User talk:ST11/Archive 4

Welcome to the 2013 WikiCup

Hello, StringTheory11, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page ishere. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month, and signups are going to remain open until the end of January; if you know of anyone else who may like to take part, please let them know! A few reminders:

• The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page.
• Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started and completed the review in 2013.) We will be checking.
• If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself.
• Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens.
• Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked.

Overall, however, don't worry, and have fun. It doesn't matter if you make the odd mistake; these things happen. Questions can be asked on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburnand The ed17 12:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Your colour scheme for your work table

Could you pass through yellow rather than dark orange? Your current scheme is hard for me to read.Double sharp (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the color scheme. I actually liked the old one better, but enough people have told me to change it that it now runs through yellow instead of brown. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Lambda Pavonis

There is some interesting material on this star out there...I keep thinking some of these stars are going to be expandable for DYK....possibly this one? Maybe...maybe not....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll expand some of these notable star articles later, but first I'm going to create all the articles on stars above magnitude 5. After this, I'm planning to do a sweep of all stars over magnitude 5, to try to bring the important stub articles (such as Lambda Pavonis) to at least start-class. This way, I can also get the articles that I didn't create, but still are stubs. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually this one was/is pretty hard work...anyway, it's bigger than a one-line stub though nowhere near DYK....Casliber (talk ·contribs) 04:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm tempted to play a little game...how many stars designated "R" are long period mira variables.....R Leonis...R Andromedae...Casliber (talk ·contribs) 23:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Haha, now that I think about it, there are a disproportionate number. Maybe that will be my next task :).StringTheory11 (t •c) 03:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Click on this list - List_of_variable_stars - and make it alphabetical...come to think of it, alot of the 'S's are too......Casliber (talk ·contribs) 07:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Letters from R onwards are variable star designations and not Bayer designation, which appears to explain this phenomenon. Double sharp (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Even for variable stars, there seem to be a lot.... Coincidences are funny sometimes.StringTheory11 (t •c) 18:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, R, S, T, ... are variable star designations, and the effect you're noting is all well-known selection effect. Large-amplitude variables are the first stars to be noticed as variable. Aside from things like supernovae (which don't repeat at all) and novae (which repeat only on timescales much larger than a human lifetime), there are no greater amplitude variables in the visible band than Miras. And, their luminosity is high enough that there's a fair number of them to see through modest-size refracting telescopes. Combine all that, and of course lots of the variable stars designated R, S, T in many constellations will be Mira variables. BSVulturis (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Alkali metal

I added more content, much of which can also be used for alkaline earth metal. Double sharp (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Ways to improve HD 26961

Hi, I'm Puffin. StringTheory11, thanks for creating HD 26961!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This page has some references, but insufficient in-text citations.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Discussion on the AFT5 Request for Comment

Hey ST11 - this is to notify you that there is a discussion startingon 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) 16:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 January newsletter

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 articleHurricane 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, withFile: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 seeWikipedia: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 otherWikipedias.

Also, a quick mention of The C of E (submissions), who may well have already written theoddest 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) 00:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 9 February 2013 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding<!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions.AnomieBOT⚡ 07:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedPerseus (constellation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Capella(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) 11:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter

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 theCasting 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 aShit 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 withWomen'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 fromWikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk •email) and The ed17 (talk •email) J Milburn (talk) 11:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey StringTheory11; 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) 21:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Cosmic ray GAC

I've improved the article on cosmic rays and thus I think that at this stage you can begin reviewing in earnest. Wer900 • talk 03:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Great! I'll be busy for about the next week, but I'll take a look again after that.StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter

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 physicistNiels 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'swikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, suchgnomish 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 fromWikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk •email) and The ed17 (talk •email) J Milburn (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedLatin script in Unicode, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ḥ(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) 12:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter

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, butnot 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) 15:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

"tone" tag

Vague tags like Tone, which you added to Betty and Barney Hill, are *vastly* more effective if you also add a few sentences into the Talk page saying exactly what aspects of the tone need to be changed. Otherwise, I have found over the years, they are ignored. That is also an article with a very dedicated single editor who's tenacious, so it's worth the effort to overcome him/her/it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I've explained on the talk page now. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Bright stars ... at some point are no longer notable

