User talk:Kirill Lokshin/Archive 4

< Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5 >

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)

B-class assessment

Put a direct link to the Template:WPMILHIST or else a better way to insert the criteria. It is really unnecessary complicated to retrieve them every time. Wandalstouring 09:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Directly on top of the assessment template on the talk pages. Wandalstouring 13:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you didn't misunderstand me. But the input parameters 'yes'/'no' should also be defined. Wandalstouring 17:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that's OK. Does it work if someone types [yes] or [no] and not yes or no ? (just to make it foolproof) Wandalstouring 17:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

write in votes for assistant coordinator

I wanted to know whether we can write in votes for candidates - I believe oldwindybear should be reelected, he works hard on wikipedia, health problems and all. Stillstudying 14:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You would be an excellent dictator Stillstudying, always encouraging the people to carry on despite their differing own volition. Wandalstouring 17:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Army groups

I've withdrawn my objections to all except Category:American army groups because the degree of name change (to Category:Army groups of the United States Army) that it needs does not fall within the scope of a speedy. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 7	12 February 2007	About the Signpost

US government agencies discovered editing	Comment prompts discussion of Wikimedia's financial situation
Board recapitulates licensing policy principles	WikiWorld comic: "Extreme ironing"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 05:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Knights Templar

Thank you very much for taking the time to offer thoughtful comments at the Peer Review. I've been working on implementing them, and could use a bit of guidance (or at least a doublecheck). I took your advice about the military unit infobox, but am not sure how many of its many many fields I should include. I made my best effort though. Could you please take a look at how I implemented the infobox, and let know if it's what you were looking for, or whether it needs any changes/additions? Thanks, Elonka 04:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! I agree that it gives the article a much better look. --Elonka 04:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Posthumously vs. In Memoriam

Hi, I am asking you as a member of the military project, I would like to know what is an appropriate term in such cases where man is military honoured after his death - is it - posthumously or in memoriam ? Thank you. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 17:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Cieneguilla

I found the exact location because the archeologist at Carson National Forest gave me a clue as to where the turn-off from the road was, with the understanding that I would not take a metal detector or disturb the area, neither of which I did. There had been published in the newspaper several years before that, a map, actually three, that went along with a talk he had given, that was a very local USGS topo map that had arrows on it about who went where and that sort of thing. I took that and searched a larger topo map of the area until all the lines matched, and that became my goal. When I reached the spot I found markers, not "Historical Markers" but wooden stakes with orange and blue plastic stapled on them, indicating . . ... something. The archeologist also printed off for me the transcript, or at least several pages of it, of the official hearing held several years after the fight. As far as I know this has never been published, so, is it not admissible in the wiki court-of-whatever? The skirmish is reputed to be the worst defeat inflicted by the Apaches on the US army, though I'd need to find a source for that. But it was your reply to my question that I was most interested in and thanks for giving one. Carptrash 21:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Most likely what I'll do is write it up as I see fit and then let the Dogs of War decend and do with it what they will. My resources are basically what I have in my library, as well as a few odd and ends from the Embudo Valley Library - about the only non-public library that I know of. Carptrash 22:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Infantry brigades

You wrote on my talk page:

Are you quite sure those are unique names? In general, I'd be very careful about applying that clause to extremely simple numerical designations (e.g. 36th Infantry Brigade, which, for example, has a name collision with at least one US unit by that name); while some of the highest-numbered ones may, indeed, be unique, it's a pretty safe bet that anything up to 100th Whatever has been used by some combination of US/Soviet/Chinese/German units.

(As an aside: isn't the unit's actual name the "12th Indian Infantry Brigade" rather than just the "12th Infantry Brigade"? I do know that many territorial units actually had the territory name in the unit name; is this not the case here?) Kirill Lokshin 21:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm cool with you reverting if you think it best. I have to admit that I am getting confused between situations like British 36th Infantry Brigade—where the unit is actually called "36th Infantry Brigade" and is British—and Indian 12th Infantry Brigade—which is actually called "12th Indian Infantry Brigade" and is also British—and Indian 2nd Infantry Division—which is actually called "2nd Infantry Division" and is Indian.

When I refer to "unique name", I'm referring strictly to within Wikipedia: I'm not dogmatic about there not being any others with the same numeric designation. In that case, the naming convention should come into play, as in the case of 2nd Infantry Division (India). I would also draw your attention to this which I think I did right but would appreciate a double-check.

HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 21:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Re. revoking decision of the Kosovo arbcom (Oct 2006)

Hi Kirill, on 21 October 2006 the Kosovo arbcom found that I had been given 96 hours probation for edit warring on the Srebrenica massacre article and based on this (presumably) gave me one years probation and revert parole. I have raised some questions regarding this remedy (see below), and Fred Bauder has now initiated a motion to revoke these remedies. As you are an active member of the arbitration committee I respectfully ask you to consider my case. The questions I raised regarding the decision of the Kosovo arbcom were:

• why did the Kosovo arbcom consider my misconduct on the Srebrenica massacre article? Nowehere is the Srebrenica massacre article names as a 'related article'. Nowhere is the reasoning for linking the two articles given.
• it seems a rather harsh remedy to give me one years probation and revert parole for a 'crime' which I had already served time for (so to say).
• is it possible to appeal the Kosovo arbcom's decision?

Dmcdevit, the administrator on the Kosovo arbitration committee who initiated the remedies against me has chosen to vote against revoking these. I have, in turn, replied to his argumentation here. Sincere regards Osli73 00:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

L33ter/XCalibre

If you look at vote 10 for ALR, you will note it is signed XCalibre. However, following the link you will go to User:L33ter. This user has been consistently editing the page for Sanaag trying to change the ethnic groups listed in the region. While I have to accept that when one tries to be a leader in a community they may make people unhappy, I felt this might be a duplicitous way to vote for ALR. Honestly, had he just voted as "L33ter" there's not much I'd have said about it. However, hiding the true identity voting made it seem suspicious to me. I would ask your own opinion on this sort of thing. Since I have a conflict of interest in the election, I wished to point it out, but recuse myself in the adjutation of the dispute, or in the investigation of whether this is a sock puppet. I leave it in your hands --Petercorless 10:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Lastly, check out the user's page, and see that they have been claiming to be an admin and also part of the anti-vandalism group, but this was refuted and the mention of them being an admin has been removed repeatedly. With that, I will be quiet. --Petercorless 10:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it. --Petercorless 14:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Occupatin of Latvia arbitration

Dear Kirill, I have followed the arbitration, and while I do realize there were some concerns that you might have a conflict of interest, you were still handling the situation admirably. But since you have left, the situation has escalated, and the parties are proposing findings of facts against each other. This is sad, because they are all otherwise reasonable editors, and I don't want them to throw sanctions on each other. What can be done? Would you be willing to return? --Merzul 20:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Very good, I think WP:CIVIL is the main concern. While I would say I have a slight bias towards the "Baltic" side in terms of content, I'm afraid I think they have the biggest difficulty with staying civil. I can sympathize, I once lost control with a user who disputed the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy based on his own reading of a primary source; but that's not an excuse. In this case, if both sides would stay civil and listen to each other, they could easily work a solution. The Russians are clearly not "occupation deniers" and the Baltics are not "nationalists", I think most of them are reasonable most of the time, I the animosity that has occurred is the only problem. I'm glad you will handle it, you were really good!! --Merzul 20:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Kiril Strikes Again!

Thanks (once again) for the assistance with the nominating technicalities. I do not have a problem when it comes to writing these monsters, but when it comes to something as (relatively) simple as putting them up for nomination, I'm all thumbs. Once again, Thanks!. RM Gillespie 21:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Matt Maupin POW/MIA

Just a word of thanks for the link to Keith "Matt" Maupin, Americas only confirmed POW/MIA from the Operation Iraqi Freedom. I was going to put a page up, but cannot see any real improvements to make. I am from the Batavia, OH Area, consider myself a long term friend of the Maupin Family from Pee-Wee soccer Days, and will be happy to provide any assistance I can on keeping Matt's page updated, with your approval..

Swump Swump 05:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

MILHIST reviews and FAC

Hi Kirill. I'm quite enjoying reviewing MILHIST articles in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review and was wondering if there were similar pages to watch for MILHIST A-Class or FAC review requests?? I couldn't find any linked anywhere fromt he milhist project. Thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Just seems odd that milhist peer reviews are tracked on their own page but milhist FACs, of which there are an approximately equal number are not. Its these kind of minor inconsistencies that confuse people. Any chance of getting a dedicated page set up for A-class and FAC, as with peer reviews? At the moment there are three types of review, and three different ways of working. I'm sure this is legacy and for no real reason:

• milhist peer reviews get own page
• milhist FACs can't be viewed separate of main FAC list
• milhist A-class articles get a sub-section of the assessment page

Its bureaucratic madness! - PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks Kirill, I understand the rationale you provided, but in my own experience it was milhist members who gave me the toughest time trying to get the campaign history article through fac and the more eyes on an article during the review process the better. I think standardising the display of all articles requesting review can only be of benefit. The mockup looks simple and effective. I think this would help to get more peer reviews and FAC comments from people within the project. IMO, the main problem is getting enough critical eyes on an article at each stage of review - whilst general editors are very good at pointing out structural or grammatical problems in an article they are almost always going to lack the topical knowledge essential to judging an article's factual accuracy and neutrality. Anyway I'm getting sidetracked - yes, that mockup looks perfect to me, one nice simple page that anyway looking to contribute to article reviews on milhist can go to. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Military 'Veterans' become Military 'Personnel'

Greetings,

In regard to tbe below renamings:

Category:Military veterans to Category:Military personnel Category:Fictional veterans to Category:Fictional military personnel Category:Lists of veterans to Category:Lists of military personnel Category:British military veterans to Category:British military personnel Category:British World War I veterans to Category:British military personnel of World War I Category:British World War II veterans to Category:British military personnel of World War II Category:Korean War veterans to Category:Military personnel of the Korean War Category:United States military veterans to Category:American military personnel Category:American World War I veterans to Category:American military personnel of World War I Category:American World War II veterans to Category:American military personnel of World War II Category:Gulf War veterans to Category:Military personnel of the Gulf War Category:American Iraq War veterans to Category:American military personnel of the Iraq War Category:Native American veterans to Category:Native American military personnel Category:Vietnam War veterans to Category:Military personnel of the Vietnam War Category:British Korean War veterans to Category:British military personnel of the Korean War Category:British Iraq War veterans to Category:British military personnel of the Iraq War Rationale, based on discussions at WP:MILHIST: Wikipedia categorization of biographies is generally not dependent on whether someone is still involved in the topic of the category, or was only involved with it at some point in their life; thus, there's no Category:Retired scientists, Category:Former monarchs, or Category:Footballers who no longer play. Military "veterans" should simply be categorized in the normal categories for all military personnel. Kirill Lokshin 01:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with the renamings, and your rationale, while at first appearing reasonable, falters under its own 'consistency' mantra.

First...'former monarchs' is irrelevant, since for most of history, most monarchs tended to hold the throne until death (or at least was the goal). Being a former monarch was a disgrace, not an honor (as being a veteran is generally accorded honor).

Second...being a scientist or even a footballer, while having some risk (such as an exploding beaker), doesn't really carry with it the same idea as putting oneself at major risk of death in exchange for the defense of nation, usually for a limited time period. Also, scientists can work until age 104 if they so choose, I highly doubt a veteran will make a career to that age. And even for those military personnel who DO make the military a career, I think there is a huge distinction between 'military personnel' and 'American veterans of WWI'. For the latter, there is a distinct time-period limitation. If you join the military tomorrow, you will never be a WWI veteran. The idea of being a VETERAN does involve the idea of survivorship and reward, which is why we have a VA hospital system, a US Dept of Veteran Affairs, etc. We have 'Veterans Day' NOT "Military Personnel Day" or "Scientists who survived the invention of DNA in 1953." You are comparing apples and oranges. There simply is no comparison.

Basically, doing a mass rename without informing affected article-users of the debate is not a fair way to reach a consensus, and should be reverted and re-voted on, after labeling and information is applied.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 08:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth I agree with Kirill's rationale for the renaming of categories. IMO "veteran" in modern parlance is misleading. It used to be applied only to highly experienced troops. Now it is applied to any troops who have been in a conflict, ie now it is equivalent of "military personnel of X conflict" anyway. A "Gulf war veteran" can be someone who was in Kuwait for a week in an office building doing military admin. The modern use of veteran is emotive and innaccurate, and "military personnel of X conflict" is much more accurate. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 09:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, pretty much. There's a distinction between using "veterans" in reference to veterans' organizations (e.g. the DoVA), and using it as a general term for people. There's no substantial difference between "Veterans of WWII" and "Military personnel of WWII" aside from the fact that the "Veterans" label implies—sometimes incorrectly—that the person in question is no longer in the military; maintaining two sets of redundant categories is utterly pointless, and the one with the less confusing name has been kept here. Kirill Lokshin 17:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Question about ArbCom

Hi, I have a question about moving a current ANI report to ArbCom. The ANI is here [2]. Most of the users who listed problems in the report think it should go to ArbCom to ban User:Patchouli, but I am not sure how this should be done. It seems ArbCom requests are divided into statements. If various users have made statements on the ANI and elsewhere, do I need them to re-post them on the ArbCom request, or is it possible that I re-post them myself? The Behnam 01:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"Needs"

Hadn't thought of G.A. and F.A., since they're not statuses assigned by the WPP, just noted by them after said processes, but I see your point. Happy with the "leave it to imagination" solution, though more specific references to G./F. A. would work too. Anyway, I just thought the original implied that the WPP had its own internal processes that Wikipedians "must" follow.  :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks you for welcoming me to the Military Wikiproject - RedNeckIQ55 Feb 23 2007, (4:53 pm)

Please help

Hi. I was hoping to add Mongol invasions of Vietnam to the 'wars involving the mongols' page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wars_involving_the_Mongols). I would have appreciated if you could help me out. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tridungvo (talk • contribs) 05:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

TfD nomination of Template:WikiProjectBanners

Template:WikiProjectBanners has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- Ned Scott 08:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Polish-Soviet War Campaignbox

Nyah, I prefer the {{Campaignbox World War I}} format instead. It seems much more clean in case of such lengthy campaignboxes. Besides, this one should perhaps be split onto separate campaigns one day. The problem is that such a division would be pretty much artificial. Of course, there were large campaigns (Target: Vistula, Kiev 1920, Russian assault on Warsaw, Battle of Warsaw, Battle of the Niemen), but at the same time there were lots of unrelated, yet important battles and I'm not really sure how to represent them in one campaignbox. Any ideas? //Halibutt 10:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote, most of the battles, both the large and the small, were part of some larger campaign. However, as the war of 1919-1920 was somehow non-typical, there would be a problem with dividing it in a consistent way. On one hand we could split it onto:

• Opening moves (1919, up to April 1920
• Kiev Offensive (southern front, everything that happened between April and July between the Pripet marshes and Lvov)
• Belarus (Polish attempts at holding the Berezina line, the Russian offensive, battles for Wilno and so on)
• Soviet Offensive on Warsaw (mostly minor skirmishes)
• Polish counter-offensive on all fronts (with Battle of Warsaw)
• Battle of the Niemen and all the final fights (mostly the raid to beat the deadline of the cease-fire)

There's plenty of battles to fill the boxes (the current one is far from complete and I'm planning to write articles on all of them), but such a division would be a tad problematic, as some battles belonged to more than one category and historians of the war barely ever make such a division. Moreover, such a division would be a mixture of two categories: geographical (as in the fronts of WWI) and chronological. On the other hand we could subdivide the battles purely by period of the war, without going into too much details:

• Opening moves
• Kiev offensive and all that happened during it
• Soviet counter-offensive
• Polish counter-offensive until the end of the war

Of course such a division would have its cons as well: at the time the Polish forces were still on the offensive side in the south, the forces in the north were already on the receiving end of the stick. Besides, there was a lengthy period of typically WWI-ish warfare in the north for a large part of 1919 and 1920 (until early summer), and the battles fought there were rarely part of a larger plan.

