Jump to content

User talk:ComplexRational/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

July 2020 GOCE drive bling

The Modest Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to ComplexRational for copy edits totaling over 4,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE July 2020 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@Tdslk: Thank you! Hopefully I'll be able to do some more work in the next GOCE drive; RL hasn't been so kind the past month and I apologize for any work I could not finish, but I'll still try to do what I can. ComplexRational (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Atomic barnstar

The Atomic Barnstar
Congratulations on a very well-deserved bronze star! --R8R (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Now that the big goal has been achieved and I can admit anything, I'll still say my complimentary first impression was indeed genuine, so I'm really glad to see the effort result in a bronze star. Keep it up!--R8R (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@R8R: Thank you! And thank you for your reviews and comments throughout the process. Now onto superheavy element or history of the periodic table when RL clears up a bit? ComplexRational (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Likewise, congratulations! Double sharp (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
The pleasure was all mine. Yes, let's go for history of the periodic table first, since we have already started to work on it and it already looks quite good (mostly thanks to you) and perhaps not too far away from a GAN as an intermediate goal. (This will go sort of parallel to aluminium, which itself isn't too far away from a GAN, either.) Speaking of plans, would you be interested to try and go for Transfermium Wars some time? I have learned quite a lot of information about that controversy over the last few years that I'd love to collect somewhere for everyone to read. I discussed this with Double sharp a while ago, and DS was interested, but as I said, it was a while ago and we haven't discussed it since then; I'd hate to be presumptuous but I believe if DS would still like to go for it, I will nonetheless not annoy him by suggesting this to you.
Of course, hassium needs to get done first. Since you have the interest in superheavy elements, would you consider trying to help me find out more about the SO splitting? My search for information has been fruitless so far (I'd love to at least read something about it, if not have a straight answer), though I tried to see what RL possibilities I had and turns out I could contact a person who made some important calculations for CERN through a common acquaintance. I'm not sure if this will get me anywhere but I'll be sure to take the opportunity and see if I could get anything from it. I'll try to phrase my questions most unambiguously this weekend and see if I could have an answer or at least a direction to relevant literature.
I don't know when exactly I'll have more time to work on these articles. It must be some time in the first half of this year as I'm finishing my master's course this year; hopefully, however, it won't have to wait until whenever I'm absolutely free from studying.--R8R (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree that we should finish working on hassium and get that to FAC2 as soon as possible; perhaps I can finish my content review by Sunday. Can you refresh me on the SO splitting? This seems to pertain to orbitals being destabilized by relativistic effects (correct me if I'm wrong); I can do a search but I must admit that I do not understand the physics behind it well.
The SO splitting described a bit in the fourth para of Hassium#Relativistic_effects; I haven't really explained why it is important at all, and you can see the second para of Tennessine#Atomic_and_physical for that (see also the graph nearby). The combination of the two is about as much as I know, and the questions about it I have are on the review section of Talk:Hassium.--R8R (talk) 13:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
History of the periodic table is indeed in better shape, but the top could perhaps use some expansion still and the bottom may need a bit of trimming or refocusing. I’d like to work on this and anything else relating to balancing sections and copyediting before GAN (which will hopefully be in the not-too-distant future).. Transfermium wars could also be an interesting project; I'd be willing to work on that somewhere down the line. I anticipate having some more time mid-February for heavy content work (I hoped I could do something this week, but I've been a lot more preoccupied), but after that remains to be seen. I'll do whatever work I can during less busy periods, and I'd rather stretch it out if necessary than rush some low-quality writing. ComplexRational (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
