Excellent work, saving the Copper(II) fluoride article from deletion! In recognition of how dramatically it's improved since you started work on it, I award you this :) riana_dzasta 03:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just stopping by with cookies for those editors who started new articles today. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hereby award this barnstar for such great work on Iron. Keep up the good work! Chemicalinterest (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I need help on the use of hydroxide in organic chemistry. I'm revising the article on hydroxide which I found to have been copied directly from a Russian encyclopedia! My draft is at User:Petergans/sandbox. Please have a look at it and comment if you can.Petergans (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an up-to-date organic chemistry text-book, so I'm stuck for citations.
Can you help me or suggest someone who can? Petergans (talk) 10:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being late. I looked for something but did not find something good. V8rik is the an expert for the name reactions. --Stone (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great work. Jdrewitt agreed once I directed his attention back to your compromise. Taking into account his objection to the arXiv blog being self publishing this information use either: [[1]] (NewScientist) and [[2]] (Nature). I prefer NewScientist.
I'll help where I can. Thanks again for being the calm eye of the storm. :) -Danjel (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, happy new year and welcome to the 2011 WikiCup! Your submissions' page can be found here and instructions of how to update the page can be found here and on the submissions' page itself. From the submissions' page, a bot will update the main scoresheet. Our rules have been very slightly updated from last year; the full rules can be found here. Please remember that you can only receive points for content on which you have done significant work in 2011; nominations of work from last year and "drive-by" nominations will not be awarded points. Signups are going to remain open through January, so if you know of anyone who would like to take part, please direct them to Wikipedia:WikiCup/2011 signups. The judges can be contacted on the WikiCup talk page, on their respective talk pages, or by email. Other than that, we will be in contact at the end of every month with the newsletter. If you want to stop or start receiving newsletters, please remove your name from or add your name to this list. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 13:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for coming to the rescue of those of us who lack the knowledge to create proper citations in articles! HuskyHuskie (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On 6 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wedgwood scale, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Wedgwood scale was used to determine the temperature in pottery kilns? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it 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.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
I received your message regarding references for my recent article on the Cecil Kelley criticality accident and am writing back to express my thanks! I often wonder if anyone reads the things I few things I have written on Wikipedia and am glad to know that apparently someone has and had enough interest to offer additional citations for the article. I am surprised and pleased. KDS4444Talk 12:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, would you mind helping with fluorine by peer reviewing it? I guess, that may be of a little interest for you since you're signed to WikiProject Elements. Although a review from would be very helpful, don't worry if you can't make one; but, if possible, please do so. --R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Franz-Joseph Müller von Reichenstein[edit]
I saw the quality of your contributions at DYK and clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Stone. You have new messages at Sadads's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Again, briefly, Sadads (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded the article you requested on WP:RX. It is available here. Please let me know when you've downloaded it. GabrielF (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a major revision of the uranyl ion. Please have a look at it, correct it (especially typos) and/or put comments, if any, on the talk page.
I'm having difficulty with diuranate. I've done a partial revision for "ammonium diuranate", but I can't find anything on the web relating to the chemical composition of "sodium diuranate". Is there anything relevant in German? Petergans (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all your hard work. May you wear the crowns well, and may the platinum crown motivate you to contribute more outstanding articles. – SMasters (talk) 10:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions), who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by Hurricanehink (submissions), with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to Yellow Evan (submissions), who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, Miyagawa (submissions), who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and Jarry1250 (submissions) who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!
A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, 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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 22:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So begins round two of the WikiCup! We now have eight pools, each with eight random contestants. This round will continue until the end of April, when the top two of each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers of those remaining, will make it to round three. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions) (first, with 487 points) and Hurricanehink (submissions) (second, with 459), who stormed the first round. Casliber (submissions) finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to Jarry1250 (submissions) for dealing with all bot work. This year's bot, as well as running smoothly, is doing some very helpful things that last year's did not. Also, thanks to Stone (submissions) for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.
Some news for those who are interested- March will see a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Wikipedia; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you.
Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, 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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sie sagen, dass sie meine Userpage mögen. Ich studiere Chemi und ich mag Wikipedia sehr. Danke schön :) 20:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somedaydoctor (talk • contribs)
Hi! I am now working on an english paper for school arguing for the validity of Wikipedia as a resource. You seem to be rather knowledgeable about Wikipedia, so I would like to ask a couple of questions. How long have you been on Wikipedia? Specifically, I am trying to argue that Wikipedia is positive because it encourages collaboration and spreads knowledge faster. What is your opinion of this? Also, i have read a couple of articles claiming that the amount of editors is declining. Would you say this is true and if so, why is this happening? What do you think is the future of Wikipedia? Thanks for your help! --Somedaydoctor (talk) 03:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
THANKS SO MUCH for answering those questions for my school paper! On a different note, I would like you to take a look at the appel reaction rough draft. To be honest, I don't know too much about the general guidelines, so I wasn't aware that we might come into issues. I read the about Wikipedia page and can't seem to figure it out. Would it be better if we changed the article in sections? I worked really hard with some of my friends to make this a good article. It is currently still on UmichSSG215 this page because it is a draft.--Somedaydoctor (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed Stanley Gerald Thompson, and went looking to see if there was enough available on Kenneth Street, Jr.. I found an obituary, but not much else. There might not be much else, but I'm dropping this note off for you in case you want to have a look. Carcharoth (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS received an inquiry as to why
Tom Baruch was tagged as not meeting general notability criteria. I've looked at the article (but haven't researched it), and as far as I can see, he merits mention. I can certainly see you're a serious contributor, so I won't do anything before getting your advice. Asav (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
director of Baruch Future Ventures and founder of the Chemicals and Materials Enterprise Associates is what he is. Is this notable? --Stone (talk) 09:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its been quite some time that I was searching for reliable hardness (Vickers, Brinell, whatever) data for elements (at least metals). We use data copied from webelements, in turn copied from a Russian book of the 1960s. Do you know how to find such data? Right now I am looking for a reference value for Zr, with no useful results so far. Materialscientist (talk) 10:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That will teach me to ALWAYS check the Preview and not the Changes. That article is written in United States English. I reviewed that before making the change. I regret having messed up the image. Let me know if you can revert it. If not, I'll put something out in a forum or the Village Pump to fix the problem. .......But wait....There's more....!@#$ you for using the condescending term "colonial," you pommie, Limey MFSOBPOS. The term is "America" or "United States." 05:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapered (talk • contribs)
Well, somebody fixed it. I'll figure out what I did and never do it again. My rant stands. Yes I know that the US is the empire now, and we're fading quickly, but I'm glad the sun sets on yours. (-: 05:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapered (talk • contribs)
My apologies. My actual name derives fr/ the nation of the 12 yr. Reich. The term "colonial" is loaded! And if the English cricket team doesn't qualify, I'll actually feel regret for my friends fr/ England.Tapered (talk) 06:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PPS: I won't chance embarrassing myself w/ any predictions, but here's hoping one of the "Colonials" beats your Crickit (colonial spelling) team before the semifinals!Tapered (talk) 05:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Stone. You have new messages at Ebe123's talk page. Message added 19:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Hello! Your submission of Oskar Baudisch at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see new note on DYK talk page. Yoninah (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another alt suggestion on the DYK talk page for you. Yoninah (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for your approval of the last alt hook. Yoninah (talk) 09:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is Hurricanehink (submissions) with 231 points, who leads Pool H. Piotrus (submissions) (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring.
A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, 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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 01:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. He worked on Vanadium... But I think we can point out that he is in the picture. (not as a inventor.) Berkaysnklf 1 April, 2011, 19:51 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for your comment on the Taube GA review. Would you mind taking a look at the section about his history again, and checking to see if I addressed the issue you raised? I believe I understood what you were meaning, and in the absence of any direct evidence of how his family moved around, I added in general information about German migration to Russia, and then subsequently to North America. Thanks! Canada Hky (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I like the article.--Stone (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On 7 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oskar Baudisch, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Austrian American biochemist Oskar Baudisch, whose study of trace elements in aqueous solutions led to his discovery of the Baudisch reaction, died by drowning? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it 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.