In any way, I'll think of it and try to prepare something nice. There is also a question of technicalities: an ideal campaignbox would include all of the battles, yet it would be too long and too overcrowded. Do you know of any way to implement the "show-hide" function? That way we could list all of the major battles of the war (5 or 6 altogether) and allow the readers to expand the list should they need it. That would be really nice... //Halibutt 14:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I said, the Polish-Bolshevik War is a tad different from many other conflicts. Hell, one cannot even present an OOB for the early stage of the war since it started... before both sides had real armies. Those differences are also visible in the case of major/minor battles: in most cases historians agree (and it's pretty evident) that some battles were part of other battles. For instance, the Battle of Warsaw is in fact a term that includes a number of smaller battles, that could be treated separately, but in fact were part of a larger conflict (battle of Radzymin, battle of the Wkra River, Ciechanów, Pułtusk...). Same goes for the battle of Zadwórze that was evidently a part of the defence of Lwów. On the other hand it would be hard to classify some major battles as part of other battles: for instance the Battle of Komarów, the largest cavalry battle since Napoleonic times (and perhaps the last such major cavalry battle in the history of mankind) was a single skirmish, pretty much unrelated to other battles. Anyway, let me sleep with the problem, as we say here in Poland. //Halibutt 14:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Merging GA with A class

Kirill, I've put up a proposal for thoughts regarding the future of GA and its assessment level. I was wondering if you'd be interested in weighing in some opinions. And just to address a possible concern - since assessment remains the provenance of the WP's, MilHist would of course have the discretion to decide which GAs can have A-class status. I know that you guys are more stringent about it. It wouldn't be an overnight thing, either - more like the phased FARC/FAR process for the FAs granted prior to the citation requirement. So you would be able to integrate the GAs into B or A class slowly over time. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 18:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Military conflict infobox guidelines

The WWII issue will be quite difficult to solve and possibly have a snowball effect of edit wars if we judge everywhere who contributed how much to a war. Currently the discussion is rather focussed on excluding France. I suggest to start a public discussion to narrow down the criteria. Should we focus on being recognized as a major power when the war started, acting on the scale of a major power during the war, or being a major power after the war? Wandalstouring 19:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If you say so, chief. Wandalstouring 19:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiprojectBanners

I think a more intuitive wording could be made such as "...is in the realm of the following Wikiprojects: [x], [x], [x]..." I think that sounds better but I like your proposal. Quadzilla99 20:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"..is in the scope of the following Wikiprojects:..." sounds good too. Quadzilla99 20:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Banning policy

Hi Kirill, With regards to your comments here [3] I would like to know the following. Is it okay to ban a person indefinetely for?

1. Off Wikipedia affilations, such as my self-addmitted affiliation to exbaba.com? If so, then would you advise new editor not to edit under real names and not to reveal affilations?

2. Repeatedly linking to one of the homepages of the subject in question in complete accordance with WP:EL and generally accepted Wikipedia practices, such as I did on Robert Priddy?

3. Editing responsibly as you described my edits on Sathya Sai Baba?

I will advertize your answers to other contributors to enable them to develop an informed opinion about your functioning as an arbcom member. Andries 03:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 8	19 February 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Arbitrator Dmcdevit resigns; replacements to be appointed	Essay questions Wikipedia's success: Abort, Retry, Fail?
In US, half of Wikipedia traffic comes from Google	WikiWorld comic: "Tony Clifton"
News and notes: Brief outage, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 07:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Technical problem

I'm having a technical problem and you appear to have a good grasp of the programming here on Wikipedia. I asked for help over on Meta but have gotten no responses thus far. I think I messed up my monobook profile or something. Now when I highlight a section while editing it pops up above the edit section area in a blue tinted version. Also it's very hard to highlight a section in order to cut and paste it or delete it, as it always includes other irrelevant paragraphs and pops them up above the edit section box. How do I turn this off? Quadzilla99 13:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

B-class status

Why is it that the MILHIST wikiproject definition of B-class differs markedly from the definition at Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments? Based on those criteria ironclad warship would fairly clearly be a B. The Land 17:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, ah well. Won't be long before the Major Types of Warships Tag-Team gets it to Featured status anyway, but we're working on battleship first! Comments/views/moral support welcome... The Land 18:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Some guidance

Hey Kirill, I realize you're very busy and don't want to intrude in any significant way. If you can't do this, that's fine. Basically, it concerns the lead of the Michael Jackson article. On the talk page, under the "Nothing wrong with change" section, I am arguing that only King of Pop should be in the lead because that is the nickname by which he is known overwhelmingly more than any other around the world. Another user is arguing that including that nickname in the lead without the nickname Wacko Jacko is a violation of NPOV as Wacko Jacko is also another sobriquet by which Michael Jackson is popularly known. Anyway, I've started a process on this that hopefully will lead to a poll, because it does not appear that we are anywhere near reaching a consensus, and would like your opinions on that and the issue in general. Thank you very much.UberCryxic 21:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

MH Wikiproject votes

Hi there, I've just been looking around and I've found that you are the founder and lead co-ordinator of Wikiproject Military History, congratulations! My main RL historical interests lie in WW2 and 9/11 subjects so it is likely that I will join one of the child-projects time permitting to conribute my services. Even though I'm not currently affiliated with the project, is it OK for me to register my vote for you at the Project Co-ordinator election? Ekantik ^talk 01:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh...

I've just noticed something funny while looking over old links on my user page. On your RfA, someone (Celestian powers) voted twice for you not even 10 spaces away from their last vote & it was counted in the final tally... Not even picked up... Quite funny in hind sight don't you think? Oh & congrats on winning the MilHist elections again (well soon anyway...). :) Spawn Man 01:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Tagging redirects

Hey, sorry about that on the submarine articles I caught it after about 4 of them. I screwed up when I added the categories to my AWB and somehow had redirect pages in there.Cheers — WilsBadKarma ^(Talk) 04:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Your multi-box template

Hi, Kirill! I've been getting a bit fed up with the discussions going on at Template_talk:WikiProjectBanners. Would you mind terribly if I made some minor changes to User:Kirill Lokshin/Sandbox/Template3 and put it in to production? I'm thinking that parameter names are needed, but that's about it. That way, if the TfD goes through, this option can be tried. And if it doesn't, consensus over time will determine which of the two "multiple wikiproject" templates works out. Or, if you feel so inclined, would you move it to production and let me know? Or let me know if there are any coding concerns that need to be addressed? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

So if the largest, say, 50 WikiProjects implemented the needed code to collapse their banner in the manner of Template7, then this one could move forward? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to start the process by:

a) Putting together a couple examples (I'd like to run these by you for input)

b) Determining the largest active WPs (unless you know of a list already made)

c) Polling them to see if they mind the change

d) Coding projects that agree

-- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

So two questions. Is the new CSS class, "messagebox nested-talk" in the standard monobook and/or other CSS files? And do you know if there's a list of the most active or populated WikiProjects? :) And third, THANKS! That's perfect! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)

Hi, Kirill!
I've completed the first two steps here and wanted to run things by you before tackling the WikiProjects themselves. And I see I won't have to tackle MILHIST - Thanks!! I've put together a list of the largest 30 projects (those with more than 4000 pages tagged). I've also altered the banners for the four largest.

Would you mind taking a look at those two links and let me know if a) I should widen the scope to 2000+ articles tagged (which would probably add another 15 projects), and b) if I've altered the banners correctly? They look good, but I always appreciate someone checking my code. Thanks for your help in this! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what's up with biography. If you'd take a look at that, I'd appreciate it. I'll start contacting the other wikiprojects to see what the sense is. Thanks again!!! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

So I made a small change to the WP:LGBT template that I thought you might find interesting. Take a look at Talk:Timothy_R._McVeigh to see the shell in action. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm - very good point! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

FA status for Nagorno-Karabakh War

In regards to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nagorno-Karabakh War, which seems a very contentious and partisan review, what guidance would you have regarding the consensus and closure of the FA review at this point? How do we proceed? --Petercorless 19:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I just clicked on the most recent

Military History edit and right away got some Military History SPAM -- or something . I closed it before reading much, sorry, but in any case thought you'd want to know. Carptrash 04:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Assessments

Hi Kirill. I'm the lead coordinator over at WP:ORGZ, and I was hoping you could help us find someone or point me in the right direction in setting up an assessment system like you guys have with WP:MILHIST. Thanks in advance.Oldsoul 16:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Kirill! I'll have a look at that this weekend. Kudos and good luck on all your projects. Oldsoul 18:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Recurse

What does recurse mean? RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 21:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Your arbitration comment

Regarding this: [4], I was a bit surprised by your characterization of the dispute as not "a dispute between those editors per se". It isn't that all Armenian or Azeri editors on these articles are behaving poorly, it is that there is a particular set of editors who are unreasonable to the point of causing chronic protection of a dozen articles at a time, and no amount of good advice or blocks have helped. And so the reasonable editors aren't able to edit freely. I think it would be a grave error to allow the current situation with thee editors continue in the current trajectory because of some notion that "we can't solve nationalist disputes". We're not here to solve the nationalist dispute, just the editor conduct one. Dmcdevit·t 22:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd find that argument a lot more convincing if the list of involved parties didn't include virtually every major editor on these articles for at least the last few months. Obviously, a lot of Armenians and Azeris don't get along in a very major way; but that's to be expected, given the situation. I don't see anything the ArbCom can do to help here; sanctioning a few—or even mass banning to the point of depopulating the articles—isn't going to make a major difference, since the next group of editors that comes in will simply start things up again.

Or, in other words: I don't believe that the fighting here is fundamentally an effect of this particular group of Armenian/Azeri editors and some inability on their part to cooperate, but rather a consequence of the actual Armenian/Azeri conflict; it'll reappear given any sufficiently sized group. Kirill Lokshin 22:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's correct. In fact, 10 of the named parties have been blocked by myself personally in the very recent history, all for specific instances of edit warring or sockpuppetry or incivility, and as a consequence, have had literally dozens of emails from most of them in addition to on-wiki interaction. It's very definitely a problem of individual misconduct. I think your concern about "depopulation" of the articles missed the point that that's what we're trying to avoid. At this rate, they'll eventually mostly be banned after much drama and pain to the community, whereas arbcom is the only body with the power to place them on specific remedies like paroles that allow them to edit the articles while giving them repercussions only for the misbehavior. Dmcdevit·t 23:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not know that it is appropriate for the party of the case to contact arbitrators individually to attempt to affect their votes. The arbitration page is there to make whatever arguments the parties of the case have to say. Am I wrong? If so, may I also post here commenting on the statement above? TIA, --Irpen 22:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems with editors—parties or otherwise—contacting me, particularly if they believe I've made a mistake. Kirill Lokshin 22:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the contacting arbitrators off the case pages is unethical as it gives one side an undue weight since all sides of the case are unlikely to watchlist pages of all arbitrators to present their side of the story to counter the arguments presented by the initial contact. This is what the Arbitration pages are for, to present the evidence and statements in public. Unless there is some info that is private by its nature (like checkuser results) I think very strongly that it has to be presented in the conspicuous place for the transparency. In RL parties of the case are not allowed to enter the judge's chambers and juror's deliberation rooms to kibitz about the case in private. I could see how a non-involved user could still do it but not the party of the case that initiated it and hit others with blocks of all sorts. Therefore, I stand by my opinion that Dmcdevit should stay out of other Arbitrator's talk pages and, especially, from posting his opinions on this case to the private ArbCom mailing list attempting to persuade other arbitrators towards his views. I think the reasons are obvious and their being so obvious is the only reason why those do not even have to be written in the policy. --Irpen 23:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio

what part of it is NOT a copyvio do you not understand? RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 04:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Bad Judgement

Apparently you have poor judgement and act in bad faith, since you choose to cherry-pick which rules you enfore, as User:Snickerdo has already proven. and seeing from your numerous complaints here on your talk page, i'm not surprised.

I want to know how you feel it is a copyright violation. no one has stated HOW. You ask me to re-word it. I already HAVE. you say you will not act on the arbitration, but now you're uttering threats against me in the form of banning. Tell me what you want from me. If it's to have me stop contributing, then i will leave wikipedia and have you to blame. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 04:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, now we're getting somewhere! Finally someone tells me the criteria on what is a copyright violation or not!

