Officer781

Welcome!

Hello, Officer781, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! giggy _(:O) 14:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello Officer781. You have been invited to join WikiProject Software, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the Software-related articles on Wikipedia. You received this invitation due to your interest in, or edits relating to or within the scope of the project. If you would like to join or just help out a bit, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of project members. You may also wish to add {{User WikiProject Software}} to your userpage and {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Software/Announcement-u}} to the top of your talk page with the heading ==WikiProject Software Announcement==. If you know someone who might be interested, please pass this message onto others by pasting this code into their talk page {{Software invite|~~~~}} with the following heading == WikiProject Software ==. Thanks, Tyw7, Leading Innovations ‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) 11:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Do you have reliable sourcing for your changing of the USAF warrant officer rank insignia? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 07:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Here's the reference:

https://www.mfp.usmc.mil/TeamApp/SJA/Topics/20051115105457/IRAM%20MCO%20P1070-12K%20CH%203.pdf

Scroll down to page 6-36, right at the bottom.

This is a link to a Marine Corps Order, carrying the authority of the Commandant of the Marine Corps. It is the only reference that matters. Windyjarhead (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you have contradicting information, cite your source, please. Nevertheless, no website or publicaation supercedes the authority of a Marine Corps Order. It is official published guidance, from the highest authority in the Marine Corps. Please see my comment here. Windyjarhead (talk) 05:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Template:US enlisted ranks, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.Windyjarhead (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the correction of the naming of the Makruk article. However, could you drop a note on the article's talk page pointing to the relevant guideline where the naming of chess-related articles is discussed, so as to avoid confusion in the future? --Paul_012 ^(talk) 09:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well done! Good work. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

[1]: Undid revision 379779654 by Pdfpdf (talk) works on my IE7. and, svgs if possible as they are better quality. also, they are free alternatives

"works on my IE7" - What a strange response! Who cares if it works on your IE7? I've told you, it DOESN'T work on my IE8, and I can assure you that I'm not the only person on the planet who uses IE8. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

It seems to have fixed itself. (Good! But I have no idea why.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! let me apologize first for my rude rollbacks but was running out! Yes, if possible will be better to have a vertical collar device just because they are worn like the officer ones. Than, in order to have more realistics shoulder boards i would like to share with you some sources, asking you, if possible, to improve your work with some details.

Here you have [2] and [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8].

Please have a look to the "embroidered stars" on the shield, they are "X" not properly "stars", but "X" represents stars.

then, as you can see, the original shoulder boards are dark blue, not light blue like the uniforms (a mistake of the prevoius uploader) ...probably they are in one of this coluors (e.g. like the official colours of the Italian Navy shoulderbopards):

•   Dark Navy 19-4013 TPX
•   Blue Graphite 19-4015 TP
•   Blue Nights 19-4023 TPX

Can you update the Shield with star and stripes inside like both the link I've posted before? Thank you in advance, can't wait to see your job! --Nicola Romani (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. In Slovenian military ranks, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Commodore (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. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line 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) 13:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

While I personally like to old version better, if you are going to redesign the image, can you please change all the ones for every rank as well for all four services: Navy, Coast Guard, Public Health Service, and NOAA Corps. That way, there is uniformity in all the images. Thanks. Neovu79 (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your good work on rank insignia images and related stuff. Well done! Pdfpdf (talk) 07:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey. I understand you uploaded a newer version of the British Army Officer rank insignia? The new uploads are great except they are inaccurate as the 'Star' should be just that, a star. The star should look something like Correct Star design as opposed to incorrect star design (it's a diamond). Regards - Nford24 (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2011 (AEST)

My SVG tracing skills are not high and I don't have the ability to trace such a complex star as shown, which is why i greatly simplified it. If you wish to have the full star you could revert my edits and use the non-free images by Pdfpdf. Or ask someone who has an SVG editor and the required skills to edit it and upload over my images. Cheers. --Officer781 (talk) 07:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Problem now solved. Good work done well! Pdfpdf (talk) 11:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

  Hey there Officer781, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User talk:Officer781.

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

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

The current versions of Greek NCO templates (Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Navies/OR/Greece etc) do not conform to STANAG 2116 (2010), which lists the Greek NCO ranks as follows:

Have you perhaps some more recent source? SV1XV (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've realised that STANAG 2116 edition 6 actually has some problems. Checking the official Greek Navy website and the army ranks page here on wikipedia I've realised that the reservist kelefstis and lochias ranks (listed on STANAG 2116 edition 6 as klirotos) are already deprecated. Moreover, other countries' military ranks in edition 6 also has problems. Firstly, the Polish military ranks for enlisted actually contains the ranks already deprecated by 2004, as seen here: [9]. Another error was the British Air Force enlisted ranks, which are one row displaced up (notice the "no equivalent and then the flight sergeant in the same box. Found a source earlier on the internet but forgot its link). Again STANAG 2116 edition 6 lists three reservist ranks (kelefstis, lochias, sminias) when only the air force retains that rank, but when I checked STANAG 2116 edition 5, it doesn't include those ranks and seems to be better updated for some countries, which is very ironic, but the Polish ranks omitting the deprecated ones in edition 5 kind of confirms that. Moreover, the Greek ranks agree more in edition 5 ie the reservist ranks (efedros) currently in use (sminias, dekaneas and diopos respectively) are all at the same pay grade. Hence I used edition 5 as a reference with exception to Naftisa in the Navy which doesn't exist now. If I'm not wrong, the STANAG 2116 edition 4 also features the ranks arranged more in line with edition 5. Cheers. --Officer781 (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I suggest that you don't trust too much the web sites of the greek armed forces. There is a mess with the existence of many parallel career paths in the same ranks: Carrer NCO for the NCO Academy, conscripts, OPY/EPY (5 year contract) evolving into "long term volunteers", re-elnisted conscripts under a short-term contract, and recently EPOP ("professional hoplites"). I don't think the seniority level of the various almost parallel ranks has ever been documented in one single document other than the submission to NATO for STANAG.

