User talk:Kirill Lokshin/Archive 2

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Thanks! and many happy returns... what a long way we've come in a year, eh? ++Lar: t/c 01:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Happy wikibirthday Kirill.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you be able to do some formatting for me? Pretty please? I've created a template for Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Dinosaur collaboration, & I'm not quite sure how to fix a problem. On the collaboration page, the 2 templates are overlapping & I want the template a different colour too. The template is {{WikiProject Dinosaurs Collaboration}}. I'd like the template the same colour as the other templates found on the Wikiproject Dinosaurs project page, under the heading templates. You're the best & I know you'll figure it out... Thanks, Spawn Man 01:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Tahkns Klirl! I kenw you culod fix the tmpletae plorbem. Tkanhs for yuor hlep! Mahuahhaha.... Spawn Man 01:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello friend, Kirill Lokshin. I wish you a very happy wiki-birthday, this day one year before you did your first edit. BTW, I learnt of the same from Wikipedia:Esperanza. All the best for the coming year! --Bhadani 13:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I join. Good to start working with you. :) NCurse _work 13:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I saw on your userpage that you're admin coach. Would you be mine? :) You can read about me on admin coach requests at number 50. Thanks. NCurse _work 14:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Then about how many edits should I have before a RfA? Maybe one day, I'd like to become admin here too. Until then, if you find any fault in my work, please let me know. :) NCurse _work 15:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I'm patient... And want to get medicine portal featured. When will they say that the number of support votes is enough? NCurse _work 15:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey,

I just wanted to thank you for your work so far on the WikiProject. I've been out for a couple of days, and was planning on tagging all the pages upon my return, but you've done away with the need for that! I'm really glad that interest in this project is starting to take off. I'll see you on the talk pages! Prototime 16:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If that page is around only for archival purposes, then where is the active list? I found this worklist by following a link on Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WikiProject full article list; I think that group would appreciate knowing where the discussion is actually happening, even more than me. -- llywrch 02:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Aha! It's the old "We'll hide this in plain site & he'll never find it" trick! Well, if it worked for Edgar Allen Poe in his story about the Purloined Letter, it ought to work for anyone. Seriously, when I see infoboxes, unless what I'm looking for is in the first few lines I tend to glance over them.

But I am very impressed with what your WikiProject has done in reviewing articles: it is the kind of review that needs to be done for a lot of Wikipedia. (I'll admit that I don't agree with how the group values a "Good Article" label, but I understand the reasoning behind it.) You need to make sure that the Version 1.0 Editorial Team & related groups are aware of what you have done! -- llywrch 02:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

(Sorry if this seems like spamming.) Hey, if you like Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history then you might like war.wikia.com where we need people (we have only 16 users) to write anything about war--fictional (i.e. Star Wars, LOTR) or real (i.e. WWII, American Civil War). Thank you! the_ed17 12:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I've noticed that you participate in almost every Featured portal candidates discussions. Since I haven't found any way to review a Portal (Although I recall seeing portals in WP:PR, I don't know if it is appropriate), I would like to have some kind of feedback before listing Portal:Portugal in WP:FPCAN. Would you help? If you have no time, don't bother. Thanks anyway. Afonso Silva 18:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks you so much for you attention. You were fast. I'll start correcting the problems you found right now. I agree with all your opinions, the majority of the issues were unknown to me.

• I'll include a credit in the image and expand the archive.
• The did you know section has been the least updated section in the Portal (mainly, because right now, I'm the only maintainer), I'll create an archive and update it.
• The red link in the categories was removed.
• About the things to do, I will keep a major box with a needed article and remove the collaboration, since it was never used.

Thanks again. After correcting the problems, I'll probably candidate the portal in WP:FPCAN. Cheers! Afonso Silva 19:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

ARGH! :-) I really wish I could tell you. Trust me on this one. It's quite simple really, If I just say that... <headbutts hands>. argh.

The reason I can't talk is because I promised not to say. <frustrated>

And no, he doesn't deserve people actually knowing what happened. Like I said, it's technically not his fault. Further punishment would suck.

Kim Bruning 21:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the arbcom, in their infinite niceness, decided not to make an example. So I'm respecting that. :-) Kim Bruning 18:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I am copy editing the Second Chechen War. (I spoke to you previously about the Portuguese Colonial Revolution which turned out well.) The Second Chechen War seems overinclusive, as if ever detail has to be deliniated. It is very long and I have spent time trying to organize it.

Is there someone I can speak to about the proper way of dealing with this situation? The First Chechen War, in contrast, seems very well organized.

The article has no rating. KarenAnn 23:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The talk page is not helpful.

Kirill, Just making sure that I'm understanding the project organization/roles. (I was asked this question.) Can anyone (presumably a WPMILHIST member) help in the Assessment department? For task forces, it is clear that one simply joins. Similar directions are missing on departments. —ERcheck (talk) @ 02:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Soil is a new wikiproject covering about 250 articles, almost all of which seem to be in a stub or start stage. Project formation was prompted by {{WPCD}} tagging. See here for the project's article assessment format. It includes an importance-to-the-project column. Any feedback on this approach would be appreciated. -- Paleorthid 16:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I see you are listed as coaching SFGiants, however it is listed as 'pending'. Could you please either move that to active if it is, or let me know if you are ok to take on a new trainee. Cheers, Petros471 20:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've assigned you to coach Jusjih, along with User:Voice of All. Thanks for helping out, let me know if you have any problems, or when you're ready for someone else. Cheers, Petros471 19:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I am an admin at seven Wiki sites using the same user name, so I have basic knowledge of administering Wiki sites. I do wish to become an admin here, but as this English Wikipedia is so big with even more complex matters and voters at RfA have various opinions, I am just not very sure if I am ready to administer this big site. As you and Voice of All are now my coaches, I would like to know what I should improve here before running for adminship here. I would like to help enforce the copyright policy as I do at other Wiki sites.--Jusjih 02:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your analysis of my contributions at English Wikipedia. I will try to improve vandal-fighting and community involvement, but these will take some time while I administer seven Wiki sites. When enforce the fair-use criteria, there are likely grey zones, for example, whether using Image:NJ Transit logo.png at Template:New Jersey Transit is fair could be open for questions.--Jusjih 07:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm a real novice when it comes to infoboxes and the like. I am hoping that you can help me, or direct me to someone who can.

The particular situation that I keep encountering is with the {{Infobox Military Person}}. In some articles, I would like to put an image to the left of the infobox; or insert within the text that is to the left of the infobox. It seems that any "right" inserts are all going below the infobox; those inserted to the left seem to line up with the bottom of the box.

Are there any tricks/simple commands that will help with layout? —ERcheck (talk) @ 02:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the answer. Well, I guess I'll have to adjust my formatting ideas/expectations, rather than trying to adjust the formatting. —ERcheck (talk) @ 02:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 24	12 June 2006	About the Signpost

From the editor: RSS returns
English Wikipedia reaches 1,000 Featured Articles	Administrator desysopped after sockpuppeting incident
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages	News and Notes: Wikimedia board resolutions, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report On Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line

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.

Message delivered by Ralbot 01:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Kirill Lokshin/Archive 2, and thank you for the supportive vote on my recent RfA! With a final vote of 84/1/4, I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. I will be slowly acclimating myself to my new tools over the next months, but welcome any and all feedback and suggestions on how I might be able to use them to help the project. Thanks again! - Kukini 13:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Kiril,thanks for the tags on the 1908/1912 cavalry sword article. I will confess I don't really understand how task forces work, but could you also do the same for the articles I,ve done on 1796 Pattern British Infantry Officer's Sword and [[Gothic Hilted British Infantry Swords (1822, 1827, 1845, 1854 and 1892 Patterns) ]]. I'd also appreciate advice on how to promiote from "b" quality grade. I know there are a coupel on clumsy sentances in the 1908/1912 article, partly due to partial edits, but what else does it need? Epeeist smudge 07:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kirill Lokshin, thanks so much for your support during my recent successful request for adminship. I really appreciate it, especially coming from an experienced admin as yourself. Take care -- Samirधर्म 06:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Look at the bottom of the article, please. Those are the sources.--HQCentral 03:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to go look at the sources at the library again to make that distinction. So, the tags serve no purpose.--HQCentral 03:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Collier's Encyclopedia: thank you for supporting me on this. It seems to me that the fact that HQCentral does not plan to fill in the citations is neither here nor there: it does not entitle him to say that they are not needed. - 23:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I was just wondering, on some military related pages I find the template WikiProjectBattles, which is very similar to the WPMILHIST, if not identical. Is it an older version? If so, should I replace it with the WPMILHIST? Thanks. --James Bond 10:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Would like your opinion regarding this point i've raised, here.--James Bond 11:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Kirill, I'd love to. But one thing: Mexico-Angola comes on in about 13 minutes. Is it all-right if I do it after that?UberCryxic 18:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I went through once and made some changes. Tell me what you think.UberCryxic 22:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I was surfing around and again stumbled on the United States Army page. For such a high profile article it needs some major work (actually it's a mess). Since it falls under the realm of WPMILHIST I figured I would ask your opinion as to the best way to begin cleaning this up. Make it a collaboration? Clean Up Task Force? Interested to hear your thoughts?--Looper5920 03:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Krill, I have been discussing with ERcheck the possibility of an Australian task force within the Military history wikiproject. There is at least 2 users; Nick Dowling and myself interested in helping. I have come to ask for help in setting up the force, im not sure where to start. Regards Hossens27 13:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for setting up the task force, im just about to start tagging article. Hossens27 06:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

If you could, there is a user who has begun removing all Operational names from military pages without any discussion. It is turning into a revert war and as I can feel my blood pressure rising. I am asking for sane outside help before it gets any worse. Your advice is welcomed.--Looper5920 23:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I am a bit concerned about your comment "we've had some problems with that user before." In my eyes, this shows how well the perfidious tactics of Zer0faults work. He reverts with excuses like "fixed redundancy" instead of just fixing the redundancy, bugs admins at the noticeboard instead of trying to resolve the conflict and misrepresents facts: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Zer0faults. I got blocked for a 3RR violation that was none by an admin who was in a conflict of interest, then for "block evasion" because IPs posted stupid messages with my signature, and the consensus shows my original move at United States invasion of Panama is supported by the community. Añoranza 00:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This is in violation of posting RfC's, please obey the rules, this action will be noted in the RfC. Also you just came off a 1 week ban for insulting admins, my 3RR block is minor compared to that, especially since your certifying user who accused me of 3RR was also blocked. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 00:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Congrats for driving another user into desperation, Zer0faults. Please stop using other users' talk pages for discussions with third parties. Incivil and fallacious comment stroken out. Añoranza 01:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Its on your talk page ... Right above where we are talking. Sasquatch upheld your 1 week ban because of incivil behaviour, did they not? I do not get what I am lying about, how about this user just read your own talk page and make a decision for themselves. I also do not know why you are calling them desperate. People just want to know how you go about your selection proccess, you seem to not want to answer this. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 01:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps my talk page isn't the best place for this conversation? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 01:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not adding increasingly severe templates to anyone's page, so don't comment as if I am. I added a justifiable CIV template and that's all. Why don't you focus on the bogus NPA temps dumped and re-dumped on my talk page? Haizum 04:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I may remove your comment on my talk page at some point. You're free to remove mine. Haizum 04:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Idea popped into my head to form a taskforce to cover wars between the kingdoms of the Near East (including Ancient Egypt, Asia Minor, Israel/Palestine, Mesopotamia) (NOT including Graeco-Persian wars, which stay in Classical warfare taskforce) to cover the grey area before the Classical warfare taskforce. Plenty to work from (Category:Battles of Egypt, Category:Battles of Babylonia, Category:Battles of the Canaanites, Battle of Megiddo....), and can draw members from Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt and Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near East, which both need revivifying. Any thoughts? Reply at User talk:Neddyseagoon or at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Ancient Near East taskforce? - I'm watching both Neddyseagoon 15:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Miborovsky is willing to second me. Permission to go ahead, mon capitan? :-) Neddyseagoon 18:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have very nearly finished writing the article on Nivelle. When it is complete, what should I do with it?

Ethers ^[talk]

Hey, I didn't know about that, the Military History WikiProject seems to be one of the best organized on Wikipedia, that's really commendable. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 25	19 June 2006	About the Signpost

Foundation hires Brad Patrick as general counsel and interim executive director	NY Times notices semi-protection policy
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages	Undeletion of images now made possible
Adam Carr's editing challenged by Australian MPs	News and Notes: Project logo discussions, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report On Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line

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.

Message delivered by Ralbot 23:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I thought'd I'd just point out to you that the 'comprehensive overview of politics coverage' has been changed (per you suggestion) to a small font size, which does look a lot better. I'm just telling you as you still sem to have it as a point of objeciton on the portal's nomination. --Wisden17 00:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to have mentioned it, but I jsut wanted to make sure you were now happy with that section after the cahnges you had suggested had been carried out. Incidentally, as you seem to be the resident FP expert, how long do nomination usually stay up for, it does seem to be considerable longer that FA and FL (as was noted on the FPC talk page)? --Wisden17 01:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree exactly with your assessment on the First Battle of Bud Dajo. crazyeddie and I (and I'm sure others) are committed to working this part of the story. eddie has been making quite good changes, and he and I disagree just enough we can find some truth here. Again, hail Kirill, and thanks for your ubiquity. BusterD 02:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

In the discussion you link to Anoranza is talking, but he is not changing his position at all. This is the same as all the other examples; he does talk, but he never compromises. (please respond here, I'll watchlist you) Ideogram 02:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It's only been a few hours; you can hardly expect him to suddenly do a 180 in so short a time ;-)

I still think that continuing the discussion is both necessary and likely to be productive (with or without his acquiescence). I don't really care what the ArbCom does with him, frankly; but I would prefer that its intervention not interfere too much with our own deliberations. Thus, my request to hold off on the (no doubt to be quite rancorous) proceedings until we've had some more time to figure things out on our own. Kirill Lokshin 02:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Just look at his edit history. It speaks for itself. Ideogram 02:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least they won't blame me for not trying :-) Kirill Lokshin 03:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I respect you for always trying to mediate. Someone has to do it. I'm a little too impatient for it. Ideogram 03:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. I've done a lot here and there to add perspecitive 'glue' as I term it being something of an oldster here at 51 years... I find the damdest things missing sometimes. The only real need I have is someway to come to grips with the huge size of the prospective watchlist. See the note I left on User Talk:LordAmeth#Request a small favor if you care to take a crack. He and I bumped last year when I was heavy into Sino-Japanese and Russo-Japanese warfare articles. Looks like the template you dropped is a good start, but I'm on wikibreak! (sure <g>) ttfn // FrankB 22:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Is the template {{MilitaryOperation}} this in use? Should we just use the {{Infobox Military Conflict}}? --James Bond 23:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I have now replaced all the {{MilitaryOperation}} templates with the {{Infobox Military Conflict}} ones. Deletion is underway. --James Bond 01:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No, not 1 for you. You can create a barnstar right? Not having photoshop, & having little skills in the area, may I recruit your help in creating a "WikiProject Dinosaur Barnstar" or a "Dinosaur Barnstar". I don't know how to go about it & what the process is. I'd like it to have like a t rex skull in the middle of a barnstar, or a bone barn star or a bone barnstar with the t rex skull in the middle etc etc. I'd appreciate anything or if you could point me where to go in a step by step easy to read way... Thanks mate, or if we're not friends anymore cause you never speak to me *sigh*. Anyway bye, & thanks, Spawn Man 05:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill! One of my posts to WT:Esperanza [1] offended another member [2]. Unfortunately, I didn't see that the member was offended for quite some time, but when I did, I apologised [3] immediately.

However, the apology was not accepted and others on Esperanza are not replying to my emails, so I thought "I get the hint" and have slung my hook. I believe that if there's a source of discord in an organisation, then its better to remove the source than the organisation (a surprising number of Wikipedians have it the other way around for some reason) - but unfortunately I seem to be a source here so going is best for Esperanza.

Thanks for your concern! I'll still be around on-Wiki - I'm much too addicted to completely take my ball home! I'll just have more time on my hands... :o) ➨ ЯEDVERS 10:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

please advice

AbuAmir 10:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Since you were the one who originally inquired about merging the Afghan war article and Operation enduring freedom, was wondering if you mind if I remove the merge tag now that the article has been expanded to cover all its operations? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I just know you want support another of my dino articles: Velociraptor, here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Velociraptor. You just can't resist can you? Can you? *Jedi Mind trick*. Have a good one my old friend.... Spawn Man 04:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC). P.S., what the heck does cabal mean??

Meany.... ;). Spawn Man 05:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

One of the history cluster blowhards is trying to muck up the Military leadership in the American Civil War, but I'm bumping up against 3rr. Could you look and if you agree with this view, help me convince Rjensen that deleting whole sections of article without discussion and intentionally posting poorly formatted material is vandalism. BusterD 11:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this has turned into an edit war and a 3RR violation by Rjensen, even after he was warned by Looper5920. BusterD 11:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at the dispute. I apologize if I ventured close to personal attack, but I won't let this article be turned into muck by one bothersome user. BusterD 15:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I,ve left you a message on the FAC page. I have attempted to address your points, can you take a look and see if I have?. Thanks Giano | talk 08:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Kirill!!! I haven't got a clue what to do with those templates - do you know? That sort of thing is completely beyond me - like engines! Giano | talk 13:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, I really like that solution. Giano | talk 16:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Since you are patient and good at mediating, and interested in Military History, I thought I would ask you to help out in the following Mediation Cabal cases:

• 2006-05-29 Russo-Turkish_War
• 2006-06-20 Crimean war

They involve the same user, although they have different mediators. (watchlisted you) Ideogram 04:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Notice the common party to both cases? Suffice it to say that we've had certain differences of opinion in the past, and that he isn't particularly fond of me as a result; I suspect that my presence here would be more of a liability than an aid, at least insofar as getting him to compromise is concerned. Kirill Lokshin

If even you can't deal with him, that's a bad sign. I suspect this is going all the way to ArbCom. Ideogram 04:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

He's productive enough that people tend to suck it up and deal with the accompanying behavioral issues, for the most part. He may very well wind up before ArbCom at some point, but I suspect it'll be as a consequence of the more substantial Russo-Polish or Russo-German frictions that always seem to hover in the background, rather than the occasional unrelated edit war. Kirill Lokshin 04:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

He's been in numerous failed mediations and an RFC already. Do you really think ArbCom will overlook this because of his productivity? He seems to think so, and is quite arrogant as a result. Ideogram 04:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty much his normal modus operandi. Given that an ArbCom case is likely to be quite bloody (regardless of what the outcome is, incidentally), I wouldn't even bother trying unless he did something really bad. Kirill Lokshin 04:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Argh, I hate letting him get away with this. What do you mean by "bloody"? What would you consider "really bad"? And surely ArbCom attention can convince him he's not invulnerable without necessarily imposing a harsh penalty. Ideogram 04:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

His other modus operandi. And by "really bad", I mean something so bad that the rest of that group would disown him; what that could realistically be, I haven't the faintest idea. Something ban-worthy at the very least, since he'll shrug off more minor consequences. Kirill Lokshin 04:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

(outdenting) So if I understand you, you are saying the Russians love him and an RFAR would provoke an open war between them and the Polish. Ideogram 04:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

And the Germans. And the Ukranians. And the Swedes. And the Latvians/Lithuanians/Estonians. And just about everybody else in eastern Europe. These conflicts have been brewing for years (the ones on Wikipedia; the real-life issues here go back centuries, obviously), and eventually all hell will break loose; but I don't really suggest being the one to set it off. Kirill Lokshin 04:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I just wanted to edit Wikipedia for fun, and look what I got into. You guys are scary. Ideogram 05:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup. This is why I mostly edit 16th-century Italian warfare articles, myself: there's no hidden toes to be stepped on. Kirill Lokshin 05:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

See my talk page for the latest. (watchlisted) Ideogram 12:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, what were you expecting? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I was expecting him not to notice :-). Ideogram 17:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I've noticed you have been puting tags on some of the battle articles I have been writing recently. Besides original contributions I have also been editing, correcting and rewriting existing pieces, some of which were dire and others truly dire! When you get the time you might want to cast your eye over the Battle of Bannockburn, Battle of Dupplin Moor, Battle of Halidon Hill, Battle of Methven, Battle of Dunbar 1296, Battle of Falkirk 1298, Battle of Stirling Bridge. I will be moving on in the near future to the Battle of Loudon Hill, Battle of Homildon Hill, Battle of Otterburn and the Battle of Flodden. I have also greatly expanded the stub on the 1651 Battle of Inverkeithing, though this is perhaps a little beyond your time remit? Might I suggest that some of the 'red headline' battle article requests be removed. For instance, only the sketchiest details exist for the 1304 'Battle' of Happrew, and any entry could never be more than a stub. As I have said elsewhere this is best mentioned in relevant items on the life of William Wallace. Rcpaterson 08:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes; I almost forgot the Battle of Verneuil. Sorry to be a nuisance! Rcpaterson 09:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill,

I am planning to start a new project, to make a historical atlas and to improve historical maps on Wikipedia. Many maps are very inaccurate (I don't like this one Image:Roman Empire.png for example). This will mean that i will not be directly involved in your Cartography Department, but we could cooperate. At the moment i have a few months free, so i got plenty of time for Wikipedia.--Daanschr 09:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding this! Let me know how I can help with anything related to the Confederate States Navy... I'll go through and start adding this to the talk pages.... Anything else I can do to help with this task force? -plange 21:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm finding lots of articles that aren't even rated with class or importance. I don't want to overwhelm you by adding these for assessment, so what should I do? -plange 22:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool, will do. Just gave USS Monitor High importance. I'll try to be conservative. Let me know if I do anything wrong ;-) -plange 22:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The name and/or title should be on the main page that visitors see. Burying important information is not in Wikipedia's interest of credibility. Sunshine and transparency are always best in situations were a few aelect people are given power. As it stands now, the Featured article director position is very powerful. And there seems to be NO accountability in the position at all. In fact, there is no set standards for the role of the FA director. He is free to do as he wishes. There is NO description of his role. Lastly, he was selected by a handful of editors nearly 2 years ago and there is no set end date to his reign. This is vulgar for a website that claims to let anyone edit. The millions of new people who have come to Wikipedia since he was selected have no idea that one guy in Delaware (or whereever) with a computer has so much power. This is wrong. --Jayzel 23:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 01:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Kirill, i was wondering what program do you use to draw military maps? Especially arrows and stuff. Thanks. BlueShirts 20:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

thanks man I'll try to draw something. BlueShirts 01:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, is there an option in GIMP so the lines you draw don't look so jagged? Thanks. BlueShirts 05:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Good thinking, I'll try using stroke instead of just pencilling it. BTW, what's the deal on map usage? I have some maps from books that I could use. I guess I can't just upload them because of the copyright. Plus I need to translate the town names and stuff. So I was thinking about tracing stuff from the maps and make some of my own. Is that okay? BlueShirts 05:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

How about like the maps you've made. Those are okay right? BlueShirts 05:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks man I'll look into it.BlueShirts 05:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 26	26 June 2006	About the Signpost

Quicker deletion of non-compliant images proposed	News and Notes: 100 x 1,000, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report On Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line

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.

