User talk:Ruslik0/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Wikireader41's violation of wp:3rr in Kanwar Pal Singh Gill

User:Wikireader41 has violated wp:3rr by reverting Kanwar Pal Singh Gill four times in one single day. Please see revert 1, revert 2, revert 3 and revert 4 eventhough he was warned by another editor prior to that.

Sun FAR

Since you've been making changes to the Sun FAR, I just wanted to let you know that I've left a few comments. :) JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey

Hello... Can you please guide me how to report POV pushing... There is an admin called YellowMonkey who is an indian and keeps removing anything that goes against his country...Have a look at some of the edits YellowMonkey has been doing on State-sponsored terrorism Page... here , here, here, and here as well. How can he do that without ever participating on the talk Page...??? And here he even breaks the 3RR on 23 February, when Deavenger wasn't even a Block evading User.... And every time he reverted, he didn't merely changed minor things but actually removed the entire Indian Section which was backed by 26refs from WP:RS... Plus he is also recruiting people to counter my edits on a different topic here, maybe to lure me into an edit-war and block me... And here he shows Uncivil behaviour, And here is some more... All these talk-Pages where he has insulted me belong to editors who themselves are indian and revert any edit that is even slightly against India.... Isn't this POV.... Kindly guide me, where to take my case.... Discussions aren't helping a-lot.... He will block me If I revert his edit... His partner Wikireader41 (who is also an indian) keeps threatening me by a block.... I don't know what to do... I request that a neutral Admin look into the case..... Thank-You....Peace....Adil your (talk) 12:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no evidence of 3RR violation. Calling someone a troublemake is not incivil if the person is actually a troublemaker. In addition why this is a reliable source? Ruslik_Zero 12:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
[1] I think you mean this source which I think is reliable :-) 86.153.128.250 (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I do not trust "unnamed former intelligence officials". And yes, It was an "unnamed official", not Holbrooke, of course. (You should read the first comment to this article). Ruslik_Zero 14:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
This was conveyed to indians in there meeting with some american officals one to two mon ths back I don't remember the source.yousaf465'
And calling my edits as rubbish... Isn't that uncivil when they are backed by 26 refs... And what about his reverts.... Plus he tried to recruit ReagentsPark to start editing the page I was editing... What was that, isn't this lobbying.... Kindly tell me, Where can I report him... Adil your (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Its called canvassing for support which is against WP policy just stay calm Adil you shall have justice soon enough 86.153.128.250 (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
FYI: the 86 IP is banned user Nangparbat. He's got a nasty habit of latching on to anyone who will spare a minute to listen to his rants. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
this article from a respected Pakistani newspaper sheds some light into the POV of some editors here. Curriculum of hatred. cant do much if this is what these guys get taught at school. Wikireader41 (talk)
I think wikireader you need to check this out How to Grow Pineapples and follow it. That will help. A type of wikilove.yousaf465'

Royal Mail Case

Just a quick note of thanks for the speedy GA review :). Ironholds (talk) 09:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

+

(moved to the user page)

Thanks. Ruslik_Zero 18:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps August update

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 215 articles were swept in July! We are currently nearly 80% done with Sweeps, with under 600 articles left to review. With 50 members, that averages out to about 12 articles per person. Once the remaining articles drop to 100, I'll help in reviewing the last articles (I'm currently taking a break). If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

HMS Endeavour

You must think I'm being deliberately obtuse, as you've now had to raise the "southern continents" and disease thing twice each. Sorry, it's not intentional :) The disease issue certainly deserves a note, will do in a few hours when I'm back where the references are. Euryalus (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Legal help

You have helped me detail legal issues in the past. Can you lend any assistance to the second paragraph at McDonald's_Cycle_Center#Details.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. While the article may not seem to be such an important topic it is part of Wikipedia:Featured topics/Millennium Park and the WP:CHIFTD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I added some information. Ruslik_Zero 19:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Good job with the article for the case. I have added a bit about a congressional report at the end of the article. If you have any quibbles feel free to change that part or just beef it up based on your expertise.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
FYI, you may be interested in commenting at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/McDonald's Cycle Center/archive1‎.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Albert Levitt

I've started an article, Albert Levitt about the movant in Ex parte Levitt and who was involved in a surprising number of other things, from being a territorial judge in the Virgin Islands to running against Nixon in the California Senate primary. TonyTheTiger has suggested I talk to you, I think because the notability of Levitt has been challenged. Could you take a look and give me the benefit of your advice?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Rorschach test

Media circus has left town, I'd like to see how things go unprotected for a while. Do you mind trying it out? Or at least, set an expiry. I'm not a fan of indef semi especially on non-BLPs. –xenotalk 23:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It strikes me that there are ample admins with eyes on the page to take care of any actions against consensus.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Leda (moon)

Russ, How do I challenge a possible copyright violation at File:Leda2(moon).jpg? -- Kheider (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This image claims to be the 1974 discovery image of Leda taken by Voyager before it was launched in 1977. I am having trouble finding this image on a NASA site. -- Kheider (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been in contact with Palomar and they have confirmed that it is their image. Can you please help me write-up the permission for the Samuel Oschin telescope image File:Leda2(moon).jpg? (I have summarized it, but I do not know what permission tags to put on it.) -- Kheider (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

FAR

There is another FAR, not solar system, but I figured you might be interested. I'll leave this here and leave a note to Serendi. ceranthor 15:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Electron FAC

Greetings,

It has been five months since you expressed an interest in taking the electron article through for FAC. Since that time, the article has undergone further review and improvements. I would like to see it pushed through the FAC process again in the near future (if only to find out if there are any further issues that need to be addressed.) Would you object to me taking it through the FAC? Alternatively we can do it as a co-nomination, or I can wait some more if you were planning to push for FA soon. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Electron/archive2. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm currently in Thailand and have limited access to computers, so I won't be able to do serious work for several days. But I still have Miranda on my to-do list, and will give Titania a look. Serendipodous 00:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I've given Titania a copyedit. Relatively pain-free. Good job! Serendipodous 04:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

