User talk:Kirill Lokshin/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions with Kirill Lokshin. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

< Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4 >

All Pages:

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - ... (up to 100)

Battle of Marciano

There's work for you at Battle of Marciano. I need the whole afternoon to write it!! However my English is poor, so you should clean up it a bit if you've time (also I've inverted the strength listing). In the link listed at the bottom there are also some maps, if you're able to wikify them it would be great. Bye and good work.

Disagreement over name

Hello. Thanks for your edit to Military History of the 1974 Invasion of Cyprus, but I'm afraid I disagree strongly with the change of name, particulalry the placing of 1974 in brackets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User383739 (talk • contribs)

Pauli or Paoli

As for the references in Italian Wars, if it is written in Latin it should be "Pauli Iovii". Bye. --Attilios 15:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I told you to be careful with Anglophone sources regarding Italian stuff. You should also cleanup the War of Urbino and Francesco Maria della Rovere I've just written. Bye and good work. --Attilios 16:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course typos have no geo origin. But I seem that Anglophone are (or mostly were) rather confused with format of Italian names (maybe scholars went sometimes confused between the Latin, English or Italian forms. You cannot imagine the horrors I am noticing here, especially from 1911 Britannica articles: they are not typos, they are total misunderstandings due to complete ignorance of Italian matters (I mumble if someone of the guys who edited the Italian articles of that Britannica even made a trip or Italy or knew any of Italian language), often with comical effects. Examples: name in... Spanish and surname in Italian, even for periods when Italy had nothing to share with Spain!! Bye.

Thanks for reply

Dear sir, thank you for your previous reply, and apologies for deleting "Disagreement over name" addition, this was me attempting to withdraw the remark. Respectfully, I request your instruction for requesting a peer review for the following article: Military Operations during the Invasion of Cyprus (1974). I am having trouble with the syntax peer-review=yes, and would like criticism so as to improve the article. Thanks again. User: User383739

Thank you

Thank you for the warm welcome Kirill. Since August 27, 2006 I contribute to the Wikipedia by creating articles regarding Sri Lankan military. Hope you would like these articles that I have started.

Problem resolved

Dear sir, regarding previous problem with syntax for peer review, this is now resolved. (User383739 16:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Longsword Article Peer Review

I'm considering putting the longsword article up for peer review at WPMH after adding a little more information on hilts (currently a stub section). Before I did, and wasted people's time, I wanted to know if you saw any immediately revolting elements to the article. I'd like to have it "on par" before peer review so it could come out shining. Eventually, I want to push it up to GA and FA (it's B, atm). Thanks for you time and commitment! - xiliquiern ^Talk 17:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand military history task force

Hi Kirill, thanks for creating the New Zealand task force! I started tagging articles but it doesn't seem to be working (See Talk:New Zealand Army).--James Bond 23:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Higher ranking Opinion needed

The page CVN 78 has been moved to Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), and all information about the name of the ship has been cut out save for the part where the National Defense Authorization Act of 2007 officially named the ship. OK, thats fine, BUT:

The article is incorrectly named (it should be located at USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78)),
No sources (inline citations or otherwise) have been provided for the alleged information,
No official announcement has been made by the Secratary of the Navy (or anyone else for that matter) that the name is now Gerald R. Ford, and
Things change. The space shuttle Enterpise was originally named USS Constitution until the Star Trek fans purswaded NASA to rename the vehical Enterprise. The same thing could happen here.

I feel that these circumstances warrent maintaining the article under the name CVN 78, with the name specualtion section included, until someone (preferably the Secratary of the Navy) makes an official press release or otherwise publicly announces the name of the carrier, but I want an expert opinion before taking any drastic measures. What are your thoughts on the matter? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advertise our project

The female members of the Scouting project would like to advertise that we cover Scouting. Some countries consider Girl Guiding as a bit different from Scouts and some project members want to recruit more females to work on the Girl Guide/Girl Scout articles. Our portal and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory/History_and_society#Social_organizations listing say we cover Guiding, but what else can we do? THanks. Rlevse 18:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea. I shoulda thunk of that! I just did that. I already have us listed, and mention the Guiding, on the WP Council page and our portal. If you have more suggestions, please let me know.Rlevse 22:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Operations of the South African Border War

Hi Kirill: Please see my latest comments at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 24#Category:Operations of the South African Border War for the reasoning why you have made a mistake. Thanks. IZAK 19:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I am thinking about it...

...should the articles USS Missouri (BB-63) and Iowa class battleship also be put through a Featured Article Review when I get around to citing them, or should I go with the peer review option instead? I ask because there seemed to be some confusion about that on the FAR page for USS Wisconsin when I added the 300+ inline citations for the material, and I would rather not repeat that experince again for the other two articles. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

template

Well the project is technically apart of the indian project. I've try to generate more interest in it. I like how the koreans did their nav template.--D-Boy 23:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask about making it smaller.--D-Boy 23:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks- RE: Land warfare feedback

Thanks heaps for your assesment on the land warfare article-as you can see I'm rather new to Wikipedia and your feedback is greatly appreciated. :-) Bennyboyz3000 (talk). 06:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crécy Campaign

Hi, I understand why you merged the Crécy campaignbox into the Edwardian War one and thankyou for contacting me about it. However, I'm not sure why the original Hundred Years War box was broken up in the first place. It covered the major operations and would have allowed the creation of smaller campaignboxes for specific campaigns. As it currently stands, the Edwardian War box has the four closely linked battles of the Crecy campaign and two largely unconnected operations seperated by six years in one direction and ten in the other. Would it not be more sensible to go back to the original larger box and then branch down by campaign rather than era - I can think of several campaigns from this war which could merit their own box but currently don't have one? I also notice a lot of very small boxes on the American Civil War (including several with only one action in them), which seem to breach the guidelines you mentioned, should these be merged into one large one?--Jackyd101 17:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy reply, I see your point, your last sentence in brackets was the closest to what I was thinking, but I'll leave it for now and try to expand the articles on Hundred Years War battles as a lot are onr line stubs and others are missing completely. Maybe when there are more entries in the boxes it will be more practical to use the boxes by campaign rather than by historical era. A box is needed for the Breton Civil War which made up a substantial part of the early Hundred Years War and currently has no box, I'll add one for that if there is no objection. Thanks--Jackyd101 18:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military Brat name

Hi Kirill, I was hoping to get your thoughts/input on the new name. Is "Military brat (U.S. subculture)" the best name or should it be "U.S. Military brat" or do you have a better idea? I've started a discussion on the talk page on this.Balloonman 22:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Amstetten

I have completed the article on the Battle of Amstetten. Can you please verify the infromation (esp. numbers) and add additional information to it? I do not have many resources on that specific battle. --Ineffable3000 01:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portfolio for ArbCom

On Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Summary table, I added a column "Examples" with links that exhibit a candidate's arbitration skills. My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. Since you were one of the first candidates to register, I included some links which you provided on your questions page. You may want to check if you're OK with them. — Sebastian (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Cambodian Civil War A-class review

Kirill, I've started reviewing the article. I made some copyedits. I'm about halfway through the article. I've left some requests for clarification on the talk page. I'll return to it tomorrow to complete my review. As earlier reviewer have noted, there are some tone issues. — ERcheck (talk) 06:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Part 2 of my review completed. Editor has found the comments and is addressing. — ERcheck (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afd Discussion

I have started an important AfD discussion related to lists of battles. Please share your opinions. --Ineffable3000 02:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for December 4th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 49	4 December 2006	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections open	The Seigenthaler incident: One year later
Wikimedia celebrates Commons milestone, plans fundraiser	Wikipedia wins award in one country, reported blocked in another
News and notes: Steward elections continue, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caspian expeditions of the Rus

Hi, this article was peer-reviewed some time ago, but since then it has significantly progressed, and it is now a good article. The reviewer said we may consider nominating for FA, but I'm not sure whether the article should go through another peer review before nomination. Your advice will be greatly appreciated. Beit Or 18:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your advice would be appreciated

Hi, I'm trying to get the LGBT Wikiproject back off the ground and I was wodnering, as co-ordinator of easily the most successful WikiProject out there, if you could give some advice as to how to go about it. How did MILHIST build itself up? Were there lots of members from the beginning? How did you recruit new ones? What can we do to ensure maximum productivity without wasting time on stuff we don't have the manpower for? Do you have any simple ideas we can try? Your advice would be deeply welcome. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I'm so glad you said that, because I was planning to make a project template, and develop article assessments and the Wikiproject banner anyway - I feel like I'm definitely on the right track now. :) Thankyou for your reply. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 06:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again, but the WikiProject Council's guide is slightly confusing me. I want to get the bot automated assessments, and the guide says to add a parameter to our banner - but our banner code looks nothing like the example. Is it already there, or do I need to put it in, and if so, where? Does the bot simply then just create all the pages needed? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K, I added all the code and fiddled with it: the guide mentioned categories. Do I need to create them, or does the bot do it, or what? Maybe you could add this to the guide? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've created and beautified them all. Thanks for your help. I discovered what I needed to know at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot - you might want to add some information to the Guide from it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crusades

Hi - I strongly prefer this format for the Crusade box, but noticed on the discussion page of Template:Crusade that you chose the current format so it could be used in conjunction with another type of template (a battlebox?). The thing is, the two or three Crusade-linked articles that I checked don't actually use that other box. So, maybe you could help me add them, or maybe you would reconsider your thoughts about this version of the template?[1] Best, Kaisershatner 15:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

manually created template of task force list

at least I managed to understand enough coding to get such a template at this place. That was the hardest part. Wandalstouring 14:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User FrummerThanThou and Leads

Hi Kirill, notice you reverted this editor's tag at Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942). He's doing the same to my Russian Ground Forces, also under FAC consideration, which, as far as I can see, meets all WP:LEAD requirements. Would you mind reverting the tag - or seeing if it is actually applicable, and if so, appreciate how you think I should redo it. Thanks Buckshot06 17:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ghazni

Hi Kirill,

I just created this new article, Battle of Ghazni which took place in 1839 during the First Anglo-Afghan War. I was wondering if you could help link this article around so that it generates traffic.

thank you. Mercenary2k 20:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MedCab

Hiya, glad to see that your ArbCom bid is going well. :)

By the way, do you remember that "WikiProject autonomy" issue that came up at the Village Pump? The dispute that I was referring to, at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television), continues to escalate, and it's looking like it's having a good chance to proceed to ArbCom. :/ Formal mediation was rejected, but we're making a last-ditch effort via MedCab to see if we can work things out. Would you be interested in offering a statement? If you'd rather stay low-key while the ArbCom proceedings are taking place, I understand, but I did want to make you aware since we'd discussed this before. So it's definitely your call. :) If you would like to participate (and I'd really love additional opinions on the matter), it's at: Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-05 Naming conventions (television). Thanks, El on ka 21:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, you're right, it went to ArbCom earlier today. :/ However, I'm a bit distressed to see that the person that submitted the request chose to list in the "parties" list, themselves, 3 of their allies, and me alone as "the opposition" (sigh). I'm feeling a bit out of my depth here, since I've never participated in any way in any Wikipedia ArbCom case. Would you be willing to act as an advisor, as I prepare my statement? I definitely feel like I need some assistance navigating this process. Thanks, --El on ka 00:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krasnoi

Could you take a look? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think that "unreadably choppy" is way too harsh? I believe you should leave your prejudice towards Kenmore in the past. Best, Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiril:

By "density of citations", are you saying that certain sections need more footnotes, or that the sections currently containing footnotes are too densely covered with footnotes? Note that I have not yet added the footnotes to sections one and two, so there will be 15 more citations or so coming up.

Sometimes I wonder if it's presently too densely footnoted in other sections, as in some paragraphs I've footnoted almost every sentence. I felt compelled to do this, because I literally had to put the narrative together fact-for-fact (chronologically), sentence-by-sentence, by drawing upon a variety of sources.

I'm planning to see an academic writing coach in the future for non-Wikipedia reasons. I'll bring all five of my Wikipedia articles as material to work on.

Just for the record, I have seen one sentence paragraphs used often in history books, and to good effect too.

Ghirla:

Kiril was not being harsh or vindictive by calling the narrative "unreadably choppy". American teachers routinely use such terms in grading student's papers, and students here use such words to contructively criticize each other's work. Sometimes bluntness is a virtue.

Assuming the critics know what they're talking about, I encourage them to be as harsh as they can in criticizing my work. It helps me to strengthen the article.

Kenmore 17:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)kenmore[reply]

Nav pane

I've now added a navigation pane, similar to yours, to all our project pages, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting. We formed our first task force, too, for female Scouts. Rlevse 13:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Category:Military of Cornwall

I don't know if you're still watching this discussion, but there are some (one, at least) Cornish studies editors who have made a proposal to rename the category to Category:Military in Cornwall as a child of Category:Military of the United Kingdom and Category:Cornwall - to me, this seems like an unnecessary breaking of the category tree, but your input would be appreciated. Carom 16:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case you have nothing else to do and you're not fed up with me co-editing

I have been thinking about a way to get a viewers' evaluation of articles. Naturally only Featured and A-class articles would be candidates for this. The idea is to create a form(possibly template) where the viewer can very simple give a grade to the article. The trick is that these grades should be readable by an automated process and procceeded into an evaluation of the article (like e-bay customer profiles). A possible solution could be that the grades are bot readable. Additional to the grade an optional comment can be made. The idea of this system is to present the degree of participating viewer satisfaction with the article to us and the viewer. There are two aims of this system: We can take a close look on articles with comparably bad grades and read the comments. While wikipedia often gets often dissed for not being unreliable and low quality information, this possibility for very easy viewer participation would also serve as a quality sign for articles. The A-class currently holds no visible sign such as the FA. Wandalstouring 17:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CfD - Category:Battles of the Somme 1916

Hi Kirill,
I've just closed the above and tried to anticipate its result here, here and here. I'm not sure, though, that I've done so correctly/consistently; for instance, I note First Battle of the Somme redirected to "Battle of the Somme (1916)" (now Battle of the Somme) but that this is also described as the "First Battle of the Somme"... I fear I may've confused matters further rather than clarify them, so I'd appreciate your assistance/reassurance! Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS Category:Battle of the Somme Victoria Cross recipients... Suggest Category:Victoria Cross recipients (Battle of the Somme) (and thus "Victoria Cross recipients (BattleName)" in general) as (1) less of an eyeful; (2) placing the category's subject at the title's head...? David (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...As far as I can tell, things are correct now; the naming is pretty confusing, as there are three battles...

