User talk:Ruslik0/Archive 4

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 6

→

Archive 10

Niobium

Thanks for your help to get the article featured. You found some applications I did not get although I searched hard for all relevant ones. Next time I will try to find all!--Stone (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

[1]

May I kindly ask what this does mean? You are aware that the request was declined aleady, aren't you? —αἰτίας •discussion• 12:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Ruslik0. You have new messages at Aitias's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Have you seen my last comment? I ask as you did not comment further on it and just removed the tl:. —αἰτίας •discussion• 15:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Unprotect of article Angel Locsin

The request for unprotect which you honored was by a sock of a banned user User:Gerald Gonzalez who we are trying to prevent from editing this article. He has done significant damage to this article as both an IP editor and with his many socks. Please reconsider the unprotect. --NrDg 15:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --NrDg 15:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Hey there. Regarding this unprotect, there are certain things you might want to do before merely unprotecting it and letting it go - it was probably salted for a reason. If you are inclined to unprotect - which is your prerogative as an administrator, of course - instead of saying you have no idea if he's notable or not, you should actually research it to see if it indeed meets WP:BIO notability criteria. Or, as an alternative, have the requester submit a fully sourced article to you that he/she has written in their userspace. Just some things to think about. Carry on. :-) Tan | 39 18:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Signpost

Sounds like a great idea. We could certainly use more hands on deck. Serendi^podous 10:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Template talk:Cat importance

Hi there. Thanks for looking at my protected edit request. Instead of just saying that it is not intuitive, it would be helpful to me if you could suggest a way to make it satisfactory to you. To give some background, impn stood for IMPortance-scale Name, and it makes sense to me because this is the name of the parameter that we chose to use on the BannerMeta (see this edit) and this request was designed to mirror that. But as I said on the talk page, I don't really mind what the parameter is called, it's the functionality that's important. So if you have an "intuitive" name then I would be more than happy. Thanks! Martin 13:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Martin 14:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

for your amazing work on the Projet Solar System. It's clearly a great exemple of a well-treated topic for both this wikipedia and wikipedias in other languages. Poppy (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Ruslik (talk) 07:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

I noticed you declined a Rollback request for having too few edits w/ 250 (presumably mainspace - since that's what the link given shows) edits. What do you think would be appropriate? I usually approve people with ~150 mainspace edits provided they have demonstrated they can distinguish between a vandalistic edit and a bad but non vandalistic edit. --Philosopher ^Let us reason together. 21:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Rollback on Cold Case

Thanks for your swift action. I was still adding another reason to the request when I suddenly saw you already had moved the back to its original location. Thanks :) --Fogeltje (talk) 08:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Question

Since you've done practically all of the copyediting along from Ling, do you think that Nevado is ready to go to FAC? Be honest! —Ceran [speak ] 20:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi, I recently applied for rollback on the 6th of December and was declined. After gaining some more experience in undoing vandalism through the recent changes log, I reapplied. This time, I was approved, but unfortunatley, I found that after being approved, I still did not have the rollback function. The admin who approved rollbacking rights told me that this was probably the issue. Please help!!!
-Fastily (talk) 07:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik (talk) 07:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

small moons

Hello Russ. I have been trying to refine the estimated radii (and perhaps the assumed masses) of the smaller moons. I have noticed that I have come up with slightly different numbers than you for Juliet (moon) (53old vs 46jplssd) and Belinda (moon) (45old vs 40jplssd). I also re-did the assumed masses. Can you check your source and see if I missed something? Thanks, -- Kheider (talk) 05:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

JPLSSD also cites Karkoschka (2001) as their source for Juliet and Belinda. Since I can't access the abstract, I still do not known why your radius is different from both jplssd and nssdc. -- Kheider (talk) 07:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

New legal articles

You may want to come take a look at Rod Blagojevich federal fraud cases and Operation Board Games.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I am going to nominate the former at DYK later. It is hard to say who the collaborators should be right now. I will wait at least another 24 hours. It won't be eligible for GA until after the scandal is over.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Richard Cordray may also intrigue your legal mind.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you dropped by with some editorial assistance. Is the article at a level where I can ask for your support at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Richard Cordray. If not feel free to leave suggestions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

_David^WS _(contribs) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy holidays! _David^WS _(contribs) 19:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration?

Hi Ruslik. I've recently joined in with the Wikipedia editing effort and have always had a huge interest in Astronomy. I've joined up with the WP Solar Systems and also noticed that you write exceptional articles with your team and are willing to 'adopt' some users. I am a bit inexperienced in this matter, and was wondering if you'd be willing to allow me to help with some of your upcoming projects (Uranian moons to GA?) so that I can gain some extra experience with writing FA/GA class encyclopedic articles. If so, great, and please drop me a note when you can. SkarmCA (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll go over Moons of Uranus this evening and see if I can bring some fresh eyes to it. I'll let you know when I'm done. SkarmCA (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Dragonball

I dunno why the protection level has gone up so nobody but admins and yourself and certain members can edit it. That's kind of unfair when more updates are happening every week.

The film is going to be Dragonball Evolution as the offical japanese fox website for dragonball evolution: http://movies.foxjapan.com/dragonball/

The title on the page is Dragonball Evolution.

Also, i know it wasn't you who removed the poster, but the dragonball evolution posters are real as they were released by fox given to ign.

Goku1st (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I screwed up the table

Whatever you did, it obviously worked. Serendi^podous 13:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"editprotected"

Regarding WP:VPP#New individual access level: editprotected: you know I respect your opinion, and I won't lean on you TOO hard regarding your vote. But when I see things like "Strong Support - I could use this tool now and then, though due to the immense hostility at RFA I'd be unlikely to pass. ~the editorofthewiki", it makes me sad. We don't need all that many admins on Wikipedia, so we can afford to be choosy, and people are choosy at RfA ... nothing wrong with that ... exactly. But this leaves us with a big pile of very earnest people who probably can't pass RfA yet who would like to contribute, who deserve a community "thumbs up" for the work they've done so far, who are left with the feeling that RfA people are hostile and don't appreciate them. In theory, it would be a win-win if we could break off one or two less-dangerous admin tools for these guys. The experience of trying to convince an admin to grant the tools, and trying to use them correctly, could be a very useful baby-step towards adminship. (I think people are leaning towards relying on individual admins to grant the mini-tools, but if so, we need to get medieval on any admin who doesn't train and watch the people they give the tools to.)

