User talk:Ruslik0/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ruslik0. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Europa

on Europa's FA page, RJHall has just raised an issue regarding the "once per 12,000 years" slippage data for Europa's crust. He wants to know, basically, what "once" means. I had a look at your source, but I can only read the abstract. Could you perhaps have a look? Thanks. Serendi^podous 17:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, for resolving that, and for helping me with the Venus problem, I think you deserve a cookie:

Serendi^podous 19:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. congrats with Europa. Sorry I couldn't help out more but I was away for a few days. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! And thanks to you and RJHall for dealing with Tony1 while I was out of commission. I've been away from a terminal for a few days, and I'm likely to be away again for the next 24 hours or so. Do you think it still needs a copyedit? I'll get onto Ganymede after I finish Triton.Serendi^podous 16:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Atom size

I reverted your atom size correction because your number was exactly twice what you replaced. Please check whether your source is radius or diameter and go ahead and fix it if you had the right number. -- SEWilco (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Europa 2

Heya Ruslik. I see this one got featured without me. Kudos to you and Serendip, as always. I'm still willing to go over the prose. I've got two other articles on the radar for now, but if I forget to work on Europa remind me in a week. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ganymede

Let's shoot for an FAC co-nom? It's greatly expanded in the last few weeks (with journal papers nicely increasing). You could better tell when it's on par with other Jovian moons. I see Serendip at work on Triton. With these two done, all the big seven moons would be FA. Only rocks will be left over to be made FA! (And Neptune.) Marskell (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I will get to a ce soon. I presume you noticed my own additions regarding orbital resonances. I think I described things properly. Ditto on the sodium (is it appropriate to say "nothing" or "scant quantities"?). Marskell (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

And a question: Voyager found surface pressure of 2.5 ×10^−5 μBar versus 0.2–1.2 ×10^−5 μBar for HST. Isn't the former higher? How then is the latter indicative of an atmosphere? I'm truly a numbers dummy, so pardon me if that's a stupid question. They're within an order of magnitude (×10^−5), at least, aren't they? Marskell (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation. On Tau Ceti, RJHall and I used a Notes section in part to have his own calculations in one place. This makes it easier for someone else to double check them. Is that worth doing here? Downside is that the ref/note system employed is clunky.

"Other evidence for the ocean includes surface features and minerals suggestive of water and slush having emerged from below." Not relevant? Marskell (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

More questions! What is meant by "strongest central mass concentration" in the Solar System? The sentence needs to be tweaked for wordiness. Also, I thought I had added that while Ganymede's ocean is sandwiched between layers of ice, Europa's is in direct contact with hypdrothermal vents, lowering the probability of life on the former. Was that in there at some point?

I suppose you'll continue to fill out sections and I'll ce behind you, as the junior partner, so to speak. I'll tell you a minor concern, which I think I raised with Callisto: the "thickness" of the prose. Precisely because I approach these pages as a numbers deficient amateur, I worry about the general purpose reader being turned off by overwhelming detail. When it's more or less done, maybe we can go through it on talk with an eye for that? Marskell (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks also for the Science tip.

The comment on Europa's hydrothermal systems was in the Barr paper; I filled out the description somewhat. I've ce'ed Composition, Atmosphere, and Magnetosphere. This was small strokes, just eliminating wordiness. As I say, we'll save thick descriptions for last. Marskell (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I reinserted the "Subsurface ocean" headline. Is that a problem? I think it's a subject that may lead people to search the topic. Marskell (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Triton

I've done as much as I can, but I have no idea if what I have done is any good. This whole thing's been a bit above my head. Even so, there are still plenty of facts I can't cite. Even with all necessary citations, I don't see it reaching FA. Serendi^podous 01:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't have access to that article. I'll see what I can do for Ganymede. Serendi^podous 11:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

International registration for that site asks for a lot of personal info I'm not all that keen to give up, my phone number in particular, so I think I'll pass. Thanks for the lead though. Serendi^podous 13:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

OK; I got access to the Science website, and it was helpful to a certain extent. Unfortunately a lot of the information in the Triton article seems unciteable. I know why, and it's a problem I'm thinking of raising with the FA group. For some reason, articles which are featured on foreign language versions of Wikipedia are listed as possible help to users of the English language Wikipedia. Unfortunately, foreign language Wikipedias have lower standards for FA inclusion, and often don't cite their sources. That means that, when someone translates material from a foreign language Wiki, it ultimately saddles the article with highly specific material with no available sources in English. In this case, I know the guy who wrote the original foreign FA, his name's Pedro, so I've sent him a message asking him for his sources. I don't know if he'll get back to me. Serendi^podous 20:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yasui v. United States GA

I have expanded the lead, please let me know if that will suffice. Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

To do

Great Ruslik. (Sorry I'm going slow; I've been devoting time to Giant Otter and have three pending copyedit requests.) You'll notice I added a paragraph to surface features detailing heat sources. Hope it's OK. Marskell (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"The most probable values are: core radius—700–900 km, the thickness of the outer ice mantle—800–1000 km with the remainder being made by the silicate mantle." I simply can't make sense of this sentence. I think you tend to use an em dash where a colon, or simply a comma, would do. Marskell (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Concern over redudancy

Ruslik, I'm somewhat concerned over the logic of an Origins and evolution section. Not that it can't be useful, but doesn't it set-up a situation where information that should already have appeared in the main sections gets repeated? For example, the paragraph on tidal heating came back to a topic that I tried to elaborate under Surface features. I attempted a merge. This is fairly significant surgery on my part, so if you're not happy, feel free to change. I think the last paragraph in Origins, regarding impacts, should also be under Surface features. Marskell (talk) 10:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I will try to give it a ce. I see that the joint editing may have created further redundancy (mostly my fault!) and I'll try to eliminate that. Marskell (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you do me a favour?

I think this is an appropriate flower when you're sick

I need to write a paragraph or two for Planet about what a planetary magnetic field is. I don't really have a clue, nor do I feel qualified to explain the differences between the magnetic fields of Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, and those of Mars and Venus. If you could provide a quick one-paragraph explanation I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Serendi^podous 20:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

As always, thank you. Serendi^podous 17:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Get well soon, Ruslik! Marskell (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ready to go?

I notice you are not editing much, so I hope all is well with you.

I don't know if you checked back at the PR, but I suggested "moment of inertia," "magnetic moment," and "the low strength of the higher quadrupole harmonics" should have short descriptions to help the reader.