Understood; I almost suggested "First Battle of the Somme in 1918" (ditto Second)...

...VC recipients: MILHIST is currently discussing the entire structure (and attendant naming conventions) for all the military personnel categories...

Understood; in general, I'd certainly favor names that managed to present their categories' subjects at or near the start of each name. In the case of recipients (and maybe other categories) I wonder if "from" a battle is more conventional; i.e., for example, "Victoria Cross recipients from the Battle of the Somme"...? Yours, David (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Houston peer review

The Houston, Texas article is currently being peer reviewed. Your advice on how to improve the article is appreciated. Thank you for your assistance. Postoak 05:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess

Dear Kirill—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 14:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stolen Valor Act of 2005

I've started this article at ERcheck's request, please look it over for categories, task force tag, etc. Rlevse 17:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New battle to add to the Iraq war campaignbox

I have recently added five battles to the Iraq war campaignbox:Husaybah,Haditha,Mosul and both battles of Ramadi, because people have been neglecting all those battles that ocured during the war. Now I have come up of an idea for an article about the first Shia uprising from april 4th 2004 to the midle of June. Not to include the August uprising because that was mainly concetrated on Najaf and there is already an article about that. So I wanted maybe a few suggestions from you about what to include in to the article what engagements, events etc. Of cours I will not include the fighting in Anbar or north of Baghdad because that was part of the Sunni insurgency, but the fighting in Baghdad, no matter Sunni or Shia and south of Baghdad I think should be included. What do you think. Top Gun 21:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Hello Kirill. You are famous for your work as a writer on military topics, but I never see you at DYK. Come on down to Template talk:Did you know and grab yourself a piece of the action! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Fish Portal

Hi, User:Melanochromis has done a great job getting the Fish Portal up an running. At this point, more sets of eyes can help make it even better. If you can offer some tips on the portal talk page about how to improve Fish up to "featured" quality, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Rfrisbie^talk 13:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE Khe Sanh

Sorry about the screw up, evidently were were editing simultaneously. Thanks. RM Gillespie 16:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for December 11th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 50	11 December 2006	About the Signpost

From the editor: New feature
Board of Trustees expanded as three new members are appointed	Wikimedia Foundation releases financial audit
Arbitration Committee elections continue, extra seat available	Female-only wiki mailing list draws fire
Trolling organization's article deleted	WikiWorld comic: "Redshirt"
News and notes: Fundraiser plans, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

USSPACECOM

Could you please weigh in on this? What's the call on something like this? --ScreaminEagle 19:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third Italian Independence War

If you've time, I've created Third Italian Independence War (translation from Italian Wikipedia), and some connected articles:

I've furthemore updated the templates of Austro-Prussian War to cope with the new articles structure. Also Siege of Gaeta (1860) has been marked as needing cleanup. Let me know and good work. Bye. --Attilios 22:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by war subcategories

Hi Kirill,
Some template updating has brought this category to my attention (again) and I'm thinking of tagging then posting the following to WP:CfD – unless you/WP:MILHIST wouldn't support the idea:

Subcategories of Category:People by war

Propose renaming all those subcategories whose names end "...people" to "People of the...", as the former:

causes bulky adjectivals (i.e. all words before "people" become a (long) adjective);
might, in some cases, cause confusion (e.g. "War of the Confederation people" = "[War of the Confederation] people", not "War of the [Confederation people]"; etc.)

Thanks for your thoughts! David Kernow (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the convention we're intending to adopt anyways ... Please drop a note at WT:MILHIST when you make the listing. :-) Kirill Lokshin 22:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that! Yours, David (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal tips

I have done a lot of extensive work (and so has Rfrisbie) to Portal:Business and Economics. I would like to bring it to Featured Portal status and I am seeking your opinion! Please leave your suggestions at the the Portal talk:Business and Economics about how to get this portal to featured status. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks! Nishkid 64 04:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal review volunteers

Hi, based on your previous good deeds, please consider becoming one of the portal review volunteers and adding your name to the list. :-) Regards, Rfrisbie^talk 18:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sieges in...

'In' makes more sense, a siege has a geographic location and cannot have two, whereas a battle or war has multiple participants. The siege should remain in 'battles of' if done by a foreign country Tim! 23:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCCAT should take priority over wikiproject style guides. You can list them on CFD if you wish to take a general sounding. Tim! 23:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firearms naming conventions

Hi, Kirill. The discussion about firearms article naming conventions on Weaponry task force is still going, and while there seems to be an agreement among myself and the task force members who replied, Deathbunny (the autor of the moves) is still contrary to a more flexible convention, and appears to want a strict convention for all name types. I'm requesting your input to (hopefully) get things settled so we can put together a convention and apply it on the articles involved. Thanks in advance! —Squalla 03:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Within the scope of WPMILHIST

Kirill, In your assessment, do the following fall within the scope of the Military history WikiProject — "Military historiography, including major historians and their works":

— ERcheck (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent

Uh, Kirill, our Iran Ajr article seems to have been copied entirely from this website. I think this is a copyvio, and if so needs to be dealt with quickly, but I want a second opinion before pointing any accusing fingers. What do you think? TomStar81 (Talk) 01:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On an unrelated note, I was wondering if there was any way for an admin to recover the image descriptions on deleted image pages. In this case the image is Image:Missouri post refit.JPG, which was originally uploaded here (with all essential information included) and then transfered to the commons. Unfurtanetly, the user who transfered the image to the commons did not transfer the source information, and now that the page here on wikipedia has been deleted I have no way of knowing where I found it originally. Anything you can do to help? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thats what I was looking for. The picture in question is usually used for the "Todays Featured Article" section in a number of portals, and I was worried about it being deleted. Thank you for providing the source needed to keep it here. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Task Force Proposal

I'm not sure if this is a good idea or not, but I propose a task force about military psychology. I know that term is very broad, but the psychology of engaging in combat is somewhat important. I'm sure pages like Shock and Awe could fit under it.

Thanks! Sharkface217 22:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. If in the future there ever is a Military Medical task force, I will be sure to consider joining it. Sharkface217 01:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by war's subcategories now on CfD

Hi Kirill,
The ["...people" → "People of..."] rename proposal for Category:People by war is now in place here and I've left an announcement here. I'm now going to take some keyboard leave, but should be back later. Yours, David (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good ... Some of the cases (e.g. the veterans one) are rather peculiar; but they're likely to be renamed once we finally work out the whole scheme for Category:Military personnel...

Understood; have removed the one veteran nomination. (Whatever the format finally agreed for veteran category names, however, I reckon "Enduring Freedom" ought to become "Operation Enduring Freedom".) Best wishes, David (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS re closing this CfD

I was looking to close this CfD but see there are two or three distinct lines of thought. One, leading to the use of "Thirteen Colonies" seems to've arisen after your contribution; what do you make of it...? (I suppose I could close it as "no consensus" but I feel there is one there...) Thanks, David (talk) 03:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using the "Thirteen Colonies" version is entirely fine with me (actually, I think I was the first person to mention that possibility...

So you were; I must've forgotten by the time I reached the end of the discussion. The category (American colonial wars) now slated for renaming to Military history of the Thirteen Colonies.

One more thing: if it's not too much trouble, might you be able to take a look at this category naming discussion? ...

Have just completed a first read of the discussion and I see what you mean; no magic-bullet solutions jump to mind, but I'll read it again as I catch up CfD scanning – hopefully something might suggest itself then. For now, though, I wonder if some use of "by" might work – perhaps with reference to a country's army/navy rather than the country itself... David (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Units and formations of the United States Air Force" category tree renaming

I hope I wasn't being assumptive, but I put in a CFR for the USAF categories so they match the "X of Y" naming convention. Just trying to help get the USAF articles lined up (and, of course, get a few of them up to FA status!). If you would please share your thoughts about this with me. Thanks. -Dan AKA NDCompuGeek 02:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I thought I did to a speedy rename on these articles.... I guess I did something wrong - What did I do incorrectly? Thanks.... -Dan AKA NDCompuGeek 04:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion? (urgent)

Kirill, I just posted some this article (Air Force Doctrine Center), and 2 minutes after it was posted it was flagged with a copyvio speedy deletion! Have I done something wrong by using the USAF public domain as a "template" for this article (I have changed it from what they have on their web site), or is it a case of "looks kind of like it, so better safe than sorry" kind of thing? I would really like to save this article if at all possible. PLEASE HELP!!! Thanks! -Dan AKA NDCompuGeek 04:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I didn't realize .mil sites were public domain, and didn't find the statement to that effect that they've hidden under "Privacy and Security." My bad. PsyMar 05:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interested in being an assistant corrdinator

Dear Kirill,

I am interested in being an assistant corrdinator and helping out with Asian Military History projects. How does one progress to this level? Please let me know, thanks. -WangKon936 05:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for December 18th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 51	18 December 2006	About the Signpost

From the editor: Holiday publication
Elections conclude, arbitrators to be chosen	Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser opens
WikiWorld comic: "Dr. Seuss"	News and notes: Fundraiser plans, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

My messes

Thank you for helping clean up the template mess I was making. I assumed (incorrectly) that a template like that mprotected one would include it's own protections to prevent things like that. I've hit the rollback button on myself for the remainder of the ones I did, and will redo them more cleanly this time. - TexasAndroid 14:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wargames and Co.

I have been discussing with Lord Ameth on how to retrieve historic maps of battles. One possibility would be to use wargames which often try to be highly accurate(reenacting historic battles) and show the different maneuvers. For our purpose showing the different troop types with correct equipment and their way of movement on the battlefield is enough, at least in the premodern warfare. This would open up great possibilities to improve our ability for maps of battle deployment. Naturally I argue for strict controls on the accuracy. If this works and we get more wargames(there are quite a lot out there and the guys seem happy to have someone watching their stuff) I would suggest to establish a review process for self-made diagrams, maps and wargames to ensure accuracy and quality. Possibly some guidelines would also be helpful. Wandalstouring 03:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is professional and we do show things from a contemporary point of view this way. Read Miniature wargaming and its external links. Wandalstouring 05:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Question

Hi again, I have another question for you. I am in the process of overhauling the battleship Missouri page to bring it up to current FA standards (you can see the progress made so far by checking my sand box if you like), and while cruising the net for pictures of Missouri I happened across this photo of New Jersey. I have my eye(s) on bring New Jersey up to featured status next, and images like this would definately help that effort, but for the life of me I can not find the author of the image. The link I gave above states that the picture in question was obtained from "a sailor serving on her"; so my question is is this a PD image, or a fair use image? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Hi Kirill! I just want to say Merry Christmas to you! Have a nice holiday time. If you don't observe this event then I hope you don't mind this greeting. :) - Darwinek 20:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

some issues

You could have warned me earlier that there is a wikiproject maps that produces quite good stuff.

Could you help me to push my ego with the external images template? At the moment it is stuck as request to add to the manual of style and there is little resonance. Perhaps you have an idea how to proceed. Wandalstouring 01:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The map project did some work on battle of Chalons quite recently, so they are active.

OK, now I know what ideas some people have about it and possible alternatives. Wandalstouring 02:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War Portal oopsie

Kirill, I was just at the War portal, and I noticed you have already added the USAF and Coast Guard - thanks! I also couldn't help but notice that the pictures and captions are reversed - I don't think the Air Force is changing from parachutes to anchors to stop their planes.... Actually, it IS somewhat humorous, but nonetheless inaccurate. Just thought you should know.

By the way, if you have ANY suggestions for the Air Force portal, your advice is always welcome (and desired)! -Dan (AKA NDCompuGeek 04:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

And now, the Air Force portal....

Kirill, after a thorough I think that's how it's spelled,um, detailed lookthrough of the War portal, I would like to ask you if I can "borrow" the 'WPMILHIST Announcements' layout for the USAF portal? I like the layout, I'm a (hopefully valuable) member of the military history project, and I think it's a way to tie them even tighter together. Thoughts? NDCompuGeek 06:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XMAS gift

Lots of good intentions flying around, but not much in the way of useful stuff. Here is a nice template I found to organize your ever-growing collections of awards :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 14:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salad'o'meter™
	put barnstars here (no thumb or direction)
	n00b	involved	been around	veteran	seen it all	older than the Cabal itself

Featured lists

I found three featured lists(on animals) Wikipedia:WikiProject_Caribbean#Features_Lists

We could use them as a model for our own lists. Personally I prefer the table style. Possibly this could also by done with templates. What's your opinion? Wandalstouring 16:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

admin stuff

Could you protect Hannibal Barca if our anonymous editors go on to revert edits without providing proper sources. Wandalstouring 19:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Navy Squadron List

Hey man I was curious if you could take a moment and take a look at List of United States Navy aircraft squadrons I want to get someone elses opinion on where im going with it. I still have lot to go. I also have a concern as to the size it starting to get pretty big and im maybe a third of the way though. anyway just when you get a sec if you dont mind. --Wilsbadkarma 03:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Yeah I kinda took Loopers idea and ran with it on the navy side. and you know it never really occured to me that the nicknames and dates dont really have to be like that. I just took the layout the way he had planed it. thanks oh and I nomed the portal a few minutes ago. Thanks for the help --Wilsbadkarma 03:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lifted your barnstar design

Kirill, I lifted the design of your userpage to clean up the messy formatting I had on barnstars - I hope that's OK with you. Best, Sandy (Talk) 16:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fix: since it was added at the top, and since there were no other interwikis on the page, I wasn't certain what to do with it - glad you noticed. Sandy (Talk) 20:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User: ed g2s and Infobox road

seems to me like he's abusing his sysop privilege if he's doing the reverts the way you described it in his discussion page IMHO? This is just a statement - not intended to be an attack of any type 8) • master_son^{Lets talk} 21:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. • master_son^{Lets talk} 21:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nationalistic bot

Thanks for the good arguments. Frankly it seems logical to add India wikiproject tags to Indian actors. I dont see what the argument is but thanks anyway for being level-headed about the issue.Baka man 01:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lepanto galley number

Hey, the list of ships in the battle gives 216 or so, not 230 (although there is one section on the muslim side which has an incorrect number i haven't changed that) SpookyMulder 04:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight

Hello. Congratulations for your election. You now have oversight access on the English-language Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Oversight before using this feature. Cheers! guillom 10:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kirill. In addition, please subscribe to Oversight-l. And congratulations on your new status. Redux 13:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

more "portal-ology" questions

Kirill, You had mentioned "rotating articles" or something like that when we were last discussing the Air Force portal. Umm, how do I do that? -Dan (AKA NDCompuGeek 20:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

US M# Weapons...

