User talk:Nergaal/Archive 4

An article that you have been involved in editing, Agriculture in Romania, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agriculture in Romania. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

 Done

Thanks for promoting my maps the last weeks. Sorry I can't respond to your messages most of the time. I'm quite a busy person this period. I only found some time this week-end to see what was going on in Wikipedia.

I really need to improve some of my maps in order to have a chance to become featured images. I plan to update my Roman Empire map (the one with the legionary bases) in the near future. Now I only have a single very good map, this one:

.

I don't know if it's good enough to be a feature image. What do you think?

About the map with the Hungarians in Transylvania, the brown colour means that there's a very limited Hungarian presence (below 1%). I'll add that to the legend.

talk

I nominated this list to WP:FLC. Ruslik (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I made some upgrades to List of Metallica concert tours (considering the FTC "gap"), are you interested in turning it into an FL? igordebraga ≠ 03:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Only that the intro needs to be expanded, and you could research a bit more on supporting acts and such (and add more refs). Maybe the release sections isn't needed, the band doesn't have much live material. I hid the "Notes" (to self) you left there. And just a sidenote in case "reliability of references" is brought up in PR and FLC (though one of those is even in the main Metallica article, so maybe they can pass), the official website has date and place of every concert they made. igordebraga ≠ 18:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Since I did some cleanup in the refs, just the intro, expand it and put a nice picture and we might have a FL. igordebraga ≠ 21:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's finally here. Would you like to take a look at it? --Starstriker7^(Talk) 00:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Since no one else wanted to officially review it (apparently,) I have. You've seen these comments before as they lie on the talk page. The line you added into the lead concerning the alternative scales needs clarification within the article below, Beaufort scale use above force 12 needs to be addressed before passage, and reference years should be included in all the refs (since they were included in some of the refs.) Thegreatdr (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added the production information available on the DVD to the article. —TheLeftorium 20:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

though the list isn't featured quite yet! :-) Serendi^podous 14:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that the articles were referenced at all, which contributed to the problem. Ergo, as long as they are a nice improvement over what they were, they could be recreated. As for the AfD itself, if you want them restored as they were, you'd go to WP:DRV, since I still see a fairly clear consensus to delete after re-reading it. Wizardman 14:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't I be the one to nominate it, then? What would be in it? Just the main article, the Dev. article and the Re-rating article? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that's why I stopped working on it. I was pretty discouraged after Knights of the Nine failed FAC (for no good reason, IMHO), so I stopped working on the series. That, and the vitriol spilled after the ESRB re-rating article hit the main page. And the bad blood on Oblivion's talk page. So, then, have you been working on, uh, whatsit, the other one, then? Shivering Isles? It still has no reception, no gameplay, and a messy plot section. If you can get it up to GA, then sure, you can co-nom the set with me. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 17:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You should probably try to get Buddhist crisis a featured topic. Nergaal (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Gee that might take a while. If so, I'm not going to edit those articles on the US officials as they were secondary players, mostly. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 23:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do you nominate an article for GA when you don't want to improve the points brought up in the review? --Novil Ariandis (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to master Wiki math markup and failed. I was wondering if you could transcribe the equation at Bruton's page so I could include it in the equilibrium objects list. Thanks for your time. Serendi^podous 17:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanskis! Serendi^podous 17:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Nerg, I don't really know what to do about the new note system. I think it's going to be targeted by reviewers because the letters are out of order. But to reorder them would require manually replacing every note in the list, which would be an almost impossible task. Serendi^podous 19:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice edits to zinc but it would be much easier to track what you are doing if you used preview more often vs saving so much and put a brief explanation in the subject line saying what you did. Thanks again for the great edits - I just wish they could be parsed more easily. :) --mav (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

What was the rationale for this revert (and this one)? You haven't provided any useful edit summary (which is usually reserved for edits considered to be vandalism, which this certainly wasn't). Please consider using edit summaries when reverting edits made in good faith in future. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

As you probably know, I am not overly fond of having articles on the main page, but I can deal. :-) BTW, thanks for your help with "...hydrostatic equilibrium". That was a stressful assignment, I don't mind saying. Serendi^podous 19:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

