User talk:Stone

Archives

1) 23 June 2003 – 14 August 2008   2) 15 August 2008 – 6 December 2008   3) 7 December 2008 – 6 December 2009   4) 7 December 2009 – 6 December 2010   4) 7 December 2010 – 2 November 2011   4) 2 November 2010 – 19 November 2019

Hallo Stone, ich könnte diesen Artikel in der deutschen WP gut gebrauchen. Da Du der Ersteller des Artikels bist, ist es einfacher, wenn Du den Artikel ins Deutsche überträgst und dort anlegst. Es muss dann kein Importantrag gestellt werden. Ich bearbeite gerade de:Uran(VI)-fluorid. Der Artikel kandidiert auf "Lesenswert". Ich werde ihn aber noch ausbauen können, um ihn später auf "Exzellent" zu bringen. Dabei ist mir auch dieser Artikel aufgefallen, der dann im Abschnitt "Geschichte" eingebaut werden soll. Viele Grüße und vielen Dank im Voraus --JWBE (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Herzlichen Dank für Deine schnelle Mitarbeit. Viele Grüße --JWBE (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kein Problem, ich mag es wenn jemand das brauchen kann was man hier so fabriziert.--Stone (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One or more of the files that you uploaded or altered has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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/them not being deleted. Thank you.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of MGA73 (talk) at 18:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah I know. I am thinking about doing some work on some articles, but I don't plan to have too big of a time investment. Nergaal (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did I cite the correct book in alkali metal for ammonium? Double sharp (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but for the english version I can't provide a page number. --Stone (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jezhotwells (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There are new updates for the Periodic Table by Quality: Pm has improved from Start to C, while Mt and Rg have dropped from C to Start. Double sharp (talk) 09:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Group 10 has improved from Stub to Start. Double sharp (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done! --Stone (talk) 07:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Double sharp (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Silicon C → B Double sharp (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Polonium B → C Double sharp (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another iteration.--Stone (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you in my watchlist! I'm sure you had good reasons for this removal [1], just mention them somewhere that others understand. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved it to the production section were it belongs.--Stone (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there!

I need your help as a Chemistry Ph.D. Generally, I can't understand why BiF₅ is polymeric rather than molecular. (I understand the rationale for BeF₂...is it something similar (opposite)?) I am asking for fluorine. I'm thinking to move BiF5 to other nonvolatiles ('cause both BiF5 and BeF2 are neither "molecular" nor ionic). It could be neat to explain that in a few words. (if it's too compicated, but would you mind still doing this? Personally, I'm interested as well)

Also, about antimony. I gave it a read. Personally, I find the contents fine (for GA maybe). For ce, you can ask WP:GOCE. They're good. The only minus is the long waiting period (chemistry isn't something everyone wishes to "do," you know). At least, this is my GOCE experience (a fluorine copyedit before the last FAC). (I'm not the one to write long) Have a good luck with Sb, and cheers--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to find something about it and if I understand it I will try to explain.--Stone (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of that endeavour is that different people have different access. If you give an incomplete citation, someone else (in this case that's me) fills in more details so that the level of effort for the next helper is lower. If someone else can just click a link and get the source for you, it is more likely to happen than if they have to generate a query. Many universities and other large enterprises have very extensive access to online services. I happen to have decent access to indices, but not so much to full text. A busy wikipedian who has that full text access might only help you if the effort needed is small. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No apology necessary. LeadSongDog come howl! 07:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stone,