I've been trying to bring the pages discussed "on-line" with what everyone agreed on but there are some pages requiring an admin. What is the procedure to get that done? I want to get the linked pages fixed but I don't want to leave a lot of redlinks or "missed links", especially in pages where they go directly to the variants portion of the page.

Also, does the "to do list" on the Talk page go there or is there a better location for this "temporary" tool?

Thanks. Deathbunny 21:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006

The December 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Have A Happy New Year Kirill Lokshin!!!! | From Wilsbadkarma

I hope that you have a wonderful New Year. Dont forget to party like, well like its New years eve!!!!

Signpost updated for December 26th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 52	26 December 2006	About the Signpost

Seven arbitrators chosen	Wikipedia classroom assignments on the rise
WikiWorld comic: "Molasses"	News and notes: Stewards appointed, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

War-campaign-battle struture

Hello. Congratulations! I’m really impressed with war portal, but I have one issue to discuss about structure of information concern military conflicts. I think it will be much more convivient to use “three-level” structure “war-campaign-battle” then “two-level” “war-battle”. A lot of military conflicts (especially medieval) really was just isolated raids or campaigns organized by separate military leaders (not by states or even tribe), for example viking campaigns, nomad campaigns. Long medieval wars (Hundred Years' War, Wars of the Roses, ...) often were series of campaigns with long quasi-peace interval. List of wars 1000–1499 is very shot and uncomplete because of this reason. Term "invasion" is too POV and lead to long edit wars. So I’d like to know your opinion about structuring medieval (and partly ancient) military history as series of campaigns, not always cover by any war. Really I’d like create article about viking raids using this approach. --Ioakinf 09:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. Example of some arguments you may see on Talk:Rus'-Byzantine War --Ioakinf 10:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for prompt reply. I can prepare some tables of content with referencies as examples (Wars of the Roses,Hundred Years' War). But I'm newcomer here and don't want to create any chaos with existing well-prepared articles, so shall I place these examples on your talk page or somewhere else (talk pages of articles, or project, or ...) for further discussion? Sorry to trouble you --Ioakinf 18:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for advice. I'll go this way. --Ioakinf 18:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shot-down aviators

Hi Kirilll: What is Category:Shot-down aviators for? For only those killed, or also for those who survived? Thanks. IZAK 21:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will this infobox proposal work?

Kirill, could you look at my proposed ship infobox at User:TomTheHand/test and tell me if the method used will work or break in the future? From what I understand about what you said, if Brion turns on a particular extension, it will no longer be possible to open a table in one template and close it in another. However, can you open a table, use some templates to define the rows, then close the table? Your proposal on WP:SHIPS seems to indicate that you can. Though you're having the editor make one template call, behind the scenes that template is opening a table, filling it with rows using other templates, and then closing the table.

I know that you favor a different approach, but I think it would be better to leave backwards compatibility behind if the solution is easier to use. "Easier to use" is subjective, certainly, and maybe my easy-to-use proposal is a pain in the butt to someone else, but nobody's really spoken up about it. TomTheHand 18:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

random JROTC question

Kirill, I don't know if this is up your alley, but I've been trying to edit New York City public schools pages, and stumbled across a bunch of uncategorized pages for various high schools' JROTC chapters. They're all uncategorized, and I'm trying to figure out where, exactly, they ought to be categorized. The list is at Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps#Selected JROTC units, although there may also be some that aren't listed there. It's not urgent (of course!), but any help you could give would be appreciated. Thanks! Semisomna 04:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply! I'll categorize them there for now, and put merge tags to the relevant high school articles, where they exist. High school articles are a mess — you know there should be enough information for an article on every one, but most of them have about as much content as those silly JROTC pages. But someday, everything will make sense. Semisomna 05:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military brat

Kirill, I was trying to get Military brat peer reviewed one last time before nominating it for FA again, but I couldn't figure out how to do it. When I started to set it up, it pulls up the old review. Could you tell me how to fix this? Balloonman 06:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks... figred it out... I think Balloonman 06:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Unit Naming Conventions

Hey Kirill, I realize you're busy, but I have a question about the unit renamings. I have been going through and renaming a lot of the U.S. units when I find them, removing the U.S. at the beginning when necessary and adding the (United States) on the end (later I'll go back and fix the redirects, as well). I figured I'd run into some people who didn't agree or understand the logic, but one fellow brought one of them to my attention and I think it could go either way. He says the 517th Parachute Regimental Combat Team is a unique name and the addition of the (United States) is redundant and unnecessary since there is only one 517th Parachute Regimental Combat Team in all the world (I'll take his word on that since I know nothing about it). However, it is a numbered unit with no indication of the country in the title, either. Seems both of those go against each other per the new unit naming guidelines. Which way does this go?

Also, when a unit has "# th Infantry Regiment (Airborne)" as the title, where do we stick the (country)? Wouldn't "(Airborne) (United States)" look strange? I could have sworn you already covered this, but I've forgotten what you said and now I can't find it. --ScreaminEagle 20:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian)

Last May, I think, you rated this article as a "B": you may want to have another look. There's been many changes since and one section is littered with "citation needed" tags. I don't feel at all comfortable at rating articles myself. BTW, I find it interesting that a relatively obscure unit attracts so much attention, whereas major formations, eg various UK and US armies and army groups don't. Happy New Year. Folks at 137 23:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Or should I say, my sympathies. :) I just saw the announcement on your appointment to the ArbCom. Wear the hat well. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Guettarda 18:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just heard the news, congratulations! --InShaneee 00:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, I'm sure you'll do a great job. Walkerma 02:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me to add my congratulations also. I look forward to watching your work on the committee. Cla68 06:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! --Ideogram 08:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several people said that you were their first choice of all the candidates, me among them. I can well understand why. It's hard to imagine a more fair and calm editor, and I can't imagine how you would be anything less than exemplary. (That's supposed to be positive, by the way; sometimes my language gets so complicated that I have no idea what I've actually said.) Badbilltucker 21:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You never cease to amaze me...for instance I had no idea you were barely of legal drinking age. Up until this election...I placed you at least 8-10 years older...enough to fear the Sandmen more than being carded:). Again, I have no doubt you will excell as an Arb.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

**Cheers!** You're old enough and you'll **need** it!

Category:Hezbollah

Hi, I want to rearrange this category on the basis of recent discussion in talk:Hezbollah. I found you put a comment in [[Category:Wars of Hezbollah]] few days ago.[2] Please participate in our discussion and help us with this issue. Thanks a lot.--Sa.vakilian 04:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!

Congratulations on your appointment to the ArbCom! – Ch acor 03:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on the recent appointment, all the best. Ter e nc e Ong 05:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats for making it to ArbCom, Kirill! All the best for your term in the posistion. :) Kyriakos 08:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats Kirill.. All three people that I voted for got into Arbcom! I must have good judgement;) <pats self> — Lost^(talk) 10:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. I'm very glad you were chosen for the ArbCom, though I don't know you well, in what has been perhaps the best election yet. I'm sure you'll make a great arbitrator. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 11:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grats Kirill! -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the kind words! I'll try not to disappoint you. :-) Kirill Lokshin 15:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, I'm sure you'll do a fine job! :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 16:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and best wishes for taking on this demanding role. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Congratulations, Kirill Lokshin! Best of luck with ArbCom! =) Nishkid 64 23:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! I am sure you will do a great job! Ganeshk (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done - that's exciting! Congratulations, and good luck! -- Nataly a 17:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats indeed! // FrankB 22:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Congrats! I just now noticed your newest task. Good Luck! TomStar81 (Talk) 07:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding my Congrats here. Hope all goes well, man. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Notability standards for military personnel

I have proposed a standard for military personnel at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). I am forwarding this information to you because you are invloved with the history project and may be able to rally some discussion on the topic. I see problems with defending military and other historical biographies in the AfD process where G-hit are the "king"

Any feedback would be appreciated.

Thanks.

--Kevin Murray 19:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox for Airstations and such

Hello, I'm wanting to create an infobox specifically for air stations, AFB's, airfields, and heliports. Since the military structure infobox doesn't doesn't provide all the information that an airport infobox does and an airport box doesn't have fields for the military information. I made a variation of the airport box a while back when I created alot of air stations but I think it would be better if it had the same look as the military structure info box with the added fields. Here are some examples of what I'm talking about;an air station that I created Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake an airport Los Angeles International Airport and of course you know what the Military structure box looks like. Anyway my question is before I go through the trouble do you think this would be something that could be considered for use by all? --WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 00:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This old page

I started a page for Merchant Ship Fighter Unit a while ago and I forgot to see if it qualifies under the Wikipedia Military history project. The page could use some work, but I think it falls under this Wikiproject. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Military of Greece

I have just created this portal and I was looking at the Italian Wrs portal for ideas when I saw the selected events and biographycomponent you put in where when you click on more select events it automaticly changes. Could you please tell me how to had that to my portal. And I have also tried to change the title of the portal to Military history of Greece but I have some problems. COuld you please help me fix it. Cheers. :) Kyriakos 07:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of specializing more the historical aspect of the military history eg. wars, battles and historical figures instead of weapons etc. Kyriakos 07:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've screwed everything up is it OK if you do it for me and I just place the selected biography's and events. Thanks for the help. Kyriakos 07:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disturb you again Kirill but when you click on more articles it goes to a redirect is it possible for you too fix it. And also could you please fix the more biographies. Thanks. Kyriakos 07:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please fix the related conent portal sub page because I doesn't seem to be appearing. Thanks. Kyriakos 23:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think the portal is looking now and do you have any tips on how to improve it. Kyriakos 05:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ye, I must going to start that now. Thanks for the help so far. :) Kyriakos 05:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disturb you again but I think I finished the portal and I you don't mind having a look and telling me can be improved. Thanks :) Kyriakos 10:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I was thinking of ways to improve the portal and would it be doable to place the assessment chart and show the figure of article's that have to do with the Military of Greece. For example: 8 FA, 200 stub etc. Do you think it would work? Kyriakos 21:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got the time as I'm on summer holidays what do I have to do? Kyriakos 22:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way I can do it manualy. Kyriakos 23:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it manually. Can you please help me set up the system and then I'll go therough the categories and subcategories manually. Kyriakos 23:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to have one like the current status? Kyriakos 23:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think now. I went throug a few hundred articles and I made a chart. :) Kyriakos 06:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He he he. I know what you mean by time consuming. I've spent quite a few hours and I'm expecting to find around another 100 to 150 articles at the least. :) Kyriakos 06:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year. I just wanted to tell you that I've found another 150 articles since yesterday and I think I can find some more. Happy New Year! :) Kyriakos 22:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Navy Portal

As you know I have the Portal up for featured and currently have three supports and no objects and I would love to get a few more supports in the effort to get this thing featured. I noticed that you have reviewed many portals So if you have a sec can you review it. oh and I'm making the list for the airfield addition to the structure infobox and will send it to you shortly. --WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 19:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah

Hi, We are waiting for your opinion. Please hurry up.[3]--Sa.vakilian 14:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(state) in the American Civil War categories

I understand you were once interested in subcategories of these categaries to contain the people involved from each state. Something like 'People of (state) in the American Civil War' Scott Mingus says he no longer minds if such subcats are created. What would you think is the best name for such subcats? Also for subcats of battles in the states, such as 'Battles in (state) of the American Civil War' Thanks Hmains 18:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding people, I will create the subcats. Regarding battle locations (by state), I just note that the battles are already organized by state in the '(state) in the American Civil War categories', they are just not further suborganized with the name battle in the category name. This precludes creating an overall category named 'Battles of the American Civil War by state' which might be useful to some WP users. Hmains 18:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, you would just leave the battles as they are or ? By the by, at least one state category already has a (poorly named) battles subcategory. Hmains 18:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Side subject: the Main Article of these categories should, I think be named to follow the category: 'American Civil War' not just 'Civil War'. Can I do this just using the 'move' tool available to editors? Hmains 19:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 'moves' appear to have worked ok. Back to battles: It was the "Battles in Virginia" catgegory that I was thinking about. Hmains 20:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military brat

Well, somebody beat me to the category of military brat, but I went through last night and updated all of the brats on the List of famous military brats to have the category on their page. Well, the category has already been nominated for deletion. The reasoning is because it is a "non-neutral" term and parental occupation is irrelevant. Thus, I'm letting people who have contributed to the Military brat article know so that they can support keeping the category. Here is the link to the discussion [4] Balloonman 20:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill, you didn't actually vote to keep or get rid of the category, you just indicated that you thought brats was the better option ;-) Balloonman 21:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Requested articles list

Although i do prefer shorter lists in those templates that is not the reason, In the MIL of Australia Portal it looked kinda wrong with such a long list of red links. Hope it didn't cause any problems. Hossen27 04:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Treaties

I've been looking at some articles about treaties and I was wondering if treaties are considered part of Military history? Kyriakos 05:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the Treaty of Devol would be a MIl hist article. Kyriakos 05:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 1	2 January 2007	About the Signpost

Effort to modify fair use policy aborted	Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion
WikiWorld comic: "Thagomizer"	News and notes: Fundraiser continues, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

Thanks

Thank you for welcoming me to the project.--Berig 15:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WWI portal

I was wondering if you might take a look at my efforts so far in Portal:World War I and let me know what you think I could do to improve it. I've incorporated a lot of ideas from Portal:Italian Wars (mostly in organization, but I think I stole a couple of ideas for content as well). I'm also wondering how often you would recommend updating the various components.

