User talk:Ruslik0/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 13

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2007, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John McDonnell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited AM Canum Venaticorum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Degenerate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Aaw thanks! :)

and happy early Orthodox Christmas to you! Serendi^podous 20:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

ANI report

I have reported you at ANI here for editing in bad faith and general WP:dickishness. — kwami (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Katharine Hepburn

when you closed this TfD, you closed it as keep but gave no guidance regarding if it should be modified. from my reading of the discussion, Gonnym asked for it to be deleted due to the extensive filmography in the template per MOS:FILM#Navigation. Armbrust agreed that the extensive filmography should be removed per MOS:FILM#Navigation and Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Consensus summaries, but that it should be kept. I went ahead and split off the filmography into a second template (per others in Category:Film actor navigational boxes), so that it could be considered separately, but this did not make Lobo512 happy. I can merge the two back together, or have the filmography template deleted, or whatever, but I thought I would check with you first. Frietjes (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This was not the central point of the discussion. The question asked was to delete or not. Ruslik_Zero 07:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ruslik, so you allow the template to exist as it was originally then? I'm slightly annoyed that Frietjes took it upon himself (or herself) to split the template, without discussion, even though you (as closing admin) never requested this. I'm not hugely attached to the template and wouldn't have minded that much if it was deleted, but seeing as there was a debate and the decision was keep, I'm now finding this annoying. Frietjes, I know that MOS:FILM#Navigation goes against such templates, but WP does allow for exceptions in justifiable instances. And I really don't see how splitting it, and still leaving one with a filmography (which you then put on all her film pages), even went inline with what you are opposing...? You still left a filmography navbox on each page! Yeah I'm pretty baffled by all this. --Lobo512 (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I did not actually expect that somebody would split it immediately. I thought that you would have a discussion before taking any action. I think it is not too late to have such a discussion now within WP:FILM. Ruslik_Zero 16:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I amended the closing rational accordingly. Ruslik_Zero 16:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Reported

I am reporting you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring for edit warring to remove POV tags. — kwami (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Any RfC at Talk:Dwarf planet?

Hello Ruslik0. Please see the suggestion I added to the 3RR report, and my comment at Ckatz's talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Please, Ruslik, discussion goes in the discussion section. Refs go in the ref section. Quotes go in the quote section. You don't need to paste your comments all over everything. It's disruptive. And to edit war over it? I don't know what's wrong here. Oh, and comments about the Brown 4 should go in the section on the Brown 4. We don't need a new section "Ruslik's views on the Brown 4" placed at the very top because you're the most important person here—everyone writes together. That's how they're "threaded" discussions. — kwami (talk) 12:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I sort of agree with Kwami, here. Please do not post your comments on quotes right under them, that just disrupts the entire flow – I tried to read the thread, but it is an incredible mess –. Kwami's layout is more rational and readable. Furthermore, assertions such as [y]ou are again lying here qualify as personal attacks and are not conducive to a collegial editing environment. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

He posted his evidence and every piece of it should be cross-examined. I do not know any other way to do this. Ruslik_Zero 14:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

He also can be simultaneously a moderator and a party to this dispute. Ruslik_Zero 14:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that he should not simultaneously be a party and a mediator to the dispute; regarding the cross-examination of his evidence, I'd suggest a layout similar to the one used by ArbCom (but only because I'm familiar with it), you place your quotes in the "quote" section, alongside Kwami's, but you place your comments on them in the following section.

Alternatively, if you both don't mind revolutionising the layout, you can each create your own section, that nobody else can modify, followed by a comment section, where everybody else can place his comment. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I moved my comments into a subsection, if, of course, Kwamikagami has not removed them again. Ruslik_Zero 17:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited 90482 Orcus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Primordial (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No_Dada_No_Kkr

thanks mate can you further help me on adding this to wikipedia?? iam quite new to this any suggestions?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virinchi523 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You should shorten what you have written and should use clearer language. Reading that long text was not a great pleasure for me. Ruslik_Zero 16:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Atreya2005

Hi. I've spotted a referencing problem that I can't fix. In Atmosphere of Jupiter's cited sources we have these two citations, and they are both set up with "ref=Atreya2005", the first in a doi template and the second in a cite journal template in the article itself:

• Atreya, Sushil K.; Wong, Ah-San (2005). "Coupled Clouds and Chemistry of the Giant Planets — A Case for Multiprobes" (PDF). Space Science Reviews. 116: 121–136. Bibcode:2005SSRv..116..121A. doi:10.1007/s11214-005-1951-5. ISSN 0032-0633. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Atreya, S.K. (2005). "Jupiter's ammonia clouds—localized or ubiquitous?" (PDF). Planetary and Space Science. 53 (5): 498–507. Bibcode:2005P&SS...53..498A. doi:10.1016/j.pss.2004.04.002. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

In the article we have <ref name=Atreya2005>[[#Atreya2005|Atreya ''et al.'' (2005)]]</ref> and three other refs to the name Atreya2005. This is causing all of the footnotes to refer to the first source and none to the second. Beyond sorting out which information is sourced to which journal article, I see the main problem as being the use of fixed names in the ref parameter of the citation templates; "ref=Atreya2005" is too ambiguous for such prolific authors. We should be using "ref=harv" or "ref={{sfnRef|something|year}}". I found this because the {{cite journal| doi = 10.1007/s11214-005-1951-5| last1 = Atreya| first1 = Sushil K.| last2 = Wong| first2 = Ah-San| year = 2005| title = Coupled Clouds and Chemistry of the Giant Planets — A Case for Multiprobes| journal = Space Science Reviews| issn = 0032-0633| volume = 116| pages = 121–136| url = http://www-personal.umich.edu/~atreya/Chapters/2005_JovianCloud_Multiprobes.pdf| format = PDF| bibcode = 2005SSRv..116..121A| ref = harv}} is also used in Atmosphere of Uranus, a related article I've been working on. When a source is used elsewhere, work is often required in all of the articles. This is all pretty much what I've done with Tethys (moon).

