Jump to content

User talk:ComplexRational/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

DYK for Beryllium-8

On 14 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Beryllium-8, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that because the half-life of beryllium-8 is less than 10−16 seconds, there is a bottleneck in stellar nucleosynthesis that limits the abundance of heavier chemical elements? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Beryllium-8. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Beryllium-8), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Question for administrator

I am requesting assistance in regards to two posts I made at ANI concerning disruptive edits from an IP range. It seems that both requests may have been unintentionally overlooked; the first was archived after no administrator response and the second was superseded by later posts that were answered within two hours. While the matter itself is not of utmost importance, I am only requesting that it at least be investigated by a willing admin, so that it does not fall through the cracks at ANI again and any appropriate action is taken. Thank you. ComplexRational (talk) 10:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello ComplexRational, unfortunately reports do sometimes fall through the cracks. However, EdJohnston (another administrator) has since blocked the range for a period of 2 weeks. Is there anything else that you need assistance with? --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
@TheSandDoctor: I noticed that EdJohnston blocked the range, but thank you anyway for letting me know. I would like to ask, though, if this is the appropriate means to ask for help when no response is given at ANI, or if another course of action is generally preferred. Again, thank you. ComplexRational (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
The {{adminhelp}} template was still active, so I responded when I saw it and let you know . Glad I could help! As for the appropriate venue, that is what I would consider generally variable. I personally don't have an issue with the {{adminhelp}} route, nor do I have one with adding a comment with a recent timestamp at the ANI thread in question (thus preventing the automatic archiving), nor do I with asking an administrator on their talk page if they could take a look (I am fairly good at responding promptly to inquiries on mine). Does that help any? Happy to explain further if you have any questions . --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! This is indeed very helpful; I'll keep it in mind. ComplexRational (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Miramare di Rimini

On 30 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Miramare di Rimini, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a railroad bisects the Italian town of Miramare di Rimini into a residential neighborhood and a prominent tourist area? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Miramare di Rimini. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Miramare di Rimini), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

valereee (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

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

Administrator changes

added Bradv • Chetsford • Izno
readded Floquenbeam • Lectonar
removed DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

removed Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

removed Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the diffs from areas where I don't overlap with them. I thought your final paragraph was an excellent summary of the issues. --JBL (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@JBL: Glad to help. And thank you for indenting the bullet points, by the way. ComplexRational (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Could you possibly give me time to fix Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey?

Hello ComplexRational,

Firstly thanks for taking on the review of Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey. However I only just read the messages you sent me yesterday to say you had accepted the review and then failed the article. As you know the queue for GA review is several months long so I wonder if you could give me the chance to take up your valuable suggestions in the next few days to avoid having to wait until 2020 for the article to become GA. I can see you have put a lot of work into the review and I am willing to put in the effort to fix the article, but it would be demoralizing to have to wait until next year for it to be accepted. So would it be possible for you to mark the review as awaiting fixes rather than failed outright? Then if you have time it would be great if you could continue the review after I have made your suggested changes as I am sure you would come up with more good suggestions.

Chidgk1 (talk) 06:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: I'd be glad to review it again once these changes are made. However, I think it's better to start a new review page and leave the first alone simply due to the magnitude of the fixes involved and the fact that the renominated article may have a noticeably different structure and/or substantially altered content. In other words, it would be like reviewing a new article altogether, and the whole set of criteria would need a fresh evaluation. The quick fail was simply because I saw many necessary changes—more than I wrote on the review page—before criterion 1 may be fulfilled.
Unfortunately, there is the GA backlog, but there's no mandatory waiting period or limit to GANs for an article, so you can renominate as soon as the article is ready. As things stand, I am still uninvolved enough to take up the second review shortly after it is nominated. I'm glad to see your interest in working on it!
In that case, I'd suggest using external software to fix grammar, and perhaps also consulting the Guild of Copy Editors if you need assistance with copyediting. In regards to one-sentence headings, that's entirely up to you to reorganize or expand with new content. (I cannot do both substantial copyediting directly and a fresh review.) As grammar and the structure are the main hurdles, please take time to review and overhaul the article, and then open a new review. Let me know when you're ready. ComplexRational (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@ComplexRational: OK I will first revise it myself. So what external software do you recommend? I suspect the Guild of Copy Editors would do a much better job than software but I have not dealt with them before so will look into that after I have done as much as I can myself. I guess your time would be better spent reviewing once it has been resubmitted rather than copy editing. However you mentioned that more cites might be needed so perhaps you could chuck in as many "citation needed" as you have time for. Also I suspect that because I have read it so many times there are bits where my unconscious is filling in the gaps in meaning which are needed by a first time reader. So once I have done some work on it (hopefully I will be able to do a fair chunk next weekend) I will get a friend to have a look before resubmitting it for GA hopefully before the end of the month. Thanks again for your help.Chidgk1 (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@Chidgk1: The only reason I mentioned outside software is because GOCE also has a backlog (though not as long as the GAN one). Since you expressed interest in GOCE and having feedback from someone IRL, I'd actually encourage that over any machine corrections; even the software built into word processors or available as an add-on does not catch everything. That said, I'll read through the article again, and note a few places that need extra references or expansion. Once it's ready, I'll be glad to do another review. ComplexRational (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