I've uploaded the medical biography article that you requested at the resource exchange. You can find a link to the article at that page. Best, GabrielF (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 February 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Potassium antimonyl tartrate, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that tartar emetic is used to induce vomiting in birds to determine their diet? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Potassium antimonyl tartrate.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got involved into a debate whether this image was taken in 1956 or 1964. I think it can not be 1964 because Eschen (the photographer) died in 1964 in Austria, and Staudinger was 83 then, but I have no proof. Do you have any quick idea on which year is right - maybe Staudinger was very ill in 1964 or looked much different, or Eschen was doing something else the whole year? Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will try when I am back to my time zone on friday.--Stone (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Giuseppe Oddo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Italian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Stone, da ich gerade den Artikel de:Promethium ausbaue, könnte ich Deine Hilfe gebrauchen. Die drei haben das Promethium entdeckt. Der Artikel de:Jacob A. Marinsky ist sehr dünn, de:Lawrence E. Glendenin und de:Charles D. Coryell existieren noch nicht. Jedoch gibt es zu allen drei recht gute englische Artikel (Jacob A. Marinsky, Lawrence E. Glendenin und Charles D. Coryell). Kannst Du durch gelegentliches Übersetzen/Ergänzen/Neuanlegen auf wp:de für Abhilfe schaffen? Vielen Dank und beste Grüße --JWBE (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Müßte hin zu bekommen sein. --Stone (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noch nachträglich besten Dank für Glendenin. Wie sieht es zeitlich mit Coryell und einer Ergänzung von Marinsky aus? Meine Überarbeitung von Promethium musste ich Mitte März aus Zeitgründen erstmal unterbrechen, will aber die Sache nun langsam wieder anfangen. Viele Grüße --JWBE (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You haven't yet voted for a flagship article for WP:ELEM. If you want to vote, please do so before the end of March. Thank you, Double sharp (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Md. Tofazzal Islam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gazipur (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) 15:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, ich arbeite gerade an dem deutschen Artkiel über diese Sonnenfinsternis und bin mit Freude auf die Quellen auf der Diskussionsseite gestoßen. Es gibt aber eine Sache, die ich nicht verstehe: war Félix Tisserand mit seinen Kollegen wirklich auf der Beobachtungsstation des thailändischen Königs? In seinem Artikel steht, er war in Malacca. Andererseits befindet sich dieser Ort nicht auf der Kernschattenbahn dieser Sonnenfinsternis, laut der deutschsprachigen Quellen hat er jedoch offensichtlich eine totale Verfinsterung gesehen. Was stimmt da nicht? --Plenz (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you look at the GA nom for Compton-Belkovich Thorium Anomaly? --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 09:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to help with the improvement, but I am not a good Ga reviewer.--Stone (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the issues you have currently highlighted. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 17:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have access to all the references? I will be online for a little longer so I will watch the Compton-Belkovich Thorium Anomaly page for any changes.--Stone (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I removed the PPI bit, as I could not find the source. :/ --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 17:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have access to all the references?--Stone (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of the current ones (now). I took a trip-to-the-libary to get on the old ones, for free. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! --Stone (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sbharris, you added the rio tinto borax mine as nearly largest producer for borax in the world. The numbers for the US producers are withheld since 2005 but at that point the us was roughly producing one fifth of the world production. [2] The two company pages are a little vague in their statement. Do you think that there is somewhere a better source to quote at this place? Thanks --Stone (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a Rio Tinto company page less vague: [3]. It gives one million tons a year of refined borates from the Mojave site (Rio Tinto of course owns many other sites in South America). That doesn't mean it's correct. Usually total world boron production is quoted as about 2 million tons of B203 equivalent, so that would make the Mojave/Boron site as about 50% of the world production. It's certainly the entire US/North America production.

A somewhat biased Turkish site that claims to keep track of world boron claims the US (which would be entirely this mine in California) produces 1/3rd of total boron production. [4]. That would still make this mine in Boron, CA the largest in the world, since Turkey's boron production sites are multiple. SBHarris 22:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Stone, habe mal auf meiner Seite geantwortet. Was genau klappt da nicht? De728631 (talk) 08:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciated your input on the Zaitsev's rule edit, and was wondering if you'd be willing to take a look at the new content I've posted to Talk:Nucleophilic_acyl_substitution. I mentioned the new edits on the Chemistry talk page, but unfortunately, I haven't received any feedback. I'd rather not go live with the changes until a few other editors have given them a thumbs-up. Thanks! Ckalnmals (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to reactivate what I learned 14 years ago.--Stone (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great - thanks for the time and effort. Ckalnmals (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original text was largely copied from the NASA Ames website, but that's presumably public domain as a US goverment work, isn't it? Colonies Chris (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shrike (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think you really need a paper describing the experiment. It would only give you a number, of the info you could use. Especially given the experiment was performed in 1910 and few people tried to redo it. You can assume the later experiment is the right one, but how are you sure it is? How could you then disprove Curie's value? Why then do they all use it? How could disprove the modern experiment. The latter one is sure more plausible to be the truth, my question work in both ways. Have in mind that you can't make 100% pure Ra in no way. Remember that 0.1% impurities in thorium make the mp fall in hundreds of degrees. Conclude whatever you feel right, but my point is: it could not be worth the effort.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The experiment and the exact desciption are a value in it self. It would give me a number a name and a date, and even if it was performed in 1910 it would great to mention that the first try by Curie to synthesis radium yielded a pure radium with the same melting point still valid 100 years later. All people use it either because it is the only one or it is the right one, but this needs others describing an experiment redoing Curies experiment. The problem with purity of radium is mentioned nowhere so I think the value comes from a time when nobody thought about that. Do you know geocaching? It is fun to search even if you find at the end only a small token of minimal worth!--Stone (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The other approach. Feel good about that you chose it, really, this is really great, no formalism. If you're doing a thing, do it well. Can't be done in any other wayl given it bring pleasure :-)

I think you're right none really thought about nines purity for radium a century ago. If this is still a problem for barium, it couldn't be easier for its radioactive twin. In 1910. You should probably note that as well. Would be informative, also (a secondary advantage) tells everyone how hard radium is to get.

