This 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. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 13 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hi, can you take a second look at the above FLC? Thanks, Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:28, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Is there anything else to do? Serendi pod ous 19:50, 5 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
Today's featured list: The
moons of Saturn are numerous and diverse, ranging from tiny
moonlets less than 1 kilometer (0.62 mi) across to the enormous
Titan, which is larger than the planet
Mercury.
Saturn has sixty-two
moons with confirmed orbits, fifty-three of which have names, and only thirteen of which have diameters larger than 50 kilometers (31 mi). Saturn has seven moons that are large enough to
become spherical, and dense
rings with complex orbital motions of their own.
Today's featured topic: The
BBC Sports Personality of the Year is an awards ceremony that takes place annually in December. Devised by
Paul Fox in 1954, it originally consisted of one
titular award. Several new awards have been introduced, and as of 2008
[update], eight awards are presented, including the
Team of the Year,
Overseas Personality,
Lifetime Achievement Award,
Helen Rollason Award, the
Coach Award, and the
Newcomer Award.
Listen to Spring, from The Four Seasons
|
Today's featured sound: The Four Seasons, a set of four violin concertos by Antonio Vivaldi. Composed in 1723,The Four Seasons is Vivaldi's best-known work, and is among the most popular pieces of Baroque music. The texture of each concerto is varied, each resembling its respective season. Performed by John Harrison and the Wichita State University Chamber Players.
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 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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
Thanks. Serendi pod ous 14:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry but could you do another histmerge?
I'm really bad at this sort of thing. Serendi pod ous 12:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ruslik, Why r u deleting my criticism of Lord Meghnad Desai? Ajaxyz ( talk) 02:50, 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)
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) }
Umbriel is a moon of Uranus discovered on October 24, 1851, by William Lassell. It was discovered at the same time as Ariel and named after a character in Alexander Pope's poem The Rape of the Lock. Umbriel consists mainly of ice with a substantial fraction of rock, and may be differentiated into a rocky core and an icy mantle. The surface is the darkest among Uranian moons, and appears to have been shaped primarily by impacts. However, the presence of canyons suggests early endogenic processes, and the moon may have undergone an early endogenically driven resurfacing event that obliterated its older surface. Covered by numerous impact craters reaching 210 km (130 mi) in diameter, Umbriel is the second most heavily cratered satellite of Uranus after Oberon. The most prominent surface feature is a ring of bright material on the floor of Wunda crater. This moon, like all moons of Uranus, probably formed from an accretion disk that surrounded the planet just after its formation. The Uranian system has been studied up close only once: by the spacecraft Voyager 2 in January 1986. It took several images of Umbriel, which allowed mapping of about 40% of the moon’s surface. ( more...)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Ariel is the brightest and fourth-largest of the 27 known moons of Uranus. Discovered on 24 October 1851 by William Lassell, it is named for a sky spirit in Alexander Pope's The Rape of the Lock and Shakespeare's The Tempest. Like its parent planet, Ariel orbits on its side, granting it an extreme seasonal cycle. As of 2011, almost all knowledge of Ariel derives from a single flyby of Uranus performed by the spacecraft Voyager 2 in 1986, which managed to image only 35% of the moon's surface. There are no plans at present to return to study the moon in more detail. After Miranda, Ariel is the second-smallest of Uranus's five round satellites, and the second-closest to its planet. Among the smaller of the Solar System's 19 known spherical moons (it ranks 14th among them in diameter), it is believed to be composed of roughly equal parts ice and rocky material. Like all of Uranus's moons, Ariel probably formed from an accretion disk that surrounded the planet shortly after its formation, and, like other large moons, it is likely differentiated, with an inner core of rock surrounded by a mantle of ice. Ariel has a complex surface comprising extensive cratered terrain cross-cut by a system of scarps, canyons and ridges. The surface shows signs of more recent geological activity than other Uranian moons, most likely due to tidal heating. ( more...)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hello,
During the FAC for the Future of the Earth article, you raised the following concern:
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)
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)
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)
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've closed Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 November 15#Pakistani textbooks as Delete. The vote count was:
That is no consensus situation. Please reopen and relist the entry. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 19:19, 24 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
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)
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)
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)
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)
This 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. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 13 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hi, can you take a second look at the above FLC? Thanks, Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:28, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Is there anything else to do? Serendi pod ous 19:50, 5 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
Today's featured list: The
moons of Saturn are numerous and diverse, ranging from tiny
moonlets less than 1 kilometer (0.62 mi) across to the enormous
Titan, which is larger than the planet
Mercury.
Saturn has sixty-two
moons with confirmed orbits, fifty-three of which have names, and only thirteen of which have diameters larger than 50 kilometers (31 mi). Saturn has seven moons that are large enough to
become spherical, and dense
rings with complex orbital motions of their own.
Today's featured topic: The
BBC Sports Personality of the Year is an awards ceremony that takes place annually in December. Devised by
Paul Fox in 1954, it originally consisted of one
titular award. Several new awards have been introduced, and as of 2008
[update], eight awards are presented, including the
Team of the Year,
Overseas Personality,
Lifetime Achievement Award,
Helen Rollason Award, the
Coach Award, and the
Newcomer Award.
Listen to Spring, from The Four Seasons
|
Today's featured sound: The Four Seasons, a set of four violin concertos by Antonio Vivaldi. Composed in 1723,The Four Seasons is Vivaldi's best-known work, and is among the most popular pieces of Baroque music. The texture of each concerto is varied, each resembling its respective season. Performed by John Harrison and the Wichita State University Chamber Players.
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 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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
Thanks. Serendi pod ous 14:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry but could you do another histmerge?
I'm really bad at this sort of thing. Serendi pod ous 12:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ruslik, Why r u deleting my criticism of Lord Meghnad Desai? Ajaxyz ( talk) 02:50, 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)
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) }
Umbriel is a moon of Uranus discovered on October 24, 1851, by William Lassell. It was discovered at the same time as Ariel and named after a character in Alexander Pope's poem The Rape of the Lock. Umbriel consists mainly of ice with a substantial fraction of rock, and may be differentiated into a rocky core and an icy mantle. The surface is the darkest among Uranian moons, and appears to have been shaped primarily by impacts. However, the presence of canyons suggests early endogenic processes, and the moon may have undergone an early endogenically driven resurfacing event that obliterated its older surface. Covered by numerous impact craters reaching 210 km (130 mi) in diameter, Umbriel is the second most heavily cratered satellite of Uranus after Oberon. The most prominent surface feature is a ring of bright material on the floor of Wunda crater. This moon, like all moons of Uranus, probably formed from an accretion disk that surrounded the planet just after its formation. The Uranian system has been studied up close only once: by the spacecraft Voyager 2 in January 1986. It took several images of Umbriel, which allowed mapping of about 40% of the moon’s surface. ( more...)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Ariel is the brightest and fourth-largest of the 27 known moons of Uranus. Discovered on 24 October 1851 by William Lassell, it is named for a sky spirit in Alexander Pope's The Rape of the Lock and Shakespeare's The Tempest. Like its parent planet, Ariel orbits on its side, granting it an extreme seasonal cycle. As of 2011, almost all knowledge of Ariel derives from a single flyby of Uranus performed by the spacecraft Voyager 2 in 1986, which managed to image only 35% of the moon's surface. There are no plans at present to return to study the moon in more detail. After Miranda, Ariel is the second-smallest of Uranus's five round satellites, and the second-closest to its planet. Among the smaller of the Solar System's 19 known spherical moons (it ranks 14th among them in diameter), it is believed to be composed of roughly equal parts ice and rocky material. Like all of Uranus's moons, Ariel probably formed from an accretion disk that surrounded the planet shortly after its formation, and, like other large moons, it is likely differentiated, with an inner core of rock surrounded by a mantle of ice. Ariel has a complex surface comprising extensive cratered terrain cross-cut by a system of scarps, canyons and ridges. The surface shows signs of more recent geological activity than other Uranian moons, most likely due to tidal heating. ( more...)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hello,
During the FAC for the Future of the Earth article, you raised the following concern:
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)
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)
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)
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've closed Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 November 15#Pakistani textbooks as Delete. The vote count was:
That is no consensus situation. Please reopen and relist the entry. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 19:19, 24 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
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)
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)
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)
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)