Geojournal

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Geojournal, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Geojournal! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for kinda-sorta baiting you at the help desk... I hope that we can all walk away a bit smarter from this... RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I also came here to apologize for taking you to SPI. Given the history of this sock farm, I'm a little wary of certain things. My deepest apologies to you, Geojournal. Happy editing and welcome! CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

No need for that and thank you for the warm welcome! It's really no big deal and I can say I've had fun with this tense process... nevertheless I hope we can all contribute to a better future of Wikipedia and work coherently to solve problems as was done here. Best of luck with your investigations! Geo ^talk 22:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

CSD A7 nominations

Hi there,

Please take some time to review both our notability guidelines and CSD criteria before continuing to nominate articles for speedy deletion according to criterion A7. Elected national-level politicians like MPs are considered notable per WP:POLOUTCOMES, and certainly don't qualify for speedy deletion on grounds of notability alone. A quick check of Category:Members of the Parliament of England (pre-1707) should reveal that there are many thousands of comparable articles. (Also note that here you tagged a disambiguation page for speedy deletion even though it obviously falls outside the scope of A7.) Thank you, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful suggestions, Juliancolton. I will certainly keep them in mind next time when reviewing new articles. Geo ^talk 20:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt response. Your efforts in patrolling new article creations are certainly appreciated – it's simply an area that requires plenty of care and attention. In most cases, it's better to give article creators a chance to flesh out their submissions than to immediately tag for deletion, even if notability is not immediately clear. If you ever have any questions or find yourself uncertain about how to deal with a dubious page, please feel free to contact me for help. Regards, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

phosphorus GA

Hello from the Elements WikiProject! ^_^

I understand your enthusiasm, but I'm not sure if nominating phosphorus for GA is wise at the moment: it may look like it has a lot of information, but it is rather disjointed (cf. the precautions section), and many important aspects are either covered poorly, not at all, or are stated just plain wrongly. For example we mention black phosphorus, but not that it occurs in three crystalline forms and is a semiconductor; the process of isolation of white phosphorus from bone ash is totally without references; and phosphides are said to contain a "P³⁻" anion, which is at best just plain misleading. Meanwhile nothing at all is stated about how quite a few of these compounds are useful in chemistry; while the ionic-covalent divide running through the PX₅ can be inferred from the text it is not clearly stated; and the article seems content to just list the oxoacids of phosphorus without any context (while this is understandable, phosphorus having the most oxoanions and oxo-salts of any element but silicon, which surpasses it, it does not really make it excusable for a candidate GA). The incredible richness of P–N compounds is dismissed as having "potentially useful properties" (how vague!) and no discussion of the very interesting bonding is given. The dicussion of organophosphorus compounds is a start but is totally uncited. There's a reason why this article is currently rated as C-class; it would take quite a bit of time to correct these flaws and get it up to meet the good article criteria. Granted, it is not quite as bad as, say, calcium, but it still has flaws that I do not think could be fixed in the requisite seven days of a GA review.

Please don't let this dishearten you; I know it is very fun to nominate articles which look close to being ready (even if they really aren't), and I was rather guilty of it many times in my early days at the project. Fortunately at the time the problems with this were ameliorated by the fact that we had many active editors who could address the problems at the GAN and have a rewrite out before then, and there were more articles then which truly were closer to GA than phosphorus is now; at the moment we do not have as many and the time the few of us left have is occupied on various other projects. (It is partially for this reason that I haven't started reviewing dubnium for GA; it could be done quickly, but I am concerned that with the lead FA ongoing we may not have enough time for it.)

I do intend to get to Si, P, and S later this year; would you mind withdrawing the GA nomination till I or somebody else fixes these problems? If you do decide to keep it on, given the backlog at GA, I could probably get it done before a review started, but it would imply working rather stressfully quickly here and once again postponing some projects that I've repeatedly been postponing to get as much of the table "green" as possible (e.g. thorium FA push since 2014; hassium FA push since 2012; alkali metal FA push since 2011).

