User talk:ComplexRational

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

vn-2This user talk page has been vandalized 2 times.

Superheavy element

Hi. I was wondering if you were interested in looking into improving superheavy element after you're done with island of stability. I recently saw an interesting article that I think would make a great addition to the topic; the article was about how this research is of little practical interest and the difficulties (primarily, financial) it faces because of that. The article is in Russian, but I could send you what Google Translate can make out it, regardless of whether you will do it or just would be curious to read the article. This motivated me to add that at first but I have my hands full and I thought this may be interesting for you.

@Double sharp: you may be curious to read this as well.--R8R (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@R8R: I would certainly be interested in taking up that project in the near future (provided that this semester doesn't prove too tasking). As a matter of fact, this would be a perfect opportunity to include some other information I read about superheavy elements—as island of stability deals specifically and exclusively with nuclear properties, this is the other half of the puzzle. Now I am curious about this article, and even if it's a machine translation, I'll still see if I can integrate it. Thanks for sharing this! ComplexRational (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@R8R: I for one am interested too – even as I stand frustrated enough with writing a lede for the properties section of Al that I have half a mind to just start spamming out about the chemistry and go back to that later... Double sharp (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Great! As a matter of fact, I did have the impression this article was a translation from English, and now I have found the original text. Bloomberg is an appropriate place to complain at the expense of this, isn't it? :)

Definitely worth mentioning if we compile a section describing difficulties of SHE research. ComplexRational (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Glad we are on the same page here! To contrast this, however, I should mention that I've heard Oganessian say that while these experiments are expensive, they also lead to good by-products, like the experiment on element 118 also gave us some cool material, some kind of a nano-fiber..? As you can see, I have clearly forgotten the details, but I think this should be interesting for you as well. This should not be to difficult to find and correct what I obviously remember incorrectly: Double sharp sent me a bunch of videos from Dubna and asked me to watch them and tell what was in those videos, and this was mentioned in one of those, so I'll later check it up and tell you what it is exactly in that video. Ping me if I haven't done that in a couple of weeks.--R8R (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you still have the links? I could even email Double sharp later – this will indeed prove interesting. ComplexRational (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Seems to be User talk:R8R/Archive 5#if only I could understand Russian. Double sharp (talk) 04:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, that's precisely it. I found it in video 2, the roughly one minute long part that starts at 6:15. I will transcribe it to you later.--R8R (talk) 06:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

So, for a bit of a context: this is a report from Saturday news, where big events from the week are recollected and analyzed more scrupulously than in a typical news report. These news contains extensive (by TV news standards) reports, 5 to 10 minutes long. This one was dedicated to JINR and specifically Oganessian, after whom an element had been named recently.

Host, narrating the clip: "During the reconstruction of the material history of our Universe, scientists operate with another beautiful image: a ship that goes across the ocean of high science but catches into its net a lot of various things, seemingly marginal but very useful in practical life. Foe example, next to the big accelerator works its younger brother. Here, a phrase that is not very common for our science is heard: profitable production. Business? Raw material? (Oganessian and the host approach a handful of transparent film rolls) Well, just some kind of film like any other. I tried to get impressed. (Host, into the camera, behind a sheet of film) "And we can even look through it." And here, at the next display stand, Oganessian shows us the extra zoomed in photo of a human hair and to the same scale, holes that result on the same film after special treatment. The diameter of the holes is 1 micron! And, for example, the diameter of bacteria is 40. Turns out, it's a membrane! (Oganessian) "You can drink water from a puddle. You can be absolutely calm. Not a single bacterium will pass." A great invention both for the army and for medicine. And what gave birth to this? Works for this very oganesson did. And to think that just a thousandth of a second of lifetime, just one atom per month! That's, by the way, why all properties of this new element still have not been studied. And scientists all across the world study them. And even now Dubna does not break its relations even with America." From there, Oganessian says that the difficult relations between our countries are not a problem for the JINR and takes delight in that, but the part that you're most interested in here is over.
So, this is not a lot, but I could sometime look closely about this film and what it has to do with oganesson if you're curious. Well, I am, so I will, but you asking me to do it can speed that up a little.--R8R (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Double sharp: definitely, save the lead text for last. A lead section is supposed to summarize the article, and to summarize an article, you need the said article, right? Same goes here. At first I tried the more intuitive approach: lead first, details second. It didn't go well because I wrote the lead section without too much knowledge and then I got the knowledge, and I was eager to add that, some things were worth adding, some were not, the list of what I wanted in the lead section changed constantly, and it had to be touched upon over and over. So just forget about it for now and by all means, feel free to do the spamming.--R8R (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@R8R and Double sharp: I assume this project means converting superheavy element from a redirect into an article? If so, I'll start some outlining and drafting. ComplexRational (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh! I didn't realize superheavy element was not an article of its own. There is generally little non-overlap between the superheavy elements and the transuranium elements, so I think it's better to develop the existing article.--R8R (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Probably transactinide element will be our target then. Transuranium elements also include 93-103, so I am thinking of boldly retargeting superheavy element there as that is the precise term. ComplexRational (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

