This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Hello, I was looking through the list of adopters and narrowed the list down to you and a couple others with whom I think I would not mind working, based on interests and activity. Would you be willing to adopt me? Please see User:Paulmnguyen#Seeking wiki adoption – Paul M. Nguyen ( chat| blame) 14:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am willing to adopt you. Ruslik_ Zero 19:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. So how does it work from here? I know I can ask you questions when I have them. Do you typically let your adoptees "ride shotgun" on a GAN you're working on or reviewing? Or are you writing new content? I see you've been doing a lot of admin work lately, with some copyediting. Anyway, thanks for accepting! I'm usually online for about an hour some time between 23:00 and 01:00 UTC each day. – Paul M. Nguyen ( chat| blame) 20:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You are actually my first adoptee, so, I do not know how it works. I like to write new content, but now have less time for it. I may write something new in the near future. Ruslik_ Zero 11:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is one that I did a big restructuring job on when it was requested for copyediting a couple months ago. Recently, an editor added some content, his work concluding with this rev. As he indicated when I said the content looked good at a glance as far as copyediting is concerned (see discussion, another editor was likely to care about "his" article and I should soon see the conflict. It happened as he predicted this morning. I don't know if this constitutes edit warring or how it can be resolved; it seems that the two editors are aware of each others' views and prejudices with respect to the article and the topic, but they do exhibit at least nit-picky behavior when it comes to one or the other editing the article. How would you deal with this as an admin? Do they have it worked out reasonably? – Paul M. Nguyen ( chat| blame) 12:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I would do nothing at this stage, because there is no outright edit-warring. The dispute itself is not well defined. Premature administrative intervention is almost always harmful. Ruslik_ Zero 14:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Check out this development: Talk:Theoria#Wiki_hounding. One of the editors is trying to address what he constitutes a bad merge. What do you think? – Paul M. Nguyen ( chat| blame) 00:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I have restarted the above FLC because the consensus was unclear. Can you revisit it to ensure that your concerns have been resolved? Thanks, Dabomb87 ( talk) 02:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rusklik0. Could you undelete this and simply add a statement that you're withdrawing please? It will be closed down by a director and then correctly archived by Gimmebot. There's a lot of useful information in the FLC that shouldn't really be deleted. Cheers. The Rambling Man ( talk) 10:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, I don't understand why you would make this reversion. Please let me know what's going on. The Rambling Man ( talk) 11:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed all my contributions. Ruslik_ Zero 11:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Why? I think they benefitted the article. I will restore them if there's no good reason not to. The Rambling Man ( talk) 11:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I want to give others an opportunity to improve the article on their own. Ruslik_ Zero 11:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well I'm going to re-add all your changes because I think your reversion has made it worse. Cheers. The Rambling Man ( talk) 11:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I can understand if your hesitant to delete anything in the MediaWiki namespace (fear or otherwise), but it states in the instruction at WP:MfD that namespace is eligible and as User:Gavia immer has pointed it has been done before. So I don't see why the previous closure would still be valid. Nor protecting the discussion from further editing. — Dispenser 14:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Gavia immer is not an administrator, but undid an administrative closure, without even bothering to notify me. So, protection is appropriate.

As to the discussion itself. What you actually want to do is to change the first letter in the word "history" to "H". For such discussions there exists a special board. That this change can be accomplished by deleting the page instead of simply editing it is only a technicality. The deletion will replace it with a default message. So, I can say that it is not possible, in fact, to delete a MediaWiki message—it is only possible to replace it with the default.

I am also worried about the level of participations. Can really 3 editors decide what many thousands of others will see? Such a discussion needs a wider forum, where more people can participate. I suspect that only few editors knew that this discussion was taking place on an obscure MfD page. MediaWiki namespace contains such page as MediaWiki:Common.js, which I do not think should deleted via MfD.

The instructions on MfD page concern only MediaWiki pages that are not system pages. (It is possible to create a MW page with an arbitrary name.) The past examples you mentioned above were mainly about such pages. Ruslik_ Zero 17:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to undo the unilateral change by User:Patrick when he recreated the message with the lowercase "h". However, digging through discussion reveals he was actually doing it with two other editors. So yes, three editors can decide what many thousands of others will see ;-). Anyway, it would be helpful if you included that rationale in addition to your closing. Since the edit protected request let me MfD we should probably also address that somewhere, like the MfD instructions. — Dispenser 00:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You did not mentioned before that it was discussed on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). In this case it is even less appropriate to use MfD. You should raise this question on the same board where it was decided. Otherwise we will be going in loops: a change decided on Village pump is undone on MfD. In addition, the decision requires some expertise in CSS, which may be lacking in ordinary MfD participants.

Or, you can simply ask User:Patrick to undo the change—I noticed that he was not even notified about the MfD! Ruslik_ Zero 09:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Administrative disruption at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/MediaWiki:History short. Thank you. — Gavia immer ( talk) 18:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Your closure is being reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 October 23. Cunard ( talk) 06:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong? Why are you so stressed out lately? I remember you being an excellent contributor, but lately you have developed an extreme case of grumpiness. Are you ok in RL? Nergaal ( talk) 19:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I've made the requested changes in this article. Please see if they are satisfactory.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 15:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I kind of get the idea you think there may be unintended consequences if we delete the history_short interface override. If that's the case, why don't you just say that? I'd be interested to know if you do know of any. Gigs ( talk) 00:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Moist Vagina (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As you recently closed this RFD, would you have a problem with me turning it into a dab? Also, this section header looks mad funny is my contribution history. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 20:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I would not have any problem with you turning it into a dab page. Ruslik_ Zero 15:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ruslik0, WP:LINUX has it as a goal to get GNOME to FA status. We need to jump through the hurdles first, if I understand it right, first getting it to GA, etc (it was delisted). I'd like to kickstart this process on this article. I did a copyedit myself, and I can request a second opinion from the WP:GOCE when we're ready. What about peer review – where does that come into the picture? Thanks for your advice. – Paul M. Nguyen ( chat| blame) 00:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You do not need to go to GA or even to Peer Review in order to nominate anything for FA, although Peer Review is still a good idea. So, I suggest you go to Peer Review when the article is, in your opinion, ready for it. Ruslik_ Zero 13:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw you listed Moons of Neptune at WP:FAC a while go, so I wondered if you had opinions on this book? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Atmosphere of Triton and List of geological features on Triton should be removed but Rings of Neptune should be added. Ruslik_ Zero 20:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, can you take a second look at the above FLC? Thanks, Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of breastwork monitors of the Royal Navy/archive1 too. Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