Should i draft up a re-worded section and then submit it to you to check it before i add it to the article? RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 04:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Highway 401 Proposal

Please pass this along to User:sonysnob if you feel the need to do so.

This is my first draft for an updated section:

---

Essex County

Highway 401 is seeing a complete overhaul and expansion between the city of Windsor, Ontario and the town of Tilbury, Ontario, in response to the 87-car pile-up that killed 8 on September 3, 1999. The road is being expanded from two lanes per direction with a narrow grass median to three lanes per direction (with concrete pavement), rumble strips, a concrete divider, and newer overpasses at Highway 77, French Line Road (St. Joachim Road), and two are planned for Puce Road and Belle River Road.

Oxford County Upgrades

In the late Fall of 2005, the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario started a construction project to upgrade the current 4-lane section of Highway 401 from 4- to 6-lanes from west of Oxford County Road 3 to west of Waterloo Regional Road 97 (where the next 6-lane concrete-divded road begins) in the County of Oxford and Regional Municipality of Waterloo.

This is currently part of the last 4-laned section between London and Toronto (stretching from Highway 403 Interchange in Woodstock, Ontario to Waterloo Road 97 in Kitchener, Ontario), but is being upgraded to 6 lanes plus an Ontario tall-wall barrier in the median. This is the first stage of upgrades of this final 4-lane section.

Currently	Planned
Lanes: 4	Lanes: 6
Median: Grassed	Median: Ontario Tall-Wall
Rumble strips	Rumble strips (new)
Interchanges every 5 km or so	Interchanges every 5 km, plus two new emergency ramps
One slightly sharp curve north of Oxford Road (Oxford CR 29, Exit 250)	slightly re-aligned and straightened (completed and re-opened

Aside from the addition of one lane per direction and a tall-wall barrier, two emergency ramp connectors that are intended to be used only during emergency highway closures and other such incidents to divert traffic off the freeway (and emergency vehicles onto it) have been constructed. These emergency ramps are the first of their kind on an Ontario freeway, and have been constructed in the vicinity of both Oxford Road 3, and Trussler Road onthighways.com source.

Other emergency accesses have been built in Essex County where the road was recently widened from 4 to 6 lanes, but these are gravel, and all are alongside overpasses, for use by ambulances, firetrucks, and police cars in emergencies only.

This is currently in stages, and will eventually close the 4-lane gap between the two 6-lane sections (London/Wellington Road-Woodstock/Higwhay 403 and Kitchener/Waterloo Road 97 (Cedar Creek Drive)-Toronto).

The first segment in Oxford County to see the upgrades is from Waterloo RR 97 to Oxford CR 3, with further upgrades planned from Oxford CR 3 to Highway 403. Several large upgrades will be carried out here:

• The interchange of Towerline Road and Middletown Line (Exit 236, just north of Highway 403) will be completely rebuilt and redesigned, as its current ramp configuration is extremely dangerous (short ramps with tight curves leading from an intersection just 30 feet/10 meters from the freeway, requiring a driver to "floor it" to get up to speed in time).
• The aging saging overpass structure at Towerline Road will be replaced, making this a long-overdue upgrade.
• The cloverleaf interchange with Former Highway 2 (Exit 238, which is the final remaining cloverleaf with two divided highways in the province) will be converted to a parclo interchange, as cloverleafs are no longer up to the Ministry of Transportation's safety standards (mostly from weaving).

---

I hope this will suffice. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 05:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey DICK!

I've read and reread what I wrote at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject#Curious Question About Removing WikiProject Tags, and can see no reason why you decided to invoke meta:Don't be a dick.

Quite frankly, all I see is a severe breach of Assume good faith and Civility. In over two years of editing on the Wikipedia, I've only invoked that essay once, and only after I was called a motherfucker. Even then, I regretted it and was going to delete my comment (until the troll came back with another provocation about an hour later). (see here)

Except for a run-in with User:Netoholic close to when I first started editing on the Wikipedia (who ended up being sanctioned by the ArbComm for that action and many others), I have not experienced any incivility from a regular editor on the Wikipedia until the last two months. It is interesting that both of incidents happened on pages associated with WP:COUNCIL. WP:COUNCIL is going to have to clean up its act if it expect to be taken seriously, rather than being something that most active WikiProjects have been ignoring as just another layer of useless bureaucracy.

One more item (Since you are part of the Wikipedia's power structure): There are studies that have been done that show that the number of Wikipedia administrators are not growing near as fast as the Wikipedia, and so the amount of work administrators do has doubled. From my experience as a regular vandal and spam fighter, I think that matters have become much worse in the trenches. The Wikipedia is not doing anywhere near a good enough job recruiting active, conscientious editors, and is not doing enough to retain the editors that do join up. I have been seeing much more vandalism and spamming, which is usually getting past the Wikipedia's first line of defense (WP:CVU and WP:RCP), and it is staying on the Wikipedia much longer. If things don't change, things will get worse and worse, although admittedly slowly at first. In the end, however, the Wikipedia will be as bad as the Wikipedia's critics say it is, and the Wikipedia will become as useless to the average internet user as the Usenet is today. BlankVerse 15:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

To see some of my reasoning (for actions which were done in good faith, and without any objections for several months), see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Southern California#The argument for the migration from California to Southern California banners for SoCal articles. BlankVerse 00:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You may have thought that you were doing a Good Thing™, but all you were doing was poisoning the well. BlankVerse 09:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Kind request

Kirill, hi! I would be helpful if you could have a look here and help us. Cheers!--Yannismarou 17:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Kirill! Great template!--Yannismarou 09:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments requested

Hi Kirill, I hope you're well and enjoying the arbitration work. I was wondering if you could give us your thoughts on this proposal? I would think it would be something you would have an opinion on. By the way, I think we should be burning lots of CDs this coming week! Thanks, Walkerma 05:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, this tool seems great to me! Simple but useful. Walkerma 05:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Knights Templar

Hello, if you have a moment, could you please take another look at the article? I've attempted to address most of the concerns from the peer review, except perhaps for the request to just plain make the article longer.  :) I'm curious though what you think of the current level of citation?

Also, though I'm going to continue to work on expansion, do you think the article currently meets GA status? If so, how would you recommend that I proceed? Do I need to get someone from MilHist to formally check off the items in the WikiProject talkpage banner? Or should I just nominate the article at WP:GA? Or what do you recommend? Thanks, Elonka 09:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You probably shouldn't ask me about the level of citation; I'm likely to keep pushing at it until the article looks like this. ;-)

(But, more seriously, it's not bad; I'd try, as a rule of thumb, to have at least one citation in every paragraph, though, as "uncited paragraphs" is a common complaint at FAC.)

As for nominating the article for GA: feel free to just list it there; I suspect it probably meets the criteria (unless they've changed them again recently!). MILHIST doesn't generally interact much with the GA process—we have an internal review for the next level up—so there's no real procedure to follow from our end. Kirill Lokshin 18:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've gone ahead and submitted it, thank you very much for your time, and also for updating the talkpage template.  :) I'm going to continue working on the article, with a focus on referencing and expansion. Then I guess the next step is to try for an A-class MilHist review? Or should I go through WP:PR or a WP:FAC first? I'm still a bit fuzzy on how the various review processes dovetail with each other. --Elonka 00:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:PR is basically a useless version of WP:MHPR; I wouldn't expect any useful input from it. Really, your next move would be a choice between the MILHIST A-Class review (followed, at some point, by a FAC), or just a FAC directly; which one you go with is up to you, but there's not that much benefit to doing an A-Class review unless you're intending to let the article sit for a long time before taking it to FAC (or not intending to go through FAC at all). Kirill Lokshin 00:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, that gives me more context. My longterm goal is definitely FA (we've been rumbling on the talkpage about requesting FA status on the article for over a year now). Coming in from the outside though, I couldn't tell if A-Class was meant as a stepping stone to FA, or more intended as recognition of really good articles that would probably never make FA status for some other reason. For example, I looked at the A-class example at the Project page, Operation Linebacker II, and I couldn't tell why it was chosen for A-Class as opposed to FA (or why it was only submitted for A-class, and never FA). Based on your response though, it looks like as far as the Knights Templar article is concerned, it's probably better to proceed on the FA track, rather than going for A-class first. --Elonka 20:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Update to the Wikipedia:banning policy to reflect your reasoning

I updated the Wikipedia:banning policy to reflect your reasoning. [5] in the arbcom case Sathya Sai Baba 2 in which you banned me, mainly for my off-Wikipedia affiliations (exbaba.com) that you assert constitutes a conflict of interest for editing the Sathya Sai Baba article. It will be clear that I continue to think that your way of reasoning is erroneous in many respects. Andries 19:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

reorganize project banner

could you reorganize the project banner like our task force list, so it is easier for people to find the relevant groups. Thank you and I'm running for adminship now to be able to do such things myself. Cheers Wandalstouring 22:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Break them up into topic/nation/period groups. Wandalstouring 23:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. It has been really messy to sort out the groups while tagging articles. Wandalstouring 23:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Congrats!

Lead Cooridinator of the Military History Wikiproject

Congrats on your re-election as lead coordinator! In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. I wish you and your staff the best in the coming term. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You voted before I had time to correct my Opening Statement

You had voted on my RfAR before I had an opportunity to correct my opening statement: I had gone over the word limit.

Also, when I had originally made an opening statement, I had not noticed that many editors on both sides of the issue (see other statements) are asking ArbCom to take the case, but many are indeed asking for ArbCom intervention. Are you deaf to their cries too?

If the ban restrictions placed upon me from the community noticeboard were against an editor who has not actually violated any policy, then don't you think that this action may be wrong? Just because you have several editors saying the same thing -that does not necessarily make it true.

My new opening statement here documents that I have not violated any policy -and others, even some of my detractors, seem to agree about this, which makes me wonder what all the furor is about.

If I am right, but ArbCom is the wrong place for addressing this violation, then I would be amenable to your suggestions.--GordonWatts 05:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

In addition, we now find that no WP:CONSENSUS existed against me

In addition to the fact that you voted before I could put forth a statement that fit protocol, we now find that no WP:CONSENSUS existed against me - since, of course, a minority of the votes went against me. Observe:

There were 33 parties who participated in the Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Community_ban_request_on_User:GordonWatts, but no more than 14 of them endorsed ANY one type of community action against me -as shown by this perma-link diff.

The reason was, obviously, that NO WP:CONSENSUS existed to penalize me. Also, other than having a minority opinion, I committed no crimes -at all -so censorship executed by User:JzG here (based on LESS than a majority of the participants) was certainly inappropriate, and if you allow this matter to stand, then you are implicitly endorsing this behaviour.

Don't feel bad: We all make mistakes, and I am the 1st one to admit that I mistakenly thought consensus existed, but hey! I was wrong.--GordonWatts 10:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You might also be interested in another interpretation of the community ban consensus. ChazBeckett 10:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Samuel Luo arbitration case

Hi Kirill. This is just a message to request a reconsideration of your opinion to accept an Arbitration case.

I felt this ArbCom case should be opposed on the grounds that not all dispute resolution steps have been taken to a sufficient degree as laid out by policies for bringing cases to the ArbCom. Launching an ArbCom case merely to seek someone else's view (see Olaf's reason in the Confirmation that All other forms of Dispute Resolution have been Tried) is clearly not valid. A third-party view can be sought on that, and does not need to waste the ArbCom's time for something so petty.

I strongly urge you to reconsider your opinion, but will respect yours if you still think yours is valid in spite of mine. Jsw663 15:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

A thought regarding wikiproject templates

(Cross-posted to Ned's talk page too)

First, I wanted to say that I agree 100% with what you said here. I had an idea, and wanted to know what you think about it. I suggest that there be an absolute limit of no more than two (2) reasonably-sized wikiproject templates on any talk page, and (per my previous comment) that "daughter templates" (like the one on Asperger syndrome - "This article was selected on the Medicine portal as one of Wikipedia's best articles related to Medicine.") be strictly prohibited.

Reasonably-sized, in this case, means that they are the same size they are now. I'll leave it to the wikiproject council to decide, in cases where an article has more than 2, which ones get priority (I think it should be the ones that have either made significant improvement to the article, and/or the ones that have the narrowest scope).

What do you think of my idea? Raul654 16:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

modified project banner

I have been doing several assessments in a row lately and was confronted with the fact that the template can be improved. New version of milhist banner below:

{{WPMILHIST

<!-- B-Class checklist-->
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->
|B-Class-1=
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-2=
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-3=
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-4=
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B-Class-5=

}}

and the corresponding section in the Template:WPMILHIST:

{{#if:{{{B-Class-1|}}}{{{B-Class-2|}}}{{{B-Class-3|}}}{{{B-Class-4|}}}{{{B-Class-5|}}}||{{#if:{{{B-Class-1}}}{{{B-Class-2}}}{{{B-Class-3}}}{{{B-Class-4}}}{{{B-Class-5}}}|To fill out this checklist, please <span class="editlink noprint plainlinksneverexpand">[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}|action=edit}} add]</span> the following to the template call:<br/>
<tt><!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --></tt><br/>
<tt>|B-Class-1=yes/no</tt><br/>
<tt><!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --></tt><br/>
<tt>|B-Class-2=yes/no</tt><br/>
<tt><!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --></tt><br/>
<tt>|B-Class-3=yes/no</tt><br/>
<tt><!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --></tt><br/>
<tt>|B-Class-4=yes/no</tt><br/>
<tt><!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --></tt><br/>
<tt>|B-Class-5=yes/no</tt>}}}}
}}

It be great if you insert the new versions. Thank you Wandalstouring 23:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure I like that idea; it'll mean that we'll be hardcoding the current wording across many, many pages, severely limiting our ability to modify it in the future.

Would perhaps using the short descriptions (i.e. <!-- Referencing and citation -->) instead of the full text work?

(We could, incidentally, show the full text in the template itself—and we should probably do so regardless—but I'm not sure that it would help with the particular issue you're seeing.) Kirill Lokshin 23:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The discussion was about establishing a clear list for assessments, as long as we are not able to make this list accessable in an ergonomic way it is rather arbitrary and makes assessments unnecessary difficult.

