User talk:Boris Kruglyak

Speedy deletion nomination of Electronic Immortality
Hello Boris Kruglyak,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Electronic Immortality for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. MrScorch6200 (talk) 02:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Electronic Immortality
Hello, Boris Kruglyak,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Electronic Immortality should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Electronic Immortality.

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Green Cardamom (talk) 06:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Electronic Immortality
Please do not delete article “Electronic Immortality”. This direction is the most perspective in this field. I have a small experience in WIKI and poor English. Please help me to edit and improve the article. Boris Kruglyak (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)



A tag has been placed on Electronic Immortality, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate,. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Repost of Electronic Immortality
A tag has been placed on requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion  tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit |the page's discussion directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of recreating the page. Thank you. Green Cardamom (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=592259768 your edit] to Space elevator may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 0/g_0 is the ratio between the centrifugal force on the equator and the gravitational force. (Note: The first optimal cable of Space Elevator was developed  Alexander Bolonkin and reported in

Space Elevator
I don't understand what you are trying to say with your edits to Space elevator, and by making identical edits in three different places in the article, it's clear you aren't familiar with Wikipedia conventions. Please discuss what you want to say either here on this talk page, or in the article talk page before re-instating those edits. Thank you, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The monograph “Non Rocket Space Launch and Flight”. Elsevier, 2005. 488 pgs. ISBN-13: 978-0-08044-731-5, ISBN-10: 0-080-44731-7 .http://www.archive.org/details/Non-rocketSpaceLaunchAndFlight, http://www.scribd.com/doc/202159078/Non-Rocket-Space-Launch-and-Flight-2-nd-Edition , is the main book in this field in present time and contains the most detail information about this topics. But NO any reference in article about it. Author of article to not know the main book in this field. I offer to include this book in “Further reading”. But I have small experience in WIKI. Please help me. Boris Kruglyak (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I see you've added the pointer to Bolonkin's book in the "Further Reading" section, and that looks fine. The formatting of the entry could be better, see Template:Cite, I'll probably fix it for you later this week.
 * The edits I removed were separate, a statement about "developed the first optimal cable", which I didn't understand. Even if you demonstrate that Bolonkin had developed an "optimal cable" (whatever that means), stating that he developed the first one would require additional citation documenting that nobody else had developed such a cable before. If you have more questions, feel free to ask them here, I'll monitor your talk page for the next several weeks.
 * You may find some of the links below useful. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

New account?
Are you the same editor as ? Did you lose your password or something? If you are the same person, please choose one account and stay with it; it is good in such cases to post to the talk page of the account you will no longer use, naming the other account. Our sockpuppet policy does not normally allow editors to use more than one account, exceptions being things like security for editors with advanced permissions when they edit from insecure internet connections, and the alternate account must always be linked to the main account. If on the other hand you are a different person who sometimes uses the same computer, the policy is here; you should declare that you are a different person. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)