Even if you don't buy any of that, we do have a steady stream of people like User:lustiger seth who need to be able to edit something that's protected (in his case, the spam blacklist), who we (in theory) really need to help us, who probably shouldn't be an admin and doesn't even want to be an admin, he just wants to edit the spam blacklist ... but it looks like we're about to hand him the mop, solely because we need him. It would be nice if we didn't have to twist and warp RfA to try to get it to fit this purpose.

You make a very good point that "editprotected" won't currently help User:lustiger seth. But it seems to me that if we explain to the devs what we need, they could make it so that if we give people this general right to edit certain kinds of protected pages, they could make the spam blacklist one of the pages to which access would be granted.

I don't think the supporters are idiots who don't realize that untrustworthy people could do quite a bit of harm editing protected templates, I think the supporters are saying that of all the admin tools, this is the one that people most often ask for when they aren't ready for and don't need all the other tools, and the one tool that we most often want to give people so that they can do us a favor. It seems to me, in theory, we could select out the set of protected pages that wouldn't break the wiki if someone screwed around with them, only give access to these, and, as I say, get medieval with any admin who doesn't pay attention to whether the tool-user is misbehaving or not.

A couple of people have said "Nice idea, but the ability to edit protected pages isn't going to be so incredibly useful that it's worth the extra process and the extra headache." If this idea is persuasive, then I think we should throw in one or two other admin tools that aren't going to break the wiki, such as the ability to semi-protect pages. Watching how someone does with that job would be a great way to figure out whether they'll make a good admin or not.

Thoughts? (I'm watchlisting for a few days.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If devs are willing to create a new extension that will make it possible to grant some editors ability to edit some protected pages (on page by page basis and including pages in MediaWiki namespace), I may reconsider my position. However I want to hear something from devs, before I support. They may say: "Yes, we will do this, it is simple". Or they may say: "No, it is just impossible, this hacking will screw up wikipedia". So I think it is wise to ask them. Another variant is that such an extension may exist already, so you need to search the database. Ruslik (talk) 09:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check on this. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Solar System bodies in hydrostatic equilibrium

I've done as much as I can for that list. A few things are still left to be done and I was hoping you could pick up the trail, if that's all right. The escape velocities and surface gravities of the dwarf planet candidates, based on the masses I calculated, will need to be filled in. Also, I need help tracking down a source that explains the satellites' obliquities. Finally, the rationale for many of the objects' surface temperatures, which are unreferenced, will need to be explained. Sorry to bother you with this, but you're the only one I can turn to. BTW, thanks for reverting Planetary habitability. I only wish this was the end of it. Serendi^podous 15:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you once again. :-) Serendi^podous 17:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been able to establish Charon's axial tilt, and I haven't found any source that uniquivocally says that all the large satellites have an axial tilt of zero. And I need to figure out a way to calculate Haumea's surface area... This list is the gift that keeps on giving. Sorry to drag you into it.

Re:sysops. Actually, that would be the best part for me. Being able to block any vandal or protect a page from vandalism would be a dream. The reason I don't want to be a sysop is that I tend to get up people's noses, and have a habit of bringing out the worst in people. When I get into an argument, I do not want to appear to have abused my authority. I would rather allow the authority to speak for me. If I took on additional powers, within three months half the users on this site would be calling me a rogue admin. Serendi^podous 17:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The Moon is synchronous, and yet its axial tilt is given as almost seven degrees. Perhaps I made a mistake. I suppose I could give adminship another try, but it seems every time I do it always fizzles away without explanation. Since I'm usually happy to let it go, I don't follow it up. Serendi^podous 18:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thomas

Thanks for protecting the article. I did repeatedly ask the other user to use the talk page. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Honesty, please

Please be honest Garcia, you asked me once concerning Justice Thomas, not repeatedly. You have contributed obviously bias and conjecture to the Clarence Thomas page. I edited the bias out. If you cannot contribute FACTUAL information in a NEUTRAL manner, then ask for help. Don't practice amateur historiography on Wikipedia - that is the primary reason Wikipedia is not respected in academia.

Mr. Ruslik, please do not defer to Garcia. He does not deserve deference in this case.

- Walkel01 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walkel01 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatevs, man. Please discuss changes on the article talk page before unilaterally trying to remove tons of sections of the article. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

stuff

Nishkid's role was more passive than active. Apparently Nishkid gathered together a few of the articles used as sources in the French FA and gave them to EOTW, who declined to read any of them. Neither of them ever had all of the sources. Ling.Nut ^(talk—WP:3IAR) 11:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems "inserting"? Wow, that's a mental image I didn't need.  :-P Later. Ling.Nut ^(talk—WP:3IAR) 11:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox School

Thanks for removing the bgcolor parameters for {{Infobox School}} per my request on Template talk:Infobox School#Text color. I think you should also remove the parameter documentation from the template description on the main template page. It should be as simple as deleting the table with all the bgcolor information. Thanks! -Gr0ff (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

re: FAC:Atmosphere of Jupiter

I completely forgot to reply to your original message. It was really fun to work on this article and, in the future, if you think you might want to collaborate on more SS articles just drop me a note - as long as I won't get overly busy in real live I will most likely give a hand. Nergaal (talk) 01:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Your recent revision - more needed?

Re: User:Thor Dockweiler's extensive documentation added to Vulpecula, I agree with your reversion, and this user added the same list to dozens of other related articles. I don't know much about astronomy, but I know they don't fit the purpose of Wiki appendices and should probably all be reverted. See [2] for the list. Regards, Chuckiesdad (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I will revert more later. Ruslik (talk) 06:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought you might agree. I left a note on the user's page and it seems to have stopped. I'll also revert some. Chuckiesdad (talk) 06:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Done, with lots of help from other editors! Chuckiesdad (talk) 07:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Rings of Neptune schema

Hi Ruslik, congrats on getting the Rings of Uranus article featured. I noticed that in the schema of the rings of Neptune, the LeVerrier ring is misspelled "LeVervier". I would also suggest that "Arcs" does not need to be capitalized. WolfmanSF (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah thank you

and an early Merry Russian Christmas for Jan 6! :-) I was gonna wait until then but you beat me to the mark. :-) Hope you have a nice Xmas break. Are you planning to move on to other moons now that the moons list looks likely to pass FL? I'd like to know because I'm not sure what to do at the moment. I'm not in a good Wiki place right now; GabrielValasquez is back to get my goat (honestly, what did I say to that guy?); my list project is on life support until I can find ways to fill gaps I don't know how to fill, and my long-planned expansion of the Jupiter Trojans article has become something of a joke. Still, anything I can do to help the project. :-) Serendi^podous 20:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I owe you an apology. I should have realised when I shook that guy off that he would turn on you. I didn't mean to say, "It wasn't me! It was Ruslik!" but that's how it came out. Serendi^podous 22:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Another thanks in order