You may be interested...

Hey ComplexRational, it seems like we run into each other very often here on Wikipedia. Maybe not live, but I notice your participation in the same areas in the Wikipedia namespace where I do. You called me out for using the wrong CSD criteria once as well. Regardless, I figured you may be interested in participating in AfC discussions with your past experience in AfD. I mean, it's really up to you. Just seemed to be up your alley based on my experiences with you, and I noticed you spoke on Jimfbleaks' talk page in the past as I was viewing its history. It was a really minor occurrence this time but it got me thinking. Cheers! Utopes (talk) 03:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

We need YOU!

Hello ComplexRational,

Unregistered editors cannot create articles on Wikipedia, but they can use the articles for creation process to submit drafts that registered editors can either accept and publish or decline. WikiProject Articles for creation is looking for experienced editors who want to partake in this peer review process. If you have what it takes to get involved, then please take a look at the reviewing instructions. To discuss specific AfC reviews, do so freely on the designated talk page.

There is currently a backlog of over 4400 drafts (1,542 very old).

If you know an editor who may be willing to help out, please use the template you are currently reading {{subst:WPAFCInvite}} to draw attention to this WikiProject. Many hands make light work!

Utopes (talk) 03:31, 11 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).

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

Miscellaneous

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

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)

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)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@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 804 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).

Guideline and policy news

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

Arbitration

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

added EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
removed Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

readded Beeblebrox
removed Deskana

Interface administrator changes

readded Evad37

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

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)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

A graph showing the number of articles in the page curation feed from 12/21/18 - 12/20/19

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days
Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 Rosguill (talk) 47,395 Patrol Page Curation
2 Onel5969 (talk) 41,883 Patrol Page Curation
3 JTtheOG (talk) 11,493 Patrol Page Curation
4 Arthistorian1977 (talk) 5,562 Patrol Page Curation
5 DannyS712 (talk) 4,866 Patrol Page Curation
6 CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) 3,995 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 3,812 Patrol Page Curation
8 Boleyn (talk) 3,655 Patrol Page Curation
9 Ymblanter (talk) 3,553 Patrol Page Curation
10 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 3,522 Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello ComplexRational, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020.
Happy editing,
Double sharp (talk) 06:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Double sharp, thank you! Can we hope that 2020 brings us a new element at last? ComplexRational (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
See the links I've been posting on R8R's talk page. My hopes are up, even if we went a decade without one! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Coropuna FAC

The One-third Barnstar
Awarded to User:Jo-Jo Eumerus, User:Fowler&fowler and User:ComplexRational – for having the fortitude, diligence, resilience and "sound moral principle" to show the rest of us the best way to approach a featured article candidacy. Here's to you all three of you! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


@SandyGeorgia: Thank you! May FAC2 be a great success once we get there! ComplexRational (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I have no doubt it will be! In case I pull one of my disappearing acts (I despair), I am more likely to see a talk page post than a ping. Although I can spot prose problems, I am incompetent to help rewrite as my prose is dreadful, but always happy to work on the little stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello ComplexRational: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Everedux (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
@Everedux: Thanks! Happy holidays to you as well! ComplexRational (talk) 21:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 14, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyokotalk 03:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!
ComplexRational,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

   – 2020 is a leap year – news article.
   – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– Utopes (talk) 04:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Utopes: Thank you! Happy new year to you too! ComplexRational (talk) 04:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ComplexRational/Archive_2&oldid=998742420"