User talk:Ruslik0/Archive 7

February GA Sweeps update
Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 95% done with around 130 articles left to be swept! Currently there are over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 3 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. Per my message last month, although we did not review 100 articles last month, I still made a donation of $90 (we had 90 reviews completed/initiated) to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps reviewers. I would like to thank everyone's efforts for last month, and ask for additional effort this month so we can be finished. I know you have to be sick of seeing these updates (as well as Sweeps itself) by now, so please do consider reviewing a few articles if you haven't reviewed in a while. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Astronomy
I can't thank you enough for stepping up to the plate for this one. It really didn't deserve to be delisted, but it did marginally fall short IMO. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will try to finish with it by the end of the week. Ruslik_ Zero 20:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * On the basis of your efforts so far I'm going to close the reassessment as a "keep". I'm sure you'll address whatever's outstanding in your own time without the unnecessary pressure of a GA Sweeps review. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox organization
Thank you for making changes to the template:Infobox organization. I discovered only now that there is one mistake, which should be fixed to show the template properly. Namely, in the line "| data30 = " the number 30 should be replaced with 32. Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 11:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Beagel (talk) 11:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Fata Morgana (Sanctuary)?
Hey Ruslik. I've been trying to get the theatre/film/televison GAN backlog cut down a bit and was wondering, what's up with Fata Morgana (Sanctuary)? It appears to have been on hold for a while now... —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  04:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Typo in edit notice
I notice that the new edit notice for Edit filter/False positives/Reports contains a typo ... instrutions for instructions. A minor problem, but since people seem to take every opportunity to find things to criticize in Wikipedia would you be able to fix it?  — Soap  —  13:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ruslik_ Zero 13:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I fucked up
I checked yesterday and found that the guy I blew up at before going into my depressive spiral has quit Wikipedia. I didn't join this site to push other people off, but I don't know what I can possibly do to make good on what happened. I thought about quitting myself but realised that two people quitting wouldn't help move the site forward.  Serendi pod ous  15:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you mean User_talk:Spartaz, he retired for an entirely different reason. So, you should not worry. Ruslik_ Zero 16:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey
Hi Ruslik. Haven't worked with you in a while, are you interested in collaborating on an article? Resident Mario, Viriditas, and I were planning on working Kilauea up to GA, would you be interested? Maybe another article? I always enjoy working with you since you always turn up info I missed and I'd enjoy another collab if possible!  ceran  thor 01:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, that second sounds interesting... how about we work on this weekend?  ceran  thor 21:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That works too. I was talking about the second one, lol.  ceran  thor 21:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have off due to snow, so I worked a bit on Elbrus today. I'm planning on finishing up Cerro Azul (Chile volcano) and sending it to FAC, but I need a bit of information first. Do you think you could find anything else for the article? Such as wildlife? If you could add it or send it to me, that would be awesome!  ceran  thor 15:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Or if you have access to Volcanes de Chile by Oscar something-or-other (here, I believe), could you try to add some info to the article? Unfortunately, I think it's a reclusive book, and so I don't know if you'll have access to it either.  ceran  thor'' 15:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not have this book, but I will try to find something about Cerro Azul tomorrow. Ruslik_ Zero 19:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I found a great book over at this link; if you could find more from that than I can I wouldn't be surprised. I've expanded the article a bit more to 8000b of prose and around 15 kb total, and it's almost ready content-wise for FA. BTW, I get off tomorrow as well.  ceran  thor 03:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  ceran  thor 14:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  03:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Source
I found something that might provide information about flora, but I'm not sure what region Cerro Azul is located in.  ceran  thor 19:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think here. You also should pay more attention to ref9 (Hildreth), as it contains a lot information about eruptions. Ruslik_ Zero 19:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought. I'm preparing that now; I've responded to your question.  ceran  thor 20:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like I have a lot of work to do! Do you think you could try to add information about flora and fauna while I dig through that? If that's asking too much, don't hesitate to tell me. You've already contributed more than you had to.  ceran  thor 20:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've finished expanding it.  ceran  thor 14:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm
So, do you think we should add flora/fauna info or not? The article developed well, especially because of that source. :) Is is ready or should we wait to nominate it? I think I'll include you and Awickert as co-noms.  ceran  thor 21:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would wait for a few weeks before any nomination. Ruslik_ Zero 10:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright. Thanks for the addition!  ceran  thor 13:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Completed!
Thanks to everyone's amazing efforts in February, we have reviewed all of the articles and are now finished with Sweeps! There are still about 30 articles currently on hold, and once those reviews are completed, I will send you a final message about Sweeps process stats including the total number of articles that were passed and failed. If you have one of these open reviews, be sure to update your count when the review is completed so I can compile the stats. You can except to receive your award for reviewing within the next week or two. Although the majority of the editors did not start Sweeps at the beginning in August 2007 (myself included), over 50 editors have all come together to complete a monumental task and improve many articles in the process. I commend you for sticking with this often challenging task and strengthening the integrity of the GA WikiProject as well as the GAs themselves. I invite you to take a break from reviewing (don't want you to burn out!) and then consider returning/starting to review GANs and/or contribute to GAR reviews. With your assistance, we can help bring the backlog down to a manageable level and help inspire more editors to improve articles to higher classes and consider reviewing themselves. Again, thank you for putting up with difficult reviews, unhappy editors, numerous spam messages from me, and taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Community de-adminship
You are receiving this message because you contributed to Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC and have not participated at Community de-adminship/RfC or been directly informed this RfC has opened. Please accept my apologies if you have been informed of and/or participated in the RfC already.