You're right. I have conflated the two standards of GA that I have in my head: one describes how I usually use it, with GAN being preparatory to FAC, a check from an uninvolved reader, and the other is a general GA quality grade, which is not something nearing the FA standard (by design). We could get the green plus relatively easily (which was what I had in mind when writing that), but it's not quite a pre-FAC-check level that I usually have in mind. However, I think that aluminium is not far from a GAN in the latter sense, to become a GA the bulk of which is finished that only needs some last-minute checks, like references, copyediting, and anything minor that's left.
I expected I'd have spare time during this couple of weeks, and I'll have some but unfortunately, I'll have less than I hoped I would. Nonetheless, I'll see what I can do. I hope to get more spare time in late February--early March.--R8R (talk) 13:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Come to think of Transfermium Wars, you could briefly entertain yourself by reading a small piece that was once in our dubnium article. I separated it from the main article to have room for contraction of the latter; some things have been removed from there, though most remain in place.--R8R (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! At first glance, this looks very interesting and is definitely workable. I'll take a deeper look later; can I make a few small tweaks there before we figure out how to integrate it into the main article? ComplexRational (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Of course; do what you think is necessary. If my memory serves me right, it was after writing that that I really wanted to get Transfermium Wars to the FA status, though I probably had the idea before then.
As one often omitted piece of aftermath, you can also recall that the 1995 ruling figured that element 102 should be named "flerovium" (my understanding has been that this mirrors "seaborgium" on which Berkeley insisted so much). As you know, the final compromise didn't have that name, and all names used before but that didn't make it to the 1997 compromise should be retracted. How did we end up with another element being named that? Oganessian wanted to have an element named after his mentor and so he insisted on it; in the end, everyone decided to pretend this wasn't the same name in 1995 because that came after the scientist, and the new one came from the Flerov Laboratory of Nuclear Reactions (even though we know Oganessian doesn't think so). Also Seaborg wrote to IUPAC in 1997 that they wanted to name element 110 "hahnium," which, if anything, shows that the IUPAC bureaucracy and its decisions didn't have the utmost deference from the scientists, if disapproval of the 1994 and 1995 compromises were not enough signature of that :)--R8R (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Didn't Berkeley want to name E118 ghiorsium after Albert Ghiorso when they thought they'd made it? ^_-☆ Double sharp (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, if I remember correctly they did, but this came a few years after the names of E101–E109 were settled. I'm not exactly sure how this fits in this picture, but maybe we can find a way to weave it in. ComplexRational (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm afraid this is beyond the scope of the Transfermium Wars; even the flerovium bit fits in merely as a postscriptum, since flerovium is one name among many in these "wars." However, this is not to say there is no place for this anywhere at all (for instance, one more suitable place could be Naming of chemical elements or perhaps List of chemical elements naming controversies).
