User talk:Ruslik0

news

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 4, 2009 Nergaal (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to say this...

Or I will burn up inside. I know you're going to hate me for this, but I really don't think we can nominate a Jupiter topic in good conscience without an article on its magnetic field. Serendi^podous 19:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything else I can help you with on Oberon? Serendi^podous 14:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

mars

Since you said Earth will be swallowed up by 70% chance over sun's giant, then how many percent chance will Mars be swallowed up? 30 or 40% chance? I thought mars is more likely to survive.--69.229.108.39 (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not known, but probably low. Ruslik (talk) 08:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Closure question - comment

RE: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers

I noticed you closed the discussion a "keep" however there was not any discussion of "how long" per Redfarmer's question, or my more detailed question that contained direct links to both policy and guideline. At the least I had hoped to see a discussion on the issues rather than seeing a close after the question was asked thus preventing any. Likewise I would have thought a closing admin would make an attempt to address the issues raised, not simply state "The result of the discussion was 'Keep'" with no explanation as to "why". As it reads currently, it is the seeming result of a "vote" count. I want to be strong in this next statement - I am not questioning your closure. But, if one were to read the comments and the discussion it is apparent that many of the "keep" comments are not based on policy or guideline as they are currently written; they are nothing more than "votes" based on non-arguments or misreading of guideline and policy. For example Ched said "keep" because they could find no "policy or guideline this violates". Such guidelines and policies had been pointed too earlier in the discussion and it was that users comment that caused me to explicitly cite both policy and guideline and ask for a clear discussion of that. Likewise ArcAngel voiced a "keep" because the MFD was a "breach of one's privacy" so I will ask you - how is "breach of one's privacy" a valid reason, or argument, for a "keep" as it relates to policy or guideline and this article or how long it has sat without being worked on? Likewise I see no MFD "how to" that states any userspace nom is a "breach of one's privacy" so, to me, it leads to a "keep" on that one. A valid opinion? Yes. But not a valid argument that relates to why this should be kept or not kept. I also want to note at least one editor who voiced a "keep" has voiced "one year" for "how long" pages like this should stay in a topic elsewhere that also attempts to clarify the same wording I asked about, however in this discussion it is clear they mis-read the article history as their comment implies this article has only existed for "under six months". Would the editors understanding that it has been 11 months, and not "under six months", make this "keep" also a "keep"? However the main thrust here, as several editors voiced "keep" because they feel, in userspace, there are "no time limits" (with some adding on there is nothing that indicates there is a time limit anyhwere) it raises some very important issues that, again, were never fully addressed, and never mentioned in your closing summary. The last "work" done by the main editor of this userspace page was adding the {{Underconstruction}} tag in July 2008. By the authors own statement they "have reached the limit of my [their] search capabilities" and the fact that the author has asked (been asking) for help on the article over the last 11 months and received almost no substantial help it aids in establishing that the article is likely to sit longer with no major work being done on it. Looking at the full history, outside of the first month the article was created, work done by others has been sporadic and edits have been minor - "Spelling" (Val42 - May 2, 2008), "corrected link" (Captain Quirk - October 17, 2008), I.P 219.88.216.84 inserted two lines (one of which was removed two months later) and one link into the article while another I.P added a ":" in May. Too many "keep" opinions in these discussions are based on misreading, not finding, or simply TLDR, when voicing a "keep or "delete" in regards to the current policy and guidelines. Perhaps, as closing admin, you can better explain the thought process on how this was a "keep" based on the "keep" arguments because I am at a loss, really, how definitions of the time limits that are in place (i.e - they do exist and do lay out time limits) as "indefinitely archive", "long-term archival purposes" and "permanent content" become "no time limit" or "limits don't exist" and, at what point, is it time to stop beating a dead horse?

My suggestion - please reopen the discussion and let it run a bit longer in order to have these valid questions answered. If those who voiced a "keep" do not address the issues than, in your closing comments, make a point to address them. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the purpose of MFD (and XFD in general) discussions. They are not intended to create prescriptive polices or answer some abstract questions like "How long a draft version of the article should be allowed to stay in the user space before it can be deleted?" The purpose of any MFD discussion is to answer (on the basis of a relevant policy) a simple question:Should the page A be deleted now?" In this case community spoke and the answer is No.

Different reasons were given in support of keeping the page. Some said that editors should have right to work on draft for as long as they need. This opinion has its roots in WP:USER, which says that The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants. Other editors gave the !owner of the page a benefit of doubt hoping that she would eventually finish this article and move it into the main space. Your arguments about WP:OR also failed to persuade participants of the discussion as the OR policy is not generally applicable to user space. It was also pointed out that neither WP:USER nor any other policy contains any deadline for finishing articles in the user space. So in my opinion all !votes were based on policy, but interpreted it differently. All participant substantiated their !votes with rather persuasive arguments. In the end I had no reason to disregard any !votes and gave them equal weight in accordance with WP:DGFA. So the votes were 8 keep and 3 delete. This is rough consensus to keep, in my opinion. It was absolutely impossible to delete in these circumstances, because I had no authority to impose my will on the community, who was clearly against deletion.