I must say going back to revert anon users blatant disregard is something that has become a nuisance. Thanks though for protecting the page so I don't have to do it EVERY day...just every other. Cheers!--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the move

of Annals of the Joseon Dynasty. Happy new year.--Caspian blue 23:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes

By the way, I responded to your statement in regard to my request to unprotect December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes. -- tariqabjotu 18:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Kashmir Conflict

could you please revert the user in red hes edits are clearly removing vast chunks of information which he/she does not agree with p.s boy am i glad you came to help Algebraic123 (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC) And i have tried to talk to him he never responds well actually he did he called me a racist sock lol Algebraic123 (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Kashmir conflict

Thanks for protecting the page. However, shouldn't you revert to the revision before the edit war began? Just a thought.

Happy '09! Inferno, Lord of Penguins 20:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Version? Ontopofcosts (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I can not understand when it actually began. There have been a lot of edits today. Ruslik (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Just simply revert Ontopofcosts edits as you can see he has removed massive chunks of sourced information final decision is yours Algebraic123 (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because it's all part of the international Hindu-Zionist conspiracy to subvert wikipedia, you see? /sarcasm Ontopofcosts (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No not really its because you removed most of the pages contents because you didnt agree with what it said those points of arguments have been there for a long time until this pov pusher arrived —Preceding unsigned comment added by Algebraic123 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the version before the edit warring began. Algebraic, assume good faith. To both of you, stop fighting like children. It doesn't get either of you anywhere. Rather, discuss it. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 20:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I will review the situation tomorrow and than I may revert to a preconflict version. Ruslik (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

as i said before i tried talking the vandal doesnt know english i guess Algebraic123 (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes that is could the admin please revert it now? Algebraic123 (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That is the original text before his edit war anyways thankyou for helping Algebraic123 (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Request

As an uninvolved editor I urge you to revert ontopofcosts (talk · contribs) edits to Kashmir conflict. He added poorly written pov material to the article. Also he is now evading his block with Barracuda the song (talk · contribs) to continue the edit war. (compare) (compare). This is clearly not a good-faith contributor. Dance With The Devil (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Washington Park Subdivision

At, Washington Park Subdivision I am not sure if I am describing two different cases or not. Can you help me clean it up a bit?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to jump in with some editorial assistance. Also, are either of the other cases for properties in the Subdivision?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

SFBAProject template

Hi - I see you just made an edit-protected change to the SFBAProject template. Would you kindly take a look at the request I made, which has been out a few weeks, or else suggest where I might go to have this reviewed? I've added a more complete explanation of the problem on the template talk page now, and would be happy to discuss with you why this is an issue. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you!

and thank you for your email. I've been out of the loop these last few days. Serendi^podous 01:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know what flagged revisions would be for. Since every revision is viewable anyway, what would flagging revisions allow you to do? Serendi^podous 18:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I think such an arrangement would be very beneficial to Wiki readers, as they would see the last acceptable revision of an article and thus would have no chance of seeing PENIS!111!!! on the page instead. But I think it would be very confusing to unregistered users, as they might notice a flaw with the reviewed version and attempt to correct it, only to find themselves editing a completely different page. Unregistered users in particular are unlikely to understand the nature of the history page. As I see it, the only way to make such an arrangement practical is to do what I've thought we should do for ages and make Wikipedia unalterable by non-registered users. But that isn't likely to go down well with the top brass. Serendi^podous 19:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Barracuda the song

Yes, Barracuda the song is Hkelkar. Panunkashmir looked like Hkelkar as well, but there's nothing in my CU to confirm this relationship. Happy New Year to you too! Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Coordinates templates

Thank you for unprotecting coor title d and coor title dm, but please complete the trio with Coor title dms. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again ;-) Please could you know do the same for CoorHeader, which is a double-redirect (or simply redirect to {{Coord}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

And again: thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		I have a feeling that Nevado del Ruiz is going to pass FAC as soon as I can get a source for Avenue's requests, but it wouldn't be there had you not been so helpful. Thanks for everything, it's really appreciated. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 14:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Ruslik (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, being a partial TPS, are you planning on bringing Oberon to FA? ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 15:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

For personal reference, you might want to link to the namesake in the lead, for curiosity can be insatiable. ;) Best, ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 16:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

What is TPS? Ruslik (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk page stalker. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 13:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I am planning to bring Oberon to FA in the next year. Ruslik (talk) 14:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, and I plan to finish NDR whenever I get the time to actually fully copyedit those sections, I guess I copy-pasted them in a hurry and then forgot to re-write them myself. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 22:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith towards Argentina.

Ruslik:

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

I enjoy the discussion pages on each article as much as anyone; but have learned that they become nothing more than online shouting matches - particularly when you have users trying to impose misrepresentative cites on articles dealing with countries other than their own (against whom there may be misgivings). This is something "Ilikeminas" understands well, as he didn't turn to it before inserting this canard.

Let's be clear: race is a burning issue in Latin America and the fact that Argentina and Uruguay have majority white populations has long been a contentious matter for many in other South American nations (even in Chile, a nation doing better in most respects than either of the two mentioned, as "Ilikeminas" might be quick to point out). A simple glance at the cite used will reveal that "genetic sampling" (something that has no place in a country article for its being in bad taste) was carried out at public hospitals, an unscientific criteria, as more than half of Argentine patients avoid them; nor was the study peer-reviewed, the bare-bones standard for quoting controversial matter such as this.

To be sure, the study is given ample treatment in the Demographics of Argentina article and its attempted imposition on the Argentina article is superfluous. Contributors foreign to the country whose article it is should exercise particular tact.

Please keep in mind that, as you can google a cite for just about any claim, the peer review standard and common sense are often the only impediments to the introduction of patent nonsense.

Thanks again for your time and I look forward to your comments.