Message delivered by Ralbot 23:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Great job on getting the Italian War of 1521 to featured status! You've once again proved that you are the man on Wikipedia when it comes to military affairs. Looking forward to more coverage and featured articles about the Italian Wars. Awesome job!UberCryxic 14:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Congrats from me too. I prepared a lil' improvement of the user page for you on that occasion... Hope you like it :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It is too high because of that Wikimania banner that destroys the layout... It used to be OK before that... :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought about that too. How about replacing Image:WikiChevrons.png with Image:Triplechevron_gold.png or something else? ;) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

User Armhead is vandalising pages going around looping redirects. A speedy block may help Andreas 15:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reacting so quickly Kirill. Andreas 16:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I am just posting to say good luck to you in the upcoming Esperanza elections, and I shall enjoy campaigning against you - you are a worthy opponent, as it were! All the best, and may the best man/woman/thing win! Kingfisherswift 16:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the help and advice with the articles. I started off fairly clueless about how to do things here on Wikipedia but you and others have really been supportive and helpful, not only with how to write an article, but helping them through the FA process. Thanks again. Cla68 23:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No, this was not intentional, this was due to me getting not enough sleep... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not too sure what you want me to do with the article. We all have something in mind about what we want for it & I'm sure what you're thinking is different to what I think you're thinking. Using the information already present, would you be able to show me what you want it to be like? Maybe you can shuffle the page around? I've added a Russian section with the little information on hand & I'm going to delete Tiffany if you agree as I don't want it to be focussed on specific jewellers. If you could add anything it would help as I have very little information on other culture's jewellery. I'd hate to see my own friend opposing right till the end, so I'll try & fix anything you want. Thanks, Spawn Man 23:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello. You are receiving this message because you are the Lead Coordinator of WikiProject Military history. I'd appreciate it if you would take a look at the article Military history of Switzerland, then encourage the participants of the Military history WikiProject to help expand the article. Thank you! --Randy Johnston (‽) 20:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's a picture of me. (Please click on "ice slides" in my signature). GangstaEB (talk • contribs • count • ice slides) 20:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Hi, Would it be possibe to add an extra field to the Military infobox template, ie:- Current Commander Label - I would like to use this to show the last know Commanding Officers of units, where known? Such as with the Duke of Wellington's Regiment, which has now rebadged as the Yorkshire Regiment. I've been able to put the labels for the last Ceremonial Chief and Last Regimental Colonel, so it only seems right to add the last CO. Thanks. Richard Harvey 22:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the definition of tendentious editing? (watchlisted) Ideogram 12:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a term the ArbCom uses for "Sustained aggressive point of view editing, especially when accompanied by edit warring" [4] Kirill Lokshin 12:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello kirill,I accept and agree with your concerns 100% about people wasteing time in edit wars when they could be creating new articles and improving others. You can count me interested in this project and i agree using "War on Terrorism" as a name is rather ill-advised as it is viewed by many people (particularly outside the USA) as a VERY POV name pushing the Bush43 agenda. Caution is advisable at the moment as we muster our resources (if there are any!). Seeing the arbitration now explains why Añoranza was getting such a bad reaction posting his factual info on propaganda.Hypnosadist 13:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback relating to the architecture portal - I'll be implementing changes as you suggest. I'd be greatful if you would clarify what you mean by:-

"The "Selected picture" section should include an image credit directly in the text." would you provide me with a link so I can see what you mean. Many thanks. --Mcginnly 14:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I am currently a new member (practically in infancy) of Wikipedia, and I have created the above, and am now asking your opinion on the general introduction. I plan to go through the tedious task of researching the article so it can be up to par with Wikipedian standards, so any general criticism or help is warranted. Thanks, OMEN 03:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I responded in greater detail at my talk page. OMEN 04:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You earned it ;-) OMEN 06:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

And yes, may I ask your opinion of my article @ Pernambucan Revolt? Sorry to bother you so much. OMEN 06:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Is there any information available on the actual military actions involved? Or were there no major battles in the revolt? Kirill Lokshin 06:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Information on the military activity in the revolt is, unfortunately, scarce. The only real major battle, to my knowledge, was the final siege that caused the revolt and the proclaimed republic to collapse. Information on the battles, casualties, and such is extremely difficult to find, and, perhaps, impossible. Thank you, for guiding a new Wikipedian through this! I did source all of the work from the article, and hopefully another author will come and take over. On a related not I added myself to the members list of Wikipedia's military history project. I hope to be a constructive editor - and again I thank you for you time that you have taken with me. OMEN 06:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, do you have any thoughts on how I can get that article to "good article" standing? ;-) OMEN 06:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I replied in the wrong place and chopped a comment of yours in half! --kingboyk 14:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

What kind of name is Kirill? I've seen it a few times on Wikipedia now. (watchlisted) Ideogram 15:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a Russian name. The more traditional transliteration was "Cyril", but "Kirill" is closer to how it's spelled in Russian, so I think it's actually becoming predominant now. Kirill Lokshin 16:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Kirill, Thanks for the barnstar recently, and with it coming from someone I respect so highly it means a great deal. I see that we are now close to 12,000, just a few days later! The contributions from WP:MILHIST have given a great boost to this whole process. I'm hoping we'll reach 100,000 tagged articles (incl. unassessed) articles by the autumn. I'm also hoping we can reach 500 articles for V0.5 by end-July, if you have time to help...! Many thanks, Walkerma 01:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, WP:FA is definitely a good source, only a couple of days ago I pulled out ten of the important computer articles from that section. Please feel free to import large lists of suitable FAs, I think we should have a lot more nominations flowing in than we do. Many FAs are on relatively obscure topics, though.

Making contact by no. of templates is an interesting idea, but in fact we've already contacted all the active projects listed as of October 2005. Keeping track of all the projects (there are over 700!) and all the articles they tell us about is a big part of the work, but maybe I will try and have these more active groups "jump the queue". As for the figure skaters, they're already on to us! It's really hard to know what response you'll get, though - sometimes a large group simply ignores your posting. Part of me likes the fact that we do try and contact everyone, because it helps "the little guy" and also gets the word out into all sorts of obscure specialist corners of Wikipedia where few "outsiders" venture - some of those groups transform themselves, or start new COTMs, or even have members helping us at WP1.0! I'm a great believer in sowing seeds on Wikipedia. On that note, I need to get on and contact Porn Stars! Thanks for all your help, Walkerma 05:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Howdy! I was wondering how you do the newsletters? Do you have to go to each member's page and paste it in, or is there some script that Wikipedia has that automates that (once I create it)? Besides my involvement in the MilHist project I've started one of my own for fans of Firefly at WikiProject Firefly and would like to implement the same thing.... thanks! plange 15:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that must take you a long time!! Thanks for all that you do! plange 16:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 26	26 June 2006	About the Signpost

Angela Beesley resigns as Wikimedia Foundation trustee	Requiring confirmed email suggested for uploads
Wikipedia cited by the England and Wales High Court	Unblock requests directed to new mailing list
News and Notes: Wiktionary milestone, privacy policy update	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report On Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line

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.

I find your templates quite impressive. I read about them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment but there is one thing which is not clear to me (might be a good idea to add your answer there). That is: let's say I want to add this template to article that does not have it, or update it. Should I add info on that to some list at WikiProject, or is just adding and possibly assesing the article on it's talk page enough? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

All right, I have 'done' the Talk:Armia Krajowa then - I hope this is what we are supposed to do :) Few other notes: I'd like to upgrade Władysław Sikorski and Polish-Soviet War from high to top, as they are notable outside the field of mil-hist (PSW was a very important war for history of Europe, and Sikorski was the leader of nation, not only a general). I also find the Top-High-Med importance ranking skewed. Either we need to add a 'low', or rename then to High-Med-Low. Since adding new cat should be easier, I have an idea for what low could cover: fictional stuff (fictional battles, equipment, etc. - example: Light Attack Craft). What do you think about this?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can see your reasoning, but a scientist I am afraid it makes it a biased, broken scale, which is likely to make it useless as people will tend to misuse the ratings, not realising 'med' is the lowest. I'd strongly recommend revising it; starting with 'low' for fictional themes should be a good idea (or we can simply add new cat, 'ficton', for them).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry.

But now, you realize the power of AWB, since I can now select my own contribs I just made and remove what I did automatically... :P -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Is the parent theatre, the sub is netcentric warfare. Battlespace encompasses all types of theatres under one roof including information. Cordially List of marijuana slang terms 02:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should change the header to "Battlespace" and create it as an internal wiki link instead of theatre. List of marijuana slang terms 02:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Tactics is a short-term plan. Netcentric-warfare is a strategy not a tactic. Battlespace is a strategy not a tactic. Cordially List of marijuana slang terms 02:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I added the one's I believe should go in Battlespace but left them in their original categories for now. Take a look and let me know what you think List of marijuana slang terms 03:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

All project notice banners are now deprecated. They were removed from Category Pages and transformed into {{WPMILHIST|XXX-taskforce=yes}} on talk pages. There must be some refs remaining in User: and User_talk: spaces but not much. Wewt? :))

Wewt? -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's why I asked to have access to AWB in the first place :) And I'll try to get the next newsletter delivered through it too... :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Aaaaaaahhhhh... That is exactly the main question about AWB. I planed to use it that way (that's why I asked for the access actually).

The answer is: I'm not sure. AFAIK, you can't have something like "if something on article than do something on talk page", but this is easily solved by a few Excel tricks.

My main concern is how to go thru categories recursively. You can feed a category to AWB, but it does not go thru the subcats (maybe in order to avoid infinite loops, or probably because it is complicated to do). And since I just started on AWB I have no easy answer... :((

I'll do my investigations tomorrow though, so stay tuned... :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: lol, I think I'm not the only one to ask such a question, (see here). -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I did not know about that tool! I'll look at it tonight (my proxy filters it out at work) and if it works, I'm up to it (I'm starting to love AWB...) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 10:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the Portal. Your review was really important, keep your good work! Cheers! Afonso Silva 09:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that we are taking a wrong-headed approach towards the addition of categories. I think that Wikipedia should take a page from the Dewey system, and set up categories willy nilly, and let the authors fill them as the opportunity arises. I agree that duplicate categories are wasteful and unnecessary, but a well thought out system of categories, with their attendent subcategories, would be more useful that waiting to create categories as authors write articles that fit them. In other words, let the Horse lead the Cart, NOT the other way around.SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 16:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I used the link you provided to get a list of all talk pages there... all 11K+ of them... 8O So I have a question: Is everything there in scope of WPMILHIST? For instance is .22 Long Rifle in scope of WPMILHIST template??? -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

In other words, I can go through the 11K of them without remorse??? -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I wanted to talk to you about something separate from the discussion page with regard to featured portal candidates. I was wondering, firstly, whether nominations are successful or unsuccessful by a simple vote. Then I thought about some people I have communicated with about the candidacy for the Northern Ireland Portal. In my time in Wikipedia, I have come across some objection to canvassing for votes. I have recently contacted some users who contribute to articles relating to Northern Ireland, and have also contributed to the NI notice board and NI articles Project that I set up. I'd like to make it clear that this wasn't canvassing as such, but more an attempt to reinforce the existence of these as what I consider valuable tools to be used for the improvement of Wikipedia articles in relation to the subject matter. The people I have contacted appear to be quite objective in any case, and I hope to get their opinions and possible suggestions on how to improve the Portal.. and maybe to help maintain it and the Project. --Mal 23:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd overlooked that WikiProject, probably due to seeing the words 'military history' everywhere for the past week or so :) I'll add links to it now though. Thanks. You've done some great work towards 1.0 over there. Take our usage / rip of your teams hard work as a compliment. -- Longhair 03:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Now I remember the real reason. I'm currently thinking over a way to have both projects function without overlapping the efforts of each other. I didn't want to go posting almost duplicate templates onto too many talk pages. I'm happy to work towards bringing you guys into the loop as much as we can. -- Longhair 03:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was planning to do a article on LZXRAY today as a general geopgraphical area rather than something about the battlefied today. And I need to put in pictures, so I'm not sure if people feel this may be necessary to do, but I'll do as you suggest now, so please keep watching the Battle of Ia Drang page for complaints!! --Shenshuai 17:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I take back part of the comment I just made, I'm currently editing the LZXRAY page right now, but it's getting stuffy in this room and I can't upload files correctly today for some reason and I need to go shoot a film right now so I will continue it as soon as possible. But thanks though! --Shenshuai 17:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you help me with this please? <_< How should we explain that... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Cyde posted the entry on WP:AN. Can you give your statement there as an admin please? :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill, do you think we got ourselves a consensus on WP:AN or not yet? Best, Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

But do you think that including the final point stops anyone trying to "own" an article? I doubt it. My concern is that I think perfection is achievable (if not in every article, certainly in many), and that we don't want to discourage WPians by telling them that they can never achieve it. After all, the title of the article promises that we're going to tell them how to do this. I like the title. Tony 15:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me draft a proposed note that I'll put to you; no time right now. Tony 15:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and rational, logical comments on the V0.5 and Eagle Scout issue. I can't understand where some of those reviewers are are coming from. Rlevse 17:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill. What should be done with this template? It is historical, I understand. It is linked to only about 900 pages, maybe we should replace it with Template:WPMILHIST everywhere? Cheers, -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I've asked the question because I'm writing an article about Vasilevsky, loosely based on Russian Wiki but with inline citations and stuff... :)

If you can spare a few mins, can you have a look at it in my Sandbox : User:Grafikm fr/Sandbox The points 1.1 to 1.3 are almost finished, so if you have any coments or if you feel something should be corrected, you are welcome to say so :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What I would like is your opinion on the fact whether citations from his memoirs are really appropriate and whether they should be reinforced in some places. And the part on WWII is not even started yet :)) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Given that you convinced me that the way I handled the edit war over the unfree image was not elegant, would you perhaps review the situation at Talk:Stephen Harper, as the edit war is continuing. Jkelly 05:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Jkelly 05:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Why did you do this revert of a seemingly uncontroversial edit?

• [5]

Ta. --Mais oui! 06:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Pls see my 17:14 comment on Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_July_8#Template:Good_article. The deletion Nazis haven't allowed us to discuss it in any other central forum. They argue the template is against policy but won't answer my questions about the policy nor how to change it. Rlevse 17:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC) PS: your thoughts and mine on the V0.5 importance debate are virtually mirrors of one another. Rlevse 17:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

How much work would you say a portal facilitator puts in each week? I know you're involved rather heavily in MilHistProj, so there's overlap, but what would be your estimate (measured in hours per week, say) for how much would be necessary for an American Civil War portal, for example. I'd be interested in working on such a project, but I'm not sure I'm quite experienced enough at this moment to lead one. I'd try.

Is there a risk that the portal page itself becomes a flash point for controversy? I'm not interested in igniting any fires, but would like to assist the process in some way. There's a bargeload of decent content already built, but the field seems to need a structure of some kind. The navbox Hal built and I tweaked is quite spare in terms of content, yet really doesn't do justice to the field. The ability to rotate content focus seems a strength of the portal platform (or projects, for that matter). The ACW Main page is such a battleground; I wonder if a portal might solve this problem, or open a Pandora's box. BusterD 23:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. One thing: "...depending, also, on whether you want to replace existing inclusions of the big menu template with a link to the portal..." Please explain what you just wrote. I'm a tiny bit confused about how it works. I've found all the relevant big articles. Thanks. BusterD 00:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Woot, I finally finished overhauling Vasilevsky, I think it is much better now. And it even has an infobox! :))) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Grr, I knew that the list would be a bad idea. I converted it to prose :) --Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I keep seeing articles on wars that don't have any reference to its battles. Their should be battles in articles (for ex. World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War etc..) do not have a list of battles for their articles. Last time I checked, the American Civil War has a great list of all the major and minor battles in the war. We should be consistent and do this for other articles. Oyo321 00:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a great deal of problems with the "importance" tag as it currently stands - it's fairly confusing, and could really do with more than three levels and a "low" entry... but anyway.

The swathe of battles I did yesterday were mostly those in the classic The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World; whilst it's a bit of an outdated book, it seemed to be a good proxy for determining the significance of battles we'd otherwise tend to forget (with that lovely post-1914 systemic bias we tend to have), and I wanted to populate the category a bit. Feel free to downgrade them... Shimgray | talk | 10:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, no worries about the revert - I seem to do that about once a week myself... Shimgray | talk | 10:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Mmm. I think we probably need to define more clearly what is a x-importance article, but I'm not sure how to start. (It might also be worth thinking about a "completed" rating - it doesn't seem conceptually right to still have an article sitting in Top once it's at FA-level...) Shimgray | talk | 13:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd forgotten 1.0 was using importance as well as quality as criteria for inclusion... you're right. Shimgray | talk | 15:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Volume 2, Issue 28	10 July 2006	About the Signpost

Reuters tracks evolution of Ken Lay's death on Wikipedia	Creating stable versions using existing software proposed
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages	News and Notes: Blocking changes, privacy policy update
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report On Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line

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.

Hello Kirill Lokshin, I was forwarded to you by User:Jkelly regarding a matter, since he believes he's already too far into the matter to make any administrative actions. This is regarding the Stephen Harper article, and the use and/or non-use of a fair use image. Over the past week, the fair use image was deleted since a free image was available. Some Wikipedians, including User:Michael Dorosh were against the deletion of the fair use image since they believe the free images are not appropriate. My position was that given Wikipedia's policy the fair use image could not be used.

Regardless, since I weighed in with my position, I feel that Michael Dorosh has belittled in many of his comments. While I trying to assume good faith, it is becoming increasingly difficult. He first, in an off-topic discussion on the Stephen Harper talk page brought up that my own user page was against fair use policy because it had the Google Logo (when there is actually no Google image on my talk page). When I pointed to him that there was no image, but just coloured text, and that he was using, in my mind, and Ad hominem argument to prove his point, he wrote "Also, please check the page on Ad hominem as I think you may be using the term incorrectly; no offence meant, I realize Latin is not everyone's first language." While the first part of that sentence would have just been fine (as there are different views on Ad hominem, the second part of the sentence noting that Latin is not everyone's first language is, in my opinion belittling.

Then when he started a vote, I voted, but noted that instead of a vote consensus should be tried instead. He wrote "Jeff - consensus is very often used in Wikipedia to settle matters; you must be rather new to WP. Once you've been here awhile, I am sure you will productively contribute to many vote-situations in order to build consensus" again reasoning with me like I do not no how to act like a Wikipedian. I then noted that I have been on Wikipedia for nine months, and do know how Wikipedia works and pointed to User:Angr's post that m:Polls are evil, he wrote back "Jeff, Jeff, Jeff...if you have truly been editing for 9 months than surely you know by now what 'consensus' means".

I feel all these posts have no purpose on discussing the matter and hand, but are used to discredit me and my knowledge. I was wondering what you suggest I do. -- Jeff3000 18:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Portal approval process counter to Wikipedia's aims? Discussion opened. SilkTork 08:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, didn't want to spam the discussion, but as I'd like to see a slightly broader scale of perhaps four levels, I thought one possible way of doing it would be to use Roman numerals (say I-IV, with "I" corresponding to "Top") with extended class descriptions, that way we might do away with inherently loaded wording. I do appreciate the the proposals at the project talk page, but I feel that having only two "regular" levels is a bit restrictive. Suppose the status of the English wikipedia as the lingua franca -pedia does complicate matters (as everybody want to share their obscure history..) Regards, Scoo 12:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, suppose we'll have to make do with the current tool set (still like to see it expanded with one level though). Scoo 12:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably a touchy issue indeed. One can only hope that editors dare or will dare label articles dealing with obscure national issues as "low" at some point in the future, or that editors will have the self-discipline to do that. A good suggestion by the way regarding alternate naming, essentially what I'd like to accomplish with Coastal defence ship or a future less awkward titled article. Scoo 19:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Kirill,

I have started making significant revisions to the existing article on the Battle of Eckmühl and would appreciate your comments/thoughts.

--Paco Palomo 17:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input on the Low-importance rating. I've changed the template code (called ScoutingWikiProject}}, rated some articles as low, and created the category. Is there anything else I need to do for the bot to work properly? Rlevse 23:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The bot picked it up and it worked fine. Thks. Rlevse 09:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I know you're probably busy but I have a question. Who would you recommend for helping out with a bio-article being written by the person, citing references/sources from their own website, and a writing style that reads more like the inside of a bookflap than an encyclopedic entry? I'm pretty sure they have good intentions but I am apparently not making the problems clear enough. I could really use some help as I think the article could be a good one and I have no idea where to go for more info. ←ΣcoPhreek→ 05:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I've done some of that, I'll do it again. If that still doesn't work where on Wikipedia can I go for help on this? ←ΣcoPhreek→ 05:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You were kind enough to offer comments on this article when it was a featured article candidate last December. I've completely rewritten the article and hope to re-submit it as a FAC. In the interim, I have posted it at Wikipedia:Peer review and hope you'll offer comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bricker Amendment/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 16:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill!

You may have noticed that the The Duke of Wellington KG LVO OBE MC DL has been appointed Deputy Colonel-in-Chief of the Yorkshire Regiment.

Would it therefore be possible to add a new field to the infobox to cover this:-

|deputy_ceremonial_chief=
|deputy_ceremonial_chief_label=Deputy Colonel-in-Chief

Thanks. Richard Harvey 18:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow that was quick. Agreed! How does that go for the titling on the page infobox,? do I add a second set of fields in the infobox or put them on the same line after first person - second person? Richard Harvey 18:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Tried a couple of variances and settled on:-

|ceremonial_chief=first person<br>second person

|ceremonial_chief_label=Colonel-in-Chief:<br><br>Deputy Colonel-in-Chief

The extra colon and double line break in the label field tidies up the presentation on screen. See Yorkshire Regiment is that okay with you? Richard Harvey 19:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for having rated the article Roman infantry tactics, strategy and battle formations. Would you be so kind to compilate a detailed list of to do things in order to improve the article? --Philx 07:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems that someone had deleted that section, the sources however are: Caesars'de bello gallico, Vegetius's De re Militari, Notittia Dignitatum and Dupuy Charles and the brother don't know the title of their book because were used By R.D.H and seems that he has left the wikipedia... Could you help with these issues? --Philx 15:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your advises but my only partner left and to whom can i ask to provide sources used by him? --Philx 15:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you again, but i've not got his e-mail address so I can't send him an e-mail.--Philx 17:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well what can I say? Thank you! Does he usually respond to e-mails? --Philx 18:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to abuse of your disponibility and kindness but it is a normal tha an article can be retagged? I mean first the rating of Romani infantry ecc ecc was B and now Start? Does this make sense? I mean one can find it good one bad another stub, so there is a meter or is only ad personam value?--Philx 18:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry i tiped wrong, it seems that the article with the passing of time is deterioring... --Philx 18:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

So , let's say that is common that a wikifriend tagging the article will be more generous and another will be more, well less generous ? Because this is what happend i think, because I and R.D.H haven't respceted too much Silence's opinion on the article --Philx 18:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

well, saw the members of the classical warfare task force, i think that the only that hasn't completely tocuhed the article is you. --Philx 01:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay boss --Philx 14:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC) BTW what did you mean with choppy prose parts? --Philx 14:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to take up your time with an off-topic question, but I don't know who else to ask. I am a native speaker of Spanish, but when I tried to put the "es-N" info box on my user page it keeps rejecting/not displaying it. What do I need to do?

Thanks--Paco Palomo 18:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that--for the first few I did I was getting "high" and "top" confused in my head. I thought I'd corrected all of them before I saved them, but I guess not. I did intend to rate that article as "top" (dang, I almost said "high" again) importance. Thanks for catching it. ScreaminEagle 23:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, please unblock my account, I would like to use it again. I requested that it be protected, I was not permanently banned. Thank you

If you have no serious reason to revert the restoration of an article to its state before an out of process deletion now under IFD please stay out of it. Or share your thoughts on the IFD page. I've posted an info on the tawkerbot2 page as requested by its owner. 217.251.169.53 02:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S:: That was your version I tried to restore. Reply copied from obscure (my POV) anon talk page:

I'm well aware of that. Please let the IFD run its course first and replace the image after; otherwise, it's just extra (and completely unnecessary) work to remove it again if it gets deleted. Kirill Lokshin 03:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned you can pick whatever image you like, and if you like pschemp's choice it's fine. I reverted it only because speedily deleting several images out of process and then adjusting "reality" for the later IFD would be gross. But apparently this page was the only case wrt . If you prefer a one dot transparent PNG feel free to ask, the 4KB "no image" PNG is IMO rather ugly. 217.251.169.53 03:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply on User talk:217.251.169.53 not copied again.