User:rst20xx wants to create a Solar System lists subtopic, with List of Solar System objects as its main aritlce. I've been consolidating the lists and merging the info where I can but there is a ling way to go before that topic is finished. As regards Jupiter, I've been having evil thoughts that a Jupiter topic cannot be complete without a Magnetosphere of Jupiter article, since Jupiter has the largest magnetosphere in the Solar System :( Serendi^podous 12:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

A few ideas. It will take me a while to sketch out; it's a vast subject. Serendi^podous 19:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Template-Class chemistry articles, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Template-Class chemistry articles has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Template-Class chemistry articles, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not want to disturb you or get into an edit conflict so I post it here. In 1805, the French chemist.... And Thanks for your help!! --Stone (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! We have onother GA!--Stone (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on an issue on Template_talk:ChemicalBondsToCarbon concerning a reversal of one of my edits. V8rik (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting back to you earlier. Feel free to go ahead with the FTC. In fact, I'd be happy to co-nominate it with you if you want to pursue it. Unfortunately though, I think the last FTC was left somewhat unresolved, and really boiled down to a meta-issue that had to do with the scope of what is considered a "featured topic", or even I "topic", I suppose. I withdrew the nom since it seemed the FTC community was going to hash it out amongst themselves, but it looks like that never happened. So I think that would be the best place to start, since the success of the FTC pretty much hinges on that. Let me know what you plan on doing. I wish I could do more, but I'm just really busy at the moment. I'll do my best to help out if you need it though. Drewcifer (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking point on this. Looks like everything went smoothly! Drewcifer (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Why did you remove the tags without discussion? They should stay there as long as there is a dispute.--Cerejota (talk) 09:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I replied to your question, explaining why the article was omitted. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nergaal, I am reviewing your article, Moons of Haumea, for GA and have left some comments at Talk:Moons of Haumea/GA1. Basically, as I am familiar with your other articles and know that you write well, I believe you could write this article in a way that is more understandable to the general reader. Please don't hesitate to contact me with questions or comments. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 03:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yay, we got GA! Nice work :) Iridia (talk) 11:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The article you nominated for GA, Controversy over the discovery of Haumea, quick failed GA because of current edit wars over the POV status of the article. See Talk:Controversy over the discovery of Haumea/GA1. Please renominate it when the disagreement is resolved. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 03:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I am up again and I read the page today, although after a quick look it is good and contains some stuff which we should include.--Stone (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Nergaal... I'm a bit concerned about Zinc compounds turning into a fork. I assume that the section in zinc will be turned into a summary, while zinc compounds will contain more detail? Whichever the case, it'll be a bit of work keeping them in sync, whereas a lot of duplication is inevitable? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if this would be a good one...would need some work on a few articles, but there's the existing bedrock of KBOs, Scattered disc, Planets beyond Neptune and the rather fantastic quality Oort cloud. Then put in Sedna, Centaurs, unstub Neptune trojan, pull TNOs, Detached object, Hills cloud through GA etc...

Think it might be worth it? There's so much good material in there, it would be nice to have it all pulled together in some framework and recognised. Iridia (talk) 11:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the newest reorg of the chemistry and compound material at zinc. Spinning off the chemistry detail is also a good idea (of course, we now need to summarize that material at zinc). However, in the future, please make sure to always mention where you copied text from when spinning off a new article. It is customary to do this in the first edit summary. This is necessary per the attribution clause of the GNU FDL and to avoid the appearance of plagiarism. Also, as noted before, edit summaries would make it easier for other editors to know what you are doing. --mav (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Could you, please, undo your move of Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. This is a very controversial move, and it should be first discussed in the talk page. This issue was discussed at length there, and the title was judged appropriate. Please. Dc76\^talk 05:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's undone for now. Further discussion of the article name can be held on Talk:Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina as part of a requested move. DrKiernan (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Nergaal, i have reviewed your article on snooker and have left some comments on the article's review talk page. If you have any questions or comments then please contact me. MarquisCostello (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Your input is requested, either Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#FAC_symposium or at the subpage where the effort will begin... Thanks! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 10:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Please visit Template talk:Did you know#Compounds of zinc and provide your reactions to comments there. Thanks! --Orlady (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm just wondering, out of curiousity, why you nominated for GA the article (Which needs a ton of work), when you haven't actually edited it yourself? It seems you've also done that for other articles that you haven't contributed to. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 01:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, let me say bluntly that this article needs a ton of work. So if you're not willing to work on the article, then it should be withdrawn from GAN. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 11:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