Kindly,76.174.124.198 (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand why this information is so controversial. The study only claims that 56% Argentinians have some (1/4th, for instance) Amerindian background, which sounds reasonable. This is properly attributed in the article. The article actually does not claim that 56% have Amerindian background—it only claims that a particular study says so. I am sure any reader can make their own judgment. In addition, I want to note that sensitivities are not important in Wikipedia, which is not censored. Ruslik (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Phnom Penh Commercial Bank

Hi, I have started deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 January 8; the bank you speedily deleted is a perfectly good, notable bank, that has been in operation only 5 months, it is a joint venture of Hyundai of Korea and SBI of Japan. Why didn't you simply add a notability tag? The article was created less than 24 hours before the speedy deletion. Please reconsider, I assure you that this is a notable company viz WP:ORG. --Mr Accountable (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

FAC FYI

You may want to comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Saxbe fix.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like I am going to have to wait a few days for this nomination to be allowed. Sandy thinks there are remaining issues on the Jack Kemp FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Richard Cordray

You may want to say you contributed some to Richard Cordray, which was on the main page on Jan 2.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Frank William Gilligan

Hello, I noted that you deleted the article Frank William Gilligan. The reason was "A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion". I am suprised that this reason was appropriate for Frank William Gilligan given that he was a top cricekter of his time, playing for Essex for 8 years, the MCC, going on to be headmaster of one of New Zealand's top schools, and being recognised with an OBE. Did you delete because the introduction to the article did not cover these or was it because you do not believe his achievements are notable? or perhaps there is a technical reason of which I am not aware?Kwib (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your reply and for the restoration of the article. I will certainly clarify those areas of the article you have made reference to. May I ask, would a notability tag not have been more appropriate in this circumstance than a speedy deletion?Kwib (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Nevado

Can you check it out? I think I've copyedited all the "c//p" stuff from before, but can you double-check? ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 13:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 23:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

RFPP

Hi Ruslik. You may be interested in this thread. I hope you don't feel slighted because that was not the intention. – Steel 14:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Jupiter trojan

It's on my radar; I have to get the hydrostatic equilibrium list finished and do some work on Halley's Comet, plus I'm starting a new job tomorrow, so it will be a while before I can get on it. I know I've been off my game recently but I've been a bit overwhelmed with life in general. Serendi^podous 20:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Moons of Uranus FLC

I edited all the suggested copyedit changes in already as they were good suggestions. Minus the part about endogenic resurfacing and tectonics which I am not familiar with. SkarmCA (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

re

I was thinking to submit it myself at some point, but it is better that you did it. Good job with the article! I was thinking of starting with another moon list soon, perhaps Neptune or Saturn - although the latter might soon get expanded by Cassini. Nergaal (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

promotion

Moons of Uranus was promoted today. The template on the talk page hasn't updated yet, but it was promoted nonetheless. Congratulations. SkarmCA (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for merging Total energy into energy, but ...

... you forgot to remove the merge request from Energy. I've done that, anyway. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 11:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandal

STOP vandalising the "Bode's Law" page with inaccurate data (2nd paragraph). Clearly you have a Personality Disorder which is manifesting itself as an Attitude Problem. Any further vandalism and I will have you BLOCKED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.163.53.10 (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

NDR

I've finished with everything. Could you make sure that section is good before I go to FAC again? Ceran^→→ 12:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection of WP:MOSNUM

Protections on project pages should never use the "small" lock. This works against consensus building. Please replace the more prominent tag. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is template clutter at the top of the page. It is better to keep pp-dispute small. Everybody is already aware of this dispute. Ruslik (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's clear that everyone is aware of the dispute; I guess I'll just bug another admin.... -- Kendrick7^talk 17:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I've repeated the request at WP:AN but it's not getting much traction for some reason. The janitorial staff around here isn't what it used to be. Anyway, I wish you would reconsider. These matters should not be simply swept under the rug. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

New KBO

A new large KBO has been announced, and I've had to swap it into my list of dwarf planet candidates in List of Solar System objects in hydrostatic equilibrium. But I need you to do the surface gravity, escape velocity and surface temp for it, pretty please :--0))) Serendi^podous 15:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Rus. Do you think you could also do the surface temp? Thanks again. Serendi^podous 08:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Public abstract

Hi Ruslik, you should have e-mail. You are the first wikipedia e-mail that I have sent. -- Kheider (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

What does this mean?

The differential size distribution of the L4 Trojans is given by:

n1(r)dr = 1.5 × 106r−3.0±0.3dr (9)

for 2.2 ≤ r ≤ 20 km and

n2(r)dr = 3.5 × 109r−5.5±0.9dr (10)

for r ≥ 42 km, where r is the radius computed on the assumption that the albedo is pR = 0.04

I'm trying to get an idea of the size and mass distribution of the Trojans, bit I can't figure out if this means there are lots of big Trojans and not a lot of little ones, or lots of little Trojans and not a lot of big ones. Serendi^podous 20:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything more that can be done with Jupiter Trojan? Because I'm running out of Google articles. Serendi^podous 00:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

OK; I'll nom it for PR. Serendi^podous 18:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Saxbe fix

The early feedback at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Saxbe fix requires the assistance of a legal researcher like yourself to resolve. I will essentially need a co-nominator on this one. I hope you are interested because we could get a WP:TFA main page credit if you are willing and able.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I am having difficulty with the {{ussc}} template in the Saxbe_fix#Challenge section.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

When you say the cases are not significant, is it fair to say that whenever someone is not granted standing the case is insignificant in this way?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

JRB37

Replied to your inputs on FAC page. Foofighter20x (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Kurt Warner

Could you restore semi-protection for one more week? Thanks, Enigma^msg 04:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarence Thomas

Your compromise version when you stepped in as an arbitrator was never implemented in the article. After another small edit war over the Sexual Harassment section, I have put your compromise version into the article. You might want to watch current activity at the article.--Paul (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I am watching. Ruslik (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

History of SDSU GA review

Thanks for reviewing the article. I've made some fixes, but I need to re-review the main source to answer some of the issues you've raised. I went to the library on Monday (forgetting it was closed for the national holiday) and then went there today to learn that there were no copies left to check out. I'll head over there tomorrow and read the in-library book and finish addressing the issues you raised. Thanks again for reviewing it, I appreciate it. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for making those other fixes. I've addressed all of the issues you raised. Let me know if I need to clarify on any other points. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have uploaded several images to Wikimedia Commons and added them to the article, and will continue to add more as I keep uploading them. Let me know if there are any other issues that need to be addressed. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your many helpful comments and passing the article. Keep up the good work and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Islamic military jurisprudence

Sorry, I was on a break for some time. I just saw your comments now (ans subsequent failure). Give me a couple of days to work on it, and hopefully I can get address all your concerns.Bless sins (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Headbomb (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)

Anythng special I need to do to convince you to grant me rollback rights?Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit summary compliment btw. That was unexpectedly nice of you. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The size of the swarms along the orbit is about 26°.