Stoneage browsers get a "broken image" icon for any inline PNG, so let's forget this offer if you don't care about the format - the PNG is "larger" (134 bytes vs 45). <g> 217.251.169.53 04:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I often find that the MilHist and Scouting projects intertwine. I first came across you when you helped me get the Scouting portal to featured portal status. I came across User:ERcheck on an article of mutual interest, which I think was one of the four Eagle Scouts who is also an MOH recipient. He helps me improve articles and you've helped me with project stuff. As I recall you are the MilHist coordinator and I am the Scouting coordinator. I have also often let ERcheck know when I find a military article without your project tag or some major work an article needs and he has always been johnny-on-the-spot. In summation, I just want to say thanks and hope our two projects continue to work well together. Rlevse 03:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Please voice your (support obviously :) on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aleksandr Vasilevsky :)

Thanks, -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill,

Do I guess that we can go back to article tagging? :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

AWB heated and ready to go. Oh, I should heat up the member list for the newsletter too ... :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing, but I have to try to convert the list with Excel and so on :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and as for coordinator elections, this does not seem to excite crowds... :( -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Grrrr... Well, off to update my list, since it was created before AWB supported (pseudo)recursivity... Thanks for pointing it out Kirill! -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I recreated the list and will go from top to down. This is going to be less messy but longer... Oh well.. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm welcome. I'm relativley new to wikipedia and its nice to hear from someone.Shoe1127 15:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

...that the article Wehrmacht was not tagged with the WPMILHIST tag??? 8O

OK, I finished the first tagging, with more than 400 articles tagged out of a 3000+ initial list. This is unfinished, since this first pass only articles with non-blank talk pages. A second pass will take care of those blank pages.

Now I understand why they call it janitorial work.... :))

Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

the 3K count (which is incomplete still) is from Category:Individual military units only, I haven't started the other cats yet (except the messy try yesterday, but that was only like 60 edits... :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill,

The Vasilevsky FAC goes bad because of style issues :( So, I need your insight on the style, especially considering the great prose of your two FACs :P

So can you please spare a few minutes of your time and take a look at the article? :))

Could you also point me to some people you know inside the WP:MILHIST (or outside for that matter) that are good copyeditors?

Thanks a lot,

Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for offering your help for that! :)) Cla68 already did some copyedit, but I think it all needs triple-checking (the article, not the copyed...) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, the copyedit is going nicely, but the page needs more than ever an external eye of someone who never read it... :) Thanks! -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

fr:Bataille_de_Smolensk_(1943) :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the did not it's only half-complete. What is more dramatic is the translator making factual errors, such is messing up "divisions arriving FROM Orel region" and translating it by "divisions arriving to Orel region"... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you help me set up an assesment page like the one you helped the Military and Scouting people set up?

I would like to set it up here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Philadelphia#Assessment

Your help would be appreciated. --South Philly 03:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• This is what I was referring to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting#Assessment. I guess I can give it a shot. I'll get back to you if it doesn't work ... South Philly 21:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

He's probably thinking of how I copied your code to start my assessment stuff. Rlevse 22:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to thank you for all the assessing you did on my war articles yesterday. Giving them all high priority, the honour! Thanks again, Spawn Man 00:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC).

Hi Kirill,

Please meet my new bot, Grafikbot. He will perform the MILHIST newsletter delivery once a month and some template replacing (I saw it is necessary to deprecate these old shortcuts to WP:MILHIST because it potentially creates two WP:MILHIST entries (dunno why)).

If he screws up on something, block him and warn me please :)

Cheers, Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you notice this is up for FA removal? One person said there was "no progress". One thing that jumped out at me is that the refs are all out of whack. I'd hate to see this get de-FA'd. I'll try to help on the refs. Rlevse 01:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• I just fixed the refs. There may be a few stragglers.Rlevse 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Kirill, I saw that you recently had to drop out of the Avatar: The Last Airbender WikiProject due to lack of time, and I just wanted to thank you for your contributions to the project. I hope you'll keep it in mind if you ever have more time in the future! Prototime 06:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you tagged Cyrus the Great with the Military history WikiProject tag. First off, thanks! I never knew whether or not it belonged in there. However, I've changed it from Ancient Near East task force (4000 BC - 700 BC) to Classical warfare task force (700 BC - 500 AD), as Cyrus lived in the 500s BC. Just wanted to clarify with you if this was the right thing to do; if not, please let me know. ♠ SG →Talk 16:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, glad to know I didn't make a mistake. I'm not involved with the MILHIST project, so I had no idea. Thanks again. ♠ SG →Talk 16:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!!!! I'm so pleased it finally made FA!

*Hops around the room singing "как была чиста дорога, как горел звездой закат, и только кони меня в бездну у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-носили!!!"*

Off to thank everyone who copyedited it! :)

Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot! It is the 100th WPMILHIST FA!!! An announcement by our lead coordinator maybe? :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, keep up the good work guys! Walkerma 04:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

A very nice lady wikipedian asked me to look at this for her. I come across her from time to time. I've made suggestions at User_talk:Phaedriel in a section named after the portal. Since you have so much experience at this, I was wondering if you'd look at this before she noms it for FP too, especially the technical side. Rlevse 12:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a request for guidance. I don't know whether it's me that's in error or the other person or whether we're just marching to different drums. I added text to the article on Hiwis; Mikkalai removed it. In the talk page, I have quoted my source, which I think is reliable, but Mikkalai discounts it or is rude about my ability to understand it. It sounds trivial, I know, but it's got under my skin. I usually back off arguments but .... Your advice would be valued, particularly if I'm at fault. I added a similar appeal to the Military history talk page, without response. Folks at 137 17:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'm away for a few days, so that will give "chill" time. Then maybe it can get resolved. Folks at 137 22:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You could also file a Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal request. --Ideogram 18:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

May try this. Thanks. Folks at 137 22:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The bot is ready, but can this wait for tomorrow? It's nearly 3am here... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite, if it's not military history, or indeed military in general, then what exactly is it? Other than apparently, "inevident" and "fluid"? Alai 06:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

But "subtly different" isn't a great basis for robot-population of what's likely to be a very large category of Wikiproject articles, so I'd rather have a clearly defensible statement of which cats (and stub types) clearly are, rather than which "might be", even if it errs on the conservative side. Not for the purpose of limiting the scope of project to those, simply the initial actions of the 'bot. Alai 06:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Abe is not simply under military, he's under military history, in terms of article-space categories. I don't think fiction is the main issue, I think "current" is (if we ignore the "stuff outside of military", which I don't imagine you'd be proposing to automatically tag in any case). e.g. are the X-46 and William E. Ward automatically to be included on the basis of categorisation? Alai 07:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/T-34/archive1. I've addressed some of your concerns with the article, and posted an update on the comments page. I wonder if you'd mind reviewing your objections and maybe crossing one or two out—help keep up the troops' morale?

Thanks, Michael Z. 2006-07-08 07:33 Z

I think I've addressed all of the reference issues at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/T-34/archive1 (details at talk:T-34#Drive for Featured Article quality). Please have a look, and let me know if there's anything else you think needs attention for you to withdraw your objections. Thanks for the critical eye—the FA review has already resulted in some notable improvements to the article. —Michael Z. 2006-07-13 17:21 Z

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

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot.

Delivery started at 13:31, completed at 14:29.

Overall time: just below one hour. (don't want to set the bot timer to less than 5 seconds)

Wewt? :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill - it seems to me, personally, that since Tours is of top importance, since the vast majority of historians rate it as a conflict that literally determined the fate of mankind, that the primary actor in that Battle should also be of top importance. (and that does not even factor in that additionally he essentially gave birth to western civilry, the Carolingian Empire, which is named after him, went on to further drive out the Islamic invasions of 736-37, protected Saint Boniface and made possible his missions, and far more!)old windy bear 15:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you at least move Imjin Wars back to Imjin War? Taeguk Warrior 17:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through every one of Melchoir's, very good, inputs. Let's see what happens. I've put this on ERcheck's page too. Rlevse 19:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't find any guideline mentioned (apologies if I missed them). The consensus I've seen on Wikipedia for Royal Navy pennant numbers seems to be the class number (e.g. R) then a full stop and then the number...Outside Wikipedia the fullstop/period is omitted - a practice which I concur with. What is the official Wikipedia way of handling them? Thanks, -Harlsbottom 22:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide a link for the Ships WikiProject, please? I just did a search and the only thing it came up with was a page which hadn't been created!Cheers, -Harlsbottom 00:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You were kind enough to comment on the previous FAC for the Bricker Amendment. I have now proposed it as a featured article after extensive revisions and would appreciate your vote here. PedanticallySpeaking 17:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

yes i just wanted to do that only on the page. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment

but by the time i went to correct it u already did it. thanks anyway. nids 22:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's one of those things that when I see it I can't help but correct it. I realize I probably should have asked you first though, so I apologize. But in case you're curious, periods and commas are the only punctuation that always go inside quotations marks, without exception. Exclamation points and question marks only go inside quotation marks if they are actually a part of the quotation itself--otherwise they go outside the quotes. I certainly don't know every punctuation rule, but that's one of the ones I learned pretty well (probably because it was easy to remember for once). :-) --ScreaminEagle 05:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

do you know why the mathbot didn't run last night? Rlevse 13:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index Rlevse 16:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

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

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 18:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

OK Kirill, can you just tell me when the msg is ready and post it somewhere so I can deliver it? :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Delivery started. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Delivery complete at 19:39 (wonder what took so long). -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You are a worthy opponent. I hope that neither of us lose.Geo. 21:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Kirill, I must admit that your suggestion that I run brought immediate chuckling. I believe you have a well-deserved lock on the position. I can't imagine anyone else with the dedication, technical knowledge, organizational skills, ability to contribute to/balance multiple projects (War Portal, admin, admin coach, etc.) (OK, so there is a need for assistant coordinators...) I won't reject your suggestion out of hand. I'll give it some thought. — ERcheck (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

First, let me say I'm flattered that you would suggest I run. I'm always wary about nominating myself for anything. If someone puts my name up, I'll accept the nomination (a "Draft Nobunaga24" campaign, haha), but to be honest, I think you've been doing a great job. Are you not interested in doing it any longer? My strongest qualification right now is tons of free time - my job, teaching English in Japan, consists of about 2 hours of teaching and six hours in front of a computer with nothing else to do. However, my interest in military history is pretty narrow in scope - Japanese and modern U.S. military history, and even though I don't usually edit articles in these areas, age of sail naval warfare and early jet age fighter aircraft. As far as a self-nomination, I'll think it over, however if you want to throw my name up there, go ahead, and then I'll make my case as to why I should be "The Man" :-) --Nobunaga24 02:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, while I've been a bit tardy these recent times, yes, I will probably stand again now that the pressures of life are easing off! I'm also going to put in some graft and finish the last chunks of my pet project, Military history of New Zealand. Good luck to you! --Loopy ^e 04:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sir, aye-aye, sir!^_^ -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I made my statement. Watch out, there are some important information in it... :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, interesting indeed :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you replace the current: with this one? It it's the Dutch naval jack and it's also a bit less dull.  Rex  14:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Kirill, as you may have noticed, I have both endorsed you for reelection as coordinator - I think you put a tremendous amount of work in this project, and continuity is a must - and nominated myself for an assistant position. I would not ask you to endorse my name, but I would hope you would comment that every time I have been asked, I have worked on projects to the best of my ability, as in the rewrite of the Mongol Invasion of Central Asia. If you feel that inappropriate, (as you are the present and hopefully future coordinator) I understand. In any event, I hope you are reelected, you deserve it. old windy bear 18:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

A strange behavior has arisen in the Imjin Wars article, which you placed uner a "Move block". So far, we're still discussing the appropriate title for this article, and 3 candidates have emerged:

• Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea
• Imjin War
• Seven-Year War

However, Appleby (talk · contribs), Damool (talk · contribs), and Dollarfifty (talk · contribs) are collaborating in a revert-war, to delete the 2 names they don't like from the first paragraph. And there's no consensus to delete any of the 3 names from the first paragraph. These 3 users give strange reasons for deleting them, such as "the other names are not proper names". Since their comments are very peculiar, I suspect they are sockpuppets of each other.

In any case, I think the deletions of Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea and Seven-Year War in the first paragraph are in bad faith, since the names are being considered for the title. May I ask you to intervene regarding this matter? Thank you very much.--Endroit 15:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I've decided not to do it. Sorry about it, but please remove the link from my talk page if i do not do so in 2 hours from my signature time. and please tell User:Michael Dorosh that i am forgetting about this event, and please tell everyyone not to pick up on my flawed decision. Thanks! --Frithraes! 21:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Kirill, thanks for thinking of me, but unfortunately I am too erratic and uncomprising, as people found out with the Military history of France article, to hold any sort of administrative position in Wikipedia. I'd rather remain a normal user. Thank you still though!UberCryxic 20:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

But as always, you will have my support for Lead Coordinator when election time rolls around. You've done a great job.UberCryxic 20:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I too, appreciate the vote of confidence. However, I'm going to be moving from the U.S. to Japan in September, and it often takes two to three months, in my experience, for my household items (most importantly my computer) to catch up with me. I'm not sure if I'll be able to spend much time in Wikipedia from my work computer, as I'm not sure what the situation and environment is like in my new job. Therefore, if I were elected as a coordinator, I'm not sure if I would be able to give it the time and attention that the position deserves. Perhaps sometime in the future though. Cla68 21:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill,

I will be away from tomorrow and till 8th August because I'm going on vacation :) As I don't know what kind of connexion I will have (I might be able to find a 56k but not more), I have some favors to ask you, while I'll be

First, can you keep an eye on Battle of Smolensk (1943). It will be on main page tomorrow and the use of rollback might be indicated...

Second, can you take a screenshot of the main page tomorrow and send it to me? :)

Furthermore, can you launch a debate on MILHIST article tagging using stub links on WP:AN? I feel like it's not moving on "Requests for approvals", so I think we need a broader coverage and opinions? And since you're the lead coordinator and an admin, they will be more enclined to listen... :)

Thanks, Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill - I've got some questions that I thought I'd run by you.... One is, do you think I should state on my user page any relatives that have articles in the interest of full disclosure? It's not something I'm wanting to do, but was wondering if I should so people would be aware of possible POV? Also, sort of related to that, I'm the family historian and so have collected over the years various letters and manuscripts written by ancestors. I wasn't sure if I could use these as sources? I can post them on the internet so that there's a public place to verify, etc. Why this has come up is that I've adopted an article that was a stub and am beefing it up, and he happens to be my g,g,g-whatever grandfather - John W. Johnston and he wrote a family history and in it included some wonderful vignettes of his childhood, as well as some on his senate career and post-senate (the latter not available anywhere else). Is that appropriate? I respect your opinion, and just so you know, my MA is in Heritage Preservation so I won't be offended if you say no, as I totally understand the need to be academic, etc. Why I'm confused on this is because normally when I'd cite something like that in a thesis (or the current book I'm working on) I would say "manuscript in possession of author" but obviously can't do that on WP.... Thoughts? plange 23:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill! on the first part, cool. Yep all of them are several generations removed... on the latter, thanks for clarifying. I need to get my act together and start publishing some things :-) plange 23:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I've uploaded this image Image:HMS Bellerophon 1909.jpg twice now to specifically serve the article on that vessel. Twice it has been deleted by User:Royboycrashfan. I have permission from the copyright holder, and have stated so, and even listed the owner's email. I can't see what the problem is and have received no response from my asking the Royboy... Can you help? Cheers, --Harlsbottom 23:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill! I'm trying to revive the Biography Wikiproject and was wondering if it was okay to copy a lot of your internal organization for the project? I started to and then thought I'd better get permission! To see my progress so far, here is the before and current --- just let me know, thanks! plange 05:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks! Yep, don't think I'm going to implement task forces yet until it catches on, and am even wondering if it can support COTW....plange 05:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Was wondering if you could spare a few moments and head over to the talk page of Military History of Ancient Rome and comment on redesigning the article. It's down towards the bottom at "Where's the History?" Thanks ! :) Laserbeamcrossfire 19:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Good move Geo. 18:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you someone in your project give this a final copyedit? The FAR is almost over and it's at that point where they want a final copyedit but I'm not a mind reader and I've been heavily involved in saving it. A third party would see things I wouldn't. I'm asking ERcheck too. Thanks. Rlevse 14:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

MOH survived FAR, it's closed! Yippee! Rlevse 14:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

ERcheck gave me a barnstar of diligence for this. It's much appreciated! It's my first award outside of Scouting articles. Rlevse 22:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Kirill, thank you for supporting my RfA. I am honored that the consensus was to allow me the added privilege of the admin mop. I appreciate your strong support and complimentary words on my RFA, as well as the note of congratulations. — ERcheck (talk) 02:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin Greetings my friend! I continue to work my way through the Mongol articles, and I discovered the mess that Guo Kan's article was, and have begun to rewrite it. When you get a chance - I know how busy you are! -- would you take a look at it, and see if you like the draft of the rewrite? I am not done by any means, but wanted to run the general direction by you. Thanks Kirill, and it appears you are on the way to a very well deserved reelection! I hope to be elected to assist, but if not, please know I will continue to assist you in every way I can. old windy bear 05:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Was thinking of nominating a Military task force for WP:BIO, but I wanted to approach you first. Here is what I was going to say in the nom:

With the caveat that this is not in any way trying to compete with WP:MILHIST's excellent WP, of which I'm a member, but rather so that we have a central spot here to liaison with them on military people bios... Since WPBIO overlaps with so many other WProjects am thinking it would be beneficial to have a liaison member from each so we can work more closely and share resources and effort.

The reason I was thinking this is because I had an idea about creating a liaison or ambassador department with a member from each WikiProject that have bios fall under their purview so that we can keep each other informed, etc. i.e. if they happened to pick a bio for a COTW, they'd let us know, or they're nominating an article for FA and wanted to let us know, etc. We could also create to-do/announcement lists that projects could transclude, and vice versa? Also, we can have the MILHIST project banner listed on there as the other project banner to add too when creating military people bios.... I definitely wanted you to know the thinking here behind this and see if you think it's a good idea and I didn't want you to think I'm trying to steal turf :-) What do you think? Also, do you have other ideas too for collaboration? Thanks! plange 07:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great. Yep, I would definitely not want to do structural things (like adding categories and templates without your group's approval). In fact, I think the wording should be stronger than you suggested, like "if you'd like to add templates, categories or other technical items, you must first get permission from the corresponding Discipline-project. Please come to a consensus here first on whether it's needed before you approach them." Last sentence is to make sure single individuals aren't bugging you for something stupid and not needed at all. I see the task forces as being "children" of not only the WPBIO project, but of their corresponding Project discipline(s), so you can't go behind Momma's back and ask Dad, to carry the metaphor further. But the metaphor doesn't quite work because I'm not sure you'd need to get our permission to do the same, but just let us know so we can add them to our template and category lists.... Does that make sense? plange 14:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've added the nomination :-) plange 15:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I get your opinion on something, Kirill? The block's ridiculous in my view, but I would like a sanity check before I act. Leithp 17:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello there. I see that you are the primary author of the Template:Infobox Military Award. I wonder if you would mind helping me out with a template that I'm working on.

I've been doing a bit of work on the British Campaign Medals page recently, adding entries for a few of the medals listed there. Up until now I've been using a Campaign Medal infobox which I've been 'hard-wiring' into each article. However, inspired by your work, I've decided to turn it into a template (Template:Campaign Medal). I'm fairly new to templates so this has been a bit of a learning experience, but nevertheless I've managed to come up with a decent copy of the hard-wired version (If you take a look at User:Xdamr\Gulf you'll see a version of the Gulf Medal page - template to the top, hard-wired version to the bottom. Any comments re. the substansive content of the template are more than welcome; hopefully this could be of some use for non-UK and Commonwealth campaign medals as well.

I'm having a little trouble with the Clasps entry though. You can see the effect that I'm after, a bulleted list of issued campaign clasps. The trouble is that I don't seem to be able to replicate the effect in the template, could you possibly help out?

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 23:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty good actually. Just one or two minor points. Firstly, I'd be inclined to move the ribbon details up the box, so that they are underneath the medal obverse and reverse - all the visual elements grouped together. Perhaps Eligibility: could be replaced by a Campaign: field (semantics probably, but hey, a campaign medal is issued for a campaign, right?!). Finally I'm not too sure how relevant the First awarded:/Last awarded: is for campaign medals. In the articles I've written I've placed emphasis on the date the medal was officially sanctioned for issue, so perhaps Approved: or Sanctioned: is something to consider? (That would actually go pretty well for decorations as well)

Dimensions, material etc should be fine in the same box - perhaps under the obverse/reverse pictures, under a Description: field?. As far as the clasps goes the generalisation sounds interesting, though clasps are an important element of British/Commonwealth campaign medals - if we take the generalisation too far then that importance might be diluted.

All in all though, a definite improvement over mine, thanks a lot.

Xdamr^talk 00:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Re. the ribbon, I meant to suggest that the ribbon image and caption was placed after the obverse/reverse caption, is that possible?

Established: is good, though I'm not sure that Approved: or Sanctioned: wouldn't be better; all medals (whether campaign medals, decorations etc) receive official approval for issue at some point, perhaps this is an event worth noting in the infobox.

I think that we might be at cross-purposes as far as 'Clasps' goes. I thought 'clasps' was quite a specific term, that we would need a broader term to encompass the other insignia you mentioned. For UK medals, clasps are attached to the medal to signify particular battles and engagements in the conflict that the medal was issued to cover. As far as the ribbon devices of other nations go (other than clasps), I'm not entirely sure how they're best described. I'm not sure whether they can be easily encompassed under the same heading as campaign clasps.

Did you have any thoughts about my suggestion for the addition of an optional Campaign: field? Actually such a field might also be useful for decorations - I seem to recall some military decorations (non-UK) which were specifically issued for a single war/campaign.

Xdamr^talk 01:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well it looks pretty usable now, thanks for the excellent work. I'll start replacing my hard-coded infoboxes with this over the next day or two.

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 01:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Kirill, I have something that I want you to look over, if it won't be too much trouble. I am working on a new article and I plan to nominate it for Featured status soon (maybe in a week or two). It's not an article related to military affairs (it's about a non-government organization), but that's sort of why I'm asking you. You would be a kind of "neutral" and I'd appreciate your input more than somebody who might have a lot of experience in the "field." Anyway, the article is here. There is no time pressure, so just get back to me when you feel comfortable. I want you to basically tell me whether you think this article has what it takes to be Featured (that is, whether you would support should you be reviewing it). Also, can you tell me what you think the organization does after having read the article? Basically, what did you get out of this article? Thank you so much!UberCryxic 21:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh I forgot, do not consider the last section for now. It is incomplete. Thanks again.UberCryxic 21:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments; you had some good points. I'll get working on those right away. What did you think about the prose and the structure?UberCryxic 13:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

All-right, thanks for all your help! I'll do some of those major changes, and if it's not too much of a burden, could you maybe give the article another look in a few days?UberCryxic 13:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey man, how's it going? I've come to ask for your help again! Can you please tell me what you think of the article now? Thank you.UberCryxic 20:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Kirill, thanks for your advice. I definitely do need to clarify some of those statements (or eliminate them!). On some other things....every single article in the See also section has never been linked to in the main article (I went back and checked). Also, this article is roughly 30 KB (maybe a bit smaller) and has 29 footnotes. Contrast this with the gigantic, 67 KB-long Military history of France, which I only put 50 footnotes for. You might argue that the latter includes more generalized information than the former and so requires fewer notes, but unless there is some controversial information, the number of notes here does not appear to be a problem. I went back and found two instances that needed citations (a claim about the number of people the organization had helped and something about a percentage). It would be more helpful if people could identify some actually controversial remarks that would require citation (I'm taking this to Peer Review soon and maybe that'll be one of the things I'll ask them). Also, every single section is referenced. Some subsections aren't, but again this comes back to the statements being fairly neutral and undeserving of footnotes. If you can identify POV statements that need citations or need to be removed, I'd be very thankful. Otherwise, however, not much of an argument can be made for citations in an article where it's running a footnote per KB, far better than most FAs I've seen.UberCryxic 21:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the fact idea. Thanks. I realize this is a lot of work, but I strongly appreciate your input, whether in military articles or not as it's turning out lol!UberCryxic 00:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok I went ahead and posted the article on the database: Tahirih Justice Center. Put the tags there so the article can accumulate some sort of history.UberCryxic 00:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Kirill, thanks so much for your help. You've done a lot of work for something you probably had never heard of before, and that shows your good character and commitment to the overall improvement of Wikipedia. Ok...(sucking up over)...here's my problem: I'm an intern at this organization and my sister actually works there. Right now we are having some conflicts over what should and should not be included and where it should go. I feel like her changes are too promotional and heavily involved for the casual reader (furthermore she has practically destroyed the original structure). I realize this is a bit disingenuous on my part because I am not letting my sister explain why she did what she did, but the problem is that even though I have tried to work with her and sort out the differences, she has become way too tempermental and almost refuses to discuss anything. It's probably a "gone native" effect; she's worked so long at the organization that she has difficult considering other viewpoints. The last changes she made in the article were done under my username, which I will not allow in the future, but she can still edit the article from work. Basically, I am requesting that you write some general statement in the talk page saying that promotional edits or edits that destroy some of the code and ruin the article will not be allowed. I'm sure somebody with your stature can convince her to buzz off. I have also informed my parents of her recalcitrance.