On February 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Compounds of zinc, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 02:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered getting it up to FA level? Ruslik and I (well, mainly Ruslik at this point) are in the process of getting Magnetosphere of Jupiter off the ground, and it looks like Jupiter Trojan is an FA lock, so this would be the last piece of the Jupiter FT puzzle. Serendi^podous 19:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Nergaal, you still haven't made the modifications to the snooker article made on the GA review page. When are you intending to do this? Regards, MarquisCostello (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I have failed the article due to a lack of progress, but please re-nominate in the future when the article is ready. Regards, MarquisCostello (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I read your post on the dexter episodes talk page. In my opinion, every article to which enough production and reception info can be provided merits it's own article. In fact, we're sort of trying to get a first season Good/Featured topic. A Dexter WikiProject has been proposed, so you can sign if you want. I was planning on creating the project in the next few weeks, with a Featured Topic Drive, similiar to the Simpsons WikiProject.

Hope that answers your question.--Music26/11 20:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, I noticed your expansion on the dexter episodes article, great job. I wanted to do it for quite some time but never got around to it. Great job, thank you very much.--Music26/11 11:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm planning to take the list to FLC again (you can be listed as a co-nominater if you want to), "Seeing Red" is the only summary that needs expansion. I was about to do so when I noticed your hidden summaries. The first one looks good to me. Is there something about it that your not satisfied with, and are there other things you feel that need to be done before it is nominated again. Thanks.--Music26/11 15:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice work on the summary, I assume you're done now. I'll see if I can contact a copy-editor this week so hopefully, the list is good for FLC in the following days.--Music26/11 15:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I contacted User:Baffle gab1978 for a copy-edit, he said he would take a look, but appearently he's quite busy. However, I think the page is good enough; I'll nominate it.--Music26/11 14:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The page has been copy-edited and nominated. Also, your comments on the House FAc have been resolved (kind of, read the reply). Thanks.--Music26/11 19:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Please follow the nomination format at User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle/Nominations instructions. Cirt (talk) 04:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If you could do this and reformat your nom appropriately it would really be appreciated. Cirt (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I removed this because it was not formatted properly, but please do feel free to resubmit according to the instructions. Cirt (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Periodic_Table_by_Radioactivity.PNG - that image and the data in the table on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability#Half-lives_of_large_isotopes disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.148.155.36 (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you think zinc is ready for FAC? If so, do you want to be a co-nominator? --mav (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you create the below image from scratch? --mav (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for joining up at the newly formed Wikipedia:WikiProject South Park/Featured topic Drive/season 1 and working on South Park (season 1) ! Cirt (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Mainly cause I'm more familiar with Season 11's episodes, having seen most of them at some point. That, and I've already begun most of it :P Cheers. I'^mperator 23:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I might change my mind if you decide to help me with Season 10's ;) Cheers. I'^mperator 23:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there any chance that I can perhaps edit the article, and improve it to the best of my ability? Thank you. :) Purpleturple (talk) 09:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed this template. Debresser (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Nergaal. Since you're participating in the South Park Drive, I wanted to bring this to your attention. Right now, the FAC for Damien (South Park) seems to be hung up solely on the image rationales for the infobox image and the Omen comparison image. If the Omen picture has to go, I can live with that, but I can't see justifying cutting the infobox image. I'd appreciate it if you could go to the FAC to voice your support if you think the images work, or to provide me with some feedback on how they can be fixed if they aren't. (Of everyone who has criticized so far, nobody has provided any helpful feedback yet). It's over here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Damien (South Park)/archive1. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 21:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you opposed the above GT candidate, however the scope of the topic has now changed from "Listed buildings in Runcorn" to "Grade I listed buildings in Runcorn". Therefore, as there are only two Grade I LBs in Runcorn, the list of articles is no longer incomplete. I thought I'd leave you a note on your talk page in case you didn't see the candidate page. Cheers, Nev1 (talk) 01:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing the Office Season 1 topic to my attention. That's something I'd like to work on in the near future; especially after the current Office season ends, probably. Right now I'm focused on a few other things but I'd like to work on it later on... — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 01:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

