User talk:Double sharp/Archive 1

Mozart List of Symphonies
I appreciate the work that you are doing on the Mozart list of symphonies. From your last edit, it appears that you tried to add some incipits of your own for the works that I had not done. Now that I have links to some of the missing works, I intend to look at the links and create incipits to the same standard as the others. So there is no need to waste your time when there are other things to do. Hope this helps Op47 (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Periodic table
Couldn't you have just said that in your first edit summary rather than reverting with an excuse about width? I wasted a good 15 minutes trying to work out how to solve the width issues only to find you revert with a different rationale. Cheers, Number   5  7  15:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason was originally that you would need a wide periodic table to let the small cells completely fill the footer IIRC. Sorry about this. I should have mentioned that the wide format was used for this compact periodic table for a very long time. Double sharp (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, no worries. Number   5  7  17:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Mozart Symphonies
There is a problem with both K. 98 and K. 111+120 being labelled as "48". Is one of them a typo for "49"? Double sharp (talk) 11:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good question about "No. 48". These old numbers originate from a very old edition (1877-1910) of Mozart's works Mozart-Werke (or "GA").  I haven't seen the GA numbers spelled out too frequently and many of the doubtful/spurious works have disappeared from modern books (or they don't use the GA numbers).  I can't find the exact discrepancy on wikipedia that you are talking about but I can actually see it in APBrown's Symphonic Repertoire book.  In one table on "authenticity status" (p. 327), he lists K.98/Anh.C.11.04 as GA 48 but on the page of "doubtful" works on the next page, he lists it as GA 56.  His table on "overture symphonies" does not have a column for "GA" so I don't know if K120+111a has a "GA" number.DavidRF (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Very interesting. What GA numbers are used in that book? Are there only 42-56 (without 49 and 53)? Double sharp (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Admin help
Could someone delete all my subpages of User:4 (an old account of mine)? I don't need them anymore. Double sharp (talk) 03:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Welcome back Old-4! I would think the whole account ought to be deletable, but I don't know how. At least google can help find the subpages too . The User:4/Polychora tables seem useful, if I ever get around to looking at how they're all defined. Tom Ruen (talk) 03:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just check the lists - you confirm that you want everything in List1 and List2 deleted? Note that we won't delete User talk:4 - but you can blank it or add retired.  Ron h jones (Talk) 03:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, they can all be deleted. (The polychora lists can be found all on Jonathan Bowers' website. I removed the names from WikiChoron - they have quite a few typos. "Tho" became "Truncated Hemioctachoron"...) Double sharp (talk) 05:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, go ahead and delete all of them. Double sharp (talk) 12:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have additional questions? Two people above have offered assistance and the request for help remains. If you have subpages in your userspace that you wish to have deleted, the quickest way is to place an appropriate CSD tag on those pages. At this point, continued requests for help with the same question will not result in quicker deletion of these files. Nobody else can offer a better answer to your request for deletion than what you have received already. If you have a separate question, please feel free to place an additional help request tag. If not, I recommend that you simply follow the process by placing the G7 on the desired pages and wait until the articles are deleted from the queue. Your help request is not the best place to request deletion. Note that we currently have a large backlog due to the holiday weekend, so deletion may take a while. Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 13:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've run AWB with the 2 lists to add a G4, it hasn't done the few redirects (I think I've found a bug...) - I'll do those manually later. I have to go offline for a bit, some other admins may now start to delete them  Ron h jones (Talk) 15:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Started... and finished, including the redirects -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Pluto map.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Pluto map.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Please, see also File talk:Pluto map.jpg, where the reasons are described in detail. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Misleading userbox on userpage
Hello. I hope you don't mind, but I've [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?diff=468517570 changed] the information from one of your userboxes so it isn't misleading.  Hazard-SJ  ㋡   06:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It adds up those created by my old usernames as well. For a real article count of mine, add 69 to the number this account (Double sharp) created. Double sharp (talk) 07:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Pluto map.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pluto map.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. &mdash;innotata 17:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Helium-2
Hi. Could you have another look at Isotopes of helium where you (as Lanthanum-138) added the description of the He-2 experiments on 10 March 2011? I have some questions. It is probably best to reply at Talk:Isotopes of helium where I have started a discussion.
 * 1) For the Italian, Japanese and Russian experiments you described, do you have sources which can be included? While your descriptions seem to give the essentials of the experiments for Wikipedia, it would be useful for interested readers to be able to find more complete information.
 * 2) Subsequent editors have added He-2 to the article's table of isotopes, and some of the information is very strange (and unsourced). The half-life is claimed to be 3 x 10-27 s (which implies the two protons separate at 1000 times the speed of light!?), and the products are now claimed to be two protons (which is ok) OR H-2 (which would be a beta-plus decay and therefore should be much, much slower!?). So I wanted to check the sources on the Italian, Japanese and Russian experiments and see if they say anything about half-life or alternate decay products. Dirac66 (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I simply copied the descriptions from Diproton and attempted to redirect Diproton to Isotopes of helium (but that was reverted). So no, I don't know the sources. But yes, the half life seems somewhat ridiculous. Also, I do not think He-2 should even be in the table, as we don't insert unsynthesised isotopes unless there are real references for the speculated half-lives and nuclear spins. There don't seem to be any for He-2. Double sharp (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll have to look for the origin of the descriptions in Diproton, which I agree should be a redirect. But I think it is more important to remove the unsourced facts from the table after making reasonable attempts to verify sources. A speculated value for He-2 could be included if properly labelled as such, as well as the source and the grounds for the speculation. At the moment it is just "Wikipedia says so", which is unacceptable. Dirac66 (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have deleted the He-2 half-life and its table entry. Feel free to revert if sources are found. Double sharp (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Moonlight Sonata
This discussion has expanded enormously since you last posted, and is devolving into astounding forays of illogic. Might you care to bring yourself up to date there, and see if you can think of anything that could help? Milkunderwood (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for popping back in and helping. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Voice Userboxes
Could the nine pages "User:4/VoiceUserboxes/[Voice type]" linked from WP:UBX/MUSIC under the section "Voice ranges" be restored and moved to titles in User:UBX (e.g. "User:UBX/VoiceUserboxes/[Voice type]"?) Thank you. Double sharp (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to restore them, but why under user:ubx and not under User:Double sharp? Please replace the adminhelp when replying, in case I am offline.   7  05:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Personal preference. It is also shorter to type. Double sharp (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But is Mets501 or UBX okay with that? I've read through the userbox migration docs but I don't see anything that says that people should create new userboxes under UBX.  If you can find something that suggests that it is appropriate to do so please point me to it, otherwise I can put them in your userspace.   7  05:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See User talk:UBX, section 7 "Our very own userboxes". Double sharp (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course - you'd think I'd know to check section 7. ✅  7  06:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Pm oxide.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pm oxide.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Leyo 21:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there Double sharp, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Double sharp/Mendelevium.


