User talk:ComplexRational/Archive 2

DYK for Beryllium-8
— Maile (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Question for administrator
I am requesting assistance in regards to two posts I made at ANI concerning disruptive edits from an IP range. It seems that both requests may have been unintentionally overlooked; the first was archived after no administrator response and the second was superseded by later posts that were answered within two hours. While the matter itself is not of utmost importance, I am only requesting that it at least be investigated by a willing admin, so that it does not fall through the cracks at ANI again and any appropriate action is taken. Thank you. ComplexRational (talk) 10:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello ComplexRational, unfortunately reports do sometimes fall through the cracks. However, EdJohnston (another administrator) has since blocked the range for a period of 2 weeks. Is there anything else that you need assistance with? -- The SandDoctor Talk 18:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I noticed that EdJohnston blocked the range, but thank you anyway for letting me know. I would like to ask, though, if this is the appropriate means to ask for help when no response is given at ANI, or if another course of action is generally preferred. Again, thank you. ComplexRational (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The adminhelp template was still active, so I responded when I saw it and let you know . Glad I could help! As for the appropriate venue, that is what I would consider generally variable. I personally don't have an issue with the adminhelp route, nor do I have one with adding a comment with a recent timestamp at the ANI thread in question (thus preventing the automatic archiving), nor do I with asking an administrator on their talk page if they could take a look (I am fairly good at responding promptly to inquiries on mine). Does that help any? Happy to explain further if you have any questions . -- The SandDoctor  Talk 03:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! This is indeed very helpful; I'll keep it in mind. ComplexRational (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Miramare di Rimini
valereee (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Bradv • Chetsford • Izno
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Floquenbeam • Lectonar
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news
 * Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
 * The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration
 * A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Miscellaneous
 * A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the diffs from areas where I don't overlap with them. I thought your final paragraph was an excellent summary of the issues. --JBL (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. And thank you for indenting the bullet points, by the way. ComplexRational (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Could you possibly give me time to fix Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey?
Hello ComplexRational,

Firstly thanks for taking on the review of Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey. However I only just read the messages you sent me yesterday to say you had accepted the review and then failed the article. As you know the queue for GA review is several months long so I wonder if you could give me the chance to take up your valuable suggestions in the next few days to avoid having to wait until 2020 for the article to become GA. I can see you have put a lot of work into the review and I am willing to put in the effort to fix the article, but it would be demoralizing to have to wait until next year for it to be accepted. So would it be possible for you to mark the review as awaiting fixes rather than failed outright? Then if you have time it would be great if you could continue the review after I have made your suggested changes as I am sure you would come up with more good suggestions.

Chidgk1 (talk) 06:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd be glad to review it again once these changes are made. However, I think it's better to start a new review page and leave the first alone simply due to the magnitude of the fixes involved and the fact that the renominated article may have a noticeably different structure and/or substantially altered content. In other words, it would be like reviewing a new article altogether, and the whole set of criteria would need a fresh evaluation. The quick fail was simply because I saw many necessary changes—more than I wrote on the review page—before criterion 1 may be fulfilled.
 * Unfortunately, there is the GA backlog, but there's no mandatory waiting period or limit to GANs for an article, so you can renominate as soon as the article is ready. As things stand, I am still uninvolved enough to take up the second review shortly after it is nominated. I'm glad to see your interest in working on it!
 * In that case, I'd suggest using external software to fix grammar, and perhaps also consulting the Guild of Copy Editors if you need assistance with copyediting. In regards to one-sentence headings, that's entirely up to you to reorganize or expand with new content. (I cannot do both substantial copyediting directly and a fresh review.) As grammar and the structure are the main hurdles, please take time to review and overhaul the article, and then open a new review. Let me know when you're ready. ComplexRational (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * OK I will first revise it myself. So what external software do you recommend? I suspect the Guild of Copy Editors would do a much better job than software but I have not dealt with them before so will look into that after I have done as much as I can myself. I guess your time would be better spent reviewing once it has been resubmitted rather than copy editing. However you mentioned that more cites might be needed so perhaps you could chuck in as many "citation needed" as you have time for. Also I suspect that because I have read it so many times there are bits where my unconscious is filling in the gaps in meaning which are needed by a first time reader. So once I have done some work on it (hopefully I will be able to do a fair chunk next weekend) I will get a friend to have a look before resubmitting it for GA hopefully before the end of the month. Thanks again for your help.Chidgk1 (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The only reason I mentioned outside software is because GOCE also has a backlog (though not as long as the GAN one). Since you expressed interest in GOCE and having feedback from someone IRL, I'd actually encourage that over any machine corrections; even the software built into word processors or available as an add-on does not catch everything. That said, I'll read through the article again, and note a few places that need extra references or expansion. Once it's ready, I'll be glad to do another review. ComplexRational (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

You may be interested...
Hey ComplexRational, it seems like we run into each other very often here on Wikipedia. Maybe not live, but I notice your participation in the same areas in the Wikipedia namespace where I do. You called me out for using the wrong CSD criteria once as well. Regardless, I figured you may be interested in participating in AfC discussions with your past experience in AfD. I mean, it's really up to you. Just seemed to be up your alley based on my experiences with you, and I noticed you spoke on Jimfbleaks' talk page in the past as I was viewing its history. It was a really minor occurrence this time but it got me thinking. Cheers! Utopes (talk) 03:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

We need YOU!
 Hello ComplexRational,

Unregistered editors cannot create articles on Wikipedia, but they can use the articles for creation process to submit drafts that registered editors can either accept and publish or decline. WikiProject Articles for creation is looking for experienced editors who want to partake in this peer review process. If you have what it takes to get involved, then please take a look at the reviewing instructions. To discuss specific AfC reviews, do so freely on the designated talk page.

There is currently a backlog of over 4400 drafts (1,542 very old).

If you know an editor who may be willing to help out, please use the template you are currently reading to draw attention to this WikiProject. Many hands make light work!

Utopes (talk) 03:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

GA review
Thanks for the very smooth review! Are there any article you've worked on that you'd like me to review? Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Glad to help! And thanks for contributing this well-written, informative article!
 * Don't worry about any form of QPQ, though. While I'm not approaching GA with any particular article now, I hope to get an FAC for Island of stability underway soon if you have any suggestions there or at the open peer review. Any comments or bold edits are welcome if you'd like, but again, don't stress about it. Cheers, ComplexRational (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look, though I'm afraid my chemistry knowledge may not be up to par. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Barkeep49
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Beetstra • KillerChihuahua • Kusma
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Arcadian • Extraordinary Machine • Xeno
 * Pictogram voting rename.png JamesBWatson →

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Evad37

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Guideline and policy news
 * Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news
 * As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration
 * The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
 * The arbitration case regarding was closed.  While there will be a local RfC focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.

Miscellaneous
 * The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 GOCE drive bling

 * Thank you! Glad to help, and hopefully next time I'll be able to work on more articles. ComplexRational (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Congratulations!
 * From this barnstar I figure you're good at English; if I am correct, can I ask you for help when my measly attempts to write some prose need to be transferred for an external review (an FAC, for instance) or in similar situations? I'd greatly benefit from being able to ask a good speaker of AmE for help in such cases here and there. This is, of course, not going to happen very often, and is concerned possible future situations anyway, not with anything immediate. You may consider such inquiries favors that are to be returned if you want to :)--R8R (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I'd certainly be willing to help; just let me know and I'll do what I can. ComplexRational (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Isotopes by NUBASE 2016
Some months ago we changed the Big Isotopes Table header into Isotopes table. I have not spend much time on the source updates you have done (helium for example). I remember you wrote that some two dozen elements (the lighter ones) were updated into NUBASE 2016 and AME209016 etc.

My question is: shall we refine the sources for those isotope pages that have been updated to 2016? IMO, when that update was/is done, these changes are needed:
 * In the Isotopes table header, set parameter NUBASE2016, AME2016 II,
 * In the References section, remove the generic sources from "2003" etc. (generic = do not have a common &lt;ref> foornote; e.g., Isotopes of niobium).

I myself cannot check whether an article is completely updated into 2016. -DePiep (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I can say for sure that 1-20 are updated (and I don't think any others were completely), so yes, the sources there should be changed to reflect the update if they do not already.
 * As for the other pages, I have temporarily paused in search of a faster way of updating – it is time-consuming and error-prone to scroll through pages and copy data for some 40 isotopes of some elements. For that, do you have any ideas to speed up the remaining updates? I can try to do some more if there are no alternatives, but I can't guarantee all the aforementioned time. ComplexRational (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I will clean up 1-20.
 * My approach would be:
 * 1. Read the NUBASE and AME data tables automatically and put them in a spreadsheet (or database).
 * 2. Put that data systematically in a Lua data file
 * 3. Make modules & templates that read specific data for any isotope in any table
 * Sort of internal wikidata then. At the moment, I've build parser (non-Lua) tables, but for this too cumbersome and not flexible enough. See Infobox element/symbol-to--overview1.
 * -DePiep (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The maintenace = improvement process
We, WP:ELEMENTS people, are not "helped" when outsiders presecribe/deny how to do and not do our maintenance (maintenance = improving articles & the whole set). Enganging talkative with such outsiders does not help, it only suffocates good maintenance practices. Every true help is visible at WT:ELEMENTS. -DePiep (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all opposed to discussing at WT:ELEM nor to our current maintenance practices. However, even if we disagree with them, it's still better to at least listen to other ideas – I find that sometimes "outsider" input can be highly valuable (unless it's obviously in bad faith or confusion, but I don't see that happening here). When there is a better solution at WT:ELEM, we can go about our ways as usual, and no harm done. There's no need for the discussion (here the CfD) to degenerate to WP:ADHOM and no true scotsman – they do not help improve the encyclopedia.
 * Regarding the issue at hand: I stand by my argument for keeping the category you created (it is indeed useful – I've been thinking about something like this for a while), though I am curious if it is technically possible to use a template for this. ComplexRational (talk) 02:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * For the 2148th time, please stop attacking or questioning my motives. I am also not an 'outsider', no matter how much you want to beat that drum or wish to diminish my contributions to WP:ELEMENTS. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You could have proposed your points at a talkpage. Nothing kept you from starting a talk with the WikiProject, or at the category's/template's talk page. By going XfD right from the start, you are evading cooperation with, eh, insiders. -DePiep (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * CFD is a discussion process open to everyone, which is suitable venue for hard-coded categories that affect everyone. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Good Article Backlog Drive Barnstar

 * Thank you! Glad to help. ComplexRational (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Victim of Vandalism
Hi ComplexRational. Was hoping to ask for your expertise regarding a victim of vandalism on Wikipedia. I noticed that you had recently made some very important edits to a page of a public figure who had fallen victim to someone posting untruths and lies and then locking the edits on their Wikipedia page. I have seen similar untruths posted to a page of a reporter of the TV news station (OANN) become victim to vandalism on his page. There are many untruths listed and then a lock was made on edits. As you can see by referring to his Everpedia page there are huge discrepancies in what is listed on his Wikipedia page (https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/jack-posobiec). If you can provide any assistance on accessing the page to rectify this issue, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thank you in advance. LadyLiberty1984 (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)LadyLiberty1984
 * Hi,, and welcome. Just curious, which of my edits are you referencing exactly?
 * I am not familiar with the topic of the page (Jack Posobiec) and have never edited it. At a first glance, I would say that the wording could certainly be more neutral ("internet troll" does not sit well with me, for example) yet still reflect the sources (e.g. X and Y have described him as an internet troll because...[sources]). While questionable, this does not fall under the scope of vandalism, so it cannot be treated as such. To resolve an issue like this, I would first recommend doing some research or discussing with an editor familiar with the subject, and adjusting the prose such that it does not include contentious labels but does not disregard (biased) sources that make such claims.
 * The best place to raise such a discussion would be the article's talk page, Talk:Jack Posobiec. Keep in mind that many discussions about the article's apparent bias have occurred and editors have concluded that it is acceptable because it is verifiable. The page protection is a result of edit warring about this "bias", so even when you can edit the article (upon becoming autoconfirmed – after 4 days and 10 edits), tread very cautiously.
 * I also see that your post here is your first edit. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask here or at the teahouse. Good luck! ComplexRational (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks so much for taking some time out of your day to read my post. The page I saw you made edits to is Mike Cernovich. There are similar inaccuracies on Jack Posobiec's page as was on Mike Cernovich's. If you can help in any way with making these edits or taking a look at some of the vandalism on Jack Posobiec's page, I'd very much appreciate your help. His Everipedia page lists information without bias and without opinions and a lot of the sighted information on his Wikipedia page can be debunked by researching. I am not sure what the verification standards are for Wikipedia edits, but it the information cannot be verified as fact, how can it be listed on a person's Wikipedia page? Thanks again. 47.154.162.76 (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)LadyLiberty1984
 * In short, Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires that all material, especially controversial material pertaining to living people, is cited in reliable sources. A source is considered reliable when it has a reputation for fact-checking (such as journal articles and established newspapers), though such sources need not be unbiased. Conversely, sources are typically unreliable when they are self-published and lack a reputation of accuracy and fact-checking (such as social media, blogs, news known to be nonfactual or biased). The Wikipedia article then must reflect exactly what is in the sources and itself present the content neutrally (meaning appropriate weight is given to multiple viewpoints and uncited opinions are avoided). If information cannot be reliably sourced, it should not be included. Opinions, however, are acceptable as long as the entire article does not take a stance and does not deviate from the sources.
 * If you say that this content about Jack Posobiec can be debunked, please find those reliable sources and present them on the talk page. As I said, I am not very familiar with the subject, and there is evidently an ongoing dispute regarding the page's neutrality. The best way to proceed is to start a discussion and present a well-sourced argument. ComplexRational (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC) Thank you! ComplexRational (talk) 10:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
Thank you! Enjoy your day as well. ComplexRational (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019
Hello ,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon. There are now holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action. Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays. Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox. Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards. Admin has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers. Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources. Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13. The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights. There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion. To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Getting the queue to 0
 * Coordinator
 * This month's refresher course
 * Tools
 * It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
 * It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
 * Reviewer Feedback
 * Second set of eyes
 * Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
 * Do be sure to have our talk page  on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
 * Arbitration Committee
 * Community Wish list

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg GermanJoe • Girth Summit • Kees08 • Nosebagbear
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg DESiegel • GB fan • MSGJ • Voice of Clam • WilyD
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg DeltaQuad • Fang Aili • Pakaran

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg DeltaQuad • Pakaran

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg MSGJ

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg L235 • Mz7 • SQL • ST47
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Ivanvector
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg DeltaQuad

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg L235 • Mz7 • ST47 • Stwalkerster • The Blade of the Northern Lights • Xaosflux
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg DeltaQuad • DGG • Julia W

Guideline and policy news
 * An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.
 * The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).
 * A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration
 * Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Prostate steam treatment
Hi: Sorry, but I am totally unable to follow your classifications of this article. In Quality Scale it should be "B". In Importance scale it should be "Mid priority". Could you perhaps reassess your grading? If you keep it, could you please provide evidence for your decisions? Greetings, --Saidmann (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, and thanks for bringing this up. I reached this conclusion based on similar articles handling similar topics, as well as the guideline WP:Content assessment. To my understanding, a B-class article should be somewhat more detailed and developed; specifically, I do not believe that this article yet has the completeness described in the B-class criteria. As for importance, low does not mean unimportant; rather, this is a very particular, specialized topic that is not well-known or important to a broader audience.
 * Could you explain why you believe it should be B/Mid? I'd like to hear your thoughts and weigh them in as well. For now, I won’t change my assessment, but if you still feel it is very inaccurate, I'm open to hearing why. Cheers, ComplexRational (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Importance: The article has a link to Benign prostatic hyperplasia, which says: "Globally, benign prostatic hyperplasia affects about 210 million males as of 2010 (6% of the population)." The article has a link to Lower urinary tract symptoms, which says: "LUTS affect approximately 40% of older men." The article mentions several items in which the technique is superior to competing ones (which in turn are listed in the indirectly linked Surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia). The article mentions that the introduction of the treatment has been a success for several years now.
 * Quality: Class B demands "The article is mostly complete and without major problems". I cannot find anything in the article that does not fulfill this condition.
 * Earlier reviews: Several members of the WikiProject Medicine had already reviewed the article.
 * Hope you can weigh in this. --Saidmann (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The more specific criteria are outlined at WikiProject_Medicine/Assessment. Per that page,
 * Importance: This assessment is determined primarily by how important the topic is within the scope of the WikiProject, not necessarily how important it is within a specific discipline or to a particular reader. I initially labeled it as low-importance because it appears very specific and I'm not sure how well-known it is, but it could be mid-importance based on some of the criteria listed at that assessment page (and if its usage increases, it will definitely bear more importance). As such, I will update it to mid-importance – thank you for leading me to this.
 * Quality: I agree that the article does not contain questionable content or major problems. However, the article does not appear sufficiently developed and complete to be considered B-class. Its sections are still very short and somewhat technical; though this content is certainly workable and informative, it should delve into greater detail and provide more context and, e.g. an infobox or visual supplement if possible. I could see it attaining C-class with a bit more work, but B-class requires considerable expansion and overall completeness. I'm not well-versed in this specific field, so I cannot specifically critique what should be added, but other examples about similar topics with a similar size and structure are also rated Start-class; similarly, the New Pages Feed predicts Start-class as well, probably using similar metrics.
 * Earlier reviews: Edits or views by other project members are not the same as reviewing. They neither marked the page as patrolled nor assessed the content; they only made edits to the content, and there was no talk page before I created it yesterday. I can only assume that they saw no problems with the article, but no formal assessment was made to my knowledge.
 * After this review, I stand by rating it as Start-class, but will update the importance to Mid. I hope this answers your questions, and I once again thank you for your input. ComplexRational (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, I am not happy, but I appreciate that you moved in one respect. Cheers, --Saidmann (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Beeblebrox
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Deskana

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Evad37

Guideline and policy news
 * An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
 * Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.

Technical news
 * Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)

Arbitration
 * Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous
 * The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

South Atlantic Environmental Research Institute
Thank you for your comments on the draft article Draft:South Atlantic Environmental Research Institute. I have made a few changes today and will continue to work on it. Would you be able to show me some examples of some additional references/research descriptions to help me along the way? Alenasaeri (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, your edits so far already add some independent references, an important step toward asserting notability (this is what I believe is currently holding back the draft). Some others, though, are not sufficient: ref 14 links to a researcher profile, which is not significant coverage and does not address SAERI directly, ref 17 links to search results, and ref 29 also only has a passing mention. To assert notability, a source should go into some detail, a one- or two-sentence reference (this includes introducing a researcher) is not significant coverage. Also keep in mind that sources for Paul Brickle (the executive director) are not necessarily sufficient, as an organization's notability is not inherited from an individual (i.e. it must be shown to be notable on its own).
 * Some of the articles in search results might work. For example,, , (albeit more weakly), and  have some specific, usable content about the research of SAERI. Ref 23 (phys.org) also seems to have just enough material in its last two paragraphs. Combined with these, and perhaps a few other sources describing research (I haven't done a deep search for journal articles), the official website can also be used to provide background information as it currently does, but that is more for completeness than notability.
 * I hope this helps. If you have any other questions, let me know; I'll be happy to re-review the draft whenever you're ready. Cheers, ComplexRational (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Making an opera over an edit
Regarding your comments here : I shall reply here rather than clog up the discussion with minutiae. To explain in detail: I saw this state of The Opera House Manchester and and read it as a redirect with an inappropriate speedy tag. So I rolled it back. I immediately realised that it was not a redirect and converted it to one.

I am very sorry if the way I did it offended you. You have accepted the outcome so what does it matter that I used two edits rather than one? Please may I be forgiven? Do you seriously think that the matter was worth bringing up in the Arbitration/Requests/Case discussion? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted, it really is no big deal. Thank you for explaining. The reason I mentioned it there was because {at least at face value) it resembled what some of the other users were describing in their statements; it was not at all intended as a petty complaint or dragging what on its own looks like a small misunderstanding, so I apologize if that was unclear. ComplexRational (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019


This year's Reviewer of the Year is. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.
 * Reviewer of the Year

Special commendation again goes to who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to and  who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by.
 * Redirect autopatrol

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.
 * Source Guide Discussion

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag. Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This month's refresher course

Happy holidays!

 * , thank you! Can we hope that 2020 brings us a new element at last? ComplexRational (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * See the links I've been posting on R8R's talk page. My hopes are up, even if we went a decade without one! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Coropuna FAC

 * Thank you! May FAC2 be a great success once we get there! ComplexRational (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt it will be! In case I pull one of my disappearing acts (I despair), I am more likely to see a talk page post than a ping. Although I can spot prose problems, I am incompetent to help rewrite as my prose is dreadful, but always happy to work on the little stuff.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello ComplexRational: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers,  Everedux  (talk)  20:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
 * Thanks! Happy holidays to you as well! ComplexRational (talk) 21:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 14, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko  talk  03:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!


ComplexRational, Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

– 2020 is a leap year   – news article. – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year Send New Year cheer by adding     to user talk pages.

– Utopes (talk) 04:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Happy new year to you too! ComplexRational (talk) 04:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)