Jump to content

User talk:Ruslik0/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yaws, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pinta (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) 11:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete request of User:Dan56

Please delete User:Dan56 (all with talk page and contributions). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.178.109 (talk) 07:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you, please, log in and repeat this request? Ruslik_Zero 10:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikimania 2014 discussions

I added to the Barbican Centre Collaborations page and the Museum trip (Aug 11) page, but I found these pages from the main page contributors history. Can you help in making these pages and others like them apparent to the casual visitor and the newbie, and not just to techie types like me? I will assist you if you need help. It is early days on the Wikimedia 2014 pages, but experienced editors can help make this a fun and productive Wikimania. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Barbican Centre Collaborations is linked from wm2014:Volunteers page, which is linked from the side bar. So, it is sufficiently visible, in my opinion. Ruslik_Zero 18:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Associated diseases categories page

Hi Ruslik0

I like the category pages you set up for the associated diseases of enteroviruses, Epstein-Barr virus, varicella zoster virus, cytomegalovirus and papillomavirus.

I am myself very interested in microbes and the diseases they are linked to.

I am just wondering if it might be an idea to make a distinction on your pages between diseases that these microbes are definitely known to cause, and diseases that these microbes have been associated with/linked to (and thus may play a causal role in the disease, but this role is not proven yet).

When you use a phrase such as "enterovirus associated diseases", the word "associated" generally implies the microbe (enterovirus in this case) has been "linked to" that disease (ie, it is statistically found more often in patients with the disease), which is not the same thing as saying that the microbe is a known and proven cause of the disease. (See Correlation does not imply causation).

To give an example: enteroviruses are known to cause poliomyelitis‎, that is, poliomyelitis‎ has been proven to be caused by enterovirus infection. So on your Category page, poliomyelitis‎ might appear in a section entitled say "Diseases known to be caused by enteroviruses". But as for the relation between enteroviruses and diabetes mellitus type 1, for example, well there is definitely a strong association between enteroviruses and diabetes mellitus type 1 (they are statistically found more often in patients with diabetes), but it has not been definitively proven that enteroviruses cause diabetes mellitus type 1. So in this case, diabetes mellitus type 1 might appear in your Category page under say the heading of "Diseases associated with enteroviruses". These titles are just suggestions.

Usually in medical research into infectious microbial etiologies of diseases, the first step is to demonstrate that there is an association between a given microbe and a disease; and then once this association has been shown, the next stage is to try to determine whether infection with that microbe actually causes the disease, or whether the microbe is plays no role in the etiology of the disease (it might just be an "innocent bystander").

I often contribute to this page, with lists many microbes that have been associated with diseases, but which have not as yet been proven to cause the diseases in question.

I hope this is of interest. Drgao (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no objections, but want to note that if a diseases is caused by a virus, it is also associated with this virus. In other words these categories are not mutually exclusive. Ruslik_Zero 16:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Olga Maliouk Article

Dear Ruslik0, On 13:04, 12 July 2009, you deleted page Olga Maliouk (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject). Olga is the August 2013 model of the month on Fashion Model Directory. I propose to start an article about her based on the format of other fashion models. Please tell me your thoughs on this matter. Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You may start it if you want. Ruslik_Zero 16:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

user redir question

This page was moved from your userspace to the userspace of another user. The redirect was created as a result of this move. Ruslik_Zero 03:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hepatitis E, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stool (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) 12:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

YGM

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Check your email (from meta).

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

I didn't get. Read other email + resend. are you know russian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.9.137.122 (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Portal 3

In response to your closing of this discussion as delete. I disagree that there was a consensus reached. Only two people laid their opinions in not counting the nominator, myself included. I believe it's in the interest of fair discussion that the discussion is relisted to generate a consensus. CRRaysHead90 | #OneMoreGame 10:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Consensus is determined not by counting votes but by strength of arguments. "Redirects are cheap" is not a particularity strong argument. Ruslik_Zero 10:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh I don't disagree that it's based on the strength of arguments. However, the fact remains only two arguments were given and so I don't believe a sufficient discussion took place. CRRaysHead90 | #OneMoreGame 10:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Scarlet pimpernel

Please don’t forget the adaptions made necessary by this retarget (e.g. redirect notice in Anagallis arvensis, recursion in Scarlet Pimpernel (disambiguation)). Regards •  • hugarheimur 20:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not my responsibility. Ruslik_Zero 12:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
It isn’t? •  • hugarheimur 20:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I’m sorry, Ruslik0, but this is not acceptable. If you’re unwilling to adjust the links I will have to revert your edit. •  • hugarheimur 19:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
If you do this I will revert you back and protect the page because you can not unilaterally overturn the result of the RFD discussion. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I though you might say something like that. If you’re unwilling to cooperate in the creation of this project, so be it. Have fun. •  • hugarheimur 23:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
All "adaptation" can be done by any editor including you, my participation is not necessary. Ruslik_Zero 07:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I know that, but what makes you think (especially after our not very pleasant conversation) that I’d be willing to clean up your mess? Regards •  • hugarheimur 12:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Elya Chavez

