User talk:ComplexRational/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Disambiguation link notification for November 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited R-process, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fission (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Unbibium

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Unbibium you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Double sharp -- Double sharp (talk) 08:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Gold

I've wanted to write this all along after you introduced yourself at WT:ELEM but I've been busy and less active here in Wikipedia than I'd want to be. You're certainly right in trying to pick an article of your own and trying to improve it. The most rewarding thing here in Wiki I can imagine is to bring an article to the FA status. However, I'd strongly recommend to pick an easier target. There are very few articles that require some extreme handling, and gold is one of these because it has some unusual aspects about it that differentiate it from most other elements (you'd have to describe gold as an economic asset, for example, its unusual symbolic status, etc.). I remember the struggle I've had writing my first featured article, fluorine. It is difficult to write actually good articles (as far as you're not used to it, then it gets easier), so it is a massive help to have an example to follow, and I remember really wanting one at that point; while you can use examples for some sections, there is no help for everything with gold. (Speaking of examples, I highly recommend examining lead: most element articles are similar, and this one is well-composed, so you're free to use it as an example. I wrote that article myself, and it's probably not very humble to praise my own work, but I implemented a lot of ideas I've had about article writing in it and it came out great. I used it to get thinking started when I started to write aluminium myself.)

Disclaimer: It is no secret that I want to eventually promote that article myself (I have a list of future goals linked to in my own user page) but that's not at all related. I'm thinking in terms of getting closer to the everblue PTQ and I'd be happy to see any cell go blue, so if gold is getting featured without my input, I'll just focus one something else: for example, silver seems an equally good pick. My point is, I do want to help here and with all writing experience I've had, I thinking this suggestion is actually helpful since you're just getting started (I was once there, too) and there are no ulterior motives here. I'd be glad to help you get acquainted with article writing even if you end up ignoring my advice but it seems that I may not be able to help much soon because I'm busy IRL and I've already committed to help UtopianPoyzin in form of a peer review and I've only been able to keep up with them because they seem busy IRL as well.

In the meantime, I could send you a few very good books I've used to this day for writing articles. You could probably find them yourself after some heavy search, too, but it'll save you the effort to do so if you just ask me. Just write me an email with an address to send them to (or, as I recall, you can write any email and while I won't see the address I got the letter from, I can reply to the said email and I see what address I replied to; I wonder if they fixed that). If you're interested, visit my user page, click "Email this user" in the panel under the Wikipedia logo on the left, and write the email.

Whatever you end up doing, I wholeheartedly wish you to have a good time here.--R8R (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@R8R: Thank you very much for these suggestions - and don't feel bad, I am also very busy IRL. For the time being, I would like to focus on bringing starts and C-classes to GA while I learn how to bring a GA to FA. There are a few 'easier' articles I already had in mind (it probably is prudent not to try something like gold yet as I would not know how to do extreme handling), though they fall slightly outside the scope of WP:ELEM and are more related to e.g. nuclear physics. I would indeed appreciate the books very much, though I need to first enable and configure mail. I'll e-mail you when I'm ready, and likely periodically after that (pun intended) as I try to navigate through everything. ComplexRational (talk) 23:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit: If these books are freely available online, I'd prefer only the titles, authors, etc. and the links. And please respond here or ping me once you send it. Thanks again. ComplexRational (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't able to reply sooner. You see, the deal is that I don't have the links at hand and I did say these were hard to find (not sure about all of them, I genuinely don't remember, but some certainly were), didn't I? That's the easier way to go. The harder way is that I once found a book on a site that the copyright owners hardly meant to use to distribute their work freely (and they probably didn't mean that at all) and posted a link to it in a discussion on a talk page (it was a Proto-Indo-European or a Proto-Germanic dictionary and I needed it to write Lead#Etymology and requested some help from linguists here in Wiki in deciphering it). Some editor told me not to do that any more because that wasn't super legal and somehow he mentioned he wished a Proto-Celtic dictionary was available online. I was lucky to find the book he wanted (it probably won't surprise you if I say Google gives you different search results in different countries) and I sent it to him via email; he thanked me and said he wasn't alien to online piracy but posting a link potentially violating copyright anywhere in Wikipedia can mean legal problems for Wikimedia so that was why he'd told me not to share such links via Wikipedia before. (At least that's how I remember the story.) So even if I were to find those links again (which is an unnecessary complication already if you ask me), this may also be problematic for Wikipedia, so let's not do that here. I hope that's fine with you. My email is still available.

Bringing C to GA is also fine. Although I'll note going for GA is a somewhat loosely defined goal. Compare, for instance, ruthenium and iron, which are both GAs: the former is, despite its status, a somewhat poorly written article and I'd certainly want to write more while the latter seems pretty good (somewhat wordy, yes, but I think that's allowed for such important topics in history, biology, industry, etc.) and has most of what you need for a successful FAC. So the former is not very much of an achievement (I have written an article of similar quality, lutetium, also a GA, and now am somewhat ashamed of it. Maybe I'll return to it and get it featured too. Come to think of it, we still don't have a lanthanide FA and that may be a good reason to write one. But I digress) while the latter is. So my advice would be to write such better, deeper in coverage GAs. (Although if you got that far, why stop there and not try to go for FA? I'd be happy to help you out if you try that.)

If you have an idea on which article you'd like to improve, that's great, go for it. But if you happen to want some help at picking an article, I'd recommend checking out Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Popular pages and picking something from the top. Of the C-class articles, for instance, gold seems a huge goal, and phosphorus and sulfur seem pretty big tasks, too, given their role in chemistry and biology, but magnesium should be fine and seems like a nice article for a start.--R8R (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm thinking articles such as r-process (for which I actually began a draft), nuclear drip line, and maybe also the hefty extended periodic table, though as I said, they may fall outside the scope of this project and I may need to consult WP:PHYS. I could also try an element article, though I need to review some more sophisticated chemistry and will likely be constantly seeking input from other editors. If I do get a GA, we can then discuss FA prospects (as you said, why stop there?). ComplexRational (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Unbibium

The article Unbibium you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Unbibium for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Double sharp -- Double sharp (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I was mentioned by R8R, so I ended up on your userpage through notification. I wholeheartedly agree with R8R about the Gold article; there is too much to be done based on its status. However, because I saw this section, I highly encourage you to submit a 1-2 sentence DYK question to be featured on the mainpage. I have a few ideas in mind about suitable topics, but because you just got Unbibium to a GA, now would be a good time to get a DYK snippet up. Just a thought. If you need ideas for what it could be, let me know. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 05:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@UtopianPoyzin: I feel that Marinov's claimed discovery in 2008 is bizarre enough to provoke interest in the subject (as a DYK snippet), even though it was a highly controversial claim that was refuted by the entire scientific community. Any other ideas are welcome, just I do not want something that would utterly confuse an average reader (e.g. difficulty in synthesis). ComplexRational (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the Marinov thing would have made a great hook; alas, we passed the seven-day limit without realising it. Oh well. There is a huge backlog, but since we're only two days late and this is your first GA, it may be worth a try. Double sharp (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

My mistake, I see you did. The article alerts on the WT:ELEM page don't seem to be updating on time. Double sharp (talk) 11:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination

Hey Complex, I just wanted to remind you about your DYK nomination. To start, I just wanted to say that you and I are on the same page about what Unbibium fact to include, because that was the same topic that I was thinking about, so thank you for creating the hook. Second, I figured I'd help out by reviewing the hook that you wrote, which I did, and I approved (you can ignore about what I said about the second half of the hook, it's not a big deal). However, I did give you some leeway when it comes to the very last requirement. If you want your hook approved, the nominator needs to review somebody else's DYK nomination per WP:QPQ. Just wanted to let you know that you should get that done before somebody catches you on it. You can delete this when you read it. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@UtopianPoyzin: Thanks, will do right away. However, WP:DYK states "Exception: If, at the time a nomination is promoted to the main page, its nominator has fewer than five DYK credits (whether or not self-nominated) then the nomination is exempt from QPQ," though I will still try to review somebody else's hook. ComplexRational (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, I guess it isn't required. The exception is in place mostly for those who neglect to review other people's DYK nominations. If I'm interpreting the rule correctly, you gain a DYK credit whenever you nominate a DYK hook, and it is removed when you review somebody else's. So, you can get away with nominating up to 5, but then every subsequent nomination requires that you review a DYK hook for yourself. However, reviewing 5 nominations should set your DYK credit back to 0. Then again, that could be wrong. Now your credit should be at 0 as well, so you are all refreshed. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 02:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Take part in a survey

Hi ComplexRational

We're working to measure the value of Wikipedia in economic terms. We want to ask you some questions about how you value being able to edit Wikipedia.

Our survey should take about 10-15 minutes of your time. We hope that you will enjoy it and find the questions interesting. All answers will be kept strictly confidential and will be anonymized before the aggregate results are published. Regretfully, we can only accept responses from people who live in the US due to restrictions in our grant-based funding.

As a reward for your participation, we will randomly pick 1 out of every 5 participants and give them $25 worth of goods of their choice from the Wikipedia store (e.g. Wikipedia themed t-shirts). Note that we can only reward you if you are based in the US.

Click here to access the survey: https://mit.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eXJcEhLKioNHuJv

Thanks

Avi

Researcher, MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy --Avi gan (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Unbibium

On 13 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Unbibium, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a research group led by Amnon Marinov claimed in 2008 that the unknown element unbibium could be found occurring naturally in thorium deposits? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Unbibium. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Unbibium), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Ping failure

Just a note - The {{ping}} template and your signature must be added in the same edit in order for the ping to be sent. Thus I never received this ping even after this signature. You probably figured this out because you didn't see a new alert in your alert list. It took me a long time to figure this problem out because (if I remember correctly) I noticed something weird before we had those alert notifications. You do sometimes receive "ping failure" alert, but I'm not sure when that happens so I don't depend on it. The only time I can remember receiving a "ping not sent" notification was when I tried pinging an IP> YBG (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Isotope template lists

Hi. I see you make many edits in Category:Infobox element per element (0) and Category:Infobox element isotopes templates (119). If there is anything you like to have improved or made more easy: please say so (to me or at WT:ELEM). Especially the presentation of info is interesting (as opposed to: technically being the right info). I don't know much about isotopes, but I can make great infoboxes ;-) -DePiep (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@DePiep: Thank you for your support. For now, I was just updating information from a more recent source.

I wonder if it is possible to have a system in which a given isotope only needs to be updated once with new information, and avoid the need to update all the tables and templates separately (which is both time-consuming and tedious). Do you have any ideas better than creating 3100+ templates (one for each isotope)? ComplexRational (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Bonanza! Bingo! That single-point-of-data-edit is or should be "Wikidata". However, enwiki editors have met serious flaws and enwiki--wikidata are not in love any more (this is re WP:ELEMENTS and WP:CHEMICAL), esp {{Chembox}} I am familiar with: it is not 'allowed' by enwiki community (in chemicals) to pull data out of WD. WRT elements: Template:Infobox element/symbol-to-saw/testcases-wikidata shows the difference between std atomic weight in WD and enwiki. Isn't this the easiest value to get right? Still WD does not have it. (and so all molar weights in WD are not to be trusted).

Now for common element values we have these elaborate data lists in [[1]]. However, creating this at enwiki for the 3100 isotopes ... not very soon. HTH -DePiep (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@DePiep: I see, then the "easy way" will not work. I don't know if it is possible to map one symbol to a list of multiple isotopes (or is that what the isoboxes do?) or include every isotope in isobox but set a parameter to only show a few in the infobox - I may experiment with that in a sandbox. Even if not, it would be helpful to embed isobox in infobox if possible (to at least only require updating one template rather than two). ComplexRational (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

First some refinement: (will link to the RfC discussion using Wikidata asap).

If we do the isotopes data centralised at enwiki (like some element properties are), it should be in Lua. As said, I don't think I can spend much time on that next months.

But what do you think about this: can we make all isotopes OK in Wikidata? So, we can pull all data from Wikidata (sure in infoboxes, maybe even in the full & complete table on isotopes articles). That is the ideal long shot, but it would add having to deal with Wikidata. They have different data modeling concept, and I remember struggles (unfulfilling discussions) with property definitions. (I will make a demo. Which few isotopes would be good test demos?) -DePiep (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

d:Property:P2114 See User:DePiep/isobox where I noted some Wikidata links, to get an overview. For example: half-life property is available, so should be confirmed (sourced, edited). Missing: property mass number. Todo: for a single isotope, pull out & show all Wikidata info. -DePiep (talk) 11:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@DePiep: We have {{NUBASE 2016}} and the mass table as sources (which appear, in some cases, to already be used in Wikidata). If enwiki cannot use wikidata (unless I am misunderstanding you), then what can be done? We can update with the most recent information (though I am unsure about the data modeling concepts) - and for test isotopes, I'd suggest ⁴⁰K, ⁵⁶Fe, ^99mTc, ¹⁷⁷Lu, ²²²Rn, ²⁶⁰Md (this list represents a variety of abundances, decay modes, half-lives, energy, and spins).

TL;DR: enwiki can use Wikidata input, it is not forbidden (I describe the details on why I said so). 3100 isotopes in Wikidata requires serious work: setup data & properties over there, add data from RS, then enwiki can read that (=the WD intention). However, serious hurdles are ahead. Creating an enwiki dataset for 3100 isotopes is probably too huge (and not easier than through WD). Can be done through cooperation.

long replies: enwiki can use Wikidata freely, and we (WP:ELEMENTS) can consider using WD for the isotopes without reservation. Our job would be: is WD data OK, complete, correct, etc. and that involves working on WD not on enwiki (discussing properties, editing/improving data, sourcing data, ...).

Having to handle 3100 individual sets of isotope data would be great to be in WD (esp for being systematically in there), not locally at enwiki. That is: if it can be done, broadly speaking (later more on the next, "how-to-then", question). After all, just 120 elements is within mind, 3100 isos's not.

I said "flaws and no love wrt enwiki-WD" is short, crude and fast. More detailed, it has these two backgrounds:

1. This RfC Wikipedia:Wikidata/2018 Infobox RfC is about using WD in infoboxes, one of the biggest advantages WD offers. However, the opposition was strong. For example: vandalism at WD, mass edits by bots, source checking: too hard to follow & check, WD is hard to edit (when you are used to enwiki), etc. (Just find posts by "Dirk Beetstra": he is active in WP:CHEMICALS and {{Chembox}} and so I worked with him; they sum up why chemistry people do not want to use much WD these days). I call this the "{{Chembox}} community objection" for short.

2. My experiences with standard atomic weight, that is through the chemical elements then. This list compares WD and enwiki (=CIAAW, formal!) s.a.w. WD even adds unit "u" to the relative value. Their numbers are from PubChem, which makes me doubt the qualitiy of that source (this being PubChem no less). Also, if PubChem has the s.a.w. so wrong, what does that say about the molar mass for chemcials PubChem presents?!? Arguing over there did not help. So this is why I started symbol-to-saw here at enwiki. Just see the beautiful list it has. Enwiki has the numbers right! (We use these values in element infoboxes. Todo: use them for molar mass calculations).

So these are two reasons against using WD. (BTW, my background: I am not a scientist, but I do maintain templates etc.)

Now: how-to if we want to have our wiki isotopes database? IMO it is worth trying to get the isotopes correct in WD (data, properties, etc). This is a long journey, and takes discussion & editing energy spend in the Wikidata site not here. For starters, the properties set should be made complete (try adding "mass number"). Then data & sources should be OK. Good news: WD seems to have a "mix&match" application to do mass editing from external databases (NUBASE 2016?). Once the WD setup looks promising, we here at enwiki can build infoboxes and even big tables to use that data.

Building the 3100 isotopes dataset on enwiki can be done, but also is a huge enterprise. At least "we" would master our own data & setup.

These months, I do not have time to spend the editing time on this it seriously requires. So, I lied a bit when I asked: "Is there anything I can do for you" ;-). I'll make a note and subpage at WP:ELEMENTS with my early investigation today, it might take off.

If you are interested, you could start exploring Wikidata, try to get the communication going with the people there. If it works, you sure won't have to do it on your own. -DePiep (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@DePiep: Indeed, I will explore that option (though will finding collaborators for such an undertaking be feasible?). In that case, I don't know if a long list such as this draft (for which I don't know if individual rows could be made templates) or list of nuclides would have any value, until some system here or at Wikidata is up and running. That will take some time.

Alternatively, the number of templates may be reducible to a few hundred if we only consider naturally occurring isotopes, most stable radioisotopes, and isotopes with practical applications. That is still substantially greater than 122 elements. ComplexRational (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Or, how about a system similar to what was implemented for oxidation states in infobox element? ComplexRational (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

124

Hi! Just wanted to write you a quick apology note for not responding for so long. Back in December, I had my tests that concluded the university semester, and I thought that I could prepare to them in enough time to have some to write back to you, but alas, I miscalculated and when the exams were over, I was busy with the New Year routine, soon I left the city to celebrate it, and now that I'm back, I have upcoming exams (starting with the one I had on the fifth). I presume I should have some time after the exam on the tenth, so maybe I'll check your work on 124 and maybe even 126 on the eleventh. This will certainly be the first big thing (as opposed to dropping a small comment somewhere maybe) I do this year whenever that happens. Sorry that I'm making you wait.

For now, I'll go check the alerts I got in the meantime. The number near the bell icon in the top right corner of the page is six (oh my) and somebody sent me a message on the talk page.--R8R (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for answering in the teahouse! I really appreciate it. Sage~ 01:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Sage risen: Thank you, and happy editing! ComplexRational (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Transfer reactions

Some preliminary positive-looking results came out of the ²³⁸U+²³²Th reaction in 2018: "The data in Figure 6 indicate the observation of a number of previously unreported alpha emitters with energies reaching as high as 11.5 MeV. Given the multi-nucleon transfer mechanism in play many of these are expected to be previously unseen neutron rich products. The raw comparison between data and predictions in the millisecond and second time-ranges shows α-particle energies which might represent decay from very high Z isotopes. However, we must recognize that alpha-particles emitted from new isomeric states can have energies quite different from those of their ground state counterparts and thus would lead to a different t_1/2 energy correlation. This is well established in the Fr-At region, for example [63]." (I'd already told R8R about this one last year, but I thought it'd be useful for you too. ^_^) Double sharp (talk) 02:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Thanks, this makes a great addition to the section in Island of stability that I was working on, and suggests that there may yet be a way to produce these SHE! ComplexRational (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

NPOV

I recently clarified that northern cyprus is occupied illegally by Turkey. This is fact, and not a pov. As you know, fact is irrefutable and there are no alternatives to fact. Truth is absolute. Human rights violations have been and continue to be directed against Greek Cypriots because of their ethnicity, religion and language. Such discrimination is explicitly prohibited under the European Convention of Human Rights (article 14) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (article 21).

"...The Commission has found…that the acts violating the Convention were exclusively directed against members of…the Greek Cypriot community…Turkey has failed to secure the rights and freedoms set forth in these articles without discrimination on the grounds of ethnic origin, race and religion as required by article 14 of the Convention..."

Council of Europe, European Commission of Human Rights, Application Nos. 6780/74 and 6950/75, Cyprus v. Turkey Italic text The European Commission of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights have found Turkey guilty of gross violations of several key articles of the European Convention. Turkey is obligated to comply with all decisions of European human rights institutions.

As a result of the Turkish invasion:

36.2 percent of the Republic of Cyprus is under illegal Turkish occupation More than 43,000 Turkish occupation soldiers, equipped with modern weaponry and supported by the Turkish air force and navy are illegally stationed in the occupied area 200,000 Greek Cypriot refugees are prevented from returning to their homes and lands 162,000 colonists have been illegally transferred to the occupied area by Turkey to alter the demography of the island More than 1,000 persons are still listed as missing The ancient culture of the occupied north has and is still being eradicated to perpetrate the myth that the area is Turkish

"...the northern part of the island is one of the most highly militarized areas in the world in terms of the ratio between numbers of troops and civilian population".

Report of the UN Secretary-General to the Security Council on the United Nations Operation in Cyprus S/1994/680 7 June 1994 Italic text

Kind regards,

(I need to make an account and will be back shortly) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.11.207 (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I reverted your change because the neutral point of view policy states that "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed." and it requires an impartial tone, especially when discussing controversial topics.

While I am not disputing the factual accuracy of your change (in fact, the article Turkish invasion of Cyprus clearly says it), the exact implementation appeared as if it was your personal opinion rather than a publicly accepted opinion that is verifiable (as in that article; ) - and your opening statement in this thread suggests that you do hold an opinion. It is important to note that Wikipedia prioritizes verifiability over truth, i.e. that just being right (even if an absolute truth) is not sufficient for inclusion unless it can be supported reliably and without undue weight. I would also like to highlight that the article Star and crescent is not the main article on the dispute; such a change (albeit presented more neutrally with a reliable source) would be better justified there. In summary, your change connoted a personal opinion, and it appeared more dubious and less impartial because it was interjected where the dispute was not the focus.

By all means, though, feel free to work on the relevant articles, as long as you clearly and neutrally present your information and provide proper attribution. Thank you. ComplexRational (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Odd Stalebrink

It wasn't really my page anyway, as you know. It was just one of these silly cases where Twinkle thought it was mine, and as you realized, U5 doesn't apply to drafts or sandboxes. What does apply is the autobiography policy, but Reject is the usual way to deal with them in draft space. In article space there are four ways to deal with autobiographies: A7; BLPPROD; AFD; and tagging. We start at the left. That is, if we can A7 it, we A7 it. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Thank you; that approach for handling autobiographies (in article or draft space) will be very helpful. Perhaps Twinkle lagged? ComplexRational (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

We had an edit conflict. Those occasionally happen. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi ComplexRational. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Amorymeltzer: Thank you for reviewing my request - I will definitely keep everything in mind. ComplexRational (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Changes to Buncrana Page

I made factual changes to the Buncrana history page. Everything I edited is correct. I am a member of West Inishowen History and Heritage Society based in Buncrana. What is your qualification? The mayor of Buncrana is listed as “Barry Doherty”. This is a complete fabrication. Is it your doing? Also the amazing grace story has absolutely no basis in fact. It is a tourist initiative set up by a born again Christian group who have their own self interest, not a historical one. Could you tell me what qualifies you to edit my facts?

Slavary ghost (talk) 11:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Slavary ghost: Thank you for your concern. The reason I reverted your change (special:diff/881505375) is because it removed sourced content without a clear explanation. Such changes are normally frowned upon, and unless the reason is obvious (e.g. a blatant hoax), they will most likely be reverted. If you believe the information was correct, please provide an explanation in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Now that you also mention that you are a member of the West Inishowen History and Heritage Society, you must take extra care when editing these articles because of a possible conflict of interest. I also noticed that you have a history of edits that were reverted on that page by many editors - which strongly suggests that whatever changes you are making are either in contravention with consensus or are otherwise unconstructive; this constitutes an edit war and may result in a block if it persists. I recommend that you declare your conflict of interest and start a discussion on the talk page regarding what facts you believe are correct, and of course, keep in mind that reliable sources are required - unsourced material is routinely challenged and removed.

And to answer your last question, my qualification is not really relevant because I was patrolling recent changes at the time, which means that I was reviewing the log of recent edits to check for potentially problematic ones (which requires more knowledge of Wikipedia policy than content of the articles, except in more complicated cases such as checking suspected hoaxes). Though when I do substantial addition or removal of content, I always make sure I understand what I write and cite the appropriate sources - that too is a fundamental policy. ComplexRational (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

You did not answer my question. What qualifies you to change my facts? I do not see how being in a local historical society is in any way a conflict of interest when it comes to UPDATING LOCAL HISTORY. I see from your bio that you a still in school. Please leave my edits alone. I know what I’m doing is correct. You have no connection to Buncrana. You are an interfering busybody. If you continue to harass me i will see that it is you who are blocked. Slavary ghost (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

In the edit above, you did not add information; you removed it. The information you removed was referenced. To remove referenced information at the very minimum requires an edit summary explaining the change, which you did not provide. I hope that you can see that if you were to add information to an article that included references backing up the information you added, it would be important that someone else not remove that added information without an explanation. At wikipedia, even experts in a given field are held to fairly high standards of speaking nicely to one another, of assuming the best in others, and in providing references to information and explanations of our edits. I can assure you that ComplexRational is in no danger of being blocked for his actions in reverting your edit.

I know that all of these policies can be daunting for new editors. I encourage you to read them and understand how things work here at WP. I sincerely hope that you will learn about these things and so become a regular productive contributor in building this encyclopedia. YBG (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Autoblock on one of my IP addresses

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

ComplexRational (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Eeferefer". The reason given for Eeferefer's block is: "Vandalism-only account".

• Blocking administrator: Zzuuzz (talk • blocks)

---

Decline reason: Procedural decline only; Please follow the instructions at WP:IPBE to request unblock/an exemption(basically you use WP:UTRS). 331dot (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: I'm aware that this IP address is sometimes (though irregularly) used for vandalism. In this case, I will wait out the autoblock if absolutely necessary (as it isn't my home IP), though I ask that IP block exemption also be considered. ComplexRational (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The autoblock should hopefully now be lifted. We'll have to see if this happens again or much. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: It appears to be lifted. Thank you. ComplexRational (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Radon-222

On 10 March 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Radon-222, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that radiation from radon-222 and its decay products is the second-leading cause of lung cancer in the United States after cigarette smoking? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Radon-222. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Radon-222), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for showing your appreciation of my editing! I've been reverting vandalism using WP:Twinkle and I guess, based on your showing of gratitude towards moi, I'm getting it done right. Mynamemeansnothing (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mynamemeansnothing: Your edits do look good thus far. I myself got started with anti-vandalism work using Twinkle. Keep it up! ComplexRational (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Island of stability

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Island of stability you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Island of stability

The article Island of stability you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Island of stability for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Island of stability

The article Island of stability you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Island of stability for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination

ComplexRational, you'll probably notice this anyway, but I have nominated Island of stability for Did You Know. RockMagnetist(talk) 03:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@RockMagnetist: Thank you for both the heads up and the nomination. I made one small fix to a link, and do have a few suggestions (if it's not too late to change or even propose an ALT2). In the first hook, I would suggest a change to reflect that the island of stability most likely exists among undiscovered isotopes of known elements rather than elements beyond 118; I also wonder if there is a way to define magic numbers in ALT1 as many readers likely aren't familiar with that concept. I won't change anything without your agreement, though. ComplexRational (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to make any changes you like! After all, you're the biggest contributor to this article. I boldly went ahead and nominated it because I knew that nothing is set in stone. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Unbiquadium

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Unbiquadium you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wikiman2718 -- Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Island of stability

On 10 May 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Island of stability, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that there may be an island of stability with so-called magic numbers of protons and neutrons? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Island of stability. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Island of stability), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Unbiquadium

The article Unbiquadium you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Unbiquadium for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wikiman2718 -- Wikiman2718 (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Unbihexium

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Unbihexium you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of UtopianPoyzin -- UtopianPoyzin (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

TonyBallioni (talk) 02:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Thank you for reviewing this request. ComplexRational (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

RfD

If an RfD has no discussion after a week, then the default action is to delete rather than relist, per WP:RGUIDE. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Xezbeth: I see, thank you for the reminder. Does this still apply, though, when the nominator does not explicitly propose deletion (as it appeared in the one I relisted, but I may have missed something you said)? WP:RGUIDE is not clear on this. ComplexRational (talk) 12:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe not if they're vague or are suggesting a retarget, but I was the nominator of the one you relisted and was pretty clear that it shouldn't be a redirect. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Xezbeth: Right, thanks for clarifying. I'll keep this in mind in the future. ComplexRational (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Unbihexium

The article Unbihexium you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Unbihexium for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of UtopianPoyzin -- UtopianPoyzin (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

History of the periodic table

@YBG:

To recap our discussion from December, we agreed that we would bring history of the periodic table to the FA status. Now could be the time to start planning. Back in December I did not expect my call for cooperation would be answered but it was, and I, rather surprised but amused by that, started thinking what the article could look like. I've got quite an idea in my head of what should be the result. I could lay it down and we could discuss it and we could make any changes to it if that turns out to be desirable. Before we do that, however, I have one important question: YBG, are you with us on this one? I'm just making sure given that that discussion took place half a year ago. Are you still interested? If so, please just let us know and we'll start. ComplexRational and I have had a brief discussion recently which makes me believe both of us are still keen on making this happen.--R8R (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how active I will be, but I have added the page to my relatively short watchlist and will chime in as time permits. Thanks for pinging me. YBG (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's a shame if you won't be able to edit too actively but that's alright (I could tell, I would've been in a similar state for the last half a year had I been called into such a party). I hope you'll be able to take part in the discussion on the general direction. If so, we'll see from there.

I'll either write something tomorrow (which happens to be a national holiday for me) or during the weekend.--R8R (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Horn of Africa

Hi, just a friendly heads-up: I reverted Xiriid's change at Horn of Africa which you accepted; not sure if you want to re-review, or perhaps raise this at the article talk page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Thank you for the heads-up. After doing a second fact check, it seems that the research behind the map is correct but the presentation is not; there are several hypotheses for the origin of the Proto-Afroasiatic language and the map/caption given suggest that the Horn of Africa is the correct one. It's a fine line, but I see how this could violate WP:NPOV, in which case no re-review is required. I could leave a short note on the talk page as well. Again, thank you. ComplexRational (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Oxygen-20

I guess Alper Bilgin's idea is that some would come from cluster decay of natural ²²⁸Th. Much too rare in any case to detect and mention, of course. Double sharp (talk) 03:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Double sharp: That is a possibility, but you are right that the amount produced would be negligible. This raises another important question, though (I'm not sure if this was ever discussed in detail at WT:ELEM): how abundant need a "trace" radioisotope be for us to label it as naturally occurring? This is especially relevant for cosmogenic nuclides, fission/cluster decay products, and the neptunium series - where exactly do we draw the line between trace and synthetic? ComplexRational (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the most defensible line is to say that it's trace if anyone has found any. For consistency's sake I could agree with supplementing that with the daughters of such nuclides in the major decay branches (so even if no one has looked for ²¹³Bi in nature specifically – they might have, I haven't checked – it's still trace because ²³⁷Np has to pass through that). But I would not count rare branches like all those cluster decays. Otherwise the floodgates open because everything up to a certain mass number will occasionally appear due to cosmic rays and spontaneous fission. ^_^ But I think we need to make some kind of distinction between "traces", even if you draw the line strictly at somebody having found any, because some "traces" are significantly bigger than others. Double sharp (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps we can open a discussion on such a distinction at WT:ELEM. ComplexRational (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Side note on the decay chain of ²³⁷Np

@Double sharp: While it's pretty clear now that we probably shouldn't include fission or cluster decay products, I'm still not sure what to say about the neptunium series. Some sources clearly say that the chain does not occur (is extinct) in nature, but the presence of ²³⁷Np itself in nature is not disputed, implying (as you said) that all its decay products must exist, at least transiently. We have them labelled as trace radioisotopes in the infoboxes, so I probably should make notes in the tables for isotopes of Pb - Pa, but that will challenge the cited statements for the number of naturally occurring isotopes for each of those elements. However, this could also be another instance of "rare decay", considering the low initial abundance of ²³⁷Np (in the article it's given as 10^-12 relative to uranium) and short half-lives of its decay products. I won't make any more changes related to this for the moment, but I'm currently leaning towards including them as naturally occurring. ComplexRational (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Some Np series isotopes have been found in nature (paper is from 1952), so I think it's not much of a stretch to include the rest. (BTW, you may like 10.1103/PhysRev.72.253, the 1947 paper where the name "neptunium series" was first suggested for the (4n+1) series.) Double sharp (talk) 03:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Thanks for the sources; I used the first to clarify this natural occurrence in the decay chain article (it previously said the chain was completely extinct). I also finished changing all the isotopes articles to account for traces of isotopes in this decay chain - even though ²²¹Ra and ²¹⁷Rn may be a stretch. ComplexRational (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Einsteinium

I understand your comment about californium being the last element to have a use and while Californium is used in a lot of things, on Wikipedia it says that einsteinium is used in calibrators on rovers and production of heavier elements. So I dont entirely understand your comment. Can you please explain it? Porygon-Z (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Porygon-Z474: First, you are correct about the use of ²⁵⁴Es in rover calibrators - I missed that little bit of information as it is a valid application. That said, californium is the last element with a commercial application, while einsteinium is used in a very specific role in scientific research (a role based on the unique characteristics of ²⁵⁴Es). Other than that, scientific research and production of heavier elements isn't really an application in the sense that it impacts everyday life. One could even make an argument that any element is used for such purposes; for example, the chemistry of rutherfordium is studied as basic scientific research, and elements such as argon, calcium, and zinc were also used to produce heavier elements (as projectiles). While it is not incorrect to cite such an application in the article, it could be seen as nonspecific and/or insignificant when discussing "uses". ComplexRational (talk) 01:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: Well, I agree with that. But what about Fermium? I heard it is used with Yt as a bowl for handling Fermium metal. Is that true? And if so, is it a use? Porygon-Z (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Porygon-Z474: The image caption in fermium states that the alloy was produced to study the characteristics of fermium - which is basic scientific research. This would thus not count as a use, and fermium cannot really have any uses because only picograms can currently be accumulated; that's not really enough for anything. ComplexRational (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: But isn't it made of fermium atoms? Doesn't something have to have atoms, although agreeable that it's not much but it's something, to have to alloys with it, therefore having a use because it has atoms of fermium studying fermium metal? Just saying. Just to let you know, I'm writing a binder of every fact, use and compound of every element. And I happen to have some compounds for Fm that I'm not sure about. So far, I have (now I don't know about if these so called compounds are factual. I've looked on different sites for these, so if you could verify these I'd greatly appreciate it.) C18H38FmN2O8P+ and FmCl2. Any other facts would be great.Porygon-Z (talk) 03:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Porygon-Z474: Yes, there are indeed fermium atoms, but it still holds true that they are not seen or created anywhere outside research labs. Unfortunately, I haven't found any references to those compounds, so I wouldn't recommend including those compounds (unless you find a source). Finally, there are several fact sheets that clearly indicate that fermium has no uses outside basic research, though there are a few interesting papers describing investigations of some of fermium's properties. If anything especially stands out, I'll let you know. ComplexRational (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

P.S. There is no need to ping me when posting on my talk page, as your message alone triggers a notification by default.

Oh, alright then. Thank you. Also, I don't know if https://www.webelements.com/compounds/fermium/fermium_dichloride.html is accurate but it's the only site I could find for FmCl2. As for C18H38FmN2O8P+, I'm not sure where I got that from either. But I think Chemicool has some info on Fm I think you should take a look at. Are these sites accurate? Is there any info you could put in the article from the info on these sites? Porygon-Z (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Porygon-Z474: There are a few publications from 1972 by N.B. Mikheev describing FmCl₂ but AFAICT there is no open access version available. All I found so far is this. Chemicool looks accurate, but there is nothing there not already in the fermium article here. ComplexRational (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

So then FmCl2 is a real compound? Can you put it in the article or is it already in it? Sorry, I'm just very interested. By any chance is there any info on fermium or any actides for that matter? I just don't wanna get off topic or they'll shut us down. Porygon-Z (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Porygon-Z474: According to the entry in the book I linked, FmCl₂ was made but not purified; I added that into the article. For other actinides, you'll probably have to do some digging yourself. I can assure you that at least the first few actinides are referenced in plenty of places - but that is a whole other discussion. ComplexRational (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. So back to Einsteinium, I do have a Few questions about it. Like is there any more info I can obtain to put in my binder? Porygon-Z (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Porygon-Z474: I'll have to leave you to research more specific details of Es - but large directories (such as the one I linked) and journal articles are good starting points for this type of information. ComplexRational (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Well Can you link them because my device can't always go on other sites for blocking reasons. And besides, shouldn't every site be accurate enough to where publishers actually publish true facts about their findings or at least videos like Periodic Videos? Porygon-Z (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Porygon-Z474: Simply put, there's way too much out there to link in one place at one time. If it helps, I do often use arxiv.org and researchgate.net to find articles, and several of the references used in Wikipedia articles may also be accessible. And unfortunately, many websites are not as accurate and/or complete as we'd like - so it's almost always better to cite a refereed publication directly. ComplexRational (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

While I understand where you're coming from and agree, there's no reason that sites can't simplify what the info says and put it it all into one place. Wikipedia is one of them, but I feel like there should be more information. Not to mention no OR doesn't help but I also understand it's for not being biased. What do you think? Porygon-Z (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Porygon-Z474: I very much agree that the layout of these websites is inconvenient for this type of work, but that's the way it is, so specific searches are really the only way to go. But I have to disagree with your other point, as WP:NOR is fundamental to the integrity and accuracy of this encyclopedia - without it, WP would be no better than the other websites you describe. The only other thing I can suggest is that you visit WP:Reference desk/Science, where other editors may also be able to assist you in your research. Good luck there! ComplexRational (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help. I wish you the best!Porygon-Z (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to WP:STiki!

Hello, ComplexRational, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.

Isotope updates (2016)

Thanks for updating me! (my edits ;-) ). It was very hard to check exactly those exact updates (in 118 articles). Anyway, I think maintenance is easier now, and surely more consistent by header. -DePiep (talk) 01:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@DePiep: You're welcome! Glad to help, and thank you for deploying the header in all 118 articles. So far, I have only updated the first 20 articles. Maintenance will indeed be easier now, and (hopefully tomorrow) I'll take a look at parsing an ASCII file or sortable list to ease updating data. ComplexRational (talk) 01:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Parsing the ASCII file(s) would be a bigger step fwd, but I cannot promise any time to help... -DePiep (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Synthetic element

Thanks for noting the error (wrong year) in my recent 21 edits at Synthetic element. I see that you have been keeping an eye on this article since Jan 2019, and made a few edits yourself. As an expert in this field, I am hoping that you reviewed all my edits, and found them to be acceptable improvements. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@IiKkEe: It's one of those articles that I try to make small improvements to whenever I discover new information or notice something is off. Copyediting and restructuring prose as you have done is always welcome, especially considering that many nuclear physics articles need work, so thank you for undertaking that job :) Cheers, ComplexRational (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your kind words... Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 11:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Woah, a barnstar!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I was just minding my own business patrolling recent changes, until I ran into you fighting vandalism (and beating me to it ._.). I wanted to show my appreciation for your reflexes as attacking the problems the second they arise. Thanks for helping keep the wiki clean! Utopes (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Utopes: Thank you! And I also thank you for your anti-vandalism work ;) ComplexRational (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Polonium-210

On 30 July 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Polonium-210, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that polonium-210 is 250,000 times more toxic by weight than hydrogen cyanide? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Polonium-210. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Polonium-210), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

valereee (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cardiac cycle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Atrioventricular (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

²⁴⁸Cm+⁵⁰Ti

Thanks for the update! But the reference is giving me a 404. Double sharp (talk) 03:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Aha – the accented character in the URL was the problem. Double sharp (talk) 03:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

P.S. And some more links for you (if you didn't already find them): one (similar to the slideshow but sometimes more detailed; apparently Cm+Ti is only paused), two (proton evaporation channels might work and get us more neutron-rich isotopes of the heaviest elements!). And the paper they were citing for that: chances for ^283,284Rg! ^286–287Cn! ^287–290Nh! ^290,291Fl! ^291–294Mc! ²⁹⁴Lv! ^295–297Ts! (with pxn and αxn reactions). Double sharp (talk) 03:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Double sharp: You're welcome! Of these sources, I read the second one (on ScienceDirect) before, but the other two look brand new to me. The conference PDF is clearer than the slideshow actually, as it indicates a pause (as you said) and the year of the experiment (2016). I find the prospect of synthesizing these isotopes quite exciting, so thanks for some more great resources! ComplexRational (talk) 10:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I also think you might enjoy this (the book I referenced). Swinne certainly sounds way ahead of his time, suggesting that there might be some more stable transuranics, proposing to look for superheavies near the poles locked up from cosmic rays and suggesting electronic structures for Z = 218 back in 1914 to 1931(!). Double sharp (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Double sharp: I guess that's a new early prediction to add to history of the periodic table, and it also looks like Swinne predicted the island of stability in 1931 around Z = 108. A very interesting find indeed, thank you! ComplexRational (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

op47 wishes to talk to you on the user's page

Answered on your talkpage. ComplexRational (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Your removal of "original research" from nuclear physics articles

So I tracked down your original proposal regarding "observationally stable" isotopes. Unfortunately, I had no knowledge of it while it was in progress and was therefore unable to respond.

Theoretical possibility of decay modes follows directly from the isotope masses. If mass of the mother > mass of all daughters put together, then the decay is theoretically possible. Anyone with the isotope masses (which are sourced) and a calculator can verify that Nb-93 is theoretically capable of spontaneous fission into Ca-46 and Sc-47, and (with rather more tedium) verify that the lighter observationally-stable nuclides are not so capable.

It would appear that the common-sense principle regarding obvious, indisputable mathematical deductions has been noticed by other Wikipedians, as WP:CALC is policy.

While I actually agree with you regarding unsourced or outdated isotope data, and I applaud you for taking that up, the removal of theoretical decay modes is really rather objectionable and I'd like to undo it. Magic9mushroom (talk) 10:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Magic9mushroom: I was initially unsure about this, so thank you for pointing this out. (BTW, I was already aware of the calculations that lead to this conclusion, but it's always helpful to write out the example.) While WP:CALC is indeed policy, it seems that it only is applicable when there is consensus that the calculations are obvious, indisputably correct, and can be easily drawn from the sources. I'm not sure if such consensus exists for this, especially since there is a rather fine line between a straightforward calculation and the conclusion of instability (inferred, but not written out). As the result of the last discussion was not entirely clear, and no new sources have appeared, I will open a new discussion at WT:ELEM (referring to this thread), and not make any more changes in the meantime. ComplexRational (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)