I don't feel comfortable deciding which source goes with what content. Please let me know if you can clarify this so I can proceed. Thank you, Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1 (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I disambiguated this two sources. Ruslik_Zero 07:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll take a look and move things along. I'll mostly work on Atmosphere of Uranus first, I think. Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1 (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Image deletion

Hi there, I see you (rightly) declined the proposed deletion of File:LawyersheadNZ.jpg. Another image file of the same photographer was tagged for deletion by the same editor, and I've commented on its talk page. You might want to have a look at that. Schwede66 00:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Cnproj close

I noticed you closed Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_7. Thanks. Any reason not to delete Template:WikiProject_Information_Technology? – Pnm (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It was the project template of a related project, which was redirected to the current target. I thought it was important to preserve the history. Ruslik_Zero 18:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems you no one in the discussion thought so. Even the project itself was deleted without a redirect. – Pnm (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

But "not used" is not really a reason to delete a redirect. So, taking into account that it has a non-trivial history the best solution is to keep it. It is not harmful. I deleted those redirects that were potentially confusing. Ruslik_Zero 09:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Thanks. – Pnm (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

RfD decision

You closed this discussion as keep, despite the only keep !vote being from the creator, and said !vote not (apparently) mentioning any WP:RFD#KEEP criteria. Can you please explain your rationale for keeping this? --NYKevin @032, i.e. 23:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

What is implausible is matter of opinion. So, deletion in such cases requires a clear consensus, which was not present here. Ruslik_Zero 18:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

When there isn't a clear consensus, isn't it common practice to relist the discussion? --NYKevin @117, i.e. 01:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I prefer not to relist RFDs because they are not that significant and unlikely to receive further input even if relisted. Ruslik_Zero 09:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk: feedback

Hello, Ruslik0. You have new messages at MediaWiki talk:Searchmenu-new-nocreate.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

may be looking for feedback on occasional biology post particularly bugs.

James Shelton32 (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Atmosphere of Uranus Encrenaz 2003, p. 963.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Uranus#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEEncrenaz2003963_32-0
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Uranus#cite_note-FOOTNOTEEncrenaz2003963-32 p. 963. ???

Hi, again. I've noticed a dubious page number; it's outside the page range of the document. It's probably just a typo (93? 96?...) Please see this edit. There's another Encrenaz 2003 in there, so watch out. I'll pick up with the Encrenaz 2004/2005 pair (which are a bit addled, too; 2004b is really 2005...) FWIW, the GRS split was a bad idea; it's all of a piece. Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1 (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that I often write from my memory, which is not always that reliable. I will look into the paper. Ruslik_Zero 09:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem; it will abide. You might care to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samad (crater) and the nominator's image deletion nominations. Lots of NASA images up for deletion. Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1 (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

extragalactic astronomy isn't really my forte.... :( Serendi^podous 14:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I've given it a ce, but there are some questions I need to ask:

• what is a “core type” galaxy?

This is an elliptical galaxy whose central part is under-luminous as compared to r^1/4 law. It is explained in the text.

• What is a “boxy” shape?

Boxy means looking like a rectangle with rounded corners.

• “contrary to common belief”; I’m not sure that the belief that one cannot see Maffei 1 is particularly common

Removed.

• “infrared Eastman emulsions I-N” This needs some elaboration

Ok, I will clarify when I find it myself.

• “Its spectrum lacked any emission of absorption lines” – I think the “of” is meant to be an “or” here?

Fixed.

Thanks. Serendi^podous 22:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for a copyedit. Ruslik_Zero 18:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Makemake

Category:Makemake, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Ruslik0,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 04:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Notification request

Hi,

User:Ymblanter was kind to translate m:Requests for comment/Meta-wiki requests for comment on users in Russian, but he did not notify ruwiki because he does not want to edit there. Could you leave a note in the appropriate forum on ruwiki (like their village pump or similar)? Thanks, ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Steamtown, USA/archive2

Please see my response to your opposition. Thanks.--Ishtar456 (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Music for the Hard of Thinking

Ruslik0, I am not here to critise your closure of the WP:RFD, only to seek information. I was expecting the five edits prior to my creation of the article Music for the Hard of Thinking to be removed from wikipedia to show that I am the creator of the article (and not merely a redirect from User:Ktommy). Please advise. Argolin (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

History is deleted only if there is a compelling reason to do so. I do not see any in this case. You are still a creator of this article despite its early history as a redirect (which is not uncommon). Ruslik_Zero 11:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not the creator. What is the entire point of WP:RFD if not to correct this big technicallity? Argolin (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

TFD - closing statement

I just wanted to say what an admirable, concise and thoughtful closing statement you put on the discussion regarding UK station infoboxes. The discussion had become pretty heated but the way you have closed it managed to encapsulate all views and suggest a way forward. NtheP (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Thank you. One small point - when closing a TFD for multiple templates, the {{tfdend}} needs a small modification, like this. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew but forgot. Ruslik_Zero 18:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

