User talk:Ruslik0/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about 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 3

→

Hi!
Concerning User_talk:Ruslik0/Archive_4#domain_spam: I just want to be sure not to get blocked because of WP:WAR. So, is it ok, if I continue undoing this spam?
However, the abuse filter will probably come to en-wiki in a few weeks. The AF could help in coping with such spammers. -- seth (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It is OK. Ruslik (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:BLOCK, a block is supposed to be preventative, not punitive, and Dicklyon had already agreed to use the talk page in response to my warning. I asked for page-protection, and, while I was frustrated with his reversions, I had no intent to get Dicklyon blocked. THF (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I retract this. Immediately after returning the block, Dicklyon is edit-warring to add COATRACK language to William Timmons about a FOIA lawsuit that everyone else on the talk page agreed was irrelevant. He's done this four times in 36 hours, once with a misleading edit summary, even after I warned him that I was quite concerned about the slo-mo edit-warring contrary to consensus. undoing talk page compromise. THF (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

And two more reverts against consensus today to again add the same irrelevant COATRACK information that everyone on the talk page agrees violates policy. Notwithstanding your 0RR warning. He even held an RFC, and no one outside agreed with him. WP:TEDIOUS comes into play. THF (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have restored World Trade Center/Plane crash due to it not being tagged for deletion. You may want to check if other redirects listed at rfd that you deleted were not tagged properly. --- RockMFR 05:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The British Library finally managed to track down the reference book I've been trying to find for Magnetosphere of Jupiter. It's going to take a while to get to grips with but I should start making additions by the end of the week. Serendi ^pod ous 18:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's "Jupiter: The Planet, Satellites and Magnetosphere". You have an abridged version linked in the text. There are seven chapters on the magnetosphere alone. Serendi ^pod ous 19:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting it so quickly! cf38^talk 13:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm so sorry for the mess at Nevado del Ruiz. Hopefully Maralia will strike his oppose ASAP and it'll be over. That's if the world was heaven... Ceranthor 13:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Rather than delete the album information i painstakingly wrote out, the audiobytes for autobots page is still being created and therefore the album 2.0 is a link to the album by the artist —Preceding unsigned comment added by D-tailor (talk • contribs) 14:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping the editwarring by protecting this article/redirect. I would like to refer the merge question for broader community input, as I explained at User talk:EdJohnston#Broader discussion of merge. Would it be possible to restore it to an article and list it at AfD in article form as a way of deciding? If that's not feasible, what would be an appropriate forum to ask for broader community input, e.g. RfC or RM? There's already a poll-like discussion here. Thanks in advance for your advice. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice and for your cooperative offer. I'll take your advice and go with RfC, and I'll ask that an uninvolved admin, perhaps yourself, close the RfC after a reasonable period of time (e.g. 5 days after it's posted). I think it would be preferable for the page to be in the form of an article and unprotected during the discussion; I'll try to get consensus on this from the editors involved and if so then ask you if you would be willing to unprotect it. If that doesn't work out, I plan to encourage article development to continue during the discussion at Talk:Orthomolecular psychiatry/Temp. I'll propose draft wording for the RfC at Talk:Orthomolecular medicine#Merge from Orthomolecular psychiatry, and plan to encourage responders to the RfC to add their voices to the poll already underway there. Please let me know (in the discussion there or on my talk page) if you see any problems with these details. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Requesting unprotect of Orthomolecular psychiatry

You protected Orthomolecular psychiatry a week ago to stop edit warring over a merge without consensus. There has since been a merge proposal and RfC on the issue. The merge proposal was rejected by a reasonable margin (12-5, with good arguments on both sides) and the RfC attracted two uninvolved !votes in 6 days. Protection is hopefully not needed any more since the issue has been decided as much as it can be. Phil153 (talk) 10:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, can we close the RfC so we can wrap things up? Artw (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC is usually not closed but delisted (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs). Ruslik (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of the RfC tag would do the job. According to the text there that's generaslly the original editor, but in this case removal by an univolved admin was requested in the body of the RfC, which would be yourself. Artw (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ruslik0, I appreciate the time you've already put into this as an uninvolved admin. Editwarring over the redirect has broken out again after you unprotected the article. It might help if you clarify your close at Talk:Orthomolecular medicine#Discussion of result of RfC on merge with Orthomolecular psychiatry. Thank you.

I thought I had read a guideline or policy or instruction somewhere stating that one could post a request at AN/I asking for an uninvolved admin to close a discussion if the discussion is particularly contentious. Now I can't find that guideline. Anyway, Shell Kinney has closed at least one RfC at Talk:Chiropractic, so it's not a new phenomenon.

By the way, I just noticed that Orthomolecular psychiatry had been cut down to less than half its size in November by ScienceApologist after SA's first attempt to convert it into a redirect was reverted (3 times by two different editors). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your clarification, and sorry to bother you again, but as an addendum to my comment above: the instruction I was thinking of was Help:Merging and moving pages#Closing/archive a proposed merger which says "If the merge is particularly controversial, one may take the optional step of requesting closure by an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard." ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note that this sorry business is now under discussion at WP:ANI. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ruslik. You don't need to do anything in response to this message. I'm just letting you know that I've summarized the results of the discussions here. Since you had the special role of closer and since you marked your comment "Comment" rather than "Support" or "Oppose", I didn't count you when counting up the numbers of participants in each discussion. If you feel that your position should have been included in the totals or that there is anything else inaccurate about my summary, please feel free to either edit it, or to ask me to edit it. Thanks again. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, my position (because I was one who closed the discussion) should be counted as neutral. Ruslik (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm reading up on Jupiter's aurorae but I keep finding the phrase "ro-vibrational transitions" and have no idea what it means. Do you know? Serendi ^pod ous 14:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for you comprehensive explanation. I'm afraid this is going to be difficult for me to digest. Serendi ^pod ous 20:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

A lot of it's above my head. I have about three written pages of notes, but I don't want to start anything until I'm finished, which won't be for a while yet. I must plead patience, since I'm not a physicist. Serendi ^pod ous 09:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