Radium was upgraded from Start to C by Nergaal on 10 April 2011. Since you seem to be updating the pictorial table, could you please help with the updating? Thanks, Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
updated.--Stone (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upload would take 40 minutes, so this has to wait until Thursday.--Stone (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: So did Cf...I think we'll just check for changes in WP:ELEM/PTQ: articles are now passing GA at a frightening (yet satisfying) rate. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did nobody seriously notice that Al in the PTQ image is spelt "Aluminum"?! Since caesium and sulfur there are following the IUPAC spelling, I think this needs some changing. (^_^) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice catch! Done. Now it reads aluminium.--Stone (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Ununpentium" now reads "Ununpentiüm" for some reason. I suppose that could also get fixed...other updates: Sm, Pa A --> GA, Cu B --> GA. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Phosphorus" got spelt as "Phosphorous". Lanthanum-138 (talk) 05:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(undent) Cobalt, palladium and Grp.3 don't have the GA signs (+), even though they are coloured correctly as GAs. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 03:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Your submission of Wilhelmine Reichard at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Round 2 of the 2011 WikiCup is over, and the new round will begin on 1 May. Note that any points scored in the interim (that is, for content promoted or reviews completed on 29-30 April) can be claimed in the next round, but please do not start updating your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. Fewer than a quarter of our original contestants remain; 32 enter round 3, and, in two months' time, only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Casliber (submissions), who led Pool F, was our round champion, with 411 points, while 7 contestants scored between 200 and 300 points. At the other end of the scale, a score of 41 was high enough to reach round 3; more than five times the score required to reach round 2, and competition will no doubt become tighter now we're approaching the later rounds. Those progressing to round 3 were spread fairly evenly across the pools; 4 progressed from each of pools A, B, E and H, while 3 progressed from both pools C and F. Pools D and G were the most successful; each had 5 contestants advancing.
This round saw our first good topic points this year; congratulations to Hurricanehink (submissions) and Nergaal (submissions) who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored; featured sounds, featured portals and featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to Candlewicke (submissions) (who has been eliminated) for his work on In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!
Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, 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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 19:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On 30 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wilhelmine Reichard, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Wilhelmine Reichard, the first German woman balloonist, fell unconscious at 7,800 metres (25,600 ft) during her third flight in 1811 and crash-landed in a forest? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it 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.
Hello, Stone. You have new messages at Alpha Quadrant's talk page. Message added 21:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Hello. I noticed that the bond lenghts in the molecular structure of bromine trifluoride are inverted. The axial Br-F distance is 1.81, and the equatorial distance is 1.72. May you please correct the structure? Thank you and best wishes,
--Albris (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We're half way through round 3 of the 2011 WikiCup. There are currently 32 remaining in the competition, but only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Casliber (submissions), of pool D, is our overall leader with nearly 200 points, while pools A, B and C are led by Racepacket (submissions), Hurricanehink (submissions) and Canada Hky (submissions) respectively. The score required to reach the next round is 35, though this will no doubt go up significantly as the round progresses. We have a good number of high scorers, but also a considerable number who are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. Also, an important note concerning nominations at featured article candidates: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.