As a regular at FLC, I'd like to draw your attention to ongoing discussion here about changes to the format of tables which will affect all existing FLs and all current and future FLCs. Your input would be welcome. Thanks for your contributions so far! The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not assisting with promoting this list to FL status. You recently opposed the list's promotion. Would you mind re-visiting the nominated page to see if some of your concerns have been addressed. Thanks! -- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 17:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 19:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Ruslik0, check out Wikipedia:Peer review/Shapley–Folkman lemma/archive1, which I recently reviewed. I'm a little too close to the article to give it a fair followup review now, and I think it could use another look. Thanks! What do you think of my review, by the way? – Paul M. Nguyen ( chat| blame) 19:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Will look at the weekend. Ruslik_ Zero 20:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you restore the history for the above page? It would be useful to see the article as it was in the past for reference and perhaps if the community decides the individual is notable.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 22:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik_ Zero 10:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 21:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Ruslik0, thanks for taking a proactive approach to ensure accounts with certain rights do not exist for retired users. However, I was wondering if you would be able to restore my previous rights, as I would like to return in full force! :) Let me know if I would need to re-request these rights again or if you would be able to restore them for me. Thanks again, Matthew Yeager 04:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik_ Zero 13:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you bunches! Matthew Yeager ( talk) 00:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You were kind enough to comment on the feature list candidacy of Order of battle of the Battle of Long Island. If you could revisit your comments (the list format especially has been through some changes), I'd be most grateful. Thanks! Magic ♪piano 03:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking, if I did Miranda and Ariel, would you be willing to do atmosphere and climate? Serendi ^pod ous 07:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would. Ariel is actually half-ready. Ruslik_ Zero 11:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Good! I'll get started on Saturday. Serendi ^pod ous 11:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I've done a quick workup on Ariel; let me know what you think still needs expanding. Serendi ^pod ous 17:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it needs more information about three terrain types ( Plescia) and possible volcanism ( Schenk). Ruslik_ Zero 18:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I've added everything of use from Plesca and Schenk. I've ID'ed the chasmata but I'm not sure what the valles are; are they the same as the ridged terrain? Serendi ^pod ous 21:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I've had a go at reworking it. Let me know if it makes sense. Serendi ^pod ous 11:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The section is not logically written. Ruslik_ Zero 13:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. In the non-reworked section, the grabens are defined and explained in the 4th paragraph, but mentioned in the first two paragraphs. Serendi ^pod ous 14:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

But in the current version three terrain types are described in three different places scattered all over the section. Well, there may be no way of writing it completely logically. You can either define what plains are and then say they occur on the floors of graben without explaining what the graben are or you can define graben and then say that their floors are covered with smooth plains without explaining the plains. Ruslik_ Zero 17:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

What I tried to do with the section was group each tarrain type into its own paragraph and have the opening sentence be the topic sentence for the entire section. If I've made any factual errors, I apologise. Serendi ^pod ous 18:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything else to do? Serendi ^pod ous 19:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably, not. Ruslik_ Zero 20:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

So should we nominate it? Serendi ^pod ous 21:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It is wise to wait a few days and read the text again. Ruslik_ Zero 19:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know: You forgot to delete Template:Short-Rationale after closing it at TFD. I have gone ahead and deleted it per your close. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 19:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not forget. Any template may be deleted only after it has been orphaned. This one is awaiting its turn. Ruslik_ Zero 19:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rusklik0, is there a protocol in place for organizing the cleanup and consolidation (merging & redirecting, etc) of closely-related articles? Would that normally be an initiative of an existing project or portal in that area? The constructive comments, including mine, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) roughly describe what I'm referring to.

I was thinking a page should be created to track our progress, facilitate discussion, and a template (could be userspace) could be created to notify visitors of the affected articles that such a cleanup project is under way. But where should that page(s) and template be located? I wonder if this is a common activity and how it is done. Thanks! – Paul M. Nguyen ( chat| blame) 03:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers. Ruslik_ Zero 19:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Would you be interested in forming WikiProject Jupiter? If so, please show your support by clicking on the link above!-- Novus Orator 23:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to do an RfC over Atmosphere of Jupiter, but I don't really know how. Where do I go? Serendi ^pod ous 20:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not think there is any need for RFC, at least not now. Ruslik_ Zero 20:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Though instruction on how to start an RFC are here. Ruslik_ Zero 20:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have to do something; the only way this argument can be resolved is if we attract new voices. It will never end as long as it's just you, me and him. Serendi ^pod ous 21:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone just recreated it again: The Great Red Spot. We need to take this to a higher level, or it will get out of control. Serendi ^pod ous 16:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The onus is on those who want the split to start any such discussion. Ruslik_ Zero 19:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