About this guy you banned

Please take a look at his upload history, there's quite a substantial number of images he had scanned from copyrighted SBS Transit flyers and then claimed to be his own work. Just letting you know what you had missed out. --Dave1185 (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Joking or not

Re [2]. I may well be wrong, but if I understand the situation correctly then a key point for understanding him is that even where we would normally think he must be joking, he is not. Knowing (or believing) this might also help to keep expectations low. Hans Adler 23:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ruslik

Just wanted to thank you for your note welcoming me back last week. Haven't really embarked full time on editing yet, but I'm sure I'll see you when I do. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 09:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

FAC

Back at FAC after a prose overhaul, 1968 Illinois earthquake could use some comments, since you always have some that I completely miss. :) ceranthor 13:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I will review the article tomorrow. Ruslik_Zero 18:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, you are officially the most awesome person on the planet. (Step aside, Serendipodous :)). ceranthor 10:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Atmosphere of Jupiter

is Today's featured article. Please check adds there, in particular, I am worried by addition of 10 articles by one author to "further reading". Irrelevant question, why do you revert edits saying that Big Bang is merely a theory (Helium article)? Materialscientist (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Frank Fetter GA reassessment

Just wanted to drop you a line and let you know that I have tried to address some of the weaknesses you pointed out in your GA reassessment notes. Cheers, DickClarkMises (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Atmosphere of Jupiter

I noticed you made a change to the article above. Could you tell me why it was changed? Thanks! Vetgirl13 (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Vetgirl13

Because 132 km is depth (below 1 bar level), not altitude. Ruslik_Zero 19:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Admin assistance needed for page move

Can you help moving the page Ljungby, Sweden to Ljungby (which now is a redirect to Ljungby (disambiguation))? See discussion at Talk:Ljungby, Sweden. Thanks. --Skizziktalk 08:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to do with me

This[3] HarryAlffa (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

One edit a minute

You actually edited too fast for a new account. I restored your autoconfirmed status. Try not to edit with very high speed in the next day or so. Ruslik_Zero 18:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

One edit a minute is too fast for new users for what reason exactly? Gurch (talk) 11:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Can you provide a diff or, at least, the filter number? Ruslik_Zero 12:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
[4] Gurch (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
The limit is 9 edits per 300 seconds. I am not actually familiar with the basis for this limit. You'd better to ask the author of the filter—User:Dragons flight. Ruslik_Zero 15:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

HarryAlffa

I have started a sub-thread suggesting further action here. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think AN is the appropriate venue for discussing editors, at least from reading the page notices. When I went to post I was warned by a giant banner that individual users should be discussed at AN/I. Unfortunately the thread is buried and I don't think people are seeing it. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Rus

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I doubt you value these things, but I hope you'll value the message that comes along with it. You are incredibly helpful, work behind the scenes with much less recognition than you deserve, and constantly find time to help others with writing (for the most obvious example, 1968 Illinois earthquake). I wanted to thank you and I think this would be the most appropriate way. ceranthor 22:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Dennis Gorski

You are pretty good at finding legal case details. At the beginning of the Dennis Gorski political career, there is a legal case that may or may not be notable. Can you check it out.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

What was the nature of that case? Ruslik_Zero 08:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

AnimatedZebra

Ruslik, would you be able to help me further in fixing this wiki page: Baby, Come Over (This Is Our Night)? I added more info on the "False Positives" page: HERE. =D AnimatedZebra (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I assume that the correct title is "Baby Come On Over". "This is out night" is not mentioned in any source. Ruslik_Zero 08:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
However according to Wikipedia:Name#Other_specific_conventions_and_guidelines (see Music - Album and song titles and band names) prepositions should not be capitalized, therefore the correct title is "Baby Come on Over", which is the current title of the article. Ruslik_Zero 08:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

My problem has been solved now. Thankyou Ruslik! AnimatedZebra (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Filter 149

Hello. Check this please. Dy yol (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Is Mike Brown's blog a valid source?

Because I just had it stripped from one of my articles, even though it's been used as a source for other articles without any complaints. Serendipodous 18:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. More specifically, the Nibiru collision article. His blog is used to cite a refutation of one of the scientific claims, and also to cite Mike Brown's claim that Nibiru is the commonest pseudoscientific topic he is asked about by the public. Serendipodous 19:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Other people's comments

I just restored the comments you deleted. There was not a clear personal attack there, and people had already responded to them. Please review WP:TPO for guidance on what not to do with other people's comments. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

TfD

I'm not convinced by this closure, particularly as (1) there isn't a clear consensus there, and (2) there are still open questions. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

(1) No consensus defaults to keep, although I see a clear consensus to keep at least {{1x}}. In addition, can {{loop}}, which is a complicated template, be really used as a simple example in help pages? (2) What questions? Ruslik_Zero 08:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
A no consensus defaults to keep, but it is not the same as a clear consensus to keep. My understanding is that "used as an example" doesn't make a template immune to deletion (in fact, 2x and 3x were otherwise unused). As for {{loop}}, {{3x|a}} = {{loop|3|a}} - that wasn't hard. The keep reasoning was weak, and the numbers on 2x and 3x were 2 "keep, used in examples" vs. 2 "unused and redundant", which in my view is a "delete" result. During the debate, I asked exactly where and why {{1x}} was used, since it outputs its first parameter, unaltered, unformatted, exactly as entered, and therefore seems utterly pointless given we have conditional parameters. The discussion didn't look ready to be closed, and certainly wasn't as clear-cut as you make out. A relist would be more appropriate. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
For a person, who do not understand anything in parser functions, your example ({{loop|3|a}}) will be meaningless. In order to learn how templates work such a person needs simple examples, which 2x and 3x templates provide. These templates are therefore useful and should be kept. "used as an example" does not make a template absolutely immune to deletion, but still is a good reason to keep it. So, I disagree that the keep reasoning was weak—it was in fact quite strong. Ruslik_Zero 14:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
What exactly does {{loop|3|hello}} have to do with understanding PaerFunctions? 81.110.104.91 (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Loop can not be used to illustrate a simple point that when you place {{{1}}}{{{1}}} into a template it will repeat the first argument. A person, who wants to learn how templates work is unlikely to be helped by Loop template. Loop was not written to serve as an example, while 2x and 3x templates have significant educational value. Ruslik_Zero 15:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
That would be the case if it were being used to explain how templates work. However, it's being used to demonstrate crude hacks to do with spacing and newlines. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
"crude hacks"? I do not see any hacks—this is a standard help page. 3x is also used in Help:Template. Ruslik_Zero 15:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