R, I have explained the situation in some detail at Talk:William Timmons. If THF reverts my latest attempt to improve the article, can I revert him back without getting blocked? Or how do you suggest I proceed here? Dicklyon (talk) 04:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to him that repeating the same WP:TEDIOUS argument over and over on the talk page does not give him carte blanche to revert against consensus just because I didn't immediately reject the argument in three minutes? It is not the case that, once a decision is made, Dicklyon is free to ignore it and I have to go around and get the seven people who previously disapproved to reiterate their disapproval about COATRACKING material irrelevant to Timmons. Perhaps a topic ban is needed; this is remarkable chutzpah from an editor who seems to be relatively productive on other topics, but is extraordinarily disruptive on this one. THF (talk) 13:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, Dick was told to keep to 0RR on the article? He certainly seems to be making "unilateral edits" so I do not know how to count them. Collect (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

And now he is CANVASSing to get support to violate the 0RR restriction. What the heck? And I resent the personal attacks he's been levying against me. THF (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It would seem logical at this point that THF is the one to be blocked for disruption, as all he does is revert good-faith attempts to address objections and move the article forward. If he would say what's behind his repeatedly crying coatrack and syn, maybe we could address that, too. And by the way, I didn't ask DGG to intervene in the content dispute; but I'm glad he chose to do so. Dicklyon (talk) 07:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

So what now? Can I revert THF to restore DGG's version, or do you intend to enforce the 0RR suggestion with a block again? Dicklyon (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I advise you not to revert. You should ask DGG, if he reverts I would accept this (it is his version after all). Ruslik (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Advise? Should I take that as a block threat, or not? Dicklyon (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Lacking a response from THF to talk from me and DGG in various places, and lacking any clear indication from a non-involved admin that this could be considering to be edit warring, I've taken the article back to DGG's version. Please advise if you think I'm overstepping any reasonable bounds here. Dicklyon (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This dispute is remarkably WP:LAME, and I resent that Dicklyon is insisting that if I do not keep 24-hour watch over the article he seeks to WP:OWN, he will continue to edit-war and violate WP:BLP--even after he has been blocked twice for that very same edit-warring. I've made my position on the talk page clear, and not once has another editor addressed these basic facts, and there is no reason for me to repeat myself over and over, and it is inexcusable to claim that my refusal to play Argument Clinic gives carte blanche for edit-warring. I further resent that Lyon is making repeated and unfounded personal attacks against me on the talk page of the article. This is not acceptable behavior, and I refuse to waste any more time over it. If Lyon doesn't self-revert and retract his personal attacks, I want severe sanctions. THF (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Self-revert suggestion is moot, since you reverted again already to the lame version you own. And this is the second time you've mentioned personal attacks here without saying what you're referring to; if you'd like me to reconsider a comment or two, please point them out to me, here or elsewhere. And yes, I agree, you've made your "position" clear, but not the details that would support the alphabet soup in a way we could try to work on. Dicklyon (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've gone back through my Timmons talk page comments and edit summaries for the last few days, and can't see anything about THF that could be considered a personal attack; I did mention his outside life/affiliation as support for the idea that his edits support an outside POV, in a non-outing way since he's said he prefers to remain private after disclosing who he was, but all I said there was that an editor in such a position needs to temper his POV in his editing. If this is what he wants struck, I could do that. But if doesn't say, what should I do? Dicklyon (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Try 15:53, 13 March 2009, inter alia. If you're going to make me waste time going through the rest of your insults, then I might as well go whole-hog and open an RFC on your abusive editing. THF (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't find an edit of mine at that time; can you provide a diff link? Dicklyon (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's probably a time-zone issue. Did you mean my 1753 edit where I said "sounds like you're an attorney"? Or the 0753 "someone other than you right-wing operatives"? None of that was intended to offend or attack, but I admit they're a bit personal. Would you like me to strike out something as incorrect, too personal, or insulting? Dicklyon (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that you've protected the page, do you have any suggestions for what kind of dispute resolution process is likely to be helpful here? Maybe you could phrase a neutral RfC for us and try to get some outside opinions? Dicklyon (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I will think about it. Ruslik (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ruslik, I'm still trying to elicit some explanation of what these guys mean when they state that the paragraph violates WP:SYN and WP:COATRACK, but all they do is repeat, instead of explain. See new RfC: Talk:William_Timmons#RfC:_on_the_John_Lennon_deportation_attempt_memos. Since you had expressed some sympathy for their position, maybe you can help interpret it for me. Do you see any SYN or COATRACK problems? Or is the problem "relevance" as Collects says (though his attributing that to SYN now)? Or just "weight"? You had said: In essence, I think that the difference between all variants is small. However I slightly prefer THF' variant, because it does not put an undue weight on the position of Thurmond. In fact, the opinion of Thurmond is irrelevant—the article is about Timmons, not Thurmond. By putting a heavy emphasis on the opinion of Thurmond, you create a wrong impression that Timmons held the same position, which is not true (or at least there is no evidence for that). Timmons actually did only one thing: he transmitted a message from the Nixon's justice department that Lennon had been served with a deprtation notice. Timmons' role seems to have been fairly insignificant. It was Mitchell who made the real decision. As to the differences being small, I think you have to look at what THF has admitted he was trying to do: by making the paragraph about the opinion in an op-ed, he hoped to make the whole thing look like it should be disregarded. I'd prefer that we focus on facts, including leaving out the opinion altogether. I don't see any basis for finding the relative importance of the different people's roles, or of their motivations, which is why I had written the paragraph in terms of simple facts only, back in the Feb. 27 version (this diff) -- but I'd take out the ACLU bit from that, as it may be the case that these memos were among the docs originally delivered in response to the FOIA request, even before the ACLU got involved. As you can see from my contribs, I don't have much experience with political topics; but it seems odd to me that such a cabal of right-ring nuts should be allowed to censor things they don't like that are clearly from reliable sources and clearly relevant to the subject. I don't see how we can get back to a normal unprotected editing mode on this article. I've tried to get new opinions via RfCs, they they ignore the one new guy who showed up that way and and supported me (Jezhotwells), and they ignore DGG who came in with an opinion when I asked for advice.