I do hope you understand my concerns, but I will not mind if you do choose to keep the GAN for phosphorus going: we will have to get it done sooner or later anyway, and it might as well be sooner. My only concern is that the rich chemistry of the element, its personality, be done justice to based on significant descriptive chemistry classics (e.g. Holleman & Wiberg, Greenwood & Earnshaw, and Cotton & Wilkinson): otherwise we get into the situation of chalcogen, whose inappropriate GA rating took three and a half years to remove despite concerns from chemists. I'd rather not get into that again. Double sharp (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. I understand your concerns and after a closer look at the article, I would say that even in the time of seven days, it is definitely unwise (and may otherwise result in error) to work so strenuously in such a rapid time frame. But, I will check back in about a month or so to check on progress and consider nomination then (if GA has not already been achieved). Thank you for your concerns! Geo ^talk 19:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

No problem, and thank you! I was hoping to get to silicon first, but this is fine too and I'll try to get something done on it soon before 23 May rolls around. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hungary

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hungary you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jacktime34 -- Jacktime34 (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Kalray

Hi, I'm Bfpage. Geojournal, thanks for creating Kalray!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. I will edit to make this article less promotional and more encyclopedic

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

  Bfpage  _{let's talk...}  23:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I have some questions:

• Where is the company located?
• Do you know how to add an infobox?

  Bfpage  _{let's talk...}  00:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd be pleased to answer your questions. I forgot to include the information but Kalray S.A. is based in Orsay, France. And yes, I am well aware of how to add an infobox, but I didn't take the time yet seeing as how tons of work must be done anyway on the article and I wasn't even sure if it would get deleted or not as there appears to have been a previous dispute over its creation. Geo ^talk 00:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kalray, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chip. 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) 11:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hungary

The article Hungary you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Hungary for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent nomination of Hungary to be a Good Article

Geojournal, you have recently returned from hiatus and, for a second time, nominated Hungary to be a good article, but you have never made any significant contributions to the article. Under the circumstances, per the GA instructions, as you are not a significant contributor, it is incumbent upon you to consult with those who are significant contributors on the article's talk page to see whether they believe the article is ready to be nominated.

Quite frankly, a quick look through the article shows some sections and major parts of sections that are completely unsourced, which violates the part of the GA criteria that requires articles to be fully verifiable; there are other issues with the criteria as well that would keep the article from succeeded at GAN.

Borsoka was quite right when they reverted your GA nomination, noting that the article was not ready to be a GA. You renominated the article anyway, and got a reviewer who raised POV and other issues (neutrality is another GA criterion), and then you blanked the review. You're simply not allowed to do that.

If you wish to withdraw the nomination, you certainly can do that; just let me know and I'll take care of the withdrawal. Regardless, I will have to revert your blanking of the review, since it was out of process. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Since you attempted both to blank the review page again—completely out of process—and remove the nomination from the Talk:Hungary page, that seems a clear enough indication that you want to withdraw the nomination, so I'm going to process things accordingly. I'm also going to ask you to not nominate this article again, since it's clear you don't understand how the GAN process should work or what articles need in order to qualify. Please do not do any further edits in this space. Thanks.

Note to Favonian, who undid your latest GA-related edits: I'll be properly closing the GA review because of the withdrawal. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked this account indefinitely for its last couple of edits, which included this. This would be odd at any time, but it's especially odd given that neither this nor the targeted account have otherwise been active recently. I'm therefore blocking until there's an explanation. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Please unblock me now, SarahSV. Geo ^talk 17:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, can you explain what happened? SarahSV ^(talk) 00:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

A while back, I seem to have been in an unfortunate rage due to some unfortunate personal circumstances and made some wildly inappropriate edits to Wikipedia. It has been more than a few months now and I completely understand how the vandalism-like edits I made to Wikipedia were extremely detrimental. However, I am now in a much better state of mind, have some more time on my hands, and above all feel ready and competent to be able to contribute to Wikipedia in a professional, site-building manner. I would greatly appreciate being able to edit Wikipedia again. SarahSV. Geo ^talk 14:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)