And definitely do not trust at all the Wikipedia pages about the Hellenic Armed Forces, which are written or modified mostly by enthusiastic youngsters. This is the reason I rarely edit these pages.

BTW the rank of Sminias (HAF) is equivalent to Lochias (Army) and Kelefstis (Navy), not Dekaneas and Diopos.

SV1XV (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I see. Btw, the sminias I was referring to up there was the klirotos rank, not the career one. I was thinking during the image name change on wikimedia commons that instead of naming it in NATO pay grade which is hard to confirm since there's no definite source other than NATO for STANAG, which in itself to me seems to be flawed as well, should we rename the other ranks images according to their rank names instead (eg GR-Army-Δεκανέας.svg, etc. Some of the questionable ranks for other NATO countries such as poland and italy have already been named according to rank name rather than NATO pay grade)? --Officer781 (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I believe the naming option you propose makes sense. Only drawback is that it leads to longish filenames, which I dislike. SV1XV (talk) 07:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ah. but the other countries' ranks for NATO also have longish names I believe. Not a problem. ;)--Officer781 (talk) 07:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Reverted the ranks to STANAG 2116 Edition 6. --Officer781 (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi there and happy new year!!! As you can see here [10] and here [11], they absolutely are not warrant officers but simple other ranks (OR), the only WO classiefied by the NATO-STANAG 2116 belong just to the U.S. Armed Forces. They must be integrated within the NCOs template, as sourced, but unfortunately I'm not able to do that. Thank you in advance!!! --Nicola Romani (talk) 10:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Done--Officer781 (talk) 11:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much! Well done! I own a *.pdf copy of the NATO-STANAG 2116 ed. 6 of 25 february 2010, do you have an updated version? --Nicola Romani (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Nope. I use an internet copy of STANAG 2116 Edition 6 for reference. :/ I don't have an updated version. Do you need it for anything? --Officer781 (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Mhmhmhmh... just to check if correspond to my original NATO version. Thank you! --Nicola Romani (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

BTW, I invite you to go to Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#NATO_Army_warrant_officer_templates and argue the case out ;).--Officer781 (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

25 February 2010 is the latest STANAG 2116 version. STANAG's undergo a review every 3 years. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 01:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Mind you a review does not necessarily mean it will be changed. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It is very frowned up on when I see the same user in conflict with me on practically an entire topic. If your intention is to help write the encyclopedia (which I assume it is) I strongly urge for you to use the talk page more. Templates for deletion or article edit summaries is not the right place to discuss. Reverts should be minimized and in fact avoided if possible. If you give me a reliable source to look at (like you did), I will be more than happy to agree to your proposal.

Mind you up to date information is nice but we also have to maintain a historic perspective. This is not right. "NATO doesn't use the terminology any more" would require a source. Also even if such a source exists you shouldn't remove the old definition. Instead both should be presented something like "This is what it is now / this is what it used to be". This way our coverage is more detailed. Consider how well old version is known with some people and how old texts or even current laws may reference it.

Just so you know, I created the entire series of articles on Ranks and Insignia of NATO and other such templates and articles that has to do with ranks about half a decade ago - so I really care that these articles are as complete and accurate as possible. It is not like I own these pages (in fact it is the opposite) but I want to be able to edit these pages without getting reverted like any other user.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 00:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

As I now am convinced the warrant officer templates are worthy to keep, I think we need to put all the different countries' warrant officers all into the same category. Other than the countries which already have warrant officer templates, to aid in classifying warrant officers, these are the warrant officer ranks of the different countries:

• Adjudant ranks of Belgium, France (in which rank system also includes Major) and The Netherlands
• Офицерски кандидат ranks of Bulgaria
• Warrant Officer ranks of Canada and United Kingdom (this is quite obvious ;))
• zászlós ranks of Hungary
• puskarininkis ranks of Lithuania
• praporščak ranks of Slovenia

I apologize for the misconduct and look forward to the template revamp. Cheers,--Officer781 (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

It is not really what I'd call "misconduct". :) It is just that in my experience friction leads to everyone being unhappy. I too apologize if I have been unnecessarily harsh. You have a vast amount of knowledge on ranks while I have the experience with templates. We can make this work and create something amazing. :)

To be honest, I am unsure how we can compare ranks of countries in the absence of a STANAG or some other resource to guide us. We can however explain what each rank range means in terms of how they rank among that countries other ranks. Eventually the STANAG would catch up.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Very nice! Thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have observed your last change: Comparative military ranks of Korea. It’s simple to find comparative military ranks to the NATO OF-system.

• OF-5 Colonel and CO Brigade
• OF-7 Major General and GOC Division
• OF-8 Lieutenant General and GOC Corps

I do not know the quality of these pages:

• 1992: Promoted, General, KPA 1994: Commanding Officer, VI Army CorpsCO Army Corps = OF-8
• Promoted, General, KPA 1996: Assigned command, 108th Mechanized Corps CO Army Corps = OF-8
• 2003: Promoted, Colonel-General Commanding Officer, IX Army Corps CO Army Corps = OF-8
• Col. Gen. Kim Hyong Ryong Commanding Officer, IX Army Corps CO Army Corps = OF-8
• 1986: Promoted Lieutenant General Division Commander, North Hamgyong GOC Division = OF-7

This indicates that the former «translation» were more correct.

