User talk:Polyamorph/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Polyamorph. 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.

Hello. As you're currently listed as a host at the Teahouse, I wanted to make sure you are aware of the imminent rollout of new Growth Team Features which every new account will be getting by default. Each users will soon see a new 'Homepage' tab next to their User page. It contains two main elements which might impact on your involvement - and you'd be welcome to get involved and help out directly with one of them.

• Firstly, they will be offered a range of 'suggested edits', and encouraged to make simple improvements to pages that interest them. (Being aware of this feature would be helpful for all Teahouse hosts if you're likely to offer advice on tasks for them to start out doing.)
• There's also a 'Your impact' box to show them how many people have seen the pages they've just edited.
• Finally, each new user is randomly assigned a 'mentor' from a list of friendly, experienced editors, like yourself. If they get stuck, they can ask a question directly to them via a Your mentor box, and hopefully get a swift, friendly answer from that mentor. Currently, this feature is given to 2% of new users, but it's set to increase to around 10% in the very near future.

To spread the load on our current list of around 65 mentors, I'm reaching out to ask if you'd like to help out and sign up as one? The workload is relatively small; User Panini! reports receiving four questions a month, on average, all of which were simple ones of the type we already get at the Teahouse and elsewhere, and I've had just the one in the last 3 weeks. To view a list of every question asked of all mentors over the last 14 days, click here.

If becoming a mentor and being available to help new users on their first few days here interests you - just as you already do at the Teahouse - then please consider signing up at Growth Team features/Mentor list. Existing users can already 'opt-in' to seeing the Newcomer Homepage features via their Preferences.

Thank you! Nick Moyes (talk) 10:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Polyamorph! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Commons image changed, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

During your move of Talk:Mosque of Al-Aqsa (Al-Qibli) to Talk:Al-Aqsa Mosque, you seem to have moved all the sub-pages for the GA nominations onto the old Al-Qibli name. I'm pretty sure they shouldve stayed on the latter, and not have been moved to the prior (E.g. Talk:Mosque of Al-Aqsa (Al-Qibli)/GA1). Aidan9382 _(talk) 08:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Aidan9382: Thanks for letting me know, I'll undo the subpage moves. Polyamorph (talk) 08:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Happy birthday! Hi Polyamorph! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy birthday! Enjoy this special day! FishandChipper 🐟🍟 12:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

FishandChipper 🐟🍟 12:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Happy birthday! Hi Polyamorph! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy birthday! Enjoy this special day! Dinosaur TrexXX33 (chat?) 12:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for attempting to steer the discussion at Talk:Channel 3 (Thailand) towards a constructive direction, but that user just appears to be a long-term disruptive editor intent on derailing discussions, who cannot be reasoned with. They've been reported to ANI three times just this past year, and the latest discussion from May was only closed due to a technicality. You might want to consider reporting them again if they're clearly being disruptive. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I've noticed, they seem to be in the midst of several edit wars right now! Sooner or later they will no doubt find themselves blocked. If I experience any more disruptive behaviour from them I will consider contacting the admins. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 05:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually @Paul 012:, I've filed a ANI notice. Feel free to add your own evidence. Best wishes Polyamorph (talk) 05:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Pologne and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 6#Foreign language redirects to Poland until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 08:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks, but why is this of relevance to me? Polyamorph (talk) 09:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, your version clearly improved mine. Unfortunately both your and my version were rejected by some editor who always knows better. See this discussion. I get more and more convinced that editing Wikipedia is basically a waste of time. Whatever you write can be rejected by anyone, even a little kid, some narcissist, psychopath, whoever. But what strikes me the most is that even people who agree with you about some unfounded revert of your edit, never help you. But I am ready to help you :-) You have every right to know how you version harmed the article because - Wikipedia:ROWN states clearly: Do not revert unnecessary edits (i.e., edits that neither improve nor harm the article). Regards :-) 85.193.215.210 (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, please don't be disheartened. Some editors can be quite stubborn. But in general commonsense does prevail and there is usually quite a strong collaborative community here. I'm sorry that you haven't experienced this. Polyamorph (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

"stubborn" - what a nice euphemism, but why do other editors seem to be so helpless?. Anyway, I will move to some forum. Thanks. 85.193.215.210 (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

We have policies on assuming good faith and civility, so we generally comment on content not editor behaviour. But when editor behaviour does become problematic there are sanctions that can and will be applied. I'm close to reporting that particular editor to admins if they don't retract their racist comments. Polyamorph (talk) 07:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, thanks but it is not necessary. The editor in question is generally rude, narcissistic and arrogant, though not too smart. Can you imagine an intelligent adult person who confuses syntax with semantics? Besides, if they don't understand something they take it as silly (a 20yo boy who did not get into a college?)