 * See a log of files removed today here.
 * Shut off the bot here.
 * Report errors here.
 * If you have any questions, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Group 12 element, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mercury and Supercollider (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) 11:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Your requests
I'm not able to add that at the moment. I'm back to the city, but have no Internet connection on my computer. I'm writing via my cell (very slow connection). That's why I'm writing here rather than my talkpage. Anyway, on around the eleventh I must be able to check them. Note that I don't have the sources; but (using Google Books) it's not gonna be a problem, they (possibly almost) all are easy to find. If in hurry, you can do it yourself.

I'm most likely to add them during the Periodic table PR (I'm certainly in). If not enough, contact me. Yours, R8R Gtrs (talk) 07:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Chemical elements data references
Please move WikiProject Elements/Chemical elements data references back to Chemical elements data references, as it would be confusing for a reader to end up in project space after clicking the link on top of one of the data pages (e.g. Electron configurations of the elements (data page)). Double sharp (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you may well be right, but before I decide whether to move it back, can you explain why you moved it in the first place, and what has made you change your mind? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought that this page listing all the data pages for the elements would be more useful for editors than for readers, but I now think that it would be better and more important to not let readers be confused. Double sharp (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  07:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Help:Show preview
Please get familiar with the preview functionality. --Leyo 13:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Thank you. Double sharp (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

wp:gl/i
Please discuss where you want the Periodic table file with the new colours? I didn't overwrite as it's a highly visible file. Also, do you want the changes for both the files?-

PS-Please leave messages at my Commons talk page a I would prefer my wikipedia talk page for discussion about wikipedia articles, not commons images.--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Peer review limits changed
This is a notice to all users who currently have at least one open peer review at Peer review. Because of the large number of peer review requests and relatively low number of reviewers, the backlog of PRs has been at 20 or more almost continually for several months. The backlog is for PR requests which have gone at least four days without comments, and some of these have gone two weeks or longer waiting for a review.