Your concerns that these descriptions once established can't be altered isn't comprehensible for me, we still can change the template and new descriptions show up which can be copied down and used for any new assessments. On the other hand, if there was a change under the current version, none could tell whether old or new criteria had been used for the assessment. The most drastic possible approach in case of description changes would be to alter this stereotype text with an automated tool, but I see no need for that now, nor in the future. Wandalstouring 00:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The new descriptions won't show up, of course; the instructions for inserting the list only show up when it hasn't been inserted yet. If we do substantially change any of the criteria, we'll have a nightmare trying to update all the old copies—and we will have to update, or people will still assess against the old version.

But, in any case, I suppose that we can worry about that we come to it. In the meantime, I've updated the template as you wanted. Kirill Lokshin 00:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Disable the function that makes this information disappear on assessed articles and the issue is solved. Wandalstouring 00:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, another trick: the old version is kept functional, but the new assessment uses different variables. If they are positive(get commented), the old version completely disappears. Wandalstouring 00:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

As long as it's not the assessor's pain I'm inclined to be a masochist (supposing you mean that writing the new template will be a pain). Wandalstouring 00:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, we will add a section about how to alter the template (in case we have new criteria) in our handbook and possible sourcecode. Probably something we should consider in the future on other cases as well. Wandalstouring 00:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been looking at the source for some time now. I think it isn't that difficult to create any replacing assessment system. Will add more information tomorrow. Carpe noctem Wandalstouring 01:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Rlevse Rfa

Thanks for the rfa support. Glad we have worked so much together and so well. Rlevse 03:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources for Italian Wars

Kirill,

After I finish my goal of achieving featured article status for "my" T-26 article I want to embark on a personal project of improving the articles which comprise the Italian War of 1551; first, the Battle of St. Quentin (1557) article. Currently, I've been able to pin down a four sources and, personally, I don't think this is enough. They include two books by Henry Kamen: Empire and Phillip of Spain; The Hapsburg by Andrew Wheatcroft and finally an article published in an issue of Tierra, a Spanish magazine published by the Spanish Army (and available online for free). It seems to me that you are probably the best person to ask about sources, given your work on articles revolving around the Italian Wars. Do you have any suggestions? As long as individual books are not too expensive I am willing to buy certain books (depending on how much they help).

Thank you,

JonCatalan 04:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the resource. Unfortunately, the cheapest I could find it for was $75, but I'll certainly keep it in mind and keep looking for it and see if I can find a cheaper seller - or buy it at a later date. I guess that for now I will continue scavenging for sources and instead work on a seperate article on something I already have sources on - namely Panzer I. Thanks again! JonCatalan 22:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 9	26 February 2007	About the Signpost

Three users temporarily desysopped after wheel war	Peppers article stays deleted
Pro golfer sues over libelous statements	Report from the Norwegian (Bokmål) Wikipedia
WikiWorld comic: "Pet skunk"	News and notes: New arbitrators appointed, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 08:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

More boxes

• err.. now more boxes are up for deletion... See
• One of those was even created by YOU. I think it's fair you are noticed on that --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Aviation Project banner help

Could you take a look at User:Trevor MacInnis/sandbox/Aviation banner. I've been messing around trying to find a way to merge all the aviation related project templates into one, using the {{WPMILHIST}} style template. One difference being that if the article belongs to a sub-project or task force, I don't want it to also be tagged as belonging to WP:AVIATION. It should be an easy fix with soemthing like {{#ifeq:{{{Rotorcraft-task-force|}}}|yes|put it in rotorcraft X- class category|put it in aviation x- class article}}. But I just cant see clearly how to do it. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, and just to be clear, I'd like them to belong in multiple sub-projects or task forces at the same time, but at the moment the scope of WP:Aviation is limited to articles that don't belong in the other projects. For example, currently, Cessna 172 belongs in Category: Start-Class aircraft articles, but not in Category: Start-Class aviation articles. Do you think that this should be changed, that WP:Aviations scope should be all articles, including the ones in the sub-projects? As far as I can tell, articles such as Talk:B-17 Flying Fortress get placed in Category:FA-Class military aviation articles, Category:FA-Class United States military history articles, etc, but not in Category:WikiProject Military history articles. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops, Category:FA-Class military history articles was the category I meant to say it wasn't in (and of course I missed the fact that is in it). I'm happy to allow every article to be in the aviation project categories, but the only thing I'm worried about now is the fact that there are articles that don't fall under sub-projects or task forces. Are there any issues associated with this WP:MILHIST? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbcomm case

Hey
I am referring to this case [6]. In case I get banned from Wikipedia, could you please point out that I am on a shared IP, and tell them to ban the account only. The IP is used by lots of people. If any activity of me using the IP is found, then they can ban the IP. Thank you. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 22:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:ACID

Sorry to bother you, but could you please take a look at the Castle nomination WP:ACID? It will fail today if we don't get another three votes. --Grimhelm 22:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For your reasoned comments on the template for deletion issue - I appreciate having something like that to respond to. It is my belief that in time, WP Projects will need to have a negotiation guideline for where projects style differences and variations will need to have some standardisation of how to inter-relate and negotiate . vis a vis this particular template issue - Lets hope that comes sooner than later. cheers SatuSuro 06:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If its any guide as to where I come from I was dead against an article title where the mess of 1965 1966 in Indonesia had been called 'Indonesian civil war' by an editor. It took a long time, but it is now The Overthrow of Sukarno - which is still far from satifactory - but which nevertheless allows some credence to the issues of violence and conflict inside Indonesia do not under scrutiny - fit easily to outside labels and simplistic generalisations of what has occured. cheers! SatuSuro 06:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to respond and the way you have - I dont envy your position at all in relation to the larger wikipedia pictures. In line with your suggestion -an admin has pointed exactly that out to the nominator and the process of withdrawing has happened - probably to reconsider a single template rather than the bunch. Thanks again SatuSuro 13:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Per Thatcher131's request, I have created this section for you

I wonder if you have looked at the facts in this case of mine: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_User:GordonWatts

I'm not the only one who thinks I have a case. Since I last posted, many new people have posted in my support!

Besides having over 4,500 edits with no major discipline or major problems, I now note that Thatcher131 suggested that: "I think a rebuttal to the votes of the arbitrators is a reasonable addition, but can you do something about the rest? If your main concern is that there was insufficient agreeement to constitute consensus, a link to the discussion and a brief recap should be sufficient; I would normally expect the arbitrators to follow significant links and verify them as part of their determination. Thatcher131 13:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)" [7]

I hope you do as Thatcher suggests and follow the links! I know I have posted a lot, but several statements by other editors were well-over 500 words, so please indulge me if I go a little over too: I'm being falsely accused!

To grant Thatcher's request, I have created a new section for you:

• 1.4.3.2 Rebuttal to the votes of the Arbitrators
  • 1.4.3.2.1 -No Consensus existed to support Guy's admin action-
  • 1.4.3.2.2 -These editors support my claims of innocence-
  • 1.4.3.2.3 -These editors desire ArbCom intervention-
• [8]

If you mess up, it isn't my fault: I've done my part, and I have little to add to the somewhat lengthy ArbCom page in my matter.

--GordonWatts 06:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Loshank/Lokshin

Sorree. David Mestel^(Talk) 18:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks

Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --— Indon (reply) — 15:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 15:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wesley Clark

Hey Kirill! I just wanted to thank you for the bits of editing you did to the infobox for Wesley Clark and, of course, hit you up for a vote on the FAC. Thanks either way! Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

How is this fair?

Looks like the arbcom has decided to ban me for a year. I honestly dont know how this conclusion was reached. I contributed like a good user, never insulted any user and never vandalised any article. The Indian users openly made racist remarks against Pakistanis, Muslims and our Prophet and Literally hijacked Pakistani articles to prevent anyone form editing. If this isnt good enough for you, then let me explain the 2nd major flaw. This arbcom was opened The Day After me and Nadir were unblocked from one of Ramas unfair blocks, and minutes after we tried to complain. It was simply to save himself from our complaint against him. We barely posted a word between the unblock and the complaint, and all the evidence used against us, is old evidence he had already used to ban us before. Not to mention the lousy evidence is the reason we complained against him in the first place. The only thing I see happening here is the arbcom banning the Minority users to solve the problem. Rama started the arbcom and omitted certain Indian users who were the Key causes of this dispute, and this lets them off the hook, even though they have made extremely racist remarks. Why treat me worse than a vandal? The so called evidence used against me doesnt even make sense. Is PoV pushing defined as making suggestions on Talk Pages? I am so shocked by this outcome.
I guess it helps to have a lot of people supporting you blindly. A 6 month punnishment was rejected for a guy who openly insulted the muslim Prophet (by linking him to paedophilia), insulted muslims by comparing slavery to the Hijab, said Pakistanis enjoyed killing people, and clear evidence was shown that he reverts every single edit from other users on Hinduism pages which doesnt fit his PoV. The Arbitrators didnt even suggest punishing any Indian users. Instead, a proposal to give all Pakistani users bans were put forward.
I dont know what has happened here. I really want to discuss this matter with you. I am an honest guy, I have nothing to hide, yet here I am being treated like an obvious vandal who deserves to get banned. In the first month I joined Wiki, I made some minor mistakes. I went through more than 3 weeks of bans by the same admin for this. And now the Same mistakes are giving me another year? Please get back to me. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 19:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Why am I being ignored? All Arbitrators are refusing to reply to any of my questions. This Case has been the most racist and unfair case in the history of Wikipedia. And its not fair that you have to ignore the users until they get banned. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 04:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Was this solved by another subproject?

This refers to that question :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. On another topic, how is the work going on the 'templates to minimize wikiproject template spam' issue is going? Seems like half a year after we discussed this at Wikimania we have some interesting solutions :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Congrats!

I know I'm a bit late to the party, but congradulations on getting re-elected. I'm glad that you're still here as a coordinator. Hope all goes well with the Military History Wikiproject. --S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 04:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Admin Coaching?

Hi Kirill Lokshin,

I see that you are currently available for Admin Coaching, assuming that the status page is up-to-date.

I looked through the list of those available and chose you because I believe that you would probably challenge me the most and therefore I would learn the most from you, if you are willing to accept me.

As you can see from "kate", I have been most active for about 4 solid months. My focus tends to be a lot of Recent Changes activity and Vandal Patrol, though I have managed over to do about 1500 mainspace edits in that time. I have created some articles, but I don't feel that as that is my forte.

I have been a quality engineer and technical writer for about 30 years. I perform Quality Systems Audits in the FDA-regulated Pharmaceutical and Medical Device industries at this time. So, I believe that critical observation skills, rule-following, negotiation, proofreading, consensus-building and maintaining self esteem are all part of what I offer to WikePedia.

I'd be pleased to offer a more detailed "cv" of my work on WP if you so desire before making a decision.

Please let me know either way at you earliest convenience.

Thanks and take care,

Larry --Lmcelhiney 20:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Matt Maupin POW/MIA

Privet (and that just shot my Russian vocabulary)

I saw your name somehow attached to Keith Matt Maupin POW page. Without knowing who originally put it up there, I'll start with you. I uploaded a different picture of Matt at family request. If there are othere things I can help with, I will be happy to.

Swump 05:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You again!?

Nearly every single article I have ever written and tagged for the MILHIST project, it's you who has come along and assessed it. Have a barnstar! :)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For being there to assess nearly every single article I've written, Kirill Lokshin is truly tireless SGGH 11:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

• I just wanted to say thanks for participating in Wesley Clark's FAC, the article was just promoted! Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Pockets of resistance

In 33 minutes flat, from 23:18 to 23:51 on March 1, I transformed the article from this (one sentence) to this. There's an AfD on this article, however, and your suggestion for disposal of this AfD is one among many. Since you are the Lead Coordinator of the project (military History), I will support whatever decision you choose to make. Dino 17:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject re-org

Well, all those discussions about the WikiProject re-org seem to have stalled, and it appears you've been quite busy on other things! Just judging from the recent creation of WikiProjects and the likely escalation of disputes and conflicts, it really looks like a thoughtful re-org is still in order! Do you have any plans to continue to push this topic, or has this issue, at this point, just spiraled out of control?