One final thing: this is not all about content, but mostly about approach. I think Wiki veterans like you and I have seen this happen tons of times in the past: somebody who has never used Wikipedia before comes in one day and completely revamps an article without paying careful attention to the internal dynamics of the encyclopedia (ie. don't ruin the code and try to make changes within established frameworks). On top of that, I have sincerely attempted to sort out matters of content with her, but she has become so emotional that it's a bit difficult to genuinely talk about anything. I really really hate to drag you into this, but since you are an Administrator, you have influence that I don't, regardless of the fact that she's my sister. All I ask for is a warning statement in the talk page to hopefully convince her not to make these flagrant changes with complete disregard about the work I have already put in (and will put in tomorrow in an effort to cite some of the statements that you said need to be cited). Thank you so much for everything you've done. I feel embarrassed writing about this, but somebody's inexperience should not ruin this process.UberCryxic 02:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will get on your suggestions tomorrow, and unfortunately for her I will have to restructure much of what she has written. I will also try to keep things from spiralling out of control, which I am sincerely worried about.UberCryxic 03:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Kirill, I think I got all of your suggested citations. The article now has 42 footnotes, 17 of them from the organization. I realize that's not desirable, but do you at least think it's acceptable?

Also, my sister will probably change the material under the ip 68.163.73.50. Can you please keep an eye out for this and revert her if appropriate? Thank you very much.UberCryxic 15:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

We have permission to link to this collection of Various maps and statistics by J Nicols, Professor of History and of Classics

office: 385 McKenzie Hall mail:1101 Kincaid St., Suite 275; History, University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403-1288 Tel 541.346.4817 or 306.3935; FAX 541.346.4895 mobile in Germany: +49.162.187.1934.

I think that would really spice many articles up in the external link section. Wandalstouring 14:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does provide useful info on several topics and it would be hard to google. Take for example this summary: http://mappinghistory.uoregon.edu/english/EU/EU08-03.html Wandalstouring 15:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Finished structuring Roman military history. Content of the article is poor but readable now. Factual errors corrected. Would be nice if someone with knowledge of the topic takes an unoffical look at it. Wandalstouring 14:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

can you link Roman army and Roman military to the article Roman legion? Currently they are all linked to Military history of ancient Rome. Wandalstouring 18:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

How do you add the Military History template to your user page?--Noha307 00:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thank You.

What does this mean, the last two campainboxes I worked on and renamed had this written on the battles under them when checked what links here. Thanks,--Tigeroo 11:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin Greetings my friend! I sourced the article, and moved on to work on the Military History of the Roman Empire with Wandalstouring, and went over to the Decline of the Roman Empire, as rather incredibly, no one had posted Bury's theory, which is probably the best. (I rectified that) The only problem so far as to Guo Kan is that one of the persons who was using the Guo Kan article for POV came along and fouled up the cites, so I will keep an eye on it for awhile. On the assistant coordinator elections, do you think edit counts would be of any use? I suppose it shows to some extent one's involvement but the trouble is that it does not divulge either the quality of the edits, or a person's willingness to work with others. SO, I thought I would kick it up to you for your opinon! old windy bear 19:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. It appears that this is an awkward time to ask, but what would your opinion be on removing the Featured History section on Portal:Latin America and replacing it with a quote? There aren't enough Featured Articles to fill up both that and Featured Article. I was considering changing the portal to an automated daily update on a monthly cycle, which would be roughly possible with only one featured box to fill (an FA/Featured List every day, and a Featured Picture once every two). You're the portal guru, so what's your opinion? --Estrellador* 18:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I've noticed too. That was why I asked you - so that I could get some feedback. Cheers.--Estrellador* 20:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill. If you would, could you give me your opinion as to whether I'm worthy enough to stand for Assistant Coordinator. You are the mover and shaker of the project, so i may as well get the 'gen from the proverbial horse's mouth. Cheers, --Harlsbottom 21:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but am I being fussy? This user User talk:DagosNavy makes reasonable edits (IMHO) but frequently uses multiple commits to make relatively small changes (example: Operation Harpoon (1942). I tried a comment on his talk page: no response or effect. Either I'm being prissy and should back off or I need to gain his attention (by reverting his changes?) without causing offence. Comments, please. Folks at 137 22:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think my kids would agree with you! Folks at 137 23:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I doubt I'm going to run and was trying not to be too obvious. :) -- Миборовский 23:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind, dear Kirill, thank you! :) Tho I usually find myself having to archive my talk page every 5 days or so, and often I keep them unarchived until I can reply them... the result? over 100 messages there, ahhhh! ;) I swear I'll use every bit of free time to reply everything so I can keep a more efficient archive, I swear I will. One last thing, hun - if you haven't yet, drop by our friend Spawn Man's talk page and leave him a little note. He seems to be pretty stressed, and he specifically mentioned how much he misses you at RDH's talk page too. It'd be very sad to see a great guy and editor like him leave, and if we can encourage him a bit, he may reconsider. Will you do that for me, please? Hope you're doing great at WM, bring some pics and hugs! ;) Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 04:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Krill, I have an interesting question for you. I've seen you around on Wikipedia quite a bit, and respect your opinion. As such, I'd like to know what you think about the following diffs: [6], [7], [8] and [9] from the same FAC, and [10]. I'm asking because you opposed User:Ambuj.Saxena's RfA for issues that to me appear very similar to what I have been doing constantly to scores of FACs for over a year. Thus, my question is: if I were to stand for adminship today, after seeing this evidence and knowing that I fully stand behind these edits, would you support? I have no desire to continue as an admin if you or others who I respect feel that I should not hold the position. Thanks for your help. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 07:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Hope you had a great time at Wikimania! --Spangineer^es (háblame) 17:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill,

I started to look for possible semi-auto ways of deprecating obsolete weaponry infoboxes and I'm hitting a wall...

I started with {{Firearm}} and more precisely, the AK-47 article. I get this diff, everything seems OK, yet what I get is messed up.

Do I understand that fields must in addition be specified in a certain order to be taken into account? Or what am I missing? :(

Thanks, Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Update: Okay, it would seem that I forgot to activate the is_weapon parameter, but I still don't get all the fields... :( -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Another question: the weapon-firearm template has a field called platform that does not go into the new box. Is this normal? Thanks, Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 10:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This is DYK today and needs your project tag.Rlevse 09:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I added it Kirill. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 10:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Overall time: just under 1h30. AWB and Excel rule... :)

Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is not just AWB... I also coded some Excel formulae to automatically generate the right XML settings for search & replace in AWB and things like that... :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh my... Many thanks for the barnstar :)))) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill, do you know how to create a template to post in users talk pages who may have an interest in a specific task force? I'm not really an expert at this wiki stuff yet! Thanks, Motorfix 02:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

... is the prose in Battle of Moscow really so crappy to justify a B? -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sigh... I expected this of course, but I thought I learned from Vasilevsky's writing. Looks like not <_< I think I'll run a copyed or two and then go through a long PR... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

<joke mode on>

Don't you have anything better to do than stalking me on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations??? Such as doing the PR of Battle of Moscow for instance??? :)

</joke mode off>

Erm... Seriously though, I tried to add a WWII task force list to {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} but was pathetically unable to figure out the template use. Can you please add a blank container with categories (expansion, request, cleanup and so on) and I'll fill it? :)

Best, Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you want to laugh a bit, you can see me trying to put an article where it should be in the history :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Kirill, I have been working on the "Decline of the Roman Empire" article, which is sort of in the military province, since most of theories involve barbarian invasions. ANYWAY, I added Bury and Heather, (who for some mysterious reason, since Bury is arguably the second most regarded historian in all history on Rome), and am expanding the remainder of the sections, especially Gibbon and Ward-Perkins. When you get time, (ha, ha, since you are asked to look at everything!) please let me know if you think I am headed in the right direction. I have also been dabbling with the Mongol articles with Wandalstouring and working on an article on the role of the low countries in the wars of the HRE for Rex and the Dutch military history project. Thanks! old windy bear 00:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, ping me when the message will be ready :)

Cheers, Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Delivery started at 13h13, finished at 14h24. Overall delivery time: 1 hour 11 minutes. :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Kirill! I and some others are having a bit of a problem with a user (Marneus) who claims that Spain has a blue-water navy in the Blue-water navy article. I'm not really asking you to plunge into the arguments or whatever, but Marneus has violated 3RR and is generally making some extraordinary remarks while taking some weird actions. For example, he reported me for 3RR, but I clearly did not violate it (check the history of the article). I do not want to report him because I think 3RR is just about the gayest rule we have in Wikipedia, but I was hoping that you could talk to him and tell him to stop being so impulsive. As for whether Spain should be included in the list of blue-water navies, we can hopefully resolve that on our own, but don't be surprised if I come back here again haha!UberCryxic 18:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that Kirill. I just got a little irritated. Anyway, your advice for sources was well taken and I went and found a bunch of stuff. The case for excluding Spain isn't complete, but I think it's fairly strong.UberCryxic 15:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for offering your help for the copyedit. I appreciate it very much. And grammar problems are easier to spot than prose problems :P -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Are taunts of other users customary in wikipedia?

I sincerely tought this was a enciclopedia where people discussed and got a consensus about matters and instead I'm finding that people like UberCryxic use personal acusations and changes articles at will without discussing and they get their way. Maybe I was wrong and then I'll expend my free time in another task.

--Marneus 10:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me for jumping in, but....there are knuckleheads everywhere in the world, just ignore them as best you, but on the other hand, most all wikipedians get into a dispute with someone eventually.Rlevse 10:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Reporting a user for 3RR while there was no 3RR is not a good thing either. I suggest you either settle this one the talk page or request a Mediation Cabal. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I have to interject here. I never once made any personal accusations in the article to which the user is referring. Marneus has made this charge consistently, but why is really puzzling. I attacked the arguments and that's as far as I went. Furthermore, I made sure to drop an extensive statement in the talk page before I first changed the article.UberCryxic 15:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Correction I think I made one: "The desire to include the Spanish Navy has been largely pushed by one person that appears to have attachments which outweigh impartial logic and thought." And for that I apologize.UberCryxic 15:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

One final thing (sorry but I just have to set the record straight since this has been publicized like this): Marneus has actually been reverted by four different users. The insinuation that my actions were arrogant or arbitrary is ridiculous.UberCryxic 16:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you aiming for as the featured article? Thanks for the newsletter! --TheM62Manchester 12:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you in the process of writing the comment for WP:ANI regarding Jtkiefer's actions. This is clearly a serious issue, and Kelly Martin's comment on the RfA appears to confirm that this is no joke; Jtkiefer and Pegasus were indeed the same person. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 16:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was hoping somebody else would go ahead and post it, saving me the trouble. But, fair enough; if you think I should go ahead with it, I will. Kirill Lokshin 16:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to go now, actually. Perhaps you or someone else could take care of it. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 16:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• There's a proposal of a community ban on the table by Tony; you may wish to comment on it or/and explore possible alternate course of actions (such as RfAr). - Mailer Diablo 17:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Kirill, what are your thoughts on lists of former commanders of commands/joint commands/installations/whathaveyou? I was going to include a list of all the former commanders of the MDW from 1921 to present (and their ranks and dates of command of course), but then I thought, "Man, that's an awfully long list." In such a case do we not do that and just leave it alone or just make note of notable commanders/first commanders/present commanders or what? --ScreaminEagle 17:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm, so perhaps a succession box in the main article and maybe create another article just for the list and link to it? Or just see how long it is first? --ScreaminEagle 18:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Kirill, Wandalstouring and I were thinking of putting together an article that compares the various types of bows - Hun and Muslim compound, Mongol compound and longbow, Welsh longbow, crossbows of various types = would you approve a box for the comparisons, distance, penetrating power, etc.? Thanks! old windy bear 18:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill,

There is a new user called User:Ironplay who today reverted Cla68's great copyedit work to Battle of Moscow, because he "like the way it was" (the old version being full of awkward sentenced of mine, of course). While I hope that it won't scale in a silly revert war, this is annoying. Additionally, when I read his talk, he has already a similar case on a different WW2 article. As an admin and our lead coordinator for life :), can you please intervene and explain him a bit how things work, what policies are and things like that?

Thanks a bunch, Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, sorry about that :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill. I was wondering why I was the only FAC that you hadn't commented on? Its not a problem , but I was curious. As the leading Military admin I would be interested what you thought of the article. Is it something I said? ;) I'm working on the Battle of Schellenberg at the moment and I would be interested in your opinion on this article so I could improve on future articles. Thanks. Raymond Palmer 18:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm so sorry Kirill. I know how busy you are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond Palmer (talk • contribs)

"I don't know when I'll get to these, but I'll try to add them over the course of the weekend"

Hey, not so fast, you have to copyedit Battle of Moscow first!!! (joke) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Update: seriously though, Cla68 and ScreamingEagle did a tremendous copyed job, so can you please just take a last look at the article? I think it is ready for the nom by now :) Thanks a bunch, Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the copyedit!!! I think it is now ready (four copyedits by four editors - well, three and a half because i only count as half a copyeditor :). -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill-- I know that you are very active in WP:FPCAN and you have your own portal, so I thought I would ask you to give mine a quick preliminary review before I try to get it to featured status. It's fairly new, so I won't be listing it any time soon, but I just thought I'd ask if there are any egregious errors I should be dealing with before it gets listed, so the proposal is not instantly shot down. Here it is Portal:Poetry--I appreciate your help, AdamBiswanger1 03:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill--I think I fixed everything you said, so can you take one more look at the portal? AdamBiswanger1 20:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:24.208.192.225 This user did something that seems like vandalism to me in the Mongol article, but he does have a really strange talk page refering to some vandalism test. you are admin, I hope you can figure out what this stuff means. Wandalstouring 16:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

He is a vandal, but actually I´m puzzled by this message on the link to the talkpage of this user. It is a very rare thing for an unregistered user to have a working userpage with such a comment + link to another user. See the content of the link above:

"Thank you for experimenting with the page Vandalism on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you for your understanding. Ziggurat 20:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)"

Wandalstouring 19:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of my proposal here Kirill?

Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

And although it's (hopefully) not a tit-for-tat point scoring match, "I was at Seth's talk" should have been accompanied by a sound effect. "Zing" perhaps? Also, did you have any thoughts on User:Kelly Martin/Policy council? - brenneman ^{L} 01:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill, My apologies for not responding to your last query about submitting my name for the Coordinator election. I've been on an unplanned WikiBreak. There are a good slate of candidates, so I'm sure the project will remain in good hands; plus, you'll have more help. You are a shoe-in for Lead — I'm glad you are willing to continue in the role. I'll continue to contribute as much as I can. Perhaps next time around. — ERcheck (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• No offense at all.... My availability in the near future will be sporatic and unpredictable, so not the best time to consider an added role. — ERcheck (talk) 02:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill! Thanks for the input on the Military work group! Before I add the link to our main page, do you have any other recommendations or changes? I want to make very sure it's not set up in such a way as to compete with MILHIST project... Thanks! plange 04:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the suggestion, but I come up with a question. What do you mean by auto rotation? Teach me, teach me, :P.. Because I really want that to become a featured portal. Again, thanks for everything! Take care -- Imoeng 07:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No worries, apparently I can do it, with a bit of ripping off :P Thanks btw. Take care -- Imoeng 08:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, I've managed to create all this time, :P Please take a look at it and the featured portal candidates page (there is my info there). Thanks very much!! Imoeng 12:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you take a look at it again?? Pleeeeeeaseeee.. Cheers -- Imoeng 13:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Program Feature: To-Do List The Esperanza To-Do List is a place where you may list any request, big or small, for assistance. If you need help with archiving your usertalk, for example, all you need to do is list it here and somebody will help you out. Likewise, if you need help with some area of editing on Wikipedia, list it here! Again, any matter, trivial or not, can be placed on this page. However, all matters listed on this page must not be of an argumentative nature. You do not need to be a member of Esperanza (or this program) to place or fulfill requests on this page. If you don't have any requests, consider coming by and fulfilling a few! This program has not been very active, but has lots of potential! What's New? In order to help proposed programs become specific enough to make into full-fledged programs, the In development section of the proposals page has been created. Proposals that are promising, but need to be organized in more detail are listed here. Please take a look at what is there, and help the proposals turn into programs. To improve both the layout and text of the front page, in an attempt to clarify the image of Esperanza, the front page is going to have some redesigning take place. Please take your creative minds to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Front page redesign to brainstorm good ideas. Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.

The last AC meeting (full log) In order to make sure all users who join Esperanza are welcomed, a list of volunteers who are willing to welcome new Esperanzians is at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Members#Esperanza_welcomers. Please add yourself if you are interested; we want to make sure all new Esperanza members are welcomed! The In development section of the proposals page has been created. Proposals page: Some proposals have been moved to the aforementioned "In development" section, some have been left as a proposal, and others have been archived. For those proposals that were a good idea but didn't necessarily constitute a program, General Esperanzial Actions has been created. Two small pieces of charter reform will be decided on in a straw poll at Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Governance. One involves filling the position of any councillors who may leave, the other involves reforming the charter. Until cooperation with the Kindness Campaign is better defined, it remains as a proposed program. There is a page for discussing the front page redesign. Signed... Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, Freakofnurture, and Titoxd 05:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.

You are receiving this message because you are currently listed as a coach in the 'Active' section of the coaching box.

• If the coaching has finished please add your trainee to the archived requests section of the archive, and remove the entry from the coaching box.
• If the coaching is ongoing please continue :) This might serve as a useful reminder to check with your trainee if they have any new questions!
• If you are ready to be assigned a new trainee, or have any other questions, please let me know on my talk page.

Thank you for helping with admin coaching! Petros471 21:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Откомментил по самые помидоры... :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill, I'm a founding member of WikiProject Filmmaking, and let me first say that I intensely admire what you and rest of the WP:MILHIST guys have done with your WikiProject. I know that you're very busy with other matters that probably are higher priority, but I was wondering if I could ask two things of you (one big, one small). My WikiProject is rather new, and while I want it to be structured and formatted well, I'm even more concerned with the quality of the articles themselves. Therefore I am more of a bootstrapper - I prefer to take bits and pieces of code, ideas, or structure from other WikiProjects instead of trying to re-invent the wheel myself. Your project is a hell of a great inspiration, and I'm looking forward to (gradually) building something similar out of some of the same components. So the first question I'd like to ask is: Within your knowledge, what other WikiProjects besides your own do you believe are worth looking at for ideas? Doesn't necessarily have to be ones that you'd even want to emulate - just ones that you think are similarly well-run or well-thought out.

Now the harder thing about running a project, IMO, is also the managing of everything - lots of stuff that goes on in the background or even off the wiki entirely. And also knowing how much organization is necessary. The number of people and incredible depth of the MILHIST project clearly requires intricate organization of manpower and information. But most projects are much smaller in either one or the other. While I may be the de facto lead coordinator of my project, I don't at the moment see a clear advantage to actually creating such a position yet. In fact, it may even be a disadvantage that would alienate other contributors unless someone mooted the idea. So the big question I have is this: Do you think sometime in the near future you might be able to write a short essay or guide or something regarding tips and advice for helping to run a WikiProject - common pitfalls, strategies, where to prioritize, when to know where additional organization is needed, etc. I mean, I don't mind if you tell just me these things, but it would seem that you have a highly respected status from your work on MILHIST that would cause others to ask the same questions, if they haven't already. Having something written out for the community at large would be an invaluable resource for all of us working on WikiProjects or even those considering putting one together.

Well, in any case, I appreciate anything you might be able to answer with. Keep up your peerless work! Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 00:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! The proposal looks intriguing, but I must admit that I have a reflex reaction to slightly wince whenever I see more bureaucracy. That's not necessarily criticism, per se; the idea has very good merits. But as always, I think that good documentation and even non-official essays can save a lot of extra work constantly responding with the same answers to the same questions. The various essays associated with the FAC process are great for that, for example. But yeah, I think that the WikiProjects ultimately are very crucial to the long-term future of the Wikipedia in as far as that they act as a sort of system-wide federalism. Specifically, many encyclopedia-wide initiatives or policies can be efficiently implemented by being delegated out to the projects which would each handle their own areas amongst their smaller groups of editors. Similarly, the projects also can be good at creating specific policy for their areas, such as naming conventions and, to a degree, notability standards (a la WP:MUSIC or WP:CORP). This makes tricky policy like notability much finer-grained because the general policy no longer has to be as vague (typically caught between the rock and hard place of not being so specific as to weed out legitimate articles while not being too general as to allow just about anything). And obviously the "federalism" is already starting to help in the article assessment push to 1.0.

I guess my main thing is that I believe that discussion areas and councils are all good and fine and whatnot, but the stream of discussion and its eventual burial (and obscurity) in archives leads to a lot of the same topics coming up and so on, kinda like the reference desk. (Which brings up the entirely separate question of the god-awful search functions of the site when I want to look up, say, an old discussion on a topic without trawling through 18 pages of archives - witness the FAC talk page...) Wait, maybe I'm totally misinterpreting your proposal. Are you basically suggesting something akin to peer review, but for projects? That wouldn't be a bad idea. But again, I will stress the need for good centralized documentation and stable articles for guidelines and advice that anyone can read.

Alrighty, that's lots of rambling and probably lots of misunderstanding. Hope it parses half-decently... :) Girolamo Savonarola 00:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Much clearer, thank you. Please do keep me informed about that, should you have the chance; I would be interested.