• 중장 Chungjang (Lieutenant General/Vice Admiral) = OF-7 Major General
• 상장 Sangjang (Colonel General/Admiral) and 대장 Daejang (General/Fleet Admiral) = OF 8 Lieutenant General

Regards Gryphonis (talk) 03:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

We can resume working on rank insignia. We probably want to centralize this discussion. Suggestions? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 19:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I need to know how the revamped templates would look like before I can offer any. Cheers.--Officer781 (talk) 05:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I need some ideas :) Should the ranks go left to right top to bottom and etc. I am thinking of creating a system which each level is a separate template. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 13:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I would welcome help in completing this table. I have already completed Template:Ranks and insignia of NATO/Generic/Army/OF-10 and need help with Template:Ranks and insignia of NATO/Generic/Army/OF-09 and onward. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 21:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If you found a reference to that effect, I would appreciate it if you could add a reference so we don't end up with the same debate in future.JSR (talk) 12:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

There aren't many papers mentioning hybridisation specifically for a molecule, but utilizing sd3 hybridisation rather than sp3 is more stabilising as the orbital energy levels are lower.--Officer781 (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Which means you found a reference saying that? So include it there as well as in the Orbital hybridisation‎ section. Thanks.JSR (talk) 12:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

It's already included in the explanation of exclusion of p-orbitals in the orbital hybridisation article, where all transition metals with the ability to are sd^x hybridised. I have no reference directly saying titanium tetrahydride is sd3 hybridised because there are hardly any specific analyses on molecules available. There are however, generalized hybridisation articles such as the one already mentioned.--Officer781 (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Actually, it's pretty hard to have much on TiH₄ as it just barely exists.JSR (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

ok, no problem. Yeah sometimes it's difficult to find references for things such as those.--Officer781 (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Officer781. You have new messages at Jasper Deng's talk page.
Message added 07:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply

In the future, I'd appreciate it if you'd put this on the article talk page instead. Jasper Deng (talk) 07:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I saw your comment on PE spectra on my talk page, but you reverted it before I could reply so I will comment here. You have done a good job in finding recent references, and I want to read the papers by Weinhold et al before giving an opinion. Which I cannot do this week since I am travelling and using a hotel computer with no Adobe installed to read PDFs of journal articles. Probably it will be well into January before I am actually ready to give an informed opinion. Dirac66 (talk) 02:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I couldn't rationalise his reasoning, so I reverted the edits. I don't think hybridisation can be applied to PE spectra of molecules with more than one non-terminal atoms. If you want, you can find the link here: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/ed200491q. Also another link here: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:WSf3OW_MmGsJ:pagesperso.lcp.u-psud.fr/hiberty/Cours/VBTheory.pdf+&hl=en&gl=sg&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESj15OnpxBEfREZvBtO0Jup9EsezGrPKIZ5Z0tUZwvCla6w-SGthIgi_GRKKneH38tH8EEAvQYkh8jvjxHIdsnHvD2QYltPkvcmdes4TdHFR5D9kcNoxz9WG8IhlsYiHaCMbB-7d&sig=AHIEtbTAEL5eraVKO0Qk6yHNJJy4BOSIZg

Greetings. I have been keeping an eye on many of your edits to articles that have some relation to Valence Bond Theory, but have been too busy to look in real detail. However, you have recently made an edit with the summary "all modern VBT techniques use the coulson-fischer or similar wave functions". This is simply not correct. There is a big difference of opinion between people like David Cooper, who favour the spin-coupled approach using what is often now called the "VB-delocal" approach, and people like Philippe Hiberty, who favour the "VB-local" approach arguing for what he calls strictly localised orbitals. In the former case, the ionic structures make little or often no contribution, while in the latter they are important. In the breathing orbital VB approach Hiberty argues that strictly localised orbitals are really required. Both approaches are described as "modern VB". We need to remain neutral in this argument on wikipedia, although I have strong views outside WP. That is why I preferred the wording "and possibly ionic structures" over your "with bond-polarities included in the calculation" as mine allows both approaches while yours favours the "VB-delocal" approach. I have reverted your edit. If you want to discuss this, do so here and I will join in here. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I do not understand your recent edit to Resonance (chemistry). Your edit summary is "it appears spin-coupled theory can do away with almost all of the resonance structures, not just for benzene". For benzene, the spin-coupled method generates 5 structures, which are essentially the two Kekule and the three Dewar structures. None of the ionic structures are included yet the energy is very close to what would be obtained if they were. It does not do away with resonance structures. It interprets them in a new way. I think the spin-coupled method needs to be mentioned in the article. The paper in Nature by Cooper et al and the sort of guest editorial on it by Roy McWeeny are highly notable. I am not reverting it since I do not understand what you are getting at. Could I suggest that you engage more with other editors? You did not comment on my point above on 5 January and I have seen other examples where you do not engage but just carry on. You are doing a lot of good work, but you do not own the articles that you are constantly editing, and others need to be involved. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes. I apparently thought that SCVB interprets this "new way" only for benzene when it does so for every other compound, so I reverted my benzene-specific edits. I am only now getting to know about VB methods. About owning the articles, yes I relaxed the stance after realizing the mistakes there. --Officer781 (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

On a side note I don't have sufficient knowledge about SCVB to know where to include it in the resonance article. I apologise about that.--Officer781 (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Officer781. You have new messages at Bduke's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Bduke (Discussion) 01:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC) Reply