And I want to say that it's one of the most artisan I have ever seen. I invite you to review your closing comments, before I take them to deletion review. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

DRV is your right, of course. Ruslik_Zero 18:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Ruslik0. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Dipankan says.. ^{("Be bold and edit!")} 10:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Please, do not ask me. Apply at WP:RFP/F. Ruslik_Zero 12:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 March 21#Various recently created redirects to Canada-themed Categories

How can one person redirect all this to the wrong places.... What to do with wrong outcome I guess I worded the whole thing wrong. You just closes a few redirects that were up for deletion. What do I do next as we are trying to actually make these articles that are redirected to cats in am impropermaner- Think there's a problem with the outcome....Only the creator of them vote not to delete. Again I ask were can we go to fix this so theses redirects to a category are not spammed all over our articles. How can theses articles be written if there redirected? Moxy (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Redirects from the article space to the category space are rather common. There is no need to do anything. If you want to create an article in place of a redirect, just do it. Ruslik_Zero 15:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for you time and info... Will solve this at the project level (we have had this problem before).Moxy (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Ruslik0. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to events in June and July: bot, script, template, and Gadget makers wanted

I invite you to the yearly Berlin hackathon, 1-3 June. Registration is now open. If you need financial assistance or help with visa or hotel, then please register by May 1st and mention it in the registration form.

This is the premier event for the MediaWiki and Wikimedia technical community. We'll be hacking, designing, teaching, and socialising, primarily talking about ResourceLoader and Gadgets (extending functionality with JavaScript), the switch to Lua for templates, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Labs.

We want to bring 100-150 people together, including lots of people who have not attended such events before. User scripts, gadgets, API use, Toolserver, Wikimedia Labs, mobile, structured data, templates -- if you are into any of these things, we want you to come!

I also thought you might want to know about other upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC and our other events.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 03:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Fapping

Could I ask you to either close or relist the discussion of the fapping redirect please. It's the only discussion left open at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 March 24 and you're about the only regular closer who hasn't commented in the discussion. Cheers, Thryduulf (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk Page

Check my comment on your meta talk page (or mine if not). ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 17:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Please explain

Can you explain why you removed information taken from the NYT source[1] saying that it was misleading?[2] The sentence was supposed to demonstrate the relevance of a paragraph that was not inherently relevant to the section. 198.151.130.96 (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Because saying this without a necessary qualification is misleading. It is also redundant because this issue is discussed in the next paragraph. Ruslik_Zero 14:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "necessary qualification"? Do you mean that it is off topic? If so, then the entire paragraph is off topic. If there is no sentence connecting the paragraph to the section, then I think the paragraph should be moved from the "immigration status" section of the article to a more appropriate section, such as the "birthright citizenship controversy" section or in a new section titled "birthright citizenship". 198.151.130.96 (talk) 10:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It was misleading because it did not mention that they must be over 21 years in order to sponsor their parents. Ruslik_Zero 16:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The source did not specify that so it is not a necessary qualification for the sentence. The over 21 years info is already in the section in a separate sentence. The section is missing a key connecting sentence linking citizenship with immigration. I don't think the sentence was out of context, but would a sentence taken from the politifact source (the one used in the rest of the section) be more appropriate? 198.151.130.96 (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

What are you specifically proposing? Ruslik_Zero 18:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I am proposing that either a transition sentence be added or the paragraph be moved to a new section. 198.151.130.67 (talk) 03:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Gluconeogenesis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lactate

Renal physiology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lactate

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Baba rosa

Hi, I have nominated baba rosa for deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 9 there.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Abuse Filter on the Article Feedback Tool

Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.

For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Bal des Ardents

Thank you for reviewing Bal des Ardents - it's vastly improved because of your comments. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia 1.0

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team which organizes offline releases of Wikipedia. We're trying to identify which members are still active, so we can start to work on our next general offline release, Version 0.9, being discussed here. Please add your comments to the discussion, and let us know here if you would like to be involved. Thanks! Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Understanding the Value of Pharmaceuticals

At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 April 30#Understanding the Value of Pharmaceuticals you closed the discussion as "Speedy delete as G11 (spam/political advocacy)" (and deleted the redirect accordingly). This seems very odd as not once in the discussion was it suggested that it was such - the reasons given for deletion were "implausible search term", "target not relevant to the title" and that the title "looks a lot like the title of an essay".

I can see that it would be possible to evaluate the arguments for deletion as being stronger than the arguments for keeping - I would disagree that they are, obviously - but the appearance is that you haven't done this, rather closing based not on the discussion at all. Furthermore, speedy deletion is only appropriate in cases where the page unquestionably meets the criteria, which (excluding newly-discovered copyright or other legal issues) can never be the case when there are good-faith recommendations for a course of action other than deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Any page either meets requirements of G11 (or any other CSD critera for that matter) or not. This is decided by an administrator without discussion. What was suggested or not in the RFD is irrelevant. Ruslik_Zero 11:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. The criteria list the criteria which describe pages that will always be deleted at a deletion discussion, therefore by definition any page about which there are good faith arguments for courses of action other than deletion can by definition therefore never meet the criteria, regardless of what any individual administrator thinks. There is only one exception to this, namely when objective facts come to light after the non-deletion arguments were made. As G11 is not an objective criterion and there were no other changes in facts this exception is irrelevant to this situation. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The CSD criteria has nothing to do with any deletion discussion. They are not a list of arguments to be considered; they are not negotiable. Any administrator can delete any page that (s)he think is spam. There is no need to follow any arguments in any discussion. There is even no need for an administrator to read any discussions or know that they are taking place. Ruslik_Zero 18:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Err, you are wrong again. If you think something is spam and somebody else thinks it isn't subject to speedy deletion. This is because to be subject to speedy deletion, a page must clearly meet the letter and spirit of the criteria - if there is disagreement on whether it does or not then by definition it doesn't. As you seem not to understand the criteria, I think it's time for DRV.