re: Rollback

I shall do, thanks. --Île_flottante~Floating island Talk 13:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Spellcheck TfD closing summary

Hi, Ruslik0. In your closing summary for the Uw-spellcheck TfD, you wrote, "I think provide the best answer to the question of why this template should be deleted." Is there something missing from this sentence? I assume that there should be a username or diff link between the words "think" and "provide". Otherwise I'm not sure I understand the summary. --RL0919 (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 16:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Hi Rus, haven't seen you for a week or two. Hope it's all going well, I finally got a laptop. Anyway, I have two questions for you, what site do you use for scientific papers? Also, would you object to an RfA in late winter or early spring? ceranthor 23:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

(1) To search for scientific papers I use many sites. Among them are http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html and http://www.scirus.com. Google Scholar is also not so bad. (2) Do you mean your RFA? Ruslik_Zero 10:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, of course. ceranthor 11:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I have no objections. Ruslik_Zero 11:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that I have grown greatly maturity-wise since the last RfA, but I'm afraid that others wouldn't agree. I'm not trying to improve myself in order to become an admin, I'm just interested in having stronger relationships around here. ceranthor 12:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Planetary nebula

Seeing the work you did on Cat's Eye Nebula, I think that you might be able to help out on the above, which is at FAR. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I will try to do smth. Ruslik_Zero 09:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

International Space Station

Hello there! As an editor who has posted a comment in one of the recent Peer Reviews, GANs or FACs of International Space Station, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind commenting in the current Peer Review as to whether you feel your original comments have been dealt with, if you see any new issues with the article, and whether or not you believe the article will meet the criteria for Featured Article status. Any new comments you have would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks, Colds7ream (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Will review it tomorrow. Ruslik_Zero 18:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Cheers! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:Uw-tempabuse1 TfD

You closed this Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 14#Template:Uw-tempabuse1 while we were still having an active discussion, see [5] To be perfectly honest, I'm tempted to DRV this one as it is not quite as cut and dry as you made it appear with your close and this is much more of a "no consensus" at the point where you closed it than a "delete 3". --Tothwolf (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Miranda (moon).

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 03:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.

Titania

When are you planning on taking Titania (moon) to FAC? ceranthor 17:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Soon. Ruslik_Zero 17:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ruslik0. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Peer review/International Space Station/archive5.
Message added 09:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Colds7ream (talk) 09:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Earth's location in the universe

Hey Rus. Sorry about Miranda. Still plan to get going on it when I have the time, but things have been hectic. I was wondering if I could ask a physicist for help with something. I need a source to clarify this article's title. As someone at its ludicrous AfD noted, all locations are relative. I understand that from an extragalactic perspective, all positions are measured relative to the Cosmic microwave background, but I would like a source explaining that, if I'm right. Thanks. Serendipodous 13:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I will try to find something. Ruslik_Zero 13:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
So is Earth's location in the universe an OK title? Serendipodous 16:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is OK. Ruslik_Zero 18:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Apology and thanks

A quick apology: a few minutes ago, in article Nevado del Ruiz in attempting to revert an unsubstantiated anon-IP edit, I accidentally re-introduced some vandalism that had already been removed. Sorry. And thanks for fixing my slip. The item I was attempting to fix was an unsubstantiated anon-IP change to the time of the eruption, at the start of section 'Eruption and lahars'. Could you check that, please? Thanks. Feline Hymnic (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite protection of Gravitation

I don't know. Potentially the input from anonymous editors seems to outweigh the benefit of indefinite protection. Presumably the article is closely watched my many? 74.98.43.217 (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

...so much for idealism. I apologize for my naivete. Best, 74.98.46.129 (talk) 03:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

WT:CSD#Second opinion

Hi, you haven't replied to my response to you on WT:CSD#Second opinion. Please consider doing so. cheers, Rd232 talk 08:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect category deletion

It appears that you have deleted Category:Upcoming aircraft as a result of Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_July_28#Template:Future_aircraft, however, I can see no discussion on the category, and it is the incorrect venue for discussion of a category in any place. Can you please undo your deletion of the category, and if it needs to be renamed (to something like "Future aircraft") or deleted/merged, it will need to go thru the correct processes. Thanks, --Russavia Dialogue 02:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Administrator_instructions: If the template has a matching category that is not used for other purposes (...), delete the category as well.. Among the 9 remaining articles in category:Upcoming aircraft 5 had this templates, but were incorrectly placed in this category directly as well. 1 article was created after the deletion. So, we left with 3 articles that were in the category on 7 August, but did not have the template. This is an insignificant number.
On the other hand nothing prevents you from creating a special category for future aircraft and populating it manually, without a special template. Ruslik_Zero 08:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Congrats

On yet another well-earned FA! :) Serendipodous 09:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the revert. I did that by accident. Honestly I didn't know I reverted until I check my contributions. This sort of thing happens with me.--WillC 10:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Ruslik_Zero 16:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Derfflinger article