 

Hello, Officer781. You have new messages at Bduke's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Bduke (Discussion) 03:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

You may care to take a look at the sulfur dioxide talk page. Regards Axiosaurus (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

saw your comment- thanks Axiosaurus (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

No problem. Glad to help.--Officer781 (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Could you explain what did you mean with [12] that deviated from provisions of WP:CONTEXTLINK and damaged a grammar in yet another phrase? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

ok, I'm sorry. I wanted to make the bolded part reflect the article. I think the common term for it is orbital hybridization rather than hybridization, but that's a technicality that I don't normally care about. As for the grammar, someone changed "the" to "this" and I thought not having that sounded correct.--Officer781 (talk) 08:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vietnamese military ranks and insignia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Captain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I removed the reference in this template because it is undefined. It is not defined on the article pages (at least on Royal Navy officer rank insignia) it is used on either. An undefined reference in a template isn't a good idea. I do not understand what its purpose was. — JJJ ^{(say hello)} 03:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi You've added the categories normal valent / hypervalent to both main group and transition metals. I find the use of hypervalent odd in regard to t metals is that hyper as in more than 8 electrons or more than 18 or more than 32? And what about lanthanides where do they fit in? Axiosaurus (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hypervalent for transition metals is more than 12 (ie more than what the s and d orbitals can normally hold). Refer to the Orbital Hybridisation page whereby the latest calculations indicate that transition metals only utilize s and d (analogous to p in main group) orbitals. Lanthanides are not included in the template as of now as their bonding is poorly understood. --Officer781 (talk) 10:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK! Interesting paper from Weinhold, new to me. Out of curiosity is there any one supporting/opposing Weinhold? And has O'Donnell published in a peer reviewed journal? However I think that wikipedia is on its own in classifying transition metals as hypervalent. This use of the term hypervalent isn't even in the hypervalent article which is where I was expecting to find it.

To broaden this a little bit, the template for me is a geometry template and categorising geometries by bonding type seems irrelevant. Geometry is an observable, whereas bonding type is just a theory, and lanthanides shouldn't be excluded just because the theorists haven't caught up! Axiosaurus (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 16-Electron complex, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dimer. 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) 09:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I tried two other types of changes to one of the diagrams at Orbital hybridisation#Types of hybridisation to avoid the problem of the horizontal line positioning. Then I undid them because I ran out of time to work more on it or make it consistent into the other diagrams. I've actually seen the boxes used in various texts/online refs. Thoughts? DMacks (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think it will be good to use the boxes. I'll do the same for the rest of the article. Thanks!--Officer781 (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Dirac66: Sorry for the abrupt ping. There were two styles proposed by DMacks. I've chosen the one without the bolded font but I'm not particularly representative of the user base here. So a little more opinion would be helpful.--Officer781 (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I think the style with the boxes is clearer for the reader. The boxes convey something with a definite capacity, in this case two electrons. That is why boxes are used in many general chemistry textbooks. I didn't know it was possible to include boxes in Wikipedia code, so I thank DMacks for figuring out how to do it. Dirac66 (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I didn't know too. That's some cool stuff.--Officer781 (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have seen you are editing the "bonds related articles" - maybe catch bond article have you interest. Christian75 (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Christian75: Thanks. I'm quite limited to edit other things because they're already at a level beyond what I am taught (still high school level). I'm kind of frustrated at the limited knowledge as I actually do want to edit stuff beyond "bonds related articles". Perhaps when I'm better informed later into university. I'm currently reading on animals and phylogenetic trees and my university course is materials engineering.--Officer781 (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you made the addition of a footnote to Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Navies/OF/Netherlands. It's throwing an error on Royal Netherlands Navy#Notes, as the footnote is empty in the template. Was there some text you meant to include, or can this <ref> be deleted? See Template talk:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Navies/OF/Netherlands for more details. Paul2520 (talk) 04:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your recent edits of de:Pinyin, I appreciate them a lot. However, I noticed that some of your edit summaries were worded "corrected according to English Wikipedia" or similar. Please note that en.WP is not exactly held in high esteem among many German Wikipedians, who think that the English version contains a high quantity of low quality articles, so my advice is to mention the reliable sources you used instead of referring to your own work here. Bests, LiliCharlie (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@LiliCharlie: They are based off Duanmu "The Phonology of Standard Chinese" (2007) and Lee and Zee "Standard Chinese (Beijing)" (2003). --Officer781 (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I know, Pinyin is on my watchlist. LiliCharlie (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

(content moved to Talk: Jyutping as relevant to that article)--Officer781 (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

Could you tell me where did you read about D-type lattice in crystallography? What page of International Tables?

Thank you Bor75 (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Victoria Street, Singapore, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tamil. 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) 10:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have reverted your edit of exterior algebra with our edit summary, because of a manipulation mistake. Thus I explain my fever here.

First, when proceeding a major change in an article, please do it in several steps, in order that other editors may evaluate your changes more easily. In particular, because of the importance of the lead, changing the lead must not be mixed with change of body (except is some paragraph(s) of the lead are moved into the body.