This RfC has opened and your comments are welcome and encouraged. Please visit Community de-adminship/RfC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Moon FAR
I don't know why I was notified of the Moon FAR, since I have never edited it and have no idea how to fix it. I will say though, that for an article with over 100 k of material it is surprisingly sparsely referenced.  Serendi pod ous  19:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It will require a lot of work, though I am not very interested in the Moon now. Ruslik_ Zero 20:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:PROD
Just giving you a heads-up, I reverted your change to the policy because PROD can be used for disambiguation pages as well as articles. I support your change in spirit, and considered leaving it, because it's not uncommon for people to propose ineligible pages for deletion. But I think stressing that PROD is for articles does more harm than good, as stating that it is for "articles" contradicts other parts of the policy. For people who are mistakenly using PROD for such pages as files, redirects, or Wikipedia space, hopefully the section Nominating makes that clear when it says, "Note that only articles, lists, and disambiguation pages may be deleted using the Proposed deletion process." If I've misinterpreted your intentions in making that change, please let me know, and if you feel that the proposed deletion policy should be changed to no longer include disambiguation pages then please discuss that on the talk page (although I'll let you know that it has come up a few times recently and each time there was a strong consensus that such pages should be included). Thanks! --  At am a  頭 20:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed it because because the first paragraph is confusing. In the first sentence it says: nominating pages for uncontroversial deletion, and deleting such pages after 7 days if no objections are raised. However in the following sentences I read: should not be used to side-step AfD discussion for articles that an  editor may wish to keep and reduce the load on the Articles for deletion  process, for cases where articles are uncontestably deletable. It is not clear whether the 'pages' mentioned in the first sentence are the same as 'articles' mentioned in the second and third sentences. Ruslik_ Zero  09:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition, lists and dabs are just special kinds of articles. They are discussed in AFD (Articles for deletion) process. They is no Lists for deletion or Dabs for deletion processes. Ruslik_ Zero 09:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright
Коллега, здравствуйте. Я не сильный спец в копирайте, потому хотел спросить у Вас, как у сведущего: Как быть с кадрами из советских фильмов, ранее принадлежавших Госкино, ныне ликвидированной. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ликвидация Госкино не означает ликвидацию авторских прав. Ruslik_ Zero 18:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * К кому же тогда они ушли? Напоминает сцену из Белого Солнца Пустыни: "Так таможни нет, кому платить неизвестно! Хочешь, мы заплатим золотом?" -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Они ни к кому и не уходили. Как принадлежали, такт и принадлежат тем, кто эти фильмы создавали: авторам сценария, авторам музыки, студиям, которые эти фильмы снимали. Ruslik_ Zero 19:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Опять же, ссылка на зак-во. Чем это урегулировано? Не с потолка же всё это взято, надеюсь. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 06:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Часть IV Гражданского кодекса Российской Федерации. Там всё очень доступно написано. Ruslik_ Zero 09:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Так я на неё и ссылался. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 10:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ну и где там написано, что авторские права исчезают при упразнении Госкино? Ruslik_ Zero 10:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Это Вы у меня спрашиваете? Я, вообще-то, у Вас хотел спросить где там что-то написано о том, что права на фильмы (советские) принадлежат тем, кто эти фильмы создавал. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 11:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Определение автоhского права почитайте. Ruslik_ Zero 14:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ничего не имею против, но законы не имеют обратной силы, т.е. могут лишь отменить или дополнить соответствующие положения предыдущих законодательных актов, но не могут отменить сложившихся правоотношений. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Кроме того, определения "авторское право" я там что-то не нахожу. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Это кто вам сказал? Ruslik_ Zero 15:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Курс теории государства и права: Ex post facto law, ru:Обратная сила закона. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Во-первых законы с обратной юридической силой не могут приниматься, только в области уголовного права (или административного). Во-вторых я не вижу здесь закона с обратной юридической силой. Ruslik_ Zero 16:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Список советских и Российских фильмов перешедших в общественное достояние. Ruslik_ Zero 17:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Да они могут приниматься. Я эту ссылку привёл к тому, что если они принимаются - в них прямо расписывается что и как изменяется. Данная часть ГК, насколько я её прочёл, не пишет ничего конкретно, какие нормативные акты отменить задним числом. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * У вас странные представления о законах. Никто в них ничего писать не обязан. Часть IV установила новые нормы, которые подлежат применению с момента вступления закона в силу. Все старые законы применяются лишь в части новому закону не противоречащей. Ruslik_ Zero 18:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Какие есть. "Никто в них ничего писать не обязан" - это именно то о чём я и писал. Часть IV установила новые нормы, которые подлежат применению с момента вступления закона в силу. А что с теми кадрами, фотоснимками, раличными копиями и прочими объектами, которые были сделаны до? Как с ними быть? Вот потому я и писал про обратную силу закона. Надеюсь теперь понятно. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Эти новые нормы применяются ко всем объетам авторских и смежных прав существоваших на момент его вступления в силу. Закон имеет только прямую силу, не обратную, но эта прямая сила действует на все, что существует в этот момент. Ваши аргументы лишены смысла.
 * Действует, но она не может просто взять и устранить то что было сделано и использовалось на законных основаниях до этого момента. Так что аргументы не настолько бессмысленны, как казалось или хотелось бы. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Во-первых я сомневаюсь, что это использовалось на законных основаниях до того момента. Во-вторых, почему "не может просто взять и устранить то что было сделано и использовалось ..."? Еще как может! Ruslik_ Zero 19:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Если использование чего-либо не предусматривало особых процедур - значит на законных. Не может, поскольку пришлось бы задним числом штрафовать и наказывать тех кто использовал эти фильмы до принятия этой 4-й части. Еще раз возвращаемся к обратной силе закона. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 09:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Вы вводите себя и других в заблуждение, когда начинаете рассуждать о мифических "штрафах задним числом". Единственное что сейчас важно это, то что использование всех работ у которых есть живые авторы (или которые умерли не далее как 70 лет назад) требует лицензии. И это закон. Если вам это не нравится, обращайтесь в соответствующие законодательные органы власти. Дальнейшая дискуссия здесь ни к чему не приведет. Ruslik_ Zero 19:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * И в дальнейшем обращайтесь в Русскую Википедию. Та даже специальный форум есть, по авторскому праву. Ruslik_ Zero 19:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Так и сделаю, но сначала признайте что это не Unambiguous copyright violation как Вы написали здесь. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * У меня нет никаких сомнений, что это было Unambiguous copyright violation. Заметьте, что обязанность доказывания того, что файл используется на законных основаниях, возлагается на лицо его загрузившее. Вы этого сделать не смогли. Ruslik_ Zero 19:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Не смог, или не сделал? Две большие разницы. Кроме того, что означает "не смог", если файл уже был удалён и эту дискуссию мы продолжаем не на странице его обсуждения, а здесь? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 09:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Heads up
Hey Rus; just posted this at Awickert's talk as well. I just wanted to let you know I'll be on vacation starting this Thurs, so I'll be unable to help with the FAC. Awickert's been doing a great job, and I saw you were just getting right back into editing the article :). Thanks to both of you for such an amazing help effort,  ceran  thor 11:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you too. Ruslik_ Zero 11:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Rf/Ent
It appears that per your closing decision, and  are now orphaned in article space. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean I should delete them because they do not have main space transclusions? I actually worry that some user pages will be malformed. Ruslik_ Zero 19:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Planet X/Nibiru
Planets beyond Neptune was just edited by Jason Martell (or at least, someone working in his name). Google his name and you'll find out he's a woowoo of the highest order. I think I've moved him to the proper article but I do not anticipate constructive cooperation with this guy.  Serendi pod ous  16:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We can only wait now. Ruslik_ Zero 16:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Query: I recently had a change of heart regarding the article on Nibiru/Planet X. An earlier review pointed out that the object's original name, and thus its "real" name, is "Planet X", and that is thus how it should be listed on Wikipedia. Problem is, most people wandering in off the street know it as "Nibiru". Every time someone posts a question on Yahoo Answers, it's always about "Nibiru", not "Planet X" and it was "Nibiru" that was the name used in all the articles that spontaneously emerged around here a few years back and prompted me to take control of the article in the first place. But I considered, after Martell showed up, that the object's name should really be "Planet X" and that I could trust the redirects to bring people to it. So I changed the title and waited. And since then, the number of people viewing the article has fallen by about a third, even counting people who are coming in from the Nibiru redirect. So should I change it back?  Serendi pod ous  15:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Nibiru is better. Planet X is too general and should really point to Planets beyond Neptune. Ruslik_ Zero 15:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * IMHO Planet X should be about real science, not about false predictions of the Earth's destruction in 2003. -- Kheider (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Коллега, я что-то не нахожу в архивах тот тред по моему вопросу, который Вы резюмировали и закрыли. Не могли бы Вы дать ссылку на него. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 07:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive603. Ruslik_ Zero 16:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Spasibo. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