Здравствуйте! Не могли бы Вы проверить статью? С английским есть некоторые проблемы, поэтому обращаюсь к Вам. Что насчет значимости, то в русской Википедии статья в прошлом году была удалена, а совсем недавно через страницу "К восстановлению" была восстановлена (за это время жизнь и деятельность певицы широко освещалось в авторитетных источниках). Значимость статьи подтвердил один из администраторов (который и подвел положительный итог). Очень надеюсь на Вашу помощь. Заранее спасибо. Ugonschik (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Проверил. Ruslik_Zero 19:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

S/2009 S 1

Hi Ruslik, would you, as the creater of the article, like to answer my question at Talk:S/2009 S 1, as to where the border between a moon and a constituent piece of Saturn's rings is supposed to lie? Thanks in advance, Steinbach (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Request to reconsider your closing of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Using Archive.is

Per the pre-requisites for invoking WP:DRV, I'd like to strongly suggest that you reconsider the closing you made for this MFD. While the original nomination reason for NOTHOWTO was refuted (as evidenced by Graeme Bartlett and De728631), other reasoned justifications were presented and poorly (if at all refuted/challenged). I assert that a more reasonable closing would have been Userfication to Lexein's space as suggested by BDD. Pending no or a decline to reconsider, I intend to invoke DRV within 72 hours of this posting. Hasteur (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, good luck with that. I would appreciate a more detailed closure rationale, though, if considered helpful. That's just me. I always do. --Lexein (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I do not see any substantial support for userfication. Those who want to keep the page (in either Wikipedia or Help namespace) clearly prevailed in this discussion. Ruslik_Zero 19:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for expanding the closing rationale. --Lexein (talk) 15:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter


Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Using Archive.is

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Using Archive.is. 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. Hasteur (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

FA review?

Hello,

I noticed that you are involved with the physics articles on Wikipedia, and I was wondering if you could help me out. Right now, I'm working to bring the article AdS/CFT correspondence to FA status. So far, people have had many good suggestions and many positive things to say about the article, but I'm having trouble getting people to support or oppose the nomination.

I was wondering if you'd be willing to take a look at it and tell us your thoughts at this page. Please note that you do not have to be an expert on the subject. The article has already been checked quite carefully by other reviewers, and at this point, I'm just looking for people who can check that it meets the FA criteria.

Please let me know if you're interested. Thanks. Polytope24 (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not think I am competent enough to review article. Ruslik_Zero 19:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

History of Solar System formation and evolution hypotheses

I know next to nothing about this topic, even though I created the page, and so I've watched helplessly as various users have transformed it into a catalogue of fringe theories. There are no counter-arguments, and I don't know where to find them. So I'm hoping that, when you get back, you might please attempt to make the article more neutral. Thanks. Serendipodous 06:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

At least Velikovsky should be removed as he is not part of science. Ruslik_Zero 10:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Become Wiki Project: Solar System coordinator

Hi, I am User:Owllord97 and I am interested in becoming an assistant coordinator of Wiki Project: Solar System. I am fairly new to Wikipedia, but have caught on quickly to most of its concepts. I am already a member of the project, in fact I think I am the newest member of it, and have contributed to some of the higher importance articles in need of attention. I have been regularly updating the page, particularly the to-do section, and have been vigilant of making sure articles are rated correctly. I have noticed that this page appears to not have much traffic as of late (Of course, I may be wrong) and so I hope to reinvigorate the page through regular updates, and feel that I could better do that if I was one of the leaders of this page. I know I could self-appoint myself, but would feel better if I had your blessing, just to be sure it is official. Contact me at any point if you wish, I check it almost everyday except the weekends, and will post an update in my talk section if I will be absent for any period of time. Owllord97 Owllord97 20:45 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not have any objection to you becoming an assistant coordinator of the WikiProject Solar System. Ruslik_Zero 18:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

No mdash in cites

I rolled back a couple of changes in the Mirage IV article - the basic stance, last it was told to me, was to use minus signs in page ranges and almost every other place as well. It makes nice with 3rd party engines that might not correctly interpret an mdash or even the HTML replacement.Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_1#Template:The_Witches_of_Eastwick

Since when is 3 merge/2 keep consensus to delete?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