Here I can see that you have, in a single edit, rewritten the lead and removed a large part of the body. I have not reviewed your edit of the body, but the issues of your lead are sufficient for reverting your edit:

I agree that the previous lead was not good, but, IMO, yours is worst, being together too technical and confusing for non-experts. Confusing, because you have removed the first phrase asserting that this is about mathematics. Confusing and too technical, because you use, without definition nor link, several technical terms that most readers are not supposed to know. Please, read MOS:MATH#Article introduction. D.Lazard (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

@D.Lazard: The reason I did so was because the same info is exactly duplicated at wedge product. My goal was to devolve the duplicated info over to the sub-article. Could you help me on that? Thank you.--Officer781 (talk) 13:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

To editor Officer781: I have solved the problem of duplication simply by transforming Wedge product into a redirect. I have also rewritten the lead of Exterior algebra. D.Lazard (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Okay. Thanks!--Officer781 (talk) 12:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your interest in the Singapore University of Social Sciences article.

Regarding your comments "establishment may be disputed because some might consider the establishment to be the date UniSIM was formed"

Thought I would like to make an input into this.

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/suss-to-offer-more-full-time-degree-courses-places

In the local newspaper, SUSS president Cheong Hee Kiat gave an interview quote "With a foundation laid by SUSS' predecessors - SIM University and the Open University Degree Programme - he said it has used online learning to let working adults progress at their own pace." Hence, I would believe this direct reference to Open University in SUSS's legacy is important.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.187.26 (talk)

Ok, you have a source. Thanks for clarifying with me. Cheers. :)--Officer781 (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Can you take a look at Help_talk:IPA/English#Maybe_we_should_just_deprecate_.2F.C9.94.C9.99r.2F.3F? I'm curious what you think and whether you're aware of other sources that discuss this topic. Mr KEBAB (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I went ahead and officially opened the RfC, but your opinion is still welcome, of course. Mr KEBAB (talk) 01:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Officer781, a new article for Novena Global Lifecare has been created today, which was redlinked in the Singapore hospitals template. I was wondering if this should even be in this template. This strikes me more like a chain of "medical" beauty centres. What are your thoughts? _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Jake Brockman: As can be seen here: [13] it appears that Mar11, a blocked user, added this article to the template. I don't think the article itself is even noteworthy, if you want to know my thoughts. I thought of PRODing it, but it seems there's indeed links. I have not checked the links yet.--Officer781 (talk) 12:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Jake Brockman: It appears the links are legitimate. Still you have a point that it shouldn't be in the template.--Officer781 (talk) 12:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks for your input. I have removed them from the template as a first step. I'll do some more digging if the main article about that company satisfies notability or not. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Wikipedian! Andrew Lih (User:Fuzheado) of Wikimedia US Consortium is in town next week and he is asking if anyone of you can come at Han's Cafe, #01-01 National Library Building, 100 Victoria Street (S)188064 on 22 August 2018 (Wednesday, Hari Raya Haji). Should you wish to reach me directly in real time, please contact me using the Telegram mobile app @Exec8 --Exec8 (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Help expand and copy edit for article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you. 125.253.125.200 (talk) 08:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry but I do not know anything about the person of that article. I will not be able to help as my expertise lies in chemistry and linguistics related articles.--Officer781 (talk) 08:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

An article you recently created, National University Heart Centre, Singapore, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

@CASSIOPEIA: Are references the only thing missing in the draft? Also, I have submitted the draft after adding two references. The page says it could take 8 weeks, is there a way to expedite the review? --Officer781 (talk) 08:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello Officer781. That article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_for_Advanced_2D_Materials, can certainly be improved and updated, but I don't quite understand the basis for the statement "it is a minor institute of the National University of Singapore". It's a university level centre and NRF "Medium Sized Centre" (https://www.nrf.gov.sg/programmes/medium-sized-centre), but I'd say more important is the relevance in its field - will you also propose deleting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Graphene_Institute? CA2DM is older, larger in people, funding and scientific production, and if the question is prestige, one of the two Nobel laureates that founded NGI has just joined NUS and CA2DM (https://news.nus.edu.sg/research/nobel-laureate-konstantin-novoselov-joins-nus) Migueldiascosta (talk) 07:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I have taken note and removed the prod. Thanks.--Officer781 (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Although your correction is certainly correct, I will just point out re your edit summary that transition metals can certainly use their p orbitals for chemistry. This usually happens in low oxidation states when the d subshell is quite full and ligand donation goes into the s and p orbitals (source, for platinum). Of course this clearly implies a strong possibility for this for group 12 too. Double sharp (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

P.S. I noticed and reverted your edit at Valence electron, for the reason that the d orbitals are not actually core orbitals for group 12. In fact they may participate at the top of the valence band, see for example ZnF₂. (Fluorine is needed here because the 3d orbitals are small and have gotten the whole d-block contraction already: F 2p is of similar energy to Zn 3d. If you look at ZnS with sulfur 3p, the bonding involvement becomes essentially zero.) So, if you were told at school that the Zn group should not be considered transition metals (so was I), this is kind of a simplification: d is not ionised in known compounds, true, but has bonding participation which you do not see in the p block elements that follow. Many authorities now class group 12 together with the transition elements (some, like Holleman & Wiberg, have been doing it for quite a while too!), and IMHO their exclusion is one of those old ideas that haven't stood the test of later results (the same for the ideas that group 3 or group 11 are not transition groups, too). Double sharp (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Double sharp: Thanks for your messages! Yes I was not aware that the d subshell in the zinc group can appear close to the top of the valence band, that is new. I stated that about the p orbitals because as is probably somewhat known, Weinhold and Landis feel that transition metals should not use their p orbitals. I subscribed to that view until recently when they disputed the use of d orbitals for alkaline earth metals when it is quite clear they at the edge of the s block can use p orbitals (Beryllium and Magnesium) and d orbitals (everything below) and there is experimental evidence for this such as bent dihalides. I immediately reverted some of my edits upon that realization. The tendency for computations to turn out low occupancies for p orbitals in transition metals does quite an amount to advance that position I must say. What are your thoughts on this issue?--Officer781 (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Funny you should ask, I have a whole user subpage about it: User:Double sharp/Idealised electron configurations. ^_^