is getting ready for its peer review. It's still far off from an FAC, so there's still time to get Exploration of Jupiter up to code if you want. Serendi^podous 19:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The "Tom's Rhinoplasty" summary is a bit short compared to the others (and the "Volcano" one is a bit long). Also, the lead needs to be expanded with information from the reception section. Other than that I think it's pretty good. TheLeftorium 19:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure. It's worth a shot. :) TheLeftorium 13:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Nergaal. I left a question for Leftorium about the South Park (season 1) article, and I wanted to bring it to your attention as well in case you could answer. Also, as I said to Leftorium, thanks for including me as a co-nominator on that! I'm glad some of my text from the episode articles was able to help! — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 19:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Oxo wall, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

term, fails WP:N

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Guy0307 (talk) 01:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I was just wondering what you were planning to do with Template:Chemical Element Isotope? Why not just use Template:Chemical Element? Perhaps you want to set up a taskforce in that template? Let me know if I can be of any help. Thanks, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I've been a bit grouchy over the last few weeks. I've been under a lot of Wikistress for various reasons, and I just wanted to reassure you that if I snapped at you a few times it wasn't personal. :-) Serendi^podous 14:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I see from your banner that you do a lot of great editorial content contribution work. Check out WP:FOUR and see if you are eligible for a FOUR award.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Exploration of Jupiter has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your comments, which you added in discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of celebrities on South Park. Please note that on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. Consider reading about the deletion policy for a brief overview for the deletion process, and how we decide what to keep and what to delete. We hope you decide to stay and contribute even more. Thank you! TJ Spyke 04:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar, Nergaal! Much appreciated! — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 03:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

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

I responded to your queries at the FLC page for List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty. Regards.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. I found the pronunciation key, Wikipedia:IPA for English, if I were to create a new column(s) for pronunciations. However, wouldn't I need multiple columns, one for posthumous names, one for personal names, and one for era names? That seems like a mountain of work. But more importantly, work that I am kind of unqualified to do.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Aha! Wiktionary is your friend, my friend. Lol. I can't believe I didn't think of this before. Take for example, Emperor's Gao's character 高 with the flat tone "gāo"; an audio pronunciation is provided at Wiktionary. Should I link each of their characters to Wiktionary?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...then again, some entries at Wiktionary, such as 惠 "huì" for Emperor Hui of Han don't have the audio pronunciation available. Perhaps just using Wiktionary would be insufficient. I don't know how many of the Chinese characters will actually have audio files at Wiktionary.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you think? Should I use Wiktionary regardless?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Is there anything else that I can do to change your lean towards support into a full support of the List?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nergaal,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:2008 South Ossetia war en.svg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on August 7, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-08-07. howcheng {chat} 08:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just to let you know you have 3 months from the end of The Office season 5, or until 14 August, to get the article to FL, or else the topic will be eligible for nomination for removal. Thanks ;) rst20xx (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, in response to your comment over at the article's FAR [1] - in regard to the numerous redlinked names - I got to work and created articles for about 23 of the redlinks. I relied mostly on Polish wiki and online sources. A few of the created articles are not much more than stubs but most are of decent length and I got a DYK for one of them. I plan on continuing to expand them regardless of what happens with the Polish Culture FAR. I would very much appreciate it if you were willing to take another look at the Polish culture during World War II article and see if this is enough to get you to switch from "leaning oppose" to at least "leaning support". I'll also do a few more in the next few days. Thank you! radek (talk) 05:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't understand your post on my talk page? — Hunter Kahn _(c) 05:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Incidentally, I see above that there's going to be a drive to get The Office (Season 5) to FL by August. I would love to be a part of this, if you and whoever else is involved don't mind? I've been working on getting all the Season 5 episodes to GA status (I've finished the work from Blood Drive on and am working backwards from there) and I've accumulated a lot of material for the Season 5 article as well... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 16:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You have the right idea, but the wrong process, I think. See my comment at the AfD. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, you should have gone with a merge proposal right from the start if that is what your goal was. While I don't think that merging the lists by year is appropriate, as I said at the AfD if you decide to propose a merge you should come up with a less offensive rationale than "Canada is not a notable enough contry to deserve its "Hot ..." lists for each year." Calling Canada not notable is not a very good way to Win Friends and Influence People. I bring that up because once a merge on a Canadian article is proposed it usually gets posted at the Canadian Wikipedian's Notice Board. CWNB sees a lot of Canadian editors who do not appreciate having Canada called not notable enough. Also you should be prepared to explain why you think Lists of US Hot 100 singles by year meet inclusion criteria for stand alone lists, but Canadian lists do not.--kelapstick (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