Beyond that, is it ready to go? I'm quite happy with it. You can have the honour of the nom, as most of the material is yours. (If you're tied up in real life, I can do it.) Marskell (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, popped up on my watchlist.

Small note "...and, possibly, ozone." Is this not sufficient to drop the "possibly"? Marskell (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ganymede (moon) question

Hi, Ruslik; I'm running through my usual month-end archiving and stats chores, and I have a question on Ganymede. I noticed in the FAC that Marskell was a significant contributor (yep, I check them all :-) and therefore he didn't enter a Support, referring to "we" in the nomination. But, Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2008 doesn't have him listed as a co-nominator, since it wasn't explicitly stated on the nomination that he was a co-nominator. I didn't count his comment as a Support, as I assumed he was a co-nominator, but now I'm unclear. Should I add his name at Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2008? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps update

This is a form message being sent out to all of the GA sweeps reviewers. Thank you for all of your dedicated work in the difficult and time-consuming task of ensuring the quality of articles within the GA project. Many reviewers have taken time out of reviewing articles at WP:GAN (this may be one factor in the expansion of the backlog), writing articles, and probably getting some sleep! I have sent this message out to update you on our current progress and to remind you to please keep up with completing your reviews and updating GARs/holds. As of March 1, 2008, we have swept 20% of the 2,808 GAs we started with. At our current progress, all of the articles will be assessed in just under three years (based on when we started). If we want to complete the sweeps sooner, we need to continue reviewing at a higher rate (consider doing one or two more reviews a week or whatever you feel comfortable with) and inviting new, experienced reviewers. If you are taking a break, focusing on GAN, writing your own GAs, or are already reviewing articles like crazy, I still want to thank you for all of your hard work and hope you are pleased about our current progress. Keep up the good work and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Your nebular hypothesis rewrite

Are you still planning to merge your rewrite with the nebular hypothesis article? Serendi^podous 12:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow you're back

I'm sorry to burden you but I really need you. Neptune needs an atmosphere section and I don't have the necessary resources or knowledge to write one. Could you perhaps just write a paragraph or two giving a general layout of Neptune's troposphere and stratosphere? The exosphere is already mentioned in the Energy Generation section, and could be merged into an atmosphere section. Sorry again and thanks as always for your help. Serendi^podous 17:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we've managed to sort out most of the issues by reorganising the material already on the page. Still, I'm sure you could improve it, because you always do. Thanks. Serendi^podous 22:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know; the guy who raised the objection hasn't responded yet. Still, I could probably use them anyway. Thanks :-) Serendi^podous 14:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Got the email; I'll be sure to have a look. Over at Talk:Neptune, RJHall has raised some issues with your changes, and I don't really know how to answer. Do you think you could pop over and help him out? Thanks. Serendi^podous 16:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Formation and evolution of the Solar System

This is just to say that I put the "Galactic evolution" section back into the article. I know that it isn't entirely within the article's scope, but a number of recent editors have added unsourced material about the supposed effects that the galactic collision will have on the Solar System. I put that info back in to ensure we don't get any more such edits. I also expanded the section to make clear that, despite the misconception, the planets in the Solar System will not be affected by the merger. Just wanted to make sure you were OK with that. Serendi^podous 16:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I just removed the paragraph about Iron-60 that you added to the pre-solar nebula section of this article because the same work was already mentioned in the first paragraph of the section. If you think it deserves the fuller description that you imported, re-add it (but the same ref should only have one footnote if cited multiple times). I did add an explicit mention of Iron-60 to the preexisting paragraph. ASHill (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Rus, do you think you could go over to the Formation and evolution article and check out the Outstanding issues section? Some of that material might be better placed in Nebular hypothesis, and I was wondering what you thought. Serendi^podous 08:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that article helped a lot. Still need to do a lot of work though. Hope I'll have something by Friday afternoon. Serendi^podous 16:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So, I suppose I should ask, who came up with the SNDM and how did it become generally accepted? Serendi^podous 13:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to find information on how we learned the Sun was going to die, but I haven't had much luck. Who was the first person to understand that stars die? What happened before Hoyle and Schwarzschild? I'm really at a loss. Serendi^podous 18:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Rus. Do you think you could do a rewrite of that section? I'm sorry to have to burden you with this, but I've just damaged myself rather clumsily and am in a lot of pain. Most of this material is above my head anyway; nuclear physics was never my strong point. I've managed to get this far with the article, but I don't think I can do any more. And I feel like the whole thing is on a time clock. Serendi^podous 16:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it should be copyedited by someone impartial before nomination? Serendi^podous 14:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Screw it. Looks good to me. Let's just go with it. Tony1 will probably say "oppose", but then he always does, and yet, somehow I still have 15 featured articles to my name. Serendi^podous 05:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The sentence was a bit grammatically fuzzy; I didn't quite understand what it meant. I've had a go at rewriting it, but even so I'm not sure about massive planetesimals bringing water to Earth because such impacts would have vaporised any water they may have had in them and also, the LHB would have destroyed any oceans the Earth would have had anyway. Serendi^podous 07:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

OK but what about the claim in the cited sources that the LHB would have removed Earth's water? Serendi^podous 08:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to Frances Reddy, 2006. Serendi^podous 09:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well then, the asteroid belt and late heavy bombardment sections needs to be rewritten and David Jewitt's discovery of the main belt comets has to be thrown out or explained some other way. Serendi^podous 11:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

How does one do a timeline? Or do you think it's needed at all? Could the chronology be made clearer some other way? Serendi^podous 18:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Oort cloud mass

Just to be clear; the figure of 3 Earth masses, is that for the outer Oort cloud or for the Oort cloud as a whole? Serendi^podous 21:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Nebular hypothesis to FA!

Have a slice of cake!

Serendi^podous 06:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ditto - I was preoccupied for a few days, got your note and.....noticed the star...good work :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still working on Formation and evolution of the Solar System at the moment, but I would welcome any improvements to the history article; it's pretty deficient at the moment. Serendi^podous 10:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. That article has been a millstone around my neck, and quite frankly I can't find the necessary information to complete it. If you think you can fix the holes in it, then that's great; I'd love to see it up to spec, but I've kinda given up on it as of now. I broke the article off and supplied it with just enough information to keep it from being deleted, but I don't think I have the will to continue with it. Though if you feel that you can make the article better, I will back you in your efforts. Serendi^podous 12:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded angry. Just venting a lot of frustration at that bloody article. Serendi^podous 10:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Atmosphere of Venus

For some reason I thought the bot did it now, fixed - an FA and a GA in quick succession, excellent work Jimfbleak (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

I don't think that kind of timeline would work, as the events covered aren't continuous; there are gaps of billions of years. Serendi^podous 19:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be listed for deletion. I suppose I could go cap in hand to the admins and ask what kind of template is encouraged for presenting information like this. Serendi^podous 19:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

So, do you want to go to FAC now?