A sincere thank you from Wikiproject Good Articles
On behalf of Wikiproject Good Articles, I would like to express our gratitude to you for your contributions to the Sweeps process, for which you completed 104 reviews. Completion of this monstrous task has proven to be a significant accomplishment not only for our project, but for Wikipedia. As a token of our sincere appreciation, please accept this ribbon. Lara 01:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Accepted, thank you. Ruslik_ Zero 08:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Illustrator
Per your closing of and, would it be non-controversial to join Illustrator per precedent? I can run the same script on this one that i used to convert the Inkscape template transclusions. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it would. Ruslik_ Zero 04:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Cerro
I don't know if you saw, but Azul was promoted today! Thanks for all your work, especially those improvements at the end - you really saved it from my lack of promptness! Once again, I am indebted to you. I haven't mentioned this to you yet, but I'm trying to improve David A. Johnston to FA in time for the 30th anniversary of the eruption of St. Helens. Awickert, Carcharoth, and Malleus have all helped a bit, if you're not consumed with another article, maybe you would have time to fix my careless mistakes? If you're too busy, it's not a problem! Thanks again for all your incredible work!  ceran  thor 23:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Alex Gardner I&#39;m Not Mad Video.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Alex Gardner I&. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Milky Way
Pisces I (dwarf galaxy) this is Pisces Dwarf, this not Milky Way subgroup member. Pisces I (dwarf galaxy) = Pisces Dwarf is satellite galaxy of the Triangulum Galaxy (Messier 33). - John Belushi (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your recent FLC reviews; we desperately needed them. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

MfDs
Thank you for undertaking the daunting task of closing the secret page MfDs. I would like to draw your attention to several pages included in the MfD nominations that you neglected to delete; see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Spider1224/SandboxOWL, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PhishRCool/Bravo, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pedro João/Cheated. I also request that you append closing rationales to the following debates: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hi878/Secret Page List, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Meisfunny/Topeka, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Smashbrosboy/Talk, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TheNewPhobia/Secret Page!!! so that I may understand the reasoning behind each of your closures. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No consensus means that I can not decide in either way. I closed some as keep because in those discussion some arguments for deletion, which were present in no consensus discussions, were absent. Ruslik_ Zero 14:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation. Will you provide a summary of the conflicting arguments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hi878/Secret Page List? I believe the "delete" side was stronger because the pages discussed violate WP:UP, WP:NOTWEBHOST, and WP:NOTMYSPACE. I will not be bringing this to DRV though; I just want to be able to better focus my arguments when I renominate these games for deletion. Cunard (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I provided a summary. Ruslik_ Zero 07:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Very helpful. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 07:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I also thank you Ruslik0. You may like to review and amend this, which considers heavily your closes.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Cunard, this isn't the place to argue that the delete was stronger. :) Anyways, thank you Ruslik, I could tell that everyone was avoiding closing those. :) Hi878 (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Light travel time
I have been cleaning up (talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects) some of the Quasars articles (Category:Quasars) and correcting the Gly estimates so that at least they are in the correct ballpark. It is correct to redirect Light travel time to Comoving distance, right? -- Kheider (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Light travel time equals to proper distance. So, the redirection is correct because proper distance is mentioned in the article. Ruslik_ Zero 05:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -- Kheider (talk) 05:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thankyou Ruslik to upload Katrice.jpg file with ther correct copyright status! Would you mind to help me how to us in Katrice Lee's article, please? Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usingintelligent (talk • contribs) 22:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Density
I was adding density to list of solar system objects by size, but there were some objects I couldn't sort properly because I couldn't figure out how to alter the listrow format you used. If you could help me sort this out, they are 10 Hygiea, (15874) 1996 TL66, 28978 Ixion and 20000 Varuna.