Are your concerns addressed here? Are you still opposing promotion of this article? Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

A Question in Optics

Hello, I had a question in optics and I think you are able to answer me, please. As you know, a spherical mirror is not perfect, and does not reflect the light in one point. I want to know what about lenses? Does a spherical lens refract the light in a point? And if not, what is the perfect shape for a lens? --Reza M. Namin (talk) 07:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No, a spherical lens is not able to focus light into one point. This is because of optical aberrations. And there is no perfect shape. You can use an aspherical lens to compensate for the spherical aberration and to reduce other aberrations, however, it is not possible to compensate for all aberrations with any surface. Ruslik_Zero 08:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for answering. I once did a ray tracing programming to find out the answer, then I understood that spherical lenses have aberrations. But after that, I could find a shape of a lens that could perfectly focus the light rays coming strait and parallel, in a point. I did this using a numerical method. But the problem was that this shape did not focus the light coming from a finite distance. Does the aspheric lens perfectly focus light from any distance in one point? And whats the formula f its surface? --Reza M. Namin (talk) 08:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I am afraid, but such universal surface does not exists. This is the same as with mirrors: a parabolic mirror will focus light coming from the infinity, however, you will need an elliptical mirror to focus light coming from one point to another point (and this elliptical mirror is different for different positions of the source and the focus). Ruslik_Zero 10:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you.--Reza M. Namin (talk) 12:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Article

I am thinking about bringing 1997 Qayen earthquake to FA, and I'm starting a prose rehaul. Would you mind checking for any important material I'm missing for the article? ceranthor 11:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

A section about future threats is necessary, I think. Ruslik_Zero 18:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I've been asked to review an FAC and I'll be out for about 3 hours after 24:00, but if you have any other ideas, post em. Congrats on Titania, btw. ceranthor 23:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I think a structure similar to 1968_Illinois_earthquake would be the best. Ruslik_Zero 15:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for those formatting fixes. I'm no good at template coding. ceranthor 20:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
It's now at FAC. Hope the FAC goes well. ceranthor 16:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Random note

Heh. Your Contributions list looks like our server closet. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of recessions in the United States/archive2

Ruslik, can you update your status on this FLC? Thanks for your reviews, Dabomb87 (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Planetary Nebula cites

Hello Ruslik0,

I see what looks to me a good way to handle multiple cites to the same source in an article. See Cat's Eye Nebula where the footnotes can call out specific page numbers and use harvard ref to the citation which is only given once. I like how each part is a link and the cite is page specific.

What do you think of doing likewise in Planetary nebula?

Thanks.

WilliamKF (talk) 22:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

45 Eugenia

Hi Russ,

Since you are an admin can you access the reason http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=45_eugenia-01.jpg was deleted from en.wiki? *IF* it is the image I think it is, I would think it would qualify under Non-Commercial use/Fair Use rules. -- Kheider (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted on 6 April 2008 as a duplicate of an image from commons (commons:Image:45 eugenia-01.jpg), which was also deleted on 30 July 2009 as no permission as of 22 July. Ruslik_Zero 20:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I restored it. Ruslik_Zero 20:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Assessed low-importance

Hmm...I wonder if you would change your mind about List of Earth-crossing minor planets if one of them actually hit? SpinningSpark 23:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If you think this list has a higher importance, you can change it. Importance rating is subjective. Ruslik_Zero 08:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to raise FT criteria to requiring 50% featured

Hi, there is currently a proposal to raise the percentage of articles featured topics need to have featured to 50%, from 1 September 2010, and as someone with a topic with less than 50% of articles featured, this change if passed will directly affect you. Any input on your part to the discussion, and opinions both for and against the proposal, would be most welcome - rst20xx (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:S-Sports

Hi. I put in a request for an edit to the mentioned template - Template talk:S-sports#Rugby Union header, similar to one you recently did for "Ultimate fighting championship". The editor that came across the editprotect doesn't seem to know what to do. Can you help? Cheers. - Sahmejil (talk) 13:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick help! Could you perhaps elaborate on why this isn't the logical place for it/what would be better? I am relatively new here and want to do things the right way. The template is used in places like the bottom of articles like John Smit and Richie McCaw with the heading "sporting positions", which doesn't really fit. Is there a better alternative? Should a new template be created? - Sahmejil (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
By not logical I meant that this templates lists sports, not positions. Ruslik_Zero 13:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

MFD nomination of User:HarryAlffa/ArbCom

Hello, this page has been nominated for deletion. You may be interested in participating in the discussion, located here. Thanks, GlassCobra 18:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Refs for 2012 phenomenon

I've been struggling with the refs for that article and was wondering if you knew of a way to make them consistent. Sorry to bother you. Serendipodous 15:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Right now there's a mixture of formats and styles and I was wondering if they could be made consistent. Serendipodous 20:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Once again, thank you. Do you think it's nearing FAC level or is there still a long way to go? Serendipodous 17:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I fixed the 2005 ref. Not sure which books are still not listed, and I have no idea what to do about the page numbers, since I didn't add those citations. Serendipodous 19:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Callisto field.jpg

File:Callisto field.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Callisto field.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Callisto field.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Jon Olick

