Ace111

MediaWiki version 1.44.0-wmf.8 (f08e6b3).

Wikipedia:Babel

ru

Русский — родной язык этого участника.

en-4

This user can contribute with a near-native level of English.

de-2

Dieser Benutzer hat fortgeschrittene Deutschkenntnisse.

fr-1

Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau élémentaire de français.

Search user languages

This user is a bot owner. His bot is Acebot (talk · contribs).

This user runs a bot, Acebot (contribs). It performs tasks that are extremely tedious to do manually.

This user has created a global account. Ace111's main account is on Wikipedia (in Russian).

Википедия
Я вношу вклад в русскую Википедию.

I support the Russian-language Wikipedia with my contributions.

This user is from the planet Earth.

This user enjoys the
Picture of the Day.¤

This user contributes using Firefox.

Picture of the day

George N. Barnard

Photograph credit: Mathew Brady; restored by Adam Cuerden

Edits Count / Contribution Tree , Plot ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Top 10 Greatest Wikipedias

English	Sinugboanon	Deutsch	Français	Svenska	Nederlands	Русский	Español	Italiano	Polski
6,928,643	6,116,880	2,970,695	2,654,391	2,599,858	2,175,037	2,015,707	1,997,482	1,896,598	1,640,316

More than 64,156,742 articles in all Wikipedias

Slavic Wikipedias have 8,281,466 articles.

Russia

Diana Pervushkina

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable figure skater; fails WP:NSKATE; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Raids inside the Soviet Union during the Soviet–Afghan War

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unwarranted WP:SPLIT of the Soviet–Afghan War, clearly a Pov ridden article and glorification of measly notable Pakistani raids in Soviet Afghan. Garudam ^Talk! 00:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Russia, Ukraine, and United States of America. Garudam ^Talk! 00:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Its not a Split and these raids aren't "measley notable" in that it involved the forces of four different states infiltrating into the territory of a global superpower. Waleed (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep: I think that the article is notable on its own. WP:SPLIT is justified for significant battles of the Soviet-Afghan war. Wikibear47 (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
This could be merged at best. Otherwise, I don't see a reason why this article should exist in the mainspace when the parent article itself does not cover this topic or lacks sources, even if it does. Garudam ^Talk! 19:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete: pure violation of WP:SYNTH. The topic is not notable and the article itself appears to be pushing a POV. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep The article has standalone notability of its own established through significant coverage and a necessary split from Soviet-Afghan war article. Muneebll (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
The topic is not even notable for its parent article and lacks citations, clearly it does not pass GNG & SIGCOV. Garudam ^Talk! 14:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep: There are real signs of notoriety here. Furthermore the story must be told without fear of repercussions from Moscow. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Genuine question, what do you mean by repercussions from Moscow? WP:LEGAL for more info. Conyo14 (talk) 08:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete – Per WP:GNG: The topic has not received significant coverage with the article appearing to push a POV. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete: PoV pushing at best. found nothing notable in my WP:BEFORE.
Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Merge to Soviet–Afghan War. My very best wishes (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Merge with Soviet–Afghan War: It's pretty short as it is, and does need some work to let it less pov-y. It might also need a bit of a copyedit Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 12:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for merge as ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Merge with Soviet–Afghan War. Besides the reasons suggested above, there's not enough content to warrant a standalone article. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 06:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete: This does not qualify under Wikipedia guidelines for a standalone article. It could be argued if the "raids" ever occurred in Soviet Afghan or it is just a mere hoax, quoting from the Foreign involvement section:MI6 directly remitted money into an account of Pakistani leader of Jamaat-e-Islami Qazi Hussain Ahmad who had close links with Hekmatyar & Massoud. MI6's aim was for Ahmad to spread radical and anti-Soviet Islamic literature in the Soviet republics in the hope of rebellions against their Communist governments. I do not find a single raid so far, rather there are just plannings and some covert money transfers to terrorist organisations it seems like a WP:HOAX. Do not merge it when there are only passing mentions of a few words regarding Pakistani raids which are dubious or say hoax event. Nxcrypto Message 11:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep or Merge: The article is quite notable but has not been given much attention.