Congrats on being elected to ArbCom, btw. Carom 06:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the chevrons (or whatever we're calling them these days)! I'll work your suggestions into the portal at some point. Also: how, exactly, would we go about replacing {{World War I}} in the articles? Just point the way... Carom 16:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to produce a list of the articles that use the WWI template? Or would one have to comb through all the articles in Category:World War I? Carom 19:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! (And the worst part is, I've been using "what links here" to fix redirects for all the page moves I've been doing...) Carom 20:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The good news is, we're only talking about 80 articles or so, which shouldn't take to long. I've posted on the talk pages of both the WWI article and the WWI task force, so I'll give it a day or so and then make the switches. Carom 21:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've replaced the template on all the articles with a link to the portal, with the exception of an article that probably wants a merge/redirect. So far, no complaints. I've also incorporated some of your suggestions on the portal - what would I need to do if I wanted to bring it up to featured status? Carom 20:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that most of the photographs I've used are reproductions from on online archive which (according to the image pages) claims the right to be credited, although the images themselves are drawn from public domain sources - I'm not an expert on copyright law, and I'm uncertain if their claim to be credited is valid, or if I can just indicate that the image is in the public domain. Any advice? Carom 21:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought - if I am unable to determine the photographer (which seems like it might be a problem) would it be appropriate to just leave a notation along the lines of "Photographer unknown"? Carom 21:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll get on that - although maybe not until the New Year ; ) Carom 21:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another question (they just don't stop, do they?) - if I want to remove sections from the related Wikis (I want to get rid of the link to Wikinews), I would I do this? Is it necessary to create a new template with only the content I want to link? Carom 16:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, got it. Thanks again! Carom 16:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pastorwayne: Arbitration needed?

Please see WP:ANI#Pastorwayne and category creation. Several of us have had problems with Pastorwayne and his rapid category creation, which is out of control. On 1 January 2007, he stopped actually creating category pages after multiple complaints, but he has not stopped adding red linked categories to articles, which is the first step in a technique for creating categories according to WP:CAT. The notice at WP:ANI has not received appropriate administrative attention. I left a request for information at WP:MEDCAB (see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-02 Pastorwayne category creation), but it looks like the Mediation Cabal may not act quickly on this request.

At this point, I am wondering if arbitration is needed. Since you are on the arbitration committee, could you please tell me whether this would be appropriate? If arbitration is not appropriate, could you instruct me on how to get some type of definitive administrative action in a relatively short time period?

(I will be asking several members of the arbitration committee just to get some type of feedback.) Dr. Submillimeter 16:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jc37, an administrator, has now taken a stronger action regarding this situation. Hopefully, I can discuss future concerns regarding this situation with him. If you have additional comments for me, please contact me. Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 18:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject advice

Hi, I know you're busy but as WikiProject Military history is both highly regarded and covers many featured articles, I wonder if you could take a look at WikiProject Universities and suggest any basic organisation tips. This project has been somewhat stalling for a while and an outside perspective might help to get a good structure in place. Timrollpickering 21:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal War

Hey man just wanted to let you know that one of the pictures in your rotation is missing. Portal:War/Featured picture/14--WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 05:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A-Class - Biography project

Hi, Kirill! Because of your experience in the WP:MILHIST, I'd like to pose a question. I proposed in the Biography project here a procedure similar to the A-Class nomination in the MILHIST project. What I want to ask is: How are such decisions (change of the way A-Class are assessed) are taken in MILHIST? Should a consensus be reached? Is there a poll? Thanks!--Yannismarou 15:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know all that. And I wouldn't propose such a thing, if I did not feel able to carry the burdain. The fact that Plange is inactive (for reasons I ignore) is really unfortunate. A project running so well, is now trembling IMO. And such a good work is going awaste! The program hasn't issued a newsletter for 3 months! If I was not doing the job, peer-reviews wouldn't be performed! Assessments are back!

For the last months (especially after Plange's inactivity), I'm running almost on my own the Peer review section of the Biography section. Reviewing, archiving, assessing etc. Now I have also started to be involved in the assessment section as well. At the same time I've started and I'm still doing almost all the administrative work (I have some help from Aldux and NicoSilver) of the Wikiproject History of Greece. So, I do have some experience of administrative work.

Thinking also of my availability of time, I think I can do administrative work is WP:BIOGRAPHY as well, if I collaborate with a group of people willing to undertake with me the job - I don't think I have the time to do all that alone, taking into consideration my interest in the History of Greece project and of my occupation with editiing articles (projects are nice, but articles is the essence of this effort IMO!). But I really felt sorry for the current standstill and stagnancy in WP:BIOGRAPHY, and that is why I officially raised the issue. I hope more users will engage my worries and show their willingness to do something. Thanks for the advice!--Yannismarou 15:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military of Myanmar

Hi,

Thank you for accepting me to Wikiproject Military History. I wonder if you would be able to help out with the above mentioned article as there seems to be a number of users who are hell bent to vandalising the article with NPOV and non-military related facts. i.e. posting pictures of a general's villa, which clearly have no place in such a military article?

Okkar 02:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured portal candidates

Hi Kirill. I know you have many responsibilities (congrats on the election, by the way), but would you be able to make sure that WP:FPCAN runs smoothly for the next two weeks? I'll be offline for that period and will be unable to do so (at a very inopportune time, with several candidates due to conclude and a couple controversies keeping things noisy). Thanks, --cj | talk 01:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support regarding the WP:ARCH candidacy at WP:FPCAN. CJ has now changed his weak object to support and everyone else is now in support. Assuming there's no more objections, how long do you think it will be until we receive a decision? Many thanks. --Mcginnly | Natter 03:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sathya Sai Baba arbcom case 2: banning of Andries for one year

I was very surprized that Fred Bauder (talk · contribs) supported UninvitedCompany (talk · contribs)'s motion to have me banned from the Sathya Sai Baba related articles for one year. I thought that I had received a complete amnesty for my possibly bad edits in Sathya Sai Baba and related articles in the first arbitration case. Banned for what? I would be surprized if anybody can find just one single edit that seriously violated Wikipedia policies after the first arbitration case. And I would very surprized if somebody was able to find that I repeatedly seriously violated Wikipedia policies after the first abritration case. Andries 01:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does Terry de la Mesa Allen, Jr. merit his own wiki-page?

As you were a contributor to the article Battle of Ong Thanh please consider joining the discussion at this link on whether the American leader of the battle Terry de la Mesa Allen, Jr. who died in the fighting is notable enough to deserve his own wiki-page. I intend to enlarge the article but it was speedily deleted within an hour of its creation and now after much discussion it has been undeleted but is under review whether it should be allowed to continue to exist. Originally the person who deleted it placed the following on the Afd discussion page

Persons claim to fame is being the son of a famous US General. He became Lt. Col. (probably with a little help from his daddy), cockily chased some charlies in Vietnam, and got killed in the resulting ambush together with his unit. After his death he had some media coverage due to his famous daddy. Also, his wife left him for a rodeo clown. Two books available and one movie upcoming about the battle. In my opinion borderline notability at best, but as always i am willing to be convinced otherwise.

Thankfully he has been talked into revising this statement to be less insulting but I feel there is much bias against this article for no logical reason - right now the article is just a stub but its hard to expand something if you think its just going to be deleted.--Wowaconia 05:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Baekgang Edits

Here is notification that I have made major edits to the Battle of Baekgang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baekgang). Please review and give me any comments. Thanks. WangKon936 10:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for reply

your point is taken. you are correct. apologies. guess I'm a bit frantic. however, hope you'll excuse my neophyte-ness. only thing is, I'm still learning which pages are used for this sort of thing. so i may post it only at the "tasks" page or requests page, since these are appropriate places for that. i'll then be content to be silent. thanks again for your help. --Sm8900 04:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I just went to the coordinators page, and found out you are the lead coordinator for the Mil Hist. project? (See how much i learn by frantically visiting pages from pillar to post? :-) ) anyway, that's good to know. Appreciate any help which you could provide. Doesn't it seem to go counter to Wikipedia principles for only a small handful of users to rewrite the obvious work of many others? Appreciate your help. thanks. --Sm8900 04:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your reply to me, and your response on the article talk page. your input is very helpful. I look forward to further discussion. thanks. see you. --Sm8900 23:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Would it be possible to have a map depicting the movements of troops during the Roman-Spartan War created? And if it is possible could you tell me where. Thanks. Kyriakos 20:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible WPMILHIST articles

Are Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Claudius part of WPMILHIST? Kyriakos 10:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Vancouver

It appears that the discussion for this portal has come to a close of inactivity after 10 supports and 1 objection. I was wondering what the final decision would be? Mkdw ^talk 20:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Hurrmic

Hi, and thanks for the Dec 31 'new member' message. I'm trying to verify some material about the HMS Bluebell and other Flower Class Corvettes (British Navy, WWII). I'll start writing as I verify. I welcome allcomments on my contributions. Hurrmic 21:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for defending CatDiffuse

Thank you for your defense of CatDiffuse: I had no idea it was up for deletion, and I am amazed at the response it has generated. I invite you to review and participate in WP:∫, to bring order to Wikipedia. Cwolfsheep 05:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 2	8 January 2007	About the Signpost

Special: 2006 in Review	Another newspaper columnist found to have plagiarized Wikipedia
Blogs track attempts to manipulate articles	Nutritional beef cooks PR editor
WikiWorld comic: "Facial Hair"	News and notes: Fundraiser continues, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

Military of Carthage

I see it was your move, well, there were several Carthages (dictionnaire phoenicien/punique) and in scientific literaure the term Punic is prefered because Carthage was only the military and industrial center of the Punic people. They were quite organized for their time, with seperate commands at land and sea, etc. but I'm fine with Punic Military. Wandalstouring 18:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was not familiar with this(didn't pay attention). Well, what is your suggestion, the situation is as follows:

Several noble families and nobles with their own household warriors and private warships(small series or individual models) who are capable of independently going to war on their own.
A state-owned capacity of warships(serial production) and soldiers(serial produced equipment), supposedly professionals among them
the total of professional soldiers living in the city of Carthage is given with 20,000 out of 55,000 men in military age(this number includes foreigners and slaves), the Punic people have about 50,000 men of military age in total
there is a citizen army - not professionals and Lybophoenicians are hired(overseas) or levied(North Africa) for service
Like in other poleis it is not possible to employ the fleet and the citizen army(active in North Africa, hardly any records on them) at the same time + the fleet seems to have trained rowers(some infrastructure) - leading to the use of mercenaries (also recruited from the Lybians living in Punic controlled Africa) or "household troops"(first Punic/Greek encounters are supposedly exagerated and were only small scale private wars)

How should we call this Punic military structure? Wandalstouring 19:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A central point of this habilitation on the Punic society and military I try to use is: the Punic had a low degree of state organization, typical for archaic societies at their time and the state had no monopoly on armed forces. Wandalstouring 20:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for assistance

Hi Kirill, I was wondering if you could take a look over my index pages for Wikipedia:Version 0.5 and see if there are any "bloopers?" All of the subject-area index pages are linked from the main version page. I'm aware that most of this content has only been seriously looked at by yours truly, and I'd like a second opinion. With some of these pages I've been buried in the job for 5 hours straight, till 3am, and I'd like to make sure I didn't mess up. I'd especially like a review of the by-continent pages, since these are much harder to put together - I don't want to list a Canadian singer under USA, for example. Currently I only have the Africa tree and the Asia tree finished, though after 7 hours work the Europe tree is almost finished. I'm not asking you to spend ages on this, but a quick look over should provide some sort of reality check. If you can spare a few minutes, thanks! Walkerma 20:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking! Yes, some are borderline, but I tended to be more inclusive to be safe. The simplest thing is to include Copernicus under both Germany and Poland, rather than upsetting people! The country choices came from list of countries. Important distinction (I learnt doing V0.5!) "country" is not the same as "nation". You mention Wales - I think when you look at the UK it gets really hard to define, hence the need for a special article British Isles (terminology) (conveniently on the CD!). I would bet that if you asked people born and raised in Wales, 98%+ of them would call themselves "Welsh"; Wales has its own parliament, its own language (one of my fairly recent ancestors spoke only Welsh), and its rugby team plays in the World Cup against other "countries". Nevertheless, most laws are as in England, and they send MPs to the Houses of Parliament in London. I think it was simplest just to go from the list as given - better to include these places than not - all have reasonable significance, many like Åland have decent articles, and sometimes they may even have articles in Version 0.5 (like Midway). All the best, Walkerma 04:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other names

Hi Kirill, I was ready a book about the Roman-Spartan War in Greek and I found out the Greek name of the war. Should I add the name to the top of the article in brackets and something the this Roman-Spartan War (Greek:Λακωνικός Πόλεμος) etc. Thanks. Kyriakos 23:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should I give the literal translation of the Greek name or should I just have the Roman-Spartan War and the Greek version. Kyriakos 23:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, Kirill. I have made some tweaks to the Portal:Military of Greece. Can you please have a look and tell me your opinion. Thanks. Kyriakos 23:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Coordinators

Hi Kirill: I just joined, and am imperssed with the organizaiton of this project. I have a question in regards to how the coordinators were originally organized, and/or selected. There is another project I'm working on, and it could use something like this. Thanks. Richiar 04:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battles

Hy! First, thanks for letting me know exactly how is with cat. sorting. Secondly, please know that what comes next isn`t supposed to be an personal attack, and it doesn`t come from frustration or anything like that. Know that I inserted the "battles inv. Romania" cat. in those articles because that`s what I`ve seen being done with, for example, the "battle involving Hungary" cat. (see for e.g. the Battle of Saint Gotthard and Battle of Mohács (1687) where the cat. is inserted because the battles took place on the territory of modern Hungary). Similarly, I think it`s kind of hypocritical what you sayd (here I`m not refering only to the "no Romanian troops participated" argument, because I can accept it, but to the "the earlier principalities have their own separate categories" argument), considering that you were the one who put the "Battles involving Ukraine" (????) cat. at the Battle of Finta article. I would like to know what "Ukrainian troops" took place at that battle, and, irrelevant of the answer to the first question, how come you assigned to the article a category which reffers to a modern, different polity (that is, Ukraine), when the battle was fought by the Cossaks (also note that Finta is a locality in Romania, not Ukraine). Petre Bolea 09:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Portals.