This needs to be clarified; does this mean that each swarm occupies 26 degrees of sky, that both together do, or that the average inclination for the Trojans is 26 degrees from the ecliptic?

You'll also need to clarify the meaning of "Maxwellian function", as it could be a number of different things.Serendi^podous 13:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

news

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 4, 2009 Nergaal (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to say this...

Or I will burn up inside. I know you're going to hate me for this, but I really don't think we can nominate a Jupiter topic in good conscience without an article on its magnetic field. Serendi^podous 19:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything else I can help you with on Oberon? Serendi^podous 14:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

mars

Since you said Earth will be swallowed up by 70% chance over sun's giant, then how many percent chance will Mars be swallowed up? 30 or 40% chance? I thought mars is more likely to survive.--69.229.108.39 (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not known, but probably low. Ruslik (talk) 08:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Closure question - comment

RE: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers

I noticed you closed the discussion a "keep" however there was not any discussion of "how long" per Redfarmer's question, or my more detailed question that contained direct links to both policy and guideline. At the least I had hoped to see a discussion on the issues rather than seeing a close after the question was asked thus preventing any. Likewise I would have thought a closing admin would make an attempt to address the issues raised, not simply state "The result of the discussion was 'Keep'" with no explanation as to "why". As it reads currently, it is the seeming result of a "vote" count. I want to be strong in this next statement - I am not questioning your closure. But, if one were to read the comments and the discussion it is apparent that many of the "keep" comments are not based on policy or guideline as they are currently written; they are nothing more than "votes" based on non-arguments or misreading of guideline and policy. For example Ched said "keep" because they could find no "policy or guideline this violates". Such guidelines and policies had been pointed too earlier in the discussion and it was that users comment that caused me to explicitly cite both policy and guideline and ask for a clear discussion of that. Likewise ArcAngel voiced a "keep" because the MFD was a "breach of one's privacy" so I will ask you - how is "breach of one's privacy" a valid reason, or argument, for a "keep" as it relates to policy or guideline and this article or how long it has sat without being worked on? Likewise I see no MFD "how to" that states any userspace nom is a "breach of one's privacy" so, to me, it leads to a "keep" on that one. A valid opinion? Yes. But not a valid argument that relates to why this should be kept or not kept. I also want to note at least one editor who voiced a "keep" has voiced "one year" for "how long" pages like this should stay in a topic elsewhere that also attempts to clarify the same wording I asked about, however in this discussion it is clear they mis-read the article history as their comment implies this article has only existed for "under six months". Would the editors understanding that it has been 11 months, and not "under six months", make this "keep" also a "keep"? However the main thrust here, as several editors voiced "keep" because they feel, in userspace, there are "no time limits" (with some adding on there is nothing that indicates there is a time limit anyhwere) it raises some very important issues that, again, were never fully addressed, and never mentioned in your closing summary. The last "work" done by the main editor of this userspace page was adding the {{Underconstruction}} tag in July 2008. By the authors own statement they "have reached the limit of my [their] search capabilities" and the fact that the author has asked (been asking) for help on the article over the last 11 months and received almost no substantial help it aids in establishing that the article is likely to sit longer with no major work being done on it. Looking at the full history, outside of the first month the article was created, work done by others has been sporadic and edits have been minor - "Spelling" (Val42 - May 2, 2008), "corrected link" (Captain Quirk - October 17, 2008), I.P 219.88.216.84 inserted two lines (one of which was removed two months later) and one link into the article while another I.P added a ":" in May. Too many "keep" opinions in these discussions are based on misreading, not finding, or simply TLDR, when voicing a "keep or "delete" in regards to the current policy and guidelines. Perhaps, as closing admin, you can better explain the thought process on how this was a "keep" based on the "keep" arguments because I am at a loss, really, how definitions of the time limits that are in place (i.e - they do exist and do lay out time limits) as "indefinitely archive", "long-term archival purposes" and "permanent content" become "no time limit" or "limits don't exist" and, at what point, is it time to stop beating a dead horse?

My suggestion - please reopen the discussion and let it run a bit longer in order to have these valid questions answered. If those who voiced a "keep" do not address the issues than, in your closing comments, make a point to address them. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the purpose of MFD (and XFD in general) discussions. They are not intended to create prescriptive polices or answer some abstract questions like "How long a draft version of the article should be allowed to stay in the user space before it can be deleted?" The purpose of any MFD discussion is to answer (on the basis of a relevant policy) a simple question:Should the page A be deleted now?" In this case community spoke and the answer is No.

Different reasons were given in support of keeping the page. Some said that editors should have right to work on draft for as long as they need. This opinion has its roots in WP:USER, which says that The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants. Other editors gave the !owner of the page a benefit of doubt hoping that she would eventually finish this article and move it into the main space. Your arguments about WP:OR also failed to persuade participants of the discussion as the OR policy is not generally applicable to user space. It was also pointed out that neither WP:USER nor any other policy contains any deadline for finishing articles in the user space. So in my opinion all !votes were based on policy, but interpreted it differently. All participant substantiated their !votes with rather persuasive arguments. In the end I had no reason to disregard any !votes and gave them equal weight in accordance with WP:DGFA. So the votes were 8 keep and 3 delete. This is rough consensus to keep, in my opinion. It was absolutely impossible to delete in these circumstances, because I had no authority to impose my will on the community, who was clearly against deletion.

As to your rather abstract question how definitions of the time limits that are in place (i.e - they do exist and do lay out time limits) as "indefinitely archive", "long-term archival purposes" and "permanent content" become "no time limit" or "limits don't exist" and, at what point. I do not think any clear time limits exist. Every page is different and the question to delete or not to delete is decided on page by page basis by editors participating in a specific discussion. Sometimes such pages are deleted, sometimes not. Consensus can also change in the future (so you can try again in a few months). But now the consensus is keep. I also do not see any reason to reopen the discussion. The recommended discussion length is 5 days. This discussion was open for 7 days—enough, in my opinion. In the last 4 days all !votes were to keep, and the page was not going to be deleted in any case. Ruslik (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

But you avoided my core questions. I will lay it out very clear:

Discussions at AFD/MFD are, in theory, supposed to be based on something valid to begin with - such as, for example, "Article/page fails to meet policy". Discussions should follow that are related to that. A nomination that simply said: "Page A should be deleted now" would not be taken very well. Deletion discussions most times do go much deeper than simple "Delete". So I feel you have massively oversimplified their purpose. In this regard (bold added for emphasis) -