So my ideas above about the WikiProjects in relation to WP at large... Plausible? Crazy? Girolamo Savonarola 01:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm about to post the nomination for "military people" to "military personnel". The suggestion you make, though, involves removing all the logical adjectival country forms from people, and there are thousands of such categories; see category:Sportspeople by nationality, for example. So I'd oppose that change because I don't think it's necessary.--Mike Selinker 19:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Sure, but I don't think you can just say that the "people" naming scheme doesn't apply to military folks. I think you need to use workarounds if you have to, but otherwise follow the parent scheme.--Mike Selinker 19:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, I can buy the service-vs.-birthplace thing. Let's talk it out on CfD and we'll change the tags when consensus is reached. But let's make sure we don't keep some categories with "people" and some with "personnel."--Mike Selinker 19:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like I'm not the only one ranting... :( -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill. I've fallen ill and won't be editing on Wikipedia in any significant capacity for at least a week. If I should fail to attend to the current featured portal candidates after two weeks, could you possibly do so? Thanks, --cj | talk 08:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's called auditor's paranoia... Sorry about that :P -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Since we're edit conflicting all the time on Outreach page, let's do like this: I move and you format :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

OK I finished moving the pages... :) Do you think we should transclude them by bot or wait for users to do so?-- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, in any case, that should be part of August newsletter I think :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Sorry about that. -- Underneath-it-All 05:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Chavez Ravine? Doesn't really seem to fall under our preview. --Laserbeamcrossfire 23:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought. I'm going to axe the tag. --Laserbeamcrossfire 23:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Kirill, deja vu all over again; I need your help a little. Someone reverted a comment that I wrote in the lead of the Michael Jackson article. The comment was sourced from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and read as follows: "As a solo artist, his level of fame has been matched only by the likes of Elvis Presley, The Beatles, and Frank Sinatra." Again, the comment is pretty straight out of his inductee page (which you can read here). Unfortunately I cannot revert because that would mean a violation of 3RR. Can you have a talk with the administrator, Sarah Ewart, who is reverting, about this comment if you're not too busy at the moment?UberCryxic 23:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have brought this up at the talkpage of the administrator in question. In another very ironic twist, one of the users thinks I have violated 3RR, when clearly I have not. God I hope they file that report....make my (second) day, within a week lol!UberCryxic 23:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this question, "Well, I can see at least one obvious problem: is the source of such authority that the statement can be presented as sourced fact.." I would definitely say yes. This is the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductee page. They probably know their stuff better than anyone. The administrator somehow suggested the reference I gave was about James Brown, which is quite an odd comment as the page is clearly about Michael Jackson.UberCryxic 23:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Kirill, this is about Tahirih. The FAC nomination is, unfortunately, not receiving much attention, and I have been asked to request some reviews. Would you mind giving it one? I'd appreciate it a lot. Thanks.UberCryxic 02:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Kirill, I think I've gotten most or all of your concerns. Please take another look when you have time. Thanks!UberCryxic 02:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Lol Kirill....I have no idea what you just did. Any other editors that could help out?UberCryxic 03:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It's fine! Looks good.UberCryxic 03:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Do I need to do anything else?UberCryxic 03:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh no you struck out your objection...although, I'd really appreciate a support vote! Haha....UberCryxic 03:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!!!UberCryxic 03:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Kirill -- I know you mentioned that you were successful in encouraging smaller projects to merge with MILHIST as task forces, and I just had someone who posted a note on our A&E task force saying that WikiProject Musicians is being revived and wants to collaborate, etc., which is great! What I was wondering is, if you could help me with word-smithing my response? Clearly you were successful in this process before and perhaps I'm not wording my invitations very well. The comment is here, and here's how I was thinking of responding:

Cool! Would you be interested in us creating a subpage off of here called Musicians (and thereby get rid of the area we've created here) and you could move your project page there and carry on as before? It really wouldn't be any different than what you have now as far as how you manage your project, etc. We could do a redirect, etc. from your current page... We could also add a line to our biotag that has a graphic for your group and says something like "this article is supported by WikiProject Musicians"? That way you could piggy back on all the infrastructure we've already prepared/created etc., and save you guys some labor... What do you think?

Thanks! plange 05:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill! plange 14:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I sent you an e-mail Kirill :) ... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help in the WikiProject Birds move toward WP 1.0 assements. If you have any other ideas feel free to either implement them or contact me for implementation. Joelito (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Thanks, but guess where the idea got stolen from? :) Renata 16:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw your comment on citing sources -- what is CMS style notations? plange 17:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, duh! I use a mixture of that and use the cite template for the references part only.... Is that cool? plange 17:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't do this, as it breaks the assessment system in very obvious ways. (I entirely agree with the comment next to that huge FBI tag, incidentally; but that's an issue to bludgeon that particular project over.) Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 06:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a mistake. I intended on removing one, not all.

As a matter of fact, I'm a member of that particular project, which makes this doubly embarrassing.

Regards, -- That Guy, From That Show! 03:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok; no problem then. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 04:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I feel a bit less embarrassed about that error.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, -- That Guy, From That Show! 05:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill, As someone who has been a war enthusiast myself like you I would like to solicit your help regarding this article: Muhammad Mehmood Alam. According to a user Airknight/203.81.213.226 he keeps reverting to a potentially false version of history by stating he is "the only ace of the sub-continent" when clearly Indra Lal Roy from India had 10 kills. He claims that he cannot be counted as an Indian just because he fought for UK during WWI. I tried to reason that all commonwealth countries until independence fought on UK's side but I'm afraid he might not listen. He also keeps saying that he was born to urdu parents when obviously he was a bengali. See Pak's daily star editorial and Mumtaz Iqbal's The 1965 War: A view from the east as one of the many proofs. Also IAF acknowledges him to have shot only 4 and not 5 and rightly so my version of the article maintains a NPOV by stating that he is an ace as per pakistan records. however he wishes to portray only pakistani version and not indian records instead painting me as someone who is biased because i didn't take pak sources as the ultimate "unbiased" reference. Clearly I have tried to restrain a previous indian user Freedom Skies (see discussions with him and on the article talk page) from going overboard with pro-Indian POVs.

I have reverted the article for now and also seriously suspect if the images airknight has produced are really commons (he has uploaded and tagged it as such) as I saw those images in a pakistani website somewhere with copyrights reserved. Trust you can help on this issue being a knowledible military history editor. Thanks. --Idleguy 05:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit: He seems to be using different IPs but it is the same revert. He probably has no inklink of NPOV writing and believes in only one version of the events. Pl. help as a neutral observation of the matter would be nice. Idleguy 10:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill,

How about including Battle of Moscow in the 0.5 version? (or the 1.0, but since it is a top historical subject, 0.5 seems okay :)

TIA, Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 09:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I added Battle of Moscow and Warsaw Uprising (1794) (2 FAs promoted last week) to the list :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I know you're very preoccupied, but would you allow me to start finding support for a potential Italian Military History Task Force? Many articles on Italian history are suffering, Regia Aeronautica is currently a mess, Austro-Sardinian War, despite being under the French Task Force, likely doesn't even have the correct name, let alone enough content, Italian Unification could definitely use building onto, there is no Military History in Italy, and for a slight clue at the basic stuff missing, look at this template:Template:WWIIItalianAFVs, every tank article is either a stub, just barely above stub, or missing. If I find support for such an article, would you allow this to be added?-KingPenguin 00:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I will love getting some support to improve Italian articles. In the morning I'll start the main page discussion on support and the Rome question, I think I would consider Rome articles to be included, though that's not really what I want to focus on. I'll think about it.-KingPenguin 00:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

I wondered if you could give some feedback on our portal (Portal:Medicine). More specifically, about the navigation template we put into the Intro box. I think it makes navigation around the portal more easy, like the summary of an article. But Cyberjunkie called them useless. So I thought I'd ask another expert.

--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 12:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. I've recently been dabbling in submarine history, and I wondered if you could advise on where to get advice on how to deal with this and also with how to disambiguate ship names as seen here. Thanks. Carcharoth 00:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering, when can we decide about the Indonesian portal nomination? Since it has been already two or three weeks if I'm not mistaken. Cheers -- Imoeng 09:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey can you try to put Image:Naval Jack of the United States.svg into {{portal|Military of the United States|Image:Naval Jack of the United States.svg}}? Thnx Joe I 19:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Kirill! I have a question: I saw your nominations of FA articles in Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Nominations. And I was wondering: Most of these secions, such as Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson, Military history of the Soviet Union, Siege and tank have no or veeeeeeeery few inline citations. And in some of them even the references are poor. Why are these articles remaining feautired??

I'm even more astonished, since we are now striving to have the articles well-referenced and full with inline citations. It does not look fair to me.

Thanks! And congradulations for your re-election (you know you are already reelected!)!--Yannismarou 18:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

We knew he would be before the vote even started... :P -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Where does this subject fit inot overall Military History project?

I can't find the right place. And of course none of my new articles are listed under new articles for that reason

Syrenab 14:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yo Kirill - I request your help in making Portal:Bangladesh featured. Please do check out Wikipedia:Peer review/Bangladesh portal/archive1. Rama's arrow 17:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the constructive criticism of unfinished work at it's FAC. I have responded to your comments and made some changes to the article. Even though it is no longer active as an FA candidate I would still greatly appreciate you reviewing what I have said and done, should you have the time. Cheers, violet/riga (t) 21:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I've been working on the article this evening, and hope that I've met most of your concerns. violet/riga (t) 23:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems that Raul654 decided that the nomination had gotten stale and, after many additions to the article, I have renominated it. Please take a look to see if it meets your approval. Thanks, violet/riga (t) 13:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Given how active you are in this area, I thought you might be interested in the newly-created American Civil War task force of the Military history WikiProject; someone of your considerable experience would be extremely welcome, I think. Kirill Lokshin 20:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am not too interested in group administrative activities such as this. I will check out their project page from time to time, but I intend to spend my time writing articles. Considering the very low volume of ACW content editing (not including the blizzard of renaming categories, date formats, and generating random assessments on Talk pages), I really wonder why you bothered to create a separate task force in the first place. Hal Jespersen 20:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Kirill. What's the policy on a total rewrite of a B-Class article ie:The War of the Grand Alliance? The article needs major work. Can I totally rewrite it, or I am I only permitted by Wikipedia policy, or wiki etiquette, just to edit/adapt what's already there? Raymond Palmer 22:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Although it may take me a couple of months. Raymond Palmer 22:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill, thanks for starting the WikiProject Council, that seems like a very useful idea. I wondered if you could take a look at my recent post and give me some feedback? If you have time, some comments on the rivers and the Lakes and Seas set noms. Thanks! Walkerma 05:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, as you are no doubt aware the Potter image was originally tagged as GFDL. If you'd been to commons you'd have seen I'd already removed that component some 5 hours before your message when I saw the tag had been queried (you may have to clear your cache). Thanks for the heads up anyway, - GIen 06:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Congrats on being elected (or reelected, I cant remeber which at the moment) as lead cooridinator! In honor of you achievement, I present you with these stars. I wish you and your staff the best in the coming term. TomStar81 00:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I have an article here on the Battle of Petsamo, which occured during the Winter War between Finland and the USSR. I was curious as to whether or not this falls under the WWII task force. I am of the opinion that it does. --Laserbeamcrossfire 06:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch, as usual! --Laserbeamcrossfire 07:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Will start tomorrow 15:00 UTC or something, I'm just too wasted right now and need go sleep :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Delivery complete :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

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

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill,

I created the automation department page at the link you provided (well, the first version of it :). Please tell me what you think :)

However, we still need to think what can we do about this approval thing... <_<

Best, Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill. Do you have the above on your watchlist? (Rhetorical question :) since I'm really asking you to add it if you don't :)). Obviously, it's quite high profile now, and a specific user (Ghetteaux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has twice added a rather useless fair use image to it. He's had a fairly stern warning this time. In the unlikely event that doesn't do the trick and I'm not here (off to bed shortly) would you take care of it please? Either a short block, protect the template until the morning, or both. I think he's well-meaning so it should be OK. Cheers. No reply needed. --kingboyk 22:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a good idea to make a shorter version of template:WPMILHIST Navigation, for short pages like Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military vehicles). It could have all the links in the first section and just the headings of the remaining sections, or the remaining sections collapsed by default.

On the other hand, guidelines grow, and it may not be worth the trouble to make it, maintain a copy, and keep swapping it in and out of pages. Just an idea. —Michael Z. 2006-08-15 21:13 Z

Hi Kirill,

Since our article autotag thing is going nowhere, I was thinking about another thing in order to make it pass:

I would create a page "/Autotag" either in the WP:MILHIST tree or somewhere else, explaining what autotag is, why is it useful and so on. (just a few lines, mind you).

But most important, it will have a queue (wow, I drank too much, can't even write that word right... <_<) listing all the operations the bot will perform, such as:

• {{AFV}} - All articles having this infobox are military history and will be tagged - XXX total as of DD/MM/YYYY, YYY remaining
• {{AmericanCivilWar-stub}} - All articles having this infobox pertain to the history and will be tagged - XXX total as of DD/MM/YYYY, YYY remaining

Project members (and perhaps other people too) will be able to discuss the choice of stubs, propose some more, oppose some of them and so on.

The idea is to show we're completely transparent on the subject, that we're receptive and we discuss the potential impacts. Sure thing, it will be quite cumbersome (although I think I'll manage it), but it is better rather than having all this thing going nowhere. Cause I don't know if you have the idea of how much articles are untagged just because they don't have a talk page... well I do, and it is quite terrifying... <_<

What do you think?

Best,

Graf.

Hi Kirill. Would you be able to preform my requested move at WP:RM? (Magyars --> Hungarian people) It's already been 5 days, so it's in the backlog section right now. Thanks! —Khoikhoi 03:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. —Khoikhoi 16:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, will do :)) I'm just seeking for a way to do it in one pass as it currently requires two (and the second is not started yet). -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally Kirill, I find the {{Stubclass}} template to be huge. If we (=all projects using it) don't want to get some complaints about too big templates on talk pages, maybe you can use your super template-fu to try and reduce the size just as you did with our own banner? :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can't do it in one pass, so I need two: one to tag non-tagged articles and assess them, second to assess articles already tagged (unless they were already assessed by a way or another). And I'm not qualified enough to mess up with advanced replacements in AWB yet... Slower but safer :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice in helping me breath life back into WP:MCB. It's such an important project, I think, but it's just lacking in direction. I'm looking forward to reading over what you have in the guide to WikiProjects so far. Even in its unfinished state, I'm sure I'll find it very handy. Cheers! – ClockworkSoul 17:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Here here :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This case has closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.

To summarise, Añoranza is banned for one week and the principals in this matter are encouraged to enter into good faith negotiations regarding use of propagandistic operational codenames for which there are neutral alternative names in common use.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 21:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't figure out why this is happening-- Stephen Trigg is using the ref tag and the first one [1] has just the letters listed, and besides that, the first one is not linking anywhere? I happened to also just be peer reviewing Basiliscus and noticed it happening there too on their [1] footnote... Do you know what's heppening? plange 01:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It was driving me nuts, kept thinking I was overlooking something really obvious :-) plange 01:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Given that the scope of the military history project is so big (and that the project includes various subprojects), would it be possible to design a bot that could track which of the articles falling within the scope of the project (and any of its sub projects) that have been tagged with templates like cleanup, afd, FAC, FARC, etc, and list/categorize them so that editors within the project(s) can see at a glance what pages that fall into their particular group need help? I think this could help with things like deciding collaborations of the week, but the sheer size of the parent project is way too massive to permit a manual check of all articles. TomStar81 03:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Are we supposed to tag military related categories? --James Bond 09:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"Coordinator" is looking good. Thanks. :) – ClockworkSoul 16:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I decided to work over the whole Punic Wars section. Could you take a look or send me someone to check? Especially the Second Punic War (Talk:Second_Punic_War) I wanted to completly restructure it from a military perspective. I think this way the inner logic of events is presented better to the reader. Wandalstouring 19:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Umm, so, it has been 17 days since I nominated the Indonesian portal on WP:FPCAN. I remember you said you want it to stay for 2 or 3 weeks on the nomination page. So, because 17 days is exactly between 2 - 3 weeks, can we decide now? Cheers! -- Imoeng 12:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help to improve the Indonesian portal! Take care -- Imoeng 08:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Kirill, check out Boy Scout and the actions of User:Spazik007, see the edits, talk page and his own talk page. He obviously has a vendetta against BSA, but is using this article, which is an international one in scope and about the youth himself, not any organization to carry out his agenda. Also, there is a FA on the subject, Boy Scouts of America membership controversies, for this subject. We get these guys from time to time, but he's by far been the most obstinate. Please advise on how to proceed. I'm asking you as the Scouting project has no active member that's an admin as far as I know and I respect your opinion. Thanks for your time. Rlevse 02:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

He just did it again, can you block him for 3RR? RFC now? Should you or I do the RFC? I've never done one and it might be better if someone not involved did it or left a warning.Rlevse 02:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, if you were to read and compare, you'd see that I made a couple changes to what I wrote, which actually makes it an edit and not a revert. We were debating the issue on the talk page and I made appropriate changes to the information I added. If your going to come onto my talk page and admonish me then please at least have the presence of mind to do some reaserch so you don't look like a fool. Spazik007 02:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Do biography articles on senior civilian Pentagon officials, such as the Secretary of Defense qualify for inclusion in WikiProject Military History? --TommyBoy 03:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You, like so many other Wikipedians, seem to have felt that Drini's actions in the CVU deletion proccess were wholly inappropriate. As a result, I'm forming an ad-hoc group of sorts composed of people interested in removing Drini. If you'd like to be involved, just drop me a note. ShortJason 20:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Its come to my attention that US army forts are located in articles that adressing such installations as "Fort X", where "X" is the name of the fort, and "Fort X, Y" where "X" is the fort and "Y" is the area that it is located in (Texas, Illinios, etc). For the sake of uniformity we should decide on one methode of presenting the names instead of using both methodes. IMHO, we should use the former and reserve the latter for cases where two forts happen to share the same name. For examples of what I am talking about, you can see Fort Bliss, Texas, Fort Sheridan, Illinois, Fort Sill, and Fort Knox. TomStar81 21:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names) suggests that US city articles be formated as "City, States" and other well known cities be formated "City, Country"; however it should be noted that multiple locations in a country can share the same name, especially when the name is popular (this is one reason why so many city names share disambiguious links). Military installations do not generally share names since that would create confusion as to the base being referenced (I would venture an educated guess its also the reason why each service branch uses a different naming convetion, like AFB, Naval air satation, Fort, etc). Unless the names of military installations are shared on a multinational level (like having a George AFB in the US for George Washinton and a George AFB in Engalnd for King George) I do not see that there would be a problem in IDing a base simple by name and not by county, state, region, etc. Unfourtunatly, as I am preparing to leave the city for a few days I do not have the time to conduct a thurough investigation into the issue, so this at the moment is just observations. When I return I will look into it more thoruoghly and let you know what I turn up. TomStar81 22:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Kirill, I have had some time recently to look into this matter further. I found three lists —List of United States Navy installations List of United States Army installations, and List of United States Air Force installations— which hi-light the standard format of US army installations based on the format currently used by the US Department of Defense. It would appear the Army bases are usually named "Fort X", where x is the name of the fort, while Navy and Air Force guys seem to use the format "NS/NAS Y" or "Y AFB" where "Y" is the name of a certain citiy, or town, or other civilian location. I think that we ought to adopt this format for US military installations so that they can all conform to the names that they are refered to here. TomStar81 01:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Most pages already have the correct name, but some (like Fort Bliss) were moved from there original name and can not be returned to those pages without going through the requested moves page, unless of course an admin such as your self undoes that move and restores the original name to the page. To keep this from happening in the future maybe we ought to come up with our own naming convention, if we have not done so already. TomStar81 17:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• I went ahead and filed a request moved for Fort Bliss, but it seems that the reason Fort Bliss was moved to Fort Bliss, Texas, is due to its designation as a census designated place;however, my original theory about military installations was correct: they are unambiguous. Since unambiguos is against the guideline we may have to create our own naming convention(s) to ensure that military facilities are properly named, rather than having them fall within the city naming guidelines. If you want you can sound off about the move on the Bliss talk page. TomStar81 07:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

please review Pavel Dybenko

AbuAmir 10:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you AbuAmir 04:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill.

I've noticed people have used Campaignboxes to present wars that are causally connected and usually occurring in rapid succession (i.e. the Italian Wars). What are the restrictions on this practice? I'm considering a Campaignbox to chronicle the various Spanish-Moroccan conflicts over a period of over one hundred years (that is, a series of unrelated wars with only geography in common). Would such a thing be useful, or would you advise against it? Albrecht 21:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, upon further consideration, maybe I stated the case rather poorly. The idea would be to include only Spain's colonial wars in Morocco, starting with the War of 1860 and ending with the Ifni War or the Green March. So, none of the conflicts of, say, the 16th century would make an appearance (or, for that matter, the Umayyad conquest of Hispania!). By "unrelated" I mostly meant that the opponents of Spanish rule varied dramatically—the Sultan, Rif rebels, the Army of Liberation, etc. Does that seem more reasonable? Albrecht 22:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry and thanks for fixing. I misunderstood something I saw in the code of another portal (I've been looting ideas from portals I like). Totally unintentional as far as the politeness thing. Thanks for helping and just making it correct. Really getting into it. Sorry if my elbows are swinging wildly. BusterD 03:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: formatting, everything's so temporary right now, I'm not worried about any proportions at this time. I'm trying to learn by copying things that work on other good portals. I really love the construction of your war portal, but it takes a lot of formatted material to make that work. I suspect in a week or so I'll turn the world loose on it, but at this moment it's missing 3/4 of the content I expect to see here. BusterD 03:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill, Could I ask you for a favour? There's an ugly scene over at Talk:Bowser (Nintendo) regarding article naming. Since you're a well respected admin, have no prior involvement, and as an American can offer a different perspective from the British admins who have so far taken part, could you take a look at it please? What we need is a decision on the debate about the page naming regarding consensus and the application of naming/disambiguation policies. King Bowser and Bowser need to be unprotected from page moves once a decision is made.

If there's any change in the naming User:JzG has pledged to sort out any incoming links.

Thanks in advance. --kingboyk 09:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that one out, Kirill. Appreciated. -- Steel 00:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. --kingboyk 06:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you with a typo but the featured article blurb for the Corinthian War omits the "B.C." after 5th century when refering to the Athenian Empire. The article itself is correct "5th century B.C.", but the feature blurb gives the impression that Athens had an empire in the year 400 A.D.. Thanks for your time. L0b0t 12:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill, yet another email begging your help - this time on Version 0.5. We've made it over 1000 articles! Now we only have about four weeks left to review articles for Wikipedia:Version 0.5. I was wondering if you could take a look at Wikipedia:Version_0.5/To_do and sign up for something? I'd like us to make sure we don't miss anything important. And once the end of the month rolls around we can take a well-deserved break...! Any help you can give would be most welcome. Hope to talk with you again on IRC next Sunday at 4pm EST. Thanks for all your help so far, Walkerma 21:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The result should have been keep - a 70% consensus for keep, and the fact of the matter is that this consensus was in favor of the mover, who clearly doesn't care which way the consensus swings. There was already a consensus, and it is not fair that we should have to be the ones jumping through hoops twice just because someone decided that Nintendo fans are idiots and are always in favor of CVG. This is completely unfair and biased. On two separate occasions, the consensus was greater than 70%. Just because you think that it's more likely that Bowser is more known as a gas pump, an aviation term or a water tank doesn't mean you can override a consensus, assuming that Nintendo fans aren't basing their votes on reality. See, it is this ignorant attitude about the CVG community that makes Wikipedia worse. I never got angry at JzG for wanting Bowser (Nintendo) to be at Bowser (Nintendo), I was always pissed at him for declaring me and everyone in the CVG community to be too stupid to form an unbiased opinion on the matter. I'm not letting this down - 70% consensus =/= good enough? Can you honestly say that your decision to close the vote was not based on your personal opinion? - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my mistaken deletion of the project tags in that page! I just did a mess.

If I can expiate through giving some assistance with information about Italy... I'm from Pavia, I'm sure you know where it is! --MauroVan 09:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You may have mistaken it as a attack but I can assure you it wasn't. One of his project members edited my project and got mad as we are rivals. I would never edit his so why did he edit mine? Lenny 16:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hum... OK? Lenny 16:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I really do prefer the way you taught me to do refs (it's the closest to how I was taught to do them in graduate school for historical papers), and I was wondering if this was a personal pref of yours, or if it is also the recommended style by the MILHIST WP as a whole? The reason I'm asking is I'm wondering how hard to lobby for this style over Harvard for George Washington? I'm having a debate with User:Rjensen on the article talk page and was curious... --plange 01:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I'll continue lobbying to keep George Washington using CMS.... --plange 02:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hell has broken loose. --Ideogram 06:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you or perhaps another admin look at what appears to be a stubborn turf war among contributors and editors on Treaty of Trianon Some users appear more intent on pushing personal POV and secondary issues at the expense of the primary issue of defining what the Treaty was. (Please see recent contributions and arguments put forward on the Discussion page). Some sort of intervention and/or comment by an administrator might help. Many thanks Honti 16:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you please help me? I can't find the proper template. I reorganized the Medicine Wikiproject, that's why I had to create some templates (like Template:MedProjectNews), but I can't add an edit button to the right hand side of the table. Thanks in advance. NCurse _work 22:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast reaction. I'll deal with the others now. :) NCurse _work 22:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Kirill. I've noticed that you have assessed the M1 Garand article with an A-Class rating; considering this rating is not officially used by Wikipedia but, on the other hand, is superior in the projects's assessment scale to the Good Article (GA-Class) rating—which is used by Wikipedia—, wouldn't it be a good idea to have the GA template on the article as well, or would that go against the project's guideline? Thanks in advance. —Squalla 03:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well...it's sort of an alert. The Tahirih Justice Center article has been discovered by someone who is very anti-IMBRA and who made some major changes to the article recently. I have reverted these, but I may need your help in the future so I'm just letting you know. This person apparently started a whole thread in an online forum where there is even some discussion about personal matters relating to me (see here). He might need to be banned, although we'll see what happens.UberCryxic 17:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This guy (EnglishGarden) already opened a discussion on AI about me. I've added the link about my personal information there. I have to admit he is a little bit unstable. Just wait and see I guess.....UberCryxic 18:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Umm Kirill, I'm having some more trouble. At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tahirih Justice Center edited by son of fundraiser volunteer, one person wrote,

" I would be wary of editing articles where a conflict of interests might be presented. On one hand, you're a Wikipedia editor and must maintain NPOV when editing. On the other, it is your job, or a family member's job, to promote this organization. I would steer clear of the article if you're unable to be neutral. Furthermore, it is incorrect for you to assume bad faith in the complaining editor. He may have been accused of sock puppetry in the past, but that is niether here nor there. Please remain on topic. Regards to both"

No apparent care for the personal information.