Sorry to bother you. :) Serendi pod ous  21:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you :)  Serendi pod ous  15:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Michael E. Brown
Mike Brown has asked me to replace his Wiki-image with the image on his personal website. Do you know what commons copyright tags would be most appropriate for a picture of a person? I know and Mike and I will need to go through the OTRS process and validate the copyright status at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Thanks -- Kheider (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless the image is realesed into the public domain, Commons accepts only Creative Commons by and/or sa licenses. (See full list here). I think the simplest solutions is to use commons:Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0. After you upload the file Mike (or the person who holds the copyright) should send an e-mail to OTRS confirming that the image was really released under claimed license. Ruslik_ Zero 06:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of battleships of Germany/archive1
Hi, can you revisit this FLC (Parsecboy just addressed your last concern)? Thanks again for your recent reviews. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, can you comment on the naming issue that Arsenikk brought up at Featured list candidates/List of National Parks of the United States/archive1? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of counties in Utah/archive1
I believe the caption you added has displaced the labels on the counties. Check my note there.  Jujutacular  T · C 19:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Spacecraft names
Is there a MoS for whether spacecraft names should be in italics? I checked over a couple of Solar System FAs and there doesn't seem to be a hard-and-fast rule. Iridia (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of such MOS rule. Ruslik_ Zero 09:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Phi Kappa Psi brothers FLC
Hello, Featured list candidates/List of Phi Kappa Psi brothers/archive1 was listed 20 days ago, and is now also listed as one of the "nominations urgently needing reviews." So far four reviewers have weighed in. All objections have been met. There are two votes of support, and none opposed. As per The Rambling Man, "typically, although not prescriptively, Dabomb or I will look for around four votes of support." He also suggested that I contact "regular reviewers" such as yourself to see if you would be willing to comment. I'm happy to address constructive criticism. Hopefully upon resolving critiques, if you believe that the list is worthy, you will also grant support. Thanks, NYCRuss  ☎   17:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you get my email?
If so, I've done what I needed to do and would like if you could remove the Edit filter right from my account. If not please read my email for further explanation of why I'm resigning.  — Soap  —  20:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the Edit filter right. Thanks for your work! I have not read your e-mail because I currently can not access my e-mail account. Ruslik_ Zero 12:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sorry I had to just suddenly disappear. Apparently I'm not the only one: X! just resigned everything as well.  Hopefully both of these will be temporary.  I look forward to being able to return to full time editing, including working the False Positives page, someday soon.  —  Soap  —  12:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

why did you revert my edits at WP:VPM?
If you look at them, they're obviously legit. AConcernedChicken (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My apology, I probably hit a wrong link. Ruslik_ Zero 19:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Rollback and Account Creator for inactivity
I have been inactive for a few months and when I came back I noticed that my rollback and account creator flags were removed by you with the log entry "19:35, 8 March 2010 Ruslik0 (talk | contribs) changed rights for User:FunPika from Account creators and Rollbackers to (none) ‎ (not active, probably retired)". Since I am becoming active again can I have those flags back? Fun Pika  20:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Ruslik_ Zero 05:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

IngentaConnect‎
Hi Ruslik_ Zero thank you for your edits, however you are mistaken about Ingenta and IngentaConnect. Ingenta is a company that is no longer in existence. InentaConnect is a web publishing platform used by millions of people in the scientific, medical and academic communities - which is one of the reasons why its important IngentaConnect have its own page. To help distinguish between the now defunct company and the publishing platform, I have added disambiguation to the IngentaConnect page I drafted. I appreciate your assistance removing the block on naming the page I've drafted to IngentaConnect. I appreciate your help.Kilo4alpha (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Kilo4alpha (talk) 09:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Conflict news
Hello! The article The Klan (Belgian band) is attacked again. Greetings Raoniz (talk) 01:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Your oppose on List of leaders of the Soviet Union
Well putting my personal issue with your comments aside, the respective names that are included in the list are who controlled the country. Malenkov ruled the country between Stalin's death and Khrushchev's consolidation of power. There has been only two troikas who have ruled the country, there may have been other troikas, but they have never ruled. Your oppose is baised on infactual beliefs. I suggest you read about the topic at hand before you start questioning it. --TIAYN (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Instead of arguing, what do i need to fix to change your oppose to support. See my new edit in the section List.. --TIAYN (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So is there anything more that needs to be fixed in regards to the list? --TIAYN (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Done, anything more? --TIAYN (talk) 09:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied, done again, I think ;P --TIAYN (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So... Are you still interested in the article? --TIAYN (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Sanderson & Sons
I just want to mention that I have reposted an article that you deleted, Arthur Sanderson & Sons. I have suggested to the original nominator that he nominates the article at AFD instead. At this point I am not going to do any more work on the article until the issue gets resolved. --Hegvald (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of Governors of Utah/archive1
Thanks for your review of this FLC; can you revisit it when you get the chance? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Beta Cassiopeiae
The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit filter
I'm wondering if it'd be okay for me to resume working on the edit filter with the edit filter manager permission now. There is an issue here I've been wanting to look at, but the filter is private. Not that I think that I could see clearly where others have failed, but that I could at least try to help. Of course this is just one issue, but I've seen other situations where I could have helped, and although someone else did, I could have saved them the trouble.

I have more free time than I expected, and I've managed to get done all the things I didn't have time to do in the spring. I'm only apprehensive because I get the impression I was promoted with a lot less examination than some other edit filter managers because I had a demonstrated need for the permissions back in November. While I can't promise that I will continue editing the rate I've been doing forever, for the indefinite future I will definitely do so.  — Soap  —  01:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's taken four years
... the creation of at least 8 separate articles and four disambig pages, 13 merges and god knows how many redirects, but I think I'm finally happy with hypothetical planet. :)  Serendi pod ous  11:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Serendipodous! It has been a while since we have spoken. Hope everything is going well, friend.  ceran  thor 13:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, friend :) Things are OK. Been a bit stressed recently but otherwise everything's fine.  Serendi pod ous  13:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good to hear. I'm looking forward to see some more FAs from you... you are still interested in writing them, are you not?  ceran  thor 14:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

revisions on geert wilders
please use the talk feature if you have issues with my revisions. thanks and have a great day —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.88.88.100 (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

and the issue is that the version you prefer contains slurs on jews, israelis, and unsupported (and unlikely) assertions. the burden of proof, dear, is on YOU. thanks and have a great day. 98.88.88.100 (talk) 19:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of Governors of Utah/archive1
Hi, I have restarted this nomination so that consensus for promotion or archival can become more clear. Please update your stance on the article and be sure to add/update any comments you may have. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of Record Mirror number-one singles/archive1
Hi, could you revisit this when you get the chance and let me know if there is anything else you wish me to change. Thanks a lot, Rambo's Revenge (talk)  07:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe I've now also addressed your concerns at Featured list candidates/List of number-one singles from the 1970s (UK)/archive1. Let me know if you have more. Thanks again for your reviews, <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  13:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