The book what we won in America secret war by Bruce riedel highlights the notability and states that :-

"The cross-border operations were extraordinarily provocative—“bear baiting,” as the ISI later called them. The Russian archives show that on several occasions they successfully disrupted traffic on a critical rail line from Samarkand in Central Asia to the Termez border checkpoint, but they never sparked any dissidence against the Soviets among the Muslim populations of Soviet Uzbekistan or Tajikistan. Eventually the Russians decided that the attacks were too much to tolerate. In April 1987 the Soviet ambassador in Islamabad warned the Pakistani foreign minis ter that if they continued, the Soviet army and air force would retaliate inside Pakistan. By April 1987 General Akhtar had been promoted to a new assignment as chairman of Pakistan’s Joint Chiefs of Staff. Hamid Gul, his successor as director general of the ISI, ordered an end to cross border operations. The pot was boiling a bit too hot for Zia."

Further more in a book by Hein Günter Kiessling Page number 57-58 also mentions:

the mujahideen activities inside soviet union which penetrated 25 km beyond the Amu river which was international border. For example in 1986 a attack on hydro-electric power plants were carried out by mujahideen using Chinese and egyption supplied rocket launchers. These activities caused anger amongst the Russian high command and warning by the soviet ambassador was given and eventually Pakistani high command halted further attacks/Operations given the consequences.

Book link :- https://www.google.com.pk/books/edition/Faith_Unity_Discipline/pIQjDgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=isi book&printsec=frontcover

I'm sure more research on this topic will help.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahim231 (talk • contribs)

You should thoroughly go through WP:MILNG, as there is little to no information available about the raids, such as details on how they unfolded, their results, or their impact. It appears to be a passing mention of an insignificant event that does not warrant an article, let alone using an infobox template for it. Garuda ^Talk! 20:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Others

Draft

Shortcuts

Science

Life as we don't know it

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the pages on this disambiguation page are commonly referred to as the title "Life as we don't know it", and none of them even use the phrase in the body text at all. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Disambiguations. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
del vague phrase, title of none. --Altenmann >talk 19:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom. As clear-cut a case as you can get of a title failing to meet any actual usage in the encyclopedia. BD2412 T 22:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Not a disambiguation page, not a suitable redirect to any one article, not a list of topics with a common theme, not a stub, not a set index. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Weak Redirect to hypothetical types of biochemistry where closely related terms used to redirect before a "dab" page was boldly made over the redirect. See previous related discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_September_27#Life_as_We_don't_Know_It. Otherwise, I would not be strongly opposed to deletion. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

List of inorganic reactions

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has no citations and is simply blatantly wrong. Most of the reactions are organic name reactions and there's really no point of arguing about which reaction is organic or inorganic (simply because they involve inorganic compounds). This list isn't very helpful to readers either. Pygos (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Pygos (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep Nomination rationale makes little sense: if some entries are incorrect, this can be solved by editing; if the entries are unsourced, again, this can be solved by editing. Deletion is not cleanup.--cyclopia ^speak! 11:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete Infinitely-expandable list. "Reactions that involve inorganic compounds"...well, inorganic compounds are pretty abundant on this planet (H2O, O2, HCl, NaCl...) and they all undergo reactions. There is nothing inherently notable about a chemical reaction that involves an inorganic compound, and there is no way any source could talk about all (or even many) such reactions as a cohesive whole, as needed by WP:NLIST, because they would have nothing in common other than involving a reagent lacking carbon. And the list is unsourced. A total mess. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

There are lots of academic sources dealing with inorganic reactions as a whole: e.g. [1], [2], [3] etc.--cyclopia ^speak! 15:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

delete As it stands, this would just duplicate a now-nonexistent category, and I'm also finding that it is full of inaccuracies, e.g. shell higher olefin process, which is clearly organic just from the name. Maybe a category would be a good idea but this list is not. Mangoe (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
delete. ill-defined list. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Is it possible to bring this list up to par with List of organic reactions? And are they comparable in terms of scope, notability and "helpfulness"? YuniToumei (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Having looked at the issue more closely, I find it hard to set a clear limited scope for this list. This conversation might be of interest, as it discusses this list's purpose, relation to the other list and why it was previously decided to not limit this list to purely inorganic reactions.YuniToumei (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete. This is a completely pointless and useless list, infinitely expandable. What about a List of Novels that include the Word "and"? Athel cb (talk) 08:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Why do you think there is infinitely numers of inorganic reactions [types]? Christian75 (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep Lots of books covers inorganic reaction (types) and/or mechanism (same thing). E.g. search on google books with 'named "inorganic" reactions'Christian75 (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep This clearly only lists notable reactions and mechanisms, so it's certainly not infinitely expandable. There are plenty of articles and textbooks about inorganic reactions so this may be an appropriate navigational list that complements List of organic reactions, especially if perhaps made into a table to explain reagents and significance. As much as I dislike basic bullet point lists, there isn't a related category. Reywas92^Talk 18:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep. The lack of citations is a matter for clean-up, not deletion. Frankly, I don't think it needs citations given its a list of things (most other lists of the ilk do not have citations.) It follows the same principle as List of organic reactions. A lot of inorganic reactions are legitimately used in organic synthesis & that doesn't detract from their inorganic nature. Organometallic reactions (e.g. Suzuki/cross-coupling, Metathesis, metallation etc) are very organic, but they're also very inorganic. Organic chemists may find them to be useful tools used occasionally to achieve an end, but the inorganic chemist treats them with respect as their own unique grouping - not just occasionally dragged out the shed for their utility - and understands how and why they occur. This encyclopedic grouping is important and shouldn't be lost - something supported by the numerous books on the topic. See M.J. Winter's 'd-Block Chemistry', R. Whyman's 'Applied Organometallic Chemistry and Catalysis', Jenkin's "Organometallic Reagents in Synthesis", Henderson's "The Mechanisms of Reactions at Transition Metal Sites", R. Bates "Organic Synthesis Using Transition Metals". The list is theoretically infinitely expandable, but it shouldn't include every single reaction under the sun - and it doesn't. Keep it to the important ones, and the list is a wholly manageable and useful encyclopedic tool to help people navigate the field, and find the various tools at their disposal. - EcheveriaJ (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Tornado outbreak of November 29–30, 2022

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SUSTAINED and WP:LASTING, I was unable to find any sources on the event or any of its impacts since late 2022. While there are reliable sources that cover this event, such as AccuWeather and Fox Weather, neither of these sources, nor any other secondary source that I could find, has covered it since the event took place, making it fail WP:PERSISTENCE. Because this has seemingly not received secondary coverage outside of a news cycle of only a few days after the event, I believe that this article is non-notable, and should be merged and/or redirected to Tornadoes of 2022. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 15:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Science, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 15:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:LASTING Deriannt (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Merge with Tornadoes of 2022 would be the best choice here. While this particular outbreak itself left no longstanding notability in its wake, it is notable enough for inclusion in the aforementioned article. TH1980 (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

List of acids by Hammett acidity

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This could probably be merged into the article Hammett acidity function as it currently doesn't provide much context, and much of the list overlaps with the list on Hammett acidity function. It's also a very short list. Pygos (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete. This is a ridiculously short list, shorter, even, than the list at Hammett acidity function (not Hammett acidity as given by Pygos, which doesn't exist). It fulfils no purpose not already served by Hammett acidity function, which can be edited, if necessary, by adding other important examples. Athel cb (talk) 10:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Oops, I put the wrong link. I've fixed it. Pygos (talk) 10:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I was planning on adding more. I mainly created the page because I didn't trust the numbers on the other page so I wanted to create my own list with better sources. I suspect some of the numbers on the existing list are also from people confusing hammett acidity with pKa TariosGD1618 (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Added a couple more, no longer shorter than the list at the Hammett acidity function article TariosGD1618 (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
I think that's the wrong solution. If there are problems with the list at Hammett acidity function it needs to be corrected, not put in competition with another list. Athel cb (talk) 09:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Merge in Hammett acidity function. --cyclopia ^speak! 11:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Science Proposed deletions

Measure (physics) (via WP:PROD on 7 December 2024)
Evolution equations in high-energy particle physics (via WP:PROD on 4 December 2024)

Science Miscellany for deletion

Science Redirects for discussion

Deletion Review

This is a Wikipedia user page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ace111.