1. Please direct me to the policy or guideline that states any MFD for a user page is a "violation of privacy". Also please explain how that argument was "rather persuasive" to you.
2. My core argument was not about WP:OR at all, however as other editors had raised that issue I reinforced it by mentioning when the article was started someone had asked, on March 16, 2008, "doesn't it get somewhat into "original research" on the users talk page. Almost one year later the wider community was now asking this. It was used to show how little had changed with the overall reading in 11 months. But as you feel there were persuasive arguments made that this article does not contain any OR, please explain to me how a proposed article entitled "I Love Lucy spin-offs and crossovers" can end up with the comment "In Las Vegas, "The Story Of Owe", there is a mention of the fictional company Dunder-Mifflin from The Office" and is not any form of OR? (Keeping in mind that at least one editor hinted at the authors original synthesis, even though they voiced a "keep", when they told the user/author "to dump the reliance on things like "Morleys" cigarettes. There's an enormous difference between a named character from one show making an appearance on the other, and the set dresser on two different shows grabbing the same pack of fake cigarettes out of the prop department.") While the OR policy is not fully for content in userspace the idea that this is an article clearly meant to be part of the encyclopedia it does beg asking if a variation of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon about the Lucy show(s) is valid. Thusly I can see how people can read it and agree with the concept that, in this case, this proposed article fails to meet the policy, which informs users that "Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."" Secondary to this becomes the argument that this is in userspace and not mainspace thusly OR policy does not apply. I would agree with that concept, but as I said, OR was not my argument for deletion, it is also why I suggested to move it to mainspace and "let nature take it's course".
3. Your comment above that, because, editors feel "that neither WP:USER nor any other policy contains any deadline for finishing articles in the user space", it becomes a true reading of policy and guideline troubles me. Please explain what the following wordings mean, if they are not time limits what are they?
   A. Disallowed uses of subpages guideline states that "Using subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia"
   B. "What may I not have on my user page?" - subsection "Copies of other pages" guideline says several things that all appear to be a set time limit - "While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host." Perhaps the most direct item that appears to not only set a time limit but clearly says if it exceeds that limit it will be sent to MFD - "Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." So how is my question related to these wordings "abstract" in anyway, shape or form? Also as the user clearly stated "Please just leave it be until I get around to it again" it should become even less abstract. To be clear: Based on my reading of the MFD, keeping in mind it was closed with no discussion on "how long", currently 11 months does not seem to be "indefinitely", "long-term" or "permanent". So,in your eyes, if the user says "I have reached the limit of my search capabilities" and "leave it be until I get around to it again" there is no reason to ask "How long do we let this exist?" as Redfarmer asked, or do as I did - quote the existing wording and also ask how long? Of course Kww entered a new phrase into this equation when they said "keep" and "I'm willing to let this one bake for a bit."

As you mention WP:DGFA I would like to point out something contained there: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." Keeping this in mind I again ask you to explain how "keep" arguments such as "invasion of privacy" or "It's not meant to be part of the encyclopedia yet" (because it is still in userspace) are valid. For the record I tend to take time to research things - to look into their history. If there is a clear misunderstanding of core policies such as Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not than it should be made more clear what portions need to be addressed. Perhaps deletion discussions are not the place for changing policy, however it is cleary a place to see how terms and content is read. As I did point out, userpages aside for a moment, for Policy we say that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Likewise Wikipedia is not a repository of loosely associated topics nor is it a place to publish your own thoughts and analysis. The nom was, in part, made because "this user admitted to us on the talk page that they are attempting to form a thesis that a vast amount of shows are crossovers from I Love Lucy, which is definitely OR at its worst." Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are trying to persuade me that this page should be deleted, I can only say that my opinion is irrelevant. What is relevant here is that your arguments failed to persuade other editors. You lost the discussion, and all keeps had strong arguments behind them. If you think that opinions of two editors+nominator constitute a consensus to delete (despite serious objections from 8 other editors) you can try your luck on DRV. Otherwise this discussion is meaningless. Ruslik (talk) 07:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was not thinking about DRV but as you have raised new concerns and refuse to answer my questions I am thinking DRV is a good option. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Template WP India

{{WP India}} changes you made may have caused Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Article alerts this page to have problems? The article alerts say that the WP India template is not found. Can you please take care of this as soon as you can? VasuVR (talk, contribs) 01:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see the talk page of the template.--GDibyendu (talk) 05:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

So much... If not for you, the FAC would have ended a week ago. Sorry, lately I've been busy with schoolwork but I'll sure be on tonight. Ceran^→//forge 12:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Byron Brown FAC

You were very helpful with my last politics FA. Do you have any opinion on my Byron Brown FAC?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Saxbe fix

I should have mentioned Saxbe is up at FAC one more time. It is not looking good this time either. If you can help improve this it would be great.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it will either close or be withdrawn by the 10th. I will resubmit it ten days or so later for a last shot at the centenary in March.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Lady GaGa

The page is protected. I request unprotection in accordance with Wikipedias Semi-protection policy, and I quote-"In particular, it should not be used to settle content". An IP has been editing with reliable source, however multiple users have stated it is vandilism and therefore the page is protected. Could an admin(you) please change this. Thanks, Kind Regards. Dance-pop (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not see a content dispute here. IP persistently added information attributed to questionable sources, and multiple users objected to this. What I see is persistent violation of the BLP policy, and administrators have a wide latitude to enforce it. Ruslik (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you are wrong, I do see a content disput. The sources were NOT questionable,I have checked them myself. If you check wikipedias semi-protection policy you will see I am right. Wikipedia does NOT use semi-protection because an IP allegedlly vandilised the article twice(approx.). Please change this or I will request unprotection from someone with higher authority. Thanks. Kind regards. Dance-pop (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Addition of full stop at the end of {{Citation}}

Hi, I note that you were the editor who added the "|postscript=" parameter to {{Citation}}, which seems to have added a full stop to the end of the template. When and where was this change agreed upon? There is a discussion on the matter taking place now at "Template talk:Citation#Full stop at the end of the template" – do enlighten us. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you inadvertantly removed the parameters you'd just added when you made this change. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 20:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Vijay

Hey, thank you for protecting the Joseph Vijay article. I was hoping someone would protect it soon.--இளைய நாயகன் Eelam StyleZ (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

domain spam

Hi!
Concerning [3]: How much spamming is necessary for semi-protection? Til now, the ip address is not stopping, see [4]. -- seth (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