If you exclude the creator of the template, it is really 3 against 1. In addition XfD discussions are not votes. Nobody countered the main argument for the deletion that this navbox was redundant to another navbox. It was indeed redundant and the second navbox contains all links from the first. Ruslik_Zero 06:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
That was not the main argument. It was a secondary argument after the main argument was refuted. Discussants may have even felt the main argument had been refuted.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, this is just a lawyering. It is not important what was first, second, third etc. Ruslik_Zero 11:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Why was it important when you said it, but lawyering when I said it? (obviously assuming you don't feel your own words are babble)--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
What did I say? Ruslik_Zero 18:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

2013

The Space Barnstar
For outstanding contributions and editing on articles about space. Fotaun (talk)
The WikiProject Barnstar
For contributions to various projects and related articles. Fotaun (talk)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your large contributions to knowledge and editing. Fotaun (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Ruslik_Zero 19:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Paramyxoviridae may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • |doi=10.1371/journal.ppat.1002836 |url=http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1002836}}</ref>]]]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

2014

The Working Man's Barnstar
For your tireless efforts correcting article categories. Well done. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Ruslik_Zero 18:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Ruslik0!

Happy New Year!
Hello Ruslik0:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Fotaun (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jaagsiekte sheep retrovirus 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • jaagsiekte sheep retrovirus envelope glycoprotein is sufficient to induce lung tumors in sheep".) J Virol. 2006 Aug;80(16):8030–7 [PMID 16873259]</ref> Unlike the majority of [[retroviruses]],

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Femi Fani-Kayode

This article needs protection time. --Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

There is little activity. Ruslik_Zero 19:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
There has been one more revert. --George Ho (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikimania 2014 Wiki

Thanks for all your contributions! It's starting to look pretty decent now! EdSaperia (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

JESUS

Hi! I need this to be a redirect to Jesus to be an example redirect over at WP:Article titles. I filed a RFP, and they sent me here. JESUS is salted for reasons I'm unsure of (there was a brief RFD five years ago that you closed), but the proposed redirect doesn't fail any of the current criteria at WP:R for deletion. Red Slash 05:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I unprotected it. This redirect was protected because in the past it was a vandalism target (i.e. redirected to homosexuality). Ruslik_Zero 19:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

GA reassessment

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Epicgenius (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The Suite Life of Zack & Cody

There have been reverts lately. Extend PC time, or upgrade to semi? --George Ho (talk) 06:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Sergio Agüero

Can you extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik_Zero 11:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Удалённые файлы о респираторах / СИЗОД

Уважаемый участник, благодарю Вас за сильную поддержку, оказанную мне при попытке восстановить авторитетные и проверяемые источники для статей Википедии и Викиучебников.

Прошу Вас найти возможность поддержать мои последние усилия по этому вопросу. Честно говоря, 9-го апреля я просто в шоке был, когда удалили даже чисто мои файлы, сделанные с нуля, с правильно указанной лицензией CC0.

Отправил письмо (11 апреля в ~16:00) в OTRS с запросом на разрешение разместить в вики две статьи о СИЗОД, опубликованные в журналах Академии медицинских наук РФ "Медицина труда и промышленная экология" и "Гигиена и санитария". Но я не могу понять, как написать такое письмо для получения разрешения на размещение в вики моего перевода не моего произведения, которое - как вы справедливо заметили - уже изначально является общественным достоянием... Простите Эчайника" - честно, не понимаю, ведь оригинал чужой, перевод мой, как им написать? И как написать об иллюстрациях - они частично копии из оригинального документа, частично - копии с надписями, переведёнными на русский язык, частично - копии с переведёнными надписями + добавлены высококачественные цветные современные изображения - а я сейчас даже не знаю, какие я тогда добавил...

В случае, когда файл состоял из 2-3-4 склеенных изображений, в разделе "лицензии" я последовательно (в том порядке, в каком перечислял источники этих изображений) перечислены лицензии изображений. Эта информация, вероятно, позволила бы выбрать требуемую лицензию - но у меня нет доступа к ней...


Спасибо Вам огромное, прошу Вашей дальнейшей помощи - больше обратиться не к кому!!


Ну как можно просто взять и всё удалить - не предупредив - я не понимаю !

AlexChirkin (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Kreutz Sungrazers

regarding this edit,

did you even check what the edit was? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exoplanetaryscience (talk • contribs) 18:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Radio emissions of the solar system planets graph

Hi there Ruslik0, I've got a nit to pick with you about an image used in the Magnetosphere of Jupiter article. It's a beautiful free recreation of the image used in the original article. Unfortunately, it contains a rather substantial typo. Your units on the y-axis are W/m^2/kHz but the units in the paper are W/m^2/Hz. When you get a chance would you mind fixing the y-axis label on the image? It changes the flux densities by a factor of 1000..... Sailsbystars (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done I updated the file. Ruslik_Zero 18:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! :) Sailsbystars (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation join the new Physiology Wikiproject!

Physiology gives us an understanding of how and why things in the field of medicine happen. Together, let us jumpstart the project and get it going. Our energy is all it needs.

Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.

  • Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
  • You can tag the talk pages of relevant articles with {{WikiProject Physiology|class=|importance=}} with your assessment of the article class and importance alongwith. Please note that WP:Physiology, WP:Physio, WP:Phy can be used interchangeably.
  • You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing physiology articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
  • We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
  • Why not try and strive to create a good article! Physiology related articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!
  • Your contributions to the WikiProject page, related categories and templates is also welcome.
  • To invite other editors to this WikiProject, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • To welcome editors of physiology articles, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.

Hoping for your cooperation! DiptanshuTalk 12:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I know you're probably busy but...

I don't really have the knowledge of the Ganymede (moon) article to make substantial revisions to it, and a new bit of info has just been released. Serendipodous 07:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I will do when I read the actual article. Ruslik_Zero 13:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

edit summary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Edit_summary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.191.143 (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Block of 80.193.191.143

Hi Ruslik0. I have to say, this looks awfully like te use of admin tools to get your own way in a content dispute. The addition of the category to Marc Lépine was not vandalism - whilst it seems ill-advised, and I'd certainly be against its inclusion, this edit summary makes it pretty clear that the IP editor is acting in god faith. That makes this a content dispute between you and him, and as far as I can tell, you made no effort to discuss the issue before blocking.

I'm bringing this here in the hope that you can justify your block, perhaps by indicating other instances of recent vandalism by the IP (I can't find any, but I may not be reading sufficiently deeply) or by letting me know that you recognise the behaviour as sockpuppetry (in which case, fair enough). Otherwise, however, I think this block has to be lifted as an abuse of process - either that, or both you and he get blocked for edit-warring. Awaiting your response. Yunshui 雲水 11:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

This was just plain and simple vandalism. Ruslik_Zero 13:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but I have to disagree - the category addition was a disruptive but good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia. There's certainly a case to be made for including the Marc Lépine page in that category - not a good case, I'll grant you, but in this instance I really fail to see how the IP's edits fall into any of the classifications at WP:VAND. Much as I dislike undoing another administrator's decision, I believe I'm obliged to unblock, and will do so now. Yunshui 雲水 13:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not understand how "disruptive" can be done in "good faith". This editor is just trying to put an intellectual badge of honour on a mass murderer, which potentially can put the whole project in the disrepute. So, if you unblock, you will be responsible for any future action of the person behind this IP address. I am not sure anything good will come out of this. Ruslik_Zero 14:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
"Disruptive," in that the edits were not appropriate, and that he edit-warred to keep them in. "Good faith", in that it seems to me as though he is genuinely trying to make an improvement to the encyclopedia. I don't think he sees or intends it as a badge of honour; it's simply that the two of you disagree on what constitutes a "critic" of feminism. Yunshui 雲水 08:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cytomegalovirus vaccine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mortality (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) 09:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Planetary nebula FAR

User:Arianewiki1 has nominated Planetary nebula for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikimania 2014

Hi!

My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller and video producer for the Wikimedia Foundation. I'll be looking to capture stories about Wikimedians at Wikimania in London in a week. Here is an example of the kind of thing that I'm aiming to do. I saw that you're attending Wikimania and I was wondering if you might have some time to talk about what do you on Wikimedia projects. Anyway let me know if you are interested, I'll be at Wikimania from the 6th-10th of August and would need maybe 30 minutes of your time. I can answer any questions you may have. I’m best reached at vgrigas(at)wikimedia.org

Thanks!

Vgrigas (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

О коррекциях

Салют! Как опытный участник, Вы должны сделать коррекции в этом тексте, если считаете смысл текста неверным. Или оставьте как есть (там всё верно на самом деле, просто не каждый русский это может понять, будь он хоть королём - терминология американца используется, включая именно 2 партии имеют страх перед НСА). Лоббирование? (финансирование и назначение своих ставленников в Конгресс). Будучи корректным, Обама не упомянул слово коррупция (двигать голоса через НСА и мануфактуры). И Обама - супер специалист для подобных мнений. Он:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor для http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_law

и даже: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juris_Doctor 95.29.158.29 (talk) 10:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC).

Nebular hypothesis as Today's Featured Article

Thought I'd nominate the article for TFA since it's a vital article and was promoted a long time ago. Just letting you know as a main contributor! Autonova (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Precious

nebular hypothesis
Thank you, Steward with Russian and scientific background, for quality articles on space such as nebular hypothesis and Amalthea, for serving as a steward and monitoring the GA process, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (8 October 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Are we sure...

that Laniakea has made the Pisces-Cetus Supercluster Complex obsolete? Because if it is it needs to be mentioned on its page, and cited. Serendipodous 11:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

In the Nature article Pisces-Cetus is characterized as a supercluster separate from Laniakea and clearly outside it. Ruslik_Zero 18:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I know you may find this hard to believe...

but I'm starting Miranda's FA push now. So if you could just re-link me to those papers again... :-) Serendipodous 15:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Please, send a e-mail. Ruslik_Zero 16:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Did you get the email? Serendipodous 14:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I got it. Ruslik_Zero 19:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Удалённые файлы о респираторах / СИЗОД

Уважаемый участник, благодарю Вас за сильную поддержку, оказанную мне при попытке восстановить авторитетные и проверяемые источники для статей Википедии и Викиучебников.

