User talk:Nergaal/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Romania review

That's a good idea, however I have to decline, I will be MIA for a while. -- AdrianTM (talk) 13:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

MIA=? Nergaal (talk) 13:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

MIA I will be missing for a while. -- AdrianTM (talk) 13:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

One thing to consider is that we need to remove that tag from external links, we need to clean those links a little bit I think, see here the policy: Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided -- AdrianTM (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not notice that tag. I reviewed the links and deleted one of them. the others seem fine.Nergaal (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu

Just a word of caution... see here and here, I tell you this because I saw you getting overworked by a 12 years old kid. -- AdrianTM (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of Arbitrations. What do they solve? Also, are users that are vandalizing wiki going to be banned? Nergaal (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't predict what decision they will take, users who vandalize wiki are usualy dealt in other locations. -- AdrianTM (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

npa

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.[1] ··coelacan 16:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A6-2007-0427+0+DOC+WORD+V0//EN Romania reiterates that, according to the facts and scientific evidence, including the interpretatio]

@

1. [2] uses wikipedia as a reference, so considering it a reference means considering wikipedia the reference. This is not allowed here.
2. [3] states clear that "the facts and scientific evidence" are only Romania's opinion, that is allegedly also supported by a misterious 1994 interpretation of the Academy of Science of the Republic of Moldova , that may or may not be obsolete by now.
3. [4] Also makes it clear that the rapporteur stated Romania's oppinon on the matter, and not that of the EP.

Please stop your insults. And please buy some glasses.

Anonimu (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Trei Ierarhi Monastery

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Trei Ierarhi Monastery, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.ici.ro/romania/en/orase/manastiri/trei_i11.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if you move an article (like you did with this one), could you please do it in such a way that the whole history of the article (including older versions which may be helpful to consult, and a record of who did what) is not wiped out? There are technical explanations on how to do this the right way on the WP site. Thanks. Turgidson (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

New articles

Essentially, it indicates my frustration at the fact that many of your contributions have been well below our standards. Take for instance Moldoviţa Monastery. No references. At least five spelling errors. No assertion of notability (I happen to know it's notable, but an outsider would have no clue). No diacritics. No coherence to the grammar. In other words, utterly without merit. Now, I'm not against stubs of a couple of lines, provided they're neatly written and show promise for expansion. But what you've created here and elsewhere is a work without anything to recommend it that will have to sit there, debasing the encyclopedia's value, until someone comes along (perhaps months or years later) and decides to write an actual article rather than string together some half-baked irrelevancies about the monastery. Really, why do it? Biruitorul (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

All well and good, but what about things like WP:V, WP:RS, WP:MOS, etc? Look, a stub need not be perfect, but it really should be coherent, and many of the ones in question are far from even that. So it makes us look worse, I believe. I'd rather hear nothing about Moldoviţa than to read that "This receusory will be extended by Roman Musat Voivode", a sentence that has about zero meaning for an outside reader. (What's a "receusory", anyway? Well, I guess it's something you copied from here.) So really, I think it would be great if the stubs themselves waited until a more favourable moment. Biruitorul (talk) 07:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation warning

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later."

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop such uploads or you may be blocked. Daniel Case (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

See this report to AIV, to which I was responding. The other editor says you are creating articles by cutting text from copyrighted websites and pasting it here, which we cannot permit. Daniel Case (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate Move

I believe that your move of linear (N/A) to diatomic molecule was inappropriate and reverted it. If you believe that the article could be Incorporated into diatomic molecule, that can and/or will be done. It is still unacceptable to just ignore others in the wikipedia community and simply take matters entirely into your own hands.

Jokermole (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You helped choose Carbon as this week's WP:ACID winner

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Carbon was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help.

Zginder (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Nadia Comaneci

... I left some comments on WP:PR. They're just my two cents; other people may disagree or have more to say. Later! Ling.Nut (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you can the article be stopped from deletion?