Also, IMO the value of ~700 degrees makes sense. Cesium and francium melt at similar temperatures, the heavier element earlier. Just came up with the idea you could make a harder accent on the striking similarity between Ba and Ra. You could also point (not simply giving figures, mentioning in words) that Ra is slightly heavier to oxidize, like in francium, I'm sure not all radium readers will or already did read the former. Stopping with the advice. Am sure you will write a good article without it anyway!--R8R Gtrs (talk) 23:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It will take time. I only do it because it is fun to look behind the first layer and find out things like the Austrian radium monopole. For some points I have good refs for example the Kirby article from the Monsanto Company is a good guide for the chemistry section. I have to find a little more about the contemporary production but it will grow steadily.--Stone (talk) 05:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please do a B-class review for Sr? Double sharp (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your article is ready, at WP:RX#Plumbago OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is a major problem (the whole world is copying values from the early 1900s). I've asked and looked around, but nobody knows, even specialists. Russia was a major producer, but even there little has been done experimentally on the structure of Ra and its compounds. The Great Soviet Encyclopedia lists both values (700 and 960 C), some other handbooks use either 700 or 960. Maybe German literature is better. Trinkl published 5 articles on radium and its compounds titled CRYSTAL CHEMISTRY OF RADIUM. I. ... V. in Radiochimica Acta (1968)., and a thesis in German [5] that possibly cover this whole topic. I have no access, maybe you'll have a better luck. Materialscientist (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.Your request was fulfilled.You can find a link to the article/s you requested in the relevant section at WP:RX.Please indicate when you've downloaded successfully and add a resolved tag to your request.Thank you.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey bud, I missed you all these weeks at the pandemonium in the MSL and Curiosity articles. Keeping busy? Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was on holiday but it was nice to see what happens. The two articles are in a constant flow, so I will wait before editing. Up to now nothing has happened in science terms. My friends in Pasadena are waiting for the real things to happen. Paul will have a hard time to wait for the first sample for SAM. I am waiting to hear from them, but this is hard to put into any article, because I will have no cite-able source. The real science is still a few days in the future and the real good stuff will not be done before they reach the mountain base. From the progress of Exomars I am still a little bit frustrated, but this will end when they approve the mission in November. --Stone (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Chemicals for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 05:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that SpaceX CRS-1 says they had an "engine out" condition where they used 8 of 9 rockets in the first stage to launch successfully. It occurs to me that maybe the lighter the payload, the more engines could go out and still leave a successful mission? I commented this speculation at [6] in case you want to follow up on it, though admittedly, few will go back to that discussion now. Wnt (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found this interesting presentation. Double sharp (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I begged 2-3 of the student groups to not upload their really awful articles, asking for the instructor to contact Chemicals project. Please help me by contacting some of the other groups. We know how this will go, we get a lot terrible articles and we are forced to clean up later. The students are in over their heads, but the instructor should at least interact. At times like this, I wished I had additional powers to force the instructor to pay attention or not inflict this stuff on our project. Oh well. I hope things are well for you over there. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! A big discussion is being set up on the WP:ELEM talkpage (here) about renewing our goals. The current ones are not really followed. Accomplishing goals and striking them off the to do list could help make the project more active again. You're a very experienced active member: the discussion wouldn't be complete without you, so please take part. Thanks!--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harald! Regards from Miami. The article that I just created is about a chemist -like you- with a great notability in the University of Miami, helping kids with diabetes. I didn't put more references from another articles from the media, but the notability is there in our city. Thank you for you patience and regards from the Sunshine State. I wish you a Happy New Year 2013. --Misty2011 (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of John Brian Christopherson at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ¿3family6 _contribs 03:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made a lot of changes at strontium, but kept almost everything. I realize that I should have made smaller changes and given editors a chance to react. If you are unhappy, then revert it. With best wishes, --Smokefoot (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the work! I will read and try to give feedback soon!!--Stone (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This will take much longer. The reshuffle should have be done in a second step. The changes are very hard to follow. --Stone (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked again. The article is fine, so do not worry.--Smokefoot (talk) 09:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also looked and I think its an improvement.--Stone (talk) 11:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Brian Christopherson, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that John Brian Christopherson found a cure for bilharzia in 1918? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Brian Christopherson. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why [7]? Materialscientist (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dementia? --Stone (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My compliments for solving this at Po: [8]. -DePiep (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stone, I'm working on a project to study the running of WikiProject and possible performance measures for it. I learn from WikiProject Chemicals and Chemistry talk page that you are an active member of both projects. I would like to invite you to take a short survey for my study. If you are available to take our survey, could you please reply an email to me? I'm new to Wikipedia, I can't send too many emails to other editors due to anti-spam measure. Thank you very much for your time. Xiangju (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stone, In response to your comments:

You added to iodine that there is a treatment with non-radioactive potassium iodide. This is not 100% right. Natural potassium is quite active so it is radioactive!

Are you saying that natural potassium is slightly radioactive and therefore "non-radioactive" is inaccurate? How about: "... treatment with potassium iodide using non-radioactive iodide"?

The addition to the molybdenum page is OK, but the ref looks really weak, do you have a better?

I added the RS reference you requested. I left in the reference to Blaylock's newsletter, because he makes the connection to toxicity from sulfite in food. Blaylock sometimes gives references, but not in this case, because it's obvious. Greensburger (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to William Klyne may have broken the syntax 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(Click show ⇨)
of Stereochemical Correlations'' (1974).<ref>{{ cite journal | doi = 10.1107/S0021889878012741}}}</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Petalite may have broken the syntax 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:

• José Bonifácio de Andrada| journal = Journal de chimie et de physique | volume = 51| date = 1800 ([[Messidor]] an VIII}}</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I get where you are coming from with the comment about N and doing versus planning. Actual connecting/working together/inspiring is the way to fly. I can't really commit to more unpaid work here though. It is a distraction from real life.71.127.131.41 (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finally got it working again for WikiProject Elements. Let me know if you notice any more problems with it. Kaldari (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stone. I think we are brothers in arms. Could you please participate in the peer review of Fluorine? (see top box on talk page).98.117.75.177 (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Know anything about these? They're a new one on me, as fire retardants aren't of course the same thing. I was going to revert this again yesterday as I don't consider that ILO ref to be adequately detailed to be trusted to that extent, but was warned off (by one of my regular pet trolls) that it would be considered edit-warring. It's not even clear if they're storing the hydroxide or the chloride in this supposed extinguisher. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Magnesium chloride is a component of fire extinguishers. This is fact and mentioned in the Magnesium chloride, but it is not produced by the method described but simply made from ocean water. So this info is not worth mentioning and let it look like it is produced artificially. --Stone (talk) 12:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, magnesium chloride is not used in fire extinguishers (although it is used as a fire retardant in fabrics). It only says this in the magnesium chloride article because it was added yesterday by the same account whom we both reverted yesterday for adding the same information to magnesium and magnesium hydroxide, along with the claim on manufacture from the hydroxide. Now either this is credible and belongs (potentially) in all three, or else it's dubious and should be removed from all articles.

I can't find any credible source that covers this. I believe the ILO source used here is confusing extinguishing agents and retardants. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look : [9] it was used.--Stone (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Could you please go back to [10] and indicate if any of the newly provided options are preferred? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References corrected, thanks for instructions Hhemila (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Stone! Thank you so much for your interest in my page! This is my first time working on a Wikipedia page, so I want to make sure that I do a good job. I was just wondering if you could elaborate on your comment. Do you have any ideas on how I can improve the discussion about E1cB as an elimination reaction? Thanks! --Paracelsus22 (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 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) 14:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#element infobox and comment if you if you wish.Petergans (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the flow is a little awkward, but the description of C-103 under Superalloys is vague and misplaced. Superalloys are Ni-, Co- and Fe-base alloys that often contain a little Nb. C-103 is a Nb-base alloy, a different animal. I should probably change the section title to simply Niobium-base alloys, and include a brief description of the handful of Nb-base alloys currently mfd. by ATI Wah Chang and its competitors. The detail may seem excessive, but it does explain how C-103 got its otherwise unintelligible name. Furthermore, it illustrates how new alloys were developed before the age of simulation software. Nowadays, most alloys are designed and simulated via Calphad and other softwares long before anything is actually melted, cast and rolled. And, the detail explains briefly the historical context of C-103, that is, why someone was motivated to invent something so obscure -- the ramifications were huge! --His Manliness (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I added the paragraphs about the Panda Hill Niobium deposit and the mineral pandaite. Could you let me know why you removed the entries. I believe they are appropriate and relevant. Is there something that I have missed? Regards, Tonnage (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings fellow disambiguator! Remember back in February when we made history by clearing the board for the first time ever, for the monthly disambiguation contest? Let's do it again in May! I personally will be aiming to lead the board next month, but for anyone who thinks they can put in a better effort, I will give a $10 Amazon gift card to any editor who scores more disambiguation points in May. Also, I will be setting up a one-day contest later in the month, and will try to set up more prizes and other ways to make this a fun and productive month. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean - the talk page (Talk:Other metal) is located at the same location as the article (Other metal). Number 57 13:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This looks very much like this is only the talk page for other metals, but where is the talk page of the page before it was moved to other metals in march?--Stone (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This would appear to be at Talk:Poor metal. The whole thing is a massive mess because of cut and paste moves. Either we can move that talk page over the top of the existing one, and (a) lose the conversations since the original cut & paste move, or (b) also restore the more recent comments and then make a messy combination, or simply copy & paste the original discussion onto the current talk page (as it's not an article, there shouldn't be any GDFL issues, but it's probably worth noting somewhere what happened in case someone wants to look for diffs. Number 57 13:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but it looked very much like a total mess and if more than one person deals with it you end up in more catastrophe.--Stone (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a total mess. I've merged Talk:Poor metal to Talk:Other metal, so at least it's in the page history and all the discussion is now in one place. Number 57 17:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stone, sir, see my User page, hidden though it is—un-gray by clicking on Edit tab—to see who I am. Concerning the future direction of the Natural Products article, please see the "Class" section and beyond. Article is in a current sorry state, and it is apparently avoided for its current structure and constraints. See developing discussion at [11]. Perhaps you have a view to express. (PS, it was I that put cobalamin as the lede natural product, an edit that was reverted, not to overtly promote an organomet perspective, but because it is historically and chemically valid.) Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings and felicitations. Many moons ago you added to the "Applications" section of the Lanthanum article. Unfortunately, I think you missed a close parenthesis in

• One material used for anodic material of nickel-metal hydride batteries is La(Ni_3.6Mn_0.4Al_0.3Co_0.7.

but I am too unfamiliar with chemical notation to be certain, and I am unable to tell from the references to which I have access. Would you please be so kind as to fix this?—DocWatson42 (talk) 07:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Stone (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Steve Acquah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Walton. 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) 09:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• On the CS gas page, your edit caused a duplicate page number error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stone. Is radium actually used for anything at all besides basic research today? Double sharp (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stone! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with {{ping|DerHexer}}. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 14:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• On the Vijaydurg Fort page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits for the page Vijaydurg Fort about Helium discovery. I would like to tell you that I have contacted the author who made these changes and asked him for relevant sources regarding the same. Please try to be patient and wait for his reply rather than deleting the information and changing it to favour your claims. I would like to keep the data the same way it was before until both sides show suitable references for the claimed discovery. Abhishek Pujari (talk) 08:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You asked: "Is gold only produced in this type of super nova?".., and the answer is "yes".