As to your rather abstract question how definitions of the time limits that are in place (i.e - they do exist and do lay out time limits) as "indefinitely archive", "long-term archival purposes" and "permanent content" become "no time limit" or "limits don't exist" and, at what point. I do not think any clear time limits exist. Every page is different and the question to delete or not to delete is decided on page by page basis by editors participating in a specific discussion. Sometimes such pages are deleted, sometimes not. Consensus can also change in the future (so you can try again in a few months). But now the consensus is keep. I also do not see any reason to reopen the discussion. The recommended discussion length is 5 days. This discussion was open for 7 days—enough, in my opinion. In the last 4 days all !votes were to keep, and the page was not going to be deleted in any case. Ruslik (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

But you avoided my core questions. I will lay it out very clear:

Discussions at AFD/MFD are, in theory, supposed to be based on something valid to begin with - such as, for example, "Article/page fails to meet policy". Discussions should follow that are related to that. A nomination that simply said: "Page A should be deleted now" would not be taken very well. Deletion discussions most times do go much deeper than simple "Delete". So I feel you have massively oversimplified their purpose. In this regard (bold added for emphasis) -

1. Please direct me to the policy or guideline that states any MFD for a user page is a "violation of privacy". Also please explain how that argument was "rather persuasive" to you.
2. My core argument was not about WP:OR at all, however as other editors had raised that issue I reinforced it by mentioning when the article was started someone had asked, on March 16, 2008, "doesn't it get somewhat into "original research" on the users talk page. Almost one year later the wider community was now asking this. It was used to show how little had changed with the overall reading in 11 months. But as you feel there were persuasive arguments made that this article does not contain any OR, please explain to me how a proposed article entitled "I Love Lucy spin-offs and crossovers" can end up with the comment "In Las Vegas, "The Story Of Owe", there is a mention of the fictional company Dunder-Mifflin from The Office" and is not any form of OR? (Keeping in mind that at least one editor hinted at the authors original synthesis, even though they voiced a "keep", when they told the user/author "to dump the reliance on things like "Morleys" cigarettes. There's an enormous difference between a named character from one show making an appearance on the other, and the set dresser on two different shows grabbing the same pack of fake cigarettes out of the prop department.") While the OR policy is not fully for content in userspace the idea that this is an article clearly meant to be part of the encyclopedia it does beg asking if a variation of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon about the Lucy show(s) is valid. Thusly I can see how people can read it and agree with the concept that, in this case, this proposed article fails to meet the policy, which informs users that "Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."" Secondary to this becomes the argument that this is in userspace and not mainspace thusly OR policy does not apply. I would agree with that concept, but as I said, OR was not my argument for deletion, it is also why I suggested to move it to mainspace and "let nature take it's course".
3. Your comment above that, because, editors feel "that neither WP:USER nor any other policy contains any deadline for finishing articles in the user space", it becomes a true reading of policy and guideline troubles me. Please explain what the following wordings mean, if they are not time limits what are they?
   A. Disallowed uses of subpages guideline states that "Using subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia"
   B. "What may I not have on my user page?" - subsection "Copies of other pages" guideline says several things that all appear to be a set time limit - "While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host." Perhaps the most direct item that appears to not only set a time limit but clearly says if it exceeds that limit it will be sent to MFD - "Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." So how is my question related to these wordings "abstract" in anyway, shape or form? Also as the user clearly stated "Please just leave it be until I get around to it again" it should become even less abstract. To be clear: Based on my reading of the MFD, keeping in mind it was closed with no discussion on "how long", currently 11 months does not seem to be "indefinitely", "long-term" or "permanent". So,in your eyes, if the user says "I have reached the limit of my search capabilities" and "leave it be until I get around to it again" there is no reason to ask "How long do we let this exist?" as Redfarmer asked, or do as I did - quote the existing wording and also ask how long? Of course Kww entered a new phrase into this equation when they said "keep" and "I'm willing to let this one bake for a bit."

As you mention WP:DGFA I would like to point out something contained there: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." Keeping this in mind I again ask you to explain how "keep" arguments such as "invasion of privacy" or "It's not meant to be part of the encyclopedia yet" (because it is still in userspace) are valid. For the record I tend to take time to research things - to look into their history. If there is a clear misunderstanding of core policies such as Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not than it should be made more clear what portions need to be addressed. Perhaps deletion discussions are not the place for changing policy, however it is cleary a place to see how terms and content is read. As I did point out, userpages aside for a moment, for Policy we say that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Likewise Wikipedia is not a repository of loosely associated topics nor is it a place to publish your own thoughts and analysis. The nom was, in part, made because "this user admitted to us on the talk page that they are attempting to form a thesis that a vast amount of shows are crossovers from I Love Lucy, which is definitely OR at its worst." Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are trying to persuade me that this page should be deleted, I can only say that my opinion is irrelevant. What is relevant here is that your arguments failed to persuade other editors. You lost the discussion, and all keeps had strong arguments behind them. If you think that opinions of two editors+nominator constitute a consensus to delete (despite serious objections from 8 other editors) you can try your luck on DRV. Otherwise this discussion is meaningless. Ruslik (talk) 07:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was not thinking about DRV but as you have raised new concerns and refuse to answer my questions I am thinking DRV is a good option. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Template WP India