I entirely object to deletion of my wikipedia article. 43,000 views on youtube, 32,000 views on ompf.org, 2 books, 2 patents, magazine articles on me, toms hardware, etc... The claim of non-notability is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonOlick (talk • contribs) 23:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hell, people I don't know have even cited my wikipedia article as to reference of me. http://forum.beyond3d.com/archive/index.php/t-49029-p-2.html JonOlick (talk) 23:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If I'm not notable, than neither are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Harris_(programmer) or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ratcliff or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciaran_Gultnieks or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_S._Harris or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Isaac etc.. etc.. etc... JonOlick (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Youtube, patents, ompf.org and books (if they are self-published) are irrelevant. Ruslik_Zero 08:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Patents are by definition self-published. Books? Searching "Jon Olick" in google books produced nothing. Youtube can not be used as a source for articles. Magazine articles about you? Can you give any examples? Ruslik_Zero 08:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
You should have followed the links in my Wiki page... Should have all been there.
http://developer.nvidia.com/object/gpu_gems_2_home.html <-- Book GPU Gems 2
http://www.gdmag.com/archive/sep09.htm <-- Game Developer Magazine September 09
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/voxel-ray-casting,2423.html
etc...
76.184.137.188 (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
1 and 3 just mention the name. It is not enough to establish notability. Ruslik_Zero 09:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
As for 3, the entire article is about me and my presentation! All the images and information they took directly from it!
The voxel thing was big. It was very notable. A simple google search will show its reach and applicability. http://www.google.com/search?q=Jon+Olick+voxel
The presentation was published by siggraph https://encore.siggraph.org/online/Siggraph/default.asp where 1000s of people attended my presentation. I was told personally by multiple people that it was the best and most talked about presentation of the entire conference.
The voxel presentation itself was also published separately by UCDavis -- http://s08.idav.ucdavis.edu/
My other book called Game Engine Gems is coming out in March '10.
I'm also CEO of a company!
And my position still stands that If I'm not notable than neither are well over half the other video game programmers listed on here.
18:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.137.188 (talk)
The article mentions Jon Olick two times. Carmack is mentioned more often. This article is about your talk, but not about you. CEO? There are millions CEOs in the world, majority of whom are not notable. Ruslik_Zero 19:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure, each piece on its own, but all of this together means nothing to you, but a whole lot to tens of thousands of other people. Also, good job at ignoring the argument of 50% of other non-notable video game programmers which are somehow magically notable. Cause thats obviously not legitimate. Notability isn't relative to the notable people already on there, its absolute to your standards and not the standards of wikipedia as a whole. Don't you think it might be possible that your in the wrong here? 76.184.137.188 (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
'Other staff exists' is generally a bad argument. Anybody can create any article. Ruslik_Zero 19:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Other stuff exists is not my argument. My argument is that your playing favorites. I didn't write the articles! Thats the whole point of wiki-pedia's notability rules. I passed those rules! Also, I counted and indeed Carmack is mentioned 9 times, and I am mentioned 4 times which makes the article approx 50% about me per Carmack. 76.184.137.188 (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
So, initially, you were ok as long as I had books which weren't self-published. Your not ok with this anymore? Why ask me to provide book sources when you were just going to discount them anyway? 76.184.137.188 (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
You have not provided any third party book sources. Ruslik_Zero 20:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
http://www.amazon.com/GPU-Gems-Programming-High-Performance-General-Purpose/dp/0321335597 76.184.137.188 (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
http://www.mypearsonstore.com/bookstore/product.asp?isbn=0321335597 76.184.137.188 (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
This book is about programming techniques, not about you (while you may be mentioned). Ruslik_Zero 20:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
So books must be auto-biographies in order to be ok with you? Cause thats not how I read the rules. To be an author, the book does not have to be about you. By that logic for example, JK. Rowling and vast majority of other authors wouldn't be notable as none of their books are about them. In summary, being an author doesn't mean that you have a book written about you, it just means that you wrote a book. 76.184.137.188 (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, yes, they changed the rules since I last looked at them. Those books alone would likely not be reason for notability. However I do believe that many people are now in notability violation. 76.184.137.188 (talk) 21:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
According to the rules, I am notable for Creative Professionals under "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique."and "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." 76.184.137.188 (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I take it you don't agree? I've done multiple technologies over the years that are impressive. The latest of which was the voxel technology which is about 5 years ahead of its time. That is pretty significant. Working technology which is 5 years ahead of its time working today, right now on hardware you can buy off the shelf. Nobody thought that doing the technology a year ago was possible, not even Carmack at the time. 01:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.137.188 (talk)
Certainly at the very least you can't deny that the technology deserves its own wikipedia entry. 76.184.137.188 (talk) 02:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Doing more research, what your doing is not unordinary and in any case it violates the non conflict of interest. So deletion is perfectly fine in my opinion. Never said I wasn't reasonable. However I have a question for you. Would it be a conflict of interest for me to write about voxel technology on wikipedia? I'd probably be one of the few people who would be appropriate to write it. Thats the question though, would it still be a conflict of interest? I can see a COI on writing a page about yourself, or your company even, however technology is kind of neutral in that respect isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonOlick (talk • contribs) 04:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
It will be OK for you to write about voxel technology in general, but you should not overrely on your own works. You should cite works of others too. Ruslik_Zero 06:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The books, patents, magazine articles, and obviously toms hardware article are all not self-published. JonOlick (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Not to mention the public talks I've given at many conferences with slides, videos, and audio recordings all distributed and published not by me. JonOlick (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

List of Map Projections

WRT List of Map Projections, surely this is not a likely search term? Going from lower to upper case is generally where a redir is needed. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Question on edit filter

Back on Oct 3rd, you disabled/deleted one of the edit filters (#175 for pioneer courthouse sockfarm vandalism), but I can't locate the reason (I searched the false positives reports archive and the discussions archive). Can you clarify why it was disabled? Was it because the vandal had found how to work around the filter, or were there other reasons?

If you prefer to not post the reasons here, my email address is attached to my user account. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not disabled the filter, I only marked it as deleted. The filter was disabled by User:Wknight94 a month before. The reason was that the filter was inefficient. If you want to re-enable filter 175 you should discuss this issue with the administrator who disabled it. Ruslik_Zero 08:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

EmoTrance

Please could I have the deletion of the EmoTrance article reviewed, as per my discussion here: [6]. Alex Charles Kent (talk) 13:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Rembrandt (crater)

Updated DYK query On November 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rembrandt (crater), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope

you realize you are insane. :P ceranthor 20:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Best of luck with your Arbcom run. ceranthor 20:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Ruslik_Zero 20:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Higgs Edit

Dear Ruslik0,

Thank you for correcting my erroneous edit to the Higgs boson page (which inserted a comment about a graviton).