--Sambure (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC) If you help me I will help you.--Sambure (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

lol. no idea how to stop deletion. just make sure in the future you write a more comprehensive article and that you link it to some relevant other article (i.e. in this case link it to Foreign relations of Romania)

All other 100 articles are the same.--Sambure (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Labeling carbon articles

Hi I saw that you were labeling a lot of carbon articles. Is there some reason or some discussion behind this activity? Just curious, because if we added such a layer of wording for every category, we wont have space left for content, it seems. Thanks,--Smokefoot (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What I am "getting at" regarding your labeling articles on inorganic carbon is whether you apparent plans for all articles on inorganic carbon been discussed with [group]. Such a discussion would be conventional consultative procedure for changes that affect the presentation/policy for many articles. In such a conversation, it would be appropriate to discuss your definition of "inorganic" (unclear if there is agreement in the WE-chem community over this, as illustrated by the conversation at [[5]]). And for, say phosgene, is it your intention to have a multi-layered categorization for inorganic carbon, inorganic oxygen, and inorganic chlorine? If no why not, and if yes what are the implications for lots of layers of links at the bottom of each article? Will this presentation enhance the usefulness of WE - or otherwise? Periodically editors appear on the scene intent on sweeping through these pages with info on their special insights, or administrative ideas that inspire them. In such cases, consultation with the community is a good idea to gain advice and help.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the note and glad to see your enthusiasm for what is an organic cmpd (I dont agree with IUPAC, but that is unimportant). Happy editing.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements

Thanks for helping to clean that page up - I've been meaning to do that for ages. :) --mav (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.adevarul.ro/articole/orban-a-eliminat-limba-moldoveneasca-de-pe-site-ul-comisiei-europene/329489 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.65.92.2 (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Catalysis is the new chemistry collaboration

Hi Nergaal! You supported making catalysis the chem collaboration, and it is the article we're now working on. If you can help it'd be great. I hope I will be able to pitch in as well after exams are over - I'd like to revitalise the Chemistry Collaboration. Thanks, Walkerma 05:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hungary

Points taken, thanks, though introduction is obviously fine as it is, sorry. Gregorik (talk) 12:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Steel

Hi,

I undid your edit to steel, as I don't know what you are trying to do, but it is quite unconventional to use strikethrough in an article. Thanks, User A1 (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, I will add them as you told me.Suchwings1 (talk) 07:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

 ? Oxygen

Why did you remove my statements in the oxygen article about the original units that are given in the cited reference? This is a serious data integrity issue since the inline figures given are calculated conversions and not the original units. Also, my inline notes were just that, notes, not quotations from the reference. Please slow down or I'll have to do a mass revert. --mav (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Also - the specific page references to NBB and other items were removed and replaced with one reference with a page range. This makes it harder for people to check the veracity of the statements and will need to be fixed back to the way things were. --mav (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Each of those references had multiple pages; removing the individual page numbers makes it harder for a third party to verify the cited fact. However, I think I found a style we can both agree on. See Wikipedia:CITE#Short_footnote_citations_with_full_references. --mav (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll convert to the new style; What I was doing was a kludge anyway since I didn't know about the wikicite template. What we really need is the ability to pass page variables to the ref name= syntax. You'll find the ECE book under the editor's name, Hampel. Here is the Amazon link. You should buy it - it was the best book on the subject in its day and is still pretty darn useful if used carefully. --mav (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Oxygen FAC

I do believe that FAC may be a bit premature because I'm not done expanding the article yet. About half the prose was written by me and I already stated a want to bring this to FAC myself. With your permission, I'd like to make this a co-nom between you, me and WikiProject Elements. I'll then work on addressing the final expansion and clean-up to make sure this FAC succeeds. --mav (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You helped choose Dwarf planet as this week's WP:ACID winner

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Dwarf planet was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help.

Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 02:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"Lithium, sodium, potassium, rubidium, cesium, magnesium... all react spontaneously with oxygen ... to form oxides..." Is that true?