Hey, I am working on fixing up Portal:LGBT so I can get it featured, but I was looking through the criteria and noticed something about choosing 30 articles or something to showcase on the portal. At the moment, the portal sections are updated by volunteers by changing one article, on the portal itself - is this not acceptable? Should they be archiving what they choose on a separate page? I would appreciate it if you could explain this to me.

Btw, thanks for your advice about WP:LGBT. We've doubled our membership in a month and assessed over 2000 articles! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, should the archive consist of the last 30 articles to appear? Is it OK to stick with individuals even though this isn't preferred? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renomination of Pontiac

Can you take a look at the renomination of Pontiac's rebellion? I started the nomination, but the administration seems a bit weird because the information from the old A-class review appears Wandalstouring 01:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Armia Krajowa

Thank you for your comments, I believe I have addressed most of them. If you have time, could you look at the recent dispute on the article's talk page and offer some comments on that issue? I am afraid as long as there are only two opposed voices we are rather deadlocked.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 03:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost interview

Hello, and congratulations on being named to the Arbitration Committee. The Wikipedia Signpost is doing a post-election interview with the arbitrators elected this year. Please answer these questions to the best of your ability. We request that responses be submitted any time between now and Monday, 17:00 UTC, to guarantee that your responses will be published. Please reply on my talk page. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you feel about getting the opportunity to serve on the ArbCom?
What do you think of the election? Do you think they were conducted properly? What could have been improved, in your opinion?
What would you say to those who supported you? Opposed you?
What do you think of the other Wikipedians who were appointed along with you?
Test
After about two weeks on the job, what are your initial thoughts?
Test
How active a role do you plan to take on ArbCom workshop pages, and in writing ArbCom decisions, a role that has historically been handled mostly by just a few individuals?
What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom? Weaknesses?
If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
Do you plan on finishing your term? If you had to make a choice right now, when your term expires, would you run for re-election? Why or why not?
If there's one thing you could say to the Wikipedia community, what would you say, and why? Is there anything else you would like to mention?

Anglo-Spanish War (1800s)

The Anglo-Spanish War for which we don't have an article on is part of the Napoleonic Wars according to this: Anglo-Spanish War. --Ineffable3000 05:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

German/English translations for SS divisions

I asked Wandalstouring this question as well, but I thought I'd get your input:

I was looking through the articles on the various SS divisions, and I was wondering if the various lists of commanders and orders of battle should be translated? For example, should we make alterations like substituting "major" for "sturmbannführer"? I think that these lists need translating, but I'm open to other suggestions. Carom 20:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point - looking at it a little more closely, there are a couple (like Oberführer) that won't translate real well. What about the orders of battle? While things like panzergrenadier can probably be left alone, I think we should translate less common terms like nachrichten, as well as words like infanterie, which have easy english equivalents (plus, it's usual to talk about the "german infantry"). Carom 21:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll wait and see if Wandalstouring has any input. Carom 21:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new B-class assessment

I think the discussion runs out of hand and will end nowhere. Perhaps we should start things first by discussing what is the purpose of article classification and from then on we proceed to establish categories of assessment and criteria. Wandalstouring 00:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standards and Banners

I was wondering if articles on military standards and banner would be counted as MILHIST? For example the Raven banner. Thanks. Kyriakos 22:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rating, rate, rank naming conventions

Hello, I'm running into some issues trying to get List of United States Navy ratings featured. The problem is with the capitalization of each word of a rating. Since they are, I suppose, techinally titles and are not followed by a name so they should be named according to WP:MOS#Titles. Although I have found numerous articles pertaining to military rank that have all the words of a rank capitalized (see United States Navy officer rank insignia, United States Army enlisted rank insignia, United States Marine Corps enlisted rank insignia). Plus I looked through WPMILHIST naming conventions and didn't find anything on ranks or titles that would help in this situation. I wanted to run this issue by you before I started remaing a ton of articles. Either way the WPMILHIST naming conventions should have something on the subject if for no other reason than as a authorty on the subject to solve desputes such as this. Thanks for your help.--WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 01:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply however your statement contradicts itself in that the example that you used "Privy Council" is actually a redirect to Privy council and isn't capitalized all the way through. That statement goes to make my point that no matter where you look the naming convention seems to be more of an opinion than anything. That actually makes it more difficult to figure out and since I'm not an English major I'm probably going to have to start a discussion on the subject to be able to move forward.

It's funny my intention was to attempt to get a list featured and now I seem to be the one in the position to help start the creation of a policy. Thats what I love about Wikipedia. --WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 02:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caught my mistake anyway thanks for the help I'm going to start that discussion.

How does this sound as an argument for the list reviewers? "Each rating is a proper title and the names of the ratings are the subject of each section. So, being used in that context would make the ratings nouns. Therefore the entire rating should be capitalized" thanks--WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 02:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats kinda what I was meaning by the argument is a reason to give them for why they are like that. Thanks for the help.--WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 03:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ADF

Geez mate, Give me some time before you revert. I lost off of it in a damm edit conflict. DXRAW 04:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reader Feedback

We have disagreed about possibilities for reader feedback some time ago. I created a possible solution. The layout isn't quite finished and I'm open for input as I found no way to turn this directly into a template. The basic idea is still to use it at the end of FA and A-class articles for a start and determine the signal/noise ratio. Wandalstouring 14:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that there aren't comment pages existant so we have to create them as "Comments: {pagename}". For example we can make them as user pages (so the search engine doesn't list them). If it is possible to create an own category of comment pages (like review pages, etc.) this would be a better solution. Wandalstouring 18:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and do not recommend putting the feedback on the talk page. There it is likely to be a disturbance to any serious discussion (imagine 100 people give feedback). I doubt it is a real problem to add an extra link for watching the feedback that doesn't directly lead to a new edit. Wandalstouring 18:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subpage is OK. As far as I know any page can be watched. If we implement next to the possibility to leave comments an internal link to view all comments (= direct link to the page) any user can decide whether he wants to read and watch. Wandalstouring 18:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was a try, but I realized too late that it is not feasable. Wandalstouring 19:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have the layout finished. Any suggestions? Wandalstouring 19:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dang. sometimes I feel utterly stupid (I had the same idea but couldn't make it work). Maybe I should read less history and more about coding. What now? official presentation on the talk page and implementetion into our FA and A-class articles? I moved the template to {{ReaderFeedback}}Wandalstouring 19:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will make a list of the articles with testtemplates. Wandalstouring 20:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed all test candidates on my talk page. 6 FA, 3 A-class Wandalstouring 20:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this category intended to contain an overview about all existing feedback pages? In this case we have to put manually a template on them. Talk:Roman-Spartan War/Feedback exists. Wandalstouring 20:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False figures and removing requests for citations

Please take a look at User talk:213.238.215.2. I suspect that the user gave misguided figures to a whole range of battle and other military articles. May be you can help to fix it. Andries 20:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your help with WikiProject Baseball

Thanks for fixing the talk page on WikiProject Baseball. :) --Borgarde 06:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish Civil War and WikiProject Russia

Hi, could you please take a look at the history of Talk:Finnish Civil War, my Talk page, Pudeo's talk page and Ilummeen's talk page. I need some advice on how to proceed. Thanks in advance. Er rab ee 00:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. It seems the edit war is finally over. The template does not support the small option. Do you know anyone who might be able to adapt the template that it does support the small option? Er rab ee 23:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

template:ReaderFeedback

I nominated template:ReaderFeedback for deletion. Please see WP:TFD. Savidan 02:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like some people don't like it. Wandalstouring 12:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it from all articles. Please move the comments to the talk pages. I have an idea to recycle the source for the B-class assessment(including a public discussion before implementation). Wandalstouring 15:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We discussed technical issues User_talk:Wandalstouring/Archive_2#Re:_Viewers.27_evaluation not some disturbances that people don't like evaluations. Wandalstouring 18:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third Coalition

Hey Kirill, when you have time, can you please help me move Third Coalition to War of the Third Coalition? Apparently the latter name has been used for the article before and I can't revert back to it. Thank you very much!UberCryxic 20:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wohoo. Thanks!UberCryxic 21:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formulating some guidelines

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Convention for repeated single names has some suggestions for naming conventions on Greeks, Phoenicians and Punics. None seems to take this issue serious enough to object. Could you do me a favor and formulate it into an addition on the Roman naming convention? Your formulation of guidelines is way better than mine. Thank you. Wandalstouring 02:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case of the punics we hardly know any of them outside the military business. Yes, it is intended for military personal and rulers as for civilian Greeks and Phoenicians the problem is not existing in that way. If they were important we have a lot more information on them and as far as I know, except Ptolemy, none of them needs a big disambiguation. Wandalstouring 10:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I need is strictly military. I made examples of non-military personnel to point out the possibilities for integration and interaction with possible overlaps, but by no means do I intend to establish guidlines for these. Wandalstouring 14:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal-only

Please review this vandal-only account: User:Trouser. I wanted to report to AIV, but he's not had the usual warnings. However, given his history, I feel there's little chance of warnings achieving anything more than giving us more to revert. --Dweller 14:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't know if you've seen it yet. At least one of his articles has been speedied (I flagged it). I guess the account will be quiet until the next break time, or school ends for the day. Should I be warning, or should I post straight to AIV when I spot something like this? --Dweller 14:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 3	15 January 2007	About the Signpost

Special: 2006 in Review, Part II	New arbitrators interviewed
Cascading protection feature added	WikiWorld comic: "Apples and Oranges"
News and notes: Fundraiser breaks $1,000,000, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

Thanks

WikiThanks

I just wanted to say thank you for doing what I should have [5] per the peer review protocol, not doing it in turn created more work for you so I also wanted to appologize. Best regards, — Tutmosis 18:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feature picture posting predicament

Say that three times real fast. Anyway I was browsing through the WPMILHIST FP gallery and noticed that this one image didn't have the FP star at the top. Upon further review I found that there were three different versions of the image and somehow I suppose one was deleted, one is on the commons, one was set up as a redirect because of the deleted one, but then didnt poin't to the correct one or something. So I figured you would want to look into it maybe. Here are all three images 1, 2, 3--WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 03:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal

Hi Kirill, I am planning of putting Portal:Military of Greece up for FAC in the next month or so and I wanted to know if you had any suggestions? Thanks. Kyriakos 02:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review of Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan

Hi Kirill Lokshin. I was impressed by several of your PR reviews, and I thought I might interest you in looking at Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan. I would really appreciate if you would take the time to read the article and provide your comments at the article's peer review page. Kind regards Cimm^[talk] 02:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-catergories

Hey Kirill, I have created some categoies but I have not been able to add them to the main category. Could you please tell me how. Thanks. Kyriakos 09:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

move to task force

To get an answer in that task force will take till Christmas. Wandalstouring 19:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over understanding of "caliber"

Hey Kirill,

On I-400 class submarine, JRMAN (talk · contribs) has misunderstood what "caliber" means when used to describe a large gun, and has repeatedly removed it, stating that a gun cannot be both 140 mm and 50 caliber. We've discussed it some on my talk, but I don't think he understands yet, and he's continued to remove it from the page. I was hoping you could give me a hand, as he might better understand by hearing it from a second person. TomTheHand 23:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I was going to hit three reverts before him, so I wanted to get a hand before continuing! TomTheHand 00:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DECK CANNON IN PHOTO I-400

WHERE TWO SEAMAN ARE LOOKING AT . IS 5.51 INCHES IN DIA . I WILL BUY THAT. 140MM CORRECT

WHERE TOM THE HAND SAY CAN NOT BE IN MMs.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by JRMAN (talk • contribs) 00:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

DECK CANNON IN PHOTO I-400

WHERE TWO SEAMAN ARE LOOKING AT . IS 5.51 INCHES IN DIA . I WILL BUY THAT. 140MM CORRECT

WHERE TOM THE HAND SAY CAN NOT BE IN MMs.john toth 00:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

IRC

I think you correctly said somewhere that the arbitration committee hasn't any control over the IRC channels. But in my opinion, there is quite a lot that can be done through distancing. Arbcom could ask the channels to remove the name wikipedia from their titles; it could say that wikipedia doesn't recognise off-wiki decisions about on wiki-matters—for example blocks; it could say that all admininistrative issues should be referred to the admin boards or discussed on wiki; it could recommend administrators not to use IRC; it could recommend that any e-mail discussion before an admin decision should be recorded on-wiki before the admin action takes place (I'd rather deprecate e-mail too, but I have to be realistic). Former wikipedia IRC channels might then wither on the vine or at least become irrelevant. There would be no need to make them referable, nor for them to have moderators, both of which decisions are partial and in my opinion unsatisfactory measures, though I appreciate that the arbcom has introduced them in good faith.

Since my suggestion is unlikely to be taken up, I will at least acknowledge that moderating should lead to a considerable cleaning up of the admin channel. But one problem is that there are subversive people at the top of wikipedia, in my opinion (as at the top of all organisations): one only has to hear the way JamesF talks and David Gerard talks to sense that these sarcastic and cynical guys regard the rest of us as a bunch of manipulable sheep (I hope they don't pull the wool over your eyes too) and themselves as knowing best—to them wikipedia seems a political game, more than anything, and I'm not sure how much article writing they do. I say we should distance ourselves from IRC altogether; I think the vast majority of wikipedia users would support a lead from arbcom to that effect.