Should we consider elaborating upon that point, stating something similar to the following "The Higgs boson is the only particle in the Standard Model not yet experimentally verified to exist" and then going on to say that the graviton is not a Standard Model particle?

Thanks again, and thanks for the consideration, 66.61.47.34 (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not think it is necessary to mention gravitons as they the gravity is not part of Standard Model. Everything related to the gravity goes well beyond any models considered in the elementary particles physics. Mentioning gravitons will only serve to confuse readers. Ruslik_Zero 20:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom speech

Hi. Can you spellcheck it as people will sometimes automatically oppose people who make spelling errors on the grounds of alleged lack of attention to detail or disinterest. I hope you win YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 04:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Minor planet moon

I would like to move the article Minor planet moon back to the page it came from. The move was made without a discussion. -- Kheider (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik_Zero 19:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Skinakas Basin

Hi, you moved Skinakas Basin to Skinakas (hypothetical basin), but there's a citation needed tag sitting on the statement that the basin doesn't actually exist. Do you happen to have one? I've looked around on Google a bit without success. Bryan Derksen (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not see any basin with a diameter of 2300 km on this map. Ruslik_Zero 08:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

World AIDS Day

I notice with this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_AIDS_Day&oldid=255363161 , you protected the World AIDS Day article after it was hit hard with vandalism on the days leading up to and during the event (Dec 1, annually).

If you review the article's history, you will notice that there is a history of this happening each and every year for the past two years, only to have the article be Protected after being vandalized.

I'm still kind of a noob here about some things. But perhaps you could pro-actively Protect or Semi-Protect the page now through Dec 2? Please advise.

38.109.88.194 (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I will protect it just before the day. Ruslik_Zero 17:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate that. The article has been protected on 3 separate occasions due to vandalism, which usually seems to appear this time of year. So your support is appreciated. 38.109.88.194 (talk) 07:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Japanese settlement in the Federated States of Micronesia

Hi, thanks for your suggested inputs. Give me up to one week to review through the article, as I am very busy with work as for now. In the meantime, I may drop by to reply to your suggestions and queries. Nevertheless, I look forward to working with you to improving the article. Tq! Mr Tan (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ruslik, I have added my inputs for this article. Do drop me a note whenever you are free or ready. Thanks! Mr Tan (talk) 10:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I need to move over a redirect

I need to move reptilian extraterrestrials to reptilians. Could you, please? Serendipodous 22:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :) Serendipodous 13:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Uranus template

Hi Rus, I figured I'd ask before I thought of removing it myself, but in the Uranus template under the Misc. section there's links to 2060 Chiron and 15 Orionis. What's the reason for this, if you know. Nothing it either article references any ties to Uranus itself. The best I can see is that Chiron has a very chaotic orbit which brings it very close at one point to Uranus'. SkarmCA (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks for clearing that up. I will leave 15 Orionis there and edit the page to make reference to it in the future. I will remove Chiron for the time being. SkarmCA (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

HarryAlffa indef blocked

Ruslik, I understand HarryAlffa was kind of following you around and pointing out your mistakes. He's been indef blocked for now by Georgewilliamherbert, and I thought you might like to know that. Good luck in the coming election (I wrote a voting guide here, if you're interested to see my comments). Best as always, ceranthor 18:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I already know. Ruslik_Zero 19:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused; can he still launch his ArbCom? Because I really would rather not have that hanging over me. Isn't there a limit to how long you can drag one out? Serendipodous 21:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
It is difficult to launch a case while being indefblocked. Ruslik_Zero 10:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
At the ANI Georgewilliamherbert said, "If he wants to take the pages and file them as an Arbcom case - if they take it, he can be unblocked to participate in that." So is it possible he could still launch it? Seems a bit unfair. Serendipodous 17:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes. He doesn't stand a chance of getting anywhere though, and usually they only unblock to let him participate in teh case and he can't annoy people on the general stuff YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 17:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Restore File:Pluto true color map2.jpg

Hello Russ, can you restore this file. It has been removed from commons. -- Kheider (talk) 06:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik_Zero 19:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Bmag vs Vmag

Russ, I was wondering if you could check the conversion at Talk:Messier_81#Brightness_Discussion before I run around the the brightest galaxies changing them from Bmag to Vmag... -- Kheider (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver

WikiProject Vancouver
You have been invited to participate in Operation Schadenfreude to restore the article Vancouver back to featured article status.

- Dear FA Team member, we could use your help if you're available. Mkdwtalk 06:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

African plate

Which dirction is African plate moving. Is it a north or east? What does it mean when a plate is moving clockwise. Is Africa platte just turning itself around or it is actually moving north. Pangaea Ultima said by 150 MYA Africa the south part will past the equator.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It is moving to the northeast. Ruslik_Zero 13:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

South American plate

Is South American plate just moving west or it is also moving a slight north. Because Scotese's blue Palomap shows by 50 million years source number 5 on Pangaea Ultima the orange line he drawn shows South American plate is also farther north besides just west.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It is unlikely. Ruslik_Zero 08:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Compare [7] with [8]. Then is Australia suppose to collide with Asia, or it suppose to approach Russia or it suppose to join back to Antartica after subduction locks?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
There are different predictions. Ruslik_Zero 09:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Halley's comet#Structure and composition

Sorry to bother you (again) but I'm having trouble locating sources for the final paragraph in that section. I was hoping you might have better luck given your Uni access. Thanks. Serendipodous 20:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

TFA

I just realized you are the significant contributor on both moons proposed for a January TFA, here; do you have a preference between the two? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

ISS FAC4.