Прошу Вас найти возможность поддержать мои последние усилия по этому вопросу. Честно говоря, 9-го апреля я просто в шоке был, когда удалили даже чисто мои файлы, сделанные с нуля, с правильно указанной лицензией CC0.

Отправил письмо (11 апреля в ~16:00) в OTRS с запросом на разрешение разместить в вики две статьи о СИЗОД, опубликованные в журналах Академии медицинских наук РФ "Медицина труда и промышленная экология" и "Гигиена и санитария". Но я не могу понять, как написать такое письмо для получения разрешения на размещение в вики моего перевода не моего произведения, которое - как вы справедливо заметили - уже изначально является общественным достоянием... Простите Эчайника" - честно, не понимаю, ведь оригинал чужой, перевод мой, как им написать? И как написать об иллюстрациях - они частично копии из оригинального документа, частично - копии с надписями, переведёнными на русский язык, частично - копии с переведёнными надписями + добавлены высококачественные цветные современные изображения - а я сейчас даже не знаю, какие я тогда добавил...

В случае, когда файл состоял из 2-3-4 склеенных изображений, в разделе "лицензии" я последовательно (в том порядке, в каком перечислял источники этих изображений) перечислены лицензии изображений. Эта информация, вероятно, позволила бы выбрать требуемую лицензию - но у меня нет доступа к ней...


Спасибо Вам огромное, прошу Вашей дальнейшей помощи - больше обратиться не к кому!!


Ну как можно просто взять и всё удалить - не предупредив - я не понимаю !

AlexChirkin (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Kreutz Sungrazers

regarding this edit,

did you even check what the edit was? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exoplanetaryscience (talk • contribs) 18:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Radio emissions of the solar system planets graph

Hi there Ruslik0, I've got a nit to pick with you about an image used in the Magnetosphere of Jupiter article. It's a beautiful free recreation of the image used in the original article. Unfortunately, it contains a rather substantial typo. Your units on the y-axis are W/m^2/kHz but the units in the paper are W/m^2/Hz. When you get a chance would you mind fixing the y-axis label on the image? It changes the flux densities by a factor of 1000..... Sailsbystars (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done I updated the file. Ruslik_Zero 18:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! :) Sailsbystars (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

FAR

Hey Ruslik0, planetary nebula is at featured article review - are you able to help address the concerns raised? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

LAPD

I noticed when looking through the LAPD Talk Page archives that you were the last GA reviewer to review the article and although that was in 2008 I was wondering if you could help me out. To be clear I am not looking for a GA review now and if I were I would definitely go through the nomination process but just a sort of look through of the article to see if you think it still has serious problems that need to be resolved or if you think I should try and submit it for a GA review. If there was a way you could do that for me I would really appreciate it but if not, I totally understand. Thanks for your consideration. - SantiLak (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Ruslik0!

Happy New Year!

Ruslik0,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Serendipodous 15:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.
Thank you. Ruslik_Zero 20:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Country data Virgin Islands

Hi, I am working on articles related to the 2015 Pan American Games and realized this template was deleted. The country is simply called Virgin Islands in the Pan American Games. Is there anyway the template can be restored? Thanks! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that there are two countries with this name. Which one do you mean? Ruslik_Zero 07:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The one "owned" by the United States. The Virgin Islands, usually refer to them. I have never heard the British Virgin Islands be called the Virgin Islands. The IOC also refers to them as the Virgin Islands, and the British Virgin islands as that [1]. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
What I deleted was a redirect to U.S. Virgin Islands template. There had never been such a template as Template:Country data Virgin Islands. You should use template:Country_data_U.S._Virgin_Islands. Ruslik_Zero 19:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! However it appears I can't start the article template... Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
What article? Ruslik_Zero 19:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry template. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Why you can not use just use Country_data_U.S._Virgin_Islands template? Ruslik_Zero 20:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Because the organization that runs the event (Pan American Sports Organization) refers to them as the Virgin Islands. All other articles related to the event reflect this, except one. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I still do not understand what is your problem? What are you trying to do? Ruslik_Zero 20:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

This kitten is walking

It is VERY impolite to delete anything that begins with User:Spc10K

Spc10K (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Sergio Agüero

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. Ruslik_Zero 20:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Jordan Spieth