Just one punter's five cents.

qp10qp 06:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maniots

Hey Kirill, I was wondering if the Maniots article would be counted as part of WPMILHIST. I am re-writing it and it has a detailed descriptions of the Maniots military campaigns eg. Orlov Revolt and I will also be writing on the page about the Ottoman Invasions of Mani and the Greek Revolution. Please give me your opinion. Thanks. Kyriakos 01:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice Kkirill, I am going to start a Military history of Mani article. BUt I wwas thinking should I start it when Mani became autonomious in 1460 upto 1832 or from the Mycenaean military involvment in Mani. If it is the latter, I may as well write up to the military involvment of Mani in the Greek Civil War and the fighting that took place in Mani. Thanks again. Kyriakos 04:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kirill, there is a discussion going on at the Maniots talk page anbout were the article should be merged to the Mani Peninsula article. I proposed that the Maniots article should not be but it should be renamed to History of Mani and the Mani Peninsula should have a brief history like the Sparta and History of Sparta and Crete and History of Crete. Would like to hear what you have to say. Thanks in advance. Kyriakos 21:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kirill

Just wanted to reiterate my thanks for all the hard work you're doing, as lead coordinator. I think it's great, and given you're, er, running a 500 strong team, if we were handing out WikiForce ranks, I think you'd be up for a Lt Col or Colonel's position just like that. Seriously, appreciate the fine work you're doing. I'm about to drop out of sight relatively for a little bit as I'm heading overseas for a while, by the way. Cheers Buckshot06 04:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves

Hey, theres a few pages left in Category:French World War II divisions that probably need admin action to move, as they don't really need disambiguation, but they've already been moved from the other names, so I can't just move them back - mind taking a look? Carom 22:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. You learn something new everyday. Carom 22:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Review advice

Hi, I've noticed that you seem to be something of a go-to-guy for military history and I was hoping you could give me some advice. I've recently expanded these articles on holders of the Victoria Cross and I was wondering what article grade-reviews they could be submitted for and most importantly how to do that? (Joseph Watt, Henry Peel Ritchie, Thomas Crisp & Eric Gascoigne Robinson). I also have problem with an unregisted user repeatedly reverting an article I worked on (Unterseeboot 552) and no one seems to be able to stop him, what can I do about that? Anyway, thanks for any help you can give me and keep up the very impressive work you do. Thanks--Jackyd101 21:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 4	22 January 2007	About the Signpost

Wikipedia modifies handling of "nofollow" tag	WikiWorld comic: "Truthiness"
News and notes: Talk page template, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

World War II article

I appreciate your proposal for revision to this article. I think that it would work very well in terms of improving the article as a whole, and once this revision was done the article would only require some more sources before we could re-nominate it for featured article status.

However, I have already proposed almost the exact same thing, and the user who posted the request for comment strongly disagreed with it. I am worried that your proposal will not be accepted any more, but perhaps just being a new voice to the discussion will help. At any rate, thank you for contributing to the progress of the discussion. Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs

Thanks for allowing me in military history

Just wanted to thank you for welcoming me into military history. Yours truly, Anonymous Dissident

Thanks for your support

As you set out for Ithaka, hope the voyage is long
Knowledge is your destiny, but don't ever hurry the journey
May there be many summer mornings when
With what pleasure and joy, you come into harbors seen for the first time

Don't expect Ithaka to make you rich. Ithaka gave you the marvelous journey
And, if I, one of your fellow-travellers, can offer something
To make this journey of yours even more fascinating and enjoyable
This is my assistance with anything I can help.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Possible Template Question

Kirill,

As I work my way through the USAF articles, I have developed a kind-of boilerplate template for all the articles. I've read what the requirements and recommendations are for the articles at the wikiproject, and was surprised to find out that my little shortcut for me actually follows the project guidelines! What do you think:

User:NDCompuGeek/WIP/Template:USAF units

Please let me know what you think, and what your recommendations / criticisms / critiques are. Thanks! -Dan (aka NDCompuGeek 22:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Portal:LGBT …using wikEd

Hey, we just finished our revamp work on Portal:LGBT. Would you mind taking a look to see if it's worth going for an FPC? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russian-Circassian War

Hey Kirill, you recently assessed the Russian-Circassian War article, and said that there were some citation problems? Would you mind being more specific so I can sort them out? Is it the low number of sources? Or have I missed some fact citations off somewhere that I haven't noticed? Many thanks, SGGH 12:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So should I reference it to "Kadir I. Natho, C.B.A. New Jersey", historian who wrote the article on that site, rather than the site itself? SGGH 13:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to contact the site to ask for information on the authors of both articles I used as references, to see who they are. SGGH 14:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kadir Natho (according to the reply I had from the site) is "living in New Jersey, USA. He is 13th president of the Circassian Benevolent Association in New Jersey. He is also writer and researcher."... what do you think? The other sources I have cited properly, as the sources i have used are merely books placed on the site itself, so I have cited it directly to the book. SGGH 18:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the other references, I will further confirm Kadir Natho as a published writer soon. Thanks for your help. SGGH 23:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA

I have been thinking about what to do with GA and I have come up with an idea. If it is possible we could make our own GA prossess for the project instead of reling upon the GAC. For example we might have a system ike the one for A-class review or the one for the current GA. PLease tell me what you think and if it is possible. Kyriakos 02:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You move quite quickly

When I returned to my revised Image:Battle of Garigliano 1503 2.PNG image to categorize it a mere 12 minutes after uploading it, I found that you'd already done it. I'm impressed! : ) MapMaster 05:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GERMIL

Thank you for working on a closer integration of our projects! I just saw that WP:MILHIST has its own quality assessment scale explanation, which I like better than the "standard" one. How good does it work and is there conflict within WP:1.0 about having different assessment criteria? I am wondering whether to copy your scheme for Germany; if you have interesting experiences to share, please do so at WT:GER. Thank you, Kusma (討論) 15:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pontic Greek Genocide

If you have some spare time take a look at the Pontic Greek Genocide. The article's title is bit in dispute and I don't seem to have much influence on the discussion any more. It could also benefit from some advice to turn a list of eyewitness accounts into an article. Wandalstouring 23:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill, sorry to bother you with this as I'm sure you're quite busy, but you've always been exceedingly helpful in the past. Wandal and I have been watching the discussions for some time, and while in my opinion they're not nearly as heated as some other debates I've been involved in, they certainly do seem to have reached a deadlock. Straw polls and just pure discussion do not seem likely to garner a consensus anytime soon, and one editor has asked me what the next step should be. I'm afraid I don't know much about how admins, coordinators, Arbitration Committee or other organs (WikiProjects?) might play a role in settling this kind of dispute. I am tempted to suggest that you or I, or Wandal or someone else simply make a unilateral declaration, as we are hypothetically outside of either camp and presumably far less personally attached to the issue than the editors involved in the debate. But, I also feel that we don't really have the authority to do such a thing, and that such a thing would be in some ways against the spirit of the Wikipedia. So.. any ideas? Domo arigatou. LordAmeth 22:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Priddy

In the 2nd arbitratation case regarding Sathya Sai Baba you supported Thatcher131's motion that stated that I added unsourced criticism of Sathya Sai Baba to the article Robert Priddy by describing the contents of one of Priddy homepages. That is untrue. You will not be able to find a diff that support this description of my editing behavior. I was careful not to do, because I was very much aware of the restrictions in using self-published sources. These restrictions states among others self-published sources should not be used to make claims about third parties. Again, I deny that I have violated any Wikipedia policy, guideline, or generally accepted Wikipedia practice on the article Robert Priddy. If you think otherwise then please try to find a diff that supports your argument.

Yes, I have edit warred after trying an exhaustive attempt at dispute resolution i.e. Request for comments, third opinion, mediation and I filed a request for clarificayion from the arbcom that was ignored. What I am supposed to do when all attempts at dispute resolution fail? I finally filed myself for violating an arbcom decision.

Andries 19:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you accurately described the motion. However the motion is untrue. I did not add criticism of Sathya Sai Baba to the article Robert Priddy that was either unsourced or sourced to Priddy's homepage. Check my edits. Andries 20:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC) amended 20:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then I probably misunderstood the motion, though I think that the motion the way you interpret is very innocent; I only followed the generally accepted practice of using self-published sources to support non-contentious statements about the subject (not about third parties). This is okay according to policies, though Thatcher131 banned me for this for one month from the article Robert Priddy. Andries 20:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC) amended 20:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of cluttered talkpages

Kirill, since I "don't speak templates", what can be done about the Beatles template and the incredible clutter at Talk:Paul McCartney? Is there a policy or anything? I don't know what it takes to fix it, but ... Yikes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kirill - it's Greek to me, but I'll point it out to them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FA Award

I present you this Featured Article award for innumerable contributions to wiki article improvement. You do it all: articles, portals, templates, projects, you name it.Rlevse 22:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:WBFAN, we both have 4. I am working on one new poss FA and some GAs, though-;)Rlevse 23:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar awarded

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For quick and excellent infobox work. Thanks! Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 02:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested page move

Oh great administrator, would it be possible to move Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada (Princess Louise's) to Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada? The page name was originally The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada (Princess Louise's) - I moved it to get rid of 'the' per WP:NCD; when I went to fix the redirects, I realized I should have gotten rid of "Princess Louise's" as well. Thanks - RJASE1 02:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! flypast peer review

Dear Kyrill Lokshin - thank you and your colleagues for measured response to my article. I had difficulties with one of your colleagues as you will have noted from the article talk page, and have suffered one or two wounding posts.

However, the critiques on the Peer Review page are very helpful. I can get on with some of the prose style, visual and organisational points you raise.

However, some of the deeply mechanical or historical stuff is beyond my expertise and there you may need extra input. I felt that you asked for rather alot on this side but Nick Dowling seemed to think that how they are organised would be handy.

I don't have recourse to all the materials to deal with those questions but will have a go as far as I can. -- FClef (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kyrill Lokshin - you've been v. kind. as far as the early interests go, I myself am a freelance English teacher, theatre pianist, and in training to be a City of London Guide (2000 yrs of architecture, history and govt.)

Is there any way that we can erase or archive some of the destructive stuff on the article Talk page? Can you help with this? Should Looper5920 be asked to withdraw his uncalled-for remarks? Actually I don't think it affects the peer review but it is a tad soul-destroying for me (a sensitive soul :-p ). (In mitigation of my sensitivity I will say I have suffered four bereavements in the last three months - two of them uncles, one a cousin, and one the mum of a friend. The most recent was this week...so I'd be grateful for your protection>)

I agree that if I can address some of the formatting issues and we get the tech info right it will help the article balance.

can you in your infinite wisdom put out a call? --FClef (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sathya Sai Baba arbcom case 2:your support for rather contradictory motions

You supported Fred Bauder's motion that states that my edits on Sathya Sai Baba generally responsible, but you also supported a motion to have me banned indefinetely from the article Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Proposed_decision#Editing_by_Andries Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Proposed_decision#Andries_banned

Don't you think that banning me indefinitely requires proof that I have repeatedly made disruptive edits? I mean, this seems to be the standard for other arbcom cases. Andries 13:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If my edits on Robert Priddy are unacceptable and my edits on the SSB article are generally responsible then the logical remedy would to ban me from editing the article Robert Priddy, not from editing the article Sathya Sai Baba

Also, I sincerely cannot understand where and why my use of sources is innapropriate or where I edited in irrelevant material. I know you are short in time, but I would like to understand what you think was or is wrong with my edits. If this is not explained (and Fred Bauder was the first one to make this assertion) then I will most probably make the same mistake in other articles. Andries 17:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And why is it relevant for Wikipedia that I am affilated with a website of critical former followers? Andries 17:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill, why don't you try to give example of my unacceptable edits (younger than a year) on the set of articles on Sathya Sai Baba in which I clearly violated policies? I would be surprized if you would be able to find such edits. From what I understood, in previous arbcom cases users are only banned indefinitely if their editing has repeatedly violated policies. I request that you find evidence where I made disruptive edits. Andries 18:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill, if you do not want the community to be longer burdened by a never-ending ever proliferating dispute then I have some understanding for it, but this should not be disguised by stating that users should be banned for violating policies. Again, try to find evidence that I broke policies in the last year. Andries 18:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kirill, I am happy that you try to be specific because some of the edits that you think are flawed can be refuted

Undue weight to Alaya Rahm.
- I deny this because this because the Rahm family was prominently featured in two documentaries regarding Sathya Sai baba i.e. Danish Radio's Seduced and the BBC's Secret Swami You can verify this yourself by checking the Secret Swami documentary that is available online. Here is the transcript
Adding off-topic contents to sexual abuse allegations regarding teaching.
- I partially admit this, but this was only because SSS108 kept moving it out of the teachings section to the other sections and kept reverting me. See Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/archive8#Kennedy.27s_statement_belongs_in_the_teachings_section [6]Andries 18:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kyrill, you wrote

1. My point is that you have made problematic edits; this fact,

2. combined with the Priddy issues,

3. the website issues, and

4. the fact that you were already warned as part of the previous arbitration case, justify, in my mind, not permitting you to edit the SSB article.)

ad 1. Oh please, the sex change are in all the cases described in reputable sources (Tal Brooke, Keith Ord) that I know of related to the sexual abuse allegations. Even if this was not perfect (which I doubt) my edit was a minor mistake

ad 2. I deny that I have violated any Wikipedia policies or generally acepted Wikipedia practice on the article Robert Priddy. If you think othewise then please try to find a diff that support this. Thatcher131 interpretation of the previous arbcom decision contradicts generally accepted Wikipedia practices. My alleged violation was mainly due to the fact that my request for clarification from the arbcom was ignored.

ad 3. I deny that I have a conflict of interest due to my affilation with exbaba. It has always been my intention to write a balanced encyclopedic article. If you think that I have a conflict of interest then please explain how.

ad 4. Untrue I have received a complete amnesty Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Amnesty

Andries 19:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote

"Regarding Rahm: "interviewed" is not really the same thing as "prominently featured"; an interview transcript is not really sufficien to give Rahm's particular allegation a sufficient level of notability that it should be presented as his particular allegation. (In other words: he's not the topic, but merely an example of the broader topic.)"

