User talk:ComplexRational/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:ComplexRational. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Electron configurations past 121
Do you think we should change the infoboxes to show multiple possible configurations there? Because there isn't agreement once 121 is passed... Double sharp (talk) 08:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Double sharp: I'd say so, following the same rationale to avoid UNDUE weight. For 122, I think RS agree that it's one of two possibilities (120 + 7d1 8p1 or 120 + 8p2). For 123, there are also two possibilities said to be extremely close in energy level, though that's still in userspace for now. In the cases of 124 and 126, I don't recall exactly how many possibilities were published, but I'd say we should include them all unless one is clearly favored among independent studies. And for each of these elements, we should still probably omit Aufbau because if there's one thing our sources agree on, it's that Aufbau breaks down after 120. ComplexRational (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Aufbau can probably be kept in discussion, as V.I.Goldansky predicted it in early days of the subject. (Only have second-hand ref from Fricke 10.1007/BFb0116498). But since nobody thinks it will be accurate, I'd say not to put it in the infobox, just to say in the text "configurations blah blah have been predicted for E124, all are different from the [Og]5g48s2 Aufbau gives you".
- That's what I had in mind. ComplexRational (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Come to think of it, though, isn't this precisely the situation similar to the categorisation one where there isn't consensus among sources? In which case maybe instead of cluttering an infobox we could write "predictions vary" and point to the text? Double sharp (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- They are indeed very similar situations after 120. I wouldn't oppose saying "predictions vary" for 121+ in the infobox; the articles already explain somewhat how predictions vary. ComplexRational (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe 121, then, since it seems all calculations expect [Og]8s28p1? Double sharp (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- I think I read one source predicting [Og] 7d1 8s2 as the ground state, but the majority agree on [Og] 8s2 8p1 and the former as a low-lying excited state. I'll see if I can find that, but 121 looks to have just enough of a consensus in any case to remain undisputed in the infobox. ComplexRational (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe 121, then, since it seems all calculations expect [Og]8s28p1? Double sharp (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- They are indeed very similar situations after 120. I wouldn't oppose saying "predictions vary" for 121+ in the infobox; the articles already explain somewhat how predictions vary. ComplexRational (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Come to think of it, though, isn't this precisely the situation similar to the categorisation one where there isn't consensus among sources? In which case maybe instead of cluttering an infobox we could write "predictions vary" and point to the text? Double sharp (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- That's what I had in mind. ComplexRational (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Should we maybe do something about Electron configurations of the elements (data page) and the table in Extended periodic table too? I'd say the latter should be replaced by something giving all possibilities; the data page should probably be curtailed at 121 or maybe even 118 where the known elements end... Double sharp (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- I definitely agree that the latter should include all possibilities. We can do that by giving an inline citation for each prediction (thus having several in each cell), or if there are several sets of predictions from independent sources, we can give a column for each and include an "other predictions" for special cases (e.g. the one paper specifically on 123). I feel more inclined to go with the latter, in which case we can even include Aufbau for comparison if appropriate. As for the data page, I'd say to stop at 120 (maybe 121): 120 is pretty much always predicted to be 8s2, 121 I'm not sure about, and after 121 different sources definitely diverge. ComplexRational (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- P.S. I wish there were more cites for the Aufbau configurations and how high energy they might be. So far I only found it for 121. Because I do want to know: how bad is the electronic repulsion in the 5g shell? Madelung is not really dead at 121 because [Og]5g18s2 is still at chemically low enough energies, but the horror story would be if 5g interelectronic repulsion was so bad at some point that, say, a neutral 126 atom as [Og]5g68s2 would spontaneously ionise. I don't know of anyone who has addressed this (must be hard) but I'd consider it the real failure of Aufbau, following Jorgensen's idea about irrelevant irregularities. I guess it must be somehow considered dead in the water around the high 130s as 8s drowns into the core before the period's over and 5g stubbornly clings to life a while longer. Double sharp (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Aufbau can probably be kept in discussion, as V.I.Goldansky predicted it in early days of the subject. (Only have second-hand ref from Fricke 10.1007/BFb0116498). But since nobody thinks it will be accurate, I'd say not to put it in the infobox, just to say in the text "configurations blah blah have been predicted for E124, all are different from the [Og]5g48s2 Aufbau gives you".