Are you sure? The situation is probably more complicated than indicated by the statement. Also, "spontaneously" has a tricky meaning. Etc etc. It might be worth reading up on M + O2 reactions. Describing the reality can get complicated though, I realize. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

User HolyShiznik

I am tired of his vandalizing edits on Romania. He ignored all the notices about his edits. What is the quickest way to make sure he is banned from editing that article? Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked him indefinitely. He'd also forged a praising comment under my name! - Jmabel | Talk 16:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sentence that needs to be polished

Hi Nergaal, I think that "Although now actually popular within Romania, gymnastics has brought many successes." sounds bad. I don't want to interfere, can you please change it to make more sense. Thanks. -- AdrianTM (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks that's much better. By the way do you have any numbers about gymnastics popularity, on what do you base your assessment? -- AdrianTM (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that gymnastics is part of the sports that are not very popular in general, it can still be relatively popular if you compare that with numbers from other countries, I think less harsh statement would be appropriate indeed. -- AdrianTM (talk) 03:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, that reference seems messed up. -- AdrianTM (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jonathan § 01:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia articles even if your ultimate intention is to fix them. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Infoboxes are fine as they are. Jonathan § 01:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Uuo infobox

Template:Uuo infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Jonathan § 01:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This is your only warning.
The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Jonathan § 01:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

You are notified of a request for arbitration is being opened in the case of your deleting my comments in the Romania discussion page.--mrg3105mrg3105 12:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of legitimate talk page comments

Please do not continue to remove legitimate comments from Talk:Romania, as you did here. The removal of legitimate comments from talk pages, especially when written by editors with whom you are engaged in content disputes, is considered to be extremely disruptive. John254 15:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Romania: 3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Romania. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. I am putting this on both of your pages (you and Mrg). Hopefully now it will all be calmed down and everyone can get back to working towards a positive outcome. Narson (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

unblock

{{unblock|I have been blocked by the user Mkkai before and his block was reverted. If anybody blocks me should be somebody who did not show lack of impartiallity in my case. Furthermore, I did not wage an edit war on Moldova, but instead I was reverting to versions that were accepted by other users too. The other user on the other hand, was providing absolutely no reason for his edits, and as unimportant as it might sound, he is actually a ~12-year old boy - and every hard-headed personality trait that comes with this! Please review my talk page and the edit history on the article Moldova for more details. Thank you.}}

Please wait, I'm in contact with the blocking admin. east.718 at 23:33, November 19, 2007

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): As Mikkalai is not responding, I have unblocked you as I feel that the block was made by an admin too involved in the dispute. Request handled by: east.718 at 23:44, November 19, 2007

thanks for your time!Nergaal (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

multiple FACs

Sorry, I did not know there is a limit on concurrent FACs. I did not manage to find any explicit rule on this. Nevertheless, I withdrew/deleted the Gregory House one. I will resubmit it later. Thanks for letting me know. Nergaal (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I archived Gregory House for you; please see WP:FAC/ar and wait for the bot to update the article talk page. Good luck with Oxygen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Xmas

I wish you a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! --R O ^{A M A T A A} | msg  17:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Leave the troll alone

Hi Nergaal, I had fun with your arguments, but I think it's better to leave the guy alone, let him publicize his ignorance by himself, otherwise some admin who is lacking humor sense might punish you. Personally I think disruptive rants and copy/paste like that should be promptly removed from talk pages, but now that's there let it be... I asked him for specific references and explanation. (there should also be a rule: "if you don't know shit, don't open your mouth because you might end up eating it")-- AdrianTM (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, what I placed on the page was a prod, rather than a speedy. I will now likely request an admin speedies it based on the 'should be in sandbox' criteria. Narson (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Rivers

Thank you for your suggestions. However, the Wikipedia Rivers Project has decided a long time ago that there is no criterion to be used as a minimum accepted lenght or size for rivers. All rivers, regardless of size, qualify for separate articles in Wikipedia. This has been decided after discussions on the issue. I don't know where you found the rule of 100 km, but it is definitely not what the Rivers Project has agreed upon. As far as the Ceptura River is concerned, you may have noticed that it is a river which is listed in the Romanian Directory of Rivers, meaning that it is considered important enough by the Romanian Water Authority. The information about the rivers wil be gradually increased after the network information and the links indicating the tributaries of each river and the mouth of each river will be identified and included in the articles. In the meantime, if you have information on the Ceptura River or on any other river, you are welcome to contribute with the appropriate information. Afil (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Adminship

Hello. I've seen your work around plenty, and I think that you would make a good admin. If you'd like, I can nominate you over at WP:RFA. Let me know of your decision. Anton Tudor (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You would do well to note that a nomination by a brand new editor with c. 20 edits to their name on the same day they were created is unlikely to succeed. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 15:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