EnglishGarden has written things like,

"You are still not disclosing whether there is financial remuneration in this for yourself. A 19 year old male isn't going to work hard as the webmaster of a Wikipedia article on a women's political organization in the Washington area whom his mother is a fundraiser/volunteer for...without some kind of interest."

"Erald's mother is a fundraiser volunteer for the Tahirih Justice Center. He has written a blatant fundraiser advertisement. Please check the changes I made. Here is the proof that she is a fundraiser/volunteer Mrs. Kolasi"

Can you please drop a word in there when you have time? Thank you very much. I'm sorry if this is all too sudden. It was definitely weird for me. I came back from class and for two hours straight I've had to deal with this stuff.UberCryxic 18:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I requested that now.UberCryxic 18:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, can you at least write another message to EnglishGarden telling him to stop using personal references and to stop being disruptive....or something to that effect. His focus on my mother precludes me from responding. As I told him, I would ignore any personal remarks from now on in the talk page. He is really flying off now, and he continues to make inflammatory and incorrect statements (claiming the person who I told you about was an administrator when in fact he wasn't) in his website. Thanks.UberCryxic 18:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

EnglishGarden wrote this in reply to your message,

"Thanx Kirill. I have proven that this young man's mother is a fundraiser for the TJC. He has admitted as much on the complaint board. He has not disclosed that he is not receiving remuneration as the webmaster for this article. There is a family conflict of interest and another member has asked him to steer clear of this board as a result.

For removing POV, the words "exploit" and "marriage broker" and "mail order bride" either need to be removed or placed in quotations so it is very clear that the editors do not pass judgement on the online dating industry where there is a restraining order on the IMBRA law in question. See Restraining Order. This is the son of a fundraiser for Tahirih who is obviously the chosen webmaster. He should take a step back and ask himself what he is doing. This topic is clearly not in his personal interest otherwise."UberCryxic 19:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Kirill, thanks for all your help man. This guy is really weird; he's talking crap about you now on his site. Really awkward person....UberCryxic 22:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Kirill, just a few minutes ago someone made an edit on my userpage with my username. They changed the statement "My name is Erald Kolasi and I have been a regular Wikipedia..." to "My name is Erald Kolasi and I AM A HOMOSEXUAL ... " Obviously I don't know who it is. I've changed my password but now I'm afraid to log back out because that person could change it again. I'm not really sure what to do except to not panic haha. Should I report this somewhere?UberCryxic 03:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, nevermind. Apparently it was my suitemates screwing around. Bastards...UberCryxic 04:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Kirill, the guy's back and in the past hour has made statements in the TJC talk page like...

"You state your name openly and everyone knows that your parents are on the fundraiser committee for Tahirih. You should have no responsibilities for this article."

and...

"You publish your name openly in your profile and your Mom is a fundraiser for Tahirih."

I'm wondering if any of this makes him liable for a ban now.UberCryxic 18:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

He's...still making personal statements about my family. I told him again not to but I don't think he's listening.UberCryxic 21:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, why should he not be banned at this point? He won't stop talking about it. And you did say that personal information about the families would get either him or me banned.UberCryxic 21:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah good points. I've now asked another admin to take a look at it.UberCryxic 21:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Kirill, another admin warned him about continuing incivility on his talk page, but he still continues to make not only untrue references about my parents, but just references period, despite my best efforts at requesting him to stop. Can you give him another warning when you have time please? Thank you!UberCryxic 17:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill: In regard to the 2 day argument I had with Ubercryxic last week, I just discovered how this guy was actually asking you to help him keep the Tahirih Justice Center devoid of criticism. He lives online and was doing well enough alone in reverting changes that even lawyers were trying to make to no avail. I have zero time to waste on Wikipedia (with all due respect to you if you like hanging out here). But, because online searches these days favor Wikipedia articles, people have to deal with the people here now and then, if only to get a word in edgewise.

Please look at the reputable data I provided (court documents are reputable) and note that the 5th Amendment guarantees that a restraining order placed on a law like IMBRA (the supposed jewel in the Tahirih Justice Center crown) is a restraining order on all similar plaintiffs (in this case dating websites). IMBRA is dead in the water but the article calls it an accomplishment that allegedly provides "important" information to foreign women instead of "sensitive" or "private" or "too much" information, which would be just as POV laden.

There is no objective reason to call dating websites "Marriage Brokers". I provided the reputable document (the IMBRA law) that defines even social referral websites as "Marriage Brokers". It is a farce for Wikipedians to adopt the language of Tahirih and a law under restraining order when we are talking about matchmaking sites like MySpace and Match.com would be if their membership were >50% foreign. Meanwhile I've dated dozens of "mail order brides" but never married any of them. The term refers to women from a certain geographic areas and the term is racist if used in the pejorative.

The Tahirih Justice Center recently found a sympathetic judge in Ohio who said "The Supreme Court has never explicitly held that there is a fundamental liberty interest in an American meeting a foreigner for an intimate relationship". If this kind of attitude gets ignored or glossed over at Wikipedia, it won't be more than a year before you can take the words off "intimate relationship" and just have laws preventing Americans from meeting foreigners for any reason.

I happen to be an expert on the Tahirih Justice Center but who doesn't have the time to waste on Wikipedia arguing with an obdurate webmaster who thinks the article belongs to him because he got it somehow "peer reviewed". Ubercryxic, in addition, has been reverting small changes that a lawyer tried to make to make things more accurate. Ubercryxic practices complete reversion and doesn't try to work with anyone. Please end the problem by at least taking the change someone else made recently and finding a compromise so at least part of the small change can hold.84.56.10.252 12:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

That was a quick reply to my notice! Colonel Marksman 17:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm basically satisfied with portal layout and portal article boxes; I'm in the process of writing guideline and welcome talk pages before showing this to the group. After we get some group consensus, we can take this off under-construction. BusterD 00:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'm just sending out a message for a new study I will be undertaking soon. It will involve surveys & polls to gather information & trends of editors on Wikipedia & other subjects. The data gathering will involve yourself recieving a questionaire on your talk page for you to fill out. I will then collect your questionaire & combine it with data from other editors. If you would like to be a part of this experiment, or know of someone who does, place a "Yes" or "No" below this message. Remember, it's only for fun & you can choose not to fill out all or parts of your questionaire once they arrive. Have a nice day... -- Spawn Man 05:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"Umm, isn't avoiding a straight majority/minority breakdown the whole point of consensus? You seem to be condemning both majority-based voting and actual consensus; what, then, are you advocating here (aside, of course, from the supression of the "disgusting rabble")? Kirill Lokshin 19:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)"

That's the only time I smiled while reading that whole mess. Thanks

--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Kirill, I've implemented most of your changes and will cover the rest later today most likely (I'm really tired right now; in fact, why are you up? Go to sleep man!) But anyway you did bring up something that I wanted addressed but never asked about. I think there's a distinction between the European coalitions from 1792 to 1815 as historical events and as military events, but we here haven't really recognized that. All those coalitions are supported by the Milt. Hist. Wikiproject, so I wrote the article working under the assumption that it was primarily a military event, paying little attention to the diplomacy and other aspects that make coalitions. I could take it to 'War of the Fifth Coalition,' but wouldn't we have to do that with all of these other coalitions?UberCryxic 06:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it, but now there's technical stuff going on. Like I'm getting redlinks for the 'request has been made' to peer review and so on. Also in the WPMILHIST Peer review it's a complete redlink to an article that doesn't exist.UberCryxic 06:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"The peer review subpage doesn't move automatically when you move the article!"

Well it should! Haha....UberCryxic 06:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

In the military actions of Israel Cfd did I get my info right?Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Operation Moses? I don't really know about ISrael military history and probably wont dabble in it because its just one more unnecessary edit war quagmire that will brew over Israel's actions (whether justifued or not).Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill for your contribution to the template. And sorry for the mistake! I edited the wrong page! Really funny! I tried to revert my own edit, but you had already done it.--Yannismarou 16:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, again. Are lists and categories interchangeable or are there advantages of one over the other, according to circumstances? Are there guidelines somewhere, on what's best? I realise that categories can only contain existing articles whereas lists don't have this restriction. Folks at 137 16:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I posted this on my talk page, but in case you aren't watching that, here it is.

I agree with you about the date preferences. I go around linking unlinked dates when I find them. However, date preferences have no effect on partial dates, whether linked or unlinked. Wikipedia has a policy on not linking incomplete dates unless there is some definite reason a reader might follow the link (a policy that I read somewhere but can't find now). The ones I unlinked were only of that kind. However, it's no big deal either way; change them back if you like. Rbraunwa 16:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

We've actually interacted a few times on WP:ANI, when you admonished the community to block myself, if I recall correctly. But this actually does not pertain to the business. I dislike the assessment system that was implemented in Military WikiProject and then spread to other projects as well. I've even seen people edit warring over how to assess the article. Guys, let's write an encyclopaedia rather than buzz around. It's annoying to spam thousands articles with arbitrary tags, when so many subjects are not covered in WP at all. This spring, I wrote/rewrote all articles about Russo-Swedish Wars and many about Russo-Turkish Wars and Russo-Persian Wars. I withheld the article about Russo-Polish War (1654–1667), hoping that someone would notice that we don't have an article about the war which rocked a large part of Europe for thirteen years and resulted in Russia replacing Poland-Lithuania as the main power of Eastern Europe. Not at all. I still withhold several other articles, such as Russo-Kazan Wars, hoping that the Military Project would miss or request the article about the conflict which gave birth to the Tsardom of Russia. Nobody seems to bother. Everybody is involved in sticking tags to existing articles and voting in unison. Please take a note that last year I voted in your support. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's nice to hear that some editors are not easily replaceable. It still escapes me what's the purpose of having such editors blocked from editing after they submit, say, the whole set of articles about Russo-Swedish Wars. I don't think easy blocks will help this project grow anywhere. Cheers, Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Delicious essence! how refreshing art thou to Nature! how strongly are all its powers and all its weaknesses on thy side! how sweetly dost thou mix with the blood, and help it through the most difficult and tortuous passages to the heart! — says Sterne about flattery. Therefore I give up (not after eliminating the red link above). --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you have 'merged' Category:1948 Arab-Israeli War with Category:Israel Defense Forces operations. While it's good that you have created a more specific category for battles and operations in the 1948 war, this does not mean that they should not also be categorized under IDF operations (which apply to all of Israel's wars) when relevant. I am currently reinstating the Category:Israel Defense Forces operations to all the articles where you deleted it from. You can help by doing this as well. Thanks, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

In that case, Category:Battles and operations of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War should also be in Battles of Egypt, Battles of Syria, etc. otherwise it is a false category. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Just curious, since you seem to advocate copious footnotes quite often, if you believe there is a point where there are too many footnotes? I've had some feedback to that effect with regards to the Third Servile War. I realize that there are as many opinions about how a Wikipedia article should be as users+1, so this will be a matter of taste, I'm sure - but I'm curious as to your opinion :) - Vedexent 21:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your swift response :)I had used the smaller form originally, yes - but took it out for readability. Maybe I just need a better monitor ;) I also think that the article footnotes might benefit from naming some, and using reference to the named footnote, as there is some repeated reference to particular sections. However, since some of the references are "compound" (e.g. X is asserted by Plutarch and Appian - but not Florus - save that I don't add the not part), this won't always work I don't think. - Vedexent 21:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes. I do however, tend to at least examine criticisms to see if they have a a grain of truth in them - so as not to get hung up in my own preconceptions any more than I can help :) I also realize that people's opinions on everything vary widely - and not everyone agrees with a structuralist/functionalist approach to history.

Still, I think it important to at least consider and develop a rebuttal for all objections, as the article well be subject to more and more objections (even if they are based in personal opinion) the more stringent the review process, and I would like to make this a FAC.

I appreciate your input - and your advice :) Thank you :) - Vedexent 21:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Y'all ought to consider putting a link to this on the template section of the Military history project. I first noticed the problem on Battle of Saratoga, and someone from the Villiage Tech pump immediately knew how to fix it, but almost no one links to WP:BUNCH; it's almost secret knowledge. I've gone on to fix the problem in four other military-conflict pages -- all had a long conflict box followed by a shorter overview box of sub-battles or side-wars, what-have-you. The example which seems to work best for them is entitled "Example 3." If you have no idea what I'm talking about, my most recent fix was on the Six-day War -- Kendrick7 22:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. -- Kendrick7 23:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there a wikiproject Korea? I can't find one and I wish to make one if there isn't.

Mr, Lokshin, do you know how to create a wikiproject for Korea? Good friend100 00:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I could help you with your request. I've been kinda leading the Dinosaur project, (although they won't admit it... bastiches...). I can help you get everything set up, but I'm afraid that I'm not knowledgable about Korea. Thanks. Spawn Man 06:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Kirill! I've requested an article on your Project's assessment thingy, just incase you didn't know. The 6 minute wait between then & now was unbearable ;)! I see you're doing well with yourself; I'm having more luck getting Dinosaur articles featured. Anyway, hope you like my new article, even though it's stubby. :(. Do I get a War medal now lol? ;). Well, you're a busy man, I'll leave you be. See ya. Spawn Man 06:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew it was gonna be a stub... ;) Spawn Man 21:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry for rating this article as GA, I got mixed up and thought only classes above GA had to go through a peer review. --Deon Steyn 11:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The same situation as with Category:Battles of Belarus the other day. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Just wanted to say good choice for the contest. Danny 22:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Kirill,
I couldn't help but notice the picture you included here and though I'm no particular manga/anime fan, thought I'd use it for the above. Thanks for bringing it to light – if you speak any Japanese, please pass on my thanks to Kasuga for his/her fine work!  Yours, David Kernow 00:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but it was actually Kim Bruning who found the picture. (And unfortunately, I don't speak a word of Japanese.)

Oops – thanks for the correction!  I'll repost my message on Kim's talk page. Yours, David 01:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I take it the TSW failed the A-class review on basis of the objection, and the fact that I couldn't get around to fixing that before the 4 days elapsed? No grief if that's the case - I have the sources and research notes for the section I had to add - I've just been way busy with other things. I'll get it fixed up and apply again later.

If there were other problems/reasons, please let me know :)

Vedexent 04:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

check this out Category:Jack Abramoff scandals...what is all that article stuff doing in the body of the cat and what is the best way to handle? PS..if you follow the cfd link, there is not entry for it on the cfd. Rlevse 17:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Howdy, c'est moi-- I have a question-- I've nominated an article for the first time for FA, but it seems to have stalled with only 3 commenters (one oppose/2 support), is that normal? The article is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John W. Johnston. I've never done this before so wasn't sure what to expect. --plange 19:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! The only problem is that I can't move forward on the one objection because it's wanting more comprehensiveness, but there really isn't any more published sources I know of to achieve this.... --plange 02:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Lokshin,

Is there a Wikiproject Korea? If there isn't one, how do I make one? Thank you Good friend100 00:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

See [11] -- it's very similar to the guitarist deletion episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.167.200.118 (talk • contribs)

Hi Kirill, got your msg. There is not a real community that I know of, but I am sure you may find a full spectrum of views :P. I agree with you regarding the possibility of another battleground. Hope you don't mind that I linked your post from Wikipedia:Notice board for Israel-related topics#Israeli military issues, feel free to add details. What are you looking for: volunteers, opinions, answers, contributions? Other places to tap would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish history and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you please block permanently or at least for a long time 195.229.242.86, a very creative vandal. Some of his noncence survived for a week because being really non obvious and some edits include cross editing related articles so it is hard to verify facts. He seems to love Pakistan and trying to promote it by changing facts, like increasing pakistani human development rating or increasing number of troops in Pak army. Took some time to revert his edits(not all of them!) and I don't really want to go through that again. TestPilot 03:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=195.229.242.86 TestPilot 03:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree -there was a claim that IP belong to American Community School of Abu Dhabi http://acs.sch.ae. Yes, there was some useful edits that came from that IP, but there was really just a few of thouse. And hurm is/was substantial. And you can see that just by reading talk page, which is all about vandalizm. Plus it is really not likely that IP dynamic if same user coming for weeks. TestPilot 04:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for putting the article at assesment. I didn't even notice that it was not there, I was just wondering why it wasn't. Ikokki 13:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

How do you make a good template for Wikiproject Korea? I made one using the stub picture in the wikiproject but I don't know if I should start tagging articles with it. Good friend100 18:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the one I made

This article is within the scope of the Korea WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Korea. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Good friend100 18:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

File:Sillagoldcrown.gif

This article is within the scope of the Korea WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Korea and Korea related articles. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

I think this is a nice template. But isn't the template too wide? Thanks for your opinion. Good friend100 16:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I was relieved to realize you were actually commenting in more or less agreement there, rather than opposition. I don't know why I bother posting on the various GA talk pages, as naturally responses are from people who are into GA for whatever reason. However, I don't want to cease commenting on it because, as you say, it's being shoehorned everywhere, and it obviously uses a lot of wiki man-hours. I was thinking of drawing up a list of "ways GA might be refocussed" and trying to present it more wiki-wide rather than on GA. Or do you think I should not bother? Marskell 19:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I will write up something and let you know. Maybe I'll try my hand with a suggestion at IRC (whose corridors I have yet to tread). I think if you scratch the surface of some regulars—e.g., regulars who have had an FAC or two—you'll find a lot couldn't be bothered with GA but never say so. What was good about WorldTraveller, whom I talked to extensively about it, is that he frequented the whole gambit: GAs, FAs, FA removal, etc. But now I see people commenting at GA who have a fortress mentality about the procedure, because its their main activity on Wiki, and who dismiss FA as demanding "brilliant" prose (which it does not), 10000 push-ups, a nobel prize, whatever. The parallel process thing is no good. Getting newbies involved is a good thing, of course, and maybe GA does that, but it shouldn't be on the basis of laxity for the sake of laxity. Anyhow, a ramble; I don't know why that puppy gets under my skin so. Marskell 20:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill. I have a thought for you about the categories discussion, but am new to the whole Wiki-military thing so thought I should try to mention it to you directly rather than on the category talk page. I'm not really sure where in that talk page this sort of comment should go, and you seem to have your finger on the pulse of the entire debate.

I noted that the current proposal includes provision for categories such as '______ by country' or '______ by nationality.' I believe that is an important categorization technique, especially for the modern era of the nation state since the treaty of Westphalia (circa 1490, I believe) through approximately the late 20th C.

However, for the older era of feudalism or of city-states, as well as for the modern cross-border (transnational and non-national) militarized units, I think you will want to be sure your categories leave room for non-nation and non-country military forces. I don't have a good suggestion for just how to categorize such, but I believe I could make a convincing argument that, in this time of a multi-era military encyclopedia, it will absolutely be necessary to do so. Hope this is a helpful perspective. Keep up the good work on the Wikimil project! N2e 20:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Erm... (users of GA are people) "whose articles tend to get mauled by any formal process, I suspect". Ouch. One third of WP:KLF's articles have the GA badge. The second of those to go onto FAC, right now, received the following comment:

"This is the best song article I've seen on Wikipedia so far, and wipes the floor with the other FA song articles."

Perhaps you'd like to reconsider that statement. --kingboyk 21:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Kirill, I'm doing RFC for this article and a very inappropriately named user, Stick to the Facts, is opposing some changes that were hammered out in the discussion page by myself, another RFC editor, and another contributor. I am fairly certain this user is engaging in wild original research and has been unfairly reverting left and right. Quite humorously, he also accused me of vandalism on my talk page when I reverted one of his changes. Anyway, he reverted back and I will undo his edits, but I was just wondering if you could give him a warning and tell him to be more polite (he has viciously attacked previous editors in the talk page with comments like "You guys need your heads examined - I hope the prison you end up in gives you treatment.") Thanks!UberCryxic 00:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

He has now flagrantly violated 3RR, but that's not what's bothering me. He keeps issuing vandalism warnings to people (he's done it to all 3 of us so far, twice to me) and is ostensibly hiding behind Wikipedia policies to claim the moral high ground. This person seems pretty deluded at this point. Please deal with him as soon as you have time, and sorry for bothering you with this, but this guy is really dangerous.UberCryxic 00:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Yes I will ask Slim to look at this.UberCryxic 00:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Kirill, Stick is back and is again continuously accusing me of vandalism. See here and this report that he filed on AIV (which was ignored). Can you please give him a warning telling him to stop these accusations?UberCryxic 03:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I've actually decided just to let him have the article. I don't want to be bothered with it anymore. I came in as part of the RFC but felt more and more like I was the one in the edit war. Screw that....UberCryxic 03:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sigh....Kirill sorry to come again but this....idiot that's what he is (screw personal attacks, this guy deserves it) has now opened an RCFU on like 7 editors, most of which are clearly not the same person, me included. This person is either completely deluded or he is redefining what it means to be viciously manipulative. It shouldn't be bothering me, but it is. He's bothering me, and it's not just in the RCFU, but he opened an AFD on the article (in which I supported deletion) and again espoused the same bs lies about vandalism, sockpuppetry, and this general reality, "wikiality" to borrow a Stephen Colbert term, that he's fabricating. I don't want him banned...I just want someone to tell him to stop doing it.

UberCryxic has been engaging in massive forum shopping by contacting admins directly. If you would like to see the controversy at hand please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Poison_sf. Please help keep wikipedia objective by discouraging UberCryxic from contacting admins directly. Thank you, Stick to the Facts 08:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That aside, I'm going to expand the Battle of Laon this weekend and I was wondering about changing the assessment. Do you do that or can a random editor do it in accordance with WPMILHST policies?UberCryxic 05:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in my RfA. Consensus to promote was reached, and I am now an administrator. I'll be using the tools cautiously at first, and everyone should feel welcome to peer over my shoulder and make sure I'm not doing anything foolish.

This brings us, of course, one step closer to critical mass for a WP:MILHIST putsch; whenever the time comes, just give the signal... --Robth^Talk 03:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

new ACW task force Userbox!

Fix Bayonets! 13:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing all that pagemove vandalism to my userpage, and to the main-page-mentioned article [I forget which one]. What on Earth was all that?!. ><Richard0612 ^UW 15:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with nesting it to Battles of Lithuania?--Lokyz 16:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Kirill, can anyone make comments/suggestions in a Peer Review? Raymond Palmer 18:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

My role in the RAF squadrons pages is exceedingly minor (I only contributed some raster graphics of the insignia) and I don't know where to seek consensus for such a move but it would be a very simple AWB project to do. Heck, I'll even volunteer to do it. :) - Emt147 ^Burninate! 05:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I am having trouble over what image to use for the Wikiproject Korea template.