{{WP India}} changes you made may have caused Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Article alerts this page to have problems? The article alerts say that the WP India template is not found. Can you please take care of this as soon as you can? VasuVR (talk, contribs) 01:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see the talk page of the template.--GDibyendu (talk) 05:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

So much... If not for you, the FAC would have ended a week ago. Sorry, lately I've been busy with schoolwork but I'll sure be on tonight. Ceran^→//forge 12:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Byron Brown FAC

You were very helpful with my last politics FA. Do you have any opinion on my Byron Brown FAC?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Saxbe fix

I should have mentioned Saxbe is up at FAC one more time. It is not looking good this time either. If you can help improve this it would be great.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it will either close or be withdrawn by the 10th. I will resubmit it ten days or so later for a last shot at the centenary in March.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Oberon

I've done a ce, but there is one sentence I don't understand:

Oberon has the most heavily cratered surface of all the Uranian moons, with a crater density approaching saturation when the formation of new craters is balanced by destruction of old ones.

Is this sentence defining saturation, or saying that saturation only occurs when the formation of new craters is balanced by the destruction of old ones?

PS. Please, could you add the last two surface temps to the dwarf planet candidates section of the equilibrium list? Sorry.

Oh, and PPS. thanks for blocking that guy who vandalised my talk page. :-) Serendi^podous 19:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Great! That should stop me bothering you! Serendi^podous 17:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Lady GaGa

The page is protected. I request unprotection in accordance with Wikipedias Semi-protection policy, and I quote-"In particular, it should not be used to settle content". An IP has been editing with reliable source, however multiple users have stated it is vandilism and therefore the page is protected. Could an admin(you) please change this. Thanks, Kind Regards. Dance-pop (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not see a content dispute here. IP persistently added information attributed to questionable sources, and multiple users objected to this. What I see is persistent violation of the BLP policy, and administrators have a wide latitude to enforce it. Ruslik (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you are wrong, I do see a content disput. The sources were NOT questionable,I have checked them myself. If you check wikipedias semi-protection policy you will see I am right. Wikipedia does NOT use semi-protection because an IP allegedlly vandilised the article twice(approx.). Please change this or I will request unprotection from someone with higher authority. Thanks. Kind regards. Dance-pop (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Addition of full stop at the end of {{Citation}}

Hi, I note that you were the editor who added the "|postscript=" parameter to {{Citation}}, which seems to have added a full stop to the end of the template. When and where was this change agreed upon? There is a discussion on the matter taking place now at "Template talk:Citation#Full stop at the end of the template" – do enlighten us. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you inadvertantly removed the parameters you'd just added when you made this change. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 20:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Vijay

Hey, thank you for protecting the Joseph Vijay article. I was hoping someone would protect it soon.--இளைய நாயகன் Eelam StyleZ (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

domain spam

Hi!
Concerning [1]: How much spamming is necessary for semi-protection? Til now, the ip address is not stopping, see [2]. -- seth (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

One such edit every two days is clearly not enough for semi-protection. Ruslik (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Valhalla (crater)

On February 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Valhalla (crater), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass 17:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent design

Hello, Ruslik0. I just thought I would let you know that I just blocked a editor for edit warring at Intelligent design and just got done issuing a few warnings. As such, I am not sure protection is truly needed. Instead of protecting the whole article from every editor, we can simply block the editors who choose to be disruptive. While I think it would be a good idea to try and keep it unprotected, it is ultimately your call. Cheers,

Tiptoety ^talk 20:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Given User:John's reply to your comment, and the general tone of several editors, I would like to request that you play close attention to the article once it is unprotected, and step in to re-protect when the edit-war resumes. It has gotten very bitter, and seems to be getting more bitter and more personal, and people seem more deeply entrenched in their positions. Guettarda (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I am watching the article. Ruslik (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I appreciate it. Guettarda (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are still following this as a neutral admin, you may want to look at File:Pandas_and_ppl.jpg and File:Darwinsblackbox.jpg. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Trojan formation

Rus, do you know which of the two theories is the most widely accepted? Serendi^podous 20:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Redirect of Gibbs Page

I was looking at the page on Leroy Jethro Gibbs and noticed you had temporarily protected it in the redirect form a while ago and yet I couldn't find a conclusive discussion indicating that (Both AFD discussions seemed to indicate that the article should be kept and I didn't see a clear result indicated on the merger discussion). Can you explain why it is this action was taken? It is true I'm not familiar with current policy regarding merging articles (or anything else for that matter) so that could be the source of my confusion. Thank you very much if you can help. --pevarnj ^(t/c/@) 02:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)