A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, 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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Elements for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating in the interview. The overwhelming response shows the excitement and dedication of the members at WikiProject Elements. I had to trim some of the interview to make it a little more manageable and to reduce redundancy. The responses to the first question and the "anything else" question were used in writing introductions for each member. I also cut an unneeded question. Please take a look at the revised interview to make sure I haven't inadvertently changed the tone or character of your response. Also check to make sure I've used the correct pronouns when referring to you. None of these changes are set in stone and we still have plenty of time until publication in which we can tweak things. Pictures and a sidebar will be added closer to the publication date. Cheers! -Mabeenot (talk) 01:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A deletion discussion has just been created at Category talk:Unclassified Chemical Structures, which may involve one or more orphaned chemical structures, that has you user name in the upload history. Please feel free to add your comments. Ronhjones (Talk) 23:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have noticed those creeping in with Painted turtle as well. Is it just me or do others have this happen? They don't seem as if I typed them. But they happen. I'm using IE.TCO (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Get it? (I slay myself.) Seriously thanks for chipping in. This place is more fun, when there is collaboration. P.s. I can smell that DYK! TCO (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are half way through 2011, and entering the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; the semi-finals are upon us! Points scored in the interim (29/30 June) may be counted towards next round, but please do not update your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. 16 contestants remain, and all have shown dedication to the project to reach this far. Our round leader was Casliber (submissions) who, among other things, successfully passed three articles through featured article candidates and claimed an impressive 29 articles at Did You Know, scoring 555 points. Casliber led pool D. Pool A was led by Wizardman (submissions), claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by Eisfbnore (submissions), who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by Hurricanehink (submissions), who claimed for, among other things, three featured articles and five good articles. In addition to the four pool leaders, 12 others (the four second places, and the 8 next highest overall) make up our final 16. The lowest scorer who reached round 4 scored 76 points; a significant increase on the 41 needed to reach round 3. Eight of our semi-finalists scored at least twice as much as this.
No points were awarded this round for featured pictures, good topics or In the News, and no points have been awarded in the whole competition for featured topics, featured portals or featured sounds. Instead, the highest percentage of points has come from good articles. Featured articles, despite their high point cost, are low in number, and so, overall, share a comparable number of points with Did You Know, which are high in number but low in cost. A comparatively small but still considerable number of points come from featured lists and good article reviews, rounding out this round's overall scores.
We would again like to thank Jarry1250 (submissions) and Stone (submissions) for invaluable background work, as well as all of those helping to provide reviews for the articles listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please do keep using it, and please do help by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup.
Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here, for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. As ever, 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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Stone, I provided an answer (somewhat unsatisfactory as I couldn't find anything definitive) to your question about sodium and potassium in seawater. Just pointing this out before the question disappears into the archive. Mikenorton (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
d. n. Awwiller (1) (1993). "Illite/Smectite Formation and Potassium Mass Transfer During Burial Diagenesis of Mudrocks: A Study from the Texas Gulf Coast Paleocene-Eocene". SEPM Journal of Sedimentary Research. doi:10.1306/D4267B3B-2B26-11D7-8648000102C1865D.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
Hart, Roger (1970). "Chemical exchange between sea water and deep ocean basalts". Earth and Planetary Science Letters. 9 (3): 269–279. doi:10.1016/0012-821X(70)90037-3.
Weaver, C (1967). "Potassium, illite and the ocean". Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. 31 (11): 2181–2196. doi:10.1016/0016-7037(67)90060-9.
Hart, Stanley R.; Staudigel, Hubert (1982). "The control of alkalies and uranium in seawater by ocean crust alteration". Earth and Planetary Science Letters. 58 (2): 202–212. doi:10.1016/0012-821X(82)90194-7.
Humphris, S (1978). "Hydrothermal alteration of oceanic basalts by seawater". Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. 42: 107–125. doi:10.1016/0016-7037(78)90221-1.
Sharma, M; Rosenberg, E; Butterfield, D (2007). "Search for the proverbial mantle osmium sources to the oceans: Hydrothermal alteration of mid-ocean ridge basalt". Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. 71 (19): 4655–4667. doi:10.1016/j.gca.2007.06.062.
McDuff, Russell E.; Morel, Francois M. M. (1980). "The geochemical control of seawater (Sillen revisited)". Environmental Science & Technology. 14 (10): 1182–1186. doi:10.1021/es60170a007.
Holland, H (1972). "The geologic history of sea water—an attempt to solve the problem". Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. 36 (6): 637–651. doi:10.1016/0016-7037(72)90108-1.
Chaudhuri, S; Clauer, N; Semhi, K (2007). "Plant decay as a major control of river dissolved potassium: A first estimate". Chemical Geology. 243: 178–190. doi:10.1016/j.chemgeo.2007.05.023.