For nominating three lists at Articles for deletion when a.) all you wanted was a merge, b.) one of them was a featured list, and c.) your rationale for merge was invalid, as the lists were already long-established as being sufficiently notable. Do you realize how long Canadian Hot 100 would be if those three lists were merged? Didn't you also realize that Canadian Singles Chart and RPM also have chart lists for each year, as do major charts in many, many other countries?! I agree with what Kelapstick said: "If you want to merge the articles, than request a merge, however I suggest coming up with a better argument than Canada's lack of notability." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Nergaal. You have new messages at Dabomb87's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dabomb87 (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologize about that, I have not been very active lately and have been unable to keep up with the FLC noms.--Truco ₅₀₃ 20:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty is now added to Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Han Dynasty as a featured list. Please, have a look.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Please notify relevant WikiProjects and editors using Template:FLRCMessage and list the notifications on the FLRC page, as per the FLRC directions. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated List of Metallica band members for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

A polite reminder to choose a country, city, state or other place to represent. Your last choice was not one of these and has been removed (sorry, we altered the rules since then). Thanks! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinking WP:DRAMA in the course of a perfectly civil reassessment is completely inappropriate and unhelpful. If you believe that there has been drama, then comment on the talk page of the reassessment with specific concerns, rather than adding implicit and unsubstantiated allegations which appear to be aimed at making a point. Geometry guy 20:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Please would you revert your stealing of the page Table of nuclides (sorted by half-life) !

A list of nuclides would be

² Li, ¹²³ Ti, ⁴⁵Om, ....

and you should know the difference of table and map. I don't know the difference of map and chart!

Moreover I wonder why do you do such an important change without asking on the discussion-page of the article for agreement? Or should I understand your page-moving as vandalism? Regards, Achim1999 (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have left a comment on Achim1999's talk page about this. --kelapstick (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

And initiated a discussion on the article in question's talk page (after reversing the reversal).--kelapstick (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I have been the primary editor of this article over the last few months. Due to Jackson's death I have been away from wikipedia, but plan to return on Friday. I was hoping you could remove the GA nomination for the time being? I would like the opportunity to read through it and clean it up a bit more before sending it over. I'm also concerned that the role of AEG Live could spill into something quite serious. Please, if you could withdraw the nomination for the time being, I would appreciate it. Also, If you would like to work with me, to get it featured, I would also really love that :) — Please comment R² 02:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, if you would like to help me get it featured please keep in touch, I can tell your an asset to Wikipedia. — Please comment R² 11:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

How are you doing locating new sources? I need to know what you've done before I try to do a source cleanup.Serendi^podous 08:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Glad I could help, though in truth given the situation I didn't really have much of a choice :-) Serendi^podous 17:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