I think Formation and evolution of the Solar System is ready for an FAC. Serendi^podous 06:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Good_article_nominations#Can_someone_direct_me_to_its_GA_review.3F

According to the above discussion the article is re-nominated. So should the peer review be re-opened? KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Mercury's FAR

You can also nominate Mercury for a good article after it demoted, which seems inevitable now. Ruslik (talk) 05:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even sure it satisfies the GA criteria any more, as that requires references to all the information.—RJH (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

European Robin

Hi Ruslik,

I am confused by your comment when you undid my edit of the European Robin article. My edit was to add the alternate name for the European Robin, which is the English Robin. You stated that "this fact is already mentioned in the article", but in doing a search of the article, I cannot find another place where this information is presented. Also, you suggested that I should "format citation properly". Citations are admittedly not my specialty, as the majority of my work on Wikipedia is in the area of disambiguation pages and redirects. What was incorrect about the format of my citations? Any clarification of your statements would be much appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Uranian ring diagram

Hi Ruslik,

Nice work on the diagram of the Uranian ring system. One little problem I noticed is that the moon Mab is misspelled as "Mub".

Regards, WolfmanSF (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Siriusware

Ruslik,

You removed the entry I made to "Siriusware", another company, like "Sirius Satellite Radio" that adopted "Sirius" as a part of their name and did so before the former. The entry added was benign and referenced a modern usage of "Sirius" that is undecernable from the radio company's usage other than they are a much larger and company. What is the standard you follow to decide if the modern usage of a term in the Wikipedia should be included? Why is the reference to "Sirius Satellite Radio" allowed and the reference to "Siriusware", not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdanemann (talk • contribs) 05:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

FAR for Mercury (planet)

FYI. Thanks again for all of your help on this project. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 02:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

GANOH template

You make a valid point about the third level heading, and I'll change that back if you haven't already. The double space is a result of the closing comments feature (its own separate paragraph), that some use, some don't. But without that second line, when you do use that extra line, it looks even worse. Maybe I could combine the comments into that second paragraph. Leaping into that next sentence would sound a little odd, but whatever.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I added a <p> paragraph break, so now we have the best of both worlds. :) --Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Gun violence in the U.S.

Wow, I did not even realize that you had already reviewed it. I saw that there was a GAR in the article history, but because there wasn't a link, I assumed it was from a GAR request, not GA Sweeps. I'll remove it from my numbering so that we're not off in our final count (even though I don't think it's going to be perfect anyway). I wish I had noticed that before reviewing the article, I could have saved myself a half hour. Oh well, it was an interesting read and another pair of eyes is always helpful. Keep up the good work, you're almost to a hundred! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Rings of Uranus to GA?

Seems like a fairly achievable goal. I think it's almost there already.Serendi^podous 12:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I just read the article and I really don't think FA is far away, but I think it gives you a bit of a boost at FAC if the article is a GA or A-class article. Therefore, I would try and bring it to GA and then just work from their. Good GA reviewers are Malleus and Nikki311. Either one would work. --Meldshal42 (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

C-class and others

Can you check on the codes of {{Environment}}? I added the parameters for templates, portals, categories, etc. more than half a year ago. But it still doesn't work. OhanaUnited^Talk page 18:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

equivalent depth

Hi Ruslik,

I just checked the de Pater et al. reference, and they give the following definition for equivalent depth, which does not seem compatible with yours:

ED = w τ sin B, with w the width of the ring, τ the normal optical depth, and B the tilt angle of the ring plane with respect to us.

Where did your definition come from? (They also appear to have two different symbols with different definitions for "equivalent width".)

Regards, WolfmanSF (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Noble_gas

When you get the chance, could you return to the FAC and revisit the issues that you have brought up? Thanks! Gary King (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the link. Now all the comments should be resolved. Nergaal (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, and especially thank you for your detailed and thoughtful review. The article is now much better because of it! --Itub (talk) 09:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix

Thanks for fixing these errors. I probably never would've seen them. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 12:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Lakawka's article

From my computer I can only read the abstract. Do you think you could include the info for me? Thanks. Serendi^podous 19:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I noticed :-) Thank you again. I think I'm running out of steam. This would have been a lot easier a few months ago. Serendi^podous 08:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Esp template

I created {{Esp}} template as a spaced version of {{e}} template. Ruslik (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That'll work. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, so...

How do we reconcile this with that? Serendi^podous 09:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you want to get started...

on Rings of Saturn? Serendi^podous 10:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that Planets beyond Neptune stands a chance of inclusion? I was thinking of including it in the next FTC batch when it reached FA. Serendi^podous 13:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team Mission 5: Solar solicitude/solidarity

The FA-Team would like to help Solar energy and Scattered disc reach FA status and encourage cross over between the groups of editors involved with these and related articles. The mission page is linked above. As someone who has contributed to both articles, and also with much experience with article assessment, your help would be much appreciated. You are welcome to add your name to the mission page if you are interested. Thanks, Geometry guy 16:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help here and at GAR: e.g., I was thinking of closing MIT myself pretty soon. Geometry guy 19:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

knock knock

• Did you see Talk:Detached object (astronomy)/GA1? I'm not gonna be able to work on it, but I'm hoping others will. See ya round!! Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 05:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Solar System

I noticed your recent interest, and would like your contribution to the talk page on Talk:Solar_System#New_List. -HarryAlffa (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Makemake

Great job! You've really jazzed it up. Do you think there are any other aspects we could mention to bulk it out a little before FAC? Serendi^podous 16:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I've sorted most of the ref issues. I'm not sure where the ndash is needed though. Serendi^podous 17:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Argh. I think I got what you said backwards. Still, I don't think it will matter too much. Serendi^podous 19:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