In general, I think that the nine at hand already have a lot of interesting stuff, some of which may not be too well known. Mendelevium, for instance, is not often featured as an important part of this story but even it has that interesting bit with some floating uneasiness about American scientists naming an element after a Russian in the time of the Cold War. I would also be interested to see whether naming of meinterium had anything to do with the fact she was the only woman to have an element after her (except for curium, which was named for the Curies rather than Marie alone). Was anyone really upset that the 1991 report did not recognize, say, element 110 as discovered?--R8R (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I also learned that GSI's naming of nielsbohrium was intended to honor Oganessian and his cold fusion; they asked for permission from Dubna for this name. Another curious point is that joilotium (the Soviet proposal for element 102) was after Frédéric Joliot-Curie (despite what our nobelium article says) and one attention-grabbing point is that the man was a reputed communist, and this can be seen as where the ideology of the competition actually manifests itself. The article that has just been referenced in dubnium mentions perhaps the first printed mentioning of the phrase "transfermium wars." Also, Kragh, H. (2018). The Transfermium Wars. From Transuranic to Superheavy Elements, 59–75. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-75813-8_5 is also very interesting.--R8R (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, this seems interesting; this additional role of politics is indeed attention-grabbing. I'm not sure where I can find that source, though; a Google search leaves me empty-handed. ComplexRational (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, many things that I've mentioned is for attention-grabbing :) but that symbolism is important for some readers. In fact, the very subject, I would say, is full of symbolism and emotions. If you're curious about Joilot-Curie, I found that here; also ru.wiki says joilotium was indeed dedicated to Frederic. Or did you mean a different finding? I read the bit about mendelevium in mendelevium (but the article I linked a couple of sentences ago also has this witty bit: "Ghiorso, one of the leaders of Berkeley Lab’s heavy-element program, later recalled a French chemist telling him that “naming element 101 in honor of a Russian scientist had probably done more good for international relations” than anything the U.S. government had done up to that point."). Also, the 1994 article on the transfermium wars says that the wars were actually not among competing scientists, who were good friends, but with IUPAC. Oh, and perhaps a substantially important point for a change, if I recall correctly, mendelevium was discovered in a way that was different than elements 102-109, but I don't recall how so. I recall the Soviet team also experimented with finding decay products of elements and identifying them chemically and use that as the basis for discovery.
The difference is that Md was discovered chemically, whereas later elements were not. Double sharp (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, right. Thank you.--R8R (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
And if I recall correctly, Md was produced by the irradiation of Es with alpha particles (the heaviest to be produced that way), whereas all heavier elements were made through light ion irradiation and fusion-evaporation reactions. I also don't believe Md had any alternate names (notwithstanding its original Mv symbol). ComplexRational (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I actually found a lot of this during my search for information for hassium, but I think it is almost done with (though I did check a few other things. According to de.wiki, Meitner was nominated 48 times for a Nobel Prize! And still she didn't get one. I'd still love to read what was said in GSI on September 7, 1992, about naming those elements and what symbolism the scientists chose to implant there). I'll leave Wiki for perhaps a couple of weeks, and I'll outline what needs to be done to get to the FAC.--R8R (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
These links may also prove useful for the future work on Transfermium Wars: [1] and [2].--R8R (talk) 10:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll look into these later. ComplexRational (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to revive an old discussion but I recalled it was a place where I dumped links for the future work on Transfermium Wars (sorry if that sounds like a bad thing), and during the ongoing hassium FAC I remembered another source that would be great to have. It discusses the temporary names and the general attitude of the teams towards naming in general. For instance, it says that when Ghiorso heard in the 1970s IUPAC wouldn't use their names, he pleaded they don't use the Dubna names, too.--R8R (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

To add more to the collection of links that may be useful during our future works on Transfermium Wars, here's one that lists nobelium and lawrencium as "(No)" and "(Lr)", respectively. It is rare that I could find any open scepticism from the Soviet chemists on those names, so perhaps this will come handy.
@Double sharp: also, here are a few quotes from there (machine translation ahead):
In addition to the ten d elements (La, Hf-Hg) it includes a family of 14 f elements (symbols of black color, from Ce to Lu)-lantanoidsIn addition to the ten d elements (La, Hf-Hg) it includes a family of 14 f elements (symbols of black color, from Ce to Lu)-lantanoids.
Since the sixth period, the construction of electronic configurations of atoms in fact becomes more complex, which is expressed in the violation of clear boundaries between sequentially filled sub-shells. For instance, the 4f-electron does not appear in the La atom with Z = 57, but in the subsequent Ce atom (Z = 58); the subsequent construction of the 4f-shell is interrupted in the Gd atom (Z = 64, presence of the 5d electron).
Most lantanoid atoms are characterized by an electronic configuration of the outer shell 4f n6s2 ; however, atoms Ce and Gd contain 5d electron. The shell 4f ends in atom Yb (Z = 70), and the next Lu (Z = 71) begins to fill 5d-shells systematically, ie, actually Lu refers to the d-elements.
The actinoid family ends with Lr (Z = 103, electronic shell configuration Sf 146d17s2), which, like Lu, must be a d-element; with Lr begins a systematic filling of the 6d shell.
These notions obviously contradict one another and yet they stand in the same text. I sort of think that if they don't bother to resolve the contradiction, why should we?--R8R (talk) 13:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
@R8R: But why contradict ourselves when we could so easily avoid doing it? Why make the reader think "wait, what?" when we could far more easily not contradict ourselves at all? Is it good writing to do that? I don't think it is.
But I could write this completely accurately and much more simply and not punish readers who like to read carefully by updating it to current knowledge about unimportance of Madelung anomalies in gas-phase ground-state configurations of d and f elements. In fact it makes it even shorter.
And if we start with the statement that "OK, there is not agreement yet, IUPAC will have final say, so meanwhile we use what IUPAC endorsed in 1988 and put in the 1990 Red Book when illustrating the 32-column form", all of that's perfectly fine. (BTW, I do note that IUPAC does not give a La table in the 1990 or the 2005 Red Books. Their 18-column forms indeed have * below Y, but their 32-column form in the 1990 Red Book is quite definitely Lu below Y.) We explain Madelung with the view that fits Madelung: that helps readers by avoiding a needless self-contradiction. Then we say "ah yes, there's that other view", and just mention following that reliable sources IUPAC referred to when endorsing it in 1988. They referred to Landau and Lifshitz: I mention above the "f orbitals are complete in Lu already" argument, check. They referred to Jensen: I referred to the "La and Ac have low-lying nonhydrogenic f orbitals and Lu and Lr don't", check. We devoted one sentence to it as a footnote after the basic understanding is fine. No contradiction to gnaw at the careful reader.
The group 3 debate aside: I do indeed find the parenthesisation of the No and Lr symbols interesting. But I can't see anything explicit about it (or maybe I missed it). And, you have some more comments from me about Al. ;)
P.S. Maybe we should move this to Talk:Periodic table to avoid the appearance of forum-shopping. Double sharp (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Depends on what position you find yourself in. If you're a chemistry teacher/professor, your position is perfectly fine and sound. It's just that I'm talking about us as Wikipedia editors. That's the sort of thing Sandbh mentioned: "something chemists don't lose their sleep over"; if they don't, neither should we. (Out of courtesy to ComplexRational, let's leave this discussion at that, especially since it was more of a "by the way" comment; or if you want to reply, please do so on my talk page.)
Yes, there's nothing explicit about it, but when describing the stances of both the American and the Soviet teams, I'd love to illustrate it with that table with its (No)-(Lr)-Ku-Ns sequence. The position taken by Berkeley is much more common, so illustrating it shouldn't be a problem; the position taken by Dubna is harder to encounter, so I'm glad to have an illustration for it.--R8R (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Speaking of which, here's a Berkeley table with its No-Lr-Rf-Ha sequence.--R8R (talk) 09:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

added Eddie891
removed Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

readded SQL

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
  • A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors must or should use the articles for creation process.
  • A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Plans for the fall

Hi! I've been meaning to discuss our plans for this fall. I plan that hassium FAC will soon conclude with promotion. Then I'll move to prepare aluminium for GAN (the to do list isn't very long; you can find it here); it shouldn't take long to get over with, and while I'll be waiting for a GAN, I'll move to history of the periodic table. I recently acquired a very useful Soviet source (in addition to Scerri's book that I already have) that should help me cover the period between Mendeleev's discovery and the development of atomic theory and maybe the actinide concept, so I thought I'd discuss with you how we split what we should do to fill the article. It occurred to me that we need a section that would cover the rise of popularity of the periodic table as a symbol of science; after all, many people will want to know how it became so important. You can see I've added that Poliakoff's quote; in fact, it was when I stumbled on the interview where I found that quote I decided I should add a section header for that. Would you be interested doing that? I also thought you'd be interested to cover anything that follows the formulation of the actinide concept. Or in fact, what would you like to do? And will you have the time this fall to edit Wikipedia, even if not too much?--R8R (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@R8R: I'd certainly be interested in doing at least some background research on how the PT grew popular; though that began c. 1920 as I understand it, probably the best place to detail it is at the end. I can also see if there is anything else major in need of inclusion about isotopes, the actinide concept, and SHE discoveries and their role in theorizing extensions to the PT. And as usual, I'll gladly help with copyediting and consistent formatting while preparing for a GAN, and should be able to answer any feedback without too much delay.
Regarding time: I should still have time for these focused edits and to see this project through, though I will likely have greater time constraints than I had at any point in the past. This will likely result in me only having a few windows for serious editing (e.g. more than just correcting a typo when looking something up) per week and me not being able to take on more than one project at a time. (There is a chance that might change, in that I could do something else, but only if I have enough time, resources, and stamina to do so; either way, that would not come in the way of our project.) Once a few weeks pass, I'll have a better estimate for my availability until the end of 2020; there's a lot going on, but I can maybe write a bit more in an off-wiki e-mail. ComplexRational (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Great. By the way, if you happen to run across an unusual PT layout, feel free to leave a note about that somewhere on a talk page (mine, yours, or that of that article). I think it might be desirable to have a gallery in the end of each section. WP:GALLERY seems to allow this given the scope of the article.
What would you consider unusual that we haven't already covered in Alternative periodic tables? Would there be a (sub)section in this article dedicated to how some of those came into existence and gained recognition? ComplexRational (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't clear enough. "Unusual" is not quite what I'm looking for; what I meant to say was "useful for illustration." I've seen a couple of interesting table back when people didn't know how to insert all new emanations into the periodic table, and they definitely have encyclopedic value, for example, and I'll add them later. That was what I had in mind. Seaborg's Aufbau-like table of 218 elements is one example of what I'm talking about.--R8R (talk) 11:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Okay, no problem. If we do happen to have an email conversation, we might go over that as well, but otherwise, I feel like it would be rather intrusive (though if there is something you'd like to share, feel free to write, I'd be very willing to listen).--R8R (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Understandable, more likely we'll just see how things play out. Simply put, as you most probably have experienced yourself, it's the start of the semester with a lot of changes (both personally and academically) and the ongoing coronavirus situation doesn't make anyone's life any easier. As a result, my attention has been split across many things the past few weeks. ComplexRational (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not experiencing the start of a new academic year (I graduated this June, and I won't be studying any more), but I understand what you mean, I figured this kind of thing would have your attention. If there's a big change for you this year (for example, if you're entering college or you're preparing for grand exams this year, or something like that), then best of luck! I hope your personal changes are not something you'd have too much difficulty overcoming. By the way, I saw on your user page that you're hoping for a GAN by the end of 2020, and I'd say that's a realistic plan.--R8R (talk) 11:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

October 2020 GAN Backlog drive!

-- Eddie891 Talk Work 16:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).

Administrator changes

added Ajpolino • LuK3
readded Jackmcbarn
removed Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
renamed There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@CAPTAIN RAJU: Two years already... thank you! ComplexRational (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

hELLO

Can you reviewed my draft for wikipedia english?--Wir sind das volk 2021 (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I can take a look, but I can't promise a thorough review before Wednesday night at the earliest. Can you provide a link to your draft? ComplexRational (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

added Izno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello ComplexRational,

A chart of the 2020 New Page Patrol Queue

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 DannyS712 bot III (talk) 67,552 Patrol Page Curation
2 Rosguill (talk) 63,821 Patrol Page Curation
3 John B123 (talk) 21,697 Patrol Page Curation
4 Onel5969 (talk) 19,879 Patrol Page Curation
5 JTtheOG (talk) 12,901 Patrol Page Curation
6 Mcampany (talk) 9,103 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 6,401 Patrol Page Curation
8 Mccapra (talk) 4,918 Patrol Page Curation
9 Hughesdarren (talk) 4,520 Patrol Page Curation
10 Utopes (talk) 3,958 Patrol Page Curation
Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

TNN

When you tagged TNN (nuclear physics) for RfD, you forgot to actuallly create an RfD nomination for it. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: That's because I added it to the RfD you created for TMS (nuclear physics) on 16 December. The rationale is exactly the same (as DePiep and I determined at WT:ELEM), and I made a note of it there. But thank you anyway for the notice. ComplexRational (talk) 12:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Nickel and helium

Sorry to bother you on a holiday evening. No hurry on this either. But you seem like the best person to help me with this question.

I noticed more than a year ago that we have similar claims on isotopes of nickel and at Magic_number_(physics)#Doubly_magic but they didnt make sense to me, and I felt I didnt understand them quite well enough to figure it out. You changed the one on the nickel page, but would you feel comfortable also changing the same claim on the magic number page? Specifically, it says

Nickel-48, discovered in 1999, is the most proton-rich magic nuclide known beyond helium-3.

Or is that one actually correct, despite being very similarly worded to the other? If it is correct, how do we explain, for example, oxygen-11? Is that magic or is it not?

Thanks, —Soap— 22:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I should note, also, that I'm the one who added the word magic to that sentence. Previously it had identified nickel-48 as the most proton-rich nuclide known beyond helium-3 with no other qualification. —Soap— 22:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
@Soap: Thank you for your message, and it's a mostly ordinary day (like most of 2020 has been).
The claim on the magic number page was not incorrect, but I changed its wording so that it is more accurate: Nickel-48, discovered in 1999, is the most proton-rich doubly magic nuclide known.
In both cases, the original wording did not clearly distinguish magic from doubly magic: the former is a nuclide with a magic number of protons or neutrons, and the latter is a nuclide with a magic number of protons and neutrons (i.e. both are magic numbers). Nickel-48 has 28 protons and 20 neutrons, which are both magic numbers, so it is noteworthy for being doubly magic. Every isotope of nickel has a magic number of protons (28), which is not all that special by comparison. The same goes for oxygen-11 and helium-3: they have magic numbers of protons (respectively 8 and 2) but not magic numbers of neutrons. (Oxygen-16 and helium-4 would be the doubly magic isotopes of these elements.)
As a result, classifying them as having one magic number is correct, but not noteworthy. Nickel-48 is, in fact, the most proton-rich doubly magic nuclide known, though I don't think it's the most proton-rich nuclide known beyond helium-3: oxygen-11 and potassium-31 both have a greater proton excess. Both claims should be more accurate now (so thank you for highlighting the second one).
If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. ComplexRational (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you! ComplexRational (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:ANI Disruptive behaviour by DePiep

Thanks for your post.

The nub of the ANI is that DePiep, in breach of BRD, reverted my revert.

If this kind of behaviour is regarded as acceptable then I have no business at ANI.

Your thoughts?

As a matter of courtesy, I gave notice of my intent to revert. Discussion followed. Only when that concluded, and Double sharp said I could do what I felt appropriate, subject to comments from others, did I revert. Even then I started editing to address some of Double sharp's concerns. That is, I edit in the context of comments made by WP:ELEM members.

Re, "the project has nothing to show for these unwieldy threads." Our exercise in continuous cooperative editing resulted in about 120 improvement edits to the periodic table article. It also resulted in about 30 improvements to our article on Metals close to the border between metals and nonmetals.

DePiep has often commented about how hard it is to follow the discussions at WP:ELEM. He has previously engaged in housekeeping of kind I undertook. YBG was the only one to complain.

Please do not conflate OR and Group 3 with my WP:ANI post, which is solely concerned with a breach of BRD by DePiep.

Re, "Regarding BRD, the objective should be for DePiep, Sandbh, and any other involved editors to engage in civil discussion so that no edit wars erupt and the article is not the victim of a dispute." I attempted to do so, with DePiep, on my talk page, before going to WP:ANI. You can see the non-result.

The solution is straightforward. Allow me to revert DS deletions, as any WP editor has the right to do. At that point, if an editor does not agree with my revert, then the onus is on that editor to establish consensus to remove the reinstated material, rather than to revert the revert, as DePiep did, in breach of BRD. That is what brought me to WP:ANI.

I hope I've made myself clear.

Thanks again ComplexRational, Sandbh (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for reaching out here, Sandbh. I will leave my reply here short so I can keep everything in one place at ANI.
Probably because of how long the talk page discussions have become, I might have missed a few details, and I will limit my further commentary to this specific issue pertaining to BRD. I only mentioned the other stuff because it has become intertwined and this case (your OP at ANI) seems to be a different symptom of the same underlying problem that is plaguing our project.
As a very general principle, you are right in that (unexplained) reverts of reverts are not advised and constitute edit warring (that would break BRD and eventually 3RR). However, in this case, several editors objected to your reversion at WT:ELEM after you posted your notice, so I'm not sure that proceeding with the revert was in line with any discussion that was had. The BRD cycle was broken when editors raised objections to your intent to revert, so we cannot strictly apply it afterwards; your revert would be considered a "bold edit" after a new rough consensus was formed, and DePiep's revert would form part of a new cycle, so I still see no clear breach on DePiep's part.
It is not a matter of me allowing you to revert anything, but rather using BRD as a rough guideline to keep discussions on track when they derail. Your point is clear, and I may reread a few older threads, but this is how I see it. ComplexRational (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

ComplexRational, thank you.

DePiep said don't revert, discuss right away. YBG said, "please, please discuss before reverting".[3]

I did as they asked.

It's ironic that, by playing the "team player" card I've been re-reverted by DePiep, in breach of BRD. Not wanting to breach BRD myself, I now find myself in the curious situation of having to obtain consensus to restore what DePiep re-reverted. I appreciate you may see things differently. It sees like I would've been better off exercising my right to revert, which is just a part of consensus building, in any event. The onus would then have shifted to other members of WP:ELEM to achieve consensus for removing the material.* Anyway, lesson learnt. (Which seems to be, here at WP, don't be afraid to exercise your rights, and don't give them away.) That said, it still goes against my grain.

  • Maybe that wouldn't've helped given it would've represented yet more effort on behalf of others

I'm discussing this here since I don't want to contribute to the ANI wall of text. As well, you're a member of WP:ELEM, with more inside knowledge than external editors.

As I read it, you follow what's going on; that's reassuring. Sandbh (talk) 06:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes, as it seems in this case, a revert is not necessary if there is a rough consensus endorsing the bold edit. I believe that had you reverted without notifying ELEM, a discussion would have ensued and resulted in your edit being undone anyway (if we apply BRD and assume everyone would hold the same opinions). BRD is not an indisputable set-in-stone policy, so as I noted here and at ANI, we should take whatever actions that will allow constructive article work and consensus building. I, quite frankly, also don't want to immerse myself in ANI or conflicts with any editors, so I will probably be limiting my involvement in this matter. ComplexRational (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear ComplexRational, I obviously need help if, in my best endeavours, I'm facing the prospect of a topic ban. Not help in a mental sense; help in how to meet WP expectations sense. I'm obviously missing something.

Is my goose cooked?

Appreciate any help or support you could provide, or not acknowledging your desire for limited involvement.

thank you, --- Sandbh (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

PS: I've asked EdChem, R8R and DePiep for help, too.

@Sandbh: It seems that now the topic ban will come to pass, and as much as I do not want to engage in conflict, I must say that it is probably a win-win for you and ELEM. Some of the most recent comments at ANI—those from YBG and EdChem—sum up what seems to be the problem: conducting research and publishing in journals and conducting research and publishing on WP are guided by different sets of rules and therefore require different approaches, both in content writing/presentation and working with peers. Nobody doubts your expertise in the subject matter.
In the WP expectations sense, my advice would be to take a semi-wikibreak or focus on writing and collaborating in a different area altogether, review WT:ELEM and the behavior/actions of editors that have been unambiguously constructive, and always follow the core content policies—verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research—above all else. This even means treating your own research as you would treat any other source when using it on WP, so as not to be influenced by your opinion or give undue weight to anything. Assuming the TBAN permits it (which I believe it should), my talk page is open if you have any other WP-related questions. ComplexRational (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Atoms and antiquity

I don't really mind one way or another, but this edit might need a clarification. While the modern atomic theory was indeed initiated after Lavoisier (in fact, even Mendeleev was not too keen on the idea long after he produced his table which was based on recurrences of atomic weights: he still thought that the concept may be useful in a similar fashion to how quantum physics is often taught in oversimplification nowadays, not entirely correct, but easier to understand), the concept of "atom" has been known since ancient Greece, and I took the word "atom" from Lavoisier himself. See also atomism.--R8R (talk) 10:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@R8R: When making that edit, I was thinking to avoid introducing a term before it came into (historical use), in the same way I avoided mentioning isotopes later in the article (when I wrote that section) before they were known as isotopes (c. 1913). In this case, some form of "atomic" theory—the existence of smallest indivisible units of substances—existed, but modern atoms came later. I'd wonder if there is a way to keep this clear or otherwise consistently develop the article to reflect historical developments in chronological order. If you (or I) can find a source saying that Lavoisier explicitly mentioned "atoms", we can add it back, but I haven't found anything so far and (at least for now).
Hopefully in the next few weeks, before the spring semester starts, I can take a closer look at the article. I noticed that you decided to break it down into subsections; might I ask how much expansion will be in the making to address everything that is relevant but not go into too much details about developments not closely related to the periodic table itself? I apologize that I haven't been actively working on the article recently, but I'm open to ideas as to how to proceed. ComplexRational (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The quote from Lavoisier in which he uses the word “atom” is given right in the citation that followed that sentence, you don’t even have to click a link or anything :) but as I said, it doesn’t really matter, not at this point at least, because I want to rewrite that section anyway, as well as the one before it.
I think Comprehensive formalizations and Priority dispute and recognition are already good, at least in terms of size. I also think Inert gases and ether is mostly good; although I need to add the changes Ramsay had in mind all this time, but that cannot add more than two paragraphs to the entire section. Atomic theory and isotopes may need a bit more work, probably a few more paragraphs, but probably also not too much. Later expansions will need more content. The other three sections need more research from me before I could make a judgment on how long they should be.
In general, I think having too much is better than having too little, because that is easier to fix. We can always do that later. I normally do that after I have added everything I may want to add. Not to mention that research that goes into it makes the article better. And last but not least, you also get to learn something interesting that you wouldn't learn otherwise.
No problem about inactivity; real life goes first, and also given how our project did nothing last few months but discuss and argue, that didn’t invite editors to help the project, so it doesn’t come as a surprise one way or another. I hope you’ll be able to get to do something soon, of course, now that you may have some spare time, and our disputes have come to a conclusion of sorts.—R8R (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I just thought about something else. Don't worry too much about whether whether you have added too much already; instead, keep looking for answers until you have no more questions. That's something can recommend because that's what I do. Once you know that much, you'll have some idea about what is important and worth mentioning and what isn't. I don't think I have a perfect answer for that myself, but it's fine. As long as you're giving it your best and you like the result, others probably will like it, too. So don't worry too much about how long an article should be and instead, ask yourself whether what you're looking at is important or not; if you're not sure, it could be worth something, so add it and think about it once more later. If the final result is somehow too long, you can always fix that later by either contracting your text or starting a subarticle (after forking content from a main article, I got, for example, compounds of fluorine or history of aluminium).--R8R (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for History of Atalanta B.C.

On 12 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article History of Atalanta B.C., which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Atalanta reached the semifinals of the European Cup Winners' Cup in 1988 while playing in the Italian second tier? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/History of Atalanta B.C.. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, History of Atalanta B.C.), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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) 00:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm in despair! The saga of validating superheavies has left me in despair!

From IUPAP meeting minutes:


(For background understanding: this Nature article should explain it, as should Cecilia Jarlskog's original conference presentation.)

It strikes me as something that ought to be mentioned somehow as part of the history of the PT (maybe that article), as wasn't the whole TWG and later JWP put together as a response to the naming wars? And this did lead to some new criteria after all. (Also, that complaint deserves a mention; it will probably amuse the careful reader and is the reason for my section title. Just who do they think are running the experiments? XD) Double sharp (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Should add: I think this stuff is mentioned briefly in my FA Nihonium, but I can't seem to find it anywhere else. Double sharp (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ComplexRational/Archive_4&oldid=1024285531"