This is an archive of past discussions with 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.
Thank you for helping out at AFD and closing some discussions. Many hands make the work feel light! It's appreciated. LizRead!Talk!23:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Hey there! Hope you're having a great day. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia with your article. I'm happy to inform you that your article has adhered to Wikipedia's policies, so I've marked it as reviewed. Have a fantastic day for you and your family!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. In addition, to participate in person, you should be vaccinated and also be sure to respect others' personal space, and we may limit overall attendance size if appropriate.
This is the first big summer Wiknic since the 2019 edition and will feature an edit-a-thon focused on Governors Island and ArtCrawl Harlem, Depths of Wikipedia (recently of perpetual stew fame), as well as plenty more food topics drawing on the potluck ethos. All are welcome, new and experienced!
Hi, thanks for your comments at Draft:Eugenio Perico. I think the hoax part isn't whether this person exists (they almost certainly do), it's the claim that they died today. If you look at this (new) user's edit history, there's definitely something dodgy going on. I've also opened a SPI case, because it could be a LTA sock.
Anyway, you're obviously within your rights to decline the speedy, I'm not here to dispute that, just wanted to explain the background. Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
@DoubleGrazing: Thanks for the explanation. I reviewed the rest of their page creations and deleted the blatantly false ones. However, these cases appear more like run-of-the-mill vandalism to an otherwise valid article, in which case only those with an entirely corrupted history get speedied under G3/G10 (or if not, BLP violations get revision deleted).
DoubleGrazing & ComplexRational, I think the draft is a hoax in the sense that the purpose in creating it was to spread false information, even though some genuine information was used as a vehicle for that false information. However, I agree with ComplexRational about not deleting it as a hoax, since it only requires removal of a tiny bit of text to convert it to a stub with no false information which potentially could become a valid article. JBW (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
blocks
Hey, CR! Just wanted to get your thinking on why a short block would prevent damage rather than being punitive? I could see an indef if we're concerned that TIG seems not to be able to avoid incivility when annoyed; that would require them to examine their behavior in order to request an unblock. But a short block, they can just wait out. Valereee (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
@Valereee: I see this as a "last chance" – seeing as their block log doesn't reflect their behavioral patterns and no previous noticeboard discussions resulted in any sanctions – and I wouldn't be surprised if an indef block arrives sooner or later. My reasoning was that "waiting it out" is a less enticing option when it's a long wait (whereas that seems to have occurred for the original 31-hour block), though jumping to a much longer block (say, a year) has no apparent benefits as opposed to an indef block. IMO it would seem punitive to give an excessively long timeout when the alternatives are a shorter block to get their attention or, following your reasoning, an indef block when there's reason to believe that they won't otherwise examine their behavior.
Well, in general I wouldn't want to see a community-imposed block, either indef or for any length of time, for any editor with whom we hadn't absolutely reached the end of our rope. A community-imposed block -- like one would be if it were voted on at ANI -- has to be lifted by the community, which can be an extremely high bar.
An indef imposed by a single admin is generally a better choice with a well-intentioned editor who is behaving badly and doesn't seem to be able to stop. An indef by a single admin can be ended by any other admin (although in general it's best to get the blocking admin's input, if they're not unavailable or aren't responding) after a ten-minute discussion that convinces them the editor is finally listening. A timed block, most other admins might disagree with, but it's again a more difficult unblock request. That actually was a problem with the 31-hour block -- some saw it as not appropriate, but the person finally only got unblocked because of the ANI. If it had been an indef, a lot of folks might have seen it as appropriate to lift it after a discussion.
In general, a timed block is used to prevent some sort of ongoing disruption, like active edit-warring. The reason we step up the length of those is kind of grey area...it's not supposed to feel like increasing punishments, but instead to demonstrate that "no, we're serious. You're valuable here, but we really want you to stop edit-warring." Personally I think indefs would work better there, too, but that's not what the community generally sees as appropriate because an editor can just promise not to do it again every time and never really take it seriously. Valereee (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Adding to clarify: an indef isn't worse for the blocked editor than a timed block; it's actually better because it's easier to lift. Valereee (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
@Valereee: It's very interesting to read your comments about this, which come to the same conclusion about short blocks v indef blocks that I reached long ago, for the reasons you give and other reasons. The practice of making a very short block, then a slightly longer one, then a slightly longer one... is, in my experience, very often a mistake. Its effect is often to gradually accustom the editor to "sitting out" longer blocks, whereas an indefinite conveys the message that they have to take notice of the block and rethink their approach if they are to be allowed back. There are other reasons too, but that is, in my opinion, one of the main ones, and you have given others. I also totally agree with you about "community" imposed blocks: it is often completely impossible to get a consensus among the kind of people who choose to spend their time looking for drama at ANI to agree to an unblock, even in a case where many administrators would be ready to unblock. JBW (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Hey, @JBW, thanks! I actually started noodling about this morning with an essay draft at User:Valereee/How to use blocks, if you (or anyone else seeing this) have an interest. It's as much about getting my own thinking straight as anything else, I'm totally no expert on blocking. Valereee (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
What I have observed is that there's no clear-cut approach do dealing with civility/NPA cases, and there's much disagreement on how much rope is enough and when enough really is enough (both big reasons I don't spend much time at ANI). I agree with the underlying idea of indefinite blocks; surely enough, those who are incapable or unwilling to change their behavior remain blocked, though of course there's a gray area. Likewise, I've infrequently dealt temporary blocks to registered users (or seen others do so), and have been wondering to some degree why that happens.