So, I'm a bit stumped. I don't feel like it makes sense to walk away from such a travesty, minor though it may be. Dicklyon (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You can request mediation (formal or informal), for instance. Ruslik (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can try that; in my experience, it doesn't usually help, but since in this case there seems to be an actual communication problem, maybe it will. Dicklyon (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, now we've got a bit of an edit war started at the talk page, as THF hijacked the RfC to expand its scope after the discussion was underway. Suggestions? Dicklyon (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem was that Lyon violated WP:RFC by failing to phrase the issue correctly or neutrally. His strategy seems to be to relitigate this over and over and over and over and over until he gets the result he wants or the defenders of BLP drop away out of exasperation, including by creating a meaningless RFC that doesn't address the concerns of the editors who oppose his refusal to compromise. He ignored the third opinion, he ignored the fourth opinion, he ignored the compromise offered that every other editor accepted, he ignored the two blocks he got for edit-warring, and he ignored the first RFC. And now he wants to relitigate this again? How many times do I have to make the exact same point without Lyon addressing it before someone topic-bans him? No, I don't want to mediate this. I want Lyon to accept WP:CONSENSUS and drop the WP:STICK. THF (talk) 00:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ruslik, as you can see, I have made quite an effort to get them to articulate their problems with the paragraph in question, and I have proposed a new version (Talk:William_Timmons#Proposed_new_version) that addresses the complaints that have been made specific. I was hoping that we'd reach some kind of understanding before the protection expires, but THF and Collect have pretty much just dug in. I've proposed mediation (Talk:William_Timmons#How_about_mediation_then), and THF just says he won't "relitigate", which I tried to explain is not what mediation is about. I've asked him to phrase an RfC, but instead he complains about mine (Talk:William_Timmons#RfC:_on_the_John_Lennon_deportation_attempt_memos) and tries to hijack it in mid conversation. He tells me I've conceded when I haven't, that everyone is against me when they're not (note Jezhotwells, Dlabtot, DGG, and Teledildonix314 at least), that there is consensus where none exists, etc. He calls me tedious; there's a certain symmetry of feelings there, I think we can all understand. He and Collect seem to be embroiled in similar disputes at other pages, like the Drudge Report, so now people pissed off at them from there are coming to try to help, which isn't clearly all that helpful, but does signify a bigger problem. One bit of progress, though: I made it very clear how one can support a charge of violation of WP:SYN, and they haven't mentioned it since; so maybe we can hope they'll move on to saying just what is the actual reason they object to the latest version I proposed as a compromise. Anyway, just keeping you posted and seeking any advice you may feel like giving us all. Dicklyon (talk) 05:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi you recently closed this MFD. I think you forgot to delete these pages too:

User:21655/TSSCSET!/Final Stage
User:21655/TSSCSET!/Nope2
User:21655/TSSCSET!/Stage 2
User:21655/TSSCSET!/You win!
User:21655/TSSCSET!/The Star
User:21655/TSSCSET!/Nope4
User:21655/TSSCSET!/Nope
User:21655/TSSCSET!
User:21655/TSSCSET!/Stage 3
User:21655/TSSCSET!/Nope3

Thanks, --DFS454 (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This sounds strange, but I did not notice them! Ruslik (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

heh no problem, we all make mistakes :) --DFS454 (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you deleted my additions of verifiable information from reliable sources for NPOV.

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial; for examples and explanations that illustrate key aspects of this policy, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ.

Information suppression

A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. Such an article complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability but violates NPOV.Sophergeo (talk) 10:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE. Ruslik (talk) 10:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight does not allow one to suppress information from mainstream journals such as Nature and Science.Sophergeo (talk) 11:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I've responded to your objection. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I just spent an hour or so in an edit war, and when you get into an edit war it's time to reassess your priorities. I'll give Magnetosphere of Jupiter a copyedit when I get back. Serendi ^pod ous 07:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just to say thanks for your kind words at my RfA (-: Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could alter [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jupiter.Aurora.HST.UV.jpg] to show the Io, Ganymede and Callisto footprints. Also if you could add the main oval (the ring around the edge) and the polar emmission (the bit in the middle). Sorry I would but I don't have the tech. Serendi ^pod ous 17:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have and I'm going through it. I know you want me to start adding stuff and I will, but unlike other projects we've worked on, the science is way above my level, and I want to make sure I understand what I'm writing before I write it. Serendi ^pod ous 10:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It's great! I'll get going on copyediting the article today. Serendi ^pod ous 14:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, i'd like to thank you for "protecting" the article Mohammad Din Mohammad. Cheers -- Marcuslim (talk) 03:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Electron Are you still planning to bring this article to FA status? Ruslik (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping to at some point. Do you have an interest in taking it forward?—RJH (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have interest. Ruslik (talk) 09:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that would help as I haven't had much free time of late to do all the labor that is required during a FAC. You probably noted that I put a summary of the remaining issues on the talk page. I added some material to the Applications section to address the last two points, so there's just the two chemistry-related issues. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

==Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard#Incivil personal attacks from Malleus Fatuorum== Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard#Incivil personal attacks from Malleus Fatuorum. Thank you. Ipatrol (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikkidd. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 11:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd already asked for a CU, confirmed, with another account also confirmed. And some IPs. dougweller (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. However this user is not going to stop in any foreseeable future, and we are going to block a lot of socks. Ruslik (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No question about it. I've blocked a couple of IP addresses today (short blocks of course). dougweller (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

And 2 more just now, one I see you found and 174.34.141.38 (talk · contribs). dougweller (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering where Serendipodous had gone, and I see now the debate about the Pluto image was a problem. I apologize for this, as I was just thinking about the image and references, not people. I hope we can all work together. Fotaun (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason I blanked the page List of Zimbabweans by net worth was because both sources were forums. So I deleted the unverifiable material, which happened to leave nothing, and then requested deletion of the empty page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by God Emperor (talk • contribs) 20:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey - sorry for not getting back on track with Nevado del Ruiz - I was busy elsewhere (as you probably saw), but the socks are gone now. I'm going to take a quick slowdown from editing, but I'll be back. Drop a message here (I'm watching) or at my talk page if there's some sort of timeline on the FA candidacy, and I'll hop on to try to clean up some more of the article. Awickert (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no timeline, but this particular FA nomination has been running for a long time. Ruslik (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

All right. I'll try to get to it soon. Might just do it now. Awickert (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, forget it. Why stop now? (I just made a bunch more edits.) Awickert (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I need to thank both of you, and Avenue. It now appears that yours and my hard work have not gone to waste! Thank you so much :) Ceranthor 20:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

So what do you think I should do about List of Zimbabweans by net worth. It's clearly as good as a load of tripe. God Emperor (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:AFD. Ruslik (talk) 04:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I saw that you're interested in astronomy, and have some expertise in the area of featured articles. Would you be interested in reviewing 243 Ida? Wronkiew (talk) 06:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I see you temporarily semi and move-protected this article until sometime in April. I think the temporary semi-protection is a good idea, however, the move-protection should probably be changed indefinitely to sysop level, as there will be no valid reason to move article with prior discussion. Cheers. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)}^{• I'm watching this page so just reply to me right here!} 07:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles are not protected preemptively, and I do not see any move war. Ruslik (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you be so kind to make some suggestions to improve the article at: William Carpenter, Providence Rhode Island? I am still a newbie and I would really appreciate the input.