While we have been able to eventually review all PRs that remain on the backlog, something had to change. As a result of the discussion here, the consensus was that all users are now limited to one (1) open peer review request.

If you already have more than one open PR, that is OK in this transition period, but you cannot open any more until all your active PR requests have been closed. If you would like someone to close a PR for you, please ask at Wikipedia talk:Peer review. If you want to help with the backlog, please review an article whoe PR request is listed at Peer review/backlog/items. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

PS Did you see my comments on the Alkali metal peer review? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did. I saw the comments and I'm addressing some of them. Double sharp (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The Hydrogen placement is better, but I still would make it a sub-section of the whole "Other substances sometimes considered to be alkali metals" section. Or, as I wrote in the Peer review, "It seems very odd to say twice in the lead that Hydrogen is NOT an alkali metal (which I agree with) and then start the article with a section on ... Hydrogen. I would combine this with the section on "Substances sometimes considered alkali metals" and put it after the Characteristics section" Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hydrogen is rarely (if ever) considered an alkali metal. IMHO it would be better to give it its own section about why it is almost never considered an alkali metal (I have only seen H as an alkali metal in one periodic table on the Internet, and I can't seem to find it now.) Double sharp (talk) 08:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I agree H is not an alkali metal, but I do not think people today actually say ammonium is an alkali metal either, just that it ""behaves in many ways like an alkali metal ion." (only one of the 3 refs I could access easily). Similarly thallium hasn't been considered an alkali metal since 1871 or so. It seems odd looking at the TOC that hydrogen, ammonium, and thallium are all listed before the actual lithium, sodium, potassium, et al. Hydrogen behaves similary to alkali metals too - forms a +1 cation, forms HX with halides (MX). Your call ;-) Ruhrfisch  &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, so why is it in this article at all? ;-) Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Metalloid
Double sharp pls see my additions to Talk:Metalloid/A1 Sandbh (talk) 07:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Nicholasb07 (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Nicholasb07 (talk) 07:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Nicholasb07 (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Nicholasb07 (talk) 07:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Nicholasb07 (talk) 10:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

A question.
Hi, I was looking over at the history of my userpage and noticed that you made some changes to it. Can you tell me what these changes were as the edit summaries are not clear. I am not angry I am just curious about what changes you made to my userpage.The Editor 155 (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed one of my old userboxes that had been deleted by G7 so that you wouldn't have a red link in your userboxes. It was basically cleaning up after the deletion. Double sharp (talk) 08:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hemipolycron
I've declined a speedy deletion request you posted at this title. The G7 criteria is for pages where all the edits are yours; it's essentially a way for you to withdraw them and have them deleted, and is usually uncontroversial. In this case, though, it does not apply because other editors have edits to the title - it is a redirect set by someone else. If you have concerns about the redirect, and I can understand that you might given the history there, I'd suggest taking it to Redirects for Discussion. I can help with that if you like. Best, UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 4 is one of my old usernames. Double sharp (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoops. Give me a minute and I'm delete it for you. Sorry about that, missed the connection. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's OK. Double sharp (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

File:View of Saturn from Polydeuces.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:View of Saturn from Polydeuces.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Metalloid
Double sharp pls see my additions to the Talk:Metalloid/A1 page, re "amphoteric line" and your good restructuring work Sandbh (talk) 09:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:43 Technetium.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:43 Technetium.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Technetium.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Technetium.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Old reference desk (science) question re Po
Hi Double sharp. I stumbled on an old question of yours posted via Lanthanum-138: A lot of water has gone under the bridge since then. The responses from User:Jayron32 were quite interesing. I've added some more in response to your question. I didn't realise you were Lanthanum-138, so you may find some of what I have said to be redundant. Sandbh (talk) 03:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Very interesting - we could add something to the hydrogen article about the dispute. (I already have a small part of it covered in Alkali metal.) Double sharp (talk) 04:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not much of a dispute. I'm a bit over it myself. A list of periodic table placements of hydrogen, with a decent sample size, might look like: Group 1: 95+%; Group 17: 4%; other variations 1%. I agree with Eric Scerri that hydrogen is subject to the periodic law in the same manner as the other elements. In that respect, Group 1 works reasonably, popularly well. Your summary is good. Sandbh (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:PLURAL
I appreciate your point re WP:PLURAL made at Talk:Periodic trends. I don't have a strong notion of how things should fall in the one case. However, I, for one, would definitely appreciate some clarity in the policy language on exceptions at WP:PLURAL, if you have a mind to improve that. ENeville (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is lead sometimes considered to be a metalloid (see metalloid)?
Hi Double Sharp. I posted a quick answer to this interesting question of yours, at. Will get back to you on the hydrogen suggestion. I appreciate the feedback. Sandbh (talk) 07:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer. I think you should put information like this for all the elements sometimes considered to be metalloids (even those not commonly considered to be metalloids) showing their properties and the reason for the metalloid classification into the metalloid article. It makes sense to put all this related info in one place. (BTW, putting this info into the sections on chemical characteristics in the articles for the relevant elements would be a good idea to get rid of the big yellow island on the right of the periodic table by quality.) Double sharp (talk) 09:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll have a think about your suggestion. I don't really want to make the metalloid article much larger without good reason. It may be that some further elaboration re the properties of the other metalloids, and the rest of the near metalloids, would do. Sandbh (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