Hello -- I was wondering if you would take a quick look at the Jordan Spieth article and see if you would protect it - we've been doing golf editing all day, and Spieth's page has had quite a few trolls today, making things difficult. Thank you. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Already protected. Ruslik_Zero 20:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

ps.Wikipedia

Hi Rusliko! you can see there is problem of margin on Pashto wikipedia, please fix ps:MediaWiki:common.css.--UsmanKhan (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry to

…have to disagree strongly on the matter of the legality of appropriating entire tables from specialist scientific texts. I would encourage you to bring what you uniquely can bring to this—as I do my knowledge of science, and of fair use in science—and, as an Administrator and Steward, to help us find the proper channel within Wikipedia to have a firm, final, legal opinion offered on this matter. What matters is not the opinions of experts on astronomy and drug discovery on this legal point. What matters is the opinion of WIkipedia lawyers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Staff does not provide contributors with any legal opinions on the legality of the Wikipedia content. And I said before "fair use in science" has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Ruslik_Zero 20:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Stellar Spectral Types by NOAO.jpg

FYI, I have nominated File:Stellar Spectral Types by NOAO.jpg for deletion rather than making a unilateral decision on the {{di-replacable fair use}} tag. Please see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 May 4 for the discussion if interested. --B (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Writer's Barnstar
For your contribution to astronomy. Cosmic  Emperor  16:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thanks Rusliko for your help with the layout in Pamplona! Iñaki LL (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

More recognition

Medical Content Creator Barnstar
I believe your editing on medical content improves the encyclopedia and Project Medicine. Thank you for all you do. Your work is appreciated   Bfpage |leave a message  12:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hypovirus Taxonomy

Why did you remove the taxonomy on Hypovirus? Your comment was "This is wrong." It is not wrong, according to the current (2014 v4) release. I have put it back in, but would like to know your source or reasoning behind removing it. Thanks Bervin61 (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Please, if you are incompetent in viral classification, do not edit virus-related article. Ruslik_Zero 20:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey Ruslik. Have you checked out Talk:Nebular hypothesis?

There have been some people raising issues and I'm not the one to answer them. Thanks. 22:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Serendipodous

hi

Wikipedia:Help desk#question about GA reassessment I answered your question at the help desk?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Uranus

It appears that you semi-protected this article five years ago, indefinitely. Can you remove the semi-protection? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you DO understand what would immediately happen if the semi-protection on that article were removed, right? Serendipodous 16:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree. It was unprotected in past only to be protected again. Ruslik_Zero 14:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

nebular hypothesis
Thank you, Steward with Russian and scientific background, for quality articles on space such as nebular hypothesis and Amalthea, for serving as a steward and monitoring the GA process, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (8 October 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 964th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Прошу помощи С учёткой

У меня в эсперанто-разделе википедии есть аккаунт P.Fiŝo. К сожалению при регистрации глобального аккаунта у меня получился мой нынешний вариант P.Fisxo. Как объединить их, что бы имя было P.Fiŝo? И объединится ли при этом моя история по двум именам? P.Fisxo (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Никак. Ruslik_Zero 18:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Спасибо. --P.Fisxo (talk) 10:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Warmest Wishes for Health, Wealth and Wisdom through the Holidays and the Coming Year! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Help decide the future of Wikimania

The Wikimedia Foundation is currently running a consultation on the value and planning process of Wikimania, and is open until 18 January 2016. The goals are to (1) build a shared understanding of the value of Wikimania to help guide conference planning and evaluation, and (2) gather broad community input on what new form(s) Wikimania could take (starting in 2018).

After reviewing the consultation, we'd like to hear your feedback on on this survey.

In addition, feel free to share any personal experiences you have had at at a Wikimedia movement conference, including Wikimania. We plan to compile and share back outcomes from this consultation in February.

With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk), from Community Resources 23:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Reversion of revision 697031305, Herpetic whitlow

I see that you have reverted my edit, revision 697031305, to the article Herpetic whitlow, simply claiming "It is not true". The reference in question is not a very good reference, being dynamic, and seems to refer to #16 in the list: "Kanavel A. Infections of the hand. In: A guide to the surgical treatment of acute and chronic suppurative processes in the fingers, hand, and forearm, 7th ed, Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia, PA 1939". The article on Herpes simplex claims (permalink), in the History section, that "Herpes was not found to be a virus until the 1940s" (reference #82). Please provide a better reference for the claim in "Herpetic whitlow" (as in, direct to a single work and not dynamic or a list), and if that source is Kanavel, explain why the justification I gave in the maintenance tag, "Apparently cited source is very old and was written before herpes was known to be a virus", is not true. Thanks! 84.108.247.200 (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The cited source was "Overview of hand infections" article from http://www.uptodate.com/, which is not a very old source. Ruslik_Zero 20:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah, OK, the article is behind a paywall so I got the wrong impression it was only a list of references, where #16 is emphasized for some reason. Sorry. 84.108.247.200 (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Towards a New Wikimania results