Your essay draft, Valereee, contains some interesting points that are the sum of many experiences – laying them out like that is very helpful. I think there are also some distinctions to be made when blocking IPs, since they may be reassigned or the blocked user may evade their block on another IP. Complex/Rational01:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
IP blocks are a whole nother subject, and I could probly write an essay on that, if I weren't too lazy. The balance between wanting to stop a disruptive IP editor and wanting to avoid blocking the innocent along with the guilty is not always straightforward, and each case needs careful individual consideration: there is no one rule that fits all. For example, if a check of the editing history of an IP address reveals a range of different kinds of editing, with no similarity, including a significant number of constructive edits, then I normally won't impose anything more than a very short IP block, even if that seems likely to let the disruptive editor back very soon. If, on the other hand, the editing history consists 100% of very similar vandalism edits on a small number of articles all on related topics, over a period of a year or more, then that is a very different situation. If the editor had been using an account they would long ago have been blocked indefinitely, and I can't see any good reason at all why they shouldn't be blocked for a more than a very short time just because they haven't created an account. However, many administrators treat this case in the same way as the previous case that I mentioned. That is to say that they apply a blanket rule that you never put a long block on an IP address because it might cause problems for constructive editors. That, despite the fact that in one case the likelihood of causing such collateral damage is about 99.99% and in the other case about 0.01%.
Yes, I didn't even get into IPs, and it's really a whole 'nother thing. There are technical things to consider, for one. I usually look at the block history and follow that...if they've never been blocked, I start with 31 hours and make sure there's a "consider creating an account" template on the talk. If they've been block a dozen times by multiple different admins and the last block was a year long and ended last week, I'm pretty comfortable blocking for another year.
I kind of feel like if a well-intentioned editor is using an IP that is also being used by vandals, they really just should create an account if only for that reason. Some people have philosophical reasons for not wanting to create an account, but the fact their IP is being used for vandalism should be reason enough to overcome that. Valereee (talk) 11:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm in the alliance, a 13 year old open source alliance with hundreds of active contributors, and 60+ automotive member companies. - https://covesa.global/
I am aware that the page needs updating, but it doesn't feel like it should be purged.
@Carguy62: I have restored the article. Be aware, however, that the article may be nominated for deletion again unless the concerns raised about notability and promotional language are addressed.
Additionally, as you say I'm in the alliance, it appears that you have a conflict of interest; in that case, please make sure to disclose this on your user/talk page or the article's talk page (as described by Wikipedia's guidelines), take extra care when editing, and use the article's talk page to discuss more substantial changes. Cheers, Complex/Rational16:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Please take a look at this edit of yours. I think beta plus is incorrect but I'm not sure. I already boldly edited the page Rubidium-82 just now and commented on its talk page. Just notifying you in case you know something I don't. --Officiallyover (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
I just rechecked the original source and it gives electron capture (indeed not beta plus) as the decay mode of 82Sr. I was mistaken then and hadn't noticed – good catch. Complex/Rational17:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the first summer Wiknic since the 2019 edition and will feature an edit-a-thon focused Governors Island and ArtCrawl Harlem, Depths of Wikipedia and perpetual stew, as well as plenty more food. All are welcome, new and experienced!
Not doneWikiHuman2021, the version I deleted under G4 has very similar content and sourcing to the version deleted at articles for deletion in July 2022. Although the prose did not match verbatim, there was no substantial addition in the new version, and most importantly the new version did not present sources or information demonstrating that the notability concerns raised at AfD are no longer applicable. Complex/Rational14:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.
The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.
Miscellaneous
Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.
Hello, thank you so much for stepping in and updating squad numbers: I was actually going to do myself, but still, I appreciate it!
By the way, I've noticed that you were the one who created the article in the first place: if you ever need help with updating/expanding it, as well as working on player articles, you can count on me! : ) Oltrepier (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
@Oltrepier: Happy to help! And by all means feel free to add to those articles! Many of the player articles are short stubs and could use some expansion or translation from their Italian Wikipedia counterparts; I noticed you're also fairly active on there. Complex/Rational20:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I'm actually Italian! By the way, I've contributed to the it.wiki version of this article, too, and I generally try to be as accurate and careful as possible while looking for sources, so I hope I can do the same in this case! Oltrepier (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
The Members' Meeting is similar to other WikiWednesday meetups, except that its primary function is to elect a new Board of Directors. We will elect five board seats. After being elected, those elected can potentially appoint more seats. We will also have a fun WikiWednesday!
Election info:
To run for election or to vote, you must be a dues-paying member of Wikimedia New York City, having renewed in the past 12 months.
Voting will be both online, via emailed ballots from the ElectionBuddy service, and in-person.
The poll will be open for the 48 hours between 8pm EDT on September 18 and 8pm EDT on September 20.
For additional information, please consult the Election FAQ.
All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. In addition, to participate in person, you should be vaccinated and also be sure to respect others' personal space, and we may limit overall attendance size if appropriate.
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
New Page Review article queue, March to September 2023
Backlog update:
At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!
October backlog elimination drive:
A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.
PageTriage code upgrades:
Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.
Notability tip:
Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.
Reviewing tip:
If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.
All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. In addition, to participate in person, you should be vaccinated and also be sure to respect others' personal space, and we may limit overall attendance size if appropriate.
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.
Technical news
Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)
dear @ComplexRationalfarzad ghaderi It is one of the best MMA fighters. The necessary correction measures were taken in the reference of this article from sites outside Iran, for example, from Sherdog, tapology and aca-mma and fights.cz and mma-core and fightnews.info sites. Please check and if necessary, add and correct the article. Please guide me, thank you Ahmadech4 (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
@Ahmadech4: The page you linked is substantially identical to the one deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farzad ghaderi, save for some additional inline citations. As such, it will most likely be deleted again, though you may develop the page in draftspace (Draft:Farzad Ghaderi) to work on it without risk of it being deleted and submit it for review via Articles for Creation when you believe it's ready. As of right now, your changes haven't demonstrated that the subject passes Wikipedia's general notability guideline; statistics do not constitute significant coverage of the subject himself, and each source needs to be both independent of the subject and contain several paragraphs' worth of information (rather than a brief or passing mention). Complex/Rational11:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
There has not been any discussion on the talk page or elsewhere, much less one with a consensus for deletion. You added two comments to the talk page, which have not gained any traction, and a speedy deletion tag to the article without specifying a reason for deletion. Only pages meeting one of a very narrow set of criteria may be deleted that way. Please be sure to give a clear reason for your changes in the edit summary and be aware of the circumstances under which pages may be deleted. Complex/Rational16:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I said, no discussion on the talk page. In some cases, WP:G4 might apply, but that is a 14-year-old discussion that has little weight today; there is plenty more to write now than there was in 2009.
At both events, all attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. In addition, to participate in person, you should be vaccinated and also be sure to respect others' personal space, and we may limit overall attendance size if appropriate.
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Because you, as an editor, can revise b. p. values on Wikipedia, please see the following on lanthanide contraction to Polyamorph on 30 September which has received no reply as of 18 October. 
Dear Polyamorph,
This is VatievonHans who is unable to login on my new Pavilion PC or to reset my password. I have graduated from densities & m. p. to b. p. Below are issues for your consideration because I am not qualified to change b. p. values on Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia accepts the b. p. temp from Zhang et al. (J. Chem. Eng. Data 2011, 56, 328-337) for Tb at 3396 K rather than the CRC value at 3503 K (or 103% of Zhang) and for Ir at 4403 K rather than the CRC value at 4701 K (or 107% of Zhang), should the current b. p. temp at 1802 K for Eu on Wikipedia be replaced with the 1713 K value from Zhang et al. (where 1802 K is 105% of Zhang)?
For Gd, Wikipedia & Zhang claim b. p. at 3273 K, but the 2016 CRC shows (p. 4-14) 3273 °C (not K) and adding 273 = 3546 K (which is 108.34% of 3273). Zhang et al. do show (in Table 1) a CRC value of 3546 K as well as values of 3533 K and 3539 K from two other handbooks along with 3273 K (°C?) from two different handbooks.
Below is my 9/13/23 email to the corresponding author for Zhang et al. (before I noticed the Gd issue).
Dear Professor Shoufeng Yang:
Concerning J. Chem. Eng. Data 2011, 56, 328-337, the "corrected" B. P. values are the same in Tables 11 & 13 for Ba, Be, C, Pd, Pr, Rh, Sn, and Y, but the Yb value in Table 11 is 116% of the value in Table 13 (1703 vs 1466 K), the Tm value in Table 11 is 110% of that in Table 13 (2203 vs 2003 K), and the Nb values differ slightly at 100.9% (5017 vs 4973 K). Perhaps errata could be submitted to the journal to avoid confusion for other readers. Sincerely, Thomas A. Hinners a recovering chemist 68.108.51.9 (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC) 68.108.51.9 (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your message. It's certainly possible that the 3273 K is a unit error, as several other sources (including more recently published ones) all report values much closer to 3273 °C. I updated the value on the data page. Complex/Rational14:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Dear ComplexRational,
Thanks for the reply, but the Gd article still shows (in the "Physical properties" box)
"Boiling point 3273 K (3000 °C, 5432 °F)" rather than 3546 K (3273 °C, 5923 °F).
Thanks for the help (requiring an editor) in correcting the Wikipedia b. p. for Gd to Kelvin from mislabeled centigrade. I could look at the Gd version history to find how long the error has been there. From my argument above, do you believe the b. p. for Eu should be changed by 5%?
I found that the version history does not show when "Physical properties" are revised perhaps because it is a protected area. In the version history, the current format for the "Physical properties" box appears in 8/12/2008 with the Gd b. p. at 3546 K and no version shows the 3273 K that I found in September 2023. The version history for 24 June 2003 does show Gd b. p. at 3523 K (99.35% of the CRC 3546 K).
BTW, I noticed that for Eu the old CRC b. p. was 1802 K (the current Wikipedia value), but the 2016 CRC Handbook shows 1869 K that is 109.1% of the 1713 K from Zhang et al.
The values you see in "physical properties" are contained within {{infobox gadolinium}}, a separate template that is transcluded in the article. It is indeed semi-protected from editing, but it is visible to all users. These values are edited to match a centralized data page, though updates are not synchronized and must be performed manually.
The Template: Infobox gadolinium version history shows that the b. p. was changed from 3546 K to 3273 K on 21 Feb 2014 by Materialscientist with the summary "consistently updating BP and heat of vaporization per doi:10.1021/je1011086" which is citing the Zhang et al 2011 publication where 3273 °C is shown as Kelvin. The error was only there for 9 years and 8 months.
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.
Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.
Miscellaneous
The Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in November 2023, with 700+ drafts pending reviews for in the last 4 months or so. In addition to the AfC participants, all administrators and New Page Patrollers can conduct reviews using the helper script, Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. In addition, to participate in person, you should be vaccinated and be sure to respect others' personal space, and we may limit overall attendance size if appropriate.
Hey ComplexRational! Thanks for closing this RfD which I started. I wanted to leave a note for you for future closures of discussions relating to projectspace: the {{Shortcut}} templates at both the old and new targets need to be changed to avoid confusing editors who come to those pages later. There was also a hatnote at Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies that had to be removed, which I suppose sometimes applies to articles as well. I've taken care of it this around, though, so no worries! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I would like to report User:Jyotira Aditya for their recent edit on my talk page - [2]. I reversed a couple of their unhelpful edits and declined their draft, which clearly seemed like self-promotion, as seen here -> [3]. This action led to them accusing me of racism. I want to clarify that my stance was never against white people as a whole, but specifically against white supremacists. Despite this, User:Jyotira Aditya made inappropriate remarks on my talk page, which they might have inferred from my userpage. QuantumRealm (meow🦁 • pawtrack🐾) 14:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
@QuantumRealm: The page certainly did appear promotional, and Jyotira Aditya's response to your tagging was wholly inappropriate. They ought to be reminded of WP:NPA (at their talk page) and you may file a report at WP:ANI if problematic behavior persists afterward. Complex/Rational16:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I want to report this user?
the user QuantumRealm declined some of my edits so I visited his profile and there i saw comments that were highly racist toward people of European descend or as referred by the the user as white people and as this violates the guidelines of this platform so i informed him about my query but now he is going around cyber bullying I humbly request you to ban this user as this platform does not support such views and my draft was about one of my past classmates and he made this profile for me 4 yrs ago for me hence the profile name happens to be same . Jyotira Aditya (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
@Jyotira Aditya: I see nothing racist about QuantumRealm's comments, nor anything indicative of cyberbullying, so there is no reason to consider a block for them. Your draft was deleted because it read as a resumé and also contained some hardly-believable information – regardless of the original author or subject. Conversely, unfounded accusations of racism may be construed as personal attacks; your behavior at their talk page (along with you asking for them to get blocked here) carries a risk of backfiring and you getting blocked instead to prevent further disruptive behavior. Complex/Rational16:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