File:Sillagoldcrown.gif

This article is within the scope of the Korea WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Korea and Korea related articles. If you would like to participate you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This article is within the scope of the Korea WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Korea and Korea related articles. If you would like to participate you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This article is within the scope of the Korea WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Korea and Korea related articles. If you would like to participate you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This article is within the scope of the Korea WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Korea and Korea related articles. If you would like to participate you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This article is within the scope of the Korea WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Korea and Korea related articles. If you would like to participate you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Could you consider which template is the best? thank you and sorry for the trouble. Good friend100 01:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

thank you for the tip. Good friend100 19:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Kirill, Do you have any pull on the Commons? Better still, are you an admin there yet? The reason I asked, This guy has launched a one man [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20060920112308&limit=50&target=Ejdzej jihad] against most all my contribs there. I don't think his English is very good and his stern attitude certainly isnt. Any assistance you can provide would be appreciated.Thanks my friend--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Program Feature: Barnstar Brigade Here in Wikipedia there are hundreds of wikipedians whose work and efforts go unappreciated. One occasionally comes across editors who have thousands of good edits, but because they may not get around as much as others, their contributions and hard work often go unnoticed. As Esperanzians we can help to make people feel appreciated, be it by some kind words or the awarding of a Barnstar. This is where the Barnstar Brigade comes in. The object of this program is to seek out the people which deserve a Barnstar, and help them feel appreciated. With your help, we can recognize more dedicated editors! What's New? September elections are upon us! Anyone wishing to be a part of the Advisory Council may list themselves as a candidate from 18 September until 24 September, with the voting taking place from 25 September to 30 September. Those who wish to help with the election staff should also list themselves! Appreciation Week, a program currently in development, now has its own subpage! Share your good ideas on how to make it awesome there! The Esperanza front page has been redesigned! Many thanks to all who worked hard on it. Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.

The last AC meeting (full log) The proposals page has been updated, with some proposals being archived. Since the program in development Appretiaion week is getting lots of good ideas, it now has its own subpage. The September 2006 Council elections will open for nominations on 18 September 2006. The voting will run from 25 September 2006 until 30 September 2006. If you wish to be a candidate or a member of the elections staff, please list yourself! The new Esperanza front page design has but put up - many thanks to all who worked on it! TangoTango has written a script for a bot that will list new members of Esperanza, which will help those who welcome new Esperanzains greatly! Signed... Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, Freakofnurture, and Titoxd 04:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.

I've revamped the article substantially based on your input, and that of others, in the various review processes. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, I would appeciate it if you could give the article another once-over and add any further comments you might have on the changes and the article's current state to the peer review. Thank you :) - Vedexent 09:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Tada! Why yes, yes I am obsessive-compulsive about this article, why do you ask? :D - Vedexent 16:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Woohoo! Thanks :) Think it is worth putting up as a FAC now? - Vedexent 14:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, would like your view on this. Thank you. --James Bond 06:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Kirill, got another question for you -- I was under the impression that we were allowed to use primary sources as long as they were Verifiable? I understand (after you clarified) why I couldn't use the one I have in my possession (or post it to the web), but thought that I could use primary sources if they were at an archives? I used one in the John W. Johnston article but have just noticed that WP:OR says primary sources must be published? --plange 23:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

No one's complained, but I noticed the requirement on WP:OR, which is official policy, and so brought it up on their Talk page, which led me to check WP:RS, which is only a guideline, but it's also on there in bold. I just don't want to be violating any policies. I've left questions on those pages, but thought I'd ask you too. The impression I got on WP:V seemed to be that it was okay, as long as it was publicly available and is what I was operating under until tonight --plange 00:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

How do I submit an article that was given a "Stub" rating to be rerated as it is worked on?

Page in question is 1st Kentucky Artillery

Thanks Soldan 21:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm here on behalf of Wikipedia:Wikiproject Paranormal. I've been working on overhauling the whole project, including adding a rating board and a peer review system. In the process, I stumbled across the beautiful template you put together here. There's a lot of stuff in there I'd really like to borrow for Template:WikiProject Paranormal, but the syntax is way out of my league. Any way I could get some help? --InShaneee 16:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, cool :) . Firstly, I wouldn't mind hearing from someone who knows what they're doing if the current template is 'up to code'. Secondly, I'm interested in implimenting 'peer review' and 'collaboration' structures into our template, and also the 'class' structure once I finish getting that set up on our end. --InShaneee 18:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

WOW that's a lot of code...I've tried implimenting it on my sandbox, but I'd really appreaciate it if you'd take a quick look over it and see if it looks right, and that I didn't miss any brackets or MH specific colors/images. No hurry, though, it's going to take me a bit to get the ball rolling on the project implimentation now that this step is almost out of the way. --InShaneee 21:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it wasn't intentional at all. I'm pretty unfamiliar with WikiMedia markup, so I probably thought I was doing something different. Could you add those in for me? And yes, I had noticed the capitalization problem a while back. I guess now is as good a time as any to fix that. :) --InShaneee 22:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You're my saviour. I'm deeply in your debt, sir! Thank you! --InShaneee 23:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

One more quick question, though. Looking over Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment, I see a LOT of nice tables at the bottom. How much of that data is bot generated? Would it be easy for us to set up such a system? --InShaneee 00:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Just about ready to go live with everything, so to be clear: as far as my project's version of this page goes: all that data generates automatically (ie, is there anything I ever need to do manually?)? Do I have to create that page myself, or do I have to go through the 1.0 Editorial Team? Thanks again for all the help. --InShaneee 22:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright! I just put everything live! I hope I got all that Assessment Category stuff correct so that the bot will find it...Anyway, I cannot thank you enough for all your work. I'd been hitting a roadblock trying to impliment much of that for some time now, and your assistance really pushed it forward. You're a gentleman and a scholar, and I am in your debt, sir! :) --InShaneee 23:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Just looking at your talk page makes one realize that you wear so many hats it is surprising you don't fall over topheavy. Truly the time and effort you put into Wikipedia is amazing, and I think the work you do here not only in writing but in organization, policy, and "helping out the common editor" is superlative. We all owe you a great deal here on Wikipedia. Thank you :) - Vedexent 19:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Amen to that.UberCryxic 20:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, your level of energy and dedication is astounding. You are truly an army of one.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I am stumped on what to put as a rating for Gun. This is one of those topics that is at the core of the WPMILHIST project so it should have a rating but the article is really only a list. I don't want to give it an NA but that is what I was leaning towrds. Thoughts?--Looper5920 22:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Lokshin I have created the Wikiproject Korea [12] and it is still relatively new. If you could help us out at the talk page I would appreciate it. Also, how do you make a shortcut tab for the project? Like WP:KO or something like that. Thank you! Good friend100 03:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thanks for letting me know. Daniel Case 12:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill,

I see that you moved catacombs to quarry. I know that it is listed as "quarry" in English, but it's nonsense. You don't defend a quarry since it is open. OTOH, catacombs are a bit easier to defend. :) Don't you think?

Both are OK for me but I just wanted to check if I'm the only insane person aboard... :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

What do we do if we had a peer review already for an early stage of an article, but would like to have another to see what it needs for FA? When I add a peer-review=yes param the link goes to the old one... I want to see if I can get Stephen Trigg peer-reviewed again, thanks! --plange 00:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

ok, now I'm embarassed :-P --plange 00:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the technique you used to refresh the featured content on the War portal is very cool, so I've stolen it for Portal:Computer and video games, hope you don't mind :) I'm currently doing a peer review on the portal since I want to try to make it a featured portal, so if you've got any opinion on what is lacking or could be improved I'd appreciate the feedback. Thanks, jaco♫plane 12:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone has merged two topics from the MoS:

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (emphasis)
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (italics)‎

Can you weigh in on the utility of the merge. I see italics as a subset of emphasis, italics is used for emphasis, but is not synonymous. Bold is used for emphasis as are exclamation points. What do you think? I can't revert the change, I did it twice already. I think major changes to MoS should have consensus. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to revert it? I can't I did it twice already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)

Hi Kirill Lokshin, Could you merge the history of Talk:Command and Control (disambiguation) to Talk:Command and Control (military)? There's been a series of moves that have confused matters. Thanks! BT 14:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 19:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Kirill, just wondering why 2003 invasion of Iraq is included with this campaignbox along with the Iraq war. Isn't it kind of repetitive? I just thought I'd ask since I saw that you'd edited that a couple of times. Publicus 20:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot... delivery complete. :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Kirill,

(Revert; the appearance here should be consistent with the other military infoboxes)

Please reconsider your reversion; although the template looks fine in the Battle of Lützen example, for me the mismatch of colons and entries in other places (e.g. World War I) takes the shine off an otherwise excellent template. Also, you may not've noticed the considerable internal cleaning.

Perhaps my volunteering to "de-colon-is/ze" other military-related infoboxes may assist your deliberations. Yours very hopefully, for the sake of a good template, David Kernow (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
PS I was also considering renaming the template "Infobox Military conflict", to accord with other infobox templates.

• I have no real issue with the colons ... [i]f you remove them from all the infoboxes listed here...

Okay, but please allow some time for this to occur; I'll aim to start on them a little later.

Ok, that works for me. Kirill Lokshin 16:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Your other internal cleanup was a very, very bad idea...

Thank you for this information; not being a web designer, I had no idea that this could cause trouble. So, I have another task: to "re-quote" those templates I know I have (or have listed as) amended or created similarly.

• As far as the name, I seem to recall that most infoboxes actually use title case rather than sentence case...

Well, my infobox experience thus far suggests the opposite, but as it's something even more cosmetic than the colons (!), I'll move along – especially as I now have a couple more pressing tasks to undertake.

Yours, David (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've now removed all the colons from the templates mentioned here, but please alert me to any I've missed – thanks.
While working through the templates, a few thoughts arose:

1. For the sake of the many "text-align:left;"s etc required, I wonder if there's an infobox class that doesn't include cente/ring...?  (Is there a list with descriptions of all these classes in one place somewhere that I've missed...?)
2. In {{Infobox Weapon}}, perhaps some kind of "master {{#if:{{{is_artillery|}}}, {{#if:{{{is_ranged|}}} etc sections" are possible for the sake of removing the many entries using these conditionals...?
3. I'm wondering if a minimum width is best set for the left-hand columns rather than reliance on "  ", as I realise there may be occurrences where the text in both columns is too close together...?

Hope all well, David (talk) 10:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice work. Some replies...

Thanks; I'm glad you're generally content with the results as I'm keen to maintain the quality of what seems to be one of the better WikiProjects. Re combining conditionals, your caveat occurred to me after I'd posted the above, but it may still be possible (if not a priority); re minimum column width, yes, I agree that this can sometimes produce odd results, but, as you suggest, cellspacing/padding might be something worth trying. One example I've now seen rather than imagined is in Fort Stewart's infobox; I'd say the "Current" is a little close to the "In use" header... Since it was my removing colons that made this possibility more of a problem, would you like me to investigate (with disclaimer that my CSS/HTML knowledge must be inferior to yours)...?  Yours, David (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

PS... Re:

(Remove strange alignment)

Why is it strange...?  Curious, David (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

...As far as the alignment, all the other fields where the height of the label and actual contents don't match align the two at the top; having centered alignment breaks this convention, and produces gaps of a different size than others seen in the infobox...

Understood; I guess I favo/ur the alternative view that aligning an entry with the first one or two words of a wrapped-around header phrase (e.g. "Unknown<br>burials") unnecessarily favo/urs that or those words (and in some instances might be momentarily confusing). Hope that makes sense, David (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

...see Template:Infobox Military Memorial. Is 1em enough spacing, in your opinion, or do we need more?

Looks good to me; I'll try Fort Stewart in a while to see how it looks there. Nice nifty work!  David (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Fort Stewart is done...

...and looks fine; thanks. Here's to more infoboxes aspiring to WP:MILHIST standards!  David (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

PS Typing "infobox" again reminded me of this... Any thoughts...?

...I think introducing new namespaces is generally more trouble than it's worth, but that's just my opinion.

Understood; it's just another one of those relatively fundamental corners of Wikipedia that I feel are crying out for tweaking... Yours, David (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Before I forget: Per my need to learn more about CSS/HTML/etc, I respaced the tabular code within the templates in an effort to make the distinction between settings ("style=" parameters etc) and cell contents clearer... Is this officially frowned upon...?  Thanks, David (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The prevailing convention is to space out everything...

Thanks; I'm not sure this ultimately benefits the code's readability/chackability (although a CSS/HTML/etc neophyte, I used to be a coder many moons ago) but fortunately (I guess!) I'm not a web designer etc. Best wishes, David (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Operations/actions fix done. Thanks for the tip. :) jengod 21:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Another question for you. What's the best name for this category: Category:American Civil War armed forces? Thanks for all your help!

Awesome. I'll get started. Hopefully not to your eventual dismay. ;) Thanks again. jengod 00:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

ER and Kirill: I've written this article on this Eagle Scout and war hero. I've asked permission to use a photo of him. We'll see. Could you both look it over for military info, info box format, tag it, etc? The lead could use some work too. I tagged it a weak B-class for now.Rlevse 01:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Tks. Pls see my note at Talk:USS Brinkley Bass (DD-887). Can you or someone you know interpret what I found? Rlevse 02:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I've nominated this for DYK (2 NC's less than 2 months apart). Rlevse 02:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

MADE DYK!! Rlevse 01:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Just in case you're all stressed out from everything you do around here, I thought I should give you the link to my new column in the Cavalier Daily: [13]. Hope you like it!UberCryxic 15:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

And I was sure I saw no mention of that when I posted my support? ;) For other things, Messerschmitt Bf 109, User:Retoi is removing sourced material that in its source has even the page numbers noted. He claims that BF109 G2s in FAF did not drop down 500 Soviet planes but the source says so and what he says is, that Soviet Air Force did not have even that many planes over Finland. Well, I'm almost sure they had and many missions were over Gulf of Finland where Soviet Air Force battled against Germany also. This is his 4th revert but as he waited for another day I cannot fill a 3RR report. The reason why I am telling this to you is that I don't want to be patrolling these articles everyday if someone has reverted them to wrong information. --Pudeo (Talk) 18:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Am I wasting my time? I feel like I'm fighting the good fight, but am wondering if it's worth it, esp. as it doesn't seem like we have much support from others. What's your take? I feel like giving up. --plange 19:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't you want to chime in here? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill, There seems to be a bit of confusion among the group of editors for the 56 Hungarian revolution article, about the introduction. Should the introduction be a simple, few-lines definition, e.g. "what this event was, when was it, who won", or an actual brief summary of what is stated in greater detail in the body of the article? Thanks, K. Lastochka K. Lastochka 18:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, got your message, thanks! :) K. Lastochka 03:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, this article was vandalized many times since last day by a negationnist who is not registered on Wikipedia. I think it should be protected. Thanks. --Flying tiger 18:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I had originally wanted to do this portal in camo colors (preferably forest but desert might look better) to distingush it from Portal:United States and give it a military feel. After several attempts, I give. Would you mind looking at the colors and see if you can. Thnx. Joe I 17:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, thnx, I couldn't even get the right olive colors. :) I tweaked alittle, think it looks ok? Joe I 19:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Great, thnx for the help :) Joe I 19:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering if you had heard about the proposed Citizendium fork of Wikipedia? I was also wondering what you thought of the idea, and, once the project gets off the ground if a) you had any intention of "mirroring" the Military History Project there as well, or b) whether you had any objection to the Citizendium opening a "branch office" of the project there.

I think that the organizational work of the project here is superlative - not only for military history, but as an example of how wikiprojects ought to be run. I can think of no better model to be carried into that wikipedia fork. However, I also see no reason for there to be inter-project competition, especially when there could be inter-project synergy.

Now, Citizendium hasn't been launched yet, so this may all be putting the cart before the horse, but it is something to think about - Vedexent (talk) - 08:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The citizendium project has one massive advantage over the wikipedia concept IMO - that Wikipedia seems to be incapable, or unwilling, to deal with the fact that most anonymous edits appear to be either trivial, destructive, or quick-and-dirty "puppets" to short-circuit established user's accountability in actions which support their agendas and aims. If Wikipedia will not address the issues Sanger mentions - and so far they have not - Wikipedia will slowly dissolve in a miasma of POV edits and "Bob rulz! Hi Fred and Evan!" additions. If the Citizendium project is to be avoided, Wikipedia had better plug the niche that it is attempting to expand to fill. It would be interesting to see if some statistics could be gathered to see how much of Wikipedia editor's resources are spent on "repair" and how much this trend has increased over time - Vedexent (talk) - 20:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Kirill, Are you online right now? — ERcheck (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have about 10 minutes? — ERcheck (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Sent you an e-mail. — ERcheck (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

One more e-mail. — ERcheck (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yo Kirill, I'm working on a new userpage for a friend and I need some technical help. So after you click on that link, can you tell me how to get the box "This is a Wikipedia user page" all the way to the bottom? Also, as it stands right now, there is sort of a mini-table all the way at the bottom. I want to get rid of this but I can't figure out how.UberCryxic 20:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I figured out the message, but there's still sort of a red strip at at the bottom that I can't get rid of.UberCryxic 21:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill, you're awesome.UberCryxic 21:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose this can go here since it is sort of a technical question. I want to start a portal on French military history....but beyond entering "Portal:French military history" in the Start a new article box, I know nothing about portals. I can sort of figure out the code stuff on my own just fine, but I was unsure if there are any requirements to start a portal. Like do you need to nominate it for creation somewhere? Do you need a certain number of users supporting? Stuff like that basically. You've been through this before so tell me if there's anything I need to know! Thank you.UberCryxic 21:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the box portal skeleton and how do I access it?UberCryxic 22:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Nvm got it.UberCryxic 22:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Frick it's tough making a portal.....that's just me complaining. Carry on.UberCryxic 23:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

All-right I think I'm done. Does it look legit?UberCryxic 00:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool I'll take "generally functional" as Kirill speak for "you totally rocked it." Thanks Kirill! :)UberCryxic 00:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I need your help again a little at the portal. I'm trying to archive the weekly articles but I'm screwing up badly and I don't know what's wrong.UberCryxic 16:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Nvm I fixed it.UberCryxic 16:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope apparently I haven't fixed it. What's happening is that when I change one of the weekly articles on the main page of the portal, the archives that I'm creating are showing the same thing from the main page.UberCryxic 16:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Damn this is frustrating. All-right I created the page you talked about, moved the old article in there (and it shows too), then I tried linking that page to the "More articles" tab on the main page of the Portal, but whenever I change that, it changes what's on the main page of the portal too. So if I want article y archived and I click on More articles to archive it, it still shows article y on the main page. If i want want article x on the main page and put it there, then it shows article x in the "More articles" page. What tha frick....UberCryxic 17:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Haha thanks. You make it look so easy. Of course it was easy but I'm just an idiot....UberCryxic 17:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Could You go there and close some, as some nominations have been open for 3-4 weeks. Thanks, feydey 10:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Question: Rotating content is a defacto FP requirement. But what about a way for users to suggest selected content? Rlevse 11:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

How does the currenttimestamp parameter go about selecting articles? Rlevse 18:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, but someone still has to set up the pool of possible pages, which I think people should have input to. Rlevse 19:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill! Hope this message finds you well. I just wanted to let you know that I've discussed some of the issues recently raised regarding article assessments and the whole GA issue. I wanted to know if you might eyeball it, because it also has a proposal which I'd love to hear your opinions on. Thanks much, Girolamo Savonarola 20:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote! Kingboyk has brought up an interesting question though, and wanted to get your feedback on it :-) --plange 22:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill, A quick question, how come the HMCS Prince David page does not come up when searched within Wikipedia? A Google search brings up the Wikipedia PD page forth in line. Thanks Alberg22 01:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill

I noticed your edit to Battle of Heligoland. Would you mind giving me a hint why you sorted the article this way? It looks like I missed something going through the instructions. To sum the situation up: The battle took place during the Second War of Schleswig between three Danish ships vs. a combined force of two Austrian and three Prussian ships. The supreme commander on the German side was an Austrian officer, Wilhelm von Tegetthoff. Btw, you are doing great work on Milhist project. Cheers. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 07:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to make things a bit more consistent by removing the Battles / Naval battles of Prussia category from the Second Schleswig War categories, tagging the individual articles instead. It seems most consistent to treat Denmark, Prussia, and Austria the same way. Cheers. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 07:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I agree with your attempt to remove clutter. Although tempting, I'm afraid it will not be completely accurate to simply tag Category:Battles of the Second War of Schleswig with the "Battles of ..." categories for Denmark, Prussia and Austria, since Austria didn't take part in some of the naval engagements. I was just surprised seing Denmark and Prussia categorized differently, that's all. Regards. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 14:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I get no awnser from the question I put here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Special_Air_Service#External_links_being_deleted Can you answer me? Yosy

Thanks for the reply :) Yosy

'They didn't relpy and I know there'se nothing wrong with those links - I'll add them again Yosy September 20 21:45

Hi Krill! I work on Demosthenes for some months. It is the second article I rewrote after Pericles and my favorite, since Demosthenes' personality was always something more than fascinating to me. The article has gone through two reviews and a third one is now under way (here). Further reviews are also available in the talk page of the article.

Trying to perfect it, I have delayed its FAC nominationa and I wish as many reviews as possible. Demosthenes was not a military and, therefore, I haven't submitted the article to the Military Project for peer-review. Nonetheless, through his political manoeuvres he played a crucial role in several battles and military events of significant importance.

I would like, of course, to know if I can submit to the project for peer-review, but, even if I cannot, I'd be grateful if you could comment on the article in the current peer-review or in the talk page of the article.

Thank you in advance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yannismarou (talk • contribs)

Howdy - don't know if you've been following it, but I'm sure it won't come as a surprise that the issue is still being discussed (what needs to be cited) and I'm feeling like it's not really getting anywhere. Was wondering if you and some of the other seasoned editors/admins could weigh in? I'm thinking that someone with your experience and clout will help cut through the issue and help bring it into focus. Right now, everyone's talking in circles... I'm not advocating for a particular side, BTW, just that I respect your opinion and so think whatever you make of the situation can only be good for WP. --plange 00:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill, I know it's a pain, but thanks for weighing in! --plange 02:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have split the present article into two separate articles

• Colditz, which includes Colditz Castle
• Oflag 4c, the whole of the present article about Oflag IV-C including the escapes. This should be renamed Oflag IV-C, but I have not been successful in opening it under this title - it always redirects back to Colditz Castle.

If this change is approved then the present article Colditz Castle may be deleted and the new article Oflag 4c moved to the correct name "Oflag IV-C"

I believe that this is the best solution. It fits in with the present organization of Wikipedia for all other Oflags and Stalags, and articles about places.

It also takes care of the unwieldy length of the present article.

Syrenab 16:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Kirill, when you get the time could you have alook at the Battle of Trafalgar and tell me if it would be OK to completely rewrite the article in the coming months. I'm asking because I suspect alot of people have contributed to the article over the years, and even though its only a B Class, I don't want to cause a rumpus. It must be one of the most popular articles on the whole Wikipedia site so I thought I'd make doubly sure by asking. Thanks Raymond Palmer 00:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If I take a PD image and modify it should I release under the liscence it was orginally given or do I need to release it under one of the "I made this" liscenses instead. The case in point is this image (be forewarned, its big), which is a modified US Navy photograph. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

See, to me, it warms my heart seeing such a well-referenced article! I see you have a PR req in on it-- if you'd like another pair of eyes I can take a gander... --plange 03:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Krill. I am a little worried about an upcoming dispute on the Battle of Krasnoi between UberCryxic and kenmore. My fear is that it could turn nasty, so I wonder if you could take a look on the article and have a talk with the two involved. Carl Logan 07:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, the Krasnoi article is going to hell in a handbasket. The problem right now is that two separate and distinct versions are emerging, both describing the same events (Krasnoi) but doing so in different terms and reaching different conclusions. Kenmore seems to have the wrong idea about how this is supposed to work. He wrote the following on my talk page:

Don't change my written words...please keep your contributions to the article at the top, in the space that Grafikim reserved for you to write your version of Krasnoi.