John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You should find reliable third party sources. See WP:Notability. Ruslik (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.

I redid the sources, most are primary. It took a while.

William was an important member of the Providence community, the first of his surname to make permanent residence in America.

Any other suggestions before the article gets deleted? :-}

John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This article Chiang Kai-shek and Kuomintang and Republic of China frequently Vandalism by anonymous IP address, so I consider these article should be became full-protected or semi-protected for a long time. thank you. 59.105.23.41 (talk) 11:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

He wrote some four editors> I told him I disagree. Debresser (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Currently there is no vandalism. Ruslik (talk) 12:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe I have fully addressed all of your concerns with History of the Han Dynasty. Let me know otherwise.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I made a second response.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Since you have requested it, I will shorten some more picture captions. Thanks and cheers!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind if I hid our very long discussion in a collapsible box, like this one below?

More information Extended content ...

Extended content
Text, text, text,

Close

Just an idea.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not mind, but User:SandyGeorgia may be of different opinion. Ruslik (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Nevado del Ruiz passed FAC. You should add it to the majorly contributed to section on your userpage, I'd appreciate it as you pretty much brought it to FA standards, while I started that. Ceranthor 21:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've done a preliminary copyedit. There are a few niggling issues I have left:

The magnetic field within [the inner magnetosphere] remains approximately dipole, because contributions from the currents flowing in the magentospheric plasma are small. In the middle and outer magnetospheres (further than 40 R_j) the magnetic field is not dipole, and is seriously disturbed by its interaction with the plasma.

Which plasma is this? The plasma from Io, the plasma from the Sun or the plasma from Jupiter?

This refers to the equatorial plasma sheet, and to the radial and azimuthal currents in it. Ruslik (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I need to clarify, 1 million K is relatively cool compared to what?

20,000 ev, what is that in K? I think the short answer is, "A lot", but it would be nice to have a figure.

1 ev is about 10,000 K. Ruslik (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

...because the magnetodisk creates an additional pressure.

Pressure on what?

It creates additional pressure (in addition to that of the magnetic field) that resists the pressure from the Solar Wind. Ruslik (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What exactly does "subsolar" mean?

A point at the line Jupiter-Sun. Ruslik (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Is "direct current" direct as opposed to alternating, or is that just a term used specifically for that current on Jupiter?

No, it is not DC current. It refers to the current flowing from the Jovian ionosphere to the magnetic sheet. Ruslik (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't really mention the Io flux tube until the "Transport of Plasma" section. It should get at least a short introduction in the "Role of Io" section, and it should be explained to the layman what exactly a flux tube is.

I will do this tomorrow. Ruslik (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"potential drops" is a bit vague, does that mean the loss of potential energy via the release of kinetic energy?

Potential drop means here the voltage (the difference in electric potentials) along magnetic field lines. Ruslik (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I'm something of a classicist and prefer to keep my Latin plurals Latin. :-)

"solar wind magnetic field" probably should be "solar magnetic field"?

Technically this field is wind's field. However it like Solar wind originates in the Sun and can be called Solar field. Ruslik (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, kilometric radiation is KOM, hectometric radiation is HOM and decametric radiation is DAM.

Yes, you are right. Ruslik (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the article needs a bit of historical information added, in particular the role of James Van Allen and his discovery of Earth's radiation belts, and his prediction that Jupiter would have far stronger radiation belts, and his role in the Pioneer program, which confirmed that prediction, and how its confirmation nearly derailed the Voyager program. Also I think more info should be added about the radiation belts. After that, I think the article will be finished. Serendi ^pod ous 19:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There should be also sections about interaction with rings and satellites, and about radiation hazards for spacecraft. Ruslik (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I intend to. I have some books on reserve but won't be able to get at them until next week. Serendi ^pod ous 14:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

the planet's rings and small moons seriously affect its radiation belts by absorbing high energy particles (energy more than 10 kev). This creates noticeable gaps in their spatial and angular distribution...

Are the gaps in the rings/moons or in the high-energy particles? Serendi ^pod ous 07:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll do what I can to help, but I'm not sure how much help I'll be. I've concluded that magnetospherics is not my strong point; I tried to get my head around Jupiter's magnetosphere and completely failed, which, given that getting that article up to code was my idea in the first place, is more than a little embarrassing. The solar wind article is already pretty good, and has a lot of useful information, so it might be somewhat easier to work with. :-) Serendi ^pod ous 07:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey mate. I believe I have addressed all of your concerns at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/GRB 970508. Would you mind having another look / berating me for completely misreading the source material? :) Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thus far, you have 101 listed reviews. For this very impressive and appreciated work, I hope you enjoy this award and display it proudly. لenna vecia 04:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, although in the past several months I was not especially active in Sweeps. Ruslik (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

haha. That's okay. You still did an impressive amount of work, and you helped put a big dent in the list. لenna vecia 14:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

You recently deleted an article I initially started but did not complete for Unified ECM. The writer told me that she was still in the process of working on it and putting in references, but it was deleted before they had finished. They made sure to follow the instructions and after I reviewed it, I saw no blatant advertising in it. When looking at the other articles referenced by document management, most of them all look like they're clearly blatant. Just one for example, Documentum has the following on their article...

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (January 2009)

This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources (ideally, using inline citations). Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2009)

This article is written like an advertisement. Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view. For blatant advertising that would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic, use to mark for speedy deletion. (January 2009)

In other words, why is the article on Unified ECM treated any differently? Why was it marked for speedy deletion instead of the other warnings above. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckeye31177 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You probably misunderstood. I did not delete the article because it was a blatant advertisement (criterion G11), but rather because it was an article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject (see A7). Ruslik (talk) 03:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If you were not planning to take the Electron through FAC in the near future, would you object if I ran the article through the PR process again? I would like to see if there is any more input to be had. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

According to sources I've found, Jupiter's magnetosphere "wobbles" about its axis because its magnetic field and axis of rotation are differently aligned. However, Jupiter's magnetic field tilt isn't that different from Earth's, so does Earth's wobble too? Serendi ^pod ous 15:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I read that in a book the other day. But I'm also pretty sure that Earth's magnetic north pole is in the northern hemisphere, or compasses wouldn't point north! Serendi ^pod ous 15:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to say that Earth's magnetic north pole points south, we might want to go into some detail on that, just to avoid confusing people. Serendi ^pod ous 20:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That shouldn't be too hard. However, I may not have Wolverton's book; I have it on reserve at the British Library and I am currently visiting my brother in the country, so it may have been returned before I get back tomorrow. Serendi ^pod ous 19:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Amazed; I finally managed to get back to the BL after the Easter holiday and, strangely enough, the book was still there. So I added a line. I've also expanded the lead a bit, but really there isn't much else one can say, apart from breaking a few paragraphs. Serendi ^pod ous 16:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

In the case of Temazepam, you blocked for IP vandalism based on a hunch, based on a false and malicious user report. Don't do that again. You didn't investigate the truthfulness of the report. 70.137.165.53 (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this...I had a link in there because I don't know if a random reader will know what an "infobox" is. What do you think? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ruslik0. Would you be interested to bring this article to FA status? It seems to be quite comprehensive in my opinion, but some of the references still need to be filled out. Black Tusk (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not mean to do anything to cause you to withdraw the nomination. I just am unclear about a lot of the terminology and feel the reader might also be. The article is really nearly there.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. FAC is an incredibly picky process. Why not withdraw the withdraw?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You may be right after all. I actually was in an incredibly bad mood in the morning today (it is not related to Wikipedia). :-) Ruslik (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you should unwithdraw the nomination before they close it out and give it a go.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I have done this. Ruslik (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Mr.Ruslik0 , This article Chiang Kai-shek now frequently Vandalism by anonymous IP address, so I consider this article should be became full-protected or semi-protected for a long time. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.105.23.162 (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You Deleted the page Hacker Halted under the Speedy Deletion criteria CSD G11. While I do not have a copy of the page to review, When I wrote the article, There were not many third party refernces to add to the article, but I do not remember writing it in a manner that was consistant with G11, and i've seen my share of G11 canidates. I would like to ask you to undelete the article so I can review it and we can go from there. Thank you for your time. Sephiroth storm (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Hacker Halted added a long new section to it about the future conference in Miami, which was obviously promotional (it included contact details and specific language like "Hacker Halted USA 2009 is proud to have world renowned security experts comprising..."). Taking into account that this section was longer than all other sections combined, I deleted the article. Well, if you think that the conference is really notable, and the article can be rewritten in an encyclopedic style consistent with Wikipedia editing guidelines, I am ready to undelete it. Ruslik (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you make a userspace copy for me? I'll go and see if I can make a good article from it. Thanks! Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you still planning to get those featured? Moons of Saturn is pretty much done. Not as sure about Oberon, but it looks pretty good to me. Are we finished with Magnetosphere of Jupiter? If so, do you want to go ahead and nominate it? After my relative failure with that article, I think I need to go back and get an FA of my very own. I think I might adopt a moon, maybe Miranda or Mimas. Serendi ^pod ous 21:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I have. And I will get to it soon. Thanks BTW; there's enough info there to get at least go GA level. I barely understood half of what I read in trying to get to grips with magnetospherics, so I don't know how helpful I'd be in clarfying the page. Serendi ^pod ous 13:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hope you guys don't take this as butting in, but I think Oberon could use a bit of copyediting. I've started; it just needs a little mechanical cleanup. Ceranllama chat post 19:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You could probably add the magnetosphere infobox to Earth's magnetic field. Serendi ^pod ous 13:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I responded to your comments here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Economy of the Han Dynasty/archive1.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I have responded to your comments.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This user helped promote Saxbe fix to featured article status.

This user helped promote Saxbe fix to the main page as Today's Featured Article on 6 March 2009.

I am recognizing you for being one of the many people who came together to improve Saxbe fix as part of its development which has resulted in its WP:FA and WP:TFA status.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Ruslik0 , This article Chiang Ching-kuo now frequently Vandalism by anonymous IP address, ( just like Chiang Kai-shek ), so please protect this article right now. thank you. Eeeeeewtw (talk) 12:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm curious as to the regex you've used in filter 93 as I am also having some issues with link spam in summeries on a wiki I'm involved in. If you could email me the edit summery part of the regex that would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah still interested. Thanks «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 00:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there a difference between Jupiter's magnetic field and Jupiter's internal magnetic field? If so than I think it should be clarified. If not, then it probably doesn't need the heading. Serendi ^pod ous 17:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think then we need to create an intro paragraph for the structure section, saying something along the lines of "Jupiter's magnetic field is composed of a number of different components, the largest of which is the internal magnetic field, which is generated by fluid motions in its core. Other major components of the field include..." Serendi ^pod ous 19:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, great job. Now I have another question. :-) First, is the interplanetary magnetic field mentioned elsewhere in the article, and second, is it the same as the heliosphere? Serendi ^pod ous 19:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah. OK. I think I get it. Thanks. Serendi ^pod ous 19:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Rus, please check your email. Serendi ^pod ous 15:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I feel a bit better now. :-) Serendi ^pod ous 17:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am contacting you because you have contributed or expressed interest in the GA sweeps process. Last month, only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process with 163 articles reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

All exempt articles that have reached FA status have now been moved to a separate section at the end of the running total page. I went through all of the members' running totals and updated the results to reflect the move. As a result your reviewed article total may have decreased a bit. After removing duplicate articles and these FAs, the running total leaves us at ~1,400 out of 2,808 articles reviewed.

If you currently have any articles on hold or at GAR, please consider concluding those reviews and updating your results. I'm hoping that this new list and increased efforts can help us to increase the number of reviews. We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you know of anybody that can assist please direct them to the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, will get an award when they reach that mark. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I had a couple of questions regarding some recent edits made to the Electron article.

You removed the following statement: "With high probability, a molecular system will contain pairs of electrons in localized regions of space." Personally I thought this sentence was informative for the casual reader, and it was properly cited, so I'm not clear why it was removed.
- I removed the first sentence because I do not understand what it means. Pairs of electrons are not strictly speaking localized in regions of space. If you are going to reinstate it, please, clarify the meaning.
  - That was how I interpreted the synopsis of the Bader et al (1973) paper listed in the Electron article references. Was I in error?—RJH (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
    - Thank you.—RJH (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The end of the sentence, "The chemical bond between atoms occurs as a result of electromagnetic interactions, as described by the laws of quantum electrodynamics" was changed to "...laws of quantum mechanics". Personally I thought the first was much more useful as an informational link. The quantum mechanics article barely covers quantum electrodynamics, so I'm not clear why this is an improvement. The QED article appears quite specific to electromagnetic interactions, whereas QM is much broader.

Thank you.—RJH (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting History of the Han Dynasty. This random IP kept adding a bunch of questionable and irrelevant edits. If you look at the talk page, he is not only extremely rude for no reason, but has yet to provide a single source to refute my sources (which I was generous enough to quote). He doesn't seem like a troll per say, but he sure is a borderline case.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Though I wouldn't use the term "congratulations", since I really don't think I've won anything. It's a bit like saying, "Congratulations, you survived the Battle of the Somme." :-) Plus, he'll be back. He always comes back eventually. I reffed most of the cn tags, though there are two I will need more time to track down. The biggest problem with the MagJupiter article that I see right now is that, while the difference between Jupiter's internal magnetic field and its other components is made clear in the intro to the "Structure" section, they aren't really elaborated on elsewhere, and certainly not in the structure section. If Io is a separate component of the mag field, it probably should be mentioned in the structure section intro, and some mention should be made of the other components in the structure section. Serendi ^pod ous 12:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the ref. Now all I need to do is track down whoever made the gas/ice/rock distinction. I have a strong suspicion HarryAlffa will return over that. And... here we go again.

Anyhoo, re: MagJupiter. sorry to belabour the point, but the lead in the structure section doesn't really summarise what's in the section. Are the other components to Jupiter's magnetic field in the dynamics section? If so we might want to think about a reordering of the article's sections. Serendi ^pod ous 13:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit comments:

These currents create the magnetic field that shields the internal magnetic field of Jupiter

Shield it from what?

The radial co–rotation enforcing currents are the source of the azimuthal component of the magnetic field.^[1]

This doesn't seem necessary, since it's discussed below.

Other than that, seems OK; however I don't really think I'm qualified enough to go any deeper.

BTW, could really use your input over at Talk:Solar System. Serendi ^pod ous 11:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, like I said, I'm out of my depth. :-) Serendi ^pod ous 13:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Query: isn't most of the Hydrogen/helium in Saturn and Jupiter liquid? Serendi ^pod ous 13:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that's sorted. Wow. I think I'm gradually turning into a 70-year-old woman, constantly poking you with my cane. :-) Serendi ^pod ous 13:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll give it a run-through. I'm a bit surprised that you started it actually, since I thought you wanted to stay away from Saturn for now. Serendi ^pod ous 21:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ruslik0 - i've left you a few thoughts to chew over at WP:FAC/Oberon. Mostly pretty minor, though there's one or two which might require a little bit of work. Hope that helps (as if making more work ever helps!) Grutness...wha? 07:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ach - forget it - I see from the article history you're on to it! Grutness...wha? 07:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added a small stubby article on opposition surge so that the Oberon article doesn't have a redlink. I'd appreciate it if you could check it - I suspect your knowledge of astronomy's greater than mine! Grutness...wha? 08:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've brought this article to GA, I'm trying to get it to FA but some prose help would be appreciated. :) ceranthor 15:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think it was near FA, now did I? I appreciate that source, it'll help a lot. ceranthor 23:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for trying to fix Template:@@. Unfortunately the {{{2}}} does not get expanded inside the <span ...> tag. As you observed, the #tag:span doesn't work either (but #tag:ref does, though!). Do you know a way out? Do you know where I should look for one? All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 10:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

USA PATRIOT Act, Title III has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Cirt (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

USA PATRIOT Act, Title III, Subtitle B has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Cirt (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Можешь, пожалуйста, переименовать {{WPSpace}} в {{WikiProject Space}} (нормальное и стандартизированное название)? SkyBon^{Talk\Contributions} 14:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Done Ruslik_Zero 19:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Great job! I'll be getting onto Ariel soon. I've been avoiding Solar System-related topics recently, for reasons I hope are fairly obvious. Serendi ^pod ous 05:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Congrats from me, too - good work! Grutness...wha? 07:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Ruslik (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Nominate Magnetosphere of Jupiter? :-) Serendi ^pod ous 19:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh good. :) I just found out I'm one behind on my FA nom count. Serendi ^pod ous 19:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 396 articles were swept in May! That more than doubles our most successful month of 163 swept articles in September 2007 (and the 2 articles swept in April)! I plan to be sending out updates at the beginning of each month detailing any changes, updates, or other news until Sweeps are completed. So if you get sick of me, keep reviewing articles so we can be done (and then maybe you'll just occasionally bump into me). We are currently over 60% done with Sweeps, with just over a 1,000 articles left to review. With over 40 members, that averages out to about 24 articles per person. If each member reviews an article a day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. I know that may be asking for a lot, but it would allow us to complete Sweeps and allow you to spend more time writing GAs, reviewing GANs, or focusing on other GARs (or whatever else it is you do to improve Wikipedia) as well as finish ahead of the two-year mark coming up in August. I recognize that this can be a difficult process at times and appreciate your tenacity in spending time in ensuring 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) 18:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

From this site update June 1, 2009 said sun is actually losing mass right now, earth and all planets is actually mving further apart by 20 cm/year. When sun gets bigger, than our hydrogen depletes, changing to helium, gravity and mass keeps wearing out, this is why sun expands. But how will sun get friction to pull earth down and swallow it? Then what type of tidal force is that? Have any studies change between now and last year about earth survive vs. engulf?--69.229.240.187 (talk) 03:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge nothing have changed since the last year. The Earth will likely be swallowed by Sun 7 billion years from now. The change of 15 cm/year is insignificant. Ruslik_Zero 15:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Dobroe utro ! Nashel nakonets astronoma. U menya davno ruki cheshutsya na GA delisting poloviny statei v , "Stars, galaxies and extrasolar objects" (v samom samom nizu v WP:GA). Oni vse proshli "GA sweep 2009", no cherez studenta-buhgaltera :) Ya poka chto vpisal tuda tags (i koe-gde rekommendatsii v talks) daby prostimulirovat' avtorov. Sovsem ne k spehu, no hotelos' by znat' vashe mnenie. S uvazheniem. Materialscientist (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I will look at them at the weekend. Ruslik_Zero 09:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