This is response to your de-prodding LP Aquarii, which sent me off to reconsider. After thinking about it, I have come to disagree, somewhat vehemently, that every naked-eye star deserves a Wikipedia page simply because it's naked-eye bright. There's 9000 stars in the HR catalog, most of which have nothing notable about them at all by WP:NASTRO other than apparent magnitude. This is true in particular for K and M giants, which are pretty thoroughly unremarkable as well as being rather numerous in any sample selected by apparent brightness. When the only bibliographic references including a 5th-magnitude star are big survey catalogs, then there is nothing notable about that star, and I think Wikipedia is better off letting SIMBAD do its job better than Wikipedia ever can. Perhaps this discussion belongs in (or has already transpired in)WP:AST? BSVulturis (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, we have the guidelines at WP:NASTRO that say whether it's notable or not. However, I personally feel that we should keep the clause, as since the stars are visible to the naked eye, they will be frequent targets for amateur astronomers who don't know much about the topic, and an amateur may not know about SIMBAD. Therefore, someone who wants to learn about the star and the very basic info about it could come here and get the info. In addition, the article really isn't doing any harm just by sitting there, (unlike articles about completely random stars that just show that Wikipedia is not willing to delete anything) so I don't think it should be deleted. If you disagree, feel free to start a deletion discussion for the article, or bring it up at WT:AST, and if consensus goes against me, so be it. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

After cooling off and thinking overnight, it probably isn't worth a crusade on my (or anyone else's) part to delete items like LP Aquarii, things that aren't wrong but have subjects which are devoid of notability ... but I think it's misguided to create entries for such things also, and I say that as a professional astronomer. (I recognize you did not create the article in question.) At some point creating entries for undistinguished apparently-bright stars leads to the reductio ad absurdum state of creating pages about stars merely for their being the brightest star not to be the subject of its own Wikipedia article, if in fact we aren't there yet already. However, I also don't want to end up being in the position of starting discussions titled likeWhat's the BFD about BF Delphini? I'll continue to propose deletion for such things when I blunder across them, but I won't combat the de-prodding if it happens. Cheers ... BSVulturis(talk) 20:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedList of most luminous stars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Var B(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) 00:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	You are awarded this barnstar for your work in improving the article Perseus (constellation) to GA standards. Congratulations! AstroCog (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed between 12-14 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the initial messages I sent out went to only WikiProject members and users that had over 15 reviews). So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. Now, one of the most important criteria is that you have at least 15 independent reviews. If you are reading this, you are likely 3 (or less) reviews short, so if you review another couple nominations, you can become a recruiter! If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process sectionis a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". NOTE: If you are interested in becoming a recruiter but do not meet the 15 review requirement, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters and put your status as "Not Available" until you have reviewed enough nominations. Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom ofthis page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 June newsletter

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 ofWładysław 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 notthe 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 onWikipedia 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 fromWikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk •email) and The ed17 (talk •email) 10:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Repeated PROD of GJ 1062

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from GJ 1062, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, propose deletion are disallowed on articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed onWikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the{{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, didn't know that was policy. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:PRODed star articles

Hi, I do occasional WP:PROD patrolling. I just saved one of the star articles you tagged.

I notice that you often tag these articles, and there doesn't seem to be any clear guidance on the matter, whether they should be kept or removed.

I've started a conversation about it on the talk page for Project Astronomy, about whether they should be kept or removed, and what the guidelines should be:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#WP:PRODed_star_articles

Thanks, Robert Walker (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

VA/E

Hello, you recently made a few changes to the Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Physical sciences list that were not previously discussed. The policy is to !vote on each change before implementing it. If you want to contribute to the project you can visit Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded. --V3n0M93(talk) 10:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 July newsletter

We're halfway through this year's penultimate round, and the competition is moving along well. Pool A's Sasata (submissions) currently leads overall, while Pool B's Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) is second. Both leaders are WikiCup veterans, and both have already scored over 600 points this month. If the round were to end today, Miyagawa (submissions), with 274 points, would be the lowest-scoring participant to make it through. This indicates that participants will need a score comparable to last year's (573, the highest ever) to qualify for the final. The high scores this year are a testament both to the quality of participants and to the increased focus on significant content (eligible for bonus points) in this year's competition. So far this round, both Sasata and Cwmhiraeth (submissions) have made up over half of their score through bonus points, with, for example, high importance FA koala earning Sasata a total of 440 points (from a multiplier of 4.4) and high-importance GA sea earning Cwmhiraeth a total of 216 points (from a multiplier of 7.2). Other articles on important topics submitted this round include a featured article on theNorman conquest of England by Ealdgyth (submissions), and good articles on Nobel laureate in literature Henryk Sienkiewicz, Nobel laureate in physics Hans Bethe, and the notedJapanese aircraft carrier Hiryū. These articles are by Piotrus (submissions), Hawkeye7 (submissions) and Sturmvogel_66 respectively.

Other than that, there is not much to report! 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. 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) 23:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

been looking through the history of your updates of the WP:ELEM members page

Looks like it's the one project I always come back to within a month. :-)

(starts thinking about whether some individual characters from The Silmarillion are really notable)Double sharp (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

xD. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

though Fëanor is certainly notable and I might want to make him GA AT SOME POINT. (TCO, don't scold me for this, please) Double sharp (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Please stop editing option 10

Option 10 is not decided yet, so no edits should be made. Please stop. -DePiep (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Cool, the impression I got from the discussion was that it was. Thanks for notifying me.StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

OK then. Decision will be here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#Megadiscussion_summary, crisp & clear. Todo edits are prepared here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Option 10 edits todo. You can help e.g. by preparing /sandbox templates.

Your contributions are welcome as ever, but please follow the flow. -DePiep (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Perseus

Hi - delegate is wondering where we're at at the Perseus FAC. My concerns remain, but are confined to the chinese constellation issue. Are you able to have a look at that? hamiltonstone (talk) 09:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited4U 0614+091, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orion (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) 16:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

RIP Metalloids discussion

26 June 2012 – 17 August 2013, and finally put Sandbh's Option 10 into mainspace. :-) Double sharp (talk) 10:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Awesome. If you still need help with any Option 10 stuff. I'd be glad to help.StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Million Award

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Periodic table (estimated annual readership: 2,541,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) atWikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

This editor won the Million Award for bringing Periodic table to Featured Article status.

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Glad to see this stuff is getting recognized. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Now, now, I'm sure Sandbh deserves one too for all of their work on it during the FAC :-)Double sharp (talk) 12:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Congrats, man. You're awesome, keep up.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

So is the rest of WP:ELEM! StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 August newsletter

This year's final is upon us. Our final eight, in order of last round's score, are:

1. Hawkeye7 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer who has contributed on topics of military history and physics, including a number of high-importance topics. Good articles have made up the bulk of his points, but he has also scored a great deal of bonus points. He has the second highest score overall so far, with more than 3000 points accumulated.
2. Casliber (submissions), another WikiCup veteran who reached the finals in 2012, 2011 and 2010. He writes on a variety of topics including botany, mycology and astronomy, and has claimed the highest or joint highest number of featured articles every round so far this year. He has the third highest score overall, with just under 3000 points accumulated.
3. Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 WikiCup champion, who writes mostly on marine biology. She has also contributed to high-importance topics, seeing huge numbers of bonus points for high-importance featured and good articles. Previous rounds have seen her scoring the most bonus points, with scoring spread across did you knows, good articles and featured articles.
4. Sasata (submissions), a WikiCup veteran who finished in second place in 2012, and competed as early as 2009. He writes articles on biology, especially mycology, and has scored highly for a number of collaborations at featured article candidates.
5. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), the winner of the 2010 competition. His contributions mostly concern Naval history, and he has scored a very large number of points for good articles and good article reviews in every round. He is the highest scorer overall this year, with over 3500 points in total.
6. Ealdgyth (submissions), who is competing in the WikiCup for the second time, though this will be her first time in the final. A regular at FAC, she is mostly interested in British medieval history, and has scored very highly for some top-importance featured articles on the topic.
7. Miyagawa (submissions), a finalist in 2012 and 2011. He writes on a broad variety of topics, with many of this year's points coming from good articles about Star Trek. Good articles make up the bulk of his points, and he had the most good articles back in round 2; he was also the highest scorer for DYK in rounds 1 and 2.
8. Adam Cuerden (submissions) has previously been involved with the WikiCup, but hasn't participated for a number of years. He scores mostly from restoration work leading to featured picture credits, but has also done some article writing and reviewing.

We say goodbye to eight great participants who did not qualify for the final: Piotrus (submissions), Figureskatingfan (submissions), ThaddeusB (submissions), Dana boomer (submissions), Status (submissions), Ed! (submissions), 12george1 (submissions), Calvin999 (submissions). Having made it to this stage is still an excellent achievement, and you can leave with your heads held high. We hope to see you all again next year. Signups are now open for the 2014 WikiCup, which will begin on 1 January. All Wikipedians, whatever their interest or level of experience, are warmly invited to participate in next year's competition.

This last month has seen some incredible contributions; for instance, Cwmhiraeth's Starfish and Ealdgyth'sBattle of Hastings—two highly important, highly viewed pages—made it to featured article status. It would be all too easy to focus solely on these stunning achievements at the expense of those participants working in lower-scoring areas, when in fact all WikiCup participants are doing excellent work. A mention of everything done is impossible, but here are a few: Last round saw the completion of several good topics (on the 1958, 1959 and 1962 Atlantic hurricane seasons) to which 12george1 had contributed. Calvin999 saw "S&M" (song), on which he has been working for several years, through to featured article status on its tenth try. Figureskatingfan continued towards her goal of a broad featured/good topic on Maya Angelou, with two featured and four good articles. ThaddeusB contributed significantly to over 20 articles which appeared on the main page's "in the news" section. Adam Cuerden continued to restore a large number of historical images, resulting in over a dozen FP credits this round alone. The WikiCup is not just about top-importance featured articles, and the work of all of these users is worthy of commendation.

Finally, the usual notices: 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 onWikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. 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) 05:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting idea, these million awards

		The Quarter Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Alkali metal(estimated annual readership: 290,000) to Good article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Double sharp (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

This editor won the Quarter Million Award for bringing Alkali metal to Good Article status.

Though I still feel I deserve one too :-( but if I actually want to get one, I should perhaps work on ironinstead of hassium :-P

(Actually, Fe has long been something I wanted to do here. Wanna help me? :-P Because our idea to make all those really important articles FA will not work unless we actually stop procrastinating and do one of them. And preferably an element that we encounter daily. I think Fe qualifies.) Double sharp(talk) 12:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Heh, thanks! I would help with iron, but I'm very busy with real-life stuff at the moment, so I'm afraid that I won't be much help, and I currently already have a few projects on-wiki that I'm doing. If you need a GA reviewer when it's ready though, feel free to contact me. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

All right, see you at...hmm...probably late this year or early next year :-P Double sharp (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey StringTheory11. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 22:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Make the group 12 elements poor metals?

You are invited to comment on this suggestion (Zn, Cd, Hg → poor metal; Cn → only predicted; 113 → predicted transition metal) at WT:ELEM#Make the group 12 elements poor metals? Double sharp(talk) 05:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to HD 20003 may have broken thesyntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Category:Henry Draper Catalogue objects|020003]]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Massive tome on alkaline earth compounds

1,250 pages worth. I will have to ask him to do one on the metalloids. Sandbh (talk) 11:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow. (I want one for the actinides!) Double sharp (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Heh. Maybe I'll finally get to work writing the production section that's necessary before a GA nom.StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 September newsletter

In 30 days, we will know the identity of our 2013 WikiCup champion. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) currently leads; if that lead is held, she will become the first person to have won the WikiCup twice. Sasata (submissions), Hawkeye7 (submissions)—who has never participated in the competition before—and Casliber (submissions) follow. The majority of points in this round have come from a mix of good articles and bonus points. This final round is seeing contributions to a number of highly important topics; recent submissions include Phoenix (constellation) (FA by Casliber), Ernest Lawrence (GA by Hawkeye7), Pinniped, and red fox (both GAs by Sasata).

The did you know (DYK) eligibility criteria have recently changed, meaning that newly passed good articles are accepted as "new" for did you know purposes. However, in the interests of not changing the WikiCup rules mid-competition, please note that only articles eligible for DYK under the old system (that is, newly created articles or 5x expansions) will be eligible for points in this year's WikiCup. We do, however, have time to discuss how this new system will work for next year's competition; a discussion will be opened in due course. On that note, thoughts are welcome on changes you'd like to see for next year. What worked? What didn't work? What would you like to see more of? What would you like to see less of? All Wikipedians, new or old, are also warmly invited to sign up for the 2014 WikiCup.

