Hi, everybody! This is a talk page I also visit regularly having >380 articles there.
You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
Kindly read up the following details and please confirm on my talk page that you have read these details and the related policy pages. You should not accept the new revision if in analyzing the diff you find that:
1) Something does not have to be online to be usable on WP. I use physical printed books all the time. Presumably someone could make a trip to the library (what an inconceivable idea!) and check the book to verify the statement.
2) That particular book is available for preview on Google, just the link was a little messed up. All you had to do was to type in the quote and Google would give you the full link. So it was very much verifiable. So you should be more careful with the ax :)
3) Though I agree that the ref was not that strong to begin with.
"make a trip to the library … an inconceivable idea" — that's what you say. Exactly: inconceivable to tens of millions of Internet and WP users. Who are not so lucky as both of us to have a library in 3 subway stops. Which buys all books in English, from all over the world. Printed no matter where it may, and (important!) - whatever the number of copies is their circulation. Seriously: for those unlucky the WP:V rules that "that the source directly support the material in question". WP:VERIFY means that the text (and the page!) must be (sorry for tautology) verifiable.
"type in the quote and Google would give you the full link" — I assume this is of an editor's concern, not of a reader. If you may obtain closer link — please, provide it. However, this link must bring to a specific page of a book, not merely its title.
well, I did not even consider the reliability of the source — simply, I could not, because its text was out of my reach.
A counterquestion (or a "counteradvice" to your #2): did you try to find exerpts from texts, inaccessible via Google books, by putting the quoted phrase that you have read in a printed book into a searchbox of Yahoo or another third-party query engine? Some texts may be available out of Google. — Regards, Cherurbino (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong about #1. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS: The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources. And for #2, my point was that with a couple extra clicks and due diligence you could have verified the info. You were too quick to give up and pull out the ax. Renata (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, Cherurbino. You have new messages at Talk:Passport. Message added 17:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Cherurbino. You have new messages at DarDar's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thank you for fixing the refs. I proposed an alt hook on the talk page, please take a look. Also, you may want to add mention of M.M. to the article on Lenin and other pages to populate the What Links Here section of the page. Best, Yoninah (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I added more information about the shooting from the Fritz Platten article. I would like to finish up this nomination now. I think I've provided some very "hooky" hooks to interest readers to click on the page. If you have a better hook, please spell it out. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note on my talk page. So what did you decide about the hook? I think ALT1, about terrorists "opening fire", will grab English-speaking readers. Yoninah (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
Thank you for doing good work! Just keep in mind that every time when you call someone "vandal" [4], another "side" can blame you of WP:CIV violation. Five diffs with alleged NPA violations, and someone will report you to AE or ANI. Just do not use v-word, no matter if you are right or wrong. Best wishes, Biophys (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw your question, prep is here, your article is in prep3 (right below one of mine) and will eventually be moved to one of the 6 queues. The timetable on top of the page tells you that it will probably go to q6 and appear London time 24 February midnight to 6am. Just enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I feel you may need a better advice (since you asked).
1. Your discussion with Beyond_My_Ken. Yes, I can see the problem: [5]. Sentence should not begin from "Was documented in local police...". Another phrase: The third type, "служебная прописка" is an intermediate type, when a person and his family. This is mixture of Russian and English (speaking Russian, smes' frantsuzskogo s nizegorodskim). Unfortunately I can not fix it because of my topic ban. Please try to improve your language.
2. Your conflict with DD.
Do not complain about other users, especially if you have content disputes with them, because admins will decide that you want to win a content dispute by complaining. Consider Wikipedia:SEEKHELP instead.
If you complain, collect bare diffs. No one wants to read your bickering.
The diffs must demonstrate behavior problems. No one will rule on content. For example, that could be bare diffs with reverts made by user X in multiple articles.
Demonstrate pattern. For example, user X was previously indefinitely banned for edit warring, evaded his block by creating sockpuppets, was caught and indefinitely blocked again, but unblocked and still continue edit-warring.