Sayles, F; Mangelsdorfjr, P (1977). "The equilibration of clay minerals with sea water: Exchange reactions☆". Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. 41 (7): 951–960. doi:10.1016/0016-7037(77)90154-5.
one might contain an answer! --Stone (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are half way through the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; there is less than a month to go before we have our final 8. Our pool leaders are Adabow (submissions) (Pool A, 189 points) and PresN (submissions) (Pool B, 165 points). The number of points required to reach the next round is not clear at this time; there are some users who still do not have any recorded points. Please remember to update your submissions' pages promptly. In addition, congratulations to PresN, who scored the first featured topic points in the competition for his work on Thatgamecompany related articles. Most points this round generally have, so far, come from good articles, with only one featured article (White-bellied Sea Eagle, from Casliber (submissions)) and two featured lists (Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story, from PresN and Grammy Award for Best Native American Music Album, from Another Believer (submissions)). Points for Did You Know and good article reviews round out the scoring. No points have been awarded for In the News, good topics or featured pictures this round, and no points for featured sounds or portals have been awarded in the entire competition. On an unrelated note, preparation will be beginning soon for next year's WikiCup- watch this space!
There is little else to be said beyond the usual. Please list anything you need reviewing on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, so others following the WikiCup can help, and please do help if you can by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup- points are, of course, offered for reviews at GAC. Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here. As ever, 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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 11:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, I hope europium and other stuff works out for you. Would be great if someone from WP:ELEM gets through! Lanthanum-138 (talk) 08:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, could you give me a cite for the Holemann Wiberg book and help me a bit with that section? I wasn't familiar with that...thanks. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 10:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, but it has to wait until tomorrow, when I am back at home.--Stone (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Stone! I hope not to disturb you with some questions:
Please check this. On the title page, you may see "der Bayerischen Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg." OK, as I see it's Genetiv. If so, where does "n" (Bayerischen) come from? Aren't things like that implied by the article? It could be sweet from you to explain (as you can see, I don't know a lot about German...yet. I promise to fix this), but that's not the point. So, using this as a citation, should I name the author the version with "n", without it, or translated into English?
You found a person doing this for a whole life and having no clue why most of the things happen in my language, sorry for that. Universität is female so Genetiv is der Universität; Verlag would be male so it would be des Verlags; now with bayrisch der bayrischen Universität; des bayrischen Verlags. More fun is even Bayerisches Landeskriminalamt or das bayrische Landeskriminalamt. In this place the S moves if you use an article.
It seems I got it :) Thanks--R8R Gtrs (talk) 09:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you at some point write me a B-class review for lutetium?
Also sorry for this one, but this has to wait for me being back from my trip to US.--Stone (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. I just hope you won't forget about it when you're back in Germany. Enjoy your trip!--R8R Gtrs (talk) 09:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, in advance.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The finals are upon us; we're down to the last few. One of the eight remaining contestants will be this year's WikiCup champion! 150 was the score needed to progress to the final; just under double the 76 required to reach round 4, and more than triple the 41 required to reach round 3. Our eight finalists are:
Casliber (submissions), Pool A's winner. Casliber has the highest total score in the competition, with 1528, the bulk of which is made up of 8 featured articles. He has the highest number of total featured articles (8, 1 of which was eligible for double points) and total did you knows (72) of any finalist. Casliber writes mostly on biology, including ornithology, botany and mycology.
PresN (submissions), Pool B's winner and the highest scorer this round. PresN is the only finalist who has scored featured topic points, and he has gathered an impressive 330, but most of his points come from his 4 featured articles, one of which scored double. PresN writes mostly on video games and the Hugo Awards.
Hurricanehink (submissions), Pool A's runner-up. Hurricanehink's points are mostly from his 30 good articles, more than any other finalist, and he is also the only finalist to score good topic points. Hurricanehink, as his name suggests, writes mostly on meteorology.
Wizardman (submissions), Pool B's runner-up. Wizardman has completed 86 good article reviews, more than any other finalist, but most of his points come from his 2 featured articles. Wizardman writes mostly on American sport, especially baseball.
Miyagawa (submissions), the "fastest loser" (Pool A). Miyagawa has written 3 featured lists, one of which was awarded double points, more than any other finalist, but he was awarded points mostly for his 68 did you knows. Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, including dogs, military history and sport.