RJH wants a citation for your formula for deriving surface temperature. Could you list one please? Thanks. Serendi^podous 23:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to raise this again, but Ravedave has also criticised your calculations. No one had a problem in the last 15 or so featured articles you added them, but now they've become an issue. I don't really know how to answer him. Serendi^podous 07:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Hope this doesn't drag on for too long. Serendi^podous 08:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but obviously this guy doesn't. Now I need to figure out a way to stop the image map becoming a make-or-break issue for this article when it's already in about ten other featured articles. Serendi^podous 08:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I added your comment on my talk page to your response to RaveDave. Serendi^podous 09:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleared the neighbourhood

Hi, you rated it as C-class, but I am thinking of bring it to GA-class. Suggestions? Nergaal (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that

I suppose I don't really have an excuse not to get that up to code now :-) Serendi^podous 16:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Venus' axial tilt

Is Venus a upside down planet almost like Pluto or it's a upright planet almost like Jupiter? The source said is 177 degs tilt means north pole is facing south pole.--Freewayguy ^Ask? +000s 18:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello There

Hello there, friend. I am terribly sorry to bother you, but I am curious to know, if you think I am Harry, why do you think I would be trying to help out ashill? EXPOSING LIES (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

John Marshall Harlan II at WP:GAR

Although you only have 12 edits to John Marshall Harlan II's page I am contacting you because you are the second leading editor and the leading editor has been inactive for two years. Please see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/John Marshall Harlan II/1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

images in Rings of Saturn article

Hi Ruslik, what is your thinking on the acceptable number of images in the Rings of Saturn article? Is there any particular reason why some of the deleted images cannot be added back into a gallery at the end, if not in the main body? WolfmanSF (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

New Welcome Lodge

This may be of some interest, User_talk:MSJapan#Re:_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FNew_Welcome_Lodge. JASpencer (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're right; there were other arguments, and why you chose to use the worst one possible is what concerns me. From your reply it appears that you read part of the article, but not all of it; it also says every legally constituted lodge is subordinate to a Grand Lodge, and the Grand Lodge claims a certain jurisdiction - usually a country, state, or province. Grand Lodges in Freemasonry are national in certain countries, and at a state or province level in others; they also recognize each other to permit Lodge visitation in other jurisdictions. Therefore, you closed an AfD using an argument that indicated only a partial understanding of the subject, and point 2 of DRV states: "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly, or if the speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria established for such deletions."

However, it also states that things are to be resolved outside the process first. So, I think you made a very poor choice in how you closed that AfD. I'm concerned about the specious voting, so let's break it down. Keep votes: an obvious keep from the article creator (JASpencer), plus a keep vote from his meatpuppet Dwain (check their contrib overlap lately if you don't believe that) that showed no clue whatsoever (one source is not "well-sourced"), a strong keep vote for because of a "counterfactual historical argument" that the article author questioned as being nonsensical, and lastly, a keep with no rationale. The delete votes both relied on policies. I see at best a "no consensus" (which is not the same as an outright, if not a slightly stronger case for deletion because the fundamental assumption of the article regarding its notability cannot be proven. So, I would like you to review your AfD decision. MSJapan (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing and amending your rational for closing the AfD... a "no consensus" is appropriate at this juncture. For future reference, I believe the standard way to express such closures is something like: "No consensus - default to Keep", but that is just a minor quibble (no need to change your current wording). Blueboar (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad closure

Hi. I had some concerns about the appropriateness of a nonadministrative "keep and merge" closure for Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad so I reverted the merge part and brought it up here. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have sent this to Deletion Review. rootology (T) 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Oort cloud category

Hi Ruslik. I notice you removed Oort cloud from the Solar System category and am curious as to why you did this. I'm not saying that you were wrong to do this only that I'm still fairly new to editing Wikipedia and don't feel that it's obvious why you made this change. AstroMark (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks. AstroMark (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Tropospheric profile Uranus.png

Exactly where is uranus' stratosphere? Is it below our ground level or above? What's all those numbers on the vertical part of atmosphere structures. Isn't Uranus sky like greenish because the disc color is like baby blue? Where is the surface level of Uranus. I don't think any of gas giant's sky is black because they all have atmosphere. Do you know how green is Uranus' sky dark green or light green?--Freewayguy ^What's up? 20:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Try to answer this questions soon.--Freewayguy ^What's up? 20:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

When?--Freewayguy ^What's up? 22:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Scattered disc

Serendipodous and I have it up at FAC, I would enjoy it if you did a review for us? Thanks, (the link). --Lord₪Sunday 13:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

GAN: Thebe

I left some comments and I believe it needs a bit more polish and is ready. I also did some c/e-ing. If you have time, I have a similar GAN for 10 Hygiea :). Nergaal (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Planets beyond Neptune

I've just added a footnote to the article dealing with those alternatives to "Planet X" that were proposed at the same time as Lowell's search. Indians have been grouching about ignoring V. P. Ketakar since I started work on Pluto, and at first I didn't want to include him in PBN, but then I figured his work had just as much right to be there as Pickering's "Planet O". So I moved both to a footnote. Problem is, Ketakar's ideas seem so woo-woo-ish that I really would like a reference refuting them, but I can't find any. If you could look over the science, that would be great. Thanks for your help. Serendi^podous 10:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Mass Spectrometry data

Back in May I put a question in Talk:atom about how the mass values of 9F18 and 8O18 were determined so accurately and you threw it out. Do you know perchance the answer to the question, or where I could find it. And what was wrong with the question in the first place?WFPMWFPM (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Rehnquist

After much work, I've renominated William Rehnquist for GA. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 09:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Jupiter and Saturn's sky

Does Jupiter and Saturn even have a sky color by scattering light waves. I thought it is unlikely to be black because it have lots of atmospheres. Some people say their skies is like purple or blue. If blue how blue?--57Freeways 23:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleting category Kreutz Sungrazers

Please do not delete categories Kreutz Sungrazers and Comets from the articles. Let all comets be in Category:Comets. Пожалуйста, не удаляйте категории Kreutz Sungrazers и Comets из статей. Пусть в категории Comets будут все кометы. — Chesnok (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Rus

Thanks for your help on Planets beyond Neptune. I was wondering, are you still busy? I'm not really qualified to improve Atmosphere of Jupiter, and was wondering if you were planning to get back to it soon. Sorry to badger you like this. Serendi^podous 06:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Quark

I think I've attended to pretty much everything on the FAC. Thanks a lot for such an in-depth review. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Volcanism on Io Peer Review

You recently participated in the peer review of the article, Volcanism on Io. I have made a number of constructive edits to this article as well as several replies to the peer review that I hope address some of the concerns and comments you made in the peer review. I would appreciate it if you could give another once over of the article and the significant edits I have made in the day or so to see if they address some of your concerns. If they have not, can you please provide comments as to how the article can be improved further?