Ask advice from an individual uninvolved administrator. Yes, you did it, but you did not follow other rules and especially rule #1. Biophys (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Cherurbino. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ves Peterburg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Luga (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Hello, Cherurbino. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
Hello, there is an new position of the helicopter in the image. ASAIS the source is Phil from forum.nasaspaceflight.com. I would not regard an arbitrary forum post as reliable source. Is the source of Phils information known? Schrauber5 (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Schrauber! I propose another solution: circa 4 hours ago a wrote Phil an invitation to register at Commons to upload his maps personally. I also asked him to upload the second map (in the same scale) with the first sols of the mission. Hope that he agrees.
Also, I'm angry with NASA people, for their sabotage in updating both map and even the flight log. I'm not the follower of conspiracy theories ;), but sometimes it looks like the revenge of the oppositioners to helicopter ))) (take it as a joke). Anyway we have to wait until this Reliable Source benevolently updates their public site. Cherurbino (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The last blog has also a wrong date (flight 7 ist listed as 8.June Sol 107, first attempt as 4 June Sol 105). And in the images they use the UTC date and in the articles the PDT, in both cases without describing it. Curiority images habe ISO timestamps. Mars 2020 Sol and "mean solar time".
If Phil will add the thats fine, but where is the source? Schrauber5 (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Guten morgen, Schrauber! It's 05:30 in my location, and it seems I have not awoken yet ))... Please clarify what blog do you mean saying about mistakes?
Phil does not want to register at Commons for uploading his maps. They are for the book he writes now. Possible reason: uploading maps to Wiki, he loses all his property rights for them, and he wants his book to appear first.
If I correctly understand his dialogues, he makes these maps himself, basing upon peports and especially photos form Mars, where he knows every stone like his own palm. So, he makes the reverse reconstruction of paths for both rover and helicopter.
In these circumstances using his uploads at the space forums, as the source, automatically deprives the derivative works from PD-NASA permission. (to be continued) Cherurbino (talk) 05:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not 'Phil's map' what is uploaded here. His original maps are 256 grey. And the map that our colleague supports is multicolored. Last version is NOT 'map of Cherurbino', like he told you on another page; he misinterpreted my words which were printed above. I only posted a link to an anonymous map, displayed in one of our local blogs - so to say, it is 'derivative from derivative'. Cherurbino (talk) 06:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that they will report the landing site also at the "where is the rover" page, just with a delay. Sometimes also the rover position is some days delayed. Schrauber5 (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've just uploaded the map to Commons and replaced the map of our friend on en-wiki, with a large excusive comment. Hope that he wouldn't be against. Cherurbino (talk) 07:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the style of the old picture better and would take the current map (with rover path up to Sol 135) and combine it with the known helicopter positions. Maybe NASA will fix the missing flight path some day.Schrauber5 (talk) 09:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded the same photo and got the message; You try to upload a duplicate. It was only used in the Russian ingenuity article which you did basically alone. Now one reverting your changes or claiming Original research. Looks like paradise.
The same link to the map gives different results. If this is done by caching or if the website creates different images depending on OS, screen, browser, size, I don't know. Strange.
I see on your russian page you are claiming de-1 and 6 other languages. My congrats!
German was the first foreign language I heard at the age of 5-6. My mother read me some poems, of which Istill remember spoken by her voice "Die Luft ist kuhl und es dunkelt, und ruhig fließt der Rhein". Second motive was the PIKO Modelleisenbahn, I started to collect at the age of 12. I was the subscriber of "Modelleisenbahner" up to 1991, so "de-1" means "Imostly understand what is written". English + French + Spanish are from school and University; Italian appeared of the basis of two last when I lived and studied there for 2 months. I did not want to add Portuguese, but colleagues from pt-wiki insisted, because I wrote 388 articles there - more than in Russian ))). Cherurbino (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, there's no special page for Ingenuity in de-wiki! If you like the design of my version (at least partially) I shall be proud to know that it was used on de-wiki ))) !!!
