|Babel user information|
|Users by language|
|This is a Wikipedia user page.|
This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at
I first began to read Wikipedia in 2006 and made my first few edits as an IP starting in early February 2009. About six months later, I created this account on 7 August 2009. And now it is over ten years later! ^_^
I have had quite a few pseudonyms here before finally deciding on this one in late 2011. I'm still not sure I like it, but I haven't thought of anything better, and in any case after seven years it is surely too late to change it when people know me as this now.
Feel free to talk to me in Chinese or French if you don't speak English; I am pretty fluent in those (albeit I might need some warming up if I haven't been speaking in one in a while – the 4 I give myself is more for comprehension, and I may still make the occasional silly mistake). With anything else, it depends quite a bit on when I last used it. ^_^
I don't really have that much to say about myself here, though if you want to metaphorically sit down and have a chat over some imaginary tea, my talk page is always open. ^_^
My writing on Wikipedia
I tend to focus on writing and improving content, which for me is after all the main thing in Wikipedia. Therefore, I tend to stick to writing what I know about and can improve, preferably to GA or FA, so that interested readers will get quality information. So far, I have only made such large-scale contributions in chemistry and astronomy, although I have made smaller-scale ones in some other fields, such as classical music, mathematics, and chess. I try my best to be able to think, learn, and admit to being mistaken, which has apparently become a surprisingly rare ability on most people's character sheets today (well I never). If you think I am failing at this, I always welcome a good and well-deserved trout slapping.
I tend to use userspace drafts (see Special:PrefixIndex/User:Double sharp/ for a list) instead of writing directly into an article. This allows me to space work out and avoid burnout, and allows me to work on things in any order before the first draft of the final product comes out. To write a quality article on a subject, one has to love it, to lovingly write every bit of it from the most esoteric to the most common, and work it out in all its dimensions in research. If done well, the reader should realise how much love has been given in the writing and the text. As Beethoven wrote in the dedication to the Missa solemnis, Op. 123, Von Herzen – Möge es wieder – Zu Herzen gehn!
It can really be difficult in chemistry articles to write something that is correct, reasonably complete, and is easily understandable to the layman. Any pair among these taken alone would be much easier. This is why reviews are invaluable! ^_^
I use British English, with the exception of sulfur and its derivatives (e.g. sulfurous, sulfuric, sulfide, etc.). (I also tend to use logical full stops like that one when no one else would probably be bothered in talk-page comments, but this wouldn't normally arise in articles.) This is mostly because of IUPAC, and is really mandated on WP only for chemistry articles, but I may unconsciously use it elsewhere (and if so, I have no problem with it being edited!)
respond on talk pages for Ts, Mt
First priorities work on Al and Hs, then PR Fe. Then work with R8R on Au and then I'll run around fixing some of the other articles (Gd and Tb for some easy lanthanides to get into shape, then Mg to finish the column, then I promise to finally fix Ra and groups IIA and VIIB so that I can create good topics, and fix Sn on the side as the ancient metal no one seems to like. Did I mention P and S too?)
I think sulfur will be first among the total rewrites, followed probably by magnesium, phosphorus, and tin (maybe not in that order). I may then similarly clean up some of the first few...lithium FA still is a goal! (Well, really, the siren call is to FA the entire 2nd period, but that may be a while away. ^_^)
Mine 10.1088/1402-4896/aa53c1 for superheavy history. Add 10.7566/JPSJ.86.085001 and fix that bare URL cite on Nh
10.1002/ejic.201600146 for Cn and Fl valence states; 10.1016/j.cplett.2016.11.023 for Ts and TsH properties
10.1002/(SICI)1521-3773(19981002)37:18<2493::AID-ANIE2493>3.0.CO;2-F (stability of the +4 state from C to Fl)
look again at bismuth; explain why Bi3+ isn't anywhere near as basic as its size would predict (there was something in G&E about this, and yes I know that ionic radius alone doesn't determine basicity but does suggest it). also hora hora
RM groups 13 and 14
Argh, I'd better finish radium too (10.1002/14356007.o22_o15 Ullmann is lame, but contains a few things; Gmelin should have more except that I don't have it T_T)
Update lutetium with the cassiopeium campaign (hey, Bohr got behind it, even from behind the scenes)
- Update /Jmol colour scheme
- get that picture of Morita's team (http://www.nishina.riken.jp/labo/superheavy_product_e.html)
- Kouji Morimoto, Kosuke Morita, ???