(Talkpage stalking) Allow me to note: Island of stability is under peer review only now. After that, we need User:CR to make it an FA ;-). Only then CR is free to spend time elsewhere. -DePiep (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

GA review

Thanks for the very smooth review! Are there any article you've worked on that you'd like me to review? Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: Glad to help! And thanks for contributing this well-written, informative article!

Don't worry about any form of QPQ, though. While I'm not approaching GA with any particular article now, I hope to get an FAC for Island of stability underway soon if you have any suggestions there or at the open peer review. Any comments or bold edits are welcome if you'd like, but again, don't stress about it. Cheers, ComplexRational (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a look, though I'm afraid my chemistry knowledge may not be up to par. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Administrator changes

Barkeep49

Beetstra • KillerChihuahua • Kusma

Arcadian • Extraordinary Machine • Xeno

JamesBWatson → JBW

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

CheckUser changes

Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Oversight changes

Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

• As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

• The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
• The arbitration case regarding Fram was closed. While there will be a local RfC focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.

Miscellaneous

• The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 GOCE drive bling

		The Minor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to ComplexRational for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE September 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Thank you! Glad to help, and hopefully next time I'll be able to work on more articles. ComplexRational (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations!

From this barnstar I figure you're good at English; if I am correct, can I ask you for help when my measly attempts to write some prose need to be transferred for an external review (an FAC, for instance) or in similar situations? I'd greatly benefit from being able to ask a good speaker of AmE for help in such cases here and there. This is, of course, not going to happen very often, and is concerned possible future situations anyway, not with anything immediate. You may consider such inquiries favors that are to be returned if you want to :)--R8R (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@R8R: Thank you! I'd certainly be willing to help; just let me know and I'll do what I can. ComplexRational (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Isotopes by NUBASE 2016

Some months ago we changed the Big Isotopes Table header into {{Isotopes table}}. I have not spend much time on the source updates you have done (helium for example). I remember you wrote that some two dozen elements (the lighter ones) were updated into NUBASE 2016 and AME209016 etc.

My question is: shall we refine the sources for those isotope pages that have been updated to 2016? IMO, when that update was/is done, these changes are needed:

• In the {{Isotopes table}} header, set parameter |refs=NUBASE2016, AME2016 II,
• In the References section, remove the generic sources from "2003" etc. (generic = do not have a common <ref> foornote; e.g., Isotopes of niobium#References).

I myself cannot check whether an article is completely updated into 2016. -DePiep (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I can say for sure that 1-20 are updated (and I don't think any others were completely), so yes, the sources there should be changed to reflect the update if they do not already.

As for the other pages, I have temporarily paused in search of a faster way of updating – it is time-consuming and error-prone to scroll through pages and copy data for some 40 isotopes of some elements. For that, do you have any ideas to speed up the remaining updates? I can try to do some more if there are no alternatives, but I can't guarantee all the aforementioned time. ComplexRational (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I will clean up 1-20.