FLC review urgent
Hi! Since you are familiar with reviewing Lists of National Treasures of Japan, I thought you could help out with the following... List of National Treasures of Japan (archaeological materials) is presently a featured list candidate and marked as Nominations urgently needing reviews which means that it is in danger of failing the nomination due to a lack of reviews. I'd be happy, if you could have a look at the list and leave comments, questions or suggestions at the nomination page. The criteria to be checked against are found here. Thanks. bamse (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Grammy Award for Best Female Rock Vocal Performance
I went ahead and updated the lead. Feel free to let me know if any additional changes need to be made. Thanks! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in Dayton/archive1
Needs a revisit when you get the chance. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Source list
Template:Source list has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Grammy Award for Best Metal Performance
Since you commented on a Grammy-related list that I recently nominated, I wanted to let you know that I went ahead and nominated the list Grammy Award for Best Metal Performance for FL status. If you are interested, feel free to take a look at the list and offer any comments or concerns that you feel need to be addressed. Best wishes! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

one question
Numerical simulations show that Halimede, a moon discovered in 2002, has had a high probability of colliding with Nereid during the lifespan of the system.

This statement is vague; does it mean that the moons did collide in the past, or will collide in the future?  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  09:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleted templates
I'm not an admin, so perhaps I'm missing something here: What is the use of using deleted templates as citations, as in your recent reverts of User:Plastikspork on a series of moon-related articles? - BilCat (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * He was not authorized to use cite doi template. Ruslik_ Zero 11:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * But the other templates don't work - how is that helpful? I wll stop reverting then, and await an outcome on the issue. - BilCat (talk) 11:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Seeing as how this version was still a wreck, I undid that. Can you explain what you mean by someone wasn't "authorized" to use a template?  Is there an actual discussing this?  If not, I'll just fix the other articles as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, you could have just asked me to use something else? I will try again, this time not using, since that appears to be the problem? Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  14:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Armero tragedy
Ruslik, I haven't worked with you for a while now. I miss you!

Anyway, I was wondering if you could help me out at Armero tragedy. It needs some more content (right now, it's at 16 kb of prose). I know that you're just dying to help out with another NDR article. ;) Hope everything's going well, and don't hesitate to say no if you're busy. Thanks!  ceran  thor 13:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, forgot to elaborate. The main problems with the article right now are the prose (because it was adapted from the Nevado del Ruiz article, much of it is similar or the exact same as that article) and the lead. We could use some more images, too.  ceran  thor 13:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I will try to help but the weather is too hot now and it will be difficult for me to do much. Ruslik_ Zero 18:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Emperor list
You contributed to the article's second FLC a while ago, so I am obligated by social duty to bother you about the ongoing third. Cheers, <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:black;">Res</b> Mar 23:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of outlying islands of Scotland/archive1
Hi Ruslik, can you revisit the above FLC when you get the chance? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Niglet
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Niglet. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Edit Filter 213
Would you mind reactivating this filter? The vandal that it prevents came back.— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 00:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ruslik_ Zero 08:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to pester you
but there are some things I can't do and I need your help. The issue raised in Talk:solar system is still unresolved; I don't feel comfortable adding the information without a source for the final inclination numbers. Also, if the kozai mechanism is not a valid hypothesis to explain Sedna's orbit, should that not be mentioned in the article somewhere?  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  12:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Sorry to bother you.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  13:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Abuse filter 32
I actually think it's a good idea, so long as the maximum action is either "none" or "tag". The minimum number of characters added should probably tag additions over 7500, though. If I understand ClueBot correctly, the revert is triggered after more than 7500 nonsense characters. Hardly anybody is expected to add 400000 characters in a single edit! <font color="#0000FF">mechamind <font color="#009900">9 <font color="#FF0000">0 04:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If the bot reverts, there is no need in this filter. Ruslik_ Zero 07:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The bot only reverts if it's 7500 characters and the edit is blatantly unconstructive. The 7500 in the case of Filter 32 could look legitimate but end up as a hoax, or it could be true. <font color="#0000FF">mechamind <font color="#009900">9 <font color="#FF0000">0 17:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The filter with such a low limit will produce a lot of false positives. This was the reason why it was raised. Ruslik_ Zero 18:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Honest misunderstanding
With this edit, I see that you apparently misunderstood the intent of my edit. I will try to explain. As currently edited after your revert, the article says "The Kuiper belt and scattered disc, the other two known reservoirs of trans-Neptunian objects" indicating that the Oort cloud is a third known reservoir of trans-Neptunian objects. I add the boldface to the known, because that is critical. To call the Kuiper and the scattered disc as "known" means that their existence is affirmed. Whether or not this is true, I cannot say, not being an astronomer. But the article does affirmatively say that the Oort is not "known", because in the opening sentence it notes that the Oort's existence is merely "hypothesized". So the status of the Oort's existence is different than the Kuiper and the SD.

But by saying that the Kuiper and the SD are "the other two known reservoirs" is to place the status of their existence in the same category as the Oort, thus causing a logical error in the text.

There are a few ways to resolve this conflict, but I chose what I believe is the simplest way, because the way I did it does not assert anything as true that is not known to be true. I am open to an alternative, just not to the previous version. 98.82.1.253 (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's fine; that was one of the alternatives I considered. Thanks. 98.82.1.253 (talk) 11:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

six-ring circus

 * Thanks for chipping in over at the six-ring circus. I will try to return in a day or two... I said more in my most recent post to my talk page. Cheers &bull; Ling.Nut 05:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Jodrell Bank Observatory
Hi. Many thanks for saving Jodrell Bank Observatory's Good Article status back in July 2009! I worked on the article back in 2007, and was the one responsible for getting it GA status the first time around. At the time, I was a student at JBO; I'm now a postdoc working there. I'm planning on returning to working on this article (and hopefully a few others; I'd love to get Lovell Telescope up to FA). However, I potentially have a WP:COI as I am employed at the Observatory (to do research; I do this for fun in my spare time), and I'm liaising with the Head of Outreach (getting comments/suggestions, and with luck some pictures, from him). Would you be able to keep an eye on the edits I make to the article to make sure I'm not straying from the path of writing the encyclopaedia rather than publicising the observatory? The edits I've made so far today are shown here (see the edit summaries for the rationales). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe you are capable of writing it yourself without my oversight. I still will keep an eye on your edits if you want this. Ruslik_ Zero 18:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :-) I'm trying to err on the cautious side here, hence my request. If you could take a look every so often that would be great. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Gaza Holocaust listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gaza Holocaust. Since you had some involvement with the Gaza Holocaust redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