So do you want to redirect the new article? Serendi ^pod ous 20:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I want to wait for a few gay in case they want to expand it. Ruslik_ Zero 09:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The Great Red Spot hasn't been updated since it was created. Are you planning to redirect it? I would, but I'm sick of being the bad guy in this debate. Something has to be done about it anyway, since it begins with "the". Serendi ^pod ous 12:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for sparing my blushes. Serendi ^pod ous 11:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

		The Jupiter Barnstar
		For your long and continued improvement of Jupiter articles, a minor recognition courtesy of the Jupiter Taskforce Novus Orator 08:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The Ariel FAC has raised some issues that date from before I started working on it. I thought you might have an idea how to respond. Serendi ^pod ous 10:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hurricane Hink has raised some issues I can't check without reading the full citations:

• Some context would be good how far in the past that there might have been resonances. Also, explaining the uncertainty would be good

• "It might be produced locally from carbonates or organic materials under the influence of the energetic charged particles coming from Uranus's magnetosphere or solar ultraviolet radiation." - IMO, that sort of sentence should indicate who indicates the uncertainty. Saying "it might" isn't that helpful for an encyclopedia article]

Serendi ^pod ous 09:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hink still wants your long list of names, by the way. Serendi ^pod ous 21:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of the article Moons of Saturn know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on January 15, 2011 due to a special occasion, the tenth anniversary of Wikipedia. It will be featured as part of the today's featured list.

You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 15, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 ( talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch ^Talk and  C. 02:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping you would reconsider your decision [1]. The reason the redirect is bad is because it doesn't include a reason for the PD license required by the redirect target {{ PD-because}}. The reason the template wasn't on the redirect is that for some reason the redirect is fully protected. Kelly ^hi! 00:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean by "it doesn't include a reason for the PD license required by the redirect target". When using {{ PD}} you can include a parameter like with {{ PD-because}}, and the reason will be shown. PD simply acts as a shortcut for PD-because. Ruslik_ Zero 16:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your decision to move the page but not your decision to delete the subsequent redirect. Whether or not someone might use the mdash in a search, that is where the page existed before your move. We can not know whether or how many external links still exist to the old title. (Given the life of the original redirect, I would hope that it is small but we have no way to prove that point.) Speedy-deletion criterion R3 does not apply when the redirect documents a good faith pagemove. Rossami (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It existed for two weeks. So, the number of exlinks is most likely exactly zero. As to R3, you can read here that This criterion also applies to redirects created as a result of a page move of pages created with an implausible title. Ruslik_ Zero 16:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I've read R3 - I was part of the discussion that created R3. I know it's uses and it's limits. I agree that the likely number of external link is very small - but we have no way to prove it. I do not believe this was an appropriate use of R3. Among other things, my creation of the redirect was definitely not a typo - it was a deliberate act and a deliberate decision to re-document the pagehistory.
I should apologize, however, because I forgot to include a key part of my logic in the comment above. Use of the mdash is plausible if, for example, a reader is cut-and-pasting a phrase from another website while trying to figure out what it refers to. I strongly suspect that's how the page got created in the first place. Grammatical variants like this are an ideal use for redirects. Rossami (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

More likely the author simply misunderstood the MOS. All links with mdash found by Google go back to Wikipedia. Ruslik_ Zero 20:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I was wondering if I could get you to take a look at Talk:2006_SQ372#Orbital period? and provide any comments. I am hoping that my explanation is not too far off. Thanks. -- Kheider ( talk) 16:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:ReadVar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Re [2], a lot of the emails are about sourcing and BLP problems, but we also get emails from people who while comfortable emailing, don't want to edit. In this case it was someone who thought it was a mistake, and that the numbers were about the volumes of the planets - easy enough to fix by linking at least the 1st AU and then repeating the "from the Sun" for those who didn't notice it at Mercury. Anyone is free to undo or improve on the edit. -- Jeandré ( talk), 2010-01-30t13:26z

I think you may be interested in the this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lloyd R. Woodson (2nd nomination) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger ( talk • contribs) 07:59, 23 March 2010

You are invited to participate in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure which is expected to close in a little over a week. If you have received this message, it is because it appears that you participated in the 2009 AC RfC, and your contributions indicate that you are currently active on Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Things I need your help to correct:

• the troposphere, between altitudes of −300 and 50 km and pressures from 100 to 0.1 bar; - the minus refers to below the nominal surface yes?

  Yes.

I think a note should be added to that effect. Serendi ^pod ous 20:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Discrete bright tropospheric clouds are rare on Uranus, probably due to the sluggish in the planet's interior. The sluggish what?

  Convection

• The first spectra of Uranus were observed by eye - This seems odd; human eyes don't have spectroscopic capability!

  If you use a prism you can observe it by eye. Ruslik_ Zero 19:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Serendi ^pod ous 19:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I've given the article a once-over. Let me know if I've made any factual errors. Serendi ^pod ous 23:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

One thing I forgot to mention; there's a British/American English mix in the article ("centre" and "kilometers", for example). Do you want it Americanised or Anglicised? Serendi ^pod ous 12:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I prefer British. Ruslik_ Zero 19:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

One other thing; a while back when I was about to start Miranda, you gave me a winzip file full of scientific papers. Unfortunately, my computer had its hard drive wiped and I lost it. Since I'm planning to start work on Miranda soon, I was wondering if you could email it to me again? Thanks. Serendi ^pod ous 21:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I downloaded them a few minutes ago. :) Serendi ^pod ous 20:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.-- Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 01:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

When you deleted and moved Timothy, did you notice the many links at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Timothy ? Who is supposed to clean up the mess left behind when a major article gets moved like that? So for example, when someone used to wikilink Timothy, they now go to a dab page.