Thanks you, --Volcanopele (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Finished Atmosphere of Jupiter CE

Some of it was too technical for me to be certain how to edit it, but then I'm sure it will be too technical for the GA and FA reviewers too, so they're not likely to bother with them. Two things I did note; you didn't explain what Rossby waves were- I think one sentence is warranted. Also, you mentioned that you were working on an atmospheric depth graph like the one at Atmosphere of Uranus. Is that still on? Thanks again for all your hard work :-) Serendi^podous 09:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

On a second read through, I think I get it better. My only real issue is that you should be clearer on what the term "scale height" means. Do you think the Io plasma torus should be mentioned in "Storms and lightning"? Serendi^podous 10:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I thought that it generated lightning in Jupiter's atmosphere. Serendi^podous 13:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Adminship

Hey there Ruslik0, I just wanted to ask you: have you ever considered adminship on Wikipedia? You have an excellent editing record, and also appear to have good experience at AfD. If you have the inclination, I'd be glad to offer you a nomination. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Take as long as you like. Just let me know when you're ready and I'll draw up the page. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

quarks

The quark article says quarks can be observed ("can only be created and observed under special conditions"). My quickie search says they cannot. Who is right? Ling.Nut ^(talk—WP:3IAR) 17:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

They can not be directly observed as free particles. However they can be observed indirectly inside hadrons. The word 'observed' should be understood in this sense. Ruslik (talk) 08:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the question above, please take a look at User:Ling.Nut/page2, and feel free to edit it mercilessly. I am not yet satisfied that it is finished, but I have to go to bed. I do think it is a great deal more perspicuous than the current lead of quark, though. Ling.Nut ^(talk—WP:3IAR) 17:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to say

congratulations on all your hard work on Atmosphere of Jupiter. I know dealing with other people's criticisms can be draining, and I don't want you to think we're ganging up on you! :-) Serendi^podous 11:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support! Ruslik (talk) 16:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with Biased editor

Hey, I just had a question about dealing with editors that insist on including POV statements and inappropriate information. I ask because I saw your review of the Rehnquist article. I had tried to tag some of the same issues and made similar suggestions. But a user just deletes them. It's even worse on the Clarence Thomas page (which is edit-protected now). I've tried using RfC's and requesting admin. help. But nothing seems to work. I will watch here for your response, if you have some suggestions for me. Thanks. (I'm hoping Rusilik is the same as Rusilik0? This is where I was linked to...) (Wallamoose (talk) 06:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

I advise you to make exact citations with page numbers, because it is impossible for any reader (including me) to plow through all that testimony. Ruslik (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I will try to follow it. It's kind of frustrating though when others aren't held to that standard. (Wallamoose (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

Wallamoose is becoming a general nuisance on Wikipedia, and has now bothered several administrators to try to get his way. He fact-tags anything he doesn't like if it doesn't have an online link, and in some cases, even if it does. He removes citations entirely for no reason, and he's not contributing anything. He's now caused multiple edit wars on the Clarence Thomas page, and if you look at his edit history and talk page, you'll see editors from many different articles reversing his poorly-sourced, poorly-written chop jobs on articles. Please read user Bearian's talk page for more info, or just take a look at Wallamoose's edit history. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I checked selectively the history of Clarence Thomas. At least in this diff your were right—I can not find anything about "Hill asking about hotel information". Ruslik (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

P. 180 at the very bottom of the page, she left her hotel information, but didn't ask for his. My mistake.

Isn't it strange that someone who is notorious for citations to 50 pages of material, sources with no links, and information with no sources at all, would make these allegations? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there are appropriate tags to request better citations or more detailed sourcing. In fact these are the tags I've used to try to get Garcia to provide sources for the opinion and POV he tries to add to these articles. Unfortunately, he just removes the tags.(Wallamoose (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

More lies and nonsense, par for the course for Wallamoose. I didn't create the citation to the 50 pages, as I've made clear. I almost always cite to books. I did cite to websites last month when you started the first edit war, but you provided those websites yourself. Every sentence I add to Wikipedia is cited; you can check my edit history across all kinds of Supreme Court-related articles if you like. That's a strong principle of mine. "Citation needed" isn't an appropriate tag to use when a citation is already there. Just because you don't like what a sentence says doesn't mean you can fact-tag it. It's true that page numbers should be provided for the citation with the large page range, but removing the citation entirely and pretending the statement is unsourced is not the solution. Remember WP:SOFIXIT. I can find the page numbers myself, but not til next week when I'm on vacation. I'm not going to let you remove citations left and right, and neither should anyone else. Your behavior is simply unacceptable. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait! I've just now found the correct pages for the 50-page citation. Pages 520 and 521. All I had to do was Ctrl+F "breasts," the word quoted in the Wiki article. See how easy that was, Wallamoose? Why not do some actual work on the article yourself instead of just fact-tagging everything and bothering about five admins now with this issue? Wallamoose is wasting everyone's time, does sloppy work, and contributes little.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Great! Too bad you didn't do that right off the bat instead of edit warring and deleting the good faith edits of others. I'm ready to accept your apology and I think you should apologize to Useight, Bearian, and Rusilik whose time you've also wasted. (Wallamoose (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

I apologize on your behalf to all the admins you've bothered, but you merit no apology. Your edits are consistently in bad faith, and do little more than obstruct. Anyone can see from your talk page and contribution history how much trouble you're generating at other articles as well. You crave conflict and I feel sorry for anyone who runs into you and has to deal with you. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Wallamoose

It's getting difficult to work with this guy. He's even insulting admins now. Please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Wallamoose RafaelRGarcia (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL Too funny. Check out his post yesterday on the ACORN discussion board: 21:41, 8 October 2008 and 22:35, 8 October 2008 And also his posts on my talk page after I asked him to stop posting there. And his reverts of my good faith edits on Rehnquist.