There is no energy to enough bombard with neutron the nucleus to cause fission in the regular supernovae. Gold is too heavy, a merger give us a better explanation.

Please see: Wikipedia will tell you (at least it did a minute ago) that gold comes from supernova nucleosynthesis. Not so, says a Harvard team today. or Earth's gold came from colliding dead stars - Phys.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luizpuodzius (talk • contribs) 20:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I found in Krishnamurthy, N., & Gupta, C. K. (2004). Extractive Metallurgy of Rare Earths. CRC Press that the Nd was discovered in 1886, are you sure that your reference (v. Welsbach, Carl Auer (1885). "Die Zerlegung des Didyms in seine Elemente". Monatshefte für Chemie und verwandte Teile anderer Wissenschaften 6 (1): 477–491. ) doesn't say that the work of Carl Auer von Welsbach on didymium BEGAN in 1885? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpigneur (talk • contribs) 16:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There are several references, for example Weeks, Mary Elvira (1932). "The discovery of the elements. XVI. The rare earth elements". Journal of Chemical Education. 9 (10): 1751. doi:10.1021/ed009p1751. ISSN 0021-9584. states that the discovery took place in 1885. The point tocite is : v. Welsbach, Carl Auer (1885). "Die Zerlegung des Didyms in seine Elemente". Monatshefte für Chemie und verwandte Teile anderer Wissenschaften. 6 (1): 477–491. doi:10.1007/BF01554643. ISSN 0343-7329.. --Stone (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The author emailed me and stated that it was from a book:

   Chapter by science historian F. Szabadvary in the Handbook on the Physics and Chemistry of Rare Earths (Szabadvary 1988) 

But later in the book the year 1885 as discovery date is mentioned.

--Stone (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in William Lofland Dudley, a fine fellow with contributions which often go over my head. Given your username and German roots, I must mention Stein Stone is one of the all-time greats from the athletic program started by Dudley. Cake (talk) 07:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited L. Douglas Smoot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springville High School. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Noureddine Melikechi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leslie Allen. 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) 11:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to revert this edit because I suspect you have an intelligent intent. Help me out, here. Grammar's Li'l Helper 18:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

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

• On the Argon page, your edit caused an ISSN error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metal Ions in Life Sciences and comment if you have an opinion. Petergans (talk) 08:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your help on the article Ionic liquids in carbon capture. I was wondering how you do your references. Do you have an automated tool that you could recommend? I wrote them all out by hand and I'm aware of cite templates (it just happens that we had written up our citations in another format on my sandbox and I transferred them over). Did you look up all the articles again, or is there a way to enter the DOI number into {{cite journal}} and avoid that? --Brandon5485 23:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stone,
in this edit you questioned the phrase 'an influential' in the lead section. How comes? Les Benet is a Web of Science 'Highly Cited Researcher' (actually the highest ranking one in Pharmacology). Overall his papers are cited more than 19,000 times. His works about clearance and the volume of distribution are a basic part of the Pharmacology curriculum. Ref.10 in the article achieved the status of 'Highly Cited Paper', which is defined by Thomson Reuters as having 'received enough citations to place it in the top 1% of its academic field'. Can you please explain when a person would deserve the word influential? Alfie↑↓© 15:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, show me a credible source where somebody calls him influencal. A person who is cited because he is the focal point of critisism is indistinguishable from a person with influence.--Stone (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stone, read e.g., Ref. 2 in the article to check whether Les Benet is 'influencal' [sic]. BTW, influential is my wording, not original research. IMHO, demanding a reference for every single word in a lemma is a bizarre idea. I suggest to run a full-text search on WP for this word and explore whether it is literally (even in a small fraction of articles) supported by references. Alfie↑↓© 12:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stone! Excerpt from the introduction of awarding the Ph.D. h.c. yesterday at the University of Lisbon: Prof. Leslie Z. Benet is the personality who most markedly contributed to the progress in the field of Pharmaceutical Sciences in the last few decades. He is one of the most recognized references in the area of pharmacokinetics, biopharmaceutics, drug delivery and pharmacodynamics. Alfie↑↓© 16:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you update File:Periodic_Table_by_Quality.PNG with the four new element names? Thanks in advance! Double sharp (talk) 10:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will try.-- Stone (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Stone (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Double sharp (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comments on my talk page. I've been editing oxygen because I'm planning to rerun it as WP:TFA on September 5. It's clearly deteriorated since it was promoted, and standards have changed, so basically to get it in shape I removed references from the lead (style now, since facts are summary of the text), replaced a dead ref and removed a dead podcast. I also removed unsourced material, and a dubiously sourced dubious claim. If there is unsourced material, I won't be able to rerun it at TFA. If anyone is able to source and restore any of the deleted material, that would be great. FWIW, I also looked at Hydrogen and Helium, which also have issues, the former having multiple dead links. I'd appreciate any copy-editing or improvements that the group can do in the next week or so but basically I can't wait a year if I'm running it on the September date. I'm reluctant to pull it from my scheduled TFAs, although it needs a bit more polish, since we are short of articles in this category, but let me know if you think I should reconsider Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I found the account Stonwrag while I was patrolling the user creation log. The user page of the account is a copied version of yours and there's a slight similarity in the usernames too. Is this your alt or an impersonator? Jiten ^talk _contribs 09:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I modified it a little . Thamnks--Stone (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