Hello there! As an editor who has posted a comment in one of the recent Peer Reviews, GANs or FACs of International Space Station, or who has contributed to the article recently, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind commenting in the current Featured Article Candidacy with any suggestions you have for article improvements (and being bold and making those changes), whether or not you feel any issues you have previously raised have been dealt with, and, ultimately, if you believe the article meets the Featured Article guidelines. This is the fourth FAC for this article, and it'd be great to have it pass. Many thanks in advance, Colds7ream (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Nicholas Mayall FAC

Hello Ruslik0,

I'd love to get your copy edit help on the FAC for the astronomer Nicholas Mayall to which you contributed before. If you have some time, please come take a look and make any improvements you can.

Thanks.

WilliamKF (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your good improvements! WilliamKF (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Terzan_5

Updated DYK query On December 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Terzan_5, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hitoshi Sakimoto GAN

I believe that I've fixed everything that I could from what you noted in your review, and the article is ready for another look. --PresN 21:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hurray for your TFA

Mmmm, magnetosphere..

Kudos on the fine article appearing today on the front page! Have a donut. Scartol • Tok 16:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox Colorado War

Over at this TfD, you decided to delete Template:Campaignbox Colorado War even though there was essentially no debate. Shouldn't it have been close as a 'no consensus' due to the fact that there was extremely limited discussion? Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Item 8 of the administrator instructions says: There is no such thing as quorum. If after the normal time period, there are no objections to deletion of a template, it can simply be deleted. I deleted it because as a navbox it was useless with just one link. Ruslik_Zero 11:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

disappointed: supporting you was really the only reason I voted.

I voted regarding a small number of other folks, but my votes were very much in line with conventional wisdom, and were thus almost certainly irrelevant. Supporting you was really the only reason I bothered to vote at all. And I am very disappointed. • Ling.Nut 06:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

At least I am in the black. Ruslik_Zero 09:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
...and, relatively speaking, very close to the cutoff line. But what's done is done. Hope all is well! • Ling.Nut 11:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Drac and the Oort cloud

Thanks for the addition, but there now appears to be a slight contradiction in the wording of the section that I hope we can clear up. I think the implicit assumption is that Drac and its presumed cousins originated in the Oort cloud, yes? If so then we should make that clear, because the article now reads as if there are two possible sources for Halley-type comets. Thanks again. Serendipodous 04:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall. Best Wishes for the Holidays, Jusdafax 05:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

FA-Team revival

I've made a proposal to bring the FA-Team out of inactivity—with a mission a bit different than we're used to. This is just a generic note I'm sending to members asking for their input. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy 2010!

Happy new year Ruslik, and good luck with your edits here! Fotaun (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Sweeps update

Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 90% done with only 226 articles remain to be swept! As always, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. With over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 4 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. As an added incentive, if we complete over 100 articles reviewed this month, I will donate $100 to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps participants. I hope that this incentive will help to increase our motivation for completing Sweeps while supporting Wikipedia in the process. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Nudge...

...to keep this typo out of the Pluto discussion: I think you wanted to write "routine calculations", as per Wikipedia:OR#Routine_calculations. --Stephan Schulz (talk)

Aurora (astronomy)

I have started a thread about your unthinking vandalism to this article. [9]

Antarctic Plate

For a long time, I'm not sure what dir is Antarctic Plate moving. The article we have said it is moving to the Atlantic Ocean,or it is mivng to the Pacific Ocean. I beleive it is moving to thepacific, or it is moving counterclockwise, no showingof moving north yet, some guess is moving south, or it is moving to the southwest.--69.226.43.41 (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I can not move south because it is already at the south pole. Ruslik_Zero 17:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Part of it still can. The plate is blue part of the map. The part seperate Australia which is east half. West part of Antartica then furhter south would be unlikely. Antartica must be somewhat moving, is it likely to move east or is it more west. The plate must at least be doing something I thought.--69.226.34.161 (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment

Hey Rusilik. I just wanted to let you know that from what I've seen I think you are a fine editor and administrator. I was disappointed that you weren't elected to the Arb Committee. In fact, I find the election outcome a bit puzzling. But perhaps I'm not up on all the politics and internal workings of the project. Take care. Happy New Year. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Xavier bowl games

Hello there. I wasn't aware that "not very useful" is a reason to delete, especially when bowl game navboxes are a standard part of Wikipedia articles on college football programs. The template was originally nominated because it was orphaned, which was rectified well before the discussion closed. I wonder if you might reconsider your close. Best, Mackensen (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of navigation templates is to facilitate navigation between multiple related existing articles. This template contained just one redlink. There were neither multiple nor even existing articles [that needed navigation between them]. See more detailed analysis in WP:NAVBOX. Ruslik_Zero 09:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
See you at deletion review then. Mackensen (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've requested review. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 30#Template:Xavier bowl games. Mackensen (talk) 15:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Moving along on my circuit of Wikipedia's editing machinery, I've started a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Xavier bowl games. Best, Mackensen (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy Russian Christmas!

Best wishes for the new year! Serendipodous 07:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Order of battle at the Battle of the Nile/archive1

Hi, when you get the chance can you revisit this? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Invitation for review of FLC

Hi Ruslik0! Since you reviewed the List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings), I thought you might be interested also in List of National Treasures of Japan (shrines) which is currently a featured list candidate and in need of feedback. I'd appreciate if you have time to look over it and leave comments at the candidacy page. (The list is shorter than the painting list.) bamse (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

  • gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and
  • ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Mabuse Review

Hi Ruslik, I've replied to your review of The Testament of Dr. Mabuse article. Would you care to take a look at it again? Cheers! (PS: Your solar system articles are excellent!) Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, I think it's all fixed up now. Sorry for the simple goofs last time, my internet sort of died mid-edit, so I didn't realize I missed some things! As for the DVD commentary, I haven't been able to find a source for it other than renting or buying the DVD itself. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre

Hi. In looking through our latest WP:CCI, I discovered that the contents of the article Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre were merged without attribution into Nanking Massacre controversy and denial, here, with a bit more having been added with attribution [10]. We need the history of the article to attribute that text, particularly as some of it is still published there. It's a beast, however, so I don't think it's a good idea to do a history merge: we will never again tease out who said what where and when. :) I'd like to propose in the alternative resurrecting it, blanking it (with a note) and making it a subpage of the talk (since subpages aren't permitted in article space), with a note at the main article talk pointing to it for attribution. Before doing so, I wanted to check with you and see if you had any objection. I expect not, since it's simply for the history, but there may be factors of which I'm unaware. I'll check back. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not object. Ruslik_Zero 18:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. On the ball with this one, aren't I? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit filter question

As an administrator, do you think it's proper to give confirmed status to brand new users who're tripping the edit filter while making wholly legitimate edits? This is a general question, not specifically related to any of the recent false positive reports. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 20:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

In some cases it can be appropriate, although the autoconfirmation threshold is so low that such cases should be rare. Ruslik_Zero 21:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou

The articles Battle of the Nile and Order of battle at the Battle of the Nile have both now passed their respective FAC and FLC, and as many of the points raised in these processes were applicable to both articles I wanted to thank you for your assisance and support. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Though of course I couldn't have done it without you. I'll give Moons of Saturn a copyedit. I really only have two more articles that I think are within my capabilities: Miranda, which I promised I would do, and Discovery of Neptune, which must be completed, even though it will be murderously difficult. With those, and perhaps some of the remaining five Saturn moon articles, I think my Wikipedia jaunt will be finished, as I don't think there are any more articles that I can do. Serendipodous 20:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Northwestern University Dance Marathon

Hi Ruslik0, I was wondering why you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwestern University Dance Marathon with a result of keep. The users were evenly divided, so I don't think there was a consensus one way or the other.

Also, while only a fool would disagree with you that the "Chicago Sun-Times is a good source," WP:CLUB indicates: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead." The Sun Times is the local area's paper in this case. OCNative (talk) 07:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

  1. The AFD discussions are not votes. Their results are not determined by numbers, but by the strength of arguments. In this case the arguments of those who voted 'keep' were stronger.
  2. The main policy here is WP:V, which requires independent third-party sources. The existence of such sources were demonstrated. Conditions set in WP:CLUB are not necessary, but only sufficient.
  3. Sun Times has circulation exceeding 300,000, and is probably read well beyond Chicago and Illinois. This means that it should be treated as a global, not local source.
Ruslik_Zero 12:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Cat Intra-Palestinian Violence

I'm confused how Category:Intra-Palestinian Violence was deleted without consultation of those editors that I actually worked on created that category. And beyond that, intra-Palestinian fighting is not simply relegated to the Fatah-Hamas conflict. In the First Intifada Palestinians killed approximately 1,000 other Palestinians they deemed to be "collaborators." And currently in the Gaza Strip, Hamas and al-Qaeda inspired jihadists groups are fighting each other. Hence, I have recreated the page, which I apologize if it is a terrible breach of protocol-- but I still thought with any sort of deletion on this level the main editors/creator would be consulted.Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Like a Box of Chocolates...
... your contributions at Wikipedia:Featured Article Candidates during the month of January 2010 are greatly appreciated. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you think you could do me a favour?

re:Earth's location in the universe. Someone posted on the talkpage asking for information vis a vis the "isotropic/homogeneous universe" thing but I didn't feel qualified to expand it. Do you think you could add a paragraph to the lead? Thanks. Serendipodous 00:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Ruslik_Zero 05:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Henry II

Hi Ruslik- I saw your deletion and restoration of the Henry II of England article, and am just curious about what happened. Are there special circumstances when admins wipe out vandalism history? Thanks. Eric talk 19:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

In this case I did not like the edit summary: calling Henry II "THE BIGGEST PUSSY WHOEVER LIVE" (in all capital letters). Ruslik_Zero
Yeah, that was pretty weak. But then it erases that IP's vandalism contribution as well, doesn't it? I was going to put a warning on their talk page, but didn't because of that. Eric talk 21:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I do not need to do this, as the user who vandalized the article is blocked indefinitely. Ruslik_Zero 10:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Northwestern University Dance Marathon

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Northwestern University Dance Marathon. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. OCNative (talk) 03:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to be somewhat less active for a while

Because of unexpectedly high work load, I won't be able to maintain the 500/mo edit rate that I've been at since about October of 2008. In particular there'll be some days where I'll be away from early morning to late evening. The reason I mention this here is because for the past three months I've been trying to get responses to the submissions on the False positives page as quickly as possible, and won't be able to do that for the time being. Since you've been active there for a long time and have done some great things in response to glitches in the filter I'd appreciate if you could help fill the gap I'm leaving, especially during weekdays; however I assure you I will still check the page at least once per day even so. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 18:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I will help, of course. Ruslik_Zero 19:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you added "sysop" back into the code in a recent filter edit (on a publically viewable filter). Does "rollbacker" not automatically cover sysops as well? My impression was that usergroup checks would work even if they only match a redundant userright rolled into the admin package (there are some other filters that only check for "(auto)confirmed", for example). Does that trick work for confirmed but not for rollbacker? I apologize for the mistake if I accidentally wrote a filter that blocked admins but not rollbackers. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 13:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Every sysop is a member of the (implicit) "autoconfimed" usergroup. However sysops are not members of the "rollbacker" usergroup unless they are added to it explicitly. (You should distinguish between "rollback" userright and rollbacker usergroup.) Ruslik_Zero 14:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ruslik0/Archive_6&oldid=1091536243"