 :) yes I noticed it, but I still find it cute/funny. Anyways, I don't have time for admin stuff. Nergaal (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Macau

I think that user:Josuechan addressed your comment and concerns on the page of Macau FAC. Wish you could come back here and reconsider your slight objection. Waiting for you! Coloane (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Article class of Carbon

I believe that article Carbon is not an A-class article. You first changed the WP1.0 to A-class on this edit and then changed the WP1.0 to B-class and the Elements Wikiproject class to A-class on this edit. This was done on 2007-12-04. Because you changed one to A-class then back to B-class and the other to A-class, I was not sure of you motives. On 2007-12-30 I put the article up for Peer Review. When requesting the peer review I did not state my concerns with it being listed as A-class; I just wrote that is was listed as A-class. [6] The first Peer reviewer said that he thought it was a B-class article [7]. I then changed the talk page to say the article was indeed B-class[8]. Now you have changed its status to A-class again (this time changing both templates properly) with these two edits [9][10]. I would like you to explain why you think the article is A-class and not B-class. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 22:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. But instead of demoting it, I think it would be better to expand it. Carbon is at least as important as oxygen and will be as difficult to bring close to FA standard as that article has been (oxygen has been worked on for several months now by several people). I wish I could help, but I'm a bit burnt out on element articles right now and need to work elsewhere for a while. --mav (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't like this sentence

Hi since you are a very active editor of Romania, this sentence doesn't make much sense to me: "Romania started a series of political and economic reforms that peaked with Romania joining the European Union."

Does it mean that the reforms peaked, or that joining EU is a reform? I would say something like "that lead to Romanians admission into European Union" what do you think? -- AdrianTM (talk) 06:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the point is that this slowing down of the reforms should not be treated in the intro (besides it's not yet an Encyclopedic fact, the reform might even speed up *rolls eyes*). Anyway, in intro we only need to say that there were (some) reforms since communism, Romania is not longer Communist and it entered into EU. I think that's the idea that we need to convey, it NPOV, it can't be contested by anybody and it doesn't enter into unnecessary political details. Political and economical details should be treated in their respective sections. -- AdrianTM (talk) 07:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it's much better, I tried to simplify the sentence a bit, if you don't like please free to revert. I also am not sure of English use instead of "allowed for Romania to join" I would say something like "allowed Romania to join", or even "allowed Romania join EU" but my grammar is crappy... -- AdrianTM (talk) 07:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, makes sense. -- AdrianTM (talk) 07:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer to format references, that's a pain. Consider yourself served. :) AdrianTM (talk) 13:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A request

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edit(s) to Dwarf planet, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. ‎ And please don't forget to provide an edit summary as this greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field - please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you. Ødipus 03:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Nergaal, could you please do as requested in the above comment? It is quite difficult to assess the changes to an article when you have dozens of edits that encompass relatively minor tweaks, especially without any edit summaries. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I will tr, but you can check multiple edits at once rather than one-by-one.Also, except for referencing, I am done with the article.Nergaal (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

From your reply it appears you don't quite appreciate the nature of the request. The technical possibility of checking multiple edits at once isn't the issue. It's about an act of courtesy that you might consider extending to your peer wikipedians, those that share your interest in making a good Dwarf planet article, and also those that just have it on their watchlist. People mentioning it is intended to convey that the unsummarized frequency in which you're currently hitting the save button 'isn't cool'. Ødipus 11:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Nergaal, please please please leave at least a brief edit summary with each edit and check your edits before hitting the submit button. Many subsequent edits to the same section with no comments, as you've been doing to planet make it really hard to follow what you're doing and to read the history page. I would very much appreciate a little bit of effort on this point! Ashill (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Galician

OK! Sorry! The Ogre (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Romania Comedy

"Please go vandalize another page than Romania." You wrote this on Motion of Lotion's talk page. That's a good piece of humor. Are you a member of WikiProject Comedy? Basketballoneten 18:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Go look at that user's edits and you will understand my "suggestion".Nergaal (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

just so you know

umm... I'm not sure if the chatter on your images page is vandalism or not, so I didn't remove it. Just wanted to make you aware that it is there. Thingg^⊕⊗ 02:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks, it was a hard-headed user that I had problems in the past :). Nergaal (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy effort