1968 Illinois earthquake has been sitting, stagnant, at FAC. Would you mind reviewing it, if possible? I know you are extremely busy, with Magnetosphere at FAC and everything, but I hope you can find some time to try and provide a review. ceranthor 23:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a query. ceranthor 19:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello sir, sir i have found that u have deleted my page plz.tell me the reason for doing so.....plz let me know —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayanbsinha (talk • contribs) 14:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Можешь, пожалуйста, разблокировать частично защищённую статью про шахматы? Она уже больше двух месяцев на полублоке. SkyBon^{Talk\Contributions} 21:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I advise you to ask the protecting admin. I am reluctant to undo his action. Ruslik_Zero 13:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

So we need to decide how this is going to work. Personally I preferred your old layout, but if it's not going to pass, we need to figure out what needs to be moved where. Obviously, if the section is going to be moved to the end of the article, then those definitions which occur at the start will have to be moved to another section. Conversely, if it's going to be kept at the beginning of the article, then it will have to be rewritten from scratch. So I think moving it to the end and moving the definitions would be the best solution. Serendi ^pod ous 06:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. Sorted. One thing, you should clarify how the interplanetary magnetic field is a component of Jupiter's magnetic field. (see Structure) Serendi ^pod ous 12:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Serendipodous seems generally busy, but he sees your talk page so I'll just post it here: are you guys planning to get Galilean moons to FA? It would complete the FT. ceranthor 17:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it will be a nice addition to the FT. Ruslik_Zero 18:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, what do you suggest for the article. It is already an overview of the sub-articles of the FT, so I'm not sure what else we can add. ceranthor 18:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The article lacks two important sections: 'Formation and evolution' and 'Exploration'. Ruslik_Zero 18:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to remind that 10 January 2010 there will be 400 years since the discovery of Galileans, so, the article is an obvious candidate for the main page. Ruslik_Zero 18:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Are we creating a featured topic or a textbook? :-) Still, if getting that article to FA is a must for getting the Jupiter topic off the ground, then fine. Serendi ^pod ous 22:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I just came here wondering why you guys and Nergaal hadn't brought it to FA. I'll copyedit again, I suppose. Nothing big, though. ceranthor 11:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't you notify the leading editors about Talk:Union Stock Yards/GA1?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I notified WikiProjects. Ruslik_Zero 18:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You did not put the proper template at the top of Talk:Union Stock Yards and thus it did not show up at WP:CHIAA, which is what I and many other editors watch. I have renominated it at WP:GAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What template? Ruslik_Zero 05:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi I noticed you have been pretty active on the AbuseFilter, and that you have done some good work, and first off, I wanted to say thanks for that. Secondly, I don't know if you noticed this, but nearly 10% of all edits are now hitting the condition limit. We need to cut back on filters in order to reduce this problem. I don't particularly want to cut down on filters again (I've done it twice before) and you will find every filter has an advocacy group. Anyway, if you would be willing to look in to which filters should go, that would be quite helpful. Prodego ^talk 07:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Eh I went ahead and did it. Let the complaining begin. Prodego ^talk 08:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

please tell me why my draft page for the peer-reviewed journal, Inquiry, was deleted - I've just signed up for Wiki and have never posted. Given we have a 45-year-old nonprofit health care journal, we're not here to make money but to circulate ideas.

Thank you.

Kevin Kane, Editor-in-Chief kevin.kane@excellus.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpkane2 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Because the draft looked like spam. Still I undeleted it. Try to make it look more like an article. Ruslik_Zero 14:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think priority one should be to finish the Jupiter topic. I still plan to get Miranda done. If we do get all five Uranian moons up, we might start thinking of a Uranus suptopic, which would mean revisiting Atmosphere of Uranus. I seem to recall that you said you had a lot of information on the topic that you couldn't include in the subsection. 08:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

So should we just nominate the Jupiter FT? Serendi ^pod ous 08:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

... for ...something ... I'm not sure what an autoreviewer is, but thanks anyway! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I crapped on your talk page - no excuses :( Totnesmartin (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, could you give a reason as to why you're supporting the proposal? As it is a request for comment, some clarification would be nice (even if the reason is obvious). Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Please could you explain why you made this edit. What was it about that that was not working? --G W… 06:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As I remember I checked one list and found that it did not work, but I was probably mistaken. I reverted it back. In addition, I do not like such "hacks". Ruslik_Zero 07:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't catch them all because there are several different naming systems. I put that in to deal with the ones that it can until I get a chance to go round and remove the tags on all of the pages. Thanks. --G W… 08:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have now removed the parameters on the talk pages themselves, and I have removed the "hack". --G W… 18:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. I appreciate you going back and changing the colour for me on the MfD that I closed last night. I had a moment of senility and used the AfD template and while I went back and changed "article" to "misc. page", I didn't snap to change the colour. Thanks again :), -T'Shael, Lord of the Vulcans 17:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. But why did you add the documentation template? Stub don't usually have them, and basicaly don't need them at all. Debresser (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought that in this case documentation might be useful. Ruslik_Zero 10:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 290 articles were swept in June! Last month was our second most successful month in reviewing articles (after May). We are currently over 70% done with Sweeps, with just under 800 articles left to review. With nearly 50 members, that averages out to about 15 articles per person. If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. This may sound difficult, but if everyone completes their reviews, Sweeps would be completed in less than two years when we first started (with only four members!). With the conclusion of Sweeps, each editor could spend more time writing GAs, reviewing at the backlogged GAN, or focusing on other GARs. 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) 18:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, its been more than a month or two later since our conversation about bring this article to FA class. I have also been recently interested in bringing List of Northern Cordilleran volcanoes to FL class, but I am less familiar with the featured list criteria. In my opinion, Canadian volcanism articles/lists are quite good for FA class because they are highly stable due to low levels of vandalism and editing. Why they do not get high levels of vandalism has always been a mystery to me. Anyway, if you are ready to bring this article, list or both to FA class, leave a message on my talk page. The Volcanism of Canada article is getting very lengthy and List of Northern Cordilleran volcanoes is quite broad. I will almost always be ready to bring any notable Canadian volcanism topics to FA class. Black Tusk (talk) 05:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Was this change discussed? The extension name and special page names remain the same, which makes the result of your change very confusing. Additionally, the abuse filter doesn't just operate on edits, so the new name is incorrect. Gurch (talk) 10:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