BTW, since you seem to be interested in these things: if it is not too much trouble, could you step in at WT:ELEM, as we seem to be having a deadlock there? The issue there is the old one about the composition of group 3 (Sc-Y-La or Sc-Y-Lu). You can see where it started in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 42 and then at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 44, before its finish at the main WT:ELEM talk page. I realise those are really walls of text, so I really won't mind if you can't. Double sharp (talk) 04:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Double sharp: My preference is for Lanthanides to be defined until Ytterbium only, while Actinides are defined until Nobelium. Lutetium and Lawrencium are d-block and the supposed d electron in Lanthanum and Actinium are to be considered the "d1 exceptions" commonly found in the f-block. You might be happy since a little reading on your long posts suggests we agree on this issue. I admit I am not well-read on this issue so I may not add so much to the discussion. I will need some time to absorb the discussions.--Officer781 (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes, we are in agreement about this: I would prefer to define "transition metals" as "all of group 3-12" indeed, i.e. Sc-Zn, Y-Cd, Lu-Hg, Lr-Cn, (157-166). ^_^ Don't worry about the time; just join in when you feel you can. I plan to start an RFC about changing this only in July when I have the time to do it (currently rather pressed IRL). Double sharp (talk) 10:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Double sharp: I'd caution against "defining" transition metals since Wikipedia is supposed to base its information on authoritative sources such as IUPAC. We could shift Scandium and Yttrium to the column on top of Lutetium and Lawrencium in the long periodic table but I'd caution against changing their colours to that of transition metals. Same goes for Zinc. The colours of the elements ought to be based on what IUPAC says despite our preferences. I'd most definitely like to see that ugly "jut" or "overhang" from Scandium and Yttrium removed. For the short periodic table, IUPAC seems to have a working group to discuss which to put in Group 3. Seems like no progress yet but the short periodic table could probably stay neutral by having all 15 elements in the outside rows. I'd suggest the below:

• Long periodic table: Remove the jut please. Scandium and Yttrium above Lutetium and Lawrencium. I don't think IUPAC has a definitive long periodic table. Leave the colours for the 15 elements as they are unless IUPAC changes their definitions.
• Short periodic table: The definitive periodic table by IUPAC here probably ought to be followed, so all 15 elements in the row below. Wikipedia putting Lanthanum and Actinium in Group 3 is probably biased on Wikipedia's part because IUPAC does not follow that.

If it were up to me I'd definitely side with you, but again Wikipedia does not belong to us.--Officer781 (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

"What IUPAC says" is a surprisingly fraught question. First, let's check the Gold Book:

Although that excludes group 12, nobody listens to it anyway, because it literally implies that uranium is a transition metal. A gaseous uranium atom sitting alone and minding its own business has electron configuration [Rn]5f³6d¹7s².

So, now that we've thrown out that definition, let's check the Red Book:

So, that exactly supports my preferred definition. Group 12 can be included, it can also not be, both are fine. But chemically speaking it surely is not too different from group 11: both use d electrons. Yes, literally speaking this means that Lu is both a lanthanide and a transition metal; Lr is both an actinide and a transition metal. Well, nothing wrong with that, it just makes colouring difficult.

I rather suspect you will find an awful lot of mutually contradicting definitions around for such things anyway. This is the same Red Book that recommends "lanthanoid" and "actinoid" instead of "lanthanide" and "actinide", and that is not widely followed. ^_^

As for group 3: I rather think that the current Sc-Y-* IUPAC table is not a good example to follow when IUPAC itself says the only alternatives it is considering for its group 3 project are Sc-Y-La and Sc-Y-Lu. So, no matter what is decided, it is going to be deprecated. Not to mention that it literally implies that group 3 has 32 elements in it, which is rather emphatically a fringe view by now (it makes chemical nonsense anyway, just think of uranium). There are a lot of things that IUPAC recommends that nobody follows. And in that case I think it's wiser to look at other sources. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

(outdent)@Double sharp: The way I see it, for the short and long periodic tables there are safe and not-so-safe moves:

Long periodic table:

• Safe (do this please): Shift the placement of Scandium and Yttrium to be above Lutetium and Lawrencium.
• Not-so-safe (icing on cake, probably not so neutral): Change the colours.

Short periodic table:

• Safe (do this please): Shift Lanthanum and Actinium out into the rows below the main table.
• Not-so-safe (icing on cake, probably not so neutral): Put Lutetium and Lawrencium into Group 3 or change the colours or both.

Me thinks safe measures should be proposed separately lest they don't get passed just because the not-so-safe ones weren't accepted. I'd really like the safe measures passed.--Officer781 (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

What I was planning on proposing was the safe measure for the long periodic table combined with the first bit of the not-so-safe one for the short one: that way, Sc-Y-Lu is consistent everywhere. The reasons are that (1) the long periodic table is supposed to be literally the short one with the footnote pasted back in, and so they shouldn't be different, and (2) Sc-Y-Lu reflects the consensus of most sources who argue about the group 3 issue. But I was not planning to change the colours as people can probably guess already that Lu and Lr are both transition metals and lanthanides/actinides respectively. ^_^ It'd look like this (I haven't recoloured group 12 here, we can fight that one separately to not muddy the waters). Double sharp (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Double sharp: The reason why I feel putting Lutetium and Lawrencium into the main table is unsafe is this logic:

1. When one constructs a long periodic table from scratch, he will not split a block without due reason. So having an unsplit d-block is in fact unbiased. Splitting it is biased toward the La/Ac position. There is no other way to do it so we are forced to choose one. We simply choose the unbiased choice.
2. However, in the short periodic table, we do have a choice to put both outside or put either one in. By putting either one in, we are being biased. The true unbiased choice is in fact to leave all 15 elements outside.