I would see it at the end of the section "Operational history" because it belongs to flight 10. And when it has happened it should be deleted and appear/be part of the complete track. Do you agree? Schrauber5 (talk) 10:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Schrauber! Place my picture wherever you want, the final decision shall be upon you. The only reason for my choice of present location was the strong desire to counterbalance the extremely tall scheme of Chinakpradhan which makes the obstacle to the disposition of the 'Table of flights'. Maybe people with wider monitors do not experience it, but in my case (1200 px) the scheme of Chinakpradhan pushes the entire table to the left. As a result, it makes the last - prolix, verbose and wordy - column 'Summary' practically unreadable. Maybe it's habitual for Japanese to perceive vertical texts )), but - jokes apart - this column needs a merciless editor with sharp scissors to make this 'Summary' encyclopedically laconic. I cannot take this burden, because English is not my first language, but hope that somebody else shall do that.
Re: "And when it has happened it should be deleted": if you mean File:PIA24687-Ingenuity-Flight-10-Profile.jpg, up to this time nobody nominated it to deletion in Commons )). As for this article in en-wiki - that's upon the other editors' taste… I shall not be bothered if somebody shall exclude it from the article.
At this time I am heavily involved in amelioration of another article in ru-wiki, that is about the Jezero crater. You may click here to evaluate my design of the legend boxes (I wrote a special template for them in ru-wiki).
Last about Ingenuity: I shall not be surprised if this flight fails. Technically the task is too complicated and I'm not sure that helicopter shall not go into oscillations again. Cherurbino (talk) 11:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With deleted I meant from the article not from commons.
flight will happen in 15min, I will check tomorrow.
The oscillation were due to the shifted time stamp, that should be fixed now. I believe in new faults. Maybe something mechanical or electrical, not a software bug again. Schrauber5 (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All the flights shall be success until helicopter crashes)). I downloaded to Commons only the earliest and the latest of 6 images proposed to us by NASA. Many questions are still open, among them the confirmed actual flight height. Fuselage and blades on File:Ingenuity Flight 10 12-06-31 LMST.jpg seems slightly smaller than on File:Ingenuity tilts in Flight 6.png (10 m), but whether it corresponds with 12 m - up to now it is an 'original research'.
I wait for the new map from Phil to calculate all four segments of the 'bent staple' of this route. Cherurbino (talk)
My calculations show that the flight length was 48,25 + 73 + 56,5 + 48,25 = 226 m, not 165. I poublished the flight map on NASAspaceflight… no comments by this time. Cherurbino (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I checked again and I see what you were trying to do. The bit you missed was adding {{sfnref}} around the ref parameter. I took the liberty of adding a space to make the status references more readable in the references. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the good words about my design! Sadly, the 'sfn' template works differently in the natioinal domains of Wikipedia, and those who reverted my changes were right: English user cannot open link to the article from the sfn footnote, while in the Russian page for „Ingenuity” (and other pages in ru-wiki) 'sfn' notes allow that. Two different things.
At this sad point nothing remains for me, but to cease my attempts to share my 'design' approaches with the en-wiki. Now I come to understanding why the 'sfn' footnote is rarely used in en-wiki, while in the ru-wiki it is a sort of 'good manner' for all the 'status articles'. Thank you for your kind attention, Cherurbino (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think you understand. Your idea was perfectly valid, however it needed to be slightly changed. If you have a look at Ingenuity (helicopter), I have actually restored your changes with some fixes to make it work. It was, and remains, a great idea! - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Chinakpradhan. I was absent here - a sudden attack of the HHD] knocked me down for more than a week ago. I'm deeply upset with [what happens with my attempts to explain people all the link in a chain from a NAV file to the truly geopositioned waytrack. Somebody is interested to hide the trivial and commonly known fact that all the martian maps for planning flight routes JPL gets from Arizona university, since there's no other Mars orbiter than MRO which supplies these maps for the whole world in the last 15 years.
If you want to know, who and how extracts data for the route and flight maps - go to this site. Unfortunately, this knowledge shall not accelerate the process of data extraction. As for me, I'm almost close to spitting on this article. In any case, my health is dearer to me than those considerable investments that I have already made in this unfortunate and long-suffering article. Cherurbino (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for September 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mars 2020, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ingenuity. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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.
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.
Your edit to Ingenuity (helicopter) has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. The content in question was from a fairly old edit, from 2021, which I came across due to a broader investigation of another editor's copyright violations on that page and others. Nevertheless, you should be advised of our copyright policy.signed, Rosguilltalk19:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
_along_Park_Pobedy.jpg)