who has no interest in scholarly honesty. Fuck you. Ricardiana (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand how this got where it is. From your talk page, you seem like a nice guy, and I've worked very well with Nergaal in the past. It sounds to me like this dispute really needed a third party. I only wish I'd taken the article on sooner. Serendi^podous 22:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey. Just letting you know i'll review this article over the next few days. Sorry for my delay so far, i lost internet access for a while. Wizardman 15:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Do. Not. Plagiarise. Ever. Yes, it's hard to track on Wikipedia but it is illegal and it doesn't reflect well on anyone who tries to do it. Serendi^podous 09:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I see. Sorry. Yes, I seem to remember there were plagiarism problems with some of the spacecraft articles. I guess that's another thing I'm going to have to deal with. Serendi^podous 20:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...if you're willing to give it a review and then nominate it, I, one of the main contributors, would be willing to go along with it...Cheers, I'^mperator 22:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you give a specific rationale of why the article should be speedily deleted? bibliomaniac15 23:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. One can never be too cautious, especially in this field. bibliomaniac15 04:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you reverted the superscript extension to Template:chem. Unfortunately, a number of articles are already using this feature, and now they are broken. What was wrong with the template? Is there a way to fix this?—Tetracube (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you send me a message regarding a cultural references section in the "Volcano" article. The article already has a cultural references section; tied with the cultural impact section because now it forms a more solid section, otherwise there would be two not-so-solid sections. I wonder why you asked... are you interested in reviewing it for FAC?--Music26/11 12:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I have reviewed Welcome to Our Neighborhood you nominated for GA. I have left some suggestions for improvements to the article before I pass or fail it. The article is currently put on hold for about one week to allow you and any other editors to make improvements. Cheers, —Terrence and Phillip 06:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Everything checks out so I promoted the article. Congrats! :) —Terrence and Phillip 18:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Given how it barely got to GA by the skin of its teeth, something pretty substantial would have to be added to push it to FA consideration, but I have no idea what that might be. Serendi^podous 05:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The article Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom for things needed to be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you say what should be done to make Evaluation of the Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics a Featured list? Felipe Menegaz 19:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Dwarf planet's point total was reduced to 1 (from 3) because 243 Ida was featured on the main page today. This led to its replacement by a nine-pointer on TFAR. Just letting you know Dabomb87 (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Nergaal. Unfortunately, I am about to go on vacation. I will have limited Internet access, but between that and a few other projects that need my attention I will be very infrequent over at the FAC. I'm sorry, I know this comes with bad timing and I will do what I can to check in on it, but I wanted to warn you I might not be able to check it quite so often as I should... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 19:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry Nergaal, I'm quite busy with other articles right now and I can't spend so much time on this FAC... :/ Right now, the article only needs a copyedit (which I'm not very good at (English isn't even my first language)). Sorry. Theleftorium 20:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Do you mind reviewing this one for me? —Terrence and Phillip 07:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at this article, which you made a Good Article out of it, and there's a problem for the references. I'm letting you know that so I won't have to do a Reassessment. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed The Elder Scrolls IV: Shivering Isles and placed the nomination on hold pending further improvements. See Talk:The Elder Scrolls IV: Shivering Isles/GA1. Thank you, MuZemike 23:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw that the FAC wasn't promoted. I was kind of surprised how quickly it was shut down, I thought we were responding to things. But in the meantime, I think we should nominate this for a peer review before we put up the FAC again. I thought I'd check with you for your thoughts before I did this? — Hunter Kahn _(c) 19:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Hrmm. Well, in addition to the copy edit, we probably do need to look for more sources. A FA is supposed to be comprehensive, and in fairness, there are probably still a lot of sources that we need to look at. In addition to newspaper articles and books, there are academic sources, journal articles, magazine articles, etc etc. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 19:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• • I don't know what specific information is lacking right now, but I think as we look at more and mores sources, we'd probably be shocked by how much more information we'd really find. I think we cover most of the basics right now, but that doesn't mean there isn't more out there. We haven't included anything from any of the big South Park books like this, this and [2]. We've only got information from three episode's worth of audio commentaries, and nothing from 10 other episodes. We've got lots of news articles, but I'm positive there are more out there. And we don't really have any journal or scholarly sources right now... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 19:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/19/arts/television-radio-a-study-guide-for-south-park.html

• http://books.google.com/books?id=AJbNJm2W1UgC&pg=PT1&lpg=PT1&dq=articles+scholarly+south+park&source=bl&ots=FhiAkBdnns&sig=H0LS85Gc3ydcWREqOWvFybSiwZw&hl=en&ei=5il_SpLNEcq_tgeNw62AAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8#v=snippet&q=1997&f=false

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

-MBK₀₀₄ 17:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I had informed you the GA Review had started. I remember writing it, must have not pressed Save.

Anyway, as there is a lot of work to do I have put the review on hold for seven days to allow people to get on with it. SilkTork *^YES! 17:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you. I was considering sending one of those articles straight to FA review, and was concentrating on some spin-offs (redlink filling etc.). It's the Creangă article I mean, and that's because it dawned on me that a main page feature on December 31, 2009 (120 years since his death!) would be great. I'm doing that slowly, but I'll be getting there eventually. About Tismăneanu, I would avoid GAN for an article on a living person as a rule - it's subject to change much depending on what happens tomorrow (I recently had to add an entire paragraph on things that took place last week), but it's really not my call. But if you think GAN is the way to go on the other articles (and the though itself is an honor), please go for it. However, if I may ask this of you, don't nominate them both at the same time: reviewers may find that there are things which need fixing, and might address their requests to me directly; since I'm also doing other things, flipping between two such discussions may prove overwhelming (you know what they say about running after two rabbits). Dahn (talk) 11:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Awright then, I'll be back with more soon enough, and I'll make sure to let you know about Creangă. Thank you again, Dahn (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I allowed myself to edit out the list you added, and there was little room to explain why. Let me expand on my rationale here.