Perhaps part of the determination made at [3] should have been to clarify who is going to fix what gets broken. I like to saw logs! ( talk) 22:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not any problem that requires immediate action. The links will be gradually fixed. Some of them ( Tyszkiewicz_family and Connie_Conway, for instance) were wrong anyway. Ruslik_ Zero 13:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, since I am here, I have been wanting to propose a change to the Main Page of Wikipedia. Could you glance at my proposal and give me an opinion as to where I should place this idea (a forum, a talk page)? Comments welcome, but I want a large audience to go over this with me. See User:Uruiamme/Main Page proposal. I like to saw logs! ( talk) 22:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Before proposing this you should create a mockup version of the new main page (and of the Portal:Current events) to show where you are going to cram the new section. When they are ready, go to WP:VPR. Ruslik_ Zero 14:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

You have attempted to replace informative original text with less informative text. In future please GIVE YOUR VALID REASONS on the Discussion page, as I have. Do NOT VANDALIZE AGAIN OR IT WILL BE REPORTED!

( 142.161.202.241 ( talk) 03:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC))

You closed Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 15#Talk page as keep. Umm, did we read two different discussions? A couple people voted keep, several complained that the redirect is confusing, which is a vote against even if it doesn't suggest a course of action, and some voted to redirect to something else. I don't see how this qualifies as "keep". I'm not sure how much this matters in the long run, but I don't want people getting the false impression that the Wiki community supports the redirect as is, because they most certainly don't. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me 23:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Only opinions of people who proposed what should be done actually matter. I can not decide for those who are undecided. So, the fair reading of the discussion is that the current consensus is to keep the redirect as it is. Part of the problem was that you initially mistakenly thought that MediaWiki page was not in the main space. This probably confused some people. Ruslik_ Zero 09:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

So clear opposition doesn't count for anything? Keep is supposed to mean that the wiki community had a consensus to keep it as is - this isn't the case here at all. This should have been closed as no consensus. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me 16:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Opposition to what? To the redirect? It is quite meaningless to oppose redirects. Only one viable alternative was actually proposed—to retarget it to Wiki. However Black Falcon later explained why this idea was not as good as advertised. Retargeting to a Help page was not a serious option because cross-namespace redirects are generally discouraged. So, weighting all arguments the result was a rough consensus to 'keep'. (From the WP:deletion policy: These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy.) Ruslik_ Zero 19:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

wants to interview 3 members of the Solar System Wikiproject. Since there's only about 5 of us, I thought I'd check round to see who was interested. Serendi ^pod ous 20:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

What standard are you using to determine that there was consensus to delete some of the redirect discussions that you recently closed? How, for example, did you go from 1 keep opinion and 1 delete opinion (the nomination) in the Black Creek (Tonawanda Creek) discussion to sufficient consensus to justify deletion?

Yes, I know that we are explicitly not voting. I also know that administrators are allowed some discretion when weighing arguments and closing discussions. However when it becomes appropriate to exercise that discretion, the rest of us deserve a detailed explanation. (The long-standing standard is that a detailed explanation is appropriate whenever the ratio is lower than a two-thirds supermajority or when any opinion is explicitly discounted.) A one-word closure in a close discussion is grossly inadequate.

If you feel strongly about a case, express your opinion during the discussion. Please do not abuse the process during the closure. Rossami (talk) 03:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I disregarded your opinion because it made no sense. Indeed, it does not make sense to keep to a redirect to a wrong target, which can not be retargeted anywhere. XfD discussions are not votes, so after I excluded your invalid opinion, there was not impediment for the deletion left. Ruslik_ Zero 10:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

If you did not understand a policy-based argument (in this case, RFD#K1 - keep things with potentially useful history) or do not have time to educate yourself on the policy-based argument, then you should not be closing that particular discussion. XfDs are not votes but neither does a closer get to ignore an opinion merely because he/she disagrees with it.
Regardless, closing such a discussion without providing an detailed rationale for the decision is inexcusable. Rossami (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Please, do not lecture others about things that you do not understand. You opinion was meaningless and as such I ignored it. If you express the same opinion in any future I will ignore it as well. Ruslik_ Zero 19:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi; I'm not trying to lecture you (! as above), but more of a question about a CFD close: in this discussion, were the two votes really so convincing so as to cause this to be closed as "keep" rather than "no consensus" close? Of course I am biased as the nominator, but I find both keep comments so removed from what CFD is actually meant to accomplish so as to appear essentially meaningless in the CFD context. They both make comments about wanting the article to be moved, which seems to be entirely a matter for WP:RM, and no attempt has been made to move the article at all. (And if it was attempted, I think they would find that "W. V. Quine" is the common name.) I earlier asked User:Peterkingiron about his comment, and he just brushed it off by saying "sorry, I don't have any further information on this issue". Thanks, and no rush on this. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep !votes thought that it was the article name that was wrong, not category. So, they opposed. No conensus close requires a disagreement between editors other than the nominator. In this case it was a perfect consensus as everybody except the nominator opposed the move. Ruslik_ Zero 07:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

"'No consensus' close requires a disagreement between editors other than the nominator". I've never heard that before. Why would it be so? The nominator's opinion is as valid as any other editors, so you have to count it if you are vote counting. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Because otherwise there will never be a consensus in favour of "keep", as the nominator always supports own proposal. Ruslik_ Zero 08:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