My approach would be:

1. Read the NUBASE and AME data tables automatically and put them in a spreadsheet (or database).

2. Put that data systematically in a Lua data file

3. Make modules & templates that read specific data for any isotope in any table

Sort of internal wikidata then. At the moment, I've build parser (non-Lua) tables, but for this too cumbersome and not flexible enough. See {{Infobox element/symbol-to--overview1}}.

-DePiep (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The maintenace = improvement process

We, WP:ELEMENTS people, are not "helped" when outsiders presecribe/deny how to do and not do our maintenance (maintenance = improving articles & the whole set). Enganging talkative with such outsiders does not help, it only suffocates good maintenance practices. Every true help is visible at WT:ELEMENTS. -DePiep (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not at all opposed to discussing at WT:ELEM nor to our current maintenance practices. However, even if we disagree with them, it's still better to at least listen to other ideas – I find that sometimes "outsider" input can be highly valuable (unless it's obviously in bad faith or confusion, but I don't see that happening here). When there is a better solution at WT:ELEM, we can go about our ways as usual, and no harm done. There's no need for the discussion (here the CfD) to degenerate to WP:ADHOM and no true scotsman – they do not help improve the encyclopedia.

Regarding the issue at hand: I stand by my argument for keeping the category you created (it is indeed useful – I've been thinking about something like this for a while), though I am curious if it is technically possible to use a template for this. ComplexRational (talk) 02:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@DePiep: For the 2148th time, please stop attacking or questioning my motives. I am also not an 'outsider', no matter how much you want to beat that drum or wish to diminish my contributions to WP:ELEMENTS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

You could have proposed your points at a talkpage. Nothing kept you from starting a talk with the WikiProject, or at the category's/template's talk page. By going XfD right from the start, you are evading cooperation with, eh, insiders. -DePiep (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

CFD is a discussion process open to everyone, which is suitable venue for hard-coded categories that affect everyone. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Victim of Vandalism

Hi ComplexRational. Was hoping to ask for your expertise regarding a victim of vandalism on Wikipedia. I noticed that you had recently made some very important edits to a page of a public figure who had fallen victim to someone posting untruths and lies and then locking the edits on their Wikipedia page. I have seen similar untruths posted to a page of a reporter of the TV news station (OANN) become victim to vandalism on his page. There are many untruths listed and then a lock was made on edits. As you can see by referring to his Everpedia page there are huge discrepancies in what is listed on his Wikipedia page (https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/jack-posobiec). If you can provide any assistance on accessing the page to rectify this issue, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thank you in advance. LadyLiberty1984 (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)LadyLiberty1984

Hi, LadyLiberty1984, and welcome. Just curious, which of my edits are you referencing exactly?

I am not familiar with the topic of the page (Jack Posobiec) and have never edited it. At a first glance, I would say that the wording could certainly be more neutral ("internet troll" does not sit well with me, for example) yet still reflect the sources (e.g. X and Y have described him as an internet troll because...^[sources]). While questionable, this does not fall under the scope of vandalism, so it cannot be treated as such. To resolve an issue like this, I would first recommend doing some research or discussing with an editor familiar with the subject, and adjusting the prose such that it does not include contentious labels but does not disregard (biased) sources that make such claims.

The best place to raise such a discussion would be the article's talk page, Talk:Jack Posobiec. Keep in mind that many discussions about the article's apparent bias have occurred and editors have concluded that it is acceptable because it is verifiable. The page protection is a result of edit warring about this "bias", so even when you can edit the article (upon becoming autoconfirmed – after 4 days and 10 edits), tread very cautiously.