If I may offer a suggestion, perhaps start your tier idea with one area (as a trial run), like geographical WikiProjects, and see how the idea works there. In that area there is at least a natural hierarchy, and some existing projects which are already set up that way. Any thoughts? Spamreporter1 20:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

At your prompting, I took another look and I see that I mistakenly didn't have Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_reform on my watchlist, and was missing the most recent conversations. Thanks. Spamreporter1 21:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 23:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

Commands

I was actually thinking the same thing but was wondering if I could somehow branch it out in infobox to show that some of the units were comprised under the First Baltic Front, for example. But then I figured it would look too messy for something that is supposed to be succinct so I guess removing it was the best thing to do. Thanks anyways, --MarshallBagramyan 21:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I believe it might seem rather irrelevant to put the units' infoboxes on an article that is supposed to be primarily a biography page. --MarshallBagramyan 22:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Page moves

Hey Kirill, sorry to pester you with this. I have been moving pages to their correct titles per the new naming convention of MILHIST. However, there were two pages that had the correct title as a redirect, so I just switched the articles around. It was pointed out to me today that I shouldn't have done that because the edit history doesn't accompany the articles with them (my bad). I was wondering if you, being an admin, could fix my mistakes on these two sets of pages to make them what I had designed them to be: First United States Army Group vs. First U.S. Army Group and 3rd United States Infantry Regiment vs. 3rd United States Infantry Regiment (TOG). The rest of my moves have been made using the move button so I assume those were OK edit-history-wise. Many thanks! --ScreaminEagle 21:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill. :-) Sorry for the confusion. --ScreaminEagle 13:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Ceresole

I just wanted to say I think this is an excellent article :) Raul654 02:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 10	5 March 2007	About the Signpost

New Yorker correction dogs arbitrator into departure	WikiWorld comic: "The Rutles"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 06:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Box

Whoops, guess it shows I haven't done this in a while—I used to be a pro, honest! Albrecht 16:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Andres Lopez

Hi, I need some help or advice on this article please... I provided references and keeps getting deleted without any explanations... I would like to know why!!!--((F3rn4nd0 ))^{(BLA BLA BLA)} 02:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That's one of my concerns, I placed the WP:COL tag and a message asking to please explain why, and nobody answered.. they just simply erased everything again.. I don't know who's erasing it because I'm not an Admin, I can't see that info and the history gets erased along the article. --((F3rn4nd0 ))^{(BLA BLA BLA)} 03:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much!--((F3rn4nd0 ))^{(BLA BLA BLA)} 03:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit in proposals page

That was an error, sorry. I thought I reverted but it seems to have failed. I've checked with some other people and the remainder of the close is correct. --Tony Sidaway 21:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Oversight Question

Since you've performed several oversight operations today, I'd like to draw your attention to this thread, and ask you whether oversight would be needed in that specific case. TML 13:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

New Zealand Crown Copyright

Hi Kirill, I'm not sure if this falls into your expertise or responsibilities as an admin, but was hoping that you could help. User:Rebelguys2 has nominated a number of images sourced from New Zealand Government sites (mainly NZ military sites) which specify that they are released under Crown Copyright and can be "reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission" as long as the material is "reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context". An admin ruling on whether this condition is compliant with Wikipedia's requirements is needed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 March 7. For what it's worth, my view is that this NZ Crown Copyright statement is OK as Wikipedia doesn't allow material to be posted in derogatory or misleading contexts either. --Nick Dowling 00:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that. Do you know of an admin with better knowledge, or should we just wait for one to review the deletion nominations? --Nick Dowling 06:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Credentials Proposal

Hey, Kirill. I've been following the discussion on credential verification (first on the mailing list, and now on the talk page for Jimbo's proposal, and I'd be interested to hear your reaction, either to Jimbo's proposal, or to the concept in general. I have to confess, I'm a little troubled by the whole thing - what's your opinion? Carom 06:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I should clarify that I'm not troubled by Jimbo's proposal in and of itself, although as someone famous (although apparently not famous enough for me to remember their name) once said, "nothing is ever in and of itself." While I believe informal verification of the type proposed by Jimbo could be useful (and is certainly in the spirit of wikipedia), I'm unconvinced about it's usefulness in the long run. Although my experience on wikipedia is relatively limited, it seems that even the most informal guidelines eventually become fossilized into "rules," at least, as far as they are viewed by the general community of editors (and especially those who were not around when the guidelines were introduced). So my question is not really how useful this will be immediately, or in six months time, but what effect will it have on the community a couple years down the road? Although the intent is not to disadvantage editors who do not have formal, real-world credentials in a particular area, will that be the ultimate effect? Carom 17:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad

Hey, I noticed that you were the admin that blocked User:Artaxiad. Perhaps you could change the length of his block? I know that he has become too wrapped-up in the Armenian-Azeri dispute lately, but the bulk of his contributions have been positive. I think that he just needs to be told not to do whatever he did again. -- Aivazovsky 13:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Kirill, it seems Artaxiad's IP has been auto-blocked, he is asking it to be removed on his talk page. Could you do it please? - Fedayee 19:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Harassment policy

Please, check the ArbCom Workshop page. User:Fadix in frenzy over the unblocking of User:Artaxiad, says he is going to continue the harassment and will "do it again". I think the ignorance of the open discussion of identities of User:AdilBaguirov and User:Tabib by User:Fadix is simply unacceptable. Atabek 20:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Concerning your Admin Coaching assignments

Your name is still listed at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Volunteers. The department is heavily backlogged with student's requests for coaches, and we need your help!

Note that the instructions may have changed since the last time you checked, and the department now follows a self-help process...

If you don't currently have a student, or if you believe you can handle another one, please select a student from the request list at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests and contact them. See the instructions on Wikipedia:Admin coaching. Good luck.

If you are no longer available to coach, , please remove yourself from the volunteers list.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    03:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Important

Please see this now Atabek is going after Vartanm, [9] Vartan is not involved he is trying to get him blocked, he just made a statement that is all no one ever told him he is part of the ArbCom. Look at this he adds it, [10] to get him blocked and he quickly adds it. Artaxiad 04:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Notice how he reports him for revert parole, than adds his name. Artaxiad 04:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 11	12 March 2007	About the Signpost

Report of diploma mill offering pay for edits	Essay tries to clarify misconceptions about Wikipedia
Blog aggregator launched for Wikimedia-related posts	WikiWorld comic: "Cartoon Physics"
News and notes: Wikimania 2007, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 05:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

MILHIST Banner

I was combing through the contents of Category:Incorrectly tagged WikiProject Military history articles, and most of the invalid parameters seem to be the old "portal=" parameter that had (I thought) been superceded by the new "portal1-name=" parameter. My question is, can the old portal parameters simply be removed, or do they need to be converted? Carom 18:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'm happy to help convert them, if you'd like... Carom 18:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've taken care of the current contents of the category. Hopefully I didn't make any mistakes... Carom 23:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Military of Portugal

Hi, could the category Military of Portugal be added to the project? Im working on that cat. Thank you, take care.

HKFlash 00:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Soviet invasion of Poland (1939)

The article is now a GA. Have your comments from the review been addressed? I would like to discuss if the article fullfills A-class now.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Dumb question: what's the A-class nomination procedure? :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi Kirill, I hope you don't mind me dropping by to ask for help. I created the article Russian-Circassian War some time ago, but the sources were difficult to work with and I couldn't find much expert help on the subject, plus my times were focused on the Mozambican War of Independence article. Now though, I've decided to work as hard as I can to get the Russian-Circassian war article up to scratch, and on that note I invite you to comment in the above-linked peer review.

There are two particular issues I would hope you could address.

• What is Circassia? Is it a nation or a region?
• Depending on the answer to above, is "war" an appropriate title, or should it be something different? I have suggested "Russian occupation of Circassia" but would appreciate your views. These two points are fundamental and need to be addressed before a more detailed plan of action on the article can be devealoped. Things are in the early stages, and I would appreciate your help! SGGH 19:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the quick replies, I have had one round of cleanup on the article which I hope allows it to represent the topic a little better. I have to say I was pleasantly suprised while cleaning, it wasn't in as much of a dire shape as I remembered, long way to go though! SGGH 21:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

HMS Royal Oak (1914) now an FA

As I see you're aware, HMS Royal Oak (1914) is now a Featured Article. I wanted to thank you for the time and effort you put into the whole process, particularly for calling for peer reviewers amongst WP:MILHIST. I don't doubt that it was due to these labours, and to the improvements those reviewers suggested, that the article was able to reach FA status. Regards, and thanks, — BillC ^talk 22:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Eschoir

I'm pretty new here and still learning the local ethos. You have voted to indefinately block my participation in some areas. Would it be appropriate to ask you to reconsider? Is that procedurally possible to change it at this time?

Have you examined my contributions to Wikipaedia? Are there any problems there?

If you have the time, could you post the reasoning behind your vote? Signed, a fellow Marylander (PG County) (Fear the Turtle!) Eschoir 20:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Stats for assessment

How do you compile statistics for Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment? I'd like to add them to Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Assessment.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should request a bot?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: Battle of Khe Sanh assesment

Kiril, am having a devil of a time getting my previous nominations to archive properly. Am trying to renominate this article but can't seem to create a new assesment page. RM Gillespie 14:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC/discussion of article Sulla

Hello, Kirill Lokshin. As a prominent contributor to Sulla, you may want to be aware that a request for comments has been filed about it. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:Sulla, in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. -- Nick 15:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Manzikert

Hey Kirill, I'm not sure if you still work on the military conflict template, but I was wondering about this symbol-#, this is used for a military commander who surrenders. I can understand the symbol used for commanders who are killed in the battle, but I don't think anyone would automatically associate the pound symbol with surrender. In fact when I first saw it I assumed it to be a typo. I actually support adding symbols when they are somewhat self-apparent, but in this case I don't think it is at all. Then again if it isn't part of the template at all and was just unique to that article, I apoligize.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Richard Walter - Fraudulent Article

Arbitrator:

Richard Walter seems to have been created with a large amount of false information, perhaps gathered from a phony/ anonymous press release posted at "www.richarddwalter.com". Walters's false testimony was actually confirmed in NY v. Robie Drake. In 2003 and again in 2006 his testimony was determined to be false, misleading and could be presumed perjurious on at least one point (perjury being a very specific type of false testimony) by a fedeal judge.

This is all confirmed in the judge's ruling at: "NY v. Robie Drake" (2006). The acrobat file here was obtained from United States District Court, Western District of New York. Just select judge John Elfvin's rulings for March 2006 re: the Drake case. You'll need to select more than 100 documents per page to see it. Get the drake file.

I editted the many factual inaccurancies in the page with references to the court record online and articles regarding Mr. Walter's false testimony. However an anonymous editor immediately swooped in and removed those edits. I have reverted the page and posted a warning to the anonymous editor. Now Buzzle45 (talk · contribs), an original anonymous creator of this false information page designed to rescue Walters flailing credibility, has stepped in to replace anonymous editor 24.240.17.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I am not certain these are two separate individuals.

At any rate, I expected that whoever created the page would change the edits and that this issue would become something that needed an official look - as there are quite a few dedicated and obsessed people determined to keep the actual substance of this court ruling from being public. It hurts Walter, and it hurts more than a few because of their association with him.

Anonymous editor 24.240.17.187 has removed the Richard Walter page at least six times aleady and has also removed this section from the Talk: Richard Walter page at least six times, since 3/18/07 to prevent me from even having a civil discussion about it with others. Buzzle45 (talk · contribs) has done the same. Not exactly actions that are conducive to resolution, let alone communication. They just don't want the ruling public because of their hero worship (that's assuming that one of the individuals is not actually Richard Walter -this a very distinct possibility).

This informaion is not libelous. It is corrective. It is the posting of a court's ruling using the court's own document. The Wikipedia entry currently states that Walters was exonnerated by the judge in the Drake case. This is not just false, it is beligerantly deceptive at this point.

Note please that I am the only person in this dispute who must testify in court on a regular basis, under oath - and that I am also the only one willing to be identified.

As it stands, the article is full of false and bloated information about Walters that is designed to prop him up despite the court ruling - so that those who use Wikipedia as their primary nfo source (and there are many too many) will be misled. It is a disgrace to the professional community, and it is the furtherance of a weakly crafted fraud.

Do not hesitate to contact me for further assistance.

Brent E. Turvey, MS - Forensic Scientist Bturvey 23:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Richard Walter article - Libel

Why is Mr. Turvey so relentless in trying to slander Richard Walter?

To accuse someone of perjury is a serious charge. Mr. Turvey makes that claim on his own websites, but that is a matter between Mr. Walter and Mr. Turvey to settle in civil court.

I hold Wikipedia to a higher standard.

In reading the court document, in the final ruling in the Drake case, the judge overturns the appeal.

In his opinion, the judge states that Mr. Walter "may" have committed perjury (which he did not), but he rules that such an issue is a moot point because Mr. Drake does not have the basis for appeal.

Thus, Drake's appeal, and all of its allegations are ruled false.

I welcome you to read the decision on Lexis-Nexis and not Mr. Turvey's version on his websites.

While on Lexis-Nexis, I would also encourage you to read about Mr. Turvey's false statements under oath in Mississippi last year and his previous false statements under oath regarding his employment by the Sitka, Alaska Police Department as a detective. (Mr. Turvey lost in court in his bid to claim that he was employed as a detective in Sitka).

Because Mr. Turvey was not allowed into the AAFS, he has spent his short career creating his own organizations and schools. His organizations are nothing more than him and a few of his former "students" posing as a substitute for the AAFS.

Still, the bitterness of rejection has never been exorcised from his soul. He maintains a website that lists several well-respected forensic pathologists as "frauds" (Mr. Walter is not his only victim).

With all due respect, his situation reminds me of a jealous child in the playground who wants to "take his toys and play on his own".

I suggest that the Richard Walter page remain permanently locked in its pre-March 17th state.

Please disregard Bturvey's threat to "show why wikipedia can't be trusted as a source in my class". He has many more enemies than friends; no one will stand in his defense.

02:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Buzzle45 (talk · contribs)

{{WP1.0}}

Mind having a look at the template? There's some lagging whitespace issues that occur, for example, when using the v0.5 parameter, but not others. (By the way, this is something new we're going to try on WP1.0...) Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

About the WikiReaders: that is most interesting. I looked through Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and I couldn't find anything about it (or missed it, which is more likely), but yeah, we're interested to hear about that. How far along in the process are you? Since you folks are always ahead of the rest of the curve, we at 1.0 can help out and take note of the things to do, to help other projects go in that direction as well. (I know we at WP:TROP definitely want to publish something someday...)

As for the template: I do agree about the "under the fold" assessments for anything but orphan articles. Also, what do you think about putting "comments" under the fold as well? I tested the template at Talk:Hurricane Katrina, and it looks a bit... bloated.