But to find a consensus one doesn't ever need unanimity, as you suggest. When there are only 3 participants in a discussion, how can you just eliminate one from consideration? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I did not suggest unanimity. What you are proposing—to find "no consensus" if the nominator is for and two others are against and "consensus for the move" if all three are for—is unfair because means that the nominator has a tactical advantage. Ruslik_ Zero 12:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You said "Because otherwise there will never be a consensus in favour of 'keep'" (emphasis added). I thought the "never" implied that unanimity would always be required. ("Always" being the opposite of "never".) I've thought about it, but I still don't understand the "tactical advantage" business. All I'm suggesting is that you can't throw out the nominator's opinion when assessing a discussion. In this case, it was 2:1. Now, that might be enough for a consensus of "keep" in this case, and I'm not asking you to change it, but in the abstract I'm a little troubled that you said a "'no consensus' close requires a disagreement between editors other than the nominator ... becuase otherwise there will never be a consensus in favour of 'keep'". That just doesn't sit well with me, because if you take your words at face value, it suggests preferring commenters' opinions over the nominator's, when all should be on an equal footing. That may not be what you meant, but that's the way it has come across. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Nominator's opinion should not be completely discounted but it carries less weight (in my eyes). Nominator needs to persuade somebody else otherwise his/her proposal is not persuasive. Of course, all nominators tend to think that they are always right but only others can determine whether they are, in fact, right or wrong. Ruslik_ Zero 11:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If it's OK with you, I might start a discussion at WT:CONSENSUS about this issue. I have a hard time stomaching the position that a user's opinion carries less weight by the mere fact that the user was the nominator. For example, if the nominator's opinion was in harmony with core WP policies but all the other commenters' opinions violated these principles, it seems to me WP:CONLIMITED would obviously apply. In such a situation, it would be folly to automatically discount the nominator's opinion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Would that be OK with you if I did that and referred to this discussion there? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want you may refer it there. Ruslik_ Zero 09:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. My point will not be to criticise you or to cause trouble, I just want clarification on this issue and how a nominator's opinion should be approached as compared to those who comment on the proposal. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello! `I think your skills of multilingual ability and professional training in Astrophysics could be needed on two articles. Heim theory needs a trained Astrophysicist editor to look over it with a critical eye (I am currently banned from the speculative and theoretical physics topic otherwise I would help) and T-95 needs to be improved with content from the Russian Version (I do not speak Russian). If neither article interests you, that is fine, I just wanted to bring these to your attention. Thanks!--  Novus  Orator  05:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I will look into them. Ruslik_ Zero 08:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ruslik. There's a discussion about reviving edit filter 18 at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested, and since you most recently edited that filter (to mark it deleted), I thought I would request your opinion on that. Thanks, 28bytes ( talk) 16:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Ruslik, we think we've addressed your concerns at the FLC for List of battlecruisers of Japan. Cam ^{( Chat)( Prof)} 05:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello there. You should probably give the list another try. Nergaal ( talk) 06:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You can try if you want. Ruslik_ Zero 20:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

How long does the reviewer process take? I have been waiting for almost 3 days now,and a person who signed up to be one today,got it withing the next hour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkfireII13 ( talk • contribs) 17:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that you have recently blocked an IP address that had explicitly been used as a means for an indefinitely-blocked user to evade their editing restrictions. Meanwhile, a newly-registered user, Perk100 ( talk · contribs), has more or less admitted ( on multiple occasions) to being a reincarnation of the indeffed Perk10 ( talk · contribs), restricted for incivility concerns some months ago. This appears to me to be another clear-cut case of WP:ILLEGIT. Regards, Super Mario Man 17:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

User blocked. Ruslik_ Zero 17:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering whether administrator get paid for their wiki work? What about bureaucrats? What about stewards? What about researchers? What about overighters? What about checkusers? Pass a Method talk 16:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not know about researches, but all others are not paid. Ruslik_ Zero 16:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You might want to rethink your statement "If your goal is push this proposal at any cost, by insulting anybody who oppose it, I will make sure that it never passes and that appropriate measures are taken against you." It reflects badly on you, particularly as you are an admin and a steward. SilkTork * ^YES! 11:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand what mean "reflects badly on you". Ruslik_ Zero 12:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Your personalisation of the matter. Your aggressive and hostile tone. Your escalating the incident instead of cooling it down. Your taking the matters out of all proportion. Your intimidating threat. For example - how exactly will you personally "make sure" the proposal never passes, especially as it appears to have consensus. Such a statement gives the impression of a a man drunk on his own ego, and makes quite uncomfortable reading. That's why I felt it reflected badly on you. I had hoped that my comment would be enough for you to realise that in the heat of the moment you had said some inappropriate things. It happens. We expect it rather less of admins, and in particular stewards. But it does happen. When it does happen we like it when the person realises they have spoken in anger, and takes steps to put matters right. Making a mistake - especially in the heat of the moment - is not a big deal. What matters is how a person deals with their mistakes. You still have time. SilkTork * ^YES! 22:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way - I haven't watchlisted your talkpage (watchlisting people's talkpages is something I haven't yet got in the habit of doing - perhaps I will one day!). I came here again because someone emailed me regarding this incident. If you do wish to discuss this matter further with me, you are more likely to get my attention by leaving a message on my talkpage. Regards, SilkTork * ^YES! 22:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering; I'm working on 2012 phenomenon at the moment but I do intend to get Miranda (moon) up at some point.

Also, I was wondering if you could do a histmerge for me

• Formation of the solar system
• Formation and evolution of the Solar System

Thanks. Serendi ^pod ous 14:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I did histmerge. As to Atmosphere of Uranus, I think I will be able to this in April, not earlier. A fracture in my right arm makes it difficult for me to type. Ruslik_ Zero 15:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Oooh. Sorry to hear that. I was wondering why you'd slowed down recently. I hope it wasn't too bad :( Serendi ^pod ous 15:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but could you do another histmerge?

• Nibiru collision
• Planet X collision

I'm really bad at this sort of thing. Serendi ^pod ous 12:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik_ Zero 13:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ruslik, Why r u deleting my criticism of Lord Meghnad Desai? Ajaxyz ( talk) 02:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I already explained in edit summaries. Ruslik_ Zero 07:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Info contained in Criticism section is valid, relevant and non-repeatitive as it establishes Desai's dubious role in the sordid affair. Let the criticism stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.138.113.237 ( talk) 08:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Помогите заблокировать вандала. См. wikt:ru:ХАДАРКОВСКИЙ И КУЧМА. Кстати, куда лучше об этом писать? Сюда или на meta:Steward requests/Global? DonRumata ( talk) 09:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Лучше на meta:Steward requests/Global. Если очень срочно, то на #wikimedia-stewards. Хотя в этом случае я не знаю, чем могу помочь. Ruslik_ Zero 11:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for granting me the reviewer right. ~~ EBE123~~ ^talk _Contribs 20:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on April 3, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 3, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 ( talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 01:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC) }

A formal Request for Comment has now been started on this topic. Feel free to contribute; best, Ironholds ( talk) 19:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny ( talk) 19:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

that allows you to make an unsourced claim as long as it is self-evident or common knowledge (e.g., using radius to calculate the volume of a sphere?) Serendi ^pod ous 22:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:CALC Ruslik_ Zero 11:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I was curious if you or another bilingual editor could translate Classical liberalism and Classical liberalism (political parties) into Russian. Both lack a translation, and I think that, considering Russian's status as one of the major languages, it might be good to have this area covered. Thanks for the help on the tank articles.--  Novus  Orator  04:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I usually do not translate to Russian. Ruslik_ Zero 16:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I will look up another user. Thanks anyways.--  Novus  Orator  04:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I don't believe I've ever noticed you, before. Looking at your user page, I see you do interesting and useful work here (which is refreshing). fyi, you have a reply on meta. Sincerely, Barong 04:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Ruslik0,

I am writing regarding the recent submission of the article on the European Southern Observatory (ESO) for peer review. Ceranthor mentioned you have an interest in astronomy, and from your user page I can see you are an experienced Wikipedian who has contributed to a significant number of FA. I was wondering if you would be able to give a read through the article on ESO and let me know what should be improved for it to meet FA criteria.

Thanks in advance for your help, Barbara (on behalf of Lars Lindberg Christensen, director of ESO's education and public outreach department.) Lars Lindberg Christensen ( talk) 07:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I will review it. Ruslik_ Zero 10:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I look forward for your feedback. Bárbara (on behalf of Lars Lindberg Christensen ( talk) 12:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC))

I really want the editors of Exasecond and longer to get credit for Timeline of the far future, since they effectively wrote half of it. But because I didn't merge the page with timeline, I can't do a "mergedfrom" template. So I think the best thing to do is a histmerge. I'd really appreciate it if you could do that for me :) Thanks. Serendi ^pod ous 19:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid, this is a case when histmerge is undesirable. (See here). Ruslik_ Zero 19:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello there. Just a friendly note that I have re-created {{ Xavier bowl games}}, given that sufficient time has passed and the circumstances under which the template was originally deleted no longer exist. Best, Mackensen (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It still contains only one link. Ruslik_ Zero 18:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on June 28, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 28, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors Raul654 ( talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! ۞ Tbhotch ^™ & (ↄ), My comment was grammatically incorrect? Correct it! → Click here for terms and conditions 05:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see here and add your two cents. Thanks. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You recently opined here; this note is to advise you that this section has been closed in lieu of discussing each situation below the linked section individually. – xeno ^talk 16:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not rebute because your example was not sufficiently specific, but I
noted that other userrights may be required in this case: protect,editusercss
and edituserjs. Therefore this was not a proper remedy.

So perfect is the enemy of good?

If you are willing to concede that bureaucrats may sometimes require move-subpages outside the context of the RenameUser extension, is there a reason you are vehemently objecting to granting them the ability to do so? – xeno ^talk 14:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Please, provide a specific example when renameuser failed and required move-subpages outside the context of the RenameUser extension. In addition, common sense tells me that it can fail only when the user has a large number of contributions and therefore likely to have .css and .js subpages. So, even if a rename fails you will likely need an assistance of an administrator to repair it. Having move-subpages userright will not save you any time. Ruslik_ Zero 14:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any specific examples post-Feb 2011 in my move log, and I'm not about to go trawling through every bureaucrats move log to find an example. That doesn't mean it hasn't occurred and won't occur again in the future. Is there a particular reason you feel that bureaucrats should not be bestowed the move-subpages userright? – xeno ^talk 14:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

'No example' = 'no need'. Ruslik_ Zero 15:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Eclipses is up and running. It lists Solar System as it's parent project, so I thought I ought to let you know about it. The other active member is on a wikibreak so I've yet to get up to speed on a lot of things. I see lots of potential there. Thanks. -- TimL ( talk) 20:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey,