It's not appropriate to maintain a smear job on a Supreme Court Justice, and I've been patient and worked through the appropriate channels to the best of my ability to address this. If an Admin. wants to resolve the problem that would be great. I'm looking forward to working on other projects (as I did when I left the page alone after posting and RfC the last time we had this problem). In the interim nothing has changed so I'm trying again, despite the difficulty in dealing with RafaelRGarcia's stalking, harassing and inappropriate behavior. (Wallamoose (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

If you weren't stalking and harassing me, how did you know I'd made these reports? QED! RafaelRGarcia (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Honestly Rusilik, I recommend letting this situation go. Your time is spent better elsewhere. This guy is obviously nuts.(Wallamoose (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

Clarence Thomas

Please comment in the Thomas article on briefly mentioning Anita Hill and/or Clarence Thomas's sexual misconduct in the article lead. As Bearian and the American media attest, the hearings were and are an important part of public perceptions of Thomas. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that because of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:_Wallamoose , I can't work with Wallamoose on the Clarence Thomas page. I'm sure you realize by now, though, that the objections he raises are intensely partisan, and meant to minimize the negative information about Clarence Thomas posted on his article. I think Wallamoose should do what Bearian has repeatedly suggested since last month - add to information about Thomas's defense, without destroying the information about the women who accused Thomas. In any case, starting Tuesday night, I will start work on the Thomas page, and by the end of the week, the sexual harassment portion will only be about 10% of the article. That indirectly addresses concerns that too much of the article is about Thomas's sexual misconduct. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 12:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

If my response to the personal attacks and allegations against me would be helpeful please let me know.

The overwhelming majority of comments on the the discussion page (including to the Sept. RfC), suggest cutting down that section AND including some information to balance it. He was blocked for calling Thomas a Perv.(Wallamoose (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

FACR

Ruslik0, the discussion at FACR has had another choice added -- I wanted to let you know in case you wanted to change your comment. Mike Christie (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Early bombardment phase

I was wondering what the difference was between this and the Late Heavy Bombardment. Serendi^podous 09:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

OK; I've merged it with the "Terrestrial planets" section of Formation and evolution of the Solar System. Serendi^podous 15:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Centrifugal force (planar motion)

Look, with all due respect, really, this article is a cheat and a lie. An encyclopedia is supposed to consist of articles that define a general topic. This doesn't do that. It just picks a random topic. It's like an article on Brown horse (white hooves).

Curvilinear coordinates are general coordinates that are in multiple dimensions. How is it that an article that bills itself being on planar motion gets to talk about curvilinear coordinates and only about centrifugal force?

How is it that polar coordinates (which in the 3-D general case are spherical), and which has its own article anyway, goes in the same article but only for centrifugal force?

Why is it that if you look up centrifugal force in any dictionary you never get an article saying that planar motion is a distinct sort of centrifugal force? That's what our disambiguation page says.

It's because the entire term is OR, and the article is just a content fork. Brews just got annoyed when his material was deleted (and just to be crystal clear, I didn't delete it or even argue for its deletion, it was done by people like User:Anome for space reasons).

This article topic is beyond a joke. Read the introduction especially carefully, it's practically the same as the original article; there's no substantive difference

Whatever you may think about the material, the article is not a well formed encyclopedia article, and it cannot be saved.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I would really appreciate it if you at least changed your vote to merge or split or something.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

But was not it deleted? I think it is too late to change my !vote. Ruslik (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarence Thomas

I have posted a draft, and Wallamoose has not. Furthermore, Wallamoose is ignoring your mediation and attempting to change the content of the section: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=245488382&oldid=245488194 RafaelRGarcia (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought a change had already been made. I will look through the edit history and if that's not the case and my change is the only one on that section I will revert. I agree that the mediation should be allowed to work it's magic. (Wallamoose (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC))

Just as I thought, here is a change to the section made by RRG. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=245470344&oldid=245469773 He seems to have a penchant for enforcing rules on others that he is reluctant to follow himself.(Wallamoose (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC))

Rusilik, thank you for your efforts. I am not ignoring your combined section. I'm just trying to be patient and let people weigh in without it just being one more war between two editors. Thanks again. (Wallamoose (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC))

I read your draft, Ruslik. It's good work, but I feel it's absolutely critical to include mention of Mayer and Abramson. Please read my comments in the talk page. Thanks. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:ussc

I recall from your work on John Marshall Harlan II that you know a lot about law. I don't. I am wondering if there are two numbering systems for United States Supreme Court cases. It seems like there might be a case number and a set of caselaw book number citations. I don't quite know how to translate between the numbering systems. Can you help me incorporate the {{ussc}} template at Richard Cordray for the six cases he has argued before the Supreme Court.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you know how to use any of the other Category:Law citation templates to beef up the 2008 election section at Jennifer_Brunner#2008_general_election. It also has a new Supreme Court case to add.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Pier Gerlofs Donia

Please review and pass the following article for GA class. It is well referenced article of brilliant prose and both the Rambling man and user talk:Jimbo Wales agree it should be a Good Article. Last king of Frisia (talk) 10:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Uranus subpage

Forgot all about that! Yeah, it can be deleted now. Serendi^podous 13:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Europa and Titan

When the sun becomes a giant star in 5 to 6 billion years will Titan keep it's atmospheric or leak it and dump it ut. Tango said it's becasue of the solar wind, and the orange smog on Titan comes from cold dense gas. Will Europa have a liquid surface or it will just be gray sand, and uniform surface like Mercury at sunset/rise. Tango said it's because Europa lack atmospheric, keeping the sky black, and won't even get atmospheric because no magnetic fiel. is these true Titan and Europa do not have mag fiel.--Freewayguy 01:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Neptune's sky

What';s the color of Neptune's sky above the cloud, and do Neptune have a layer of haze? From my point of view, Neptune's sky seems to be ocean blue above the cloud-top. am I right, or it's blue like Earth? I thought at lower level Neptune's sky is lighter blue.--Freewayguy 22:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Venus, Mars and Mercury

I thouhgt only gas giants and Earth have blue sky, but let me backtrack. Mercury's sky is completely black becasue it's total airless. magnesium, iron, sulfide is just fake gases. Mars' sky is ruby color, because of it's dust. For Venus sky glows like yellow orange because of sulfur overcastings.--Freewayguy 22:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You are right about skies of Mercury, Mars ans Venus. Ruslik (talk) 06:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

FAR notification

Kreutz Sungrazers has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. —Ceran^(Sing) 23:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Pluto axial tilt

Is Pluto tilt of 119 deg. angle or 59 deg. angle? If it is prograde, is it 119 or 59, because I thouhgt pluto have negative rotation, and axial tilt inclination is greater than Uranus.--Freewayguy 22:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Can you answer this please?--Freewayguy 22:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried to sign up to bautforum yet? Really it's the best place to ask these sorts of questions. But if you must ask these questions here, please do so at the Reference Desk. That's where these kinds of questions should go. Talk pages are really about wiki-related issues. Serendi^podous 08:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Mars blue planet