- Relevant paper. A second is 10.1063/1.1672080. Double sharp (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- I was only able to find a copy of the second, which I will soon read through in full. Do you know where the first is available? ComplexRational (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- I can email you a copy. ;) Though I think you'll have to send me something first, so I can reply and attach. Double sharp (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Sent you an email. ComplexRational (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Sent it. :) (Though it seems to not consider the 8p states.) Double sharp (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Sent you an email. ComplexRational (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- I can email you a copy. ;) Though I think you'll have to send me something first, so I can reply and attach. Double sharp (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- I was only able to find a copy of the second, which I will soon read through in full. Do you know where the first is available? ComplexRational (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Okay, the articles have been done. Now I guess we have to collect all the variants for Extended periodic table. Double sharp (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hopefully better now, with all the variants. In a few cases, for consistency I assumed a bare "8p" meant "8p1/2". Double sharp (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Double sharp: Looking good, and yes, your assumption seems correct. Would it be possible, though, to cite each predicted configuration inline so it's clear exactly who predicts what? I think that might be clearer to readers (or perhaps future GA/PR/FA reviewers) than 6–7 sources in the table header, and if presentability is a concern, we could add a separate "ref" column on the right. ComplexRational (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- It's probably better, yes. But maybe a bit later, I'm a bit busy. XD Double sharp (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I could even work on it in a few hours, when I'm (temporarily) a bit less busy.But no hurry either way. ComplexRational (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC) still on and off busy... ComplexRational (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- It's probably better, yes. But maybe a bit later, I'm a bit busy. XD Double sharp (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Double sharp: Looking good, and yes, your assumption seems correct. Would it be possible, though, to cite each predicted configuration inline so it's clear exactly who predicts what? I think that might be clearer to readers (or perhaps future GA/PR/FA reviewers) than 6–7 sources in the table header, and if presentability is a concern, we could add a separate "ref" column on the right. ComplexRational (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Do you have access to this? (If you don't, I have it also.) It's quite an interesting old speculation on elements 164 and 184. Double sharp (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- I was able to find it; thank you anyway. I'll read it as soon as I have the chance. ComplexRational (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Interesting reading, especially when considering what has stayed the same and what has changed in predictions in the last 50 years. My main takeaways are these:
- Am I correctly reading that 164 was predicted to be capable of reaching +10 and +12 oxidation states? If so, that might be worth a mention since we talk about it for other elements that likely will not materialize anytime soon... if at all...
- Probably because it was published in 1971, it seems that they still thought Aufbau would apply through period 8, as 164 is referred to as dvi-lead and a 168-core rather than a 172-core is mentioned. This is quite curious because Fricke also published his table in 1971, which is much more inline with modern predictions, and they even challenge Fricke's predictions about 164. Perhaps also a few things worth mentioning about the history and structure of the extended PT.
- Seeing as they presumably used Aufbau, are the predicted electron configurations (even though 172 doesn't include 6g per Aufbau) still usable for the table in extended periodic table, in which I started moving the citations inline?
- Thanks again for sharing this. ComplexRational (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- The Fricke and Waber paper in Actinides Reviews actually cites this one. ;) That is the one where Fricke starts comparing it to palladium and platinum. But he cannot seem to make up his mind whether to place it in that group following the chemistry, or to formally assign it together with Hg in group 12. Then later Pyykkö chose the group 12 assignment; Nefedov, and later Kulsha, chose group 10. I think nobody who considered it disputes anymore that chemically E164 should be most of all a homologue of Pd and Pt; the question is, what bases for the PT are being used?
- I am not sure this paper should be read as allowing +10 and +12 for 164. They say that +10 is where we reach both valence and energies outside chemical experience, and they assign to +8 only the most electronegative or oxidation-resistant anions. And they also say that it's a pity that nuclear instability stops oxidation states past +8 from being seen (so probably not 164 which was considered as a plausible magic proton number) – although immediately thereafter they predict it for 184.
- The configurations look fine for use, they're similar to Fricke's. So, perhaps the idea was that even if the valence configurations would not truly match, you would still put up the table in Madelung order? Scerri suggested something like that quite recently. In a certain sense it is also semi-consistent, as already the trends make the 7p elements quite bad homologues of their 6p counterparts. Double sharp (talk) 05:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
definition of extended periodic table
Something that bothers me: does "extended periodic table" mean "a PT with period 8", or does it mean "a PT that has undiscovered elements added in at the end"? When 117 was not yet discovered, would it have made it an "extended" table to include it? When Seaborg talked about this in 1969 (doi:10.1021/ed046p626), showing an eight-period table to 168, there were only elements to 104. Does that mean 105 then was part of an extension? I guess, once 119 is discovered, surely it must get the standard PT and not the extended one...
The other thing I worry about: although the chemistry is pretty realistic and agreed among multiple sources, what that actually means for PT placement is not really agreed, isn't it? Much as I like the current form which Droog Andrey proposed (pinging him as a courtesy), I cannot help but worry about the appearance of UNDUE in showing it on articles like ununennium where the discussion of what to show past 5g doesn't matter, when not everyone agrees on it.
Pyykkö's format, though chemically rather silly in some cases (seriously, E139 and E140 are not good congeners of Nh and Fl by any means), seems to be more common in popularisation articles. And Scerri has seriously considered the idea of just showing Madelung anyway even this far. (Which is not exactly completely ridiculous if you think about how Og gets into group 18. Its valence configuration is not really 7s2 7p6; that is a fantasy, with 7s and 7p1/2 drowned deep in the core. It really has four electrons outside a noble gas core and is rather a good homologue of tin. But if one allows that – then pushing E168 into group 18 does not look that stupid either. Its valence configuration is equally not 8s2 8p6, it also has four electrons outside a core, and it is also rather a good homologue of tin. And in fact the reason why it is so – drowning of s and p1/2 orbitals – is even exactly the same. Supervalent hybridisation into 9s and 9p1/2, mediated by spin-orbit effects, is already analogous to hybridisation into 8s predicted possible with Lv. So, putting Madelung-like period 8 elements rather continues the sort of breaks from periodicity in period 7, rather than pushing to somewhere else. So I can sort of see why people would seriously consider it, even though I still think shoving 172 with its noble-gas-like properties under super-thorium 122 is looking ridiculous. Or maybe not, given flerovium under lead... anyway, I still think showing Aufbau there is mistaken, but I can see why people would make such a mistake.)
Should we perhaps stop the navbox like {{Compact extended periodic table}} at E138 (after eighteen 5g elements) where the agreement lasts till, and add a note along the lines of pl:Szablon:Pierwiastki chemiczne? We can keep the DA-like organisation in extended periodic table as even Fricke agrees on the expected chemistry of course. Double sharp (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
- A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
- A request for comment seeks to grant page movers the
delete-redirectuserright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect. - A request for comment asks if sysops may
place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions
? - There is a discussion in progress concerning automatic protection of each day's featured article with Pending Changes protection.
Technical news
- When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
- When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
- There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).
Arbitration
- By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions
authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people.
Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions. - The Kurds and Kurdistan case was closed, authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for
the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed
.
- By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions
Miscellaneous
- Following the 2021 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AmandaNP, Operator873, Stanglavine, Teles, and Wiki13.
New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus
Message added 15:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).
Administrator changes
Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
- Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the
delete-redirectuserright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.
Technical news
- When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
- Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)
Arbitration
- A community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure is open until April 25.
Administrators' newsletter – May 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
- The 2021 Desysop Policy RfC was closed with no consensus. Consensus was found in a previous RfC for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.
Technical news
- The user group
oversightwill be renamed tosuppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.
- The user group
Arbitration
- The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.
Uranium-214 needs help for an ITN nomination
Hey. This is a notice and a request for assistance. I started Uranium-214 earlier today since it was published recently. I also nominated it for ITN (Major science discovery, so it has a chance to be accepted), but it needs help since it is a small stub with just over 2k bytes in size, and that is including references and the infobox. Feel free to help it out! Elijahandskip (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- From the looks of the article, and considering that it's only been produced atoms at a time in a cyclotron, I don't think there's very much to expand the stub with. A redirect to (a new) section in isotopes of uranium would be more appropriate, as is done with most similar isotopes. That said, unfortunately there isn't enough content or significance (within the wider scientific community) for this to qualify for ITN. Most ITN content usually has further-reaching implications, for example the photography of a black hole or discovery of the Higgs boson, which won't be the case for uranium-214 unless its discovery also marks that of something else exceptional. Sorry. ComplexRational (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- I merged its contents to Isotopes of uranium#Uranium-214. ComplexRational (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- That said, thanks for your contribution User:Elijahandskip. -DePiep (talk) 10:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- I merged its contents to Isotopes of uranium#Uranium-214. ComplexRational (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).
Administrator changes
Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless- Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)
Guideline and policy news
- Consensus was reached to deprecate Wikipedia:Editor assistance.
- Following a Request for Comment the Book namespace was deprecated.
Technical news
- Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.
Arbitration
- After a Clarification request, the Arbitration Committee modified Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case. This means sourcing expectations are a discretionary sanction instead of being present on all articles. It also details using the talk page or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to discuss disputed sources.
Administrators' newsletter – July 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
- An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.
Technical news
- IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.
Arbitration
- The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.
Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive
Hello ComplexRational:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.
Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.
island of stability
I see you made it to Atomic Rockets. :) Double sharp (talk) 08:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- Cool, thanks for sharing this! It would be most curious if a long-lived SHE finds its way into rocket engineering or interstellar travel one day, considering the energy released by their SF would likely be greater than that of U or Pu... still a while off though.
- (Also, FWIW, it's all over the internet already, on Wikipedia mirror sites and other such places) ;) ComplexRational (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.
Technical news
- Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)
Arbitration
- Following an amendment request, the committee has clarified that the Talk page exception to the 500/30 rule in remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case does not apply to requested move discussions.
Miscellaneous
- You can vote for candidates in the 2021 Board of Trustees elections from 4 August to 17 August. Four community elected seats are up for election.
Romero to Tottenham
Hi
I see that you added back Romero within Atalanta B.C. loans. I tryied to look for a source that clearly state that this deal is a loan, but actually found nothing (major Italian and English web site speaks about a fee of 50M€ but not go deeper into details). Do you have any (better) source to add in the page, stating cleraly that is a loan? could you (if, so) add it ?
thanks in advance, best regards
Riktetta (talk) 07:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Riktetta: Hi, thank you for the message. I was somewhat confused by this myself because every source published prior to a few hours after the transfer spoke of a definite sale, then reports of an initial loan circulated. It is said clearly in a press release on Atalanta's website, which I added already, and also in a few third-party sources. Should I add one or two of these as well? ComplexRational (talk) 13:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- @ComplexRational:Hi, sorry, just realized you answered me. I saw that you added a further ref, well done. thanks again
Riktetta (talk) 08:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- @ComplexRational:Hi, sorry, just realized you answered me. I saw that you added a further ref, well done. thanks again
Administrators' newsletter – September 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).
Administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- Feedback is requested on the Universal Code of Conduct enforcement draft by the Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2 drafting committee.
- A RfC is open on whether to allow administrators to use extended confirmed protection on high-risk templates.
- A discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
- A RfC on the next steps after the trial of pending changes on TFAs has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.
Technical news
- The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.
Arbitration
- A request for comment is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Comments and new proposals are welcome.
Miscellaneous
- The 2021 RfA review is now open for comments.
Thanks for cleaning up behind
- Oberta2025 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
It's...how shall I phrase it...a new account but not a new editor. I indef'ed. Not sure if you recognized them as
- 208.102.2.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
that you had met previously. DMacks (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- @DMacks: Glad to help, and thank you as well. Had I done more digging, I probably would have suspected that, but I hardly remember specifically reverting them the first time. Still a chance (hopefully not) that we meet them again, though. ComplexRational (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021
Hello ComplexRational,
Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.
Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.
At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.
There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.
Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – October 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
- Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.
Technical news
- DiscussionTools has superseded Enterprisey's reply-link script. Editors may switch using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features.
Arbitration
- A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
- Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
- The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.
Miscellaneous
- Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
- The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
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)
- (later addition to this thread) I just found the entire issue of Bloomberg Businessweek in which that article was published, it's here. It's a special issue dedicated to all of the elements; not all elements get their individual articles (the original article covers all from 93 through 118). Some elements are labeled off into small boxes as "(mostly) useless" and some are described in small boxes titled, "What if you eat it?", which shows not all elements are treated very seriously (the bit about polonium is the best reflection of that). Perhaps one could entertain themselves with this for a while.
- I don't know if I'll ever use it again in an element article (it is good to make the point that production of superheavy elements is expensive), who knows, but since I mentioned the article in this thread, I think it would be appropriate to share the whole issue it was in.--R8R (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hmm...the bit on SHEs was an interesting read, thank you. It does make a few important points and has some nice trivia, but it admittedly is not as serious and has a few inaccuracies (e.g. "an extra-stable titanium isotope with six more neutrons than standard titanium"; 54Ti is certainly not extra-stable and 44Ti is certainly not standard titanium). On that note, I'm not completely sure what to make of it, but the whole issue could be a nice thing to read on the side. ComplexRational (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- It comes as no surprise that the issue is not consistently correct as I was able to find two errors in the original material alone: the Japanese researchers were not after element 112, they were after element 113; and credit for discovery of element 102 is not shared between Berkeley and Dubna but is rather assigned to Dubna alone. Still, there may be certain things that you haven't considered but you can now that you've read about them (like how I had not considered the cost of the SHE production), and you can look them up now that you know they exist and may be of interest. I'll see if that could be the case for any element I'll write about in the future, that's what I'll make of it. Maybe you could find this idea worthy of consideration, too.--R8R (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hmm...the bit on SHEs was an interesting read, thank you. It does make a few important points and has some nice trivia, but it admittedly is not as serious and has a few inaccuracies (e.g. "an extra-stable titanium isotope with six more neutrons than standard titanium"; 54Ti is certainly not extra-stable and 44Ti is certainly not standard titanium). On that note, I'm not completely sure what to make of it, but the whole issue could be a nice thing to read on the side. ComplexRational (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2020 (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)
- Seems to be User talk:R8R/Archive 5#if only I could understand Russian. Double sharp (talk) 04:08, 30 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)
- Definitely worth mentioning if we compile a section describing difficulties of SHE research. ComplexRational (talk) 14:34, 29 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? :)
- @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)
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)
- 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)
Come to think of superheavy element, I remembered an old graph that once was in tennessine (back when it was called ununseptium) that may be useful for the article should we discuss decay modes closely. The work on which this graph is based accounts for alpha decay, cluster decay, and cold fission. The work itself is easy to find in the internet for free.--R8R (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- @R8R: Maybe that would be useful to demonstrate increasing stability towards alpha decay, but that graph is almost certainly wrong when considering total half-lives – namely the importance of SF and β− branches – both of which will likely be the most significant decay modes once alpha decay partial half-lives increase several orders of magnitude beyond N = 184. I thus wouldn't advise using it unless we somehow can tie it to something specifically about alpha decay. For a more complete and correct picture, I always find myself rereading this presentation; its model of all decay modes is not unreasonable and is the most complete set of predictions I can find. I'm not sure if we can upload files of those graphs, though. ComplexRational (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Talking about alpha decay, at least to some extent, was what I had in mind. I begin to think whether superheavy element should have a section titled "Introduction" at all, although this is not a proposal to remove the content; merely to split the section. On the other hand, "Introduction" sounds inviting, that's a good reason to keep it... I'm pondering this. Regardless, what you got from JINR is indeed better (thank you for sharing), that will be very useful. I don't think there will be problems; realistically, we may have to change the color scheme in case there are overly cautious Wikipedians.--R8R (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- I think the content of that section looks pretty good as is, only I wouldn't consider it "introduction". Once we do some more work on the article, I'd rename the section "synthesis" (or as a subsection of a section "synthesis") that explains how SHEs are synthesized. This would then be parallel to sections about history (which I started expanding but am lagging on), chemical properties (a rework of the bottom), and decay modes & nuclear stability (including some of these charts, as well as information from several other articles explaining the models). We can outline this more on the article talk page, and I shockingly might have extra time to work on this in the midst of this pandemic (all my classes are online only for at least a month now). (That said, stay safe, and best wishes.) ComplexRational (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- And regarding images: the main question is, are these considered simple enough or hard facts that they fall automatically into the public domain? Or could there be licensing for these slides (worst case, we might have to wiggle our way through fair use)?
- I also recall a while back studying these charts extensively and creating my own version of File:Superheavy_decay_modes_predicted.png using KTUY data (when I had a lot more free time and nothing better to do), but that would likely inherit the copyright (or lack thereof) of the sources from which the data is derived. Plus, though of course I would never fabricate data, I can only give my word that it accurately represents the same information as the slides. ComplexRational (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- The existing section is certainly not bad, but I don't yet have a picture in my head of what's the final result of superheavy element is going to look like. The question is, there are currently two subsections; should they remain together? The section attempts to cover the entire lifetime of a superheavy nucleus, but the existing text does not yet mention how chemical (or physical) experiments are run, and that, too, is going to need space. And one section may be too lengthy for this, so we'll need two; but if there are two, it may be that we will need greater distinction between them: the current section is a continuous story and we may need two separate, even if interrelated, ones instead. But do we want to lose that great continuous story? A Synthesis section would need to pay more attention to details like cross sections... there is a lot of room for thinking here.
- As for when we start to work on it: I am not entirely sure when that will happen exactly. It will, have no doubts about that, but I don't know when. First of all, I feel a little held back by how there's an FAC that's about to begin and thus it feels like I can't really focus on anything else (but for the time being, it keeps not beginning and thus has me waiting). But soon that's going to stop to matter as much because soon I'm going to have to finish off my master's thesis, soon the final examination period begins, and this is likely to keep me busy for a while. And as for what I promised to you, history of the periodic table comes before that. It can be debated if you want to but then I'm not sure I'll get back to it in the end (though I'd want to, so let's keep the tasks in the original order).
- That's fine, let's get Hs through FAC first (how long do you think until we can start?) and then we'll check in on history of the periodic table. If I find any good resources in the meantime, I'll post them here or at the article talk pages. ComplexRational (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Let's say I hope soon enough :) I'll be curious to read what you'll get, if anything. I have yet to think how to integrate those links I added to Talk:History of the periodic table (I recall you sent me some of those even if I don't remember which ones); feel free to add more to that list.--R8R (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- That's fine, let's get Hs through FAC first (how long do you think until we can start?) and then we'll check in on history of the periodic table. If I find any good resources in the meantime, I'll post them here or at the article talk pages. ComplexRational (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your concerns; stay healthy yourself! (How long has it been since you last washed your hands?) I generally think I'll be fine but taking precautions like washing my hands more often and not touching my face is still a good idea; I hope you think the same. As for me, the change has been that I no longer have to go to work because I work from home instead. I also don't have to go to the university, but I get my tasks to do via the internet instead... all of this doesn't result in much additional spare time for me, unfortunately.