The conditional code is to try to generate the categories that {{v0.5}} generates, and also the ones for future versions, in one pass. The way I did it was to split the code into two "branches" - the "passed" branch, for articles that have been approved for the release, and the "hold/nomination/fail" branch. The second branch is quite simple - check each version parameter, and if its value is nom, then write the nominee categories (such as Category:Version 0.5 Nominees). If the value is hold, then the template adds another category, this time for held articles. For failed articles, the template doesn't do anything. For the passed branch, it is much more complex - since I wanted to save code to not reach the point of having to debug with Special:Expandtemplates, what I did is that instead of checking per possible combination, I checked per possible outcome. If we have an article that is included in v0.5, then the template outputs those categories to the page; if we have one that is included in v0.7 or earlier, then the template outputs the v0.7 categories, and if the article is included in 1.0 or earlier, then the v1.0 categories are written in the rendered page. That saves us from having to write the v0.7 and v1.0 categories more than one time. (I still have to debug it a little bit, though... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 17:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

armenia-azerbaijan arbitration workshop page

I would like to draw your and ARbcom members attention to a bulk of personal attacks and accusation with which user:Fadix flooded workshop page. He openly admits that he will continue his attacks. It is absolutely unacceptable. Workshop page is destroyed. It is very bizzare that almost no other Armenian users participate in the discussion despite there are several involved. I have feeling that they communicated with each other and this is a strategy: Fadix bombs and tarnishes all Azeri editors involved (me, Adil, Atabek and Grandmaster). We have to response to all these allegations. And here is clear picture - Fadix vs. 4 bad Azeri editors. We can not keep silence because he constantly accuses us in sock- and meat pupetting, harassing, saying that we are government representatives, and so on. Maybe he wants that someone from us will lose his temper and make personal attacks. That will equal the situation because now several Armenian editors are listed in workshop for personal attacks. How long it will be allowed to harrass us - he repeats over and over again that we are oficial reps, etc. I kindly and urgently request temporary injection - no more personal attacks and harrasment on workshop page. --Dacy69 21:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I will answer this only once and will not bother doing the same in the talkpage of the other arbitrators to which he has pasted this statment. First it would be relevent for Dacy to post the diff. of the personal attacks he is talking about, second, the diff where I claim any of the members are "government representatives" or where I have vilified Azeri members or abusivally even used their ethnicities or made in anyway this as a case against bad Azeri editors, the way Dacy had made this case to appear as ethnicity based. Also, Dacy should explain how this could be strategy for me to take alone against 4 members, when I have wasted a considerable amount of my time for the last week answering four members and would have more than welcomed any help, when Dacy had even the audacity while being 4, requesting the help of a member advocate and bring him on the case while those who considers "my side"(which he call Armenian editors), are constituted of me, of a teenager Artaxiad, two new members(ridiculous at best as new members were even dumped in the case), TigranTheGreat who already announced before the case he won't be available and doesn't even answer to my emails. Eupator who doesn't contribute much, oh yet, if it isen't on him reverting Ararat Arev multiple socks etc. Did I forgot? Here is where the "Armenian users" are. And I appologize to Kirill for having answered on the talkpage. Fad (ix) 04:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 12	20 March 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Wilhelm Scream"	News and notes: Bad sin, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 07:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

CSD G2

Kirill Lokshin said: In the future, please check the history before you delete something under CSD G2; one-off vandal edits need to be reverted, not cause the entire page to be deleted. Thanks!

I apologize. I had a bunch of CSD G2 potential candidates around at the same time, linked to something like Link title or similar, which I deleted all at the same time. Thank you for pointing this out. Bobo. 12:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

CSD G2

Kirill Lokshin said: Ah, ok; it's no big deal, in any case. :-)

Thank you for the selective revert! You’ve excluded the ones I should have deleted selectively. Bobo. 12:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Campaign boxes

Thanks for fixing the listing. I didn't notice that the list was both thematic and chronological. Valentinian ^{T / C} 16:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes

(copied from User talk:Xaxafrad)

I'm a little confused as to what you're trying to accomplish with these. The whole point of infoboxes is that articles use a base formatting template, but the actual content (i.e. the facts) are contained in the article itself, not on some other page. Hence, infoboxes don't have any edit links; the only thing that would be editable separately from the article is the overall structure of the box itself, which most editors shouldn't need to ever deal with. Kirill Lokshin 19:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm still getting the hang of the way everything works around here, so I have a little confusion too. I'm probably in waaay over my head at this point, but how do you learn how to swim if you don't get in the water, right? I guess I'm not exactly sure what an infobox is. But I know what templates are. So I think it would be true if I said: all infoboxes are templates, but not all templates are infoboxes. I'm sorry, all I want to do is get the list of combatants settled, preferably with an informative list, but not necessarily. I have an tendency to compartmentalize things, to analyze things and take them apart, so I starting moving in the direction of seperating the infobox from the article as a means of facilitating on-topic discussion. In the case of WW2, as a high profile article, with a great many additions and subtractions to the infobox, I felt making it only slightly harder to edit would curb some nationalistic editing.

If it comes down to the point where I have to check every single difference to WW2 in order to pick out the drive-by, "my country wasn't minor!" edits from the genuine edits, I will, but I don't look forward to it. Xaxafrad 19:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox conversions from AFV templates etc

I noted a conversion of an AFV to the new infobox and saw that the conversion omitted most of the parameters from the new infobox with the immediate effct of giving blank lines for Type, origin in the box. I comemnted on this to the user making the changes and he said he was workign from the instructions for the template here Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Infobox conversion. Should the instructions be updated to suggest adding in the extra parameters (even if they are not utilised at the time) or at least to indicate that the minimum required is to make the changes listed. GraemeLeggett 16:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Look Over

Kirill, can you look at my new user page and tell me what you think on my talk page. Thanks! --Pupster21 19:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank God

[1] Thatcher131 04:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

However, with the recent continued appearance of new SPA's (see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Late_additions_of_the_parties), I wonder if a broad article probation would also be appropriate. Because the conflict is so broad, how about, *Upon petition by any editor, any uninvolved admin many place any article related to this dispute on article probation by placing an appropriate notice on the talk page. After notice is given, editors who disrupt the article may be banned from the article for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved admin. Editors who violate the ban may be blocked briefly, up to 5 days after repeated violation. Article probation shall be limited to three months' duration per article, but may be renewed if the disruptive editing resumes. Articles, bans and blocks to to logged etc. Thatcher131 04:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Some poor schmuck at WP:AE would get stuck with all the enforcement issues anyway. Have you looked into the edits of the most recently added names? Thatcher131 04:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Help Resolving a conflict

I have read the pages about this on wikipedia and I have came to you because you seem to be a person who knows how wikipedia is supposed to work and are most likely 100% neutral on this matter. I am involved in a rather intense edit war with two other editors of the article Miriam Rivera. In the last days the user User:Jokestress has quite reasonably asked for the article to be backed up with more reliable sources. Well I found them and that seems to have placated her. She has acted in 100% reasonable way in all of this. The problem arises in that she has asked in the spirt of resolving the conflict we were having other people who are not 100% neutral it seems to comment on the matter. These being the user User:Longhair and the userUser:Alison in particular who have not bothered to justify anything that they have done. Longhiar being an admin seems to feel no need to discuss anything and I feel is abusing her powers. Is there anything you can do? --Hfarmer 03:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou I will take advantage of all of those avenues if that is what is needed. --Hfarmer 05:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

URGENT - OBVIOUS VANDALISM

Since you are involved actively in Armenia-Azerbaijan case, I would like to draw your attention to obvious vandalism on page Ziya Bunyadov. user:Zurbagan was reported several times. I ask - when this vandslism will be stoped [11]. This user was reported and asked for check user (he has a number of socks) but thus far nothing is done to ban him. How many times we should report him?!!! Look what he wrote: "That, perhaps, adds weight to speculation that he was not entirely human." Since you proposed to put me on revert parole I don't want to revert - but it was obvious vandalism!!! Please rv to last version of Eupator!--Dacy69 14:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the vandalism and issued a bv warning. Newyorkbrad 14:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. But after all what he has done - only warning was issued? He vandalised many times and still evaded from ban as obvious sock of Robert599 who created numerous socks - Pulu-Pughi, Jalalledin,etc.--Dacy69 15:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the background that makes him an obvious sock. If there is evidence I should review, please let me know. You can reply on my talk. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 16:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Requesting a protect

Hey Kirill, someone earlier today unprotected the article on Michael Jackson. Since then, there have been high levels of vandalism. I have contacted the admin responsible for that unprotect and requested that the article be protected again, but there has been no response so far. Anyway, this is fairly urgent due to the ridiculous levels of vandalism. The person who unprotected the article made a big mistake. Can you please protect it again?UberCryxic 16:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Lebensborn

Hey Kirill, I have to admit I don't understand the 'Lebensborn' issue. To me it seems clear from his post "he dreams about Wikipedia pure as a Lebensborn, Wikipedia without diacritics and "strange foreign characters" (citation) at al" that it is a (derogatory) metaphor for purity, not accusation of Nazi-sympathies. Lebensborn by itself is not offensive, the only possible offense can be that it is tied to Nazis in general - which is why I'd presonally not use it as a metaphore, but (see also other replies at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Darwinek/Workshop#Darwinek_banned - most people seem to agree with me that this is not really offensive.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree it is far from the best metaphore, and Darwinek should be warned about using them - but hardly it merits banning of such a productive editor. On another note, as long as we are talking about accusations of anti-semitism and Nazi sympathies, would you consider such and such speculations (nazi/anti-semtitic sympathies) or comparisons to Communist party officials offensive enough to merit a warning? I certainly find them more offensive that the Lebensborn comment, but as they are directed against me I am hesistating before bringing them up (I have a thick skin, but this is really getting to me...).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Umm, there are many Lithuanian editors with whom the Polish editors have no conflict with. Are you saying that nothing short of ArbCom can be done to stop such incivility? Please note that RFI discussion has resulted in 24h block for incivility for that editor already, but as the above examples show, it had little effect. What course of action would you recommned? I am considering WP:DR steps, although honestly, I consider it a giant waste of time on an editor whose main contributions are offensive talk comments (as above).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, WP:CEM, perhaps?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am disappointed with the proposed actions against Darwinek. Every second vandal gets a lower penalty :-/ ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please keep this in mind

Kirill, we need to mention that ever since Adil came back he has started conflicts, when he came back from his vacation, he brought along Dacy and Atabek also to help him revert, we were all contributing positively I just want this to end its so stressful especially online, we want to start contributing helping articles achieve FA and Good article status but we can't because of there disruptive edits, all our block logs were fine until Adil and the rest came back, most admins even know this. No one should be banned, instead have Arb members monitor the articles I will assure you who is the more disruptive users, this is not Azeri vrs Armenian its Armenian vrs Adil, and the rest. I'm fine with all the other Turkish and Azeri users we have made so much progress but not with these users "for some reason" that is obvious, best regards. Artaxiad 02:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Military History

Hi! Actually, I have recently started the User:AlexNewArtBot/Wars feed exactly with the same purpose. Your suggestions are welcome. Do we need the second one? :) Colchicum 18:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not this particular set of rules, the problem is that military history is so deeply intertwined with general human culture that there is probably not a single common word specific to military-related articles. Besides, it is not always easy to divide relevant and irrelevant articles. E.g. are propaganda films about a war released during the war relevant? I think they are. Personally I think that the bot should ideally target all the articles that need some expertise in military history. It is true that your set of rules generates fewer false positives (still doing this though), but it can easily miss an article devoted to a less conventional military-related topic (as yesterday e.g. 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel, Aerotec Uirapuru, Caittil Find, Hamada Kagetaka, Precision Lightweight GPS Receiver, She'eb, Shen Faxing, Ubaldo I Visconti, several articles on Guantanamo Bay POWs etc). And excluding an item from the list is always much more easy than looking for missed articles. Colchicum 12:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your comments.--Yannismarou 08:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Something troubling

Hey Kirill, I do not know if you are aware of the creation of the category, Category:Wars France lost, but I am here to express some fairly obvious concerns. The category is being considered for deletion right now; I was wondering, however, if either you or one of the other guys in WPMILHIST could take some sort of executive decision and just delete this arbitrarily. I don't see why there needs to even be a discussion on this. The person who created this has quasi-palpable political motives and has very little experience working with the project (see edit history here). Hopefully this will all be resolved soon.UberCryxic 15:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I think you're right. I've removed that cat from every article anyway. I guess we can wait.UberCryxic 16:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 13	26 March 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Tardiness, volunteers, RSS
Patrick and Wool resign in office shakeup	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Board resolutions, milestones	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 14:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

*Sheepish hello again*:

Erm, I've struck some trouble with my "project" - would you be able to check your email... I'm so embarrassed... :( Thanks, Spawn Man 05:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Otranto

You removed Otranto from the Crusades box. Reason: no proper page to link to. I have written a page now here: Battle of Otranto. Happy now? Fvdham 05:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

WPMILHIST Active Members

Hey, how often should we go through the members list and move editors to the inactive list? Carom 00:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh, fair enough. Even I'm not that bored... Carom 00:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You are now an honourary member of WikiProject Dinosaurs!

Congrats, you are now an Honourary Member of WikiProject Dinosaurs - Rawr! :) -- Spawn Man 06:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Thank you so much for all the work you've do so far - You helped create templates for the project when it was a fledgling & now you've started this portal. You truly are amasing & you're every bit an excellent editor. Drop by any time you like & we'll give you the "special" treatment... ;) Thanks, Spawn Man 06:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again - a quick question regarding the template mentioned above: Where can I stick it? I was hoping to stick it on every dinosaur related page , but is there some sort of restriction on it? Can it only be stuck on a few pages? Or can it be stuck on more? Thanks, Spawn Man 07:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Additional measures

Dear Mr. Lokshin. We had a discussion here [12], and I agree with the admin Golbez that edit wars on such articles as Nagorno-Karabakh are unlikely to stop after the Armenia – Azerbaijan arbcom case. If you check the log of that article, you'll see that it was protected many times before the parties to the arbcom case joined Wikipedia. Currently we have a relatively new editor, who is engaged in an edit war on that article, but the case is unlikely to include him. [13] So in my opinion it would be a good idea to place a few main topic related articles on a revert parole, i.e. each editor should be allowed to make no more than 1 rv in 24 hours. I propose it to be applied to Nagorno-Karabakh in the first place, but it could also be applied to a couple of other articles as well. Regards, Grandmaster 07:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Draft InfoBox for Red Army

Kirill, do you want to take a look at the draft box I've been playing with in the Rus & Sov MilHist TF talk page? Cheers Buckshot06 11:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Frankly speaking

There is hardly anyone on Wikipedia who was ever been harassed on any way as much as I, while others were reporting it to whomever wanted to hear it, I shut my mouth. What I said was a joke compared to the real harassement I was subject to. Those guys already knew me back from the day they landed here. Atabek kept pushing me on my past contributions on the genocide article and knowing fully well everything in articles that I was even nor using their talkpage still nor their mainspace. Every accusations I have placed were all founded. This [14] (check edit summary, there was a reason why I wanted checkuser performed) means a lot when you know the actors. Do you really want to know who maintain this Azerbaijani studies group? And Adil role? And among many things for what it is used? It is not like your contributions are presented in underground platforms, much too embarassing about me to even post the links. Or a blog co-authored by the author of tallarmeniantale. (scrole it down, and this is only a joke compared to other things which would be to embarassing for me to post them, how the intimidation has gone far) [15] His famous site being this. [16]

I came here, the first days, the author of the racist site tallarmeniantale was playing with the Armenian Genocide article, that person has harrassed me on very bad way and I kept having weird emails, but I shut my mouth not screaming about anything. While I attacked a person, those with who I discussed were shouting racist rhetorics attacking a whole people. Then when peace was instored, by this same harshness that you guys are blamming me for(and that I am confident that no Arbcom cases in any sort could have sorted that articles fate the successful way I did it), a user that now still contrinue contributing having created three sock has abused the system getting each of the socks supporting one another to make it as if there was supports for the changes and screwed by the process my months of contributions. (scroll down, their contribution merged) [17] Do you really think that there is no coincidence with Adil comming here and bringing people with him who by their answers knew me already? Who knew the system so well, the administrator notice board, all the conflict resolution systems, the members advocates etc. Why do you even think I wanted those guys banned indefinitly? Because they were Azeri? I may have been paranoid a little bit, but I would have liked to see you in my position. Harrassed? I still can't believe that Adil is just banned for a year(the same sentence I could potentially get), and that he could still appeal, for every problem he has caused here and the way he has abused the entire system. Had another more notable member been facing this situation, this would have ended with a communittee ban for the abuser. And him being totally absolved under claims such as:"He was pushed and abused" The quote you present, the context under which it was said, you interpret it otherwise then I. Because only by supposing that I was actually pushing a potential positive contributor out, you could think that there could in any way be material there which would in any way justify a year of ban. Those guys don't merit Wikipedia, you can believe me or not, it won't make any difference. But try finding in the minime time those "newbies" came here any positive contributions other than jumping in every articles an Armenian was contributing in, how irrelevent that it might have been with Azerbaijan and then turning them into a war front, provoking them and then playing with the system. Harassing someone is driving that person out, scrapping countless numbers of articles is driving countless numbers of persons out, how my actions caused more damage then theirs? I don't know if there is any way for you to check the history of the stuff I place in my watchlist, I hope you could. Because my watchlist is nearly empty. And you know why? Because abusers of the system by engaging in such pointless revert wars would screw my watchlist, articles popping one after the other. What is the usefulness of such a watchlist?

Make your judgement. And no, if it is any remorse you want, I already admitted to Fred that I have no remorse, while my initial answer would have been like begging, I won't beg now since that potential verdict I already accepted it. But it is a mistake. Because you will really drive away a useful user. Fad (ix) 00:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing frank here -- more of the same. What does Tallarmeniantale.com website have to do with me, the main taget of Fadix's character assassination?! Fadix was a disruptive and combative editor long before I came to Wikipedia, and after I left for a few months last year, he remained to be the same. Didn't change a little bit. So it is a little strange to read all these appeals and so-called "frankness". Under the direction and command of Fadix, all the Armenian editors, who outnumber Azerbaijani one's at least 2:1, have concentrated their firepower on me, calculating that eventually it will sink the target, if not by having that target make mistakes, then just by subconscious programming of everyone's (incl. admin's) mind that "Adil is the devil, whilst we, his attackers, are all frankly-speaking angels, all victims, all 10 of us (plus numerous sock puppets), many being students with time on their hand, against this one full-time employed busy man". I've been silent for too long, not complaining about this barrage of attacks and insults, but enough is enough. I've been unfairly accused and blocked (5 times in just one month, despite having a clean record for months), and now will be banned despite the fact that in my short time here, I've presented MORE quotes, MORE sources, MORE translations, MORE references than all of my accusers COMBINED in the same timeframe. That's just a note about quality, and, quantity. Oh, and I post under my name, knowing full well that phsycho's of the Internet will be using that against me. --adil 08:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have written a long prose, but removed it, as I thought that Adil above answer is quite implicit. Fad (ix) 14:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh maybe I should not have deleted this little part. He sure post with his true name, which makes it worst, as I can joke around in forums under an alias, or sometimes make some displaced remarks, I do not take full responsability of what I do. Adil by signing every bit of the things he write, he takes the full responsability, this makes it worst as you know how he really think. Kirill, ask Adil why he was opposed to moderate a newsgroup panel about Azerbaijan? What those opposing him were claiming about him? He was accused of being a racist and had to drop it. Fad (ix) 14:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What does Adil’s real life activity have to do with Wikipedia? If he had anything to hide, he would not be contributing here under his real name. Fadix, even now you cannot stop harassing people, when quite possibly both you and Adil will be banned from wiki. Enough is enough. Grandmaster 17:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Give me a brake, the newsgroup thing was one example, everywhere he goes he only created problems, and I am sure that you know that he was compared at one time with Serdar_Argic. Does it make any differences that the owner of the study group come here with Adil, his friend who co-own in one way or other a very significant portion of all the website about Azerbaijan or those concerning the Armenians in relation to Azerbaijan? Grandmaster we know that people like Cornell and the other authors which you cite are all members of the study group. Don't you? Grandmaster, I always knew the weird cohesion with Tabib and you, did I ever used that or harrassed you there? It is plain durty, and we both know why Dacy wants me out from here. Should it make any differences that Adil was an energy consultant for you know what? That the other was working for chemical detectors for petrolium compagnies? And what about Tabib? Is there, frankly speaking anyway for me to even assume good faith in anyway in all this situation? The policies and guidelines are not paper works, they are here to prevent harm to be done. The Arbcom has absolutly no legitimity beyond that. I still have yet to see any evidences where I ever harmed the system or that by harming it in anyway I havn't in the same process brought more positive. Grandmaster you know that if I started turning this by presenting evidences about content the Arbcom committee would see the problem at hand. If the Arbcom is really taking this matter seriously, it would place a temporary closure to this cases and request further evidences on how I believe on content dispute, there was POV pushing, so obvious that the ignorant mass about the subject will see and not even word necessary by the diff would have all spoken by themselve. Do you accept Grandmaster such a request? Banning me would be like throwing the fire alarm and accusing it of the fire. Fad (ix) 19:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are interested, I don’t know any of Azerbaijani editors in real life, and never heard of either Adil or Tabib before joining Wikipedia. I wasn’t involved in any internet forums or followed any such activity by others. So if you can prove any of your claims, you are welcome to do so, this is what this arbcom case about. Present your evidence, and the arbitrators, who are competent people, elected by the community, will analyze it and pass their decision. But persistent attacking other editors and making baseless claims about their activities outside of wiki leads nowhere and does not help your case. Grandmaster 19:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You were always different than the rest, I believe you when you say that you did not know Adil when you joined. My weird connection was not about that, but that Tabib will always pup out of nowhere to revert and vote. That was the connection which was weird. I never wanted to get you banned, did I? Fad (ix) 19:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

People are free to edit and vote, if you can prove any real connection between me or anyone else, you should present such evidence to arbcom. I also don’t want anyone banned (except Artaxiad), if you check my first statement to arbcom, I tried to avoid finger-pointing and placing the blame on anyone. But you acted different way, and it turned against you. We have a saying that if someone lives in a house of glass, he should not throw stones at others. Grandmaster 20:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't get it. Really not. Fad (ix) 20:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

His point is that he should be able to point out Baguirov's real life activities given how Baguirov is a public figure who chose to use his name here. His real life actions are a mirror of his activities here as such they are relevant. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, you never stop showing your clear bias and hate, which only adds to evidence against you. Meanwhile, you have your facts wrong (unsurprizingly) -- I was never accused of anything by third-party people (only by biased partisans such as you) and never dropped anything -- I got 1730 votes, with only 900 opposing (90%+ of which were you know who). That was 10 years ago, and this was a great victory for the Azerbaijani online community. A newsgroup was founded later, as were other forums. Meanwhile, it doesn't matter if you post under your real name or nickname -- you have to be responsible for your actions. There is no excuse for your reckless attacks, and completely unrelated stuff. --adil 18:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Adil, why you drop it? Tell me? Fad (ix) 19:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

All these attacks against petrsonality continue despite calls from Arbcom. Azeri contributors are attacked because of exactly their ethnicity. Meanwhile, we see now Eupator, who kept silence previously, actively engaged in that. Maybe because Arbcom decideed to soften parole about him. Just yesterday he made 3 rvs and now engaged in attack against Adil.--Dacy69 19:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You're only hurting yourself Dacy by the above. Continue defending Baguirov...-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Your only defense was to turn this as Armenian vs Azeri. This is clearly and obvious to influence the Arbcom decision, placing them in such a pressure that taking the fair decision would seem as they were chassing Azeri users. Tell me how come I defended abused Turkish users by some Armenians here? I always tried to make this a cases about behavior while you turned it else and make the Arbcom believe that it was about Armenian vs Azeri. Fad (ix) 19:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Is not it you who asked why we are editing Armenian-related pages and called it 'invading' and 'vilifiying'? You put it in that way along national lines. From my first day of edit you, Eupator, Ararat rev and other tried to find my ethnic identity, and then I revealed it, you, guys, went on assault. I did not care about users' ethnicity. For example, I approached to Aivazovsky first with some suggestions though never before crossed him on editing. Still I believe that consensus can be reached with anyone if prejudice will be dropped. After all, Wiki is free space, every group of people will be there - it is like dormitory you should live along with all and learn to respect opposite view which you don't disagree with.--Dacy69 20:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Holly cow, Dacy STOP that for hell sake. Ararat Arev is some kid playing with the system, he is not "arbitratable" any administrator could see his disruptions and block him indefinitly without any arbitration cases, I requested his blocking myself. What differences does it really make that the kid was Armenian, Turk, Azeri, Greek? The word invading here was not used in anyway to equal it to ownership of an article. There is nowhere in the world that there was no intention, no premeditation in massivally searching the articles which most active Armenian contributors were contributing in during that specific moment and start turning them in war front, articles which were not related with Azerbaijan, it must have taken an ill intention to choose those articles and not other Armenian articles which those active contributors at that moment were not contributing in. I have enough life experience to distinguish a naive, innocent childishtic act like the ones by Artaxiad, who the Arbcom could have very well banned from Armenian and Azerbaijan topic, giving the guy some utility here actually by working on some unrelated stuff. The whole differences between this guy and you Atabek and Adil is that there is sophistication. Dacy, Elnurso was you, there can be no reasonable doubt about that, Elnurso was specifically created to instigate Iranian users. That harassement about the belief that one Wikipedia user was contributing in the Azerbaijan study group which is maintained by not Adil(and encompassing all the major figures publishing works which are cited here in Wikipedia) but the other person I better not name, which is you who maintain it. You guys already knew very well those contributors, knew that Eupator and I had problems with InShaneee, knew how dedicated I was with the Armenian genocide article, and how I jump for the same exact words which Atabek had used nearly word by word in a talkpage that I was yet not contributing in. He knew the reaction, you knew the reaction when you reported Eupator to InShaneee. You were prepared, knowing every pass here on Wikipedia. You have also successfully turned this whole case as a Armenian-Azerbaijani matter. I have requested Grandmaster to separate himself with the bunch, because you guys should have been isolated. But you pushed a cohesion among Azeri members to make it sound as an Azeri Armenian issue so that any banning would have been seen as: "The unfair biased Arbcom has banned the Azeri users and absolved Armenian ones." The only person who was truly caring for this entire project was me. Fad (ix) 21:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You again flooded the page. I am not going to reply to your allegations but with two hands for checkuser - me and elnurso or whatever else.--Dacy69 22:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I already answered why, and you know it. Two domain address with registration addresses maintained by the same person, one locating where Atabek lives and another where you live. On top of that that person co-own those sites and the portal with Adil. On top of that, that person come on Wikipedia along with Adil with few hours of interval to make his first edit here soon before Adil came back. On top of that, another user comes and register the same day you registered your account on Russian Wikipedia and one day before you registered this one here, naming himself Elnurso who knew members of the restricted Azerbaijani study group which the person you are suspected to be maintain. On top of that, one of those persons(that would Atabek) come and edit the March Event and basically with the same interpretations and sources that an article which Adil wrote co-authored with the person you are suspected to be using a sock(that would be Tengri). I do not believe in coincidences, do you? I already documented that Atabek has used two IP pointing at two different locations, he forgot to sign for both and then erased the IPs to replace them with his registered name, do you want me to repost that? That checkusers has revealed Tengri being Atabek was a matter of mistake Atabek did, the mistake I was hopping that you would have done when I requested that checkuser to Fred, even though I knew somehow you were brighter and would not have made such a mistake. Coincidence all this, like the update on the registration informations of the website maintained by the person you are suspected to be the same day Adil came back from his brake? Fad (ix) 23:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Database warning

Dear user, the Wikipedia database is struggling due to the number of barnstars you have received. Please refrain from receiving more barnstars or your user page may be frozen. --The Wikipedia MySQL Server 13:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Domenico Selvo FAC

Hey, Kirill. I've responded to your comments on this FAC and I'd love to hear your opinion on mine :-D! JHMM13 01:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've responded again. I've made the requested changes and the article looks much better now. Thanks a lot! JHMM13 03:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Project statistic bot

Look what I found: [18] and User:WP 1.0 bot. PS. Apparently there even already is a Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Poland-related articles by quality statistics - just nobody told us :> -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

talk page

I personally would oppose a FAC if it has a sloppy talk page that does not properly use the templates I was suggesting. Although a talk page layout does not affect the quality perception to readers, it has great impact on quality perception for editors. Is it policy somewhere or general consensus that class criteria is based only on reader perception? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"I personally would oppose a FAC if it has a sloppy talk page that does not properly use the templates I was suggesting." - This would not be a valid objection. Raul654 16:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This does not help me understand the underlying issue. Although your responses have clear implications. Is class rating purely a reader usage assessment or does it have any relation to editor usage assessment. Could you object based on overcategoriztion or overtemplatization? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Objections have to be based on the quality of the article (not the talk page, not who wrote it, not the subject of the article or your opinion thereof, etc). As for overcategoriztion or overtemplatization - depending on the specific circumstances, the former is probably a misuse of the category system so yes, that could concievably be a valid objection; as to the latter, I'm not sure what you mean. What kind of templates are you talking about? Raul654 16:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Mostly I am curious about Navigational box templates. I have never seen an article that has had multiple infobox templates. However, if it did this might be objectionable.