For one, a stylistic point: bare urls can't be used as references, they have to be converted into a "who what where". That said, the link itself was good. the larger issue involves the mysteries and differing accounts of Creangă's actual bibliography: I found dates provided in Braga, but they only go for the main works, and I note that even these may differ significantly from other accounts. Also, neither Vianu nor Călinescu bother mentioning the dates at all. There is also another matter of what it means for a story to have a date: is it when it was written, when it was first published somewhere (in Creangă's case, these works were first printed in magazines or textbooks), or when it was first included in a book? Other stories simply have no date available: Fiul iepei may have been begun and dropped in 1877, but it was never finished not published in IC's lifetime; still other works (such as Păsărica în timpul iernii) are part of his bibliography somehow, but they are not mentioned in such lists, which means that the list was and will remain incomplete unless it becomes sordid. Also note that, in fact, only a fraction of IC's manuscript has survived at all to this day (who can say a list of works is complete when we know that part of these were being used for packaging in the early 1900s?).

Might I also add that I for one find such lists perhaps necessary in a schematic article, but burdensome and repetitive in a detailed one. Plus, the alternation of English titles (for articles and redlinks) and Romanian titles (for insignificant stories) creates an eyesore on a bulleted list.

There is a way to contemplate for getting past those problems and producing a relevant list that could bypass these problems and render onto Caesar. We could consider a "Bibliography of..." article (per Bibliography of Mircea Eliade), but this requires some research and is not really imperative. Dahn (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

For now, let me ask you this: who does [3] help? Dahn (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Nergaal. You have new messages at Dabomb87's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dabomb87 (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

..I updated them in this change. Hope that's OK! rst20xx (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

-

The topic has not met its retention period, so I am sorry to say I have nominated it for removal - rst20xx (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Haven't been checking the WikiCup talk page frequently, so missed your comments by about a week. Have replied. You might be pleasantly surprised. Durova³⁰⁶ 15:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I nominated the Romania article for FA. I checked the previous archives for FA and GA and even the peer review and i sorted out much of the problems pointed then. What do you think? Mario1987 16:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Romania/archive2; unless you concur that the article is ready, the nom should be withdrawn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you're someone who's intimately familiar with the rigors of FAC, I was wondering if you might have a moment to look at Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and let me know if there are any lapses in content or coverage. I'm trying to get the article ready for a run at FAC, but with such a big subject, I want to make sure the article answers any questions you might have. Any questions, comments, or concerns would be a big help. Thanks. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed the above article and found a few concerns which you can see at Talk:Eastern Bloc/GA1. Cheers. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied to you here. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The article Controversy over the discovery of Haumea you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Controversy over the discovery of Haumea for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this is pretty close to a pass, but I've just brought a couple of items to your attention, so it's on hold for the moment.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I was unable to tell who the lead editors are for the Fender Telecaster guitar article, and I found a bad link on the FA-ranked page --if you look to see Jeff Beck's spot as a user of the guitar. Please, if you are not involved in the article, can you point out someone who is, and can attend to it? Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

the idea of the article is actually quite neat; it just needs to be organized to be less awkward in how information is presented.

I was wondering if you had any ideas on how to do that. :-) Serendi^podous 01:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have neither the tools nor the expertise to manufacture such a table. It might be workable, but I'm not sure a logarithmic scale would necessarily make much sense to laypeople either. Serendi^podous 11:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about the List of Romanian counties by foreign trade article. Does it have other major issues? Mario1987 13:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really, it was just one of a few season one articles I wanted to read through again and make a double-check for sources before I listed it. But then I sort of had to take a little break from Wikipedia for a few months there and never got around to it. It's probably ready to be listed right now, although I might like to give it a quick copy edit scan. If you like, we could list it as co-nominators and each address the objections as they come... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 17:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm w/ Hunter Kahn...almost to the letter. I've been gone from Wikipedia for quite some times (~a month), as university is really starting to crack down on me; I think the best course of action is if I go through the articles quickly, and, then list it as co-noms (don't forget Kahn). Thanks for the heads up. Cheers, I'^mperator 00:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