PoF6
Hallo Double sharp, ich habe Deine Spekulation zu PoF6 in Hexafluoride, die auf Deiner Fehlinterpretation der deutschen Texte basiert, erneut entfernen müssen. Ich habe den daher deutschen Satz in Kurzform übersetzt und den Beleg hinzugefügt. Lies Dir den Text der Quelle durch, dann wird alles klarer (Link auf PDF-Datei). Bitte füge nur die realen Ergebnisse ein. Alles weitere findest Du in de:Hexafluoride. Da Du über ausreichend Deutschkenntnisse verfügt, sollte eine Übersetzung dieses Abschnitts genügend Klarheit schaffen. Viele Grüße --JWBE (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I looked at Polonium, not Hexafluoride. Before your edit (http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polonium&diff=101559455&oldid=100614356), it gave (unreferenced) information about PoF6 being white and volatile, so I added it in. Thank you for correcting me. (P.S. Sorry about the English reply; I understand the general idea about what you and the article are saying, but I'm not confident enough about writing my reply to you in German.) Double sharp (talk) 09:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Group 12 element
The article Group 12 element you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Group 12 element for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself? I know you did not nominate it, but thanks for your edits in the article! -Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 20:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Chinese language help!
Could you please assist with a question that I posted on the Humanities Desk. I'm trying to identify an island that seems to have changed its name after WWII. In relation to the sinking of the Lisbon Maru, I'm attempting to find out if Qingbing and Tung Tusham are one and the same place, and I believe that this page has the answer. Any help will be most gratefully received. Alansplodge (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This source states that they are not the same place. Double sharp (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. The Google translate version of that page (less than helpfully) translates the names of the islands into English; "East Pole Island" I assume is Qingbangdao(?). It also mentions "Green Bang Island" which was formerly known as "Fisherman Island" and also "Temple Lake Island". Are any of these anything like the elusive "Tung Tusham"? The reason I ask is that all the contemporary western sources only refer to "Tung Tusham" and I was hoping to be able to add "now called....". Sorry to be a nuisance and thanks again for your assistance so far. Alansplodge (talk) 11:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, "Green Bang Island" is Qingbangdao and "East Fukuyama" (which is actually 东福山) is Tung Tusham. The page also says that Qingbangdao and Tung Tusham are both main sceneries of "East Pole Island" (东极岛), so they might in fact be different parts of the same island. It's certain that Qingbangdao and Tung Tusham are different places. Double sharp (talk) 12:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Marvellous! Thanks again - I owe you a pint! Alansplodge (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Permanent link: Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2012_April_6 Double sharp (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Astatine: Appearance
Hi Double sharp. In the Astatine element template box you changed the appearance box from 'unknown, but probably a black solid; possibly metallic in appearance' back to 'unknown'. You also (helpfully) commented that 'that can go in the main article. First come the facts, then come the speculations. feline1 also considers this much more informative to the reader.'