==Deletion review for Understanding the Value of Pharmaceuticals==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Understanding the Value of Pharmaceuticals. 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. Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

On a completely separate note, in your closure of the Haul Road discussion (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 April 24#Haul road) did you mean "persuasive" rather than "un-persuasive"? What you have written seems to say "I've deleted it because this argument for deletion wasn't persuasive" which I'm pretty certain isn't what you mean? Thryduulf (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:OR

You should read it. --JorisvS (talk) 09:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Please, do not be silly. You are trying to say some very old source is the same as multiple recent sources? Science moves forward, and what was written long ago does not matter. In addition I am citing peer reviewed papers. But what are you citing? A web page? Ruslik_Zero 09:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thyroxine

Hi! Could you tell me your reasoning why Thyroid hormone is a better target for the redir Thyroxine? I'd say "thyroxine" is usually used synonymously to levothyroxine, whereas "thyroid hormone" also covers triiodothyronine and is therefore less specific. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The main article for thyroxine is Thyroid hormone. Pointing the redirect to levothyroxine is confusing. When people search for thyroxine they usually search for the natural hormone, not its synthetic substitute. Ruslik_Zero 09:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I missed that the levothyroxine article is only about the drug. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 May 21#Steve Sharpe

As the only participant, I'm unsure how you could determine a result when I didn't even get a response to my suggestion, which you left unaddressed. Dru of Id (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It was only a suggestion, not a !vote. Nobody supported it. Anyway there are probably many people with such a name, and re-targeting the redirect to a fictional character is not a good idea. Ruslik_Zero 18:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Looking into it further, there's another redirect Steve Sharpe (Canadian politician). Dru of Id (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that a redirect like Steve Sharpe (fictional character) will be appropriate. You can also create a dab page in place of Steve Sharpe. Ruslik_Zero 18:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Note

• Wikipedia_talk:Village_pump_(technical)/Proposal_by_Jc37#Wikimedia_Foundation_position

The WMF has clarified their position on the proposal. - jc37 19:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello Ruslik0. I just wanted thank you for your help with the History of Mars observation article. It has been promoted to FA. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You've been mentioned in a WP:AN/I discussion regarding the Criticism of Wikipedia page

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Criticism of Wikipedia. Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Common.js transfer

Hi my friend
MediaWiki: common.js script looks bad.Please, English Wikipedia MediaWiki: common.js file transfer Zaza Wikipedia, is it possible? Because, Turkish Wikipedia was transferred to the version currently being used.Regards --Tadiranscopus (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

w:za:MediaWiki:Common.js does not exist. What exactly from MediaWiki:Common.js do you me to transfer? Ruslik_Zero 10:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Request at WP:RFPP

Hi Ruslik0, there is a request for unprotection on an article which you protected on 16 February 2011. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Corporate names

Articles about corporations are titled after the official name of the corporation. Nothing should be added or removed. Thus, for example, Dion's should simply be titled "Dion's", not "Dion's Pizza". The latter is not the name of the company. If there were a need to disambiguate, because there were multiple things called "Dion's", then it would be properly disambiguated as "Dion's (restaurant)", with the disambiguating phrase in parentheses. Or, if there were multiple kinds of restaurant with the name Dion's, then it might be necessary to use "Dion's (pizza restaurant)". But we don't simply add words to a company name to make a more "descriptive" title. That simply ends up titling the article with an erroneous name, leading people to wonder what the actual name of the company or corporation is! Yworo (talk) 03:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

your edit

Hello, I'm 206.207.225.17. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions to Incest because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! 206.207.225.17 (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for rollback flag

Hello Ruslik0! I am a Wikipedian since 2011 and would like to have rollback right here. My home project is ru-wiki where I have made over 2k edits (exclude hundreds of speedy deletions nominations) and at the moment already have rollback right. So I suppose I know where to use it and where not to use (I have already read rollback policy of en-wiki). If there were some mistakes early, that was due to lack of experience. Now I am more experienced. See my last contributions for examples of manual and made via Twinkle revertings. ♪ anonim.one ♪ 23:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Addition: I am not going to watch the project the whole day and do over 9000 reverts. As I said before, my home wiki is ru, so I am not so active here. But yesterday I decided that rollback would be more helpful for me against such vandals. ♪ anonim.one ♪ 07:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik_Zero 16:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks / Спасибо. ♪ anonim.one ♪ 16:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:2011 Hotan attack/GA1

You started this Good Article review on July 21, and have not posted again since then. Are you planning to complete it soon, or should it go back into the reviewing pool to get a new reviewer? Please post something to the review page with your plans. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Renamed Commons file

Hi,

On the HelpDesk, you wrote "I renamed Commons' file." I had tried to do that, but couldn't figure out how. Can you explain how to rename a Commons file? Or do you need to be an admin there? Maproom (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You need to be either a commons admin or a file mover. Ruslik_Zero 12:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Adopt-a-user

Hi Ruslik0. I'm leaving you this message because you have previously been involved as an adopter with Wikipedia's Adopt-a-user program. A clean-up of this program is currently underway, and as part of the process I am trying to find out who is and isn't still interested in remaining an adopter.

If you would prefer not to be part of the adoption program anymore, you need do nothing; when the overhaul of the project is completed your name will be removed from the list of active adopters. However, if you have current adoptees, an active adoption school or an interest in adopting in the near future, then please let us know by signing here.

If you want to remain in the project and can currently take on more adoptees, there is a serious backlog at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user; it would be enormously helpful if you could take on one or two of the users there. Please do keep an eye on the project for upcoming changes, we could use your opinions and your help! Yunshui 雲‍水 09:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for fixing the rogue box on the Mountain Dew article. Much appreciated!--SUFC Boy 18:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Why fix the dr…

…on Wikipedia:Example of a double redirect‎? benzband (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Malplaced disambiguation

Note that this close resulted in a WP:MALPLACED disambiguation page. Rather than EGR redirecting to EGR (disambiguation), EGR (disambiguation) should be moved to EGR (which I'm doing). Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Janus945

This User has been accusing me of POV pushing on Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran and deleting my edits because he does not like my sourced edits. He has also accused User:Grant65 on the article Talk page of being responsible for the recent undiscussed moving of the article which you subsequently cleaned up. I have reviewed the article history and it seems to me that User:Janus945 was the actual person who moved this article not User:Grant65 who does not seem to have ever edited the article. Can you confirm that it was User:Janus945 who did the move? Thanks Dabbler (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Grant65 moved the article on 16 July. Ruslik_Zero 12:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

OK Thanks. I am just very careful because of his intemperate accusations about me. Dabbler (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

File:CalculatorOne.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:CalculatorOne.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Betelgeuse

Errr, the article is at FAC and I can't really do alot about that tag unless you specify this a bit more. I do see what you're getting at (I think) as I've tried folding down the language in a way similar to what you've done in diameter segment. I've read the thing so many times that some outside eyes seeing more examples would be good. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Hekerui has found lots of examples. It will probably take another 2-3 days to complete. I hope you revisit your tag after that if your time is limited. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Ruslik, you have a view about the language that I don't share, and I think the tag is pretty unhelpful for an article that is being thoroughly reviewed at FAC. It is there as one person's opinion, it is unnecessary in order to ensure action on the article (which is the point of tags) and I think it would be great if you would remove it now and discuss any further issues either at FAC or talk page. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thank you for fixing the picture on Arik Braun. Legolover26 (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of speech = New WikiProject

• WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

Hi there, I'm notifying you as I noticed your impressive work on the GA Quality article, John Marshall Harlan II. I've recently gone ahead and created WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Free software community

Hello. Please, translate this sentence into Russian language for Russian Article "Free software community". My created page can be removed, because - look, please. Thanks.

Some arguments take on the fervor of "religious wars", such as the technical disputes from the 80s and early 90s over which text editor is better, Emacs or Vi/Vim, or even what version of a text editor is superior, GNU Emacs vs XEmacs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Папа рядом! (talk • contribs) 04:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Human cloning RPP

Hi, hope I'm not being a nuisance, but a few hours ago you responded to my RPP for "Human cloning" (RPP linked to in section title), and it still hasn't been protected. Ironically, it hasn't been vandalized since then, so maybe I was too hasty to request protection in the first place, but either way, I was wondering if there was a reason for this. Thanks! (And sorry if my tone is a bit brusque... I've spent the last few hours on RCP, and forget how to communicate in anything other than curt declarations.) — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 22:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not know what happened but I clearly remember that I semi-protected it. Ruslik_Zero 19:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Page protection

Please reconsider on University Canada West -- another "new" account is carrying on with deletions ([3]). thanks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Ditto that. How can we use dispute resolution when the new spas and ips won't engage in the discussions? --Ronz (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the page protection! --Ronz (talk) 04:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying to track what happened to my request for Blacklight Power to be unprotected. I've had a bit of an unsuccessful dig around on the protection pages, but I wonder if you could point me in the right direction? Thanks. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I can not find any request for unprotection. The article was protected on 9 November until 9 December. Ruslik_Zero 19:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my problem, but here [4] is when I put in the request... Thanks. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 07:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You are better to ask the administrator who protected it. Ruslik_Zero 18:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I've tried quite hard at at, but they appear to be locked into a somewhat punitive mindset [5]. This is why I am keen to request a less involved party to have a look at the issue. And I'm puzzled about what happened to my request on the protection noticeboard. Thanks 110.32.79.50 (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Your unprotection request was not correctly filed. Ruslik_Zero 16:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Here Pass a Method talk 20:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

WP Astronomy in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Astronomy for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Shadowforce

Hi Ruslik,

I noticed that you closed this discussion as "keep", but no one contributing to that discussion recommended that the redirect be kept. Only two users contributed to the discussion, one recommending that the redirect be retargeted and the other recommending that it be deleted. Why did you close the discussion as "keep"?

Neelix (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Ego White Tray wrote that the redirect should be kept but retargeted. So, there was no consensus for deletion. However there was no consensus for the redirect to be retargeted either. Therefore the only option left is to keep it as it is. Ruslik_Zero 08:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ruslik,

I agree that the limited discussion produced no consensus. The redirect as it stands, however, does not make sense; it redirects to a disambiguation page listing nothing that could be referred to as "Shadowforce". Surely either of the two options presented in the discussion is preferable to keeping a confusing redirect with an unrelated target.

Neelix (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

If want to retarget it you can do this without RFD. Ruslik_Zero 07:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ruslik0. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help desk.
Message added 21:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TBrandley 21:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

move request for 79360 Sila–Nunam

I opened a move request in Talk:79360_Sila–Nunam#Requested_move. You are receiving this notice beause you have made substantial changes to the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Also your previous moves there have been commented on. Dicklyon (talk) 05:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Ryan Lanza

If you based your decision off of what you think is best for Ryan, then you have done a disservice to your role in this review. You need to weigh the arguments and make a decision based off the arguments. You seem to be violating the basic principle of BLP simply because you think it is correct in this instance. Arzel (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

But this was exactly the main argument of those who wanted the redirect to be kept. And BLP policy has nothing to do with closing XfD discussions. Ruslik_Zero 08:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

RfD closures

Firstly, thank you for clearing some of the RfD backlog, but there are two closures that I want to query with you.

Firstly, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 December 11#Girl Meets World (TV Series). The target of the redirect was merged, not deleted, and so your statement that it lacks a plausible target is incorrect and directly contradicts the recommendation to keep from the person who merged the article. It is now a {{R to section}} as well as (not instead of) a {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}, and as the former title of content that still exists is required for attribution reasons. Closing a discussion as "delete" in the face of unanimous recommendations to "keep" requires extraordinary circumstances or newly discovered legal issues (e.g. copyright violations), neither of which happened here.

Secondly, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 November 24#Articles for deletion. Your closing statement states you deleted it because it was a CNR that had been deleted multiple times before, but both of these factors were explicitly addressed by those wanting to keep the redirect. That it was deleted previously is entirely irrelevant here, as was explained, as the last deletion was 6 years ago and consensus can change - nobody in the discussion gave any reasons why we should be beholden to such an old, contested action. The CNR issue was addressed too - simply being a CNR is not a reason to delete a redirect (as the keep recommendations note) and each needs to be evaluated on its own merits. The keep recommendations were based on the benefits to new users and transparency of our processes, which were not addressed by those wanting deletion. The appearance in the search dropdown suggestions list is irrelevant as it is entirely due to a MediaWiki bug and not anything to do with this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

CNRs are generally discouraged with some exceptions. And this practice has existed for a long time. Multiple past deletions only confirm the fact that this redirect has been considered undesirable. You are also wrong that the past deletions are irrelevant—they can provide a useful insight into the opinion of the wider Wikipedia community. As to new users, the argument that the redirect benefits them was convincingly rebutted by Nabla.

Yes past deletions can offer an insight, but consensus can change and so the older a deletion the less insight it provides. The significant opinions expressed in this discussion favouring keeping the redirect indicate that the consensus from 6 years ago has changed (when no such opinions were expressed). The fact that it has been recreated several times, and most recently existed uncontested for three years, offer a stronger indication of the contemporary opinion of the community and indicate that this is a redirect that is one of the exceptions. Nabla's "rebuttal" of the benefits to new users is contrary to every recent consensus at RfD I have commented on, and unsupported by any evidence (evidence that users benefit from this was presented in the form of usage statistics). Nabla's comments were also rejected by Metropolitan90, the only person to comment after them. Metropolitan90's and others comments about openness of process were never addressed, let alone rebutted. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

That a lot of rubbish exist undetected for years is not a serious argument to keep this rubbish. The arguments of Nabla can be rejected only because somewhere some consensus exist. You obviously do not understand difference between consensus (opinion) and rational arguments. All Metropolitan90's comments do not make any sense at all—there is no connections between openness of a process and presence of some redirects. Ruslik_Zero 12:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Now about the first deletion. Nobody in this discussion said that it should be retargeted, not even Metropolitan90. I am not supposed to "read minds". Since the redirect could not literally be kept, I deleted it. You are also wrong that anything was merged from it to Boy Meets World. I do not see any evidence of this. Something was merged from Girl Meets World, but not from the deleted redirect. Ruslik_Zero 18:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

As this is now at DRV I'll not comment further here. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Girl Meets World (TV Series)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Girl Meets World (TV Series). 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Belated Happy New Year

Hey Ruslik, I hope you had a great 2012, and that your 2013 goes just as well. ceranthor 20:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

and happy Russian Christmas! Serendi^podous 21:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you guys! Ruslik_Zero 18:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

About the RfD on Commercial break redirects.

Everyone said yes to a separate article about commercial breaks, but the result was to keep all ? What kind of sense is this? JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 08:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you want me to do? Write the article myself? I am not going to write anything. If you want to turn a redirect into an article you do not need my (or anyone's also) permission to do this. Ruslik_Zero 18:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The Space Barnstar

		The Space Barnstar
		For extraordinary contributions of content and quality to articles related to space. Congratulations! Fotaun (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Protecting a proposal

• User_talk:Jc37#WP:RRA

A proposal is not a policy page, nor an article. And indeed, it is considered disruptive to edit a proposal during an active straw poll (XFD is one example, see also some discussions concerning the recent Arbcom election as well.)

So protection in this case was merely "preventative, not punitive".

You're welcome to your opinion, but that in itself is all it is.

Incidentally, no worries, I'll just see about placing any future proposals in user space so that such nonsense will be avoided in the future. Shrugs.

Oh and incidentally, the next time you reverse a protection, you might consider dropping a note on the protector's user page. Making accusations in your edit summary without actually making any attempt to discuss would seem to be counter to WP:ADMIN (not to mention WP:CIVIL). YMMV of course.

Oh and as far as I'm concerned, while I would have been happy to discuss at the time, at this stage, don't bother.

Happy editing. - jc37 21:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Any page in a public namespace must be open to editing unless the protection policy permits its protection. Any editor-administrator who created or substantially contributed to it is considered involved and may not use his administrative tools to protect it. I thought that you knew such simple things but I probably was mistaken. Ruslik_Zero 04:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Kits

Hey man, thanks to help me... I don't made those pictures:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kit_body_al-ahly1011H.png, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kit_body_al-ahly1011A.png, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kit_socks_chelsea1213H.png, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kit_body_col12g1.png . So what i do with this picutes to solve this problem, send a mensage for wikipedia in portuguese for my discussion: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio_Discuss%C3%A3o:Gustavo_neto. --Gustavo neto (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Election infobox

Hi. I notice that in the past you have been involved in the editing of the Election Infobox. I left a request here a few weeks ago, alas to no avail! Please can you help. It's right at the bottom of the page. Many thanks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey! You're a magician! Many thanks for your prompt and effective action! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm still planning to start on Ariel

Let me know if you finally want to get the Uranus project over and done with :) Serendi^podous 19:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm ready to start on Ariel. Ruslik_Zero 10:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You probably meant Miranda? Ruslik_Zero 16:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah. I know this is the fifteenth time I've asked you, but I have a new computer now so do you still have that Miranda zip file? Serendi^podous 17:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do, but you should e-mail me so I know your e-mail address. Ruslik_Zero 08:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks :) Relatives over right now so otherwise occupied. Will start incorporating it tomorrow. Serendi^podous 19:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Cham Albanians Genocide

Can you explain your rationale for closing Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 28#Cham Albanians Genocide as delete please? Numerically it was 2-1 delete including the nominator. However the nomination reason was that this term doesn't appear in literature, which I demonstrated was false. The other delete argument was that all the web hits were for the Cambodian genocide, which I again demonstrated was incorrect. Neither point was replied to, let alone successfully rebutted, so I don't understand why you went with "delete"? Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

You demonstrated nothing. In the only example that you had provided the word "genocide" is not used. Ruslik_Zero 16:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, I demonstrated that the event did exist, and is called a genocide by some parties, " Indeed the article includes the sourced sentence "This day, was announced in Albania in 1994 as The Day of Greek Chauvinist Genocide Against the Albanians of Chameria." (italics in original, bolding mine). ". Further, I explained why this is a useful search term despite not appearing as an exact phrase in the literature. Nobody even attempted a rebuttal of this. Thryduulf (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

"despite not appearing as an exact phrase" – this is what is actually important. It is not Wikipedia's job to invent new phrases. You would have had more success if you had argued for the retention of "Greek Chauvinist Genocide Against the Albanians of Chameria" redirect. Ruslik_Zero 11:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

But we aren't inventing new phrases. As I explained we are enabling people to find the article, but the point is that nobody argued against keeping it for that reason - they argued for deletion on the grounds that it wasn't called a genocide or that all the hits related to Cambodia, both of which I demonstrated were incorrect assertions. As a closing admin it is your job to evaluate the arguments presented, not ones that you think should have been. Thryduulf (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

As I said above the best way to find an article is to use the exact phrase. Changing it to make it more neutral and scholar-like is an improper way to achieve this. This is in direct contradiction to WP:NEUTRAL. Ruslik_Zero 18:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Eh? None of that was mentioned in the discussion - this is all your views that you should have presented in the discussion so that they could have been discussed. DRV is next. Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed I have now nominated it at DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 February 12#Cham Albanians Genocide. Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Filter 270 - Interwiki link removal

Shouldn't we disable Filter 270 - Interwiki link removal as now this is handled by Wikidata? -- Alexf^(talk) 13:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Antarctic ice sheet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to GRACE

Common envelope (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Recombination

East Antarctic Ice Sheet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to GRACE

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Sorry to bother you, but can you please remove the lock on Slenderman? I need to redirect it to its own page because the editors of the page it redirects to are getting restive. Serendi^podous 16:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

What do you want to do? Fuhghettaboutit just retargetted it to Folklore, apparently in response to your request. Ruslik_Zero 19:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Now other editors of Fakelore are complaining that the entry is too long and detailed, and they're asking for material to be moved to the main Slender Man page. Except there is no main Slender Man page, so I have to create it. Basically, admins shouldn't have locked the page in the first place, but they did, in a reaction typical of their neurotic attitude toward internet phenomena, and so now I've had to chase them around to get anything done about this, and I'm not enjoying it. Serendi^podous 20:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

What worries me is that if recreated the article will be deleted as it was the last time. Ruslik_Zero 07:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I have little interest in the Slender Man. But because of the admins' ham-fisted deletion of that article, I was forced to deal with it to protect pages on my watchlist, and later to correct a flawed solution which crippled attempts to query it. I have no idea what the original deleted article looked like, but I'm willing to bet it wasn't as well sourced or as objective as the one I've written. If they try to do the stupid thing and delete it again, I will raise what happened last time against them. Serendi^podous 08:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The deleted article was userfied to User:Cougar Draven/Slender Man. I can restore it so that you can compare. Ruslik_Zero 19:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters. The deletion discussion says that the original page had one primary source. I have ten secondary ones. Serendi^podous 22:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion you deleted was recreated

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_24#Articles_for_deletion you closed as deletion. It has since been recreated as a link to Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia#Background and from there, there is a link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, which is surely what anyone searching for the term would be looking for. So isn't this just a way to get around the reason for its deletion? Don't link directly there, just to an unrelated main space article, and then link from there to where it originally pointed? Dream Focus 13:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not think anything is wrong with the redirect in the current form. It is not an CNR. It points to a section of an article that mentions the subject. It just looks like an ordinary redirect. Ruslik_Zero 19:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Messier 87, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prograde (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: Oregon Symphony discography

Thank you for taking time to review this list at FLC. Please let me know if any of your concerns still need to be addressed. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey there

Apologies for the conflict. Looks like we both got to this at the same time. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami

You reverted an edit making curious changes to the aftershock numbers on this page, and also moving the "map alt" tag (which I don't understand). I checked the original, and the aftershock change was certainly wrong, but so was the original number (slightly), so I have corrected it. But meanwhile another numeric IP made the same change. Perhaps you can look, and if the "map alt" tag thing is also wrong, change that back in the latest version.

(Personally I find the resilience of WP to vandalism to be one of the wonders of the third millennium, but this sort of "ingenious" vandalism is a bit depressing. Do people really get kicks from it?)

Brian Chandler Imaginatorium (talk) 09:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I only reverted addition of "cheese". The revert you are talking about was made by another user. Ruslik_Zero 17:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, OK! Sorry, I must have been hallucinating.... Imaginatorium (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Page protection question

Hi, Ruslik0. I understand your decision here to decline to page protection due to insufficient activity. The redirect on the page in question was reverted again today. Should I bring it back? Location (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I saw your PP and note that this went to DR. Thanks! Location (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Banned User

An user you banned is active using his IP address to reinsert the same unsourced changes. Please do the needful. Thanks --Neelkamala (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

WISE mass deletion

You might want to have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WISEPC J222623.05+044003.9 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical_objects#Action on WISE object notability. I question whether Hekerui is acting in the projects best interest. -- Kheider (talk) 02:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments at Kevin Shields discography FLC

Hello, I have addressed comments you suggested at Kevin Shields discography's FLC page. If there's a chance you could review them and see if they're resolved it would be much appreciated. Thanks! Idiotchalk _(t@lk) 17:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

We'd like your opinion

A question for people who commented in the RfC at "Probationary Period" and "Not Unless". (Or feel free to reply on my talk page, if you prefer.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Male film directors

• Category:Male film directors

Fantr (talk · contribs) has begun a CFD here. I invite you to add any comments. — Cirt (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

AN/TPS-43 vandal

Not a "strange edit". Banned by the community. Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive790#AN.2FTPS-43. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Fgh.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:Fgh.png

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

File:JoePrusak.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:JoePrusak.jpg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Undid your edit at Template:Userspace draft

Left a note there, but basically it made the submit link malfunction and result in submissions to mainspace of only AfC templates. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Geographic Location Infobox

Hello. I am in the process of editing Quebec geographic information, primarily maps and cleanup. Due to an edit you made to the Geographic location template, the display now looks like the following:

As you can see, the text within the template infoboxes has become somewhat crooked and squeezed into 2 lines. Could you please have a look into this, as I don't want to just undo your edit without knowing what you were trying to do. Thanks! Gordalmighty (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, the example above looks normal for me. Can you be more specific about on what page you found a problem? You can also look at Template:Geographic_location/testcases. Ruslik_Zero 07:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Call up any municipality on Wikipedia that uses that template. Here are some of the ugliest: Notre-Dame-de-l'Île-Perrot, Quebec, Notre-Dame-du-Bon-Conseil, Quebec (parish). Everything in the center space stacks up and the east and west arrows don't line up. The example I provided shows exactly as described. Is it possible that your screen resolution is not set properly? Gordalmighty (talk) 06:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Update: I checked with User P199 and like yourself, he doesn't have this problem and said that the change you made is good. It was suggested that I might have to purge cached pages. So please feel free to ignore my whining! I'll see if I can figure this purge thing out somehow. Thanks. Gordalmighty (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Okay, I figured it out! Once again, I apologize for the fuss! Great edit BTW! Gordalmighty (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Deleted page listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Deleted page. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Deleted page redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Question

If I create accounts, do administrators know my ip address? How to know my ip address if I create accounts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fceefyahoo.ca (talk • contribs) 23:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

No, administrators can not see your IP address. Ruslik_Zero 19:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal of category

No rush on this - it's just for my edification and I'm sure you're busy. My guess is that there's a great reason for this, since you know WP a lot better than I do, and categories baffle me. When I saw it removed from Hepatitis C virus that made sense since that's not a Flavivirus; however, Yellow fever virus is the type species of Flavivirus, hence my confusion. I am reassured and yet still confused when I go to Category:Flaviviruses, and see that Yellow fever virus (a redirect) is still there, so nothing is broken. -- Scray (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed Yellow fever from Category:Flaviviruses because it is not a virus, it is a decease caused by this virus. I added Yellow fever virus (a redirect) to that category instead. In case of Hepatitis C virus I removed it from Category:Flaviviruses and added it to Category:Hepatitis C virus, which I created. Hepatitis C virus is a a member of Flaviviridae. Ruslik_Zero 15:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to have a Category:Hepaciviruses, rather than Category:Hepatitis C virus, in parallel with the Flaviviruses? Then, we could include Canine hepacivirus. By design, Category:Hepatitis C virus can only have one member. -- Scray (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it would make sense. Ruslik_Zero 19:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Aphthovirus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members). So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497). Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)