On 3 November 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Treaty of Lisbon, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Nergaal. I see you've also listed Big Gay Al's Big Gay Boat Ride for a GAN. I wanted to let you know back when I was doing some work on this article in September and October, I complied all the notes from the episode's commentary track but never got around to putting it in the article. Since it's up for a GAN now, I figured I'd better get myself gear and put it in now. I've done that, so please take a look at my recent edits to see if you are OK with everything. They could probably use a copy edit from someone other than myself too, but with all the content we have now, I think it will be ready for an FAC not too long after the GA process is done. Also, it is mentioned in the lead that this is the first episode featuring Pip, but that is not featured in the article itself, nor it is sourced. We need to fix that... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 21:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Question: Do you mind if I list myself as a co-nominator on the GAN for this article? I feel like I've done enough work on the article to merit it, but more importantly, I would like to be involved on the review process and the subsequent FAC process in the future. I know it's already got three co-nominators, but hey, the SP Features Topic drive is all about collaboration, right? If you'd rather me not, I'll still help out in the future improvements, but I'd like to be listed if you don't object... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 04:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm definitely up for working on more Dexter episodes. Somewhere on my computer I have a whole list of sources to use for individual episodes that I gathered a while ago. I've been kind of busy lately but now I'll have a lot of time on my hands until February or so. I haven't seen any of season 4, though, since I live in Australia and TV shows/films take a long time to find their way here! But I'll try to write up an article for "The British Invasion" over the next week or two, if that's at all helpful. —97198 (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Transport in Romania, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy fromhttp://go.worldbank.org/FKXIRFFQH0, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under allowance license, then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Transport in Romania and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Transport in Romania, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.

• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Transport in Romania with a link to where we can find that note.

• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Transport in Romania. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Transport in Romania saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing!

Hello the information you added to Transport in Romania may have copyright issues as it appears to have been copied from the world bank websitehttp://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/ECAEXT/EXTECAREGTOPTRANSPORT/0,,contentMDK:20647580~pagePK:34004173~piPK:34003707~theSitePK:571121,00.html

Can you fix, or respond to this on the talk page of that article. Thanks87.102.78.86 (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

copyright

As far as I can tell the information was copy pasted by you from the world bank site - which has a copyright notice at the bottom of the page. Can you clarify on the talk page why you believe the info is not copyrighted? Thanks.Shortfatlad (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't edit other peoples comments on talk pages as you did here [4], and don't be uncivil or make personal remarks, or personal attack please.Shortfatlad (talk) 07:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads-up, you might want to nominate Ceres (dwarf planet) to be the January 1 Featured Article. I think it'd be worth 3 points, 2 for having been featured for more than two years and one for the anniversary of discovery. It would, at least initially, have priority over either of the current 3-point requests that have an oppose vote. --66.194.74.18 (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:

• Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.

• Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.

• Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.

• Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

• Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.

• Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.

• Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.

• Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
• Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
• In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges, iMatthew ^talk at 03:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

This could be fun and alot of articles will iprove that way.--Stone (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

This passed, so your FT(s) need more articles featured by 1 September 2010, or else they will become GTs - rst20xx (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've reviewed this article, and have left suggestions on the review page Thank you, CTJF83 chat 01:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have responded to your comment. I would love to have some graphs, but unfortunately for ancient history reliable graphs are simply not available. Also, covering a 4000 year economic history under the FA's requirements does lend itself to a lot of sections. I hope you can give me more specific advice to improve the article.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

What would your advice be, on the subsections?(considering quite a bit of the article's subject matter relies on extricate explanation).Teeninvestor (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Nergaal, I have followed your advice and cut down the number of subsections dramatically. I think there are only about 20 subsections left. Do you have any more advice? Thanks. (Another note; all remaining subsections have many paragraphs of text.)Teeninvestor (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Although the FAC's closed, do you think the problem of too many subsections has been addressed? Thanks.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, your nitrogen was dark green (:-). The idea is great, but the photo should be better. Materialscientist (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect color is worse than having nothing at all and just saying it is colorless transparent liquid. I have found and put into the infobox a reasonable picture. Happy new year! Materialscientist (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)