- ???, ???, ???
Rare earths: 10.1002/14356007.a22_607
mention somewhere how aluminium is almost a "group 3 element" continuing the trend up from Sc, Y, La, and Ac, probably with less lame arguments than in that other paper I remember seeing
on nonmetallicity: relate acidity/basicity of oxide to hydrolysis (from hypothetical "aquated ions" to hydroxides, following that article's organisation, calling even the acids involving the p-block elements hydroxides)
Some of our old GAs suck (carbon, thulium, I am looking at you) and will have to be fixed too. Actually most of the old transition metal GAs fall into this class. And fix that sucky section on hydrogen in the group 1 article!!!
Articles for which I have done some rewriting, research, or both have a red outline for the cell.
Those in violet have not yet been released to the mainspace, since they are in progress (or are just plans).
I suppose technically I should put the hypothetical elements 119, 120, and 121 on the table as they have articles which I largely rewrote, but I am quite loath to do it if they haven't yet been discovered. Predictions have been used for categorising Mt through Og (except Cn); that I can stomach since the elements themselves are known.
Group 3 has been shown as Sc-Y-Lu-Lr to make the d-block more homogeneous and emphasise blocks; a metal–nonmetal dichotomy has been used; and He has been shown over Be to emphasise the range of applicability of the "duet rule" for the filled 1s2 subshell and underscore how it shields better than any other noble gas core (this is why Li is "too electropositive" for its position in the periodic table, for instance; it gives away the 2s electron quite readily despite it being so close to the nucleus, see 10.1002/jcc.20522). He over Be took quite a lot of convincing for me; I'm still not sure if I'm convinced that it's better than He over Ne, but I've put it up here (1) as a provocation to think and (2) because the difference in electron configuration between He and the other noble gases really does have chemical consequences, on other elements as well, that are AFAIK not often remarked on.
The next ones will probably be the really famous elements in the first 20. The ones left are Mg, Al, Si, P, and S. And I had better rewrite the chemistry sections for B and C; they are not too well-cited. Well admittedly carbon is difficult to treat, but O is a good model for such a common element.
I suppose the element-by-element way of looking at thing is a very inorganic-minded approach. I would do it differently for organic compounds, except that since we look at individual elements so early in chemistry teaching I think it's a good approach to clear out the famous elements first. Maybe we'll move on in a few years?
By the way, why do so many People capitalise the Names of Elements? Surely we are not speaking German, and they are not Proper Nouns.
Reminder to self: go through IAEA's nuclear data and add all those more recent heavy isotopes which NUBASE doesn't have to the isotope articles.
Reply to Basemetal, R8R, and EdChem on my talk page; restart the on-hiatus group 3 thing with Droog Andrey
Also discuss whether we really listen to music by thinking of possible harmonies, as this neglects motivic construction, and also notes that we don't just use the past to predict the future, but also use the future to explain the past, plus intelligibility and the need to modulate to V
Mostly, in this field I write about the First Viennese School, as that is the music I grew up with and that I love the most. I have an almost equal love for the Second, as well as many of the other 20th-century composers active in Western Europe, but I do find it more difficult to understand despite being impressed by how beautiful it sounds. This is not a criticism: the latter is already a great victory for the composer, and I think that perhaps in some time I shall be able to naturally understand it more quickly. (And, after all, I do not think my understanding of Webern's Variations improved that significantly after finding out what the tone row it used actually was, because it is already so expressive regardless of that and perhaps a conscious understanding of those elements is neither necessary nor altogether desirable – if you play enough Chopin, you will know what I mean!) As would logically follow, I also love anything overtly neoclassical (referring back to the actual Classical era), ranging from Ravel to Hindemith with a stop at Mahler along the way. ^_^ (Well, I was thinking of the Fourth when I wrote that, but who can deny the power of the 580 + 1572 measures of the Eighth?)
(Of course, I love J. S. Bach as well – that goes without saying – but I find that I love him even more when I play him instead of just listening to him. There are many things that only become obvious when they are under one's fingers, and remain out of reach when they are under one's nose. And just about all the other greats, really.)
This of course does not stop me from loving other composers. I can surely love them before understanding completely why I do. It is just that the latter is needed for writing intelligently about them.
Note to self: look at chromatic scale WP history
I should really go fix up a composer article. How about Bellini for a start? The life's been done already, but his style needs a separate and longer section, not to mention his influence...or indeed Schumann, that one needs some work