In 2007 you edited this page. Your edit may have been subsequently modified such that your molecular model image was replaced by an image (much larger than the item depicted) of a 1996 Deutschmark. Make of this what you will. I have replaced the image link in your edit with a descriptive phrase, so the large Deutschmark image doesn't appear on the page.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hotsonite, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bushmanland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Your survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_cTOsH4330zoI1P7&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like to see my references (www.mindat.org) called "link spamming" or "useless". This is quite misplaced. Mindat is the largest mineralogical database ever constructed, has a plenty of scientists working on it and it has strong connections to the International Mineralogical Association, which gives rules on how the mineral species are actually named. I think the question is what is more important: to have a two-line-long reference or have CORRECT names here? My time spent on Wikipedia is as precious as yours. Eudialytos (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for keeping an eye on this article, as UP joined Wikipedia only recently and I have never done edits on an intention to raise an article to FA. David notMD (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Stone: Speaking of keeping an eye on the article, how far do you think this article is away from FAC? R8R stated he would look at and review the article, and wasn't sure if I should have made a Peer Review or a FAR. I ended up making a peer review, was that the right decision? UtopianPoyzin (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Peer review is the right thing to do. A speedy decline at FAC is making things very hard for all later tries.--Stone (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A question about the Germanium article. Ref 22, which is used seven times, is to a short, personal experience essay by Halford.^[1] The content of the essay does not support the Germanium and health uses in the article. Is this a referencing error? David notMD (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to inform the editor.--Stone (talk) 10:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected! --Stone (talk) 05:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Stewart MacArthur, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Balloch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Stone, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Everedux (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were recipient no. 2149 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders and improvers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. We are relaxing the rule that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2020 will count; now to be eligible for points in the competition, you must have completed significant work on the content at some time! Any questions on the rules or on anything else connected to the Cup should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanadium , an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody today knows this element as niobium. Otherwise, the niobium article would simply begin with "Niobium or columbium is..." (without the statement that the latter term is former.) Georgia guy (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 57 contestants qualifying. We have abolished the groups this year, so to qualify for Round 3 you will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Epicgenius, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with a featured article, five good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 895 points.
• Gog the Mild came next with 464 points, from a featured article, two good articles and a number of reviews, the main theme being naval warfare.
• Raymie was in third place with 419 points, garnered from one good article and an impressive 34 DYKs on radio and TV stations in the United States.
• Harrias came next at 414, with a featured article and three good articles, an English civil war battle specialist.
• CaptainEek was in fifth place with 405 points, mostly garnered from bringing Cactus wren to featured article status.
• The top ten contestants at the end of Round 1 all scored over 200 points; they also included L293D, Kingsif, Enwebb, Lee Vilenski and CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Seven of the top ten contestants in Round 1 are new to the WikiCup.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. In Round 1 there were four featured articles, one featured list and two featured pictures, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. Between them, contestants completed 127 good article reviews, nearly a hundred more than the 43 good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Contestants also claimed for 40 featured article / featured list reviews, and most even remembered to mention their WikiCup participation in their reviews (a requirement).

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. 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 keep down 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. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was an error in the WikiCup 2020 March newsletter; L293D should not have been included in the list of top ten scorers in Round 1 (they led the list last year), instead, Dunkleosteus77 should have been included, having garnered 334 points from five good articles on animals, living or extinct, and various reviews. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Niob. Since you had some involvement with the Niob redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ComplexRational (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The second round of the 2020 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 75 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top ten contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 186 good articles achieved in total by contestants, and the 355 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:

• Epicgenius, with 2333 points from one featured article, forty-five good articles, fourteen DYKs and plenty of bonus points
• Gog the Mild, with 1784 points from three featured articles, eight good articles, a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews and lots of bonus points
• The Rambling Man, with 1262 points from two featured articles, eight good articles and a hundred good article reviews
• Harrias, with 1141 points from two featured articles, three featured lists, ten good articles, nine DYKs and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews
• Lee Vilenski with 869 points, Hog Farm with 801, Kingsif with 719, SounderBruce with 710, Dunkleosteus77 with 608 and MX with 515.

