User talk:Ruslik0

Hawkx101

Hey I want you to become my mentor. I want to mostly review articles and possibly write new scientific articles. My interests are science and math, chemistry, biology, physics, calculus, trigonometry, geometry. I read a lot of scientific articles, ex textbooks, new developing things, and also a member of a scientific organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkx101 (talk • contribs)

MediaWiki talk:Searchmenu-new-nocreate

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

Cathedral joining

Hello. Please join (as admin) these two articles in one: St. Nicholas Naval Cathedral + St. Nicholas Cathedral (Saint Petersburg) :) --Rave (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I merged their contents and did a histmerge. Ruslik_Zero 19:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

File mover rights of Dssis1

Hi, you recently granted File mover rights to user Dssis1, I believe this user is misusing the tool, and figured maybe you could help. In their recent contributions, many of the renames don't follow File mover what should and what shouldn't be renamed rules. What would be the procedure in this case? Liamdavies (talk) 13:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You should at least wait until the user answers to your complaint before taking any action. Ruslik_Zero 18:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Pakistani textbooks

You've closed Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 November 15#Pakistani textbooks as Delete. The vote count was:

• Keep: 1
• Redirect: 1
• Delete: 3

That is no consensus situation. Please reopen and relist the entry. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Dmitri asked me on my talk page to look at this, I've chosen to respond here to keep discussion in one place. While the count is not really relevant I don't see a consensus in the discussion and would have relisted it myself. This is especially true regarding the Japanese textbook redirects, which were only added to the discussion a little over 24 hours before the close and attracted no additional comments.

Dmitri: I'm not going to reverse the closure myself, as reverting another administrator's admin actions before they've had a chance to respond is bad form at minimum and wheel warring at maximum. The correct thing to do is wait a reasonable time (at least 24 hours) for Ruslik0 to respond and explain and/or revert his actions. If he disagrees that his close was wrong, and after discussion you still disagree, the correct thing to do is to request a deletion review. It's important to stress though that you need to discuss it first. Thryduulf (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification. Indeed, I was too impatient. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I see a perfect consensus in that discussion. Everybody except the creator of the redirect agreed that it was misleading. No suitable target was proposed (See the opinion of DGG). For instance, Pakistani literature is completely unrelated, and for Education in Pakistan 'textbook' is not a valid search term as the creator admitted himself. Therefore the only option was to delete the redirect. As to Japanese redirects, they were actively discussed as well (although they were formally added later) with the same result. Ruslik_Zero 09:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

There were 4 redirects and only me in the thread (though my redirect was added a week after the discussion began and I posted my opinion). Also note that the creator of initial redirect in discussion (Pakistani textbooks) didn't step up, while three other redirects were added this week. And why do You count 60% for perfect? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You still created one redirect. So you are a creator of that redirect. And your math is wrong: all except you (80%) agreed that these redirects are misleading and thus harmful and therefore should be deleted unless suitable targets for them were identified. None were, so the only option left was to delete them. You should also know that xfd discussions are not votes. Their outcomes are determined by the strength of the arguments, but not by the headcount. Ruslik_Zero 19:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hi Ruslik0, I want to know the origin of the date you used to support the figure titled by scheme of Neptune's ring-moon system. Kind regards roufeng

What do you mean by 'date'? 27 September 2008? Ruslik_Zero 09:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean to know the origin of the data (not date) you use to draw the figure. Kind regards

File mover grant

I noticed you responded to a request by Dipankan001 at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/File_mover and wondered if you looked closely at the move log s/he linked. It's full of moves from MOS-compliant names to non-MOS compliant names. Two have already been reverted, and there are two more that need to be moved, too. --Pnm (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I hope that the user have learnt his lesson. Ruslik_Zero 07:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)