Last December, I invited you to share your views on the value of Wikimedia conferences and the planning process of Wikimania. We have completed analysis of these results and have prepared this report summarizing your feedback and important changes for Wikimania starting in 2018 as an experiment. Feedback and comments are welcome at the discussion page. Thank you so much for your participation. I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, 22:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Character code

You once told me that &#091; is the code for left square bracket. Do you know where I can find the code for other characters? Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Your Help Desk response (someone needs more help)

 Hello Ruslik0. Replies have been posted to your question at the Help desk. If the problem is solved, please place {{Resolved|1=~~~~}} at the top of the section. Thank you!
Message added on 21:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{helpdeskreply}} template.

— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language
The Cure Award
In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Iorio

Come talk to me before you revert again. I have a lot more info that you should hear before you decide. Jehochman Talk 19:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Since what moment did publications in peer review journals become quackery? Ruslik_Zero 19:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that somebody who appears closely connected with Iorio has been spamming the heck out of Wikipedia with his papers. Do you have admin ops here? If so you can look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Lorenzo_Iorio. A bunch of socks have been blocked as a result of a multi-year COI/SPAM campaign. Moreover, peer reviewed journals are fine, but when something is later disproven, we do not blindly follow something just because it slid past peer review. See this paper that refutes Iorio's work as inaccurate. http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.06116v3
"We thus contradict the affirmation of Iorio (2016), who states that a body of 10 M⊕ is excluded if it resides closer to 1000 AU of the Sun. Iorio (2016) does not properly consider how much the presence of an additional body can be absorbed by the fit of all the other parameters in the solar system ephemerides"
Thank you for entertaining my explanations. If you want to restore Iorio, please make sure to add the contrary view that he might be wrong. Jehochman Talk 19:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Some observation for @Jehochman:
  • There is a difference between a quackery and a reasonable disagreement between scientists.
  • The paper you cited has not been published yet. However, It does not actually completely refutes Iorio's work – it in fact partly agrees with it (by excluding a body on the circular orbit 200-300 AU from the Sun), but says that the analytical estimates of Iorio does not take into account the fact that the ephemerides themselves depend on the presence or absence of an additional planet.
  • On the other hand the paper of Iorio was cited by Batygin & Brown (2016), which is how I actually found about it.
  • Yes, I have admin ops here as well as on every Wikimedia project.
The purpose of the section that I created was to add information about dynamical constraints on any additional planet. Currently the article lacks any such information. Ruslik_Zero 20:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Because Planet Nine is currently a very hot topic we should be extra careful not to give wrong information. Iorio's information is in doubt. I've very disappointed by the spamming campaign on Wikipedia. It makes me look especially closely at any citation to Iorio. Some are good and appropriate, and some are not. This pre-print article about Cassini was widely picked up in the news, and was authored by reliable scientists. It should be mentioned to clarify that Iorio's result may not be accurate. We don't want to leave the reader with the wrong impression. And really, really stop reverting me until we get to an agreement on this. Your opinions is not better than mine. When info is dubious, the default is to leave it out, not leave it in. Jehochman Talk 20:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

(on a sidenote guys, the Planets beyond Neptune article isn't about Planet Nine; I have no idea how to do this but the Constraints section needs to be about trans-Neptunian planets in general, not Planet Nine). 04:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Serendipodous

Page assessments through GLAM project page?

Hello, you responded to my query on a (now-archived) question I asked on the help page. Do I have to start a Wikiproject to enable page assessments? Talk:Benjamin_Henry_Latrobe and Talk:Guy_Anderson have examples of GLAM project pages that are able to give their respective pages assessments for their purposes. Thanks for any insight you can offer Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The rating system is described in Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment. The rough guide on how to set up the assessment can be found on Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Using_the_bot. Yes, you need to set up a project but as I can see you have already done this. Ruslik_Zero 20:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Fortifying wikiquanta

Hi, I seek volunteers for this. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

IPBE RfC v2

As you commented on WP:IBE RfC Grant exemptions to users in good standing on request, you may wish to also comment on my alternative proposal, WP:IBE RfC Automatically grant IPBE to users by proof of work alone . Sai ¿?✍ 11:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

ban avoidance

re: 08:32, 4 July 2016 Ruslik0 (talk | contribs) deleted page Johann Pfeffer (G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban: Messina)

Please handle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cedl23 (delete and block) Staszek Lem (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Help desk

You have a response. I sometimes answer on archived pages but maybe a post to the person's talk page will do.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

AN question

Here there is a question about a sockfarm that you may be familiar with. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Pie charts

Thx for the help but it doesn't look like that worked. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see you noticed. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Two years ago ...
nebular hypothesis
... you were recipient
no. 964 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Ruslik0. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Global account lock on User:Bberry5

Hi. User:Bberry5's account has a global lock as a return of User:Starship9000. I'm curious if this was done mistakenly, since Bberry5 is a new account created by a student editor in a Wiki Ed-supported class. Could I at least ask that you give this another look please? Thanks. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure that this account belongs to an actual student? Ruslik_Zero 20:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, pretty sure; the professor contacted me trying to understand what was going on. If you would like, I can ask him to email you directly (since he can validate that it's a real person who's in his class). Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Better if they e-mail: stewards@wikimedia.org Ruslik_Zero 19:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 21 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Ruslik0.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ruslik0. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Lua

Hello. The template is el:Πρότυπο:Infobox football league (the Greek version of en:Template:Infobox football league). It is written in English.

I have 3 problems. Lets use as example Cypriot First Division (Q155965).

1) I need to have the current season. This can be done by P527. All seasons have the qualifier P393. I want module in the client to compare all edition numbers and tell which has the highest. (I can use rank=preferred but is not the best solution).

2) I need to have the first season. This can be done by P527. All seasons have the qualifier P393. I want module in the client to compare all edition numbers and tell which has the 1st one.

3) I want to show the team with the team with the most champions and the number of champions in brackets. Now I am doing this with rank=preferred but is not the best solution. It can be done by P1346 and P1355.

4) I want to shows the current champions with season. This can be done by P1346. I want module in the client to compare all victories and tell which has the latest one. To show the team and the season. OK, I know this is too difficult.

Xaris333 (talk) 13:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Forex Club

Добрый день. Я не очень хорошо говорю по-английски, поэтому решил написать Вам на родном языке. Мою статью выставили на быстрое удаление, т.к. ранее удаляли. Во время предыдущего обсуждения отметили, что нет значимости, тем более, что статью удалили из русского раздела (хотя компания российская). Не так давно статья прошла процедуру восстановления в русском разделе Википедии и была признана значимой, ряд участников, в том числе и администраторы, перед восстановлением поправили стиль статьи, чтобы она не выглядела рекламной. Я перевел статью с русского на английский и опубликовал здесь. Все ссылки, подтверждающие значимость (Коммерсант, Ведомости, Интерфакс и другие), я также выложил в английской версии. Прошу снять статью с удаления. Спасибо! Andrey Broker (talk) 07:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Статью уже удалили. Прошу помочь разобраться с вопросом. Те претензии к статье, которые предъявлялись в сентябре (а ту статью писал даже не я), не действительны. Статья была написана с нуля мной на основе авторитетных и независимых источников, никаких пресс-релизов и рекламных новостей. Спасибо!Andrey Broker (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Content creation

I don't think Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 30#Wikipedia:Content creation should have been closed as delete. I could reasonably see a no consensus close or a relist. Only one participant preferred deletion (the nominator brought it to redirects for discussion looking for a better target). Would you mind restoring them and reopening and relisting the discussion? I believe that action would likely draw more attention and help more fully achieve consensus. Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussions are not votes. A participant presented a compelling argument for deletion. All others advocated no specific solutions and presented no arguments for them. Ruslik_Zero 09:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
It is redirects for discussion, not redirects for deletion. It isn't the same as for deletion venues (e.g. articles for deletion). In regard to the argument presented for deletion: WP:XY states "Redirects that could equally point to multiple targets are usually deleted, as there is no way to determine which topic a reader is searching." It would apply if this redirect was content creation and deletion. Furthermore, XY was written as a guide for the article namespace, non-mainspace shortcuts are treated differently. Specifically and especially regarding non-mainspace redirects, it isn't uncommon for a redirect of this type to point to the primary topic or be left as is. Non-mainspace shortcuts often point to one place when they could equally point to others (sometimes hatnotes are used extensively). As I believe a consensus wasn't reached, and that relisting would be beneficial (as I describe in my opening post) and do no harm in this case (as it doesn't affect the readers in the mainspace), I would again request that the applicable redirects be restored and the discussion be reopened and relisted.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
The clear consensus was that in the current form the redirect was inappropriate. No other target had emerged in the discussion (and was unlikely to emerge). So, any relisting is useless. Ruslik_Zero 19:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ruslik0. You have new messages at Talk:Crazy Eddie/GA1.
Message added 06:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I am conducting a GA Reassessment of Crazy Eddie. Since you are one of the top ten contributors I thought you might want to work on it per my reassessment. Shearonink (talk) 06:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Airbus A320neo family

Ruslik, you blocked User:217.250.187.159 for edit warring on Airbus A320neo family. The revert has been made again by User:217.250.189.7. Perhaps semi-protection is warranted for a few days? Thanks for whatever you can do. - BilCat (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ruslik0/Archive_10&oldid=1144304283"