There were a lot of complaints, which were discussed on ANI and then on WT:AF. Ruslik_Zero 10:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The complaints stem from the filters preventing things they shouldn't, not from its name. If they only prevented vandalism, nobody affected by them would have reasonable grounds to complain about it. Changing the name doesn't fix that problem. Gurch (talk) 11:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you exempt my IP from these filters while I clean up the mess created by bot? The bot's articles have mostly been deleted, and the bot has has its authorization revoked, and I'm tired of being told my edits to clean up this mess are unconstructive. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 01:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I made an exemption for Anybot created content. Ruslik_Zero 08:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Better idea than the exemption for my IP, as yours also allows the other IP (who probably won't be back) to edit the anybot mess without running into having to click everything twice. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm curious about your addition of "shampoo" to the exception list of filter 46. Since the regular expression that searches for "poop" and variations starts with \b (regex for a word break), "shampoo" shouldn't be matched as a false positive. Since the inclusion of that word might cause false negatives, I'd like to know: have you seen any false positives involving "shampoo"? If not, I'd like to remove that entry. Thanks, {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 17:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ruslik0, I'm new to contributing and my first contribution deleted. It says: "it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia." I've checked some other examples and tried to do it in the same format. Could you please help me rolling it back to my userpage or full roll-back so i can edit it with your advises. Thanks Berkgun (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I see that it was already usefied by another administrator. Ruslik_Zero 04:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ruslik0. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic “current events” articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at Barack Obama that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=P6r2MmP9rbFMuDigYielAQ_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting... ceranthor 16:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I need academic citations for the following facts:

That the delta-V to get into Earth's orbit is 9.7 km/s
That a trip to the outer planets using gravity assists from Mars and Venus will take substantially longer than one that merely used enough fuel to travel there directly (obvious I know, but the GAR demands it)

Thanks. Serendi ^pod ous 12:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I will try to find. Ruslik_Zero 13:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I only hope it's enough to stop the article from being delisted. Serendi ^pod ous 01:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Great. That nightmare isn't over and now here's another one. Serendi ^pod ous 09:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ruslik0. I am relatively new in Wikipedia and have already fallen for an initiative like, the Summary article. Do you think it could be introduced in other project pages, not necessarily labour related? It's a really good idea and would improve accessibility to and usability of an article. What do you think? What can I do? Please feel free to respond on my talk page. Thanks in anticipation :-) Isiaunia (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you want me to do? Ruslik_Zero 18:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rus, I'm trying to redirect "Choy li fut" to the "cai li fo" page, but the Rusbot keeps switching it back to "choi lei fut".

Some of us are working a new "cai li fo" page to eventually replace the old poorly maintain "choi lei fut" page and wish to redirect it.

Is it possible to stop this from happening?

Many thanks, Huo Xin (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The last time User:RussBot edited Choy Li Fut article was nearly two years ago. So I do not understand what is your problem. In addition I am not the operator of this bot. If you have questions about the bot, please, ask the bot operator. Ruslik_Zero 15:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You just deleted the redirect page for the article Irish Film and Television Awards, which was Irish Film & Television Awards, citing "G8: Redirect to a deleted or non-existent page", which you can see is not the case. The main article has been in existence since January 2007. Could you please restore this since the awards are often printed with an ampersand? Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The page was a redirect to itself (WP:Self-redirect). If you you want, you can create a new redirect yourself. Ruslik_Zero 17:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert but happy-melon said

“

That is not strictly true: by removing 'autoconfirmed' from $wgImplicitGroups, it becomes visible (and hence assignable) in Special:UserRights. However, it is also still implicitly assigned by the software, so whether a user has the group is determined on a highest-takes-precedence basis; so it's still not possible to remove the permission in this way. And it also makes the group visible on Special:ListUsers, etc, which can be a bit of a clutter. Happy‑melon 13:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

”

the latter bit especially (about cluttered group with every user who lasted at least 4d/10e) seems to indicate it's a good idea to keep it separate. –xeno^talk 19:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I see you're in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to grant rollback requests; this is one such request please. I have understood the policy and will only use it for tackling vandalism. Thanks. PL290 (talk) 10:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Done Ruslik_Zero 11:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That was quick! Thank you. PL290 (talk) 11:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[1]

[Khurana13-1] [1]

[1]

domain spam II

Please unblock Dicklyon

World Trade Center/Plane crash

I got the book!

User:cf38/header

Sorry

2.0

Orthomolecular psychiatry

What is "ro-vibration"?

William Timmons

MFD

Neutral Points of View

Wikipedia_talk:Abuse_filter

I'm going on a short wikibreak

Thanks

Could you photoshop something for me?

Mohammad Din Mohammad

Electron

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikkidd

Image

List of Zimbabweans by net worth

Nevado del Ruiz

About above article

Request for peer review for asteroid 243 Ida

Requesting protection-tweak of T.I.

Help Request

William Carpenter

Help Request

FAC for History of the Han Dynasty

Yay us

Questions &amp; comments re: Magnetosphere of Jupiter

Re:Solar wind

FAC Revisit

Thank you for your participation in GA Sweeps

Question About Deletion

Electron PR

Magnetosphere wobble

Vandalism, based on a hunch

Design 1047

Volcanism in Canada

FAC

Hello, Request

Deletion of Hacker Halted

Moons of Saturn and Oberon

Hi Ruslik

Saxbe fix FA and TFA

Hello, Ruslik0

Filter 93

"Internal magnetic field"

GA Sweeps update

Recent edits to Electron article

Hi Ruslik

Thank you

Oberon

Gareloi Volcano

The @@ template

GAR for USA PATRIOT Act, Title III

USA PATRIOT Act, Title III, Subtitle B - GAR

Просьба

Congrats on Oberon

GA Sweeps June update

Earth is actually moving away from sun

Stars, galaxies and extrasolar objects

FAC

Plz.tell me the reason

Ещё одна просьба

Discovery and exploration

Galilean moons

Union Stock Yards/GA1

AbuseFilter

deleted draft page for INQUIRY journal - why?

Re: plans for the future

Thanks

Oh dear

Your !vote at Wikipedia talk:Full-date unlinking bot#Support

Your edit to Template:WikiProject Space

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't poke the bear (2nd nomination)‎

Template:Plazadesoberanía-geo-stub

GA Sweeps July update

Volcanism of Canada

Questions & comments re: Magnetosphere of Jupiter

"abuse -> edit"