I realize he is new....I am probably not doing a good job at explaining to him the policies of Wikipedia, even though I tried. Do you mind taking another shot at it?UberCryxic 03:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

PERHAPS THE TIME HAS COME FOR ME TO TAKE FULL CONTROL OF THE KRASNOI ARTICLE?

I edited my original words in this section because originally, perhaps, they were a little too strong.

UberCryxic: I've done a lot of reading about Krasnoi over many, many years...there are reasons why I have worded the article in the way that I did. Not in any way am I substituting my personal opinion for fact: I am merely stating the truth about what happened at Krasnoi.

Presently, I don't want to foot note my article because it is confusingly footnoted to begin with, owing to the juxtaposition of your article and mine.

Again, I must be blunt with you, Uber: I believe that you are woefully underread on the subject of Krasnoi, and what you have read, you are totally confused about.

For example, your statement yesterday that Calaincourt supported your notion that Ozharovsky's troops were the same as those commanded by Miloradovich...with Ozharovsky first suffering a devastating defeat, and that the fleeing, defeated Russians then ran head-first into Eugene and defeated him --- this is complete and utter nonsense. Calaincourt does not say anything of the sort! Not at all!

I responded to your claim by quoting (on the Krasnoi discussion page) the passage from Calaincourt that you claim supports your ideas....sure enough, there is nothing there along the lines of what you state. I highlighted my questions to you in bold just to make my point...so far, there's been no response from you.

Furthermore, it's obvious that you are not even working with creditworthy sources regarding the information you are using. Here's your "source" for the utterly ridiculous notion that the Guard caused Kutusov's army to "flee in disarray"" http://www.napoleonguide.com/battle_krasnoe.htm

That is not even a valid source of information...it's just some fool's personal website on Napoleon. Honestly, Uber: you should be ashamed of yourself.

"HELL IN A HANDBASKET"

The only reason the Krasnoi article is going to pot right now is because of UberCryxic's deep ignorance on the subject, and his pretensions to having a right to slice-up and edit my words.

Maybe it's time for UberCyrxic to back off and let me finish the article on my own?

If you knew what you were talking about and I didn't, I would be reasonable enough to back off and let you write the article. Clearly however the opposite is the case here

Kenmore 14:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

I've read Palmer, Chandler, Caulaincourt, and a variety of other sources on Krasnoi. My general impression from the relevant sectors (ie. the French clearing the road) is that it was a French victory. I would please ask you to stop making personal attacks in the Krasnoi talk page. I do not know what kind of dialogue you hope to continue with statements like "You are making a fool of yourself," but it sure will not be anything positive. Kirill warned you against that and against claiming over ownership over articles, both of which you continue to do.UberCryxic 02:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

YOU ARE NOT DISCUSSING THIS ARTICLE WITH ME SERIOUSLY…PLEASE LEAVE AND LET ME FINISH IT MYSELF.

Uber: consider the following…

1. For two weeks you have dodged my questions about content…YOU HAVE FAILED TO DISCUSS CONTENT AND SOURCES WITH ME.

2. Your research into this article is shoddy and superficial.

3. You have not read Palmer, Chandler and Calaincourt…you have SKIMMED those books.

4. You have failed miserably to show how Palmer, Chandler and Calaincourt support your point.

5. The one time you referenced Calaincourt, I responded by printing the passage in question, and I proved to you that CALAINCOURT DOES NOT SAY WHAT YOU CLAIM HE SAYS!

6. You have refused to answer what I showed you about the Calaincourt passage…thus demonstrating again your inability to discuss the historical record.

7. You do not even know what the map of Krasnoi looks like – where were the positions of the armies on each day, where was the road, etc.

8. You have at best an overly general, superficial understanding of the battle…and it is erroneous at that.

9. You are incapable or unwilling to research the battle on a deeper, more specific level, above and beyond generalities.

10. IF YOU HAVE ANY RESPECT FOR THE HISTORICAL RECORD AND FOR TRUTH, THEN YOU WILL CEASE QUIBBLING WITH ME AND LET ME FINISH THE ARTICLE.

Kenmore 16:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

KIRILL: END OF THE DAY SUNDAY, OCT. 8TH IS UBER'S DEADLINE FOR DISCUSSING KRASNOI...OTHERWISE YOU APPOINT A MEDIATOR

I've been waiting nearly two weeks for Uber to seriously address my many points made on the Krasnoi discussion page...all to no avail.

If by the end of the day, Sunday, Oct. 8th, Uber still hasn't seriously attempted to address my concerns, then we should all agree that one of the following will happen:

1. We all consent to my erasing Uber's contribution to the article on the grounds that I have proven it to be fallacious, and because it contradicts and mars the rest of my content, or...

2. Kirill will appoint a mediator to go over everything Uber and I have raised on the discussion page.

Kenmore 19:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

KIRILL: I'M WORKING WITHOUT UBER ON THE KRASNOI ARTICLE...YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU WANT WITH MY SUBMISSION...UBER IS HOPELESSLY ARROGANT AND UNCOOPERATIVE

Uber's latest remarks on my talk page and the Krasnoi discussion page prove the impossibility of he and I working together on this article. I intend to proceed alone.

I have offered to go over our sources together on a word-by-word, line-by-line basis. He refuses and insists that I have "misunderstood" the readings, even though it's clearly him who doesn't understand what he reads.

He has no idea what happened at Krasnoi...he has never even studied a map of the battlefield.

Uber's arrogance and lack of sophistication are beyond belief.

I am working alone on the Krasnoi article now...you can judge my work yourself and do what you want with it.

Thank you for your patience.

Kenmore 22:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

Kirill, I still want to work with Kenmore. However, I'm very worried about his continuing incivility. I think he is becoming hysterical and it's impossible to try and reason with him, even when I do discuss content. His latest comments on the Krasnoi talk page had statements like:

LISTEN UP, FOOL (the original in bold)

UBER THE DULL WROTE

UBER THE ILLITERATE WROTE

LISTEN UP, DULLARD

I am making an attempt at discussing content. Our only point of contention is really about a part of the Russian army that was blocking the French advance out of Krasnoi. I think we agree on everything else. But it does not appear like he wants to seriously discuss this, resorting instead to strawmen and vicious personal attacks like this latest assortment.UberCryxic 02:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this problem is being exacerbated unnecessarily. Chandler's account merely focuses on what happened near and around Krasnoi. In this sector the Russians got raped, pardon my language. This is what I wanted to restrict the focus of the battle to initially. Kenmore has since expanded the coverage to a wider strategic level in mid-November. From this perspective, it is actually the French that got raped. I have no qualms about the casualty figures, the narrative, or anything like that. My main fear is that instead of analyzing the Battle of Krasnoi, the article is now analyzing the strategic situation over a long period of time. Basically, the article has lost its direction.UberCryxic 02:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Btw Ceresole is looking phenomenal. Nice job. Can't wait for the FAC!UberCryxic 02:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Smith, Riehn, Zoymanski and Cates (among others) all agree that the battle unfolded between Nov. 15th - 18th. Why should the focus be limited to just what Chandler writes (which is misleading)?

Kenmore 16:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

MAPS OF KRASNOI...VERY IMPORTANT

It is impossible to make sense out of all this without having a map of the battle. Here's two versions of the same map...save them to your harddrive and then use "zoom" to magnify them...you can then see commanders' names, village names, roads, etc.

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/library/specialcollections/images/treasure_2003_02.gif

http://www.demisoldepress.com/images/map067.jpg

Kenmore 18:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

UBER'S NOT BEING HONEST WITH YOU

I have tried very hard to discuss content with Uber…he ignores me and insults me. That’s why I get angry with him.

If you check the Krasnoi discussion page, you’ll see that many content related questions I’ve directed at Uber (to clear up his confusion) have been ignored. See the Krasnoi page for my questions…highlighted in bold.

Uber doesn’t want to discuss the historical record, sources, conflicting data, etc.

Sadly, Uber is mixed up regarding the unfolding of events in time and place (he’s never consulted a map), and he can’t differentiate between what’s relevant and what’s incidental to the battle.

Krasnoi involved the full sweep of events in and around Krasnoi from Nov. 15th to Nov. 18th.

The only “rape” of the Russians was a limited one…involving only a single regiment of jagers on the morning of Nov. 16th. This was an isolated incident that had no impact on the battle overall (see #7 below).

The road leading west out of Krasnoi was never cut by the Russians…it was only threatened.

BATTLE OF KRASNOI CHRONOLOGY

Here’s the timeline for the battle…please see the map I’ve posted in the article…it fully supports what I’ve written below (once Uber gets out of the way I will fully footnote all of this):

1. Oct. 15th: Napoleon and Kutusov converge on Krasnoi from different roads.

2. Oct. 15th. The Russian flying advance guard of Ozharovsky occupies Krasnoi.

3. Oct. 15th: The 16,000 strong corps of Miloradovich occupies a position south of the eastern road leading into Krasnoi (east of Krasnoi)

4. Oct. 15th: Napoleon’s Guard, 16,000 strong, and at the helm of a French column 40 miles long, passes Miloradovich. Miloradovich bombards the Guard (advancing to Krasnoi from the east)

5. Oct. 15th: The Guard (Polish sector) chases away Ozharovsky’s Cossacks from Krasnoi.

6. Oct. 15th: Napoleon occupies Krasnoi…remains here for three days.

7. Oct. 15th/16th: The Young Guard lead by Roguet attacks and devastates a regiment of Ozharovsky’s infantry, the jagers. (no more than 2,000 Russians…isolated from the rest of the Russian army…exact position of Ozharovsky unclear from sources)

8. Oct. 16th: Miloradovich defeats Eugene on the eastern road leading into Krasnoi. Huge French losses. Eugene escapes to the north with the remainder of his corps.

9. Oct. 16th: 800 grenadiers of the Old Guard, sent from Krasnoi eastward to rescure Eugene, are forced back to Krasnoi by Russian Cossacks (Davidov's famous "100 gun ship" quote happens here)

10. Oct. 16th: Kutusov and the main Russian army, 35,000 strong, finally arrive at Krasnoi (take up position south of Krasnoi)

11. Oct. 16th: Kutusov orders his left wing, under Tormasov, to begin threatening the western road leading out of Krasnoi (west of Krasnoi).

12. Oct. 17th: Miloradovich begins heavy bombardment of Davout…Davout in grave danger (east of Krasnoi).

13. Oct. 17th: Napoleon orders a two-pronged attacking manuever by the Old and Young Guard directed against the Russian center (Galitzin, south of Krasnoi) and Miloradovich (east of Krasnoi) to take the pressure off of Davout. It is not meant to be a full-fledged attack...just an assertive demonstration/manuever/feint by the French to put the Russians on the defensive.

14. Oct. 17th: Old Guard moves against Miloradovich (east of Krasnoi); skirmishing occurs; Miloradovich assumes a defensive posture and bombards Old Guard from afar.

15. Oct. 17th: Young Guard moves within artillery range of Galitzin (south of Krasnoi); no contact between Galitzin and the Young Guard; Guard remains in this position for three hours; Russians devastate the Young Guard with artillery fire.

16. Oct. 17th: Kutusov, seeing the Guard’s assertive maneuvering, orders Tormasov (west of Krasnoi) not to to occupy the western road leading out of Krasnoi. Kutusov also orders Galitzin and Miloradovich to assume a strictly defensive posture.

17. Oct. 17th: Napoleon sees Russians have aborted their attack on the western road…orders the Old and Young Guard, Davout, and Eugene to retreat along the western road immediately…Napoleon abandons Ney (still too far east of Krasnoi) because of Russian pressure.

18. Oct. 17th: The retreating French brush aside a small detachment of Russians under Rosen who are on the western road (Kutusov refuses to reinforce Rosen)

19. Oct. 17th/18th: Kutusov’s entire army occupies Krasnoi.

20. Oct. 18th: Miloradovich (east of Krasnoi) destroys Ney’s isolated corps; Ney escapes with 700 survivors

Chandler's account is misleading because it juxtaposes #7, #9, and #13 in a confusing way.

Kenmore 16:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

Hi Kirill, When you say published version of the poem, would a link to a web site that has the poem in its entirety suffice. I gave a link to such a site in the 'External Links' section. Would a citation in the notes linking to that site be OK. I don't have the poem in book form. Raymond Palmer 23:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

hey i saw u on the .mac talk page and i was wunderin do u know what .mac would do to a windows PC?pleez respond

--Adam J. Book 00:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you(or someone else) do a peer review of the portal? I'm waiting on Portal:Texas to go thru Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates, then I'm gonna send up Portal:Military of the United States. Thnx Joe I 04:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• The image credits should be (somehow) written out, rather than being simple numbered external links.

Done

• I'm a bit surprised at both the small number of entries in the "Topics" box and the fairly ectlectic selection. Is there something I'm missing here, or were some of them chosen almost at random?

Mainly a random choosing of one specific topic within a larger range. The topic list would be absolutly huge if I added everything. I'll add a few more tonight.

• The font shrinking is overkill, in many places.

Can you specify?

• It's a bit surprising to see a portal with no "Things you can do" box, and not even a WikiProject link.

Added wikiprojects box. That "Things you can do" box is huge and filled with red links, I thought the page was long enough as is.

Thnx for the suggestions. If you see anything else, let me know. :) Joe I 22:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill, I wondered whether you could take a look at the above article, or refer me to someone who has more of an oversight responsibility for it. Basically user:Mathieu121 keeps adding text that seems to portray as a certainty that Russia will build new aircraft carriers. This is patently ridiculous, but he removes any ^{[citation needed]} labels left by me or anyone else. There is a announced plan, but the history of post Soviet shipbuilding is one of many announced plans, few ships started, most building ships taking years, up to a decade, and projects completed being corvettes rather than aircraft carriers. Welcome your help. Buckshot06 01:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill very fast response - can you direct me to a lead coord for the maritime warfare task force? I was just looking. Basically there's an edit war, low-key, under way.

Cheers Buckshot06 01:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill again. Have left a note with the Ships wiki-project. Buckshot06 02:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello again! Being a member of the Wikiproject Council, I wanted to put this to you before it leaves my hands. I have an idea for a new structure for WikiProjects in general (like Peer Reviews or Assessment Departments), but I'm not sure who I need to talk to about it, or where to bring it up. Any suggestions? --InShaneee 01:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I suppose you are the best person to run it by. :) This stems from a discussion I was engaged in for the better part of the day on the Admin IRC channel over how to improve certain situations here. My idea is this: Suggest, as a standarized part of the WikiProject structure, a RfC Taskforce. This would be a volenteer corps of members of that project who patrol their Project's area of the Requests for Comment page, offering their two bits whereever they can. Not only could this help take the load off of the current process, it would help qualified editors in each field find their way to articles where they're needed, and thus increase the workload capability of RfC enormously. What do you think? --InShaneee 05:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill, can you and the other military reviewers take a look at the 1956 Hungarian Revolution article again? We feel like we've made a lot of progress, but would appreciate some input as we try to get it ready for FA. K. Lastochka 13:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kirill, thank you for your constructive input on the newly-renamed Hungarian Revolution of 1956 article. We have made all but one of your suggestions (see below) and the article is MUCH improved. A dedicated group of editors are in a rush to move forward to FA status by 23 October, with plenty of enthusiasm, but perhaps need some help with procedure. Could you please suggest whether or not we should put ourselves up for FAC right now, wait for another MilHist rating (current one is B-class which nixes our chances as long as that's up there), or request a peer review now. Could you please give your advice? Our goal is to see this page as FA on October 23 (i know its very ambitious). About the one remaining suggestion - the huge Cold War template at the bottom - is there any means of collapsing this? Ive looked at other CW articles and they all appear expanded. Thanks for your help! Istvan 16:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again - now all your suggestions are in place. Another editor has put 56 up for peer review. We are waiting to get some more photos and then go for FAC. Is it possible to get a new rating for the MilHist? Being B-class just gives an easy target for those who may have a bias against Hungary in general (and they do exist, I can name a few) to oppose our candidacy, and would require conspicuous caveats in our FAC nomination. I saw that a new MilHist peer review was requested, but since a 2nd request is somewhat different than a first request then it may fall through the cracks... You are right, our goal of achieving FA on 23 October is very ambitious, but perhaps not any more ambitious than a little country that tried to expel the Red Army... poetic justice I suppose. Istvan 18:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill, thanks for your help and your note. The page also touches on Australian and environmental issues (quite heavily, in the case of the latter, due to the available source materials), so I've also asked for assistance from those Wikiprojects.

I can't help noticing that nobody's created a 'nuclear test site' infobox, and I'm considering trying my hand. I figure this falls under the military history project, so I wondered what you thought? Jakew 16:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Here are some that spring to mind.

Firstly, for any military site (I realise that some of these headings are atrocious):

• Site name
• Type of site
• Coordinates
• Fields needed for superimposing a dot on a map. (It would be nice to do this automatically from the coordinates, but I'm not sure if that's technically possible at present.)
• Operating country
• Located in country (optional but needed to handle, for example, Maralinga in Aus but operated by Britain, or Guantanamo in Cuba but operated by USA)
• Current status
• Date range when site was in use
• Remediation status

For nuclear test ranges:

• Number of sub-critical tests to date
• Number of nuclear tests
• Number of thermonuclear tests

Jakew 16:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

That's excellent! Three things:

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For boldly creating infoboxes that noone... well anyway, nice work. Jakew 19:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Two things that need attention: the 'area' field needs to be optional, and subcritical has no hyphen. If you could solve these for me, I'll go and add the infobox to other test sites. Thanks, Jakew 19:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Could you make 'nuclear' link to nuclear fission and 'thermonuclear' link to nuclear fusion please? Jakew 19:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Kirill, do you mind if I alter the documentation and example in the template slightly? I think it's a good idea to encourage large-scale (preferably continent-level) maps in the infobox, so that the reader can instantly grasp the location. More detailed maps belong in the main body of the article. The infobox is, after all, there for an overview. Jakew 21:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Kirill, would there be any problem if I simply reflagged the Falklands War WP to a Latin American TF of the Milhist project? The new TF name could always be changed later, and it would shut down the old FW WP. Cheers Buckshot06 01:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a tally of 91/1/4. I can't express how much it means to me to become an administrator. I'll work even more and harder to become useful for the community. If you need a helping hand, don't hesitate to contact me. NCurse work 15:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Raul has laid to rest the burning question:

If by fastest you mean least time elapsed between article creation and becoming featured - I have to say I haven't seen anything become featured faster than that article.

This is probably more his impression rather something official, but it's good enough for me.UberCryxic 20:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I am having trouble renominating this article for a-class. It takes me to the same talk page. I was hoping for your help. Thanks. Periklis* 05:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I'm a bit new to the military history wikiproject, and to Wikipedia in general, but I'm trying to write a history of the Battle of Borneo (1941-42) as my first project for Wikipedia. I'll be off to the library to obtain source books today, but meanwhile I'd appreciate it if you could spare some time to look over my stub and comment. It's far too early to assess this as an article, but as this is very new for me some kind of sanity check would be most welcome. Thank you. Rose Palmer 09:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill, considering your experience in this field, I request you to look at Kargil War where Mercenary2k has in the last few hours reverted many edits to show that only Pervez Musharraf's casualty estimates as correct, removing ex-PMs Nawaz Sharif's and Bhutto's figures. He argues that the latter's figures are too high and that since they are both deposed PMs, they have little credibility, which I think is a feeble reason to remove.

Another issue is that he believes memoirs are as good as state records. He wants Musharraf's estimate taken from his Hindi memoirs to be put under "Pakistan Official Figures" in the warbox, which I believe is misleading. Memoirs don't constitue state records for the purpose of official statistics IMHO. I tried to reason that if Musharraf's figures are treated as official then Sharif's figure should be equally, if not more official, since he was PM during Kargil War. He disagrees. Neither a commission nor an official fatalties report was ever tabled in the parliament or anywhere else by Pakistan so pak's official stats heading in the warbox currently says "Not published". Additionally, he has continuously accused the article as biased despite repeated requests by me to provide the specifics. He believes that a non-Indian should provide some neutral suggestions. Therefore I ask you to look and respond in the talk pages because the article is temporarily locked and I don't wish to compromise the high quality of this Featured article. Thanks and I am open to suggestions. :) Idleguy 12:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering why do you consider that an FA after being demoted goes to B class? If the article is in decent shape, meaning it lacks some citations and brilliant prose, I usually reassess as A class.

This brings me to another, more important issue. The classification scale currently has two grades which must be approved by process (FA and GA). This is clearly a problem since A class goes above GA. Do A class articles have to go through GA class? Why is GA neccesary at all? It is superfluos and very similar to A class and it creates the problem that when an article is demoted from FA class it cannot automatically be assigned GA (the logical, more conservative choice) since "process" was not followed. Joelito (talk) 14:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for making me aware of the A-class process for Military history articles. I will re-classify Mil. Hist former FAs as B class. Joelito (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Kirill, Like you I've been traveling, and when I returned I checked what Mathbot had added, and found it very interesting. Last week, before I went away, I had tagged Dallas, Texas and several FAs on underground railroads such as London Underground for version 0.5. This is not the first time I've seen this sort of thing. I don't think this is coincidence that those projects have just joined us, I think there's a direct cause → effect here, a nice example of synergy between subprojects of 1.0. WP:WVWP was created to feed articles into releases like 0.5, and it seems that those releases then feed more projects into participating in WVWP. Interesting! Thought I'd mention it to you, as it may affect work at WP:COUNCIL and how projects end up hearing about the bot. We may also want to think of how we can facilitate the process. Walkerma 05:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can agree that the "viral spread" is the major route - I took that as assumed. I've been amazed at the amount of plagiarism going on. I'm sure that you and Kingboyk are probably the creator of at least 100 of the project templates in use! I also suspect that most projects don't have a clue how their template actually works! I was just surprised at the effectiveness of this secondary mode, via tagging for version 0.5 - I wouldn't have expected such a powerful response. I think people probably say, "What is this Version 0.5?," then on the 0.5 page they see the links to Mathbot and go from there.

I agree that the old WVWP method is to some extent redundant because we don't really have to advertise much at the moment - but it does remain an effective method for gleaning information. I also think that some projects work in their own little world without much contact with others - and this method is good for reaching them. The last contact was when I did a complete run of philosophy & religion projects in late summer. Prior to the run the Catholic project was using the bot, but shortly after the postings they had been joined by Quakers, 7th Day Adventists and Saints (this last could well be spillover from Catholicism). Not a massive response, but useful inroads into religion, and many of those projects who didn't pick up on the bot DID provide lists. Indeed the Anglicans set up an extensive manual worklist, and I hope that we can incorporate those manually-listed articles indirectly via lists such as Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Wikipedia 1.0 Arts articles by quality (the only one I've tested out so far for As and GAs). Some may choose to adopt the bot once they're comfortable with manual assessments. I hope to get back to contacting projects slowly in December or January. Cheers, Walkerma 04:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, can you point me in the right direction regarding who/where to ask for help with something? I'm working on Amchitka, and want to get some details correct on an aspect of the Aleutians (Alaska) Campaign of WWII. Unfortunately, the two sources I've located at CMH seem to give slightly contradictory accounts. Thanks, Jakew 13:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you participated in a peer review of this article, you might be interested in its current status as a Featured Article Candidate. Thanks,--Paul 13:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi.

could you please help me to move the article to a new name NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, as the current name is NATO-sided and to follow the conflict-naming guidelines. Also can you provide me a link to the exact text of the guidelines as I cannot find it and I'm not sure if something has changed. (I know that we should try to avoid operation names for article names)

Thanks, --TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill,

I've been working on Amchitka, an island playing a role in WWII, as well as being another nuclear test site. Would you mind adding an appropriate WPMILHIST to its talk page? I'm not entirely sure how to do so, but I will try to figure out how to make the peer review request myself. :-) Thanks, Jakew 16:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I worked out how to do enough to list the article for peer-review, but I would be grateful if you could fill out the other fields. Does a particular task force need to accept an article? Jakew 17:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Jakew 13:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks great to me. Thanks and have a safe trip :) Kla'quot 02:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Take a look if all of your concerns have been met. The discussion became pretty stale for days already. --Howard the Duck 07:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Kirill thanks for the review