The fact is that the Rahm family prominently featured in two TV documentaries plus the article by the journalist Mick Brown in the [[Daily Telegraph] (under the pseudonym Young) and that it is highly relevant that the father of the Rahm family requested the highest ranking leader in the USA (Michael Goldstein) to discuss the allegations with SSB and to have the accustions investigated. Goldstein accepted SSB's statement that "Swami [SSB] is pure" as the truth without any further investigation and explicitly refused investigation. May be I made a mistake, but I cannot see it.

I only followed what reputable sources asserted who gave much prominence to the Rahm family (under the real name Rahm in the BBC documentary and the pseudonym Young in the Danish radio TV documentary Seduced and Mick Brown Daily Telegraph article [7]) and I do not understand why this is undue weight.

Andries 19:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC) amended 19:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote

ad. 1. But those allegations (credible or otherwise) have nothing to do with the allegations of sexual abuse. It's basically an unrelated topic that you've inserted into that section for no apparent reason.

ad. 2. You've violated the previous ArbCom ruling, for one; and, in any case, common practice is to avoid linking to attack sites unless they're themselves notable.

ad 3. Obviously, we're not going to get anywhere on this point. I remain convinced that your highly prominent role in an anti-SSB group suggests a conflict of interest insofar as writing a neutral biography of him is concerned.

ad 4. Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been here. I didn't mean that you were issued a formal warning by the committee; rather, I meant to say that the case would have doubtless made you aware that your editing on the article was problematic. (After all, an amnesty wouldn't be meaningful if there wasn't anything to forgive.)

ad. 1. Untrue and even if you are right this is I think a minor mistake that I made. I added the bulk of the contents to the SSB article and it would be completely unfair and unreasonable to ban me for minor mistakes that I made on that article. I am not aware of a sex change that is unrelated to the sexual abuse allegations. After all, to check a sex change, SSB invites the young to feel that SSB's penis has suddenly gone. This is clearly an act that can be seen as sexually intended. In one case (Patrick as described in [Tal Brooke]]'s book) the young man has vaginal sex with SSB.

ad. 2. I deny that I violated a plausible interpretation of the previous arbcom deciosn. I am unconvinced that it is common practice to link to an attack site maintained by the subject unless the attack site is notable. This is not mentioned in WP:EL nor did anyone mention this principle in the numerous attempts of dispute resolution that I tried.

ad 3. I deny that I have a conflict of interest. I think that banning me for my voluntary off-Wikipedia affilations goes against a generally accepted principle

ad 4. I have not violated Wikipedia policies since the first arbcom decision If you think otherwise then please provide evidence. I am stil waiting.

Andries 21:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that editors should be banned for minor mistakes then please check my edits at Vistula-Oder offensive where I made more mistakes than in the article Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 21:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are sincerely convinced that I have a conflict of interest due to my affiliation with exbaba.com then this means that you thinkk that I would write differently as soon as I am no longer affiliated. I can assure you that this will not be the case. I will have exactly the same opinions and will make exactly the same arguments. My affiliation with exbaba.com is a result of my opinions and experiences. My opinions are and were not formed due to my affilation with exbaba.com. I may stop my affiliation of exbaba.com if this will convince you. Is that a good idea? Andries 21:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested to read my personal defection story to make up your mind about the question whether I have conflict of interest due to my affiliation with exbaba.com. See saiguru.net/english/sai_org/15AKD.htm (I have no affiliation with saiguru.net) Do you think that my opinions and editing behaviour were formed by my affilation with exbaba? Do you really think that I will change my arguments and edits after disaffiliation from exbaba.com ? I can say with certainty that it will have no influence. Andries 22:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the issue is not really a question of whether or not you have your own experiences here. The question is somewhat simpler: You wrote

1. Is your objective here the creation of a neutral article on SSB, or an extension of your off-site anti-SSB activities?

2. If it's the former, how do we reconcile that with your prominent role in anti-SSB activism on other sites (and, in particular, the resultant entanglements when other people who are Wikipedia editors wind up being the targets of attacks by those sites)?

ad 1. I have answered this questions many times. Of course, I was and am from the start interested in writing a NPOV article, but my view on a NPOV article on SSB is completely different from what SSS108 has in mind. Does this article that I created in 2004 look like an article written by an anti-cult zealot or anti-SSB activist? article created by Andries in 2004Check for yourself how much defamation and trenchant criticism this article contained.

ad 2. The www.exbaba.com website hardly attacks Gerald Joe Moreno aka SSS108 if it does at all (I am not sure the website is huge and is constantly amended by the webmaster). Attacks on other editors are a negilible part of www.exbaba.com In contrast to Sanjay Dadlani or Gerald Joe Moreno I have not created nor am I affiliated with attack website or blogs on non-public persons. Andries 23:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Occupation_of_Latvia_1940-1945

I see - not surprisingly - that declining the request has been based on absence of one of the previous steps e.g. mediation. I really skipped it, since the whole talk page is full of informal 'mediation'. I just found it useless to mediate anything with users who repeatedly reject other party's evidence, while basing their own cause with self-inventions. I thought one had to use the ultimate step, which would have obligations as well. Constanz - Talk 17:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template help

Hi Kirill! I've been trying to figure out this template coding stuff and was wondering if you could kindly take a look at the infobox coding on my sandbox and help me figure out what I'm doing wrong. It seems to work fine except for the first box after the title. I don't know if I'm missing something in the coding or whether I set things up wrong in the X9 template sandbox. (The code I used there is at the bottom.) All of the entries in that first section are supposed to be conditional, except the "founded" line, which should appear regardless. Thanks for your assistance! Askari Mark (Talk) 02:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roman-Spartan War

Hey Kirill, I am planning of re-nominating the article FAC soon but before I make any moves I want your opinion. Thanks. Kyriakos 05:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kirill, I was wondering if you could go and voice your opinion in the article's FAC. Thanks. Kyriakos 03:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French WP:MILHIST

Hi Kirill, you may be interested to see what the French Military History Project is up to - yes, they are doing assessments! It looks as if the Norwegians are starting to use the assessment scheme as well. Cheers, Walkerma 04:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No idea who's running the bot. Emmanuel (User:Kelson, you may remember him from Wikimania, he's doing a lot of the 1.0 stuff on fr) had no idea about this initiative - though he is a big fan of the scheme. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Walkerma (talk • contribs) 04:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Also, do you think that page is worth an interwiki link from Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment? (Gosh, that HagermanBot is fast!) Walkerma 04:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and template standards

Kirill, I have no idea of whom to ask this question, but I'm sure you'll know because of your MilHist boxes. Do we have any standards anywhere governing infoboxes and templates? If we don't, should we? Something came up on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Same-sex marriage in Spain - they had an "infobox" which was nothing more than a large See also list (no other content) in the lead, so I suggested it really belonged in a horizontal See also template at the bottom of the article, to conform with WP:MOS, WP:GTL - that is, putting See also where it belongs. They moved/converted it, no problem, and put what actually is an infobox in the lead - but this article led me to question the proliferation of gynormous templates and infoboxes everywhere, and "infoboxes" showing up at the leads of articles that are really just "See also". Any guidance anywhere on this, should there be any size limits on infoboxes, and should lead infoboxes that are only See also collections be at top of articles, in the lead? Wondering if my objections on this count on FAC/FAR would be valid, and if we have any standards. Some articles are really being overtaken by a proliferation of infoboxes and templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ah, ha ... navigational templates was not yet in my vocabulary ! Thanks, Kirill! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq campaignbox

Listen the Iraq campaignbox is getting to big and it is going to confuse peopel because we say engagements at the top but there are now many suicide bombings in the box that will confuse people so in a minute I am going to split the box to engagements and major suicide bombings I hope you agree with me. User:Top Gun

I didn't mean it to be two boxes but one with two sections. User:Top Gun

Maybe your right to split it into two are maybe better into three boxes phases,engagements,bombings could you do it I am not taht good at these campaignboxes so I wouldn't want to mess something up also I think an articles about the february 2005 Hilla bombing (125 killed) and the Mosul tent bombing (more than 20 killed mostly US soldiers) articles should be made and added here. User:Top Gun

Also your right shorten the market.User:Top Gun

What did you mean by subsidiary campaignbox I didn't understand that one part.User:Top Gun

I just added an article about the insurgent raid in Karbala to the campaignbox check it out and and send me your opinion do any edits you see fit.User:Top Gun

lots of new templates

I have merged {{cref}} and {{hnote}} into a new style: {{href}} The current version of {{href}} works together with {{cnote}}, same as {{cref}} I have been thinking about developing a template with a hovering title showing the specific page number and if you click you are taken directly to the bibliography. Furthermore there is the possibility for a difference between the notes from different books. This template can also be modified to serve for notes with more info on the link presented as hovering title and per click you are taken to the complete note. However, these two features should be disambiguated. One choice was numbers for citations and letters for notes. As soon as we have it developed to quite decent standards we may present it on the talk page. so far I was not sure on what style to choose and would appreciate your input. Wandalstouring 20:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I modified it into {{hcref}} which is an add-on to the current solution, merging the hovering text description and the complicated note version with cref. However, references for literature are a bit more tricky and I would likely need your help. Is there a possibility to integrate running numbers?

My idea was so far to create a three-step version that links through but isn't a disturbingly new layout, although it should be easier to type if you view the source. {{templatename1}} that shows a running number and the [shortcut name for source + optional info] as hovering description. Clicking on the template takes you to a second template containing the references in detail that is constructed similar to {{cnote}}:

It shows the running number, the shortcut name for the source and the optional material if such is defined.

The trick with the code is that it can link from several notes to the third template which contains the more specific info on the source such as date, ISBN, etc.

trick is, we maintain our printable reference system, but improve the linking through. I have been thinking about different versions with two steps for example, but the problem is you can use them very difficult in a printed version. using as short as possible templates instead of the usual refs makes it easier to distinguish in the text. Wandalstouring 21:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem, that only seems to work with external links. something the administartion doesn't appreciate. Any idea how it can be solved without external links? Wandalstouring 23:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was in use. I do not see the {{ref}} in use any more. Creating external links that reference to wikipedia is not allowed under the current guidelines (selfrefential causes problems with some programs accessing wikipedia). So how can I do it without an external link? Wandalstouring 23:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A-Class Reassessment

When the peer review for the T-26 article is completed, how would I go about requesting a reassessment in the A-Class review page? Specifically, if I change it to A-class=current then it will link to the old A-class review page for the article. Is this what is meant to happen?

Thanks,

Jon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Catalan (talk • contribs) 02:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Ugh, my mistake. JonCatalan 02:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 5	29 January 2007	About the Signpost

Foundation names advisory board, new hires	Court decisions citing Wikipedia proliferate
Microsoft approach to improving articles opens can of worms	WikiWorld comic: "Hyperthymesia"
News and notes: Investigation board deprecated, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An IRC question

I have posed a question for you here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Arbitrators' views regarding IRC. Thanks, Cyde Weys 00:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator

Kirill my friend, I have decided that my health prohibits my running for a second term as assistant. I tried to help as I could, but the hospital runs did not help, and you need people who can give help on a daily basis. I want you to know I enjoyed working for you enormously, have incredible respect for your ability, and have urged your reelection. I will work as you need me, as much as I am able - so please call me if you need me! take care, old windy bear 01:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 11:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring request area

I think we could delete the image requests completly and outsource all such questions with a kind of disambiguation page (the remaining requests can be deleted). I have retrieved all concerning groups in wikipedia (as far as I know). It seems to me the most prominent FAQ and would perhaps do good with an eye catching appearance. translation requests and requested articles would probably be better off in the respective task forces. So all in all I suggest to eliminate most of the request departement. Wandalstouring 16:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK Wandalstouring 17:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please DO NOT VOTE yet

Lol. I haven't paid attention. Thanks for the revert. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: British East India Company

Thanks - I was reading a book about their military operations with mercenaries and probably got a little tag-crazy. - RJASE1 18:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessments from unregistered user

Just a quick note on something another user brought up about recent assessments from an unregistered user with a history of vandalism. That is me doing some sly editing from work. I do not log in because when I do my computer moves like molasses because of the firewall. There are 4 IP address that are right next to each other that come up if I edit from there. A few thousand people have access to the same IPs so yes the majority of the talk page will be in regard to vandalism that comes from people there on occasion. The assessments are legit and his article is still a start class. Just wanted to inform in case you were a bit curious and or worried about randoms trying to mess with the project.--Looper5920 19:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russian-Circassian War

I emailed the Circassian history site about Kadir Natho, the historian whose article I cite for many of the facts. He was president of the Circassian Benevolent Association in NJ, USA, which was created in the 50's to help Circassians emigrate to the USA after the Arab - Israel war in 1967. According to the site, Natho was written " some articles, [and] book translations about the Circassian culture." obvioulsy including the article on the war from which i have been gaining facts. What do you think? SGGH 20:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Kirill, will do in future. Does the article make B class atm though? Cheers SGGH 21:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of emailing Mr Natho himself, and asking him if he would like to look at the article and perhaps contribute, him being an expert on the subject it seems. Of course I would ensure he knows how to wiki before he starts. SGGH 12:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ended up inviting 2 historians on the subject to contribute, one Sean Pollock (the bowler?) from harvard, and stephen shenfield, who wrote the genocide article. SGGH 17:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military unit infobox use for air forces...

...has been disputed at Talk:Royal Air Force. Thought you might want to comment. - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 00:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MilHist CFDs

I figured that you & the Milhist folks were deliberately not listing the orgs! I just wanted the non-inclusion of orgs to be officially on the record, because sometimes folks use things for precedent when they present really different issues. If you know what I mean. <g> ... Good job on that clean-up, btw; that set of categories was head-achey to look at previously. --lquilter 02:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States Navy enlisted rate insignia

Hello, I put the list up for FLC as you and others have suggested however I'm catching flak for a couple of things and I was wondering if you could help me out a little since the few other people that I know real well and could just ask in WP:MILHIST all contributed to the list in some way. I was hoping you could, one assess the article since it's at start class and that seems to be an issue, two give your reasons on the FLC page as to why it's a list and not an article since the first comment seems to be questing that, and three if you care to elaborate on my statement regarding the copyrighting of combatant identification on the FLC page. Anyway if you have a second I would appreciate it. Oh and there is also an issue because it was only up for PR for three days so I don't really know how I might get around that one.— WilsBadKarma ^(Talk) 02:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks— WilsBadKarma ^(Talk) 03:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Alternate KIA/Executed symbol

It was helpful and addressed concerns about the cross on Muslims, much appreciated Kirill. Publicus 15:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda depressed....

R.D.H left his final message on my talk page today. So yeah, he's left. And now I'm kinda depressed cause he was my best friend. I've just realised nobody really likes me on here & I've got nothing to write about anyway. I mean none of my "friends" really talk to me any more. You guys are busy, but I kinda feel a little left out cause yeah. So I don't know if I'm gonna stay. Well bye then... Spawn Man 07:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at World War II Article

Hi Kirill, this is Mercenary2k.

I just spend a few hours re-structuring the World War II article. I got rid of the ridicilous year by year, sub-sub-sub format.

Please take a look at it and tell me what you think.

Thank you.

World War II —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mercenary2k (talk • contribs) 18:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Help requested for the spanish version of this project

Good day Mr. Lokshin, my name is Ricardo Fuertes (Richy) and I'm a wikipedist on the spanish edition. The reason I'm contacting you is that I really admire the awesome organization work and production system implemented on the Military History wikiproject, and I'm determined to try to mimic it on the spanish version; as it's said, imitation is the best form of flattery, and I really can't think of a better way to organize a wikiproject and help get the job done efficiently.

In fact I've started this "translation" some months ago, working my way up through all the material you've got on the project while getting more wikipedists on it. What I find really awesome (and out of my current reach) is the use of bots in the assesment department. I think the use of a project banner to help identify and categorize articles needing work is a really clever idea, and well implemented. But here's where I hit the wall; I have no previous experience with wikibots. I've found some spanish bot users who are kindly tutoring me on the subject, but it's a very slow process. Working with the real think, instead of doing it again from scratch, would be quicker. So this is why I came to you.

Is there any way that I can see the working code of the classification bot used in the Assessment department?

If that is possible at all, I plan to produce a working version to use at es.wikipedia.org, and then produce (or at least think about) a more generic version that could be used there with other projects. Also, the spanish edition don't have yet a working assesment model like Wikipedia 1.0. I've talked to some admins there, and consensus seem to be that a working assessment model used internally on a wikiproject would be a perfect example to promote creation of such a system for all the .es content.

Whatever your reply (y/n), any comment or suggestion, including direction to any other people I should talk with, will be warmly received. You can send me your reply to User talk:Richy, or es:Usuario Discusión:Richy, as you prefer. Thank you for your time and patience. At your service, --Richy 09:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your kind direction, I'll contact Oleg at once. --Richy 06:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Graffiti

Dear participant of Wikipedia: WikiProject Graffiti, your assistance is needed and input required at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Graffiti. The project has become inactive and unfocused and I'm calling meeting to address these issues, and find a resolution. There is work to be done, and we are the ones to do it. Regards, Dfrg.msc 01:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, take it as an open invitation to join the WikiProject. Or just disregard it. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 03:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorbox

{{Terrorcampaignbox Iraq}} Hi,

I created this box for the only reason it can go with the infobox terror attack. If we get the infobox to a more milHist-type appearance I wouls support using the old blue campaignbox and deleting this new. See announcement at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Terrorism_and_counter-terrorism#Campaignbox --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help

PocklingtonDan (talk · contribs) seems very upset, and is removing his own hard work at Campaign history of the Roman military (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It started amicably with a request on my talk page to look at Semperf (talk · contribs) opposes on the FAC. I've not been successful in reaching out to him - perhaps you can try? :-( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply trying to revert to a version of the article prior to my edits to it. I think you should respect this - PocklingtonDan 16:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are (perhaps understandably) upset, but reverting all of your hard work isn't a good solution. Please consider a day or two to reflect, and come back ready to continue the great work you started. I'm terribly sorry if my words caused your upset. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting my work is what I wish to do and I would ask you to respect it please - PocklingtonDan 16:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically, any reverts—including those of your own edits—are still subject to consensus. ;-)

More seriously, I'm not sure I understand what the issue here is. The fact that a single person doesn't like the article isn't particularly important, even on FAC; there's certainly no requirement for you to actually comply with what FAC reviewers ask for. Or is there something other here that I'm not aware of? Kirill Lokshin 16:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the entire FAC process is insufficiently transparent and very uneven. I have made a proposal to have it changed. I am reverting my edits to this one article out of frustration with the process - PocklingtonDan 16:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's neither here nor there. The FA process exists, primarily, to encourage the creation of high-quality articles; it's not really a practical issue if there are occasional hiccups with how it judges things, so long as the end result is generally good.

(And, quite honestly, I would say it's a bit premature to make such a grave judgement on the entire process after a single FAC.) Kirill Lokshin 17:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The FAC process doesn't write good articles, editors do, and they are hampered by the uneven application of often arbitrary criteria in getting their articles recognised. Whatever, so long as you respect my revert - PocklingtonDan 17:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't feel so discouraged. As I said, the occasional hiccup is to be expected; and what you saw wasn't even of that level (it's not like the article failed, you know).

In any case, I hope that you'll find it in your heart to forgive us for any failings on our part; and that you'll be willing to return and contribute further. We are losing something of great value in your contributions, and I would hate it if something like this were responsible. Kirill Lokshin 17:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I echo Kirill's sentiments about the value of your excellent work, and hope you'll reconsider. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double help

Well, I personally hate Harvards, find them distracting, but not everyone agrees, I guess. Anyway, he has again listed it at FAR, and I've got a problem there - I referred him to the instructions, but our instructions don't specifically disallow the listing - it's based on talk page consensus, so I don't feel I can revert it again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice. Besides, I'm shaken up enough that I'm going to find another way to spend the rest of my day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Template

Listen it makes no sense. We have already a template for the main Iraq war battles which already has a link to smaller operations and now you link the main template of the Iraq war, battles and operations, again to the smaller operations to links to the same thing one of which is already at the smaller operations page. It will confuse people when they click on battles and operations they go to the smaller operations and if they then there click on the list of military operations they are rerouted to the same page. Listen it can't work like this here is what I am proposing it doesn't matter if it is to big look at the Vietnam war campaignbox here is what I propose: we have one template the one I proposed before at the top Iraq war phases, middle battles, botom major bombings. What do you say in any case the link of battles and operations to the smaller ones should be changed but take this in to considaration I won't change anything until you reply.Top Gun —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.116.171.227 (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

OK I understand what you are saying but "Full list of operations" leads to the overview article but when we get there there is the box with the major battles which also contains the link "Full list of operations". If I click on "Full list of operations" while in the overview article I just get into IT again. No reason for a link to the "Full list of operations" in the "Full list of operations" Top Gun

Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 6	5 February 2007	About the Signpost

Foundation organizational changes enacted	Group of arbitrators makes public statement about IRC
AstroTurf PR firm discovered astroturfing	WikiWorld comic: "Clabbers"
News and notes: More legal citations, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

Apologies over yesterday

I have re-instated the article and am working on it again - PocklingtonDan 11:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Durova/Community enforced mediation

I've based a proposal on the mediation from the Piotrus-Ghirla case. Your input would be welcome. Please reply on the proposal talk page. Durova^Charge! 21:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of Navy officers / Edwin Taylor Pollock

Thank you for your great comments. I'm hoping that once I have some additional peer review, I'll try to get WP:GA or possibly WP:FA, after additional work. I love these forgotten figures and so many of them have wonderful histories.

As an aside, the thing that keeps me from writing some of these is a lack of photos for the infobox. (I'm looking at Waldo A. Evans and Warren Jay Terhune, the remaining two military governors of American Samoa during the Mau movement, right now, but there are many other examples.) Do you know of any particular good resources that have photos of this variety? Old newspapers often have some, but my only access to them is through ProQuest and they used a hard black/white scan of newsprint which destroys photos. Did the Navy publish any yearbooks that I could find in a library someplace? I'm afraid that I don't even know where to start looking. Any thoughts? JRP 02:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for the nod. :-) -Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Location of navboxes

Hi Kirill. Can I ask you a question about this edit? You say having it at the end of the infobox is more typical, but having it at the end moves it off the page on my screen, so to navigate between articles you have to click, scroll, look, click, scroll, look click, etc. When it is at the top, it is far easier to navigate between the grouped articles by click, click, click, click, etc. No need for scrolling. Is it like that on your screen? It is a bit like the navigation sidebar at left in monobook. If that was off the screen everytime you went to a new page, it wouldn't be much use as a navigation pane. I think small navboxes at top right can work well, but people often complain that this pushes the image/infobox down. Two competing design points here. What to do? Moving the navbox destroys its functionality (as the OP said over on the MILHIST talk page). Might as well not have it, or move it back to the very bottom of the article again. Carcharoth 17:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation To 1st Infantry Division (United States) A-class Debate

I am inviting you in.--Pupster21 17:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I owe you.--Pupster21 17:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Iraq war bombings articles

I have added articles about the Musayib, Nasiriyah, Irbil and Karbala bombings to the bombings of the Iraq war check them out and send me your opinion. Thanks Top Gun

Campaign history of the Roman military - questions

Hi Kirill. Thank you for your comments on the FAC on the above article. I had two questions for you please:

Would there be any chance of you posting your own comments on the article's suitability for FA status or is this something that you keep some remove from as MILHIST coorindator?
All or almost all the comments so far have been sylistic rather than factual. Where can I go or who can I approach to get someone to do some serious fact-checking of what I have written? Ie someone with an in-depth knowledge of roman milhist, or someone with access to a lot of sources, or both?Several editors have left comments that they would support but lack necessary knowledge of topic to sign off on it, which is frustrating

Thanks - PocklingtonDan 17:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I've tried oldwindybear and he said he would try but nothing in the last week, its difficult to find him online these days. I tried contacting everyone in classical task force with an expressed knowledge of Rome but most of these editors are no longer active. No worries, just would have been nice to have someone double-check the basic facts rather than bickering over stylistic changes and punctuation! - PocklingtonDan 18:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birthday !

Happy Birthday, Kirill Lokshin/Archive 3, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

Whatever you wish for on your special day, May each of your wishes come true

Cheers! Pea ceNT 01:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Birthday Committee wishes you a very happy birthday! Enjoy your special day.

Happy Birthday on behalf of WP:BDC. Have a nice day! --Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some firsthand commentary

Hi, I saw this and thought you might want to know some stuff:

We ought not to dignify the various allegations collected by [some website] by reproducing them here, in any form, regardless of whether or not they happen to be true.

Well, first off, [some website] doesn't make "allegations" against Werdna, it's just pointing out a log found by the author of that article to be funny. I don't think anyone over there cares about what happens to Werdna's RFA. And, it seems like your comment, especially the "regardless of whether or not they happen to be true", is suggesting that where a certain bit of information is written down is much more important than its implications on a candidate's potential worth as an administrator. I know it may seem like it's none of my business, but since my survival here is somewhat dictated by certain attitudes about this website, could I ask you to reconsider this website's importance in the case? Milto LOL pia 19:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject California/WikiProject Southern California observation

In response to a recent post inviting comment about an interesting situation developing regarding the WikiProject California/WikiProject Southern California situation, you offered the thought to take a look at the WikiProject India structure of parent/child WikiProjects. Pardon my asking, but I've been to the WikiProject India site, and I'm afraid I'm missing the structure that you are refering to! Again, with apologies, would you be kind enough to give me a few more details about your thinking? If you need a memory refresher on this interesting question about removing WikiProject tags, you can find it here Spamreporter1 21:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New military templates, stub categories, etc. being created by relatively new editor

Kirill, a relatively new editor, User:JPatrickBedell, has recently been creating new templates and stub categories related to military topics.

I've invited him to the Military history WikiProject for discussion, as I think it important, considering the ongoing efforts at categorization, etc.

He has been engaged on his talk page about stub-categories, but I think the bigger picture merits direction to the WikiProject.

— ERcheck (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon's 1796 campaign

Just to let you know I've edited the entries for the battles of Arcole and Lodi. The former needs to be expanded, as it is still very basic. Iorwerth Glyndwr 21:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sathya Sai Baba arbcom case 2

Kirill, you supported a motikon that stated that the article Sathya Sai Baba is poorly sourced. I admit that there is some truth in it, but the availability of sources is such that this is very difficult to overcome. Apart from Arnold Schulman, another writer also asserts that there is no reliable information about SSB's life, as I will quote from the summary of a German scholarly book Der Gottmensch aus Puttaparthi: Eine Analyse der Sathya-Sai-Baba-Bewegung und ihrer westlichen Anhänger by Katharina Poggendorf-Kakar (English:The Godman from Puttaparthi: an analysis of the Sathya Sai Baba movement and its Western adherents)

English translation: "From a biographical point of view, he is overwhelmed by legends and miraculous stories that derive him as a person from every historicity."

German original: "Biographisches ist von Legenden und Wundergeschichten überlagert, die seine Person jeglicher Geschichtlichkeit berauben."

I wanted to tell you this because the suggestion of poorly sourced sounds a bit unfair to contributors, unless this situation is taken into account too. Andries 22:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam block

Kirill, sorry to bug you, but I'm stalled working on the FAC archives because of spam filters. Do you know if any other beaurocrat besides Raul is able to clear those? [8] Whatever it takes, usually he can fix it in a minute, but he doesn't seem to be online. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]