When the sun expand in 1 billion time, could mars be habitatible for some life. Mars atmosp is very thin right now, the solar wind will only make Mars atmosperic get even thinner, not likely for greenhouse effect, or Mars can be blue or purple planet last for a short time, possibly only half billion years?--Freewayguy 22:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Atmosphere of Jupiter GA on hold

A ^[citation needed] tag and a ^[clarification needed] need to be fixed, and I can't do it. Serendi^podous 20:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again, thank you. :-) Serendi^podous 09:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I haven't been able to fix RJH's comments; they're all a bit above my head. Serendi^podous 11:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Kreutz Sungrazers FAR

I don't have much time to help out, but I want to make my contribution to saving this FA from demotion. Can I help you with anything specific? I thought I could do the copyedit while you do the sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Great comet of XXXX is what these things actually seem to be called, so I doubt I can drop a lot of those without causing confusion which comet exactly meant by less precise names. I'll be sure to do something about overlinking though. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Saturn and Uranus disc color

Could Saturn be blue sometimes? I met an astronomer lady at 6th grade science camp, she said though Saturn looks yellow or gold-brown from spacecraft, Saturn is natuarlly blue from space. or Saturn could look both blue and yellow from outer space. Can uranus be blue-purple sometimes, since usually uranus is light blue could it have some purple hues sometimes, because hydrogen and methan mix together can make planets purplish.--Freewayguy 22:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Uranus and sun 6.5 Gy giant

When sun turns into a giant star will the moon enviornments of Urnaus moon be affect in any significant chages about 6.5 billion years from now?Will Venus and Earth be swallow up or survive by then by how many chances out of 100?--Freewayguy 04:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Rings of Neptune

I'm still not clear on why the Adams ring gets its own subsection while the other rings don't. Is it the largest ring? The most complex? The most interesting? Also, the image in the top corner seems to indicate that Larissa and Proteus are generating their own rings. It makes it look like Adams is not the outermost ring. Serendi^podous 09:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I think some of that history should be made explicit in the article, just so people can understand why Adams gets special treatment. Serendi^podous 12:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It's just that the article goes into so much detail about the Adams ring and I think that the structure should be justified in the text, so that people understand what makes the Adams ring special, in much the same way that the Great Red Spot gets its own section on Atmosphere of Jupiter. Serendi^podous 19:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

If the ring arcs were the first to be observed, then that's worth mentioning. There is a little history and controversy regarding the discovery of the ring arcs. Serendi^podous 14:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think you did a good job in revising the article. I don't really think I deserve to be a co-nominator (you did about 95% of the work) but I'd be willing to help with the nomination. Serendi^podous 16:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible contradiction? In the first paragraph of "Adams ring," the article says,

"Neptune's small moon Galatea, which orbits just inside of the Adams ring at 61,953 km, acts like a shepherd, keeping ring particles inside a narrow range of orbital radii through a 42:43 outer Lindbland resonance.",

while in the first paragraph of "Confinement" it says:

"However, measurements of the rings' mean motion with Hubble and Keck telescopes in 1998 led to the conclusion that the rings are not in CIR with Galatea." Serendi^podous 16:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

In the intro, you mention a faint unnamed ring that may be generated by Galatea. Is it mentioned again? I can't find it. Serendi^podous 17:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well done! Another great planet article by the indomitable Ruslik! Thanks for listing me as a conominator, even though you did most of the work. :-) Serendi^podous 20:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

New corrections

I've made some prose requests at FAC, could you please fix/review them? Ceran →(sing→see →scribe) 17:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Pro Milone

Hi there, I've replied (better late than never! :D) to your comments on the Pro Milone talk page. Many thanks. Davers (talk) 12:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

{{WPSpace}}

Please note, the acronym for Wikipedia:WikiProject Timeline of spaceflight is TLS, not TSF. Your attempt to change this broke the template. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 08:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Niobium

Funny that you came up with a Herschel HIFI reference. I had a look at the German part of the flight spare of the HIFI instrument. They told something about laser and mixing and alot of other stuff, but was anice little box now part of the payload of the Herschel satelite.--Stone (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Atmosphere of Jupiter

Well, since you're pretty much the only person on Wikipedia who is capable of making that judgment, I'd have to say that if you think it is, I think it is. :-) Serendi^podous 13:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ruslik0 - I hope you find my nomination satisfactory. Let me know when you're ready to transclude and I'll be right on it. Best of luck! :) —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Good luck Rus. Yea, I'm gonna be at RFA next weekend. I'm not extremely confident, though. ;) —Ceran ♦ (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, for the first support !vote. Ruslik (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Pre FAC comments on John_Marshall_Harlan_II

See Talk:John_Marshall_Harlan_II#Pre_FAC_comments.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA

Best wishes for your RFA -- Tinu Cherian - 05:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Ruslik (talk) 06:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

And a SNOW congrats, since I'm now sure it will pass. Great work, and good luck. P.S. my RFA starts tomorrow... aah —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 14:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, congratulations! I've been knocked out by the flu for the last couple days, so this passed me by, but you sure deserve it. And I'll be sure to add Atmosphere of Jupiter's FAC page to my watchlist. Serendi^podous 14:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys for the kind words. I hope Atmosphere of Jupiter will by the end of the next week. Ruslik (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit, please?

I'm currently working on Nevado del Ruiz. I don't think you're associated with volcanoes (correct me if I'm wrong), so could you try to clean this up? —Ceran ^[speak] 21:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I will try to copy-edit it today or tomorrow. Ruslik (talk) 05:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. The article is shaping up already. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 18:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for assistance

I would like to see introduction to special relativity brought up to the same level of accessibility and quality as introduction to general relativity. Would you help out with that goal? Vassyana (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I will try to do something next week. Ruslik (talk) 04:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Signpost Interview

Greetings! I'd like to conduct an interview with you for the WikiProject Report in the Signpost. I've written up some questions here regarding your involvement with WikiProject Solar System. If you're interested, just start writing in your answers on the question page. I'd recommend watching that page; I will add more questions based on your answers. Thanks in advance! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the this tempting offer. I will try to write something today or tomorrow. Ruslik (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Awesome stuff so far. I added a few more questions for you. This will probably be the last batch unless I think of something else. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears that we are both finished. Can I submit the interview to the Signpost, or do you wish to expand upon any of your responses? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Protected edit of Template:USS

Thanks for performing the edit to {{USS}}. To answer your question, I would say, yes, protect {{Ship}} along with {{HMS}} and {{SS}}, two other highly transcluded templates now based on {{Ship}}. Thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats new admin!