Saw this had slipped off of the main TfD page: it's closed, but there are still live transclusions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It is still in Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Holding_cell. Ruslik_ Zero 18:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ruslik0, Thank you for adding a small change in the way the Category was presented. As you see I have a problem with wikification. I lack the experience, and the text is still in HTLM. Help is needed and as soon as I understand what material I can add, or how to do things right, I will do it. Greetings, Kalaharih-- Kalaharih ( talk) 13:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I was beginning to think we were going to be stuck with that redirect forever! Absconded Northerner ( talk) 00:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I still don't get it since I don't see how it meets WP:RFD#DELETE 2, nor how it doesn't meet WP:RFD#KEEP 4 and 5, but eh. Guess it's one of those times consensus trumps policy, perhaps an RFC needs to be had on Redirect policy at some point since there are gaps between written policy and community consensus these days. Thanks for closing a bunch of RfDs recently too, it's been slow moving for some time. Regards, -- Taelus ( talk) 18:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hallo, as one of the major contributors of the article Solar flare I thought to write you. I'd like to have your opinion on this discussion. thanks in advance! -(Welcome back from holiday!) -- Dia^ ( talk) 12:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your deletions of some wrong redirects. :) -- Postoronniy-13 ( talk) 14:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

As long as they don't start spamming for India Today Group publications. -- Orange Mike | Talk 19:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Ruslik_ Zero 07:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ruslik0,

I just wanted to say thank you for your review of the Future of the Earth article. Although the article didn't receive any support, I still plan to try and address all of the points you raised. Regards, RJH ( talk) 16:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope the next FA nomination will be successful. Ruslik_ Zero 19:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi! thanks very much for granting me file mover privileges. -- Commander _{(Ping Me)} 19:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ruslik, I was wondering if you could comment at Template_talk:Infobox_planet#Proper_Orbital_Elements? -- Kheider ( talk) 19:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you think you might be able to play with the template for this? -- Kheider ( talk) 01:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, a favour to ask. Would you be able to add your thoughts to the discussion at Talk:Dwarf planet? Kwamikagami has been rewriting the DP article (as well as changing details in several related articles) to change how Wikipedia identifies what are dwarf planets. (Basically, moving away from the IAU as arbiter for what is officially in the DP category.) Whichever way it ends up, there needs to be a proper consensus as right now he is repeatedly restoring his material even while the topic is under heavy discussion. (Note that this is not a request for sanctions or blocks; I just want as much input as possible from regular contributors to the pages in order to resolve this.) Thanks in advance. -- Ckatz ^chat _spy 17:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Care to reconsider this TfD? Given the remarkably simple nature of the nomination (that the template, fully substantiated, simply completely duplicates the contents of the list article that was spun off from it) I can't see why the comments can't be evaluated in that context. Dirtlawyer1's absurd filibustering (31K of text altogether, in wikilawyering presented as such by an actual lawyer) was all over the place and I dread to think what'll happen if he thinks that's an effective way of blocking XfDs in future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I always think before closing any XFD discussion, and this is my final decision. In addition, the case was far from simple as the nominator did not conclusively demonstrate that the navbox in question violated any policy or guideline. Counter arguments were equally strong. Ruslik_ Zero 12:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a pity. Though I don't feel strongly anough about this particular case to take it to DRV, I certainly hope it doesn't lead Dirtlawyer1 to employ this tactic in future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

During the FAC for the Future of the Earth article, you raised the following concern:

There is one glaring omission in the article: the fate of the liquid core. Will it freeze sooner or later? How this will influence magnetic field generation, dynamical properties of Earth? Will this lead to changes in the plate tectonic and volcanism? What will be consequences of the loss of the magnetic field?

Unfortunately, I haven't had much success trying to find a forecast for how long a freeze of the outer core will take to occur. In one paper from 2005, the gist seems to be that a projection may be too difficult to model at that time, given the level of uncertainty.

I wanted to check with you whether you were aware of any studies I may have missed? I have tried to add in a paragraph based upon what I could reliably cite, but it may be difficult to go further without risking WP:SYNTH. Thank you. Regards, RJH ( talk) 21:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

[4] Ruslik_ Zero 11:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Regards, RJH ( talk) 15:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting my Wikimania 2011 user page. Hindustanilanguage ( talk) 08:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I need a template similar to Category:Date mathematics templates, only one that counts years and days until a future event. It will have to go up to at least 999,999 years from now, as I need it for Timeline of the far future. This will enable me to include exact dates in their own rows without having to update for eternity. Thanks in advance. Serendi ^pod ous 12:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You can use {{ Age_in_years_and_days}}. See example. Ruslik_ Zero 17:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! It's all tidy now. :) Serendi ^pod ous 21:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Please join (as admin) these two articles in one: St. Nicholas Naval Cathedral + St. Nicholas Cathedral (Saint Petersburg) :) -- Rave ( talk) 18:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I merged their contents and did a histmerge. Ruslik_ Zero 19:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you recently granted File mover rights to user Dssis1, I believe this user is misusing the tool, and figured maybe you could help. In their recent contributions, many of the renames don't follow File mover what should and what shouldn't be renamed rules. What would be the procedure in this case? Liamdavies ( talk) 13:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You should at least wait until the user answers to your complaint before taking any action. Ruslik_ Zero 18:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You've closed Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 November 15#Pakistani textbooks as Delete. The vote count was:

• Keep: 1
• Redirect: 1
• Delete: 3

That is no consensus situation. Please reopen and relist the entry. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 19:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Dmitri asked me on my talk page to look at this, I've chosen to respond here to keep discussion in one place. While the count is not really relevant I don't see a consensus in the discussion and would have relisted it myself. This is especially true regarding the Japanese textbook redirects, which were only added to the discussion a little over 24 hours before the close and attracted no additional comments.