One such edit every two days is clearly not enough for semi-protection. Ruslik (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Valhalla (crater)

On February 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Valhalla (crater), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass 17:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Trojan formation

Rus, do you know which of the two theories is the most widely accepted? Serendi^podous 20:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent design

Hello, Ruslik0. I just thought I would let you know that I just blocked a editor for edit warring at Intelligent design and just got done issuing a few warnings. As such, I am not sure protection is truly needed. Instead of protecting the whole article from every editor, we can simply block the editors who choose to be disruptive. While I think it would be a good idea to try and keep it unprotected, it is ultimately your call. Cheers,

Tiptoety ^talk 20:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Given User:John's reply to your comment, and the general tone of several editors, I would like to request that you play close attention to the article once it is unprotected, and step in to re-protect when the edit-war resumes. It has gotten very bitter, and seems to be getting more bitter and more personal, and people seem more deeply entrenched in their positions. Guettarda (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I am watching the article. Ruslik (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I appreciate it. Guettarda (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are still following this as a neutral admin, you may want to look at File:Pandas_and_ppl.jpg and File:Darwinsblackbox.jpg. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Redirect of Gibbs Page

I was looking at the page on Leroy Jethro Gibbs and noticed you had temporarily protected it in the redirect form a while ago and yet I couldn't find a conclusive discussion indicating that (Both AFD discussions seemed to indicate that the article should be kept and I didn't see a clear result indicated on the merger discussion). Can you explain why it is this action was taken? It is true I'm not familiar with current policy regarding merging articles (or anything else for that matter) so that could be the source of my confusion. Thank you very much if you can help. --pevarnj ^(t/c/@) 02:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:List_of_NCIS_characters#Proposed_merger. Ruslik (talk) 04:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I did and looking at it it appeared as if there was a much stronger disagree vote than agree. --pevarnj ^(t/c/@) 16:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hindi Race Remake

Hi, can you delete Hindi Race Remake, because there is no reference for this film, it hasn't been confirmed and I think it is Patent nonsense. Thank you. --Xxxsacheinxxx (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

TFD assistance

I need some help formatting the templates for the expanded Feb 12 discussion on Political organization sequential leaders. The templates are not pointing where I want them to and I could not figure out how to change the TFD section.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Washington Park Subdivision

Thanks for the assistance in the clarification the legal issues in the text.

This user helped promote Washington Park Subdivision to good article status.

I hope you get a chance to drop by at Saxbe fix sometime in the next week. We could use some more eyes on this article in the last push for the main page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I will try to do something. Ruslik (talk) 07:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

undo edit protect for Yezidi page.

This refers to the Yezidi edit dispute and your question of what it was all about? Kindly check the links below.

yezidi request for making necessary changes and stopping vandalism by Ogress

My previous post about Mahabaleshwar

Please check Ogress talk page and Yogesh Khandke talk page too, for details of discussion and of course Yezidi talk page.

Kindly look into the matter and enable edit. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You should contact protecting admin. Ruslik (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Who is the protection admin, I thought it was you or Juliancolton I now have a feeling it is Sandstein.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

I have requested comment, at Template talk:Cite journal, concerning the addition of the undocumented version parameter to Cite journal. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Oberon

I've done a ce, but there is one sentence I don't understand:

Oberon has the most heavily cratered surface of all the Uranian moons, with a crater density approaching saturation when the formation of new craters is balanced by destruction of old ones.

Is this sentence defining saturation, or saying that saturation only occurs when the formation of new craters is balanced by the destruction of old ones?

PS. Please, could you add the last two surface temps to the dwarf planet candidates section of the equilibrium list? Sorry.

Oh, and PPS. thanks for blocking that guy who vandalised my talk page. :-) Serendi^podous 19:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Great! That should stop me bothering you! Serendi^podous 17:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you still planning to bring this to FAC? Serendi^podous 18:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Trojans FAC

If you think it's ready to go, I'll go with you. I think you're a better judge of that than I am. Serendi^podous 13:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm ready. Serendi^podous 18:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Protect on Lithuania page

Please advise a beginner editor who wanted to contribute to the Lithuania page, but is starting to consider the effort completely futile because of the bad faith (constant undos claiming to be edits, lack of any factual discussion) and discrimination having for a purpose to leave that page (currently very subjective and sweetened version of history, allergic to WWII and recent Lithuanian history) only to those with selected vision and propensity to overlook facts when they do not suit them. My resistance to undos of all my contributions (initially pure undos, latter on when I complained, disguised as (minor) edits) apparently results in semi-block (targeted against me since I am not registered)no matter that initially there was an equitable solution of a full block for 2 weeks to encourage discussion (overturned within hours). Today all of the sudden there is editing fervor unseen in the history of that page and many changes (again bad faith to justify passing from full to semi block). Also after trying to mention Lithuania's contribution to the holocaust I was even called a Nazi. Is this how the Wikipedia works and how it should work? Please let me know as I consider whether to withdraw my contributions.--85.5.94.26 (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wessagusset Colony

Thanks for your GAC comments on Wessagusset Colony. I'm sorry that real-life has interfered and I've not completed the last of the edits that you requested. I should be able to get this done this week. Please let me know if you see any further areas that I should improve. I appreciate your help. JRP (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Second Amendment edit you reverted

Please review the discussion page for that article to confirm that the author received $400,000 from a gun control advocacy group and is thus distrubuting "bought and paid for" opinion. Check links prvided there to confirm bias.141.154.110.173 (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Symposium: FAC and the sciences

• Your input is requested, either at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#FAC_symposium or at the subpage where the effort will begin... Thanks! Ling.Nut ^(talk—WP:3IAR) 10:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Saxbe fix

I spent a few hours digging at the University of Chicago Law School today. Please have a look at the new content that I have added. I would like to renominate the article at WP:FAC by the end of the week, but it would be best if it is clean before it gets there.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I will try to do something. Ruslik (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

After another research adventure earlier today, I think this will be up at FAC with the latest changes in the next day or two. Your continued participation in its improvement would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Commentary welcome at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Saxbe fix.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for lending your legal mind. Feel free to chime in on the Pete Williams issue too. I don't want to get between the legal cognoscenti on the minutiae.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Nevado

Sandy has (sort of per my request) restarted the FAC to save space. I think that we've resolved the last of the comments, so Buena suerte to us. Ceranthor 21:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Magnetosphere of Jupiter

Sure. I'll be doing some research for it as well, thoguh I'll have to wait until the libraries open on monday. Serendi^podous 18:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The copyedit is going to take some time. I think I'll start tomorrow, if that's OK. Serendi^podous 19:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

a few questions

The magnetic field within it remains approximately dipole, because contributions from the currents flowing in the magentospheric plasma are small.