I also see that your post here is your first edit. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask here or at the teahouse. Good luck! ComplexRational (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks so much for taking some time out of your day to read my post. The page I saw you made edits to is Mike Cernovich. There are similar inaccuracies on Jack Posobiec's page as was on Mike Cernovich's. If you can help in any way with making these edits or taking a look at some of the vandalism on Jack Posobiec's page, I'd very much appreciate your help. His Everipedia page lists information without bias and without opinions and a lot of the sighted information on his Wikipedia page can be debunked by researching. I am not sure what the verification standards are for Wikipedia edits, but it the information cannot be verified as fact, how can it be listed on a person's Wikipedia page? Thanks again. 47.154.162.76 (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)LadyLiberty1984

In short, Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires that all material, especially controversial material pertaining to living people, is cited in reliable sources. A source is considered reliable when it has a reputation for fact-checking (such as journal articles and established newspapers), though such sources need not be unbiased. Conversely, sources are typically unreliable when they are self-published and lack a reputation of accuracy and fact-checking (such as social media, blogs, news known to be nonfactual or biased). The Wikipedia article then must reflect exactly what is in the sources and itself present the content neutrally (meaning appropriate weight is given to multiple viewpoints and uncited opinions are avoided). If information cannot be reliably sourced, it should not be included. Opinions, however, are acceptable as long as the entire article does not take a stance and does not deviate from the sources.

If you say that this content about Jack Posobiec can be debunked, please find those reliable sources and present them on the talk page. As I said, I am not very familiar with the subject, and there is evidently an ongoing dispute regarding the page's neutrality. The best way to proceed is to start a discussion and present a well-sourced argument. ComplexRational (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Good Article Backlog Drive Barnstar

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Thanks for your participation in the September 2019 GA Backlog drive. Your 3 reviews made a difference, as did your willingness to review particularly old nominations. The work of editors like you helped bring down the unreviewed backlog by over 35%. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Thank you! Glad to help. ComplexRational (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

@CAPTAIN RAJU: Thank you! ComplexRational (talk) 10:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, ComplexRational, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! PATH SLOPU 13:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Path slopu: Thank you! Enjoy your day as well. ComplexRational (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello ComplexRational,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 810 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools

• It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
• It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.

Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes

• Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
• Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.

Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Administrator changes

GermanJoe • Girth Summit • Kees08 • Nosebagbear

DESiegel • GB fan • MSGJ • Voice of Clam • WilyD

DeltaQuad • Fang Aili • Pakaran

Bureaucrat changes

DeltaQuad • Pakaran

Interface administrator changes

MSGJ

CheckUser changes

L235 • Mz7 • SQL • ST47

Ivanvector

DeltaQuad

Oversight changes

L235 • Mz7 • ST47 • Stwalkerster • The Blade of the Northern Lights • Xaosflux

DeltaQuad • DGG • Julia W

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.

• The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).

• A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Prostate steam treatment

Hi: Sorry, but I am totally unable to follow your classifications of this article. In Quality Scale it should be "B". In Importance scale it should be "Mid priority". Could you perhaps reassess your grading? If you keep it, could you please provide evidence for your decisions? Greetings, --Saidmann (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for bringing this up. I reached this conclusion based on similar articles handling similar topics, as well as the guideline WP:Content assessment. To my understanding, a B-class article should be somewhat more detailed and developed; specifically, I do not believe that this article yet has the completeness described in the B-class criteria. As for importance, low does not mean unimportant; rather, this is a very particular, specialized topic that is not well-known or important to a broader audience.

Could you explain why you believe it should be B/Mid? I'd like to hear your thoughts and weigh them in as well. For now, I won’t change my assessment, but if you still feel it is very inaccurate, I'm open to hearing why. Cheers, ComplexRational (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Importance: The article has a link to Benign prostatic hyperplasia, which says: "Globally, benign prostatic hyperplasia affects about 210 million males as of 2010 (6% of the population)." The article has a link to Lower urinary tract symptoms, which says: "LUTS affect approximately 40% of older men." The article mentions several items in which the technique is superior to competing ones (which in turn are listed in the indirectly linked Surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia). The article mentions that the introduction of the treatment has been a success for several years now.
• Quality: Class B demands "The article is mostly complete and without major problems". I cannot find anything in the article that does not fulfill this condition.
• Earlier reviews: Several members of the WikiProject Medicine had already reviewed the article.