Dmitri: I'm not going to reverse the closure myself, as reverting another administrator's admin actions before they've had a chance to respond is bad form at minimum and wheel warring at maximum. The correct thing to do is wait a reasonable time (at least 24 hours) for Ruslik0 to respond and explain and/or revert his actions. If he disagrees that his close was wrong, and after discussion you still disagree, the correct thing to do is to request a deletion review. It's important to stress though that you need to discuss it first. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification. Indeed, I was too impatient. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 20:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I see a perfect consensus in that discussion. Everybody except the creator of the redirect agreed that it was misleading. No suitable target was proposed (See the opinion of DGG). For instance, Pakistani literature is completely unrelated, and for Education in Pakistan 'textbook' is not a valid search term as the creator admitted himself. Therefore the only option was to delete the redirect. As to Japanese redirects, they were actively discussed as well (although they were formally added later) with the same result. Ruslik_ Zero 09:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

There were 4 redirects and only me in the thread (though my redirect was added a week after the discussion began and I posted my opinion). Also note that the creator of initial redirect in discussion (Pakistani textbooks) didn't step up, while three other redirects were added this week. And why do You count 60% for perfect? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 13:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You still created one redirect. So you are a creator of that redirect. And your math is wrong: all except you (80%) agreed that these redirects are misleading and thus harmful and therefore should be deleted unless suitable targets for them were identified. None were, so the only option left was to delete them. You should also know that xfd discussions are not votes. Their outcomes are determined by the strength of the arguments, but not by the headcount. Ruslik_ Zero 19:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ruslik0, I want to know the origin of the date you used to support the figure titled by scheme of Neptune's ring-moon system. Kind regards roufeng

What do you mean by 'date'? 27 September 2008? Ruslik_ Zero 09:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean to know the origin of the data (not date) you use to draw the figure. Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.208.113.94 ( talk) 04:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The sources that were used can be found in Rings of Neptune and Moons of Neptune articles. Ruslik_ Zero 06:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I see you're using a lot of {{ cite doi}}. There's a thread on my talk page about this: User talk:Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1#Cite doi. There's concern about them being vandal targets and this being a reason to not use them. I see them as very important to maintenance and consistency across topics (the solar system, in this case). I referred to Tethys (moon) as an example with 23 usages (mostly by you, I believe). I've also edited that with an eye towards getting the cite clutter out of the article text and into the reflist and references section. I think they should move further to using the short footnote template, as I did with one in my last few edits (Dones 2009). I'll be about for the next half hour, and then away for a few days. Comments on my talk welcome. Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1 ( talk) 23:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ruslik0. Sorry but I do not understand your closure of Category:Architects who committed suicide, and in particular that "Since the category is part of an established structure it would be better to discuss them all together". This already happened at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 3#Category:Suicides by occupation where the suggestion was to discuss each category on its own merits. Your closure thus creates a vicious circle. -- Elekhh ( talk) 03:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It is jusy my opinion. It may differ from that of the administrator who closed the previous discussion. Ruslik_ Zero 09:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It also differs from the majority of those in the discussion. This deadlock does not help improve Wikipedia, so I still don't see why the discussion was closed. -- Elekhh ( talk) 18:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It was closed because it had run for almost a month without any apparent consensus emerging. Ruslik_ Zero 19:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

That would depend on what you consider to be a an argument. Was it saying about Category:Suicides by occupation "There's no one-size fits all approach to this. ... Each one should be discussed on its own" and later the same editor saying "Keep as part of an established structure" a coherent argument? was the editor saying "It is not trivial; it is desirable. [...] one that the architects of horrible buildings should be encouraged to join" a reasonable argument? or "I can't ever see anyone [...] being happy that Wikipedia DOESN'T have that category." a convincing argument? Anyway, I understand if you will maintain your decision. I'm probably just frustrated having spent so much time on this. -- Elekhh ( talk) 20:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You should renominate them in the next year—consensus (or lack thereof) can change. Ruslik_ Zero 19:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I noticed you responded to a request by Dipankan001 at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/File_mover and wondered if you looked closely at the move log s/he linked. It's full of moves from MOS-compliant names to non-MOS compliant names. Two have already been reverted, and there are two more that need to be moved, too. -- Pnm ( talk) 20:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I hope that the user have learnt his lesson. Ruslik_ Zero 07:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This user has no idea what they are doing with files. Over half of his article moves have been against the Manual of Style and reverted. This flag is supposed to only be given to users who are very experienced with file policy and the normal page move button. At the time you granted him the file mover flag, he only had 4 edits in the file namespace. I just went through and finished his half done file moves. He forgot to correct the file name in the articles that use the image and CSD the redirects left behind. Could you please remove the flag until he has more experience in the area. Thank you, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Almost all the uploads listed here lack the required parameters, or fail one of the non-free content criteria. I do not believe that the user has enough understanding of NFCC to be entrusted with a userright that generally signifies knowledge and experience with the file namespace. → Σ τ c. 06:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I was surprised to see you give File Mover to that user in the first place, but I thought I'd give both of you the benefit of the doubt. However, at this point, I have to join the above in asking you to remove that flag due to the demonstrated incompetence of that user in the file area. (FYI, another user brought this up at WP:AN as well.) Swarm ^X 23:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

As it seems clear they have not, in fact, learned their lesson, I have revoked file mover status from this user. Beeblebrox ( talk) 02:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I expect you've noticed the updates I've made to Tethys (moon) and the ref= parameter of the doi templates it uses. I'd like to see more of this happen. At Template talk:Sfn#Question about when to use sfnRef I've asked about when to use shorter forms than say four authors. I'm also looking ahead at pages like Atmosphere of Uranus and believe ref=harv with some ref=sfnRef... would be the best approach. It would have to be done carefully, as some of the doi'd sources are used in a lot of articles. Could you look at Tethys and offer me some feedback? Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1 ( talk) 22:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that the updates are generally Ok. Ruslik_ Zero 18:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do more of same as time allows. Let me know if you have concerns or suggestions. Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1 ( talk) 22:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)