I think the IUPAC set the standard for what it means to be unbiased until their task group comes up with which one to put in. That might be the good time to shift either one or the other into the main table for the short periodic table.--Officer781 (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Well, my logic is that the 18- and 32-column forms are not supposed to be different; they represent the same structure. You can move the footnote back in and out mentally. If you put La and Ac in group 3 in the 32-column form, you also have to do it in the analogous 18-column form; same for Lu and Lr. If you go for a Sc-Y-* table in the 18-column form, then you literally have to stretch the boxes for Sc and Y in the 32-column form to create the same structure, and I don't think anybody does that. And I suppose we should note that creating such a strange group rather than having single elements under Y is also not something people will do without due reason. ^_^ Not to mention that it makes no chemical sense whatsoever, and that you will not find people seriously claiming much that uranium is a group 3 element, and that the one thing we know about IUPAC's project is that they are going to deprecate this form no matter what.

I think the one who put it best was William B. Jensen:

(Although I wonder what people then thought about cerium. Surely cerium(IV) was well-known already...) Double sharp (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

P.S. I added you to my "Acknowledgements" list for my woefully incomplete manifesto. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Double sharp: Sure. You probably do have a point there about the short periodic table. I'm not leaving the option out though especially if people object. How successful are such proposals going to be actually? I'd really just want to get rid of the Scandium/Yttrium overhang in the long periodic table. It is ugly and very artificial IMO. I am pretty okay however else.--Officer781 (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. My plan was always to propose Sc-Y-Lu, FWIW. And then see what consensus decides. ^_^

As for chance of success – we had a five-way discussion on WT:ELEM, which so far has three (including myself and an experienced computational chemist) explicitly supporting Sc-Y-Lu, one explicitly supporting Sc-Y-La, and one who seems to be more sympathetic to Sc-Y-Lu but has been urging me to see where the Sc-Y-La side is coming from to argue better. (Well, I was on that side till I learnt more. XD) So, I think that we have a significant chance of success. XD Double sharp (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Double sharp:Wow. I just saw your acknowledgement. I'm placed in front. I didn't really provide much, haha. Although it is okay if you insist. ^.^ I'll back your side up if there are any discussions, do ping me if you have any active ones.--Officer781 (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I put everybody in alphabetical order; that's why you were in front. ^_^ Unfortunately I just realised I forgot somebody, so I beg forgiveness for bumping you to second place again. m(_ _)m

Thank you! Although I hope it's because of sources and not just because I say so. ^_^ I will be sure to invite you to participate when the RFC launches (still planned for July). Double sharp (talk) 14:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Double sharp: Thank you too, for the discussion and acknowledgement! May I know what the RFC is? I don't usually participate in WikiProject stuff so I'm not very familiar with things around here.--Officer781 (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Double sharp: Oh I found it here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Will read.--Officer781 (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Double sharp: I just read some of the long posts on the WP ELEM talk page. Although I had one or two long Wikipedia exchanges on talk pages before it is not my wish to go about debating things over a long period of time. Are there any plans to change anything? Id be happier to participate on those rather than debates especially if we run afoul of Wikipedia's neutrality rule. I do not intend to spend my limited lockdown time having long walls of arguments. I notice that many points have been said which are beyond the depth that I could contribute. I only know some layman's arguments for the Lu/Lr that I can think of.--Officer781 (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

So far we just seem to have a disagreement on the material at Periodic table summarising the group 3 issue. As I said, I plan to start the RFC for actually changing to Lu/Lr in July. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Double sharp: I have thought about what you meant by "chemically active subshell" (currently a placeholder) and thought that "valence shell" is the most commonly used term that seems similar to it that is scientifically incorrect. I also thought about how professional chemists refer to it and realized, don't we call these things "valence orbitals"? That's the correct scientific terminology for orbitals that can react and gain or lose electrons. See [14] for example.--Officer781 (talk) 06:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it is. I used a less standard term mostly to avoid getting into quibbles about things like Ne 2p, which is obviously involved in determining Ne's (lack of) chemistry but is obviously not reacting. And also because otherwise you get into a pickle with the d involvements of Zn, Cd, and Hg. But maybe these are not so different from normal "valence shells" as to need different terminology. I may change it.

I personally think that so far, the best way to define what exactly I want to talk about would indeed be to look at chemically normal bonding structures and see what orbitals are contributing significantly to the bonding. (So not weird things like CsF₃, say.) This just requires some common sense for neon 2p with no expected neutral compounds (helium 1s at least has some predicted metastable ones, which is all you will get for superheavies too anyway). Or maybe it should be broadened even to charged species... Double sharp (talk) 06:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I did change it. Neon is not a problem, you can get it to bond in charged species. Only neutral species are problematic. XD Double sharp (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Double sharp: I think the "shell" and "subshell" terminology, while accurate for describing the quantum numbers, is not very helpful for chemical reactions. Somehow it's still ingrained in chemical thought.--Officer781 (talk) 08:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Periodic table".The discussion is about the topic Periodic table.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--Double sharp (talk) 08:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Since you asked at WP:DRN.