The rules for featured article reviews have been adjusted; reviews may cover three aspects of the article, content, images and sources, and contestants may receive points for each of these three types of review. Please also remember the requirement to mention the WikiCup when undertaking an FAR for which you intend to claim points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The third round of the 2020 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it into the fourth round each had at least 353 points (compared to 68 in 2019). It was a highly competitive round, and a number of contestants were eliminated who would have moved on in earlier years. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Epicgenius, with one featured article, 28 good articles and 17 DYKs, amassing 1836 points
• The Rambling Man , with 1672 points gained from four featured articles and seventeen good articles, plus reviews of a large number of FACs and GAs
• Gog the Mild, a first time contestant, with 1540 points, a tally built largely on 4 featured articles and related bonus points.

Between them, contestants managed 14 featured articles, 9 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 152 good articles, 136 DYK entries, 55 ITN entries, 65 featured article candidate reviews and 221 good article reviews. Additionally, MPJ-DK added 3 items to featured topics and 44 to good topics. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 710 good article reviews, in comparison to 387 good articles submitted for review and promoted. These large numbers are probably linked to a GAN backlog drive in April and May, and the changed patterns of editing during the COVID-19 pandemic. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth round of the competition has finished, with 865 points being required to qualify for the final round, nearly twice as many points as last year. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with 598 and 605 points being eliminated, and all but two of the contestants who reached the final round having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were

• Bloom6132, with 1478 points gained mainly from 5 featured lists, 12 DYKs and 63 in the news items;
• HaEr48 with 1318 points gained mainly from 2 featured articles, 5 good articles and 8 DYKs;
• Lee Vilenski with 1201 points mainly gained from 2 featured articles and 10 good articles.

Between them, contestants achieved 14 featured articles, 14 featured lists, 2 featured pictures, 87 good articles, 90 DYK entries, 75 ITN entries, 95 featured article candidate reviews and 81 good article reviews. Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 2020 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round going down to the wire. Our new Champion is Lee Vilenski (submissions), the runner-up last year, who was closely followed by Gog the Mild (submissions). In the final round, Lee achieved 4 FAs and 30 GAs, mostly on cue sport topics, while Gog achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on important battles and wars, which earned him a high number of bonus points. The Rambling Man (submissions) was in third place with 4 FAs and 8 GAs on football topics, with Epicgenius (submissions) close behind with 19 GAs and 16 DYK's, his interest being the buildings of New York.

The other finalists were Hog Farm (submissions), HaEr48 (submissions), Harrias (submissions) and Bloom6132 (submissions). The final round was very productive, and besides 15 FAs, contestants achieved 75 FAC reviews, 88 GAs and 108 GAN reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

• Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for a total of 14 FAs during the course of the competition.
• Bloom6132 (submissions) win the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in round 4.
• Rhododendrites (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, for 3 FPs in round 3 and 5 overall.
• Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 23 FAC reviews in round 5.
• Epicgenius (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 45 GAs in round 2 and 113 overall.
• MPJ-DK (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 33 articles in good topics in round 2.
• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize, for 100 good article reviews in round 2.
• Epicgenius (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 22 Did you know articles in round 4 and 94 overall.
• Bloom6132 (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 63 In the news articles in round 4 and 136 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2021 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. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stone! I saw that in this edit, you added The fruits also yield an essential oil which contains mostly but didn't finish the sentence. I don't know much about Juniperus virginiana so I'm not sure how to fix it, and Google didn't help much. Would you mind finishing that when you get a chance? Or if you could point me towards a reliable source, I'd be happy to do that myself. Thank you, and cheers! Woodroar (talk) 03:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Stone (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Round 1 of the competition has finished; it was a high-scoring round with 21 contestants scoring more than 100 points. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 55 contestants qualifying. You will need to finish among the top thirty-two contestants in Round 2 if you are to qualify for Round 3. Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Epicgenius led the field with a featured article, nine good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 945 points.
• Bloom6132 was close behind with 896 points, largely gained from 71 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
• ImaginesTigers, who has been editing Wikipedia for less than a year, was in third place with 711 points, much helped by bringing League of Legends to featured article status, exemplifying how bonus points can boost a contestant's score.
• Amakuru came next with 708 points, Kigali being another featured article that scored maximum bonus points.
• Ktin, new to the WikiCup, was in fifth place with 523 points, garnered from 15 DYKs and 34 "In the news" items.
• The Rambling Man scored 511 points, many from featured article candidate reviews and from football related DYKs.
• Gog the Mild, last year's runner-up, came next with 498 points, from a featured article and numerous featured article candidate reviews.
• Hog Farm, at 452, scored for a featured article, four good articles and a number of reviews.
• Le Panini, another newcomer to the WikiCup, scored 438 for a featured article and three good articles.
• Lee Vilenski, last year's champion, scored 332 points, from a featured article and various other sport-related topics.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. In Round 1, contestants achieved eight featured articles, three featured lists and one featured picture, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. They completed 97 good article reviews, nearly double the 52 good articles they claimed. Contestants also claimed for 135 featured article and featured list candidate reviews. There is no longer a requirement to mention your WikiCup participation when undertaking these reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or something 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 keep down 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. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Stone: Greetings! I see that you obviously are a very proficient editor in the periodic table of elements niche. I see that some elements (including ones you have contributed to significantly) have some citation needed tags, template tags in general, some factual errors, and undue content. For instance, there are 3 citation needed tags in the Zinc article. Could you perhaps take care of these? No pressure or obligation of course, Wikipedia is volunteer work. You (and other editors such as Double sharp, etc.) are very much needed; I was surprised to see you active after the FA nomination of Zinc, as I haven't seen many FA-contributing editors from pre-2010 contribute up-to-and-during Covid times, and this is a significant reason why many FAs get demoted. Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wretchskull: (talk page stalker) The first cn tag was not for anything important, so I simply removed the claim. Others should not be too hard to cite soon, although been recently more busy with rewriting periodic table (another FA that needs some help). Double sharp (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I looked and the CNs are not very likely to get a citation at all. I will try. But the first should be deleted. --Stone (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The second round of the 2021 WikiCup has now finished; it was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 61 points to advance to Round 3. There were some impressive efforts in the round, with the top eight contestants all scoring more than 400 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 110 good articles achieved in total by contestants, as well as the 216 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in Round 2 were:

• The Rambling Man, with 2963 points from three featured articles, 20 featured article reviews, 37 good articles, 73 good article reviews, as well as 22 DYKs.
• Epicgenius, with 1718 points from one featured article, 29 good articles, 16 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
• Bloom6132, with 990 points from 13 DYKs and 64 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
• Hog Farm, with 834 points from two featured articles, five good articles, 14 featured article reviews and 15 good article reviews.
• Gog the Mild, with 524 points from two featured articles and four featured article reviews.
• Lee Vilenski, with 501 points from one featured article, three good articles, six featured article reviews and 25 good article reviews.
• Sammi Brie, with 485 points from four good articles, eight good article reviews and 27 DYKs, on US radio and television stations.
• Ktin, with 436 points from four good articles, seven DYKs and 11 "In the news" items.

Please remember that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of Round 2 but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in Round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (except for at the end of each round, when you must claim them before the cut-off date/time). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The third round of the 2021 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 294 points, and our top six scorers all had over 600 points. They were:

• The Rambling Man, with 1825 points from 3 featured articles, 44 featured article reviews, 14 good articles, 30 good article reviews and 10 DYKs. In addition, he completed a 34-article good topic on the EFL Championship play-offs.
• Epicgenius, a New York specialist, with 1083 points from 2 featured article reviews, 18 good articles, 30 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
• Bloom6132, with 869 points from 11 DYKs, all with bonus points, and 54 "In the news" items, mostly covering people who had recently died.
• Gog the Mild, with 817 points from 3 featured articles on historic battles in Europe, 5 featured article reviews and 3 good articles.
• Hog Farm, with 659 points from 2 featured articles and 2 good articles on American Civil War battles, 18 featured article reviews, 2 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 4 DYKs.
• BennyOnTheLoose, a snooker specialist and new to the Cup, with 647 points from a featured article, 2 featured article reviews, 6 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 3 DYKs.

In round three, contestants achieved 19 featured articles, 7 featured lists, 106 featured article reviews, 72 good articles, 1 good topic, 62 good article reviews, 165 DYKs and 96 ITN items. We enter the fourth round with scores reset to zero; any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (one contestant in round 3 lost out because of this). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth round of the competition has finished with over 500 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants, The Rambling Man and Epicgenius, each scoring over 3000 points, and six contestants scoring over 1000. All but one of the finalists achieved one or more FAs during the round, the exception being Bloom6132 who demonstrated that 61 "in the news" items produces an impressive number of points. Other contestants who made it to the final are Gog the Mild, Lee Vilenski, BennyOnTheLoose, Amakuru and Hog Farm. However, all their points are now swept away and everyone starts afresh in the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 18 featured articles and 157 good articles. Bilorv scored for a 25-article good topic on Black Mirror but narrowly missed out on qualifying for the final round. There was enthusiasm for FARs, with 89 being performed, and there were 63 GARs and around 100 DYKs during the round. As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it to the final round; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For other contestants, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I merged the list of references that you stored on the talk page of this article into the article. Ianmc (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiCup is over for another year and the finalists can relax! Our Champion this year is The Rambling Man (submissions), who amassed over 5000 points in the final round, achieving 8 featured articles and almost 500 reviews. It was a very competitive round; seven of the finalists achieved over 1000 points in the round (enough to win the 2019 contest), and three scored over 3000 (enough to win the 2020 event). Our 2021 finalists and their scores were:

1. The Rambling Man (submissions) with 5072 points
2. Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 3276 points
3. Amakuru (submissions) with 3197 points
4. Epicgenius (submissions) with 1611 points
5. Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1571 points
6. BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 1420 points
7. Hog Farm (submissions) with 1043 points
8. Bloom6132 (submissions) with 528 points

All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.

• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for 8 FAs in round 5.
• Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 5.
• Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured topic prize, for 13 articles in a featured topic in round 5.
• Epicgenius (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 63 GAs in round 4.
• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the good topic prize, for 86 articles in good topics in round 5.
• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the reviewer prize, for 68 FAC reviews and 213 GAN reviews, both in round 5.
• Epicgenius (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 30 did you know articles in round 3 and 105 overall.
• Bloom6132 (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 71 in the news articles in round 1 and 284 overall.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

If you have views on whether the rules or scoring need adjustment for next year's contest, please comment on the WikiCup talk page. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2022 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. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Group 4 element has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Bli231957 (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And so ends the first round of the