a single non-comprehension or criticism. See for instance how the composite ions (chromate and sulfate and all the like) appear in the third para of this Wiki article. I don't think anyone reading that casually is at all put off or confused by the superscript being a little spaced out from the subscript. Or consider this published journal article. Look at the sufate ion in the fifth line down. This is top flight publishing with access to all sorts of special typography...and they are fine with the superscript spacing out. Nobody in the regular world of readers has a problem with this or even notices it as a flaw.

If anything, spacing out the charge is more scientifically intuitive since the charge applies to the overall compound (is spread out), while the superscript applies only to the atom (or the like). So in sulfate, we have SO₄^2-. Which is four oxygens and then a spread out negative 2 charge. Or consider the charges on the composite species in this real life published article. And no....you DON'T need brackets. Everyone reads that just fine as is.

I have written more on this in the talk page for chem template. Not going to edit war about it and am leaving your version...but would just ask you to look at that messed up line spacing and think about what makes a bigger hurdle for the reader...

TCO (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

P.s. And those were the first two abstracts that I got when I googled Journal of Inorganic Chemistry sulfate. No funny business or cherry picking.TCO (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, considering it. Like the current version where the super/subscripts are lined up (I know it's not necessary, but I still think it looks nice) and yet the spacing between lines isn't messed up. Hopefully {{chem}} can be made to look like that... Double sharp (talk) 12:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)