There was one article claiming they do in LuF₃, but the findings were questioned later by others, and later calculations suggest there really isn't such bonding (4f involvement calculated was even less than for IrF₃). Probably significant IMHO as electronegative ligands like F and O should be best way to bring out deeply buried subshells (e.g. ZnF₂, YbO when 3d/4f respectively become valent, whereas if you replace with ZnS or YbS they're not significant IIRC). Double sharp (talk) 14:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Looks like there needs to be a consensus for this. I would greatly appreciate your input, for or against. :) Neovu79 (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Neovu79: I am afraid I am out of touch with this topic for years and as such am unable to provide constructive input. My apologies.--Officer781 (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Forgot to ping you on my talk page. So: the reason why I wrote it out explicitly is to not actually say what elements are in group 3. But: if it causes this much drama even if this is not said, then it's not worth the trouble to be explicit about exactly which elements have which valence orbitals. So, I am fine with you keeping it this way and will not edit it further. Double sharp (talk) 10:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Unit cell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parallelotope. 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) 05:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Electrification, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nuclear energy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks :). You may be intereted in the CC wikiproject:

Please accept this invite to join WikiProject Climate change, where we work together to improve Wikipedia's content related to climate change. Simply click here and follow the instructions to accept! {{{Signature}}}

FemkeMilene (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't use a mobile device for WP because of so many bad experiences with it, so I'm not surprised that any special formatting requires care. Regarding this change, is the underlying cause that there was no </div> for that tag? DMacks (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes I guess you are right (no closing div tag), although in this case I am not too sure what advantage the div provided. Since I am not too familiar with the markup I simply removed it.--Officer781 (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Someday, someone will sort out the history of SPH and the redirect will turn into another SPH article. ¯\_( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)_/¯ – robertsky (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Robertsky: Lets see what happens to the "other businesses" SPH first. May get bought over (by Keppel or Cuscaden?). In which case I think the current arrangement will be enough. I'm okay with another SPH article as long as other Singaporeans are okay with it.--Officer781 (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Robertsky: Seems like someone moved it back. I will leave it to WikiProject Singapore to decide I guess.--Officer781 (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Robertsky: Thanks so much for your help. Turns out you are that someone. I didn't have much idea on how to rewrite that article and didn't really find the time to do it. But nonetheless this was quite needed--Officer781 (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

well, you started the ball rolling. it just needed some refinement. – robertsky (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Eh... if you are moving SPH Mediaworks into the history section of SMT, would it be more appropriate if it is just excluded totally since the division only existed in SPHL? – robertsky (talk) 05:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Robertsky: I think that seems fine. I will remove it.--Officer781 (talk) 08:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Robertsky: Wow you beat me to it. Ok.--Officer781 (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

sorry. decided to be bold about it. 😂😁 – robertsky (talk) 08:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, noted that you moved the page but did not add a source on the name change afterwords. Are you able to provide a reliable source for this name change? Thanks~! --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk)

@Justanothersgwikieditor: Please compare this image here: [15] with this image: File:Concord_International_Hospital_Building.jpg. Also, if you google the two the address is exactly the same: 19 Adam Rd, Singapore 289891. I could not find a proper source for this despite the name change being half a year already since the safety lapse incident. If you check MOH's website: [16] you will notice that Concord International Hospital is now missing and that Crawfurd Hospital appears in its place. Also Concord International Hospital site is no longer accessible. All these are indirect though unfortunately. We might need to see if the Singapore news sites cover this name change. I have nonetheless added CNA's "could reopen under new name" source in one of my previous edits: [17].--Officer781 (talk) 10:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Until there is a reliable source, or even primary source just to indicate they were renamed, we should not make the name change. Based on your evidence, they could have sold off the hospital and some other company starts a new hospital without any changes and that will be a new article on its own. I try to dig around and see whether can I find any sources to support the name changes. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk)

@Justanothersgwikieditor: Thanks for the help. Actually, I would like to point out that it was not Concord initially, so this is the second time this selling has happened to that particular hospital. We do not have a separate Fortis Colorectal Hospital article, so I do not think that it is notable enough to warrant a separate page. We can just note on the current page and find the references for it. Concord did sell the hospital though as stated here: [18]. I will try to add this to the article.--Officer781 (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Navies/WO/Romania has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

FWIW I don't think hatnote means what you think it means. Nardog (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Right, thanks for the heads up! It looks like the correct terminology is explanatory footnote. --Officer781 (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm pretty sure that this will not work to activate a ping. It has to be recognised as a completely new chunk of signed text for the notifications to go out. You might want to ping again to get the comments you are seeking. SpinningSpark 12:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Latest stable software release/Media Player has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 07:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I just like to clarify that La Salle and NAFA should have the UAS portion as part of history. Even if it is current event, it would be considered as part of history eventually and hence into the history section. While in future, if there is enough content or the effect of restructuring into UAS has a profound impact of history, we can create a subsection from the moment UAS is created. IP editor should not reverted the changes for NAFA in the first place. Thanks! Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 10:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sure. I didn't want to edit war with the IP. Anyway, I just wanted to make the two pages somewhat equivalent in terms of the recent changes regarding UAS. Thanks for helping out. We could go to the talk page if the IP decides to revert again.--Officer781 (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

No worries, I will usually revert them once and see how they behave. If they reverted again, then I will attempt to engage them in the talkpage and wait a few days for any replies before reverting again. Of course, you can choose how you want to engage with them. Thanks for all the help in Singapore related articles. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

 Template:IDF Enlisted ranks has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:National Healthcare Group Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Khoo Teck Puat Hospital Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 13:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply