User talk:ComplexRational

This is ComplexRational's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13: 30 days

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist and topic subscriptions to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

September 2024 NPP backlog drive – Points award

The Working Man's Barnstar

This award is given in recognition to ComplexRational for accumulating at least 10 points during the September 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 19,000+ articles and 35,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 26,884.6 points) completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I hope to do more reviews next time around. ^Complex/_Rational 23:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A racecar for you!

	A racecar for you!
	Great to meet you at WCNA this weekend – and now I'm extra stoked for NYC next year! :) Hope you had a good conference experience and till next WCNA, see you around the wikis! Accedie^{talk to me} 18:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Accedie: It was nice meeting you as well, and the conference was well worth it. Looking forward to next time! ^Complex/_Rational 21:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About Tzortz Mpalntok

The reason I suggested deleting the redirect is gibberish. This user, due to his nationalistic pov, transcribes Greek names in this way in several articles. However, there is not a single source that supports this way of writing You can check his point of view here here and here 77.49.102.48 (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even WP:CSD#G1 is inapplicable if there is any way the content can be reasonably understood, so I would have declined then as well, but merely for being out of scope of the speedy deletion criteria. However, I have no prejudice against a nomination at redirects for discussion; I suggest you bring concerns about neutrality and verifiability to a discussion there. ^Complex/_Rational 18:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

o.k.! Thank you 77.49.102.48 (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oct 26: Wikidata Day NYC

October 26: Wikidata Day in New York City

You are invited to Wikidata Day in New York City at Pratt Institute School of Information in Manhattan, in celebration of Wikidata's 12th birthday. This event, held by our chapter in collaboration with Pratt and Girls Who Code, will be our third annual celebration of Wikidata Day. It will feature spotlight sessions, lightning talks, and the customary Wiki-cake, while those unable to attend in person will be able to watch a livestream.

All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct.

Saturday, October 26, 2024 Wikidata Day in New York City (Eventbrite RSVP is required and also optionally on-wiki).
11:00 am – 5:00 pm

Pratt Manhattan (rooms 201 and 214), 144 W 14th Street

RSVP off-wiki is required for building entry!

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Dara Greaney

I have asked for a deletion review of Dara Greaney. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dgreaney (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Draft:Shuying Li

2600:1010:A13E:2DE2:D41D:BDA8:D765:C404 has asked for a deletion review of Draft:Shuying Li. Because you speedily deleted the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 19:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Access to Content of deleted edits

There are 4 deletions on the page of Banu Qurayza, all of which correspond to major edits. The reasons listed on the deletions is that they violate copywrite. The page itself is implicated in an ANI outcome (Incident archive 1159: Kaalakaa on Islam-related topics) where a consensus of uninvolved found that the user @Kaalakaa maintained a collection of NPOV abused pages on Islam related topics, including this page.

I would like to request a copy of the deleted content (3 most recent deletions), all of which were found violating RD1: Copywrite. I would like to salvage the knowledge and assess if portions of it remain relevant. If so, remedy it of its violation to be reintroduced, as long as its citations are of acceptable standard.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Bro The Man (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bro The Man: I cannot provide or reinstate content that was deleted as copyright infringement. Additionally, the additions of infringing content were immediately reverted, so they had no long-term impact on the overall accuracy and neutrality.

The deletion log entries include some of the sources from which material was copied, though, and you are free to assess the original sources for relevance and write fresh content in your own words. However, I am not familiar enough with the subject matter to point you to the best available sources. I see that you also started a thread on the article's talk page and I hope that you find assistance there. Thanks, ^Complex/_Rational 16:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So it was just blocks of copy-pastes? If that's so, then that's useless, lmao. Please, let me know if i understood you correctly. Bro The Man (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked it thoroughly, but in general, copyright infringement refers to improper verbatim copy-and-paste or close paraphrasing. So yes, you'll find essentially the same material in the original sources as you would in the deleted version. ^Complex/_Rational 19:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

since you mentioned "perhaps the full article has still more" regarding Lv

The full article is available from Lund University. :) Double sharp (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: Thanks for sharing! ^Complex/_Rational 17:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6-year editaversary

Sdkb ^talk 05:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb: Thank you! Here's to another trip around the Sun! ^Complex/_Rational 12:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: Thank you! ^Complex/_Rational 22:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Silicon-45 and 46 discovered

New paper. Also of interest to Nucleus hydro elemon. :) Double sharp (talk) 04:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: Cool, thanks! Fortunately this one is open-access. ^Complex/_Rational 13:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another exciting discovery, thanks! It seems like all the recent discoveries are light nuclides. For the heavier nuclides, it seems like light isotopes perform better in synthesizing Uue. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 13:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nucleus hydro elemon: I suspect people stick to the heavy ones because they want the half-life of the product to be long enough to detect. ;) Double sharp (talk) 03:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

doi:10.1142/S0218301320500536 predicts among ^284-308Uue, ^296,300,302Uue have a half-life of >100 μs. (^297,308Uue may reach this bar or not depends on prediction used) Only ²⁹⁶Uue is a reasonable long-lived isotope to be synthesized among them. ²⁹⁷Uue requires either 2n channel, ²⁵⁰Cm, or einsteinium, while even heavier isotopes are more unlikely to produce.

On the other hand, I found lighter isotopes ^292,293Uue interesting because the whole decay chain is unknown. However, their predicted half-lives of ~30 μs is troublesome. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 08:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If only ²⁴¹Am+⁴⁸Ca and ²³¹Pa+⁴⁸Ca would get studied. :( Double sharp (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does indeed seem that even-Z SHEs have been getting much of the attention lately. Meanwhile, the gap between cold and hot fusion persists for odd-Z elements, and Mt and Rg each have one isotope that has been directly synthesized... decades ago. ^Complex/_Rational 16:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you mention ²⁶⁶Mt from 1982: Peter Armbruster and Gottfried Münzenberg both died this year. :( (Sigurd Hofmann died in 2022.) Double sharp (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the even-Z gap gets studied more because it looks like 120 is going to be easier than 119. Maybe once 120 is discovered, we'll see a renaissance of interest in the odd ones. Double sharp (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

²⁴²Pu+⁵⁰Ti

New presentation from JINR! With ²⁸⁹Lv! And ²⁸⁰Cn! And a p2n channel leading to ²⁸⁹Mc!! Double sharp (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nucleus hydro elemon: Since you just noted that lately it had mostly been light nuclides getting discovered! :D Double sharp (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: Thanks for sharing the exciting news! I suppose the new isotopes could be added, but I'm not sure that WP:CALC permits computing half-lives in the absence of aggregated data and complete analysis... so a more detailed update will likely have to wait. ^Complex/_Rational 15:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've confined myself to just adding their existence. (Well, I guess their colour in the Table of nuclides can be handwaved as obvious; computing the detailed half-life is too much, but it's too obvious that it must be <1 d. :D) Double sharp (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the decay chain of ²⁸⁹Lv passes through ²⁶⁹Sg, its half-life must be revised. Perhaps the most stable isotope of Sg will become ²⁶⁹Sg again. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 06:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, one more nuclide with Z:N = 2:3 found, whoopee! Discovering ²⁹⁵Og in the future would complete this huge family from ⁵He to ²⁹⁵Og, spanning from the beginning to the end of the periodic table. 129.104.65.2 (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking forward to synthesis of ^295,296Og with ^250,251,252Cf + ⁴⁸Ca and ²⁴⁸Cm + ⁵⁰Ti. Besides that, I'm also hoping for the discovery of ²⁹³Og to clean up Ninov's mess completely. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 06:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nucleus hydro elemon: You know what else I want? A sustained search for the pxn channel from ²⁴⁸Cm+⁴⁸Ca to get heavier Mc isotopes (to see if they really electron-capture their way to the middle of the island), plus sustained looks at ²⁴²Cm+⁴⁸Ca to get even lighter Lv isotopes. And the odd-Z cases too, but you already know that. I guess the dream of using ²⁵⁰Cm will have to languish in limbo for a long while. :)

I guess a sustained ²⁴⁹Cf+⁴⁸Ca campaign might well actually find ²⁹³Og in the 4n channel. Double sharp (talk) 07:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

²⁴⁸Cm(⁴⁸Ca,p3n)²⁹²Mc has extremely bad cross section (12 fb).^[1] I found nothing about ²⁴²Cm+⁴⁸Ca, probably because ²⁴²Cm is too unstable, even more unstable than ²⁴⁹Bk. I think ^238-240Pu+⁵⁰Ti makes more sense, but there exists only a prediction 43 years ago, which states ²³⁸Pu(⁴⁸Ca,4n)²⁸⁴Lv has a cross section of a few pb.^[2]

I have a complicated feeling towards nuclides at the island of stability, especially if they have a half-life in centuries or millennia. After formed from the EC chain, the atom will outlive any SHE researcher, so no one can know its decay properties. It might be hard to detect the existence of this long-lived atom. I don't think chemistry can be done, as chemistry done in a single atom relies on its radioactive decay, which this long-lived atom will never do in a reasonable timeframe. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 08:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nucleus hydro elemon: True, but I guess an ER that has no plausible SF event following it would be quite a sign that the island's been reached at least. And yeah, ²⁴²Cm is perhaps a bit ambitious, but at least ²⁴³Cm has a half-life of a few decades and will get us most of the way. :) Double sharp (talk) 08:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found a prediction about ²⁴³Cm+^46,48Ca.^[3] It also predicts ²⁴⁵Cm+⁴⁶Ca, but this reaction is worse than ²⁴³Cm+⁴⁸Ca in all channels, so I ignored it. Cross sections are square bracketed and in pb.

²⁴³Cm(⁴⁸Ca,3n)²⁸⁸Lv [1.53]
²⁴³Cm(⁴⁸Ca,4n)²⁸⁷Lv [0.36]
²⁴³Cm(⁴⁸Ca,5n)²⁸⁶Lv [0.29]
²⁴³Cm(⁴⁶Ca,3n)²⁸⁶Lv [1.69]
²⁴³Cm(⁴⁶Ca,4n)²⁸⁵Lv [0.27]
²⁴³Cm(⁴⁶Ca,5n)²⁸⁴Lv [0.17]

Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 09:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing is that ²⁴⁴Pu+⁵⁰Ti (0.44+0.58
−0.28 pb) seems to have a larger cross-section than ²⁰⁸Pb+⁷⁰Zn (0.078+0.179
−0.065 pb). If not for the serendipitous ²⁹⁴Og atom produced in 2012 during a Ts campaign (when the ²⁴⁹Bk target had significantly decayed), I wonder if it might've been tried last decade, as it would both confirm 118 by producing its daughter ²⁹⁰Lv, and provide useful experience with ⁵⁰Ti back when people were already thinking about 119 and 120. Though looking at the trend, it seems distressingly plausible that current technology levels have simply made 119 and 120 go from "it's not gonna happen" to "sure, if you're willing to spend years and years like RIKEN did with 113"... Double sharp (talk) 08:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source I added to moscovium also discusses αxn channels, and suggests they may be more favorable to produce heavier Mc isotopes from ²⁴⁹Bk and ⁴⁸Ca. On the other side, some of the neutron deficient even–even isotopes may have very short SF half-lives (predicted by several sources and supported by observations of ²⁸⁴Fl, ²⁸²Cn, and now ²⁸⁰Cn), so they may not be readily detectable even with cross sections within experimental detection limits. ^Complex/_Rational 15:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of wondering how we should handle the successful pxn – it doesn't fit quite well with how the superheavy "isotopes of X" pages are currently handled. Well, what a happy problem to have! Double sharp (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: And a happy problem to solve! Time to update island of stability next while we await detailed results. ^Complex/_Rational 16:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

Administrator changes

Crisco 1492

CheckUser changes

Maxim

Oversighter changes