About an image on Commons
Hi Ruslik0, First, I saw some of your contributions, and I would like to thank you very much for all of this ! Then, may I ask you if you have a non-labeled (language-neutral) version of Neptunian rings scheme.png you let on Commons. If so, could you please upload it, and let me know anyway ? It would be better for the French translation I have been making to add an image that would be labeled in French, and it would just be cleaner if I did't erase the English labels first... Thanks anyway ! Best regards. Mianreg (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of Texas Tech Red Raiders bowl games/archive1
I was wondering what still needs to be addressed on this FLC. Other then a cosmetic comment about the key, your suggestions and comments have all been addressed. Thanks. NThomas (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Segue_1
There was some dispute around Segue 1 due to tidal disruption and contamination. More recent research addressed these issues. I edited the article to mention this this newer research, but I wonder if it shouldn't be substantially rewritten. Pmokeefe (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is too early to rewrite the article—the papers have not been published yet. I also want to see an answer from another side. Ruslik_ Zero 17:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Your objection to my proposed edit
User:Ruslik0, you objected to my proposed edit on the basis that "That UNEF acted to prevent fedayeen infiltration (from Gaza) is discussed at length in Middle East - UMEF I" In fact, that source specifically mentions fedayeen infiltration from Gaza only once: Palestinian fedayeen, with the support of the Egyptian Government, had been launching frequent raids against Israel from their bases in Gaza, and these had been followed by increasingly strong reprisal attacks by Israeli armed forces. This was in 1955, prior to the 1956 war. In every other instance where raids are mentioned, it is with regard to the need to stop raids from both sides.

Your objection simply does not address the issue, which is that the current wording is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. This is further easily demonstrable from your own source. For instance: However, a new situation developed in late October 1956, when Israel, in cooperation with the British and French Governments, launched an all-out attack on Egypt. And: The United Nations Emergency Force was the key element in the United Nations efforts to resolve the crisis arising from the military action of the Israeli and Anglo-French forces against Egypt. And so on.

Moreover, the actual mandate itself does not explicitly refer to fedayeen raids, whereas it does state that its purpose was "to secure and supervise the cessation of hostilities in accordance with all the terms of General Assembly resolution 997" which did explicitly refer to "the disregard on many occasions by parties [plural] to the Israel-Arab armistice agreements of 1949 of the terms of such agreements, and that the armed forces of Israel have penetrated deeply into Egyptian territory in violation of the General Armistice Agreement between Egypt and Israel of 24 February 1949" Again, the current wording is a blatant and incontrovertible violation of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT.

My proposed solution to this problem is perfectly neutral, quoting directly from the actual UNEF mandate itself: After the 1956 war, Egypt agreed to the stationing of a UN peacekeeping force in the Sinai, the United Nations Emergency force (UNEF), "to secure and supervise the cessation of hostilities".

I'm perfectly willing to consider alternative suggestions, if people have any, but surely we can all agree that the current wording is problematic inasmuch as it blatantly violates WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, and is therefore in need of immediate attention. In the meantime, surely it must be acknowledged that my neutral version is an improvement over the patently biased version. This really is incontrovertible. JRHammond (talk) 10:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * to secure and supervise the cessation of hostilities means what it means—cessation of all hostilities including fedayeen infiltration. The source I cited specifically says that UNEF was authorized to apprehend infiltrators and persons approaching the ADL in suspicious circumstances. Ruslik_ Zero 11:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You are not addressing the fact that the current wording blatantly violates WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, or the fact that my version is neutral, and therefore preferable to the current wording. JRHammond (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The most neutral article would be an empty article, of course—no text, no problem. Ruslik_ Zero 12:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You're still evading the issue, which is that the current wording blatantly violates WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT while my proposed replacement is neutral. JRHammond (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The current wording neither violates NPOV nor WEIGHT. Ruslik_ Zero 13:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Characterizing UNEF as being mandated to prevent fedayeen attacks on Israel without also noting that much greater weight was placed in the mandate itself on Israel's attacks on Egypt is prima facie a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. JRHammond (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

People prosecuted under anti-homosexuality laws
Your closure their, I disagree with keep it is at the most no consensus as for your rational that you don't understand the BLP issues because most of the people are dead is also mistaken and does not reflect that living people can and will be added to the cat. Off2riorob (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinion. Ruslik_ Zero 19:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Uw-sandbox
Re. Templates for discussion

I respectfully ask you to reconsider your assessment and closure of this as 'no consensus', given a) the specific, policy-based arguments, b) the misunderstandings, and c) the !voting to 'keep but totally rewrite' in the context of this being a designated warning template.

Thanks,  Chzz  ► 04:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no policy saying that no warnings should be given to users making any edits to the sandbox. The discussion was essentially about personal like/dislike of a particular warning template. After analyzing it I found no particular consensus. As to a rewrite, this is beyond the scope of TFD discussions and is unenforceable. Ruslik_ Zero 05:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I do appreciate that it is a tricky job to close TfDs, and reluctance to re-list a second time; also, I do not wish to inflict continued discussion upon you.


 * I just wanted to point out that there are three "keep but rewrites" inc. two that specify 'rewrite totally', and another that suggests 'rewrite and rename' - and my main problem with it is the fact it is a 'warning' specifically. I'd have no issue if it were renamed and rewritten to be a friendly welcoming note.


 * Furthermore, the !delete votes make quite convincing arguments, especially that the auto-replacement means it is a bit pointless.