What are these currents, and why do they disrupt the dipole?

These are various currents including ring current, field aligned currents, tail currents, magnetopause currents and others. I will write about them in more detail in the dynamics section. Ruslik (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

a thick and cold plasma torus (temperature is 10–100 ev or 100,000–1,000,000 K)

I may not be fully up on my high-energy physics, but I've never heard one million kelvins described as "cold"!

The hot plasma in the magnetosphere has temperature more than 10 Kev (or 100 million Kelvins). So 10-100 Ev is a cold plasma. Another way to look at this temperatures is to compare them with the co-rotational energy. Near the orbit of Io the co-rotational velocity is 74 km/s. An oxygen ion (O^+) moving with such a speed will have kinetic energy of about 500 Ev. So 10-100 Ev is again a cold plasma. Ruslik (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A reference to the plasma temperature within Jupiter's magnetosphere should be made earlier in the article, to place that other temperature into context. Serendi^podous 16:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If I'm reading you right, the northern lobe of the magnetotail flows towards the planet, the southern lobe flows away, correct?

I actually meant that in the northern lobe the magnetic field points away from the planet, and in the southern lobe the field points towards the planet. The magnetic field does not really flow. Ruslik (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The plasma in the torus is not ideal and slowly leaks away from Jupiter.

Ideal in what sense?

The plasma is ideal if its electrical conductivity is infinite. The real plasma's conductivity is always finite, but very high. Ruslik (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

When you say the amin forms of escape are diffusion and inercharge instability, are you defining those terms in the next sentence?

Not really. However I admit they will need a definition. Ruslik (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I get that "planetary wind" is an analog to "solar wind" but it probably needs to be changed, since planets already have atmosperic winds.

Planetary wind is an escape of plasma along open magnetic field lines. In this sense it is analogous to the Solar wind. This term is often used to describe the losses from magnetospheres including Earth magnetosphere. Ruslik (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Serendi^podous 15:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Legends of the Mafia

I reckoned as an on-line game it counted as "web content" for {{db-web}}; it's also borderline spam as the author is the game's developer. As not-yet-released, it's certainly not notable: I'll go for a PROD, and probably on to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

PROD is the best way in this case. Ruslik (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Nihongo

You did unnecessary line break. Plz, fix or rv. For example of inccorect working see List of Sekirei chapters Alex Spade (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed line break. Ruslik (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Now, the spaces between (1) English title and "(", (2) between Kanji and Rōmaji are missing. Alex Spade (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Added spaces. Ruslik (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for the problems. Thank you for make the original changes and cleaning up my mess. --Pascal^666 18:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for saving the article i created!! :) Macromonkey (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of New Energy Movement

An article that you have been involved in editing, New Energy Movement, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Energy Movement. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. andy (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request of Amyseekuif

Hello Ruslik0. Amyseekuif (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 14:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment: User seems to request unblock in good faith. Also, they have promised not to violate the 3RR again. — Aitias // discussion 14:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they were disruptive and had to be blocked again ... I added the 3 hours from the end of the old block onto a new 31-hour block. Daniel Case (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive generally ... reverting without discussing or providing sources when asked to do so, engaging in angry rants á la the current unblock request. It was enough for someone to file an AIV. Daniel Case (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wessagusset Colony

I believe that I have satisfied your concerns, can you please take a look at the article and let me know if you desire further changes? JRP (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! This is my first non-biography article to reach GA and I am very pleased about that. JRP (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi,Ruslik0, The article Chiang Kai-shek

Hi,Ruslik0, The article Chiang Kai-shek, always Vandalism by some anonymous IP, so I think this article should became Full protection or Semi-protection over a long period of time. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.105.23.27 (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

A-Class discussion

Hi, we're starting the discussion on A-Class here today, thanks for signing up! I hope you can present your views. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 07:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

protection of Temazepam

Withdrawn.

Book

I think it's great! A wonderful introduction to all our hard work. Funny that the FT is demanding more effort from us than a book. :-) Serendi^podous 19:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of books, I've been trying to track down appropriate reading material for Magnetosphere of Jupiter, but haven't been able to get it yet. Hopefully the British Library will have what I want within the next few days and I can start contributing to that article. Serendi^podous 19:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of speedy delete tag

Just to let you know I re-added {{db-company}} to Duroob Technology; you said it may be notable but the article needs to say so. Author has been given ~2 weeks to come up with something, anything, to make us believe it's important enough for inclusion, but he/she hasn't. (p.s. I'm a different user from the one who put the db-tag up in the first place.) ~EdGl (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You should familiarize yourself with the deletion policy, which says Either a page fits the speedy deletion criteria or it does not. If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions, mentioned below. Ruslik (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying it does warrant speedy deletion, per WP:CSD A7. If you disagree with this then I'd be more than happy to use prod or afd. ~EdGl (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for re-protecting John Cena

Hi there. I just wanted to thank you for re-protecting this article. I had asked for unprotection about a week ago, hoping that it would be okay to unprotect after a year of protection, but was obviously wrong about that. I was going to ask for re-protection today, but I saw that you'd already gotten to it. So thanks for protecting it again in the interest of WP:BLP policy, it was absolutely the right thing to do. Raven1977^Talk to me_{My edits} 22:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Smith2006

Hi Ruslik, re: your recent block of Smith2006 [5] for edit warring and POV pushing at Rheinwiesenlager, I am afraid that he has not taken heed; he has returned today and made precisely the same revert [6] for which he was blocked. He has not graced us with his presence at the talk page. This is immensely frustrating. Would you be prepared to give this matter your attention again, or would you prefer me to open a new report at 3RR/N? Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Other contributions of this account worth studying as well. This is a POV pushing account. I will do smth later. Ruslik (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I agree. Many thanks for your attention. It is much appreciated. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Further to the above, looking into this, among many unsourced POV changes, these contributions are especially problematic:

• Smith is openly anti-Semitic (see, for example this edit summary, or this talk page contribution);
• seems to question whether Hitler was anti-Semitic [7][8];
• edits to say the Nazis were "described as" fascistic [9];
• edits articles without sources to make them sympathetic to the Third Reich [10];
• devotes a significant amount of time to uploading photos of Hitler and his subordinates with the odd edit summary 'subject "died" in 1945' (as opposed to what?) [11].
  Best, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)