User talk:Ruslik0/Archive 2

well caught

Thanks for catching that H/He molar fraction error. I mistakenly assumed the 0.15 value for He was its ratio to H2 rather than its abundance. Deuar 23:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Amalthea

Well that was a stupid mistake by me, wasn't it. I feel kind of guilty that you ended up generating an entire diagram to point out the problem. Sorry! Deuar 21:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, did I screw up the references?

Anyway, I know you feel differently about the whole "atmospheric structure" thing, and I hope I didn't trample over your good work too much. I'm in a bit of a panic because I didn't expect the article to get renominated until after the copyedit. (Yes, I know, I didn't have to finish the guy's nomination, but I figured if I didn't someone else would have). Serendi^podous 16:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

This is a formal invitation to be a reviewer for WikiProject Good article sweeps. Only experienced and trusted reviewers are invited to participate in this task. If you decide to participate, keep track of your progress here. Everything you need is located on the project page. Drop a line on my talk page if you need anything. Regards, LaraLove 19:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

GAC backlog elimination drive

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		Thanks for helping us combat the backlog at GAC. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Callisto

Yes, I will look it over. I have a few things on my mental to-do list, so it may be a few days. But I don't think I'll forget as I've got the "Great moons" on the brain. We're basically half-way there. I'd only call Ganymede (moon) clearly substandard. You've certainly done up Callisto well. Marskell 23:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Title III of the Patriot Act

Could you clarify where you are getting that style guideline from for the summary of a main section? I think that given that the topic is so vast, it's not duplication but really just a quick overview of the main points that will be addressed. That's been my standard practice for a number of years in which I have managed to get a number of articles to FA. If you could point me to the MOS section that speaks of this, I'd appreciate it! As for the reference issues in the article, the example you provided actually has the reference to the material in the main article text itself, I'm not sure I see the problem. I don't think either of these issues are really ones that could make the article be removed from GAs. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. my understanding of the GA process is different to yours. I believe that you list it on WP:GAR and add a note. Not you can dispute the delisting on WP:GAR. You need to list it, for maximum exposure to all GA participants. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and also: I'm glad I had that article on my watchlist, because it would have been nice if you had told myself about the GA delisting proposal, as I did all the work on that article and it took me a very long time to write it. I think that's only fair to one who literally spent days writing the article. It's particularly discouraging to editors to have someone delist a GA without them bothering to notify the primary (and hardworking!) editors involved. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Question for member of GA article sweeps

If you've got a moment, I was wondering if you could answer some questions I'm curious about? They are:

1. What GA articles have you worked on and submitted to GA review?
2. Have you ever worked at getting an article to FA status?

Hopefully won't take more than a moment of your time. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I'm glad to hear it :-) But as someone who also works tremendously hard on articles, can you understand how discouraging it is to not at least be notified of a GAR? I don't monitor all the articles I edit (nor should I have to). As you have probably by now seen on the talk page of the sweep project, I'm pretty discouraged by the whole business. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Mistaken Link?

The page for Carme_(moon) has a link at the top for 38_Leda. This makes sense on the page for Leda_(moon), but not sure why its on the Carme page. I *think* you added it. (I'm a complete wikinewbie.) Donimo 09:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Marbury v. Madison

I don't think those refs you think are missing are really missing; the article is sourced more by section. I'll see what I can do, but I'm pretty busy, it may take me a few weeks to get around to it. Mangojuice^talk 13:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Callisto 2

Hi Ruslik. I've started to go through this one. I'd just say first that the intro is a little...thick. It's certainly good and comprehensive, but I wonder if it won't be overloaded for the average reader. Technical terms like endogenic should be avoided, for instance. That's just a first thought (better to have too much than too little, admittedly). I'll try to ce all of it. Marskell 20:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Uranus is featured!

Barnstar was moved to the userpage. Ruslik 17:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

today's featured article

I honestly have no idea how to do that; you might ask Marskell about it. Serendi^podous 15:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

What next?

I was wondering what you were interested in doing next. Obviously Neptune is hanging over everything, but I was also hoping you might find time to look over Formation and evolution of the Solar System, an article that seriously needs to be Rusliked. Serendi^podous 20:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Callisto again

Hey Ruslik. Thanks for looking at Tau Ceti.

I've been slowly going through Callisto. I'll repeat what I said earlier: it's "thick." As an amateur myself, it's almost too many stats. But, conversely: it's incredibly information rich. Really, you have assembled an enormous amount of info here and deserve much applause for setting that standard. The amount of stats makes the Titan article look bad, a better studied body and already FA.