I am going to infer from your response above that you do not consider a talk page a part of the article.

I imagine it would be very rare, but when I am on WP:NPP I often use the {{Orphan}} tag. I find it hard to imagine an article that is basically an orphan meeting FA criteria. However, it seems that being an orphan has nothing to do with article quality either. Would an orphan objection be irrelevant to the consideration of the quality of the article? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There are a few articles that have multiple infoboxes. Ships that are transferred to a new flag often have multiple infoboxes. I don't find anything objectionable to this.

You infer correctly.

As far as orphan articles being nominated on the FAC - we're in uncharted territory because it's never happened as far as I can remember. I'm going to refrain on speculating on this until it actually happens. Raul654 16:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned my primary concern was navigational box templates (at the bottom). Is overtemplatization an objection. Since I spend a lot of time on Chicago articles, could someone object to Chicago based on overtemplatization at the bottom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou

Just wanted to say thankyou for the welcome to the Military History wikiproject. Qjuad 16:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 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 19:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The France category again

Hey Kirill, User:Patstuart has recently refilled the category with the articles that were deleted a few days ago, arguing that we cannot remove articles from categories that are under discussion. The discussion for the category has been going on for quite a while now and the vast majority of the people voted to delete. When should it be deleted? And what should we do about the articles that this user has placed under this category's umbrella again?UberCryxic 03:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of the articles that were removed from that category have been put back in by the aforementioned user. That is most definitely a problem. You yourself removed that category from some articles, which in this case the user did not add back in (don't know why).UberCryxic 04:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well it's already been there quite a while and nothing new is happening, nor is anything new likely to happen.UberCryxic 05:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind it was just deleted. All's well that ends well I guess.UberCryxic 05:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

WPBannerShell and WPFilm

When you get a chance, would you take a look at {{Film}} and see if there's a way to get the {{Upgrading needed}} part to show up *outside* the banner shell? Thanks so much for your help! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If that is possible it would be great for WPBio as the living=yes ({{blp}}) warning really ought not be hidden away. --kingboyk 12:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That's right - that's the same issue as BLP. Hmm. Talk:A Man, a Real One is an example of how it looks now, which would worx fr BLP, too. There's a CSS for "make this as wide as the nesting box", isn't there? The {{upgrading needed}} probably needs that.

I suppose WPBannerShell *could* create a div that's outside the main shell, then BLP (or upgrading needed) could fill that, but that would require some extra javascript to do, wouldn't it. I'll keep pondering, but I'm thinking this is the way it will have to work.

Thanks again for your help! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Looked over {{Film}} some more. Looks like the coding needed for {{Upgrading needed}} is already in place, but {{Film}} isn't calling it. Take a look at this diff. Could we put that in place?

One caveat about that, though, is that the Film project wants the "Upgrading needed" to *show* by default. Let me know what you think -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. BLP is required to be shown, but if I had my way, that would be the only one. Luckily, only Film has requested that, and only for the stubs. <shrug> I suppose they can fight it out :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

recommend copyeditor(s)?

Hi,

This is not directly related to military history — tho actually everything is shaped by MilHist...

Taiwanese aborigines is currently in WP:GAC, but we're thinking of withdrawing it from GAC and moving it directly into WP:FAC.

Could you recommend a copyeditor or copyeditors, or peer reviewers, etc.?

It currently has two (interchangeable) peer review pages:

• Wikipedia:Peer review/Taiwanese aborigines/archive1
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Peer review/Taiwanese aborigines

Thanks! --Ling.Nut 22:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again! ... was hoping for the name of one or more indivs. with a track record of exp. with FAs... but thanks for the link to WP:LOCE! :-) --Ling.Nut 23:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Portal update:

Hello my friend! Some users have suggested a new update for the Portal:Dinosaurs (You like what I've done with the place?), a DYK section. What I was thinking was adding another random section so that a continuous supply of DYKs circulated. However, I've tried adding this box, but have failed. If you'd be able to do the skeleton again for me, I can finish it again. Where I'd like would be right below the selected picture section, yet to the right so that it slots right of the selected article section. So if you could make it only a short box & in that palce, I can do the rest. Thansk if you can. :) Spawn Man 03:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I have tried that but it failed. All it did was add a large box below both the picture & article section - I want it slotted in between the articles & below the image section. Unless I did something wrong, which is very likely... :) Spawn Man 03:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I must be missing something

Do others not check, not care? Should I stop reviewing sources? [19] This has happened numerous times recently—I mention that publishers aren't specified, the article is promoted, and when I check the publishers after the fact, I find we have another FA based on non-reliable sources. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well reasoned, as usual :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:

Sorry about not being that active over the last month, Kirill but I have been very busy. But I have been reading all the comments on the coo-ordinators page almost daily. I am on holidays now so I will be more active. Bye. Kyriakos 02:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

semi-plagarism

Kirill,

I am a (also) a member of a (relatively) new wikiproject: Musical Instruments. In light of the great organizational structure, templates, userboxes, etc... that the Military History WP has developed, do you mind of I "borrow" some of the MilHist content and copy/customize it for MusInst? Thanks - NDCompuGeek 14:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

RE Campaigns

Kirill, Totally agree. Have moved all longer time-frame operations from battles and ops of the Vietnam War to the Campaign category. RM Gillespie 15:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks again for your help (with the new box on the portal...) Bye. :) Spawn Man 03:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 14	2 April 2007	About the Signpost

Poll finds people think Wikipedia "somewhat reliable"	Wikipedia biographical errors attract more attention
Association of Members' Advocates nominated for deletion	Reference desk work leads to New York Times correction
WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane"	News and notes: Alexa, Version 0.5, attribution poll
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 05:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche and shifting the topic

Here is the core of the problem as I have watched it for over 30 years. A journalist researches and writes an article about LaRouche based on documents and interviews. As soon as it is published or broadcast, the journalist becomes part of the grand conspiracy against LaRouche. Suddenly, a respectable journalist is "part of the story." Therefore the journalist is "biased." Repeat in endless loop. Here on Wikipedia, editors have spent hundreds of hours battling over my published articles about LaRouche. Ultimately, I am able to document every allegation. The pro-LaRouche editor continues to protest and object, until banned from the article. Repeat in endless loop. Every time this happens, Wikipedia becomes a way to spread the same (and new) false and defamatory statements about me that are stored forever on the Wiki servers. Can you appreciate why I am frustrated and do not see any benefit in revisiting this process? I am sorry if you found my comments not appropriate on the arbitration page, but I really do think what I was trying to explain is part of the issue. Reputable published sources make allegations about LaRouche. When they are properly cited here, the pro-LaRouche editors attack the credibility of me and other Wiki editors. It is a pattern. Wiki is being gamed in a way that ensures false and defamatory statements about me and Dennis King are endlessly recycled.--Cberlet 01:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see your point, and will trust your judgement.--Cberlet 01:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

IRC

Would it be possible for me to catch you on IRC? -- Cat ^chi? 17:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, sorry; generally speaking, I don't use IRC. Kirill Lokshin 17:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a gmail account? Gmail chat would also work. -- Cat ^chi? 17:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I would suggest that my talk page (or email, for more private matters) are likely to be the most useful ways of communicating. Kirill Lokshin 18:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

As you wish, I'll prefer the public option then. The issue at hand is WP:RfAr#Category:Kurdistan. I was wondering if you could reconsider your position. Since you posted your opinion on the rfar page, I have gathered some additional evidence.

My reason in filing the case was not to find a solution to the actual content dispute. Several users have had been revert waring while avoiding/ignoring any discussion. The two mediation cases failed because of their inactivity.

-- Cat ^chi? 18:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Falun Gong RfAr case

I'm not sure how to initiate a remedy (and besides the workshop page was not used very much). Since these people are attacking others, maybe personal attack paroles for some of the users would be appropriate for consideration? - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 04:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Fun stuff

Yeah, thanks for the heads up on that. Do too many things at once and I lose track of what i reverted and when... Carom 05:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Chevron

Thank you for the award. I look forward to continued work and cooperation with everyone in the project. Cla68 02:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support in the RfA. It doesn't look like it's going to pass now, but I appreciate your vote of confidence. Cla68 20:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Portal layout

Hi Kirill. Could you please help me on the Ottoman portal layout? The discussion is found here. Thanks in advance. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks Kirill. I went through many verifications and missed those 2 tags! SMH! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Mimimize category clutter?

Now thhat we have a tool to minimize template clutter, do we have anything to clean up this mess (bottom of the page...)?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

User statement made on Workshop

I was just wondering what your thoughts are about whether this is appropriate for the workshop. To me, it seems like a statement (and hence it should be in Evidence), as it quite clearly isn't a "proposed principle". I ask because, at this rate, the Workshop page will merely become a bunch of Ego's statements rather than something constructive for the arbitrators to work with. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 04:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

{{WPMILHIST}}

Hi Kirill, As you've seen ;), I'm doing another tagging run. It's on behalf of WPBiography but when doing military biographies I'm (hopefully!) helping your project out too by adding WPMILHIST. We're updating my plugin to support your newer taskforces; I thought I'd just ask if there's any other logic which needs adding or updating. For example, do articles of a certain grade need to get empty B-Class-1 to 5 parameters?

You can reply here as I have this page watchlisted (somebody has to keep an eye on you!) --kingboyk 19:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, the new task forces are probably all that's needed here. The other parameters are only useful when someone actually goes through to assess the article, and there's already instructions in the template itself for adding them in those cases; I suspect cluttering up talk pages with them before that point will just annoy people. Kirill Lokshin 20:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for the reply! --kingboyk 20:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Does the parameter for the middle ages taskforce need to be converted to medieval taskforce? Are they one and the same under different names? --kingboyk 18:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

They're functionally equivalent. The medieval parameter is probably the one that should be used in the future, as it's the documented one, but the older one will still work as expected. Kirill Lokshin 21:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[20], [21], [22]. (Edit summary needs improving, that's just demonstrating the logic). --kingboyk 17:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good! Kirill Lokshin 18:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Bcat

Have you thought of becoming a bcat? You're the one person I know that should make it. Let me know.Rlevse 12:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

Kirill, could you teel this user 142.77.237.76 to p*ss off and stop vandalising the John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough article. It's getting tiresome. Raymond Palmer 15:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a note re SouthEastAsian section

Because of issues previously - please note that I may well be back with complaints if I find eds creating things without reasonable checking with the Indonesian project - I was so impressed by your response on the template issue - that I have confidence that you have the capacity to resolve issues if they arise. I wish the project well - and hope it works. SatuSuro 06:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for that, I didn't know the ranks were purposely left out. I thought people were just being...clueless. lol. Thanks. Daniel VanAlstyne 06:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Military History Project

Hey, it's me again. I was wondering what I'd need to do to become an assisstant coordinator for the Military History Project. since you're the lead coordinator, thought I'd ask you. Thanks. Daniel VanAlstyne 06:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up

I've kinda been out of the loop lately, but I noticed that our first WikiChevrons w/oak leaves award was awarded. I was curious to know if my idea worked as well in practice as it did in theory, since I missed the nomination and discuss phase. On that note, I also wanted to thank you for the suggestions on the Iowa class battleship peer review and your comments on during the Armarment of the Iowa class battleship FA. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

{{military browsebar}}

Was the idea here to link to all military-related portals, or is there some selection criterion I'm missing? If it's the former, there's a few missing; see the bottom of Portal:War. We should probably figure out what we're going to do here, so we can avoid having to keep redundant lists. :-) Kirill Lokshin 12:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought about the redundancy in fact but wanted to experiment it and get a feed-back. We can delete it and revert all the edits if you believe so. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I like the browsebar idea; I was just wondering why some link were missing! The only real quibble I have with the placement is the horizontal lines before and after it; I'll need to play around with it some, but I suspect it'll look neater without them on most portals. Kirill Lokshin 12:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you think we can discuss it at w/ other coordinators? I am also not sure if it a good idea to keep it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I did some playing around, incidentally, and I think the version here is the placement I prefer. Other portal editors may, of course, disagree. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 12:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice tuning. Well, yes, we'll see what the reaction of portals' maintainers would be. Thanks Kirill. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Film banner tweak

What do you think of Wikipedia talk:Sandbox/un3? I'd love to put that into production, since the current version looks ugly: Talk:House of the Dead 2 (film). Do you think I should float it to the project? I can't just implement it, cuz the templates are protected. Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Kirill! They don't seem to be going for it... <sigh>

On an entirely different note, what do you think of this? I think that might address the BLP issue. Yay! :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Pre-1870 French Corps

I would like your opinion on seprating the current III Corps (France) article into two seprate articles. One dealing with the permanent III Corps established after the Franco-Prussian War and which fought in World War I and II plus active during the Cold War, named III Corps (France).

The portion about Davouts corps should be moved to III Corps (Grande Armée). The reason being that before the reforms after the Franco-Prussian War, France had several III Corps in diffrent armies. I would be grateful for to hear your thoughts. Carl Logan 17:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Coordinators

Thanks, I dont know how I missed that section before. Do you know when the next elections are? Also, how would I be entered into them to become a coordinator? Thanks. Daniel VanAlstyne 20:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

New article

I just created an article on the United Nations Peacekeeping missions carried out by the Pakistani Military and added to the Military of Pakistan template. I was considering renaming the article to Pakistan Military UN missions or Pakistani Peacekeeping Missions or to any name you would suggest, which one would you say best suits the information I've gathered so far.

I would appreciate your comments/suggestions or corrections.

Many thanks. Faraz 01:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 15	9 April 2007	About the Signpost

Danny Wool regains adminship in controversial RFA	Leak last year likely to produce changes for handling next board election
Association of Members' Advocates' deletion debate yields no consensus	WikiWorld comic: "Fake shemp"
News and notes: Donation, Version 0.5, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315

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 08:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)