- Yes, these are good precuations; I say the number one thing right now is constant vigilance (and not too long ago did I sanitize or wash my hands). Spare time, of course though, does not always translate into extra productivity here unfortunately: if I still have my exams combined with the difficulties of doing everything from home, I'm still not sure how much substantial content I can contribute while we ride this out. But I'll try my best, and good luck on your thesis and exams when the time for those arrives. ComplexRational (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- I recently read an article on sanitation: different children had their hands cleaned by different things: some by soap, some by nothing, some by hand sanitizer, some had touched their laptops, and there was a control sandwich not touched at all. Then were asked to touch sandwiches. Those sandwiches were packed and kept away from light for a month. The sandwiches were all covered by ugly bacteria, and the bread looked very far from edible. Two exceptions were the untouched control sandwich and the sandwich touched by children who had washed their hands with soap. Surprisingly (for me), hand sanitizer did not perform well at all. You may want to keep that in mind (the experiment has been described here). Presumably you'll still do more than I will in the next couple of months. Thank for your wishes; I'll make it, it's just going to take some time to get there, but I am confident in the upcoming success.
- I still prefer soap and water as much as possible. And though things are deteriorating all around, I think we'll make it okay. ComplexRational (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- I recently read an article on sanitation: different children had their hands cleaned by different things: some by soap, some by nothing, some by hand sanitizer, some had touched their laptops, and there was a control sandwich not touched at all. Then were asked to touch sandwiches. Those sandwiches were packed and kept away from light for a month. The sandwiches were all covered by ugly bacteria, and the bread looked very far from edible. Two exceptions were the untouched control sandwich and the sandwich touched by children who had washed their hands with soap. Surprisingly (for me), hand sanitizer did not perform well at all. You may want to keep that in mind (the experiment has been described here). Presumably you'll still do more than I will in the next couple of months. Thank for your wishes; I'll make it, it's just going to take some time to get there, but I am confident in the upcoming success.
- Yes, these are good precuations; I say the number one thing right now is constant vigilance (and not too long ago did I sanitize or wash my hands). Spare time, of course though, does not always translate into extra productivity here unfortunately: if I still have my exams combined with the difficulties of doing everything from home, I'm still not sure how much substantial content I can contribute while we ride this out. But I'll try my best, and good luck on your thesis and exams when the time for those arrives. ComplexRational (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Based on my past experience with images, I think they don't fall into the public domain but they have data that can be redrawn and published under any license good enough for Commons. (Not necessarily by hand, of course, but making it visibly different to represent the same data should be enough. The thing susceptible to copyright here is design, not the data itself.) Have that in mind but don't worry too much about it.--R8R (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- We'll work on this further then. I'll have to dig through my older files, and I can email you said image if you'd like to take a look (the design is not at all aesthetic, it mirrors the other file I mentioned using different numerical data). ComplexRational (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'd be curious to take a look; I drew some pictures a while ago myself but they were lost with the previous laptop.--R8R (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- I emailed it two days ago. ComplexRational (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- Talking about alpha decay, at least to some extent, was what I had in mind. I begin to think whether superheavy element should have a section titled "Introduction" at all, although this is not a proposal to remove the content; merely to split the section. On the other hand, "Introduction" sounds inviting, that's a good reason to keep it... I'm pondering this. Regardless, what you got from JINR is indeed better (thank you for sharing), that will be very useful. I don't think there will be problems; realistically, we may have to change the color scheme in case there are overly cautious Wikipedians.--R8R (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
November 2021 backlog drive
| New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive |  |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. | |
Happy First Edit Day!
Have a very happy first edit anniversary!
From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
@CAPTAIN RAJU: Thank you! ComplexRational (talk) 04:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.
Technical news
- Toolhub is a catalogue of tools which can be used on Wikimedia wikis. It is at https://toolhub.wikimedia.org/.
Arbitration
- GeneralNotability, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections. Ivanvector and John M Wolfson are reserve commissioners.
- Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves to stand in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections from 07 November 2021 until 16 November 2021.
Miscellaneous
- The 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of five new CheckUsers and two new Oversighters.