Anyhow, it's clearly at FA on most every score but the prose still needs going through. One piece of advice: watch for unnecessary repetition of initial subjects in sentences. "Water ice is low because water ice has been measured as low"-type phrasing. I'll continue to pick away. Cheers, Marskell 19:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Unclaimed reward

Any reason you didn't want to try to win the $25 for making Uranus a featured article? Remember 20:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Technically, you didn't actually follow the rules to gain the reward, but I care more about getting the article up to FA status and less about my rules. Plus you seem like the person that deserves it the most and my rules were only designed to stop fighting about who should earn the reward. But I am still curious why you didn't even try to obtain it (I'm actually trying to do a little experiment in the reward area). So did you not put your name down because: (1) you didn't know about it, (2) you don't want to receive monetary rewards for your efforts, or (3) the amount was so small that it wasn't worth working for? You response would be greatly appreciated. Remember 01:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I plan to donate the money to the Foundation soon in your name. Remember 17:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Money has been donate! Keep up the good work! Remember 13:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Solar system

Thanks for the tidyup (by the way, are you sure that the assertion about hydrogen vs helium fusion is spurious?) There was a discussion about splitting the article a while back, when Spiral was still around. It was decided that the Nebular hypothesis article focus on the formation of solar systems in general, while the Formation and evolution of the Solar System article focus on our Solar System in particular. There is a lot of information in "Formation and evolution...", such as the future of the Solar System, that isn't found in any other article. Serendi^podous 14:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you're a prince. Will have a go at the nebular section. Serendi^podous 09:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Gamma ray burst (GAC)

I've done my best to address your GAC concerns at Talk:Gamma ray burst. Thanks! - Jehochman ^Talk 14:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I got your message about the Rehnquist article

I don't have much information on Rehnquist, so I can't do much about the article.Jimmuldrow 00:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Today's featured article

The page for nominating a page for today's featured article is here Serendi^podous 08:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's fine. Serendi^podous 08:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Breyer

Hi Ruslik -- Thanks for the note, I hadn't seen your assessment. I'll be happy to go through it, it looks like I'll be able to do each of those without much trouble. Thanks for the heads up. Mackan79 13:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Nebular hypothesis

Just did a very quick copyedit; will return when I have more time. Serendi^podous 20:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

1 Ceres

Hi Rus. I just wanted to send you a quick "Hi" and thanks for the edits to Ceres. Ceres is really looking good. -- Kheider 15:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I am just trying to do a powerpoint presentation tonight but I'll see what I can do a bit later. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Vega

Thank you for the GA on the Vega article. Unfortunately I was a little puzzled by this statement:

As a result, if Vega were viewed along the plane of its equator, then the luminosity would be about two times less than the apparent luminosity as viewed from the pole.

Do I interpret that correctly that the luminosity at the equator is 50% of the luminosity at the poles? I'm not quite sure I understand how you came up with that value. Would you be willing to explain it to me please? Thank you.

Also you inserted this sentence:

The apparent luminosity of Vega is 57 times the solar value.

But I think the Aufdenberg et al (2006) paper gives this as the apparent luminosity in the non-rotating case, whereas it lists 37 under the high rotation model. I modified your text slightly. Hopefully I did the right thing. — RJH (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatly they did not calculate the value for equator luminosity. However the temperature at the equatot is 25% less than at poles therefore the difference is 1.25⁴=2.3 times. Taking into account 20 % decrease in the surface area we arrive at the value aroung 2.8 times. This value is an upper limit. As for the real value, my reasonable guess is 2 times, which is compatible with their figure 9. This estimate gives equator luminosity about 30 solar. Ruslik (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. — RJH (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It is possible to calculate the equator luminosity using model from Aufdenberg et al (2006). I may do this in the future but not now. I am too busy with other activities. Ruslik (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks again. It's one of those pieces of information that would be nice to have, but I think the article can get by without it at the moment. I temporarily moved the paragraph on the topic to the article's talk page. — RJH (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Article review COI (GA sweeps)

Hi Ruslik - I hope you don't mind this imposition, but the next article on my sweep list (Henry Peel Ritchie) is one I copyedited for its original GA. Since you're working on bio articles anyway, and from the project-page history you're currently active on the sweeps, would you mind taking on this reassessment for me? If you're busy that's no problem; I can ask around elsewhere ;) All the best, EyeSerene^TALK 12:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That's very good of you, and much appreciated. Thank you! EyeSerene^TALK 13:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Seymour Knox I

Seymour Knox I is ready for your review.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 21:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Louis Slotin GAC evaluation

I have responded to your comments regarding the Louis Slotin GA candidacy on the article's talk page. Please let me know if there is anything more that needs to be fixed at this point. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for promoting the article! Nishkid64 (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Extra-galactic

A tag has been placed on Extra-galactic requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. PookeyMaster (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Uranian moons (Miranda)

I agree with you that further citations are needed. Bob Pappalardo has done a lot of work in this area and I will try to find one or two of his references that are most suitable. However, the citation I deleted actually had nothing to do with explaining how the destruction/re-accretion model could explain Miranda's geologic history. It was simply an attempt to calculate how quickly Miranda could have re-accreted after it had been destroyed in a collision. It may well be true that Miranda and other solar system bodies got destroyed and then re-accreted, perhaps multiple times, early in the solar system's history. However, the idea that such a process could account for Miranda's odd appearance never had anything going for it, in my (subjective) opinion. It was proposed shortly after the Voyager 2 flyby as a wild explanation for a wild-looking moon, and widely publicized and widely remembered because it was sensational. WolfmanSF (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Wales - Good article

The Jimmy Wales article has stability problems. It changes significantly week by week and is a constant source of edit warring. It's verifiability and neutrality are also in question.... at least in regards to the sections Roles of creators and Wikipedia biography. 68.117.211.187 (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)