Many of the properties listed in the astatine element template are not facts but speculation (backed up by citations). On this basis I suggest that the appearance box be changed back to 'unknown, but probably a black solid; possibly metallic in appearance'. I think this will be more helpful to the casual reader. And readers who want to know more can read the discussion and citations in the main article. Winners all round I reckon. Sandbh (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, feel free to revert me. Double sharp (talk) 05:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ Double sharp (talk) 06:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Who, Me?
Hi, many thanks and much pleasant surprise for my barnstar. I don't have formal mathematical knowledge, I just pick away at the inconsistencies as best I can. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You pick at the inconsistencies extremely well. Double sharp (talk) 11:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Graphics Lab reply
Please mark it as resolved if it is ok. Roshan220195 (talk) 05:40, 15 April 2012‎ (UTC)

Done :) Roshan220195 (talk) 06:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Double sharp (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Density (polytope)
Hi, did you discuss your move of Density (polytope) to Density (geometry)? In geometry, the term "density" is used for many different ideas in many different ares - see for example Mathworld's list of topics realted to density.

If you didn't, please could you revert.

Also, in future it is best to discuss this sort of thing with the active page maintainers first.&mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll revert this, but currently Density (geometry) is empty and should be a disambiguation page. Double sharp (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia III: Revenge of Jimbo
Hello. The third Wikipedia movie is uncompleted, and I would like your help completing it because you did quite a bit of work on it earlier. I have been doing some scenes myself, but I was unable to finish it. That's why I am asking for your help. Brambleberry, RiverClan Medicine Cat Visit ♠ Follow 23:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Lithium
Hi, I'd like to copy some of the infobox data from Lithium to de: In particular, I'm interested in mechanical properties i.e. modulus and the like. I'd seen you are active on alkali metal and may have access to some good references. Most of the data in question came in by this edit by Femto who is no longer active. Could you confirm the data he inserted and maybe add a serious reference to the infobox in that article? Thanks in advance. --Schwalbe (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * All the references for the infobox data are in the pages linked in the "Data pages" row in Template:Periodic tables footer. You can copy the references from there. These data pages are standardized collections of data to be used on Wikipedia, so the infoboxes include the data from there. Double sharp (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Mozart
Thanks for your lovely work on this area. Just one thing: on en.WP, we don't link dates or years unless there's a good reason. I'm gnoming through and removing these links from your work. Please continue your contributions, which are most welcome. Tony  (talk)  01:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliments. I wasn't aware of that, and I'm not going to overlink dates or years anymore. In fact, I'll probably fix some myself. Double sharp (talk) 08:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Flag-transitive polyhedral compounds
Hi,

I'll do my best to answer your question in less than three illustrated chapters.

In this context a flag can be taken as a connected set of elements of a polyhedron, one from each dimensionality: a face, an edge of that face and a vertex of that face.

For example for some tetrahedron ABCD, face ABC, edge AB and vertex A together comprise a flag:

C      o      / \ /  \    /     \   o=======0 B        A

For a regular polyhedron, rotating and reflecting the polyhedron under its symmetries so that it superimposes or maps back onto itself, will always map one flag onto another. We call this flag-transitivity, and I will say that the polyhedron is transitive on its flags. This is in effect the modern definition of a regular polyhedron.

It is tempting to think that if a regular polyhedron is transitive on its flags then any symmetrically-arranged compound must be, too. But this is not so. Consider the regular compound of five tetrahedra. Each visible face region looks a little bit like this:

A          o          / \ /  \        /     \       /  F    \ / o--o E     /   | /   |   o-o H      G

where A is a vertex of our tetrahedron.

The tetrahedron has a vertical plane of mirror symmetry through A, but I hope it is clear from this drawing that the compound does not.

The compound does have its own symmetries. But they are not the same symmetries and the mirror planes of the tetrahedron cannot be a subset of them because the compound is chiral (handed) and has no mirror planes.

If we rather crudely and incorrectly think of AH as representing one flag and AE another, we can see that the flags of the compound divide into two separate groups, no member of which can be mapped onto a member of the other group under the symmetries of the compound. Thus, the compound is not fully flag-transitive and hence not truly regular.

Even the regular compound of ten tetrahedra, which is not chiral, suffers the same fate because any given tetrahedron has flags from both groups and that doesn't change just because we added more tetrahedra. Crucially, the mirror planes of the compound are not the same as the mirror planes of the various tetrahedra. So reflecting in a plane of the compound will not map one flag of a tetrahedron onto another one in the "other" group, rather it maps it onto a flag of the same group in another tetrahedron. Worse, reflecting in a plane of a tetrahedron will not map the whole compound as a whole back onto itself.

It turns out that there is only one so-called regular compound that is flag-transitive and hence is truly regular. This is of course the stella octangula.

Any clearer? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Double sharp (talk) 08:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)