Congratulations!
It is my great pleasure to inform you that your Request for Adminship has closed successfully and you are now an administrator! Useful Links: • Administrators' reading list • Administrators' how-to guide • • Administrator's Noticeboard • Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents • Administrator's Noticeboard for 3RR • Your admin logs: • blocks • deletions • moves • protects • uploads •

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations Ruslik! DiverseMentality 00:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, just remember WP:DDTMP :P RockManQ ^(talk) 01:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't happen to a nicer editor. Congrats. :-) Ling.Nut ^(talk—WP:3IAR) 02:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Massive support, and you know what we're here for. A great combination. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I happy that my RFA has ended successfully. Now I think I need to read a lot, before I become a good sysop. I will try really hard not to disappoint anybody who supported me. Ruslik (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ruslik, best of luck in your new position. I know that my trust in you was not misplaced. :) —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, indeed! Ecoleetage (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well done! OhanaUnited^Talk page 21:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

World AIDS Day

Hi, this article is vandalized every Dec 1. I know you declined to protect it this year, but you can check the article and see that there have been several vandals at work. Any chance of changing your mind to protect the article for 24-hours? Thanks much. 207.237.61.26 (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I could not answer earlier. I was asleep. Protected for 6 hours. Ruslik (talk) 05:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your help. Just a note: I requested this protection first thing this AM as a quick review of the article and discussion page reflected major vandalism every Nov 29 - Dec 2 of every year. The protection status was denied. I'm sure you understand my frustration as the article was only protected...now that World AIDS Day is over. 207.237.61.26 (talk) 05:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It is still not over in some parts of the world. I noticed that vandalism was mainly from the western hemisphere. Ruslik (talk) 05:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

How is adminship?

Just wanted to drop by a few days into your tenure to see how you're finding the buttons. :) Best, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

AH I see. The block button can be the hardest to press. Just ease yourself into it. Best, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Gay Piranhas xD

lol i was in somekind of a hurry when i rollbacked that. though, i understood that it may be true*. but: my mistake wasn't actually that i "reinstated vandalism". the Caipirinha is actually often referred to as "Gay Piranha", apparently due to its name resembling the phrase. (>>[1] [2] [3]) -but this is not found in "good sources" as it is a new term and.. a nickname of a drink.. how often can we possibly find a silly new nickname of a cocktail in good literature?.. so i guess its nickname is disputed? and my mistake was that i labeled as vandalism the good faith revert of the anon who deleted the Gay Piranha reference. i'd like to see what more people think about the nickname there --CuteHappyBrute (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC) OH AND THANX FOR THE ROLLBACK TOOL! - i'll be a good kid. --CuteHappyBrute (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for protecting Final Resolution (December 2008). I was tired of that edit war. Also thanks for making it a week, it will save me the trouble of getting it protected again after the event passes this Sunday.--WillC 08:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Tip to make protection duties easier

Hi there, I see you have taken quite a liking to WP:RFPP. I suggest you add User:Steel359/protection.js to your monobook.js. It allows to easily reply to requests and tag protected articles with protection tags (I saw you semi-protected some but forgot to add the {{pp-semi|small=yes}}-template, this script will add such tags with a click). If you don't mind, I also advise you delve through some admins' monobook.js files (like mine) and see if you can use something helpful (I strongly suggest EasyBlock for example). You might also want to check WP:JS. Regards and keep up the nice work. SoWhy 11:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

ACC Tool

Someone, probably you, requested access to the account creation tool. For security purposes could you please confirm that it was you who made the request so we can approve you, thanks. — Possum (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I confirm. Ruslik (talk) 14:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. I have approved your request. You may now access the tool here. Before you do so, please read the tool's guide to familiarize yourself with the process. You may also want to join #wikipedia-en-accounts on irc and the mailing list. Keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse may result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. — Possum (talk) 14:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

RE:Plans for the future

Yes that's pretty much what was on my plate as well. I've been distracting myself with getting the Solar System lists up to code, which could mean reducing them even further to about ten or so. That is going to take time. But as far as articles go my main focus is to get the Jupiter trojan and Exploration of Jupiter articles up, so as to complete the Jupiter FT. After that I was planning on focusing on Saturn's moons, but if you want to target Uranus's moons instead, that's great. Didn't really think they could be featured, to be honest. :-) Serendi^podous 13:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the FT people were pretty insistent that Jupiter trojan be brought to FA level, whether as part of the Jupiter topic or as part of the main topic. Since it is such a significant minor planet population, I don't think I can argue against it. I figured that if I managed to get Scattered disc, a topic about which we know even less than the Trojans, up to code, I can do the Trojans. After that, the main topic only really needs Centaur (asteroid) and Near Earth asteroid to be complete. Serendi^podous 13:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you did all the work. Great job. You said yourself that was the hardest article you've ever worked on, and the effort shows. Serendi^podous 10:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I hardly did anything :-) I just merged List of moons with List of moons by diameter, both of which were created by User:RandomCritic, so he really deserves the credit.Serendi^podous 19:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your careful consideration at my successful RfA. "great contributor ... excellent reviewer" was generous and appreciated. Please let me know on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for Rollback Perm

Thanks for considering my request. Is it ok if I approach you in a few weeks? -- Jake Wartenberg (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. Ruslik (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit Protect bypass

Thanks for the edit protect bypass. It is not working entirely correctly though. I do not see {{World's most populous metropolitan areas}} at Category:City rankings by population templates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I purged cache. Now it is in the category. Ruslik (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Admin work suggestion

That is a great suggestion, I hadn't thought of RfD. I need to see if I can help resolve some issues at RfA (probably not!) and nurture copyediting community (that I can do), then I can do some RfD work when I'm not helping copyeditors. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Could you please review your decision for page protection of Second Amendment to the United States Constitution? There was no ongoing edit war at that article at that time. I think that Yaf was confused when he made his request for protection, there was one edit and one revert, followed by some discussion on the talk page. Nothing more. That does not rise to the standard of 'edit war' I think. Or, is the policy to issue full page protects to avoid the chance of edit wars building at some point in the future? If an edit war were to develop in the future, you have the option of protecting it then. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)