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. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome onWikipedia 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 fromWikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk •email) and The ed17 (talk •email) 22:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: proposed deletion of U Andromedae

Huh, my Wikipedia page is still configured to send me email, going to try to turn that off to better continue retirement.

You're absolutely right that the star is utterly non-notable. On the other hand, what it certainly isn't is the same thing as Upsilon Andromedae. The only reason I created it was to prevent well-meaning but wrong/ignorant editors (a group that Wikipedia is woefully unequipped to deal with) from creating a redirect from U Andromedae to Upsilon Andromedae, which I'd seen happen a couple of times already (I think, it's been a while) before I created it, and of course this means that Wikipedia remains in an incorrect state while the relevant redirects for discussion process grinds its way through. One of the factors that promotes the creation of this incorrect redirect by the well-meaning ignorant is that the lower-case upsilon and lower-case u are quite similar, particularly in Wikipedia's default font. My rationale is that it is better to have a correct but non-notable article than an incorrect redirect.

You are free to disagree of course. Hopefully you will be as conscientious removing the incorrect redirect when it inevitably gets created as you are at hunting down non-notable astronomy subjects. Right, back to retirement for me. Icalanise (talk) 05:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with you; the article should not be reddirected to Upsilon Andromedae, as that's a completely different star. However, this can be done through means other than creating a page. If a redirect is created, it can be deleted and then WP:SALTed to prevent recreation, rather than having a non-notable article in its place.StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Fluorine fun

Hi ST. Can you please review and fix "Fluorine". If it's too long, just hit Characteristics.-TCO — Precedingunsigned comment added by 71.127.137.171(talk) 14:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it later today. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Z Chamaeleontis may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{Stars of Chamaeleon}}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

please continue

I have implemented all your Fluorine suggestions partially or completely.98.117.75.177 (talk) 14:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I looked over the article, and at this point I would probably support it in an FAC.StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

More actinides

Am working with Thingg on Np. See User:Thingg/sandbox. Feel free to give comments on the completed sections, if you want. (Not asking R8R because he seems very busy at the moment. OTOH you happen to be around at the moment. So... :-D)

The remaining ones for a GT are Th, Md, No, and Lr. The last three are really specialistic and I don't foresee many people wanting to do them. Th is hugely important (and thus scares people away). Somehow I have a feeling none of these will be done without an official short-term goal and blatantly spamming project members' talk pages for help (of course after one of us gets started). Double sharp (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm unfortunately going to be quite busy over the next few weeks, so I won't be able to be much help. Sorry! I'll look at it if I get the chance, though. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It's all right. Even general comments are appreciated. You can do it whenever you feel like it. Double sharp (talk) 10:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Updated link: User:Thingg/neptunium. (Feel free to look and comment whenever you like (hint hint).)Double sharp (talk) 08:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Your review of AdS/CFT correspondence

Hello,

I just wanted to let you know that I've made the changes you suggested to the AdS/CFT correspondencearticle. Please let us know what you think at this page. Thanks for all your help. Polytope24 (talk) 07:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Polytope24 (talk) 05:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to "Fluorine"

	The fluorine barnstar
	Thanks, ST. -TCO17:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 October newsletter

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our champion, for the second year running, is Cwmhiraeth (submissions). Our final nine were as follows:

1. Cwmhiraeth (submissions)
2. Hawkeye7 (submissions)
3. Sasata (submissions)
4. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions)
5. Casliber (submissions)
6. Adam Cuerden (submissions)
7. Miyagawa (submissions)
8. Piotrus (submissions)
9. Ealdgyth (submissions)

All those who reached the final win prizes, and prizes will also be going to the following participants:

• Casliber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for four featured articles in round 4, worth 400 points.
• Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 20 good articles in round 3, worth 600 points.
• Another Believer (submissions) wins the FL prize, for four featured lists in round 2, worth 180 points.
• Adam Cuerden (submissions) wins the FP prize, for 23 featured pictures in round 5, worth 805 point.
• Sven Manguard (submissions) wins the FPo prize, for 2 featured portals in round 3, worth 70 points.
• Hawkeye7 (submissions) wins the topic prize, for a 23-article featured topic in round 5, worth 230 points.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 79 did you know articles in round 5, worth 570 points.
• ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 23 in the news articles in round 4, worth 270 points.
• Ed! (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 24 good article reviews in round 1, worth 96 points.
• The judges are awarding the Oddball Barnstar to The C of E (submissions), for some curious contributions in earlier rounds.
• Finally, the judges are awarding Cwmhiraeth (submissions) the Geography Barnstar for her work on sea, now a featured article. This top-importance article was the highest-scoring this year; when it was promoted to FA status, Cwmhiraeth could claim 720 points.