On the occasion, there is one question I would like to ask you. What do you think - as a physicist - about this revert? There is also a discussion on this at the reference desk. 85.193.215.210 (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Your version is much clearer and easier to follow! I would not use the term "corollary", "as a consequence" is much clearer. Polyamorph (talk) 10:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, so much. This is exactly what I have been waiting for. 85.193.215.210 (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Polyamorph,

I saw a lot of page moves done by you and then, a few minutes later by Robertsky, involving pages about Mel-Man. What the heck was going on? Was this some page swap organized by both of you or just a strange coincidence? I don't visit RM much but I don't understand why a page has to be moved four or five times to get to the correct title. If there is a redirect in the way, aren't page movers able to handle those or go to an admin who can delete it? I'm more curious about what happened here than anything else Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I see now that you posted about this at User talk:Robertsky. I came here after looking at the Move log so I only saw the evidence of all the page moves, not the communication about it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Liz, yes very occasionally we get move conflicts. All sorted now. If there is a redirect in the way, we can sometimes delete it if it has no edit history or has only been edited by the original creator. But most of the time there is more complex history and so we tend to do Round-Robin history swaps to get the correct page titles. Best wishes Polyamorph (talk) 06:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Liz, yeah. It was just a coincidence that we processed the RMTR at the same time. Thanks for the checking in. – robertsky (talk) 06:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I originally posted this on WP:Teahouse, but:

An old thread was archived, so I didn't want to reply again there. I apologize for being rude a week ago.
P.S. I'll only watch out for ones that definitely are using Wikipedia for anything but factual writing. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@WannurSyafiqah74: Don't worry about it at all. I just wanted to let you know so you don't get yourself into any trouble. Polyamorph (talk) 08:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I also left the thread at the Teahouse. I asked if it's okay to close it or leave it there - it's small, but you can check there too WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 08:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm thinking I'll take this here rather than hash it out in "public". The point I'm trying to make (and which I thought was obvious) - if you feel that whatever he's called's behaviour is problematic, then *my* first step would be to go that persons talk page, and point that out to them. Sean Heron (talk) 09:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

If you're not going for trying to resolve it - one to one - like that first, I don't see how discussing publicly what should / should not be done can be taken as a good faith approach to the issue... Sorry! Sean Heron (talk) 09:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Sean Heron: I agree. Note the user is aware of the thread, they responded. So if I send a new message, saying there is a discussion that concerns them, and if they'd like to respond? I note the "poor faith" accusation they made of another admin was pointed out to them more than once (including by an administrator) and they haven't indicated any wish to retract it. So I wanted to make sure we had all the information in one place. I agree it is messy because of the way the section was originally phrased. Polyamorph (talk) 09:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Glad you're making an effort, but asking someone to join and respond to a discussion headed "rogue admins", and in which you yourself dismissed his contribution as "that person is not a rogue admin", while not, in fact pointing out that you found his actions problematic, does not exactly cut it, in my view... Sean Heron (talk) 09:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, misread you (I thought you had sent them a message, and were saying "that should be enough, right?".) Sorry for being so dismissive.

I guess I'm reacting a little strongly here, because I have the feeling that often here, rather than talking with each other and trying to hash something out, things move towards being public mud-slinging matches (and I don't see that helping anyone really :( ). Sean Heron (talk) 10:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

.. Sean Heron (talk) 10:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The problem is we did try engaging in the ITN thread. The responses were less than satisfactory. But I agree with you totally and I would like them to have an opportunity to respond in a fair way. Please advise the best way to do it because I acknowledge that section is messy. Polyamorph (talk) 10:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

So - a little more calmly. I think if your issue right now is that you feel this has been repeated problematic behaviour, and you are concerned about it going forward, I'd just throw up a section on their talk page and point exactly that out. Let the (as you say, unfortunately phrased and tangentially related) section on the ITN talk page die (or resolve for now as per the Trouting comment, and leave it as that for there). I'd be surprised if the person responds defensively if you make a careful request for the future. (ie, I'd think this should get your issue resolved) Sean Heron (talk) 10:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to refer to our discussion here, if you reckon that might be helpful! Sean Heron (talk) 10:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done thank you Polyamorph (talk) 10:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Move it back now. There has been no public discussion of this you just vandleising on behalf of a clique.Kitchen Knife (talk) 12:42, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The move was requested at WP:RM/TR. I suggest you open a discussion at WP:RM. Polyamorph (talk) 12:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The requested change from the original was not discussed in the pages Talk page. It was done by a clique that has no right do so, to establish consensus for a move the plan a pointer to the discussion has to be placed in the talk page. Re vert it back to the form on the morning of the 18/11. I suggest you read the rules about establish consensus, what you have done is vadlism on behalf of a clique--Kitchen Knife (talk) 13:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

You need to get your facts straight. I will not be moving the page again. Please desist from accusing me of vandalism. Polyamorph (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

they are true 72.177.193.242 (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I've no idea who you are, but I suspect you're the user who is removing sourced information and adding factual errors into articles. In which case, this is not helping matters. Polyamorph (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Gravedancing. I absolutely agree that they were very difficult but my understanding is that we don't do that, because it edges us towards a more toxic environment for all, which is something we don't need. Hope this helps, with all good wishes DBaK (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: it isn't gravedancing to Describing factually, solely for the information of other editors, disruptive activities that resulted in a ban/block. My comment was aimed at supporting the blocking admin Girth Summit's action with added context (particularly for any admin considering unblocking), since they had literally only just come out of a block for the same behaviour. Polyamorph (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I can't agree at all but you know that, so we haven't got much to discuss and I shall now shut up! :) Best wishes DBaK (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about that, but it specifically says in Wikipedia:Gravedancing that discussing the user's activities that led to their block is not gravedancing. RickinBaltimore made very similar comments about their long term activity. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 09:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orton-on-the-Hill&diff=1126876319&oldid=1126872959

Please revert this change, which you made without any discussion. The correct spelling is clearly visible of the village sign in the picture on the page. Thank you. 188.30.210.215 (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I moved the page in response to a formal technical request. As you contest this I've moved the page back and initiated a formal move discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I've commented there. 188.30.210.215 (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your work!

Yellow whisper (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Yellow whisper, you have no idea how much that means to me right now! Polyamorph (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

On 15 August 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Olivia Newton-John, which you had contributed to and prepped for use on MainPage. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

		Redirect Ninja Award
		For over 2,000 redirect reviews during 2021. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

		The New Page Reviewer's Iron Award
		For over 360 article reviews during 2021. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks MPGuy2824 Polyamorph (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Polyamorph! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy 15th anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! Chris Troutman (talk) 01:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

thank you Chris troutman Polyamorph (talk) 08:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Dear Polyamorph/Archive 10,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 01:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, many thanks! Polyamorph (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

On 4 September 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Frank Drake, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Tone 16:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on merging the mess of the page histories earlier - have some caffeine to move on from the vandalism claims! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Mattdaviesfsic Polyamorph (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks from me too. And I suggest you don't waste any more time on the ANI discussion, it has reached its logical conclusion. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 10:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Polyamorph. How are you on this fine day? I'm still digging out from the recent snow storms, out in the frigid temps. I just wanted to say thanks for all you do. I hope you and yours have a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year. Zaereth (talk) 19:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Zaereth: brrr sounds chilly. Here we have had rain but temperature 12 °C (54 °F), a few weeks back we had −7 °C (19 °F) and I thought that was cold! Keep warm, maybe you could blast your way through with your lasers :) wishing you a very happy Christmas! Polyamorph (talk) 22:30, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Whew! Too warm for my blood. I breathe better in the dryness of the arctic. We've been hovering right around 0 F (-18 C). Today it has warmed up to about the same as you had a week ago, and that's feeling pretty warm to me. Too warm to use the wood stove, so I'm paying for gas today.

Interesting idea about the lasers. It would have to be something IR or NIR, since water is pretty transparent to visible light... It would take a lot of energy, but I do like high energy. You know, when people ask me why I'm always working on these projects, or, as my dad would ask, "What's it good for?", I find they often either don't understand the explanation or are just never satisfied with it, so, to shorten the conversation, anymore I just tell them, "Because I want to go to the moon." When they look at me quizzically, I say, "You see, I always wanted to go to the moon, but when I called NASA and asked for a ride, they laughed at me. So, I figure, if I could build a powerful enough laser, I can write my name across the moon. Then they'll come knocking on my door saying, "Hey, you gotta go clean your name off the moon." To which I'd reply, "Ok, give me a broom and a ride and I'm there"." Blasting away the snow in my driveway would be a good test for such a laser. Hmmm. Zaereth (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Polyamorph, I've tried to edit the Lee Cronin page to add the NIH prizes for opiate addiction and also put the RSC stuff at the end. It seems Cronin has been under some kind of attack for this. I think it is better to present this information at the end as the circumstances are not clear or evidence. THanks 213.205.242.46 (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I've restored your addition of the award, but the controversy section should remain - it is factually accurate and sourced. In the past editors with a clear COI have been blocked for editing this page. If you know Lee Cronin personally then you should avoid editing the page and instead engage in discussion on the talk page instead of removing content. Polyamorph (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy birthday! Hi Polyamorph! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy birthday! Enjoy this special day! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	A thank you to Veteran Editor Polyamorph for helping an 82-year-old with reference citation in "Lanthanide contraction" article plus evidence that the editing has been seen by at least one person (real or virtual). VatievonHans (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Polyamorph – I have no real contest in theory re your decision to close the LightSail merger discussion. But please be circumspect about closing discussions in which you have voiced an opinion if there has been some disagreement. Thanks. SaryaniPaschtorr (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello SaryaniPaschtorr, involved users are permitted to close merge discussions. It was a pretty uncontroversial close, especially considering the prior AfDs - I'll ask you to more fully check the article history before proposing merges in the future. Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Dear Polyamorph, Because this seems to be the only way to send you a message, please excuse this path if it is a misuse. While you provided suggested readings for this 82-year-old on editing, I fear I may not live that long. Would you be kind enough to provide instructions on editing the "Physical Properties" section of the cobalt article where I want to make corrections with this Edit Summary: Replace the nearly identical solid and liquid densities (g/cm3) for cobalt at 8.90 and 8.86 with 8.836 and 7.75 from the 2016 edition of the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, page 12-40 and 4-124, respectively, where the liquid density is 88% of the solid density, which is similar for the adjacent elements (iron and nickel) at 89% and 87%. VatievonHans (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi VatievonHans, I removed the barnstar template but kept your message. To send me a message, just click the blue "New section" at the top of this page, or alternatively click the blue text that says "Click here to start a new topic." in the orange welcome to my talk page message. To reply in an existing section, click on the [edit] text on the top right of the section you want to edit.

Regarding your requested edit, the template which contains the data table is protected, so only experienced users can edit it. This is to prevent users changing to false information, which happens a lot. It is a shame it is necessary because otherwise you would be able to make the edit yourself. I will have a look to see if I can make your requested change on your behalf and get back to you. Polyamorph (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done I only changed the liquid value because the Densities_of_the_elements_(data_page), which contains the recommended value to use for the solid as 8.90 gcm^-3, for consistency across Wikipedia. This value is less than 1% from your requested value, so I hope that is OK. The liquid value should now be 7.75 gcm^-3 as you requested.Polyamorph (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Polyamorph,

Thanks for the help editing the cobalt data where I suspected that the 8.90 value was possibly from rounding 8.86 to 1 decimal place. Even the CRC shows 8.9 for sp. gr. (20 °C) for cobalt in "The Elements" section (p. 4-10). The CRC data does support the exception (from solid density > liquid density) for Bi, Ga, and Ge where liquid density is 103%, 103%, and 105% of the solid density, respectively. Do you think that would be worth adding to those sites? VatievonHans (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @VatievonHans: I just checked our internal reference table for liquids, here: Densities_of_the_elements_(data_page)#Density,_liquid_phase, and the recommended value to use for Co is 7.75 gcm^-3. So I am not sure why this wasn't used in the infobox. Anyway, that's fixed. Si also experiences contraction on melting, and the expansion on melting for Sb is exceptionally low (< 1 %). It is definitely worth making sure our data tables reflect this consistently across wikipedia. Polyamorph (talk) 05:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

Dear Polyamorph,

FYI

Dear Complex/Rational,

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%?

Sincerely,

VatievonHans 68.108.51.9 (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Dear Polyamorph,

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.

Sincerely,

VatievonHans 68.108.51.9 (talk) 14:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello VatievonHans, apologies for the late reply, is there anything that still needs attention? Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Dear Polyamorph,

Whether Eu b. p. should stay at 1802 K (an old CRC value) or be replaced with the Zhang et al 1713 K or the 2016 CRC 1868 K is still open. Per Complex/Rational, "Regarding europium, I'll have to examine the sources more closely. It doesn't look like a simple case of mislabeled units. Complex/Rational 21:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)".

Sincerely,

VatievonHans 68.108.51.9 (talk) 01:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Dear Polyamorph,

Correction to my msg above (for Eu b.p.): That should be 1869 K not 1868 K (via 2016 CRC 1596 °C + 273 = 1869 K). It seems that editor Materialscientist entered the Zhang et al "corrected" b.p. values in 2014 for only some of the lanthanides, such as Pr, Sm, Tb, Gd (erroneous), & Ho.

Sincerely,

VatievonHans 68.108.51.9 (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Materialscientist: might be best looking at it, since they made the previous changes. Polyamorph (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Just FYI. Materialscientist keeps his notifications turned off, so if you want him to look you'll have to ask him directly. Zaereth (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Zaereth, I'll ask on his talk page. Polyamorph (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I can't recall why I have updated boiling points only for some elements. My guess is that I selected only those where the correction was large and/or obvious, and skipped those like Eu - Zhang et al. admit that 5% is a minor change, perhaps within the accuracy of their methodology. In other words, I am neutral on this matter, but won't mint changing 1802 to 1713. Materialscientist (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks Materialscientist for your quick response. VatievonHans: Let me know if all is now satisfactory. Best wishes Polyamorph (talk) 06:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Dear Polyamorph & Materialscientist,

Perhaps then b.p. for Eu should stay at 1802 K which is 105% of the Zhang et al. recommendation of 1713 K and 96% of the 2016 CRC value at 1869 K. Differences of 89 K and 67 K from 1802 K seem surprising to me unless impurity is involved.

Sincerely,

VatievonHans 68.108.51.9 (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I see your point, 1802 K roughly sits at the average of the two. I'll move back to 1802 K? Polyamorph (talk) 06:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Dear Polyamorph,

Thanks for the agreement on 1802 K for Eu b.p. A 1999 version of Lange's Handbook has centigrade that equates to 1800 K.

Sincerely,

VatievonHans 68.108.51.9 (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Polyamorph (talk) 06:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi. You closed the discussion at talk:Koryo-saram#Requested move 10 October 2023 with the comment “with no clear MOS rationale one way or the other.” But as I noted, MOS:PEOPLANG gives an unambiguous rationale: “Names for peoples and cultures, languages and dialects, nationalities, ethnic and religious groups, demonyms, and the like are capitalized.” And the normal rules of capitalization only point to the proposed title. Counter arguments were spurious.

If you’re insisting this isn’t so, then the decision needs a more detailed rationale, as it sets a precedent that could affect dozens of article titles.

Thanks.  —Michael Z. 14:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

There was no clear consensus from the discussion. MOS based arguments were provided by both sides of the discussion and there was no clear consensus either way, as reflected in my closing statement. Polyamorph (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

In my view opposing arguments cited guidelines but incorrectly interpreted them or made unreasonable leaps. I expected more interpretation of the arguments vis-a-vis the guidelines, rather than just a result based on the WP:VOTE. But I guess no consensus leaves it open to try again with a clearer or more detailed argument. Thank you for closing.  —Michael Z. 14:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

If I'd considered it a vote, I'd have closed as not moved. As you say, it is open to try again. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Polyamporph

Just wondering why you opened the RM at Talk:Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina when the originating requestor had not done so? Generally, in recent times, we don't open discussions on people's behalf - if they want to open a full discussion they should do it themselves and sometimes they just drift away when the request is contested and there's nothing further to be done.

Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Amakuru: we used to do so, I have noticed more the nominator is being asked to open the discussion themselves, and I have suggested to users to do this at times but have also opened a few discussions on requesters behalf. I can stop doing this but I think we need a more detailed discussion on how to deal with stale requests. Perhaps the "move" and "discuss" options in the template can be modified so that it is clearer the discuss link is for the requester only (perhaps also a change in the "This is a contested technical request" text), and maybe have a "decline" link if we deem it unsuitable for discussion? Polyamorph (talk) 11:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. Maybe a discussion is needed, not sure. UtherSRG may have some thoughts on this too, as I know they have been working the RM/TR space for a while. Personally when it's stale I just remove it from the page with a final ping to the nominator in the edit summary so they're definitely aware that the nom is not going anywhere without their intervention. I think if someone isn't going to put in the leg work to actually start the RM themselves and defend it properly, it's not our place to do that. I know in the past, in the days of Anthony Appleyard and all that we used to always start the discussion for people, but I thought the move to not doing that any more a bit improvement in terms of not wasting community time unnecessarily. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, I will do that (ping the users in edit summary when I remove stale requests). Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, well that is my preference anyway. Obviously if you think it's not reflective of the wider community consensus then we can also have a discussion about it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

You closed the proposed move of two pages where one was uncontested as ''no consensus''. Killuminator (talk) 06:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The move of Morihiro Higashikuni was opposed. After two relistings the RM didnt receive any further comments. You're right that Takehiko Yamashina was in fact uncontested. I'll modify the close and thanks for pointing it out. Polyamorph (talk) 06:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Killuminator:  Done Polyamorph (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Dear Polyamorph,

I am sure there is a preferred font style and size for English Wikipedia edits, but I can't find them. I am not able to look at printed words and identify the font.

Sincerely, 82-year-old VatievonHans 68.108.51.9 (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi VatievonHans. I'm not sure what you mean, but the default font for Wikipedia is, I believe, simply sans-serif. It will just use the default sans-serif font for your machine. WP:TYPE is an essay, still under development, that has some additional information. Polyamorph (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Dear Polyamorph,

Thanks for the reply because I want to insert some comments (with the proper font) in the "lanthanide contraction" article on patterns for the b.p. temps and the electron shells.

Sincerely,

VatievonHans 68.108.51.9 (talk) 00:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I would really like to see a justification of your close, since I believe the support votes are not policy-based (UAPLACE is not a guideline as stated there). Thank you. Ymblanter (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done added closing remarks. Polyamorph (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I still disagree, but I will see what I should do about it. Ymblanter (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, no worries. Polyamorph (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

On 17 November 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Neville Garrick, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Schwede66 22:30, 17 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Polyamorph. Hope all is well. You know, I just recently had an opportunity to reflect on my past here, and it brought back a lot of memories. Hard to believe it has been so long. Glad to see you're still around. I just wanted to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas, and a very Happy New Year. Not to mention a great Solstice. Woohoo! The days will soon start getting longer! (Ok, that probably means more here than where you're at.) I hope your holidays a wonderful and may the coming year bring all your wishes true. Here's to many more years to come! Zaereth (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Zaereth, I added my own reflections. It has indeed been a long time, some things have changed a lot, others not so much! Happy Christmas to you too. All the best Polyamorph (talk) 08:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I really am a wikipedia lightweight. Regarding the 3O request, how should I be handling this? What are other possible ways? I try to rephrase the edits, but one editor keeps blindly reverting, rather than correcting. I am trying to assume good faith, but when their comments are along the lines of "Newspapers are not reliable sources", "We don't quote French sources" and "Don't references somebody's older writings when they have had more recent writings" I start to infer that it is the information, rather than the references causing a problem . . . Do we actually have policies like that? --Bertrc (talk) 14:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page Polyamorph (talk) 14:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)