Hope you can weigh in this. --Saidmann (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The more specific criteria are outlined at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Assessment. Per that page,

• Importance: This assessment is determined primarily by how important the topic is within the scope of the WikiProject, not necessarily how important it is within a specific discipline or to a particular reader. I initially labeled it as low-importance because it appears very specific and I'm not sure how well-known it is, but it could be mid-importance based on some of the criteria listed at that assessment page (and if its usage increases, it will definitely bear more importance). As such, I will update it to mid-importance – thank you for leading me to this.
• Quality: I agree that the article does not contain questionable content or major problems. However, the article does not appear sufficiently developed and complete to be considered B-class. Its sections are still very short and somewhat technical; though this content is certainly workable and informative, it should delve into greater detail and provide more context and, e.g. an infobox or visual supplement if possible. I could see it attaining C-class with a bit more work, but B-class requires considerable expansion and overall completeness. I'm not well-versed in this specific field, so I cannot specifically critique what should be added, but other examples about similar topics with a similar size and structure are also rated Start-class; similarly, the New Pages Feed predicts Start-class as well, probably using similar metrics.
• Earlier reviews: Edits or views by other project members are not the same as reviewing. They neither marked the page as patrolled nor assessed the content; they only made edits to the content, and there was no talk page before I created it yesterday. I can only assume that they saw no problems with the article, but no formal assessment was made to my knowledge.

After this review, I stand by rating it as Start-class, but will update the importance to Mid. I hope this answers your questions, and I once again thank you for your input. ComplexRational (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, I am not happy, but I appreciate that you moved in one respect. Cheers, --Saidmann (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

Administrator changes

EvergreenFir • ToBeFree

Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

Beeblebrox

Deskana

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
• Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.

Technical news

• Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

• The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

South Atlantic Environmental Research Institute

Thank you for your comments on the draft article Draft:South Atlantic Environmental Research Institute. I have made a few changes today and will continue to work on it. Would you be able to show me some examples of some additional references/research descriptions to help me along the way? Alenasaeri (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Alenasaeri, your edits so far already add some independent references, an important step toward asserting notability (this is what I believe is currently holding back the draft). Some others, though, are not sufficient: ref 14 links to a researcher profile, which is not significant coverage and does not address SAERI directly, ref 17 links to search results, and ref 29 also only has a passing mention. To assert notability, a source should go into some detail, a one- or two-sentence reference (this includes introducing a researcher) is not significant coverage. Also keep in mind that sources for Paul Brickle (the executive director) are not necessarily sufficient, as an organization's notability is not inherited from an individual (i.e. it must be shown to be notable on its own).

Some of the articles in search results might work. For example, [1], [2], [3] (albeit more weakly), and [4] have some specific, usable content about the research of SAERI. Ref 23 (phys.org) also seems to have just enough material in its last two paragraphs. Combined with these, and perhaps a few other sources describing research (I haven't done a deep search for journal articles), the official website can also be used to provide background information as it currently does, but that is more for completeness than notability.

I hope this helps. If you have any other questions, let me know; I'll be happy to re-review the draft whenever you're ready. Cheers, ComplexRational (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Making an opera over an edit

Regarding your comments here: I shall reply here rather than clog up the discussion with minutiae. To explain in detail: I saw this state of The Opera House Manchester and and read it as a redirect with an inappropriate speedy tag. So I rolled it back. I immediately realised that it was not a redirect and converted it to one.

I am very sorry if the way I did it offended you. You have accepted the outcome so what does it matter that I used two edits rather than one? Please may I be forgiven? Do you seriously think that the matter was worth bringing up in the Arbitration/Requests/Case discussion? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@RHaworth: Apology accepted, it really is no big deal. Thank you for explaining. The reason I mentioned it there was because {at least at face value) it resembled what some of the other users were describing in their statements; it was not at all intended as a petty complaint or dragging what on its own looks like a small misunderstanding, so I apologize if that was unclear. ComplexRational (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)