Prizes will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition. While it has been an excellent year, errors have opened up the judges' eyes to the need for a third judge, and it is with pleasure that we announce that experienced WikiCup participant Miyagawa will be acting as a judge from now on. We hope you will all join us in welcoming him to the team.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. Brainstorming and discussion remains open for how next year's competition will work, and straw polls will be opened by the judges soon. Those interested in friendly competition may also like to keep an eye on the stub contest, being organised by Casliber. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! 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) 00:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Bombs awwwaaaayyyyy

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Perseus_(constellation)/archive2 - right, with two of us we should be able to kick this one over the line.....Cheers, Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 04:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Like StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them atthe election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

Vote: Group 3 metals; group 12 as poor metals

• Should our 18-column periodic table show lutetium and lawrencium under scandium and yttrium, instead of all the lanthanides and actinides?
• Should scandium, yttrium and the lanthanides together be coloured as rare earth metals?
• Should zinc, cadmium and mercury be taken out of the transition metals element category and placed as poor metals?

As a member of WikiProject Elements, you are invited to comment and vote here. Double sharp (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Voted. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedHD 4732, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Circumpolar (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) 11:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Seyfert galaxy article review

Hello StringTheory11, I read your message on my talk page and I was hoping you could have a more in depth look at the Seyfert galaxy article and give me more suggestions to improve the article and hopefully get it to good article by the beginning of January. You mentioned it needs more references in some sections. Could you tell me which sections and what type of references? I'm struggling to find more review articles on the topic and all journals I found recently tackle very specific issues regarding Seyfert galaxies, and are often based on data from only one Seyfert galaxy. Thank you very much, Careless Torque (talk) 11:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

My personal view is that every fact in an article that's not something like just a unit conversion or stating something obvious like: "There are 1,000 meters in a kilometer" needs a reference; in addition, every paragraph should have at least one reference except in very rare circumstances. For some specific examples, here's a few examples from the article that I think need references:

• "However, it is not yet clear if this hypothesis can explain all the observed differences between the two types."
• "The emission lines seen on the spectrum of a Seyfert galaxy may come from the surface of the accretion disc itself, or may come from clouds of gas illuminated by the central engine in an ionization cone. The exact geometry of the emitting region is difficult to determine due to poor resolution of the galactic center. However, each part of the accretion disc has a different velocity relative to our line of sight, and the faster the gas is rotating around the black hole, the broader the emission line will be. Similarly, an illuminated disc wind also has a position-dependent velocity."

Overall though, I think this article is very nice, and is definitely near, if not already at (after references) GA status (btw, to nominate, there's instructions at WP:GAN). As I said on your talk page, I'd be happy to take up the review once you nominate it. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi StringTheory11, I'm more than happy to look for other references and, if I can't find anymore suitable ones, I will use the references I already have (which I've been using, just not at the end of every paragraph- I wasn't aware until now that this needs to be done). I see what you mean now and I will take care of the references and nominate the article afterwards. Thank you. Careless Torque (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Hi StringTheory11 and sorry to bother you again, but could you please have a look at the recent edits of the Seyfert galaxy article involving Eddington luminosity and the discussion on the talk page? I feel that since me and the other users can't reach a common ground, both points of view should be included, but as soon as I added the link to the main article, the derivation was removed. I think that since it's an article about Seyfert galaxies, it should include information relevant to them (original article before the recent edits), and not the classical derivation used for stars. Your opinion would be very much appreciated. Thank you, Careless Torque (talk) 12:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedCygnus (constellation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cygnus X(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) 09:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy holiday season....

	Cheers, pina coladas all round!
	Damn need a few of these after a frenetic year and Xmas. Hope yours is a good one....Cheers, Cas Liber (talk ·contribs) 10:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Let's make it a goal to get Cygnus to FA before the end of 2014!StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I got a little sidetracked on Musca, but was reading about it and it contains lots of cool stuff.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Haha, that's totally fine; whenever you're ready. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)