Resolute (submissions), the second "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Resolute's points come from his 9 good articles. He writes mostly on Canadian topics, including ice hockey.
Yellow Evan (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool A). Most of Evan's points come from his 10 good articles, and he writes mostly on meteorology.
Sp33dyphil (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Phil's points come from his 9 good articles, 4 of which (more than any other finalist) were eligible for double points. He writes mostly on aeronautics.
In other news, preparations for next year's competition have begun with a brainstorming thread. Please, feel free to drop by and share any thoughts you have about how the competition should work next year. Sign ups are not yet open, but will be opened in due course. Watch this space. Further, there has been a discussion about the rule whereby those in the WikiCup must delcare their participation when nominating articles at featured article candidates. This has resulted in a bot being created by new featured article delegate Ucucha (talk·contribs). The bot will leave a message on FAC pages if the nominator is a participant in the WikiCup.
A reminder of the rules: any points scored after August 29 may be claimed for the final round, and please remember to update submission pages promptly. If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, 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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are on this year's home straight, with less than a month to go until the winner of the 2011 WikiCup will be decided. The fight for first place is currently being contested by Miyagawa (submissions), Hurricanehink (submissions) and Sp33dyphil (submissions), all of whom have over 200 points. This round has already seen multiple featured articles (1991 Atlantic hurricane season from Hurricanehink and Northrop YF-23 from Sp33dyphil) and a double-scoring featured list (Miyagawa's 1948 Summer Olympics medal table). The scores will likely increase far further before the end of the round on October 31 as everyone ups their pace. There is not much more to say- thoughts about next year's competition are welcome on the WikiCup talk page or the scoring talk page, and signups will open once a few things have been sorted out.
If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, 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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 12:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good job for keep improving image of periodic table by quality. Keep it up. Palaxzorodice (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see my edit count go down dramatically, but real life is at this point the priority. But I will be back to get the transition metals all through GAN some day.--Stone (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there! I have recently overtaken the tin GAN, on which you are working. If got a few minutes free one day, would you mind looking at astatine and take part at its A-class review? This is, of course, not mandatory; if you can't or don't just wanna, I won't insist.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Stone! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The 2011 WikiCup is now over, and our new champion is Hurricanehink (submissions), who joins the exclusive club of the previous winners: Dreamafter (2007), jj137 (2008), Durova (2009) and Sturmvogel_66 (2010). The final standings were as follows:
Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.
The Featured List Award: Miyagawa (submissions), for his performance in round 4. PresN (submissions) matched the score, but Miyagawa won the tiebreaker.
The Recognised Topic Award (for good and featured topics): PresN (submissions), for his performance in round 3.
The Reviewer Award (for good article reviews): Wizardman (submissions), for his performance in round 3.
No prize was awarded for featured pictures, sounds or portals, as none were claimed throughout the competition. The awards will be handed out over the next few days. Congratulations to all our participants, and especially our winners; we've all had fun, and Wikipedia has benefitted massively from our content work.
Preparation for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Interested parties are invited to sign up and participate in our straw polls. It's been a pleasure to work with you all this year, and, whoever's taking part in and running the competition in 2012, we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn and The ed17 00:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Awarded to Stone, who reached round 4, the semi-finals, in the 2011 WikiCup.
It was good to have you on board this time around- we hope you enjoyed the competition! In case you are interested, signups for next year are open. Thanks, J Milburn and The ed17 21:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I, ClockworkSoul, hereby award you with the EMC² Barnstar for all of the time and effort that you put into helping to raise caffeine to featured article status! – ClockworkSoul 15:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Excellent work, saving the Copper(II) fluoride article from deletion! In recognition of how dramatically it's improved since you started work on it, I award you this :) riana_dzasta 03:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I hereby award this barnstar for such great work on Iron. Keep up the good work! Chemicalinterest (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
The Bushranger (submissions), who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by 
Hurricanehink (submissions), with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to 
Yellow Evan (submissions), who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, 
Miyagawa (submissions), who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and 
Jarry1250 (submissions) who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!
Casliber (submissions) finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to 
Stone (submissions) for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.
Hello! Your submission of Oskar Baudisch at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Piotrus (submissions) (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring.
Nergaal (submissions) who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored; featured sounds, featured portals and featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to 
Candlewicke (submissions) (who has been eliminated) for his work on In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!
Racepacket (submissions), 
Canada Hky (submissions) respectively. The score required to reach the next round is 35, though this will no doubt go up significantly as the round progresses. We have a good number of high scorers, but also a considerable number who are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. Also, an important note concerning nominations at featured article candidates: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.
A deletion discussion has just been created at Category talk:Unclassified Chemical Structures, which may involve one or more orphaned chemical structures, that has you user name in the upload history. Please feel free to add your comments. Ronhjones (Talk) 23:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Wizardman (submissions), claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by 
Eisfbnore (submissions), who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by 
Adabow (submissions) (Pool A, 189 points) and 
PresN (submissions) (Pool B, 165 points). The number of points required to reach the next round is not clear at this time; there are some users who still do not have any recorded points. Please remember to update your submissions' pages promptly. In addition, congratulations to PresN, who scored the first featured topic points in the competition for his work on Thatgamecompany related articles. Most points this round generally have, so far, come from good articles, with only one featured article (White-bellied Sea Eagle, from 
Another Believer (submissions)). Points for Did You Know and good article reviews round out the scoring. No points have been awarded for In the News, good topics or featured pictures this round, and no points for featured sounds or portals have been awarded in the entire competition. On an unrelated note, preparation will be beginning soon for next year's WikiCup- watch this space!
Casliber (submissions), Pool A's winner. Casliber has the highest total score in the competition, with 1528, the bulk of which is made up of 8 featured articles. He has the highest number of total featured articles (8, 1 of which was eligible for double points) and total did you knows (72) of any finalist. Casliber writes mostly on biology, including ornithology, botany and mycology.
PresN (submissions), Pool B's winner and the highest scorer this round. PresN is the only finalist who has scored featured topic points, and he has gathered an impressive 330, but most of his points come from his 4 featured articles, one of which scored double. PresN writes mostly on video games and the Hugo Awards.
Hurricanehink (submissions), Pool A's runner-up. Hurricanehink's points are mostly from his 30 good articles, more than any other finalist, and he is also the only finalist to score good topic points. Hurricanehink, as his name suggests, writes mostly on meteorology.
Wizardman (submissions), Pool B's runner-up. Wizardman has completed 86 good article reviews, more than any other finalist, but most of his points come from his 2 featured articles. Wizardman writes mostly on American sport, especially baseball.
Miyagawa (submissions), the "fastest loser" (Pool A). Miyagawa has written 3 featured lists, one of which was awarded double points, more than any other finalist, but he was awarded points mostly for his 68 did you knows. Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, including dogs, military history and sport.
Resolute (submissions), the second "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Resolute's points come from his 9 good articles. He writes mostly on Canadian topics, including ice hockey.
Yellow Evan (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool A). Most of Evan's points come from his 10 good articles, and he writes mostly on meteorology.
Sp33dyphil (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Phil's points come from his 9 good articles, 4 of which (more than any other finalist) were eligible for double points. He writes mostly on aeronautics.
MuZemike (submissions). Everyone still in the competition at this stage has done fantastically well, and contributed greatly to Wikipedia. We're on the home straight now, and we will know our winner in two months.
Sp33dyphil (submissions), all of whom have over 200 points. This round has already seen multiple featured articles (1991 Atlantic hurricane season from Hurricanehink and Northrop YF-23 from Sp33dyphil) and a double-scoring featured list (Miyagawa's 1948 Summer Olympics medal table). The scores will likely increase far further before the end of the round on October 31 as everyone ups their pace. There is not much more to say- thoughts about next year's competition are welcome on the WikiCup talk page or the scoring talk page, and signups will open once a few things have been sorted out.
The Bushranger (submissions), for his performance in round 1.
Candlewicke (submissions), for his performance in round 1.