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. Ødipus 11:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Planet

I will try to go back to read it. My primary oppose rationale stands. As you had not edited the article, it was unwise to nominate it. I believe you should withdraw it, talk to Serendipodous, and consider a nomination in a few weeks. Marskell (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about the fact that you'd made just two edits, the day prior to nomination. Giving it that last push is good. Being gung-ho about FAC is good. Premature nominations are not good. Ruslik overcame the magnetosphere gap in three three edits (though he always needs copyediting, his detail is exceptional). With proper discussion, this issue would have been taken care of prior to nomination. I don't doubt your commitment at all, but I continue to urge withdrawing this. Marskell (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

My basic stand is that an editor not responsible for material should not nominate the material for FAC. That's perfectly simple: even if you understand the subject area, you are not familiar with the specifics of writing and sourcing in the Wikipedia article. Use this tool to find out who has edited the article most. If active, post to their talk: "hey, this could be FA." Discuss, then someone nominate, when it's ready. If the other person is most involved, let them nominate. In this case, I'd advise posting to User:Serendipodous and asking "what do you think? wait a couple of weeks or keep going?" He's a very friendly fellow. Marskell (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As regards nominations I don't really have a problem with a newbie nominating an article if they feel it is worthy; even if the FAC fails I still think that it is one of the few times when serious attempts are made to discuss and improve an article, and articles almost always come out of them better than they were. Lord knows this article has had precious little genuine discussion since it was created. I do think it was nominated a bit prematurely, though the subsequent push has helped a great deal. My main issue with it, which has been true since I started working on it, is that it feels cobbled together and ramshackle. It jumps from one theme to the next, a bit of history, a bit of science, a bit of politics, a list of shared attributes, but lacks a central theme to unify the whole. I don't think that, after finishing this article, the reader is left with a clear idea of what a planet is. This might be a fault of the word planet itself, which has always been somewhat arbitrary, but I think there might be some way to draw the article together. I was thinking of employing history as the unifying theme, in the similar fashion to Definition of planet, which I also wrote, but it would require locating some very hard-to-find information, such as the first recorded observations of planets in motion. Serendi^podous 11:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you think, now that the name origins section has been split off, that the para now in a note can be put back? I found a source for the info that might please Ashill. Serendi^podous 20:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The first line was taken directly from "The Theory and Practice of Ancient Astronomy," which is cited in the text. I had to remove the citation when it was shifted into the reflist, because you can't have a ref in a ref. The second can be trimmed. I'll give it a go. Serendi^podous 20:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oxygen

I'm done for now - time for bed. Please continue. BTW, once you are happy with the article it would be great if you would state that you support the nomination. :) --mav (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problems

Hello, Nergaal. Concerning your contribution, Image:Nonmetals at 3 million atmospheres.png, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material without the permission of the author. As a copyright violation, Image:Nonmetals at 3 million atmospheres.png appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Image:Nonmetals at 3 million atmospheres.png has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Image:Nonmetals at 3 million atmospheres.png and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Image:Nonmetals at 3 million atmospheres.png 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 GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Image:Nonmetals at 3 million atmospheres.png.

However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. BlnLiCr (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Allotropes of Sulfur

As the initiator of the article I am delighted with its rating. Regarding the references tag - most of the information came from *Elemental sulfur and sulfur rich compounds I (Topics in current chemistry) Ed. R Steudel (2004), Springer, ISBN 3540401911 and Greenwood&Earnshaw - specific points not covered by either are in line references. Adding extra references as suggested would end up with virtually every line being referenced to either Steudel or Greenwood. Seems like overkill. I am not sure where to start, I thought I was following Wiki referencing guidelines. Any suggestions? --Axiosaurus (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Poseidon/Neptune

As far as I can tell from the article on Poseidon, Neptune is his Roman name. Certainly the modern Greek name for the planet Neptune is Poseidon. Serendi^podous 12:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ay no prob. This article is getting better I think. Serendi^podous 13:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

{{Chemical bonds}}

Navboxes should be at the very bottom of the article. I'm in the process of fixing it, but please take note so nothing needs fixing next time. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)