 * Having said that, if you have re-checked your decision and are happy with it, then I respect that, and will not trouble you further. Best,  Chzz  ► 10:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody specified how it should be rewritten. All those statements were vague. If fact, it had been rewritten during the TFD. So, I could not close this discussion as Keep and rewrite because it would have been meaningless and unenforceable. Ruslik_ Zero 13:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You actually do not need a TFD in order to rewrite a template. Ruslik_ Zero 13:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Mmm, the basic trouble is, it is uw-sandbox. Maybe I could just move it? The further trouble being, it is listed in Twinkle's warnings, and that's the actual key problem.  Chzz  ► 14:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * For twinkle warnings see Wikipedia Talk:Twinkle. Ruslik_ Zero 17:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Tenterfield Country Muster
Notifying the creator is not a required step for a prod. The article should be judged on it's merits, not some fictional requirement. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 23:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Cities and towns in the Lazio
The reason this category isn't emptying because it's referred to in this template. It's protected, though. Since this template is reached through multiple ones, I suspect we will have to wait for the jobqueue 3 times. &mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 20:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:Motorsport in the UK
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Motorsport in the UK. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Donnie Park (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Puerto Rican Political Prisoners
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Puerto Rican Political Prisoners. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mercy11 (talk) 02:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

TfD Template:Science in Pakistan
The template is removed from the pages that were using it. It can now be deleted. <font face="Papyrus">Farjad <font color="Purple">0322 <font color="Cerise">(talk&#124;sign&#124;contribs) 17:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not from all. Ruslik_ Zero 17:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

url problem
Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Filter 18
Just curious, why did you delete Special:AbuseFilter/18? Was it running too slow? Someguy1221 (talk) 09:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I had been disabled for 9 months before I deleted it. Ruslik_ Zero 11:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

FLC National Treasures of Japan swords
Hi! Since you already reviewed a List of National Treasures of Japan, I thought you could help out with the following. List of National Treasures of Japan (crafts: swords) is currently a featured list candidate and listed as Nominations urgently needing reviews which means that it might fail unless somebody (you ;-) ) reviews the list. So far it received two "support" votes and one "oppose". All issues raised in the oppose vote have been addressed (the reviewer, "The Rambling Man", just needs to revisit the page). I'd be happy if you could take the time to review the list and leave comments, questions, suggestions and a vote ("support" or "oppose") on the nomination page. Thanks. bamse (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Criticism_of_Islam_footer

 * The result of the discussion was Delete. Seems far too similar to Template:Muslims_and_controversies. Ruslik_Zero 19:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you see my reply there?
 * Incorrect, its not identical to "muslims and controversies". Its a footer version of Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar as I said.

--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not say identical, I said similar. Ruslik_ Zero 18:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Atmosphere of Jupiter
This situation could rapidly spin out of control. We both decided on the merge, we should both defend it. Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  07:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Rollback rights
Hello. Could you please grant me those? They would be helpful for me when undoing disruptive edits like these:, I already have rollback/patrolling rights on Russian Wikipedia. --Garik 11 (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ruslik_ Zero 15:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Garik 11 (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Adopt-a-user reminder
Hello, I have completed a general cleanup of the adopter information page for the adopt-a-user project, located here. During my cleanup, I have removed several inactive and retired users. In order to provide interested adoptees with an easy location to find adopters, it is essential that the page be up-to-date with the latest information possible. Thus:


 * If you are no longer interested in being an adopter, please remove yourself from the list.
 * If you are still interested, please check the list to see if any information needs to be updated or added - especially your availability. Thank you.


 * You are receiving this message because you are listed as an adopter here.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Netalarm (talk) at 03:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC).

Signpost "Features and admins" column
Hi Ruslik,

The Signpost's "Features and admins" page now includes a "Choice of the week" for featured articles, featured lists and featured pictures. Each week, The Signpost invites a different delegate, reviewer or nominator from each process to select what they think is the best, or their favourite, item, and to give their reasons. These reasons can be technical (e.g., related to the Criteria) or subjective, or both.

Would you be willing to do this with featured lists for next week's edition? If you agree, promotions from Saturday 18 September to Friday 24 September will be eligible. They will be listed here by Saturday UTC, and we would need your text by Sunday UTC. Examples from previous weeks are accessible by clicking on "← PREVIOUS Features and admins" at the bottom. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. Ruslik_ Zero 14:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It's ready for you at Wikipedia Signpost/2010-09-27/Features and admins. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Finish the move
Now that you realize what the correct targets for the moves in that SFD discussion are, can you please move the categories (again)? Thanks! &mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 18:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1993 College Baseball All-America Team/archive1
I have considered your concerns at Featured list candidates/1993 College Baseball All-America Team/archive1. Can you take another look.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do tomorrow. Ruslik_ Zero 19:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I just got the last issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Rollback
Hello Ruslik, please consider granting me rollback rights if you see it's OK. I have a 5 yr-long history on WP if that helps. Thanks. Gregorik (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Are these your contributions? Ruslik_ Zero 19:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. The user seems to be from the same city but that is all. I have no socks. Gregorik_ roll 20:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why in this case the IP used your signature and the text, which you had used before? Ruslik_ Zero 18:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The IP guy simply copypasted my section along with my signature for unknown reasons. Why would I do that? I haven't had sockpuppets for years, or maybe never had one. Gregorik:: roll 18:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We can ask a checkuser to check whether ip addresses are the same? Ruslik_ Zero 18:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, please ask one if you still don't believe me. Gregorik:: roll 19:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

In the same city, different IPs, so it's up to you suss out his behaviour  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  03:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Baseball Bugs/hidden (2nd nomination)
Although I agree with your closure of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Baseball Bugs/hidden (2nd nomination) as "keep", your reasoning is wrong. Discussion at the July/August 2010 RfC Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 34, which was listed at WP:CENT, reached a consensus that "There is a consensus here and at the linked discussions - MfD and User pages - that secret pages are seen as a distraction from the main purpose of the project, and create an inappropriate ethos. There was some support for the view that such pages can assist in creating a relaxed working atmosphere, though that was felt to be overweighed by the concern that allowing such playful activities might attract users more interested in game playing. Some consideration was given to being more tolerant toward valued contributors, though the consensus was that diverged standards was inappropriate. As the link to GAMES has been returned to the WP:NOTMYSPACE section, there is no action needed from this closure. (mine emphasized)"

I agreed at the MfD that User:Baseball Bugs/somethingelse should be kept because it was not a secret page. In fact, WP:NOTMYSPACE explicitly permits the inclusion of this page: "Humorous pages that refer to Wikipedia in some way may be created in an appropriate namespace, however." Community consensus is that secret pages of all editors, regardless of activity or inactivity, create an inappropriate ethos. I do not believe that tenure, content contributions, and a high number of edits to the mainspace "buys" editors the right to violate WP:NOTMYSPACE by hosting secret pages on Wikipedia's servers—and that was the prevailing opinion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 34 Please correct your closing statement because something has changed since April 2010. Cunard (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not agree that anything has changed since April. This discussion showed that nothing has changed. The majority of the participant did even notice that the page was not not secret, strictly speaking, but still they said 'keep'. Ruslik_ Zero 18:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In the past, no consensus existed as to whether secret pages violate WP:NOTMYSPACE. The RfC concluded that they do and that the policy should be applied equally to all editors. There has been a change, and a local consensus does not override a global one. Consensus states that "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." Please keep this in mind as you are closing MfDs. Cunard (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The consensus on the talk page was to change the wording of the page, not more than that. However, Wikipedia policies are generally descriptive and not prescriptive. Several editors who participated in that discussion can not dictate what happens during an MfD. Ruslik_ Zero 10:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The closing statement shows that community consensus is that the policy should be applied equally (diverged standards was inappropriate). More people participate in policy discussions than in individual MfDs, so per Consensus, consensus at a policy discussion holds more weight. Policy supersedes editors' opinions at an MfD. Deletion guidelines for administrators states that "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." The underlying policy for secret pages is that they violate What Wikipedia is not. Cunard (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Midx1004/Userboxes/Hidden
Your closing statement that "the proponents of the deletion have not explained how this userbox is different from a myriad of other userboxes, which have only a remote connection to the encyclopedia building" is not an acceptable summary of the discussion. That statement falls under WP:OTHERSTUFF. My rationale that this page promotes violations of WP:NOTMYSPACE is an acceptable reason for deletion. Because you had something new to add the discussion (in the form of your closure), you should have commented instead of closing the debate. That would have given me a chance to explain why the page should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 00:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I closed it in this way because your arguments were frivolous, not much different from I don't like it. Ruslik_ Zero 18:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My arguments did not fall under "I don't like it". I cited the policy WP:NOTMYSPACE, and explained that this page contributes to the belief that secret pages which violate WP:NOTMYSPACE are acceptable uses of userspace. The sole argument for retention did not provide a concrete reason for retention, whereas I provided a concrete reason for deletion. Your WP:OTHERSTUFF closing statement (the proponents of the deletion have not explained how this userbox is different from a myriad of other userboxes, which have only a remote connection to the encyclopedia building) demonstrated that you had something new to add to the discussion&mdash;that you have an opinion about this particular debate. I will not be contesting this decision at DRV, but I ask that you participate in an MfD discussion instead of closing it if you have new opinions to add. Cunard (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I know how this place functions better than you, so do not teach me what I should or should not do. Ruslik_ Zero 10:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Arguing about who is better at knowing how this place functions is unnecessary and juvenile. That is not a valid reason to dismiss my concerns. A core XfD practice is that an admin who has a strong opinion about the topic&mdash;or holds opinions contrary to those expressed in the debate (which is the case here)&mdash;should participate in the debate instead of inserting his/her own opinion into a closing statement. That you don't seem to recognize this indicates that when you close a discussion, you are unable to distinguish between your own opinions and the opinions expressed by the participants of a debate. Cunard (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You do not have any valid concerns. What you really have is a "I do not like it" argument. And, please, stop trolling my talk page (This seems to be the only thing you are capable of.) I am not interested in any further discussion with you. Ruslik_ Zero 05:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Bathurst
Thanks for your help and support in getting Robert Bathurst filmography to featured list status! Bradley0110 (talk) 06:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Celine Dion albums discography/archive1
Hi, I have added sales numbers to the table. Could you support the nomination now?--Max24 (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added the date to 200 million and the "special Sony Music UK award".--Max24 (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Ruslik, can you revisit Featured list candidates/1972 Winter Olympics medal table/archive1 too? Thanks as always, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Featured list candidates/1993 College Baseball All-America Team/archive1 as well. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Happy Ruslik0's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

problem with Titan
Now that Marskell's been blacklisted, I don't really have anyone else to help me on Titan, and there has been a major shift in perception vis a vis the possibility of volcanism on Titan. It needs to be substantially revised, but I don't feel confident to do it alone. Do you think you could help?  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  01:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I can. I suppose it related to the "Callisto with weather" hypothesis? Ruslik_ Zero 14:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Precisely. That very phrase is used in that lecture.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  15:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It is much better now. Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  06:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

An update from adopt a user
Hi there ! You may be wondering, what have I done to sound the alarm this time? Nothing. I'm messaging you in regards to the adopt-a-user program, which currently has a backlog of users wishing to be adopted. This doesn't make much sense, as we have a considerable list of users offer adoption, so there shouldn't be any backlog. I've begun to eliminate this backlog myself through a matching program, but I need your help to make it work. Of course, adoptees and adopters don't have to go through there, but I believe it helps eliminate the backlog because someone is actively matching pairs.

On the list of adopters, I have modified the middle column to say "Interests." It's easier working with other users that have similar interests, so if it's not too much to ask, could you add your interests in the middle column? For example, if I was interested in hurricanes, computers, business, and ... reptiles? I would place those in the middle column. Counter-vandalism and the like can also be included (maintenance should be used as the general term). The more interests, the better, since adoptees can learn more about you and choose the one they feel most comfortable working with. The information about when you're most active and other stuff can go into the "Notes" section to the right.

Finally, I've gone around and asked adoptees (and will in the future) to fill in a short survey so adopters can take the initiative and contact users they feel comfortable working with. We all know that most adoptees just place the adopt me template on their user page and leave it - so it's up to us to approach them and offer adoption. So, please take a look at the survey, adopt those that fit your interests, and maybe watchlist it so you can see the interests of adoptees and adopt one that fits your interests in the future.

Once again, thank you for participating in the adopt-a-user program! If you wish to respond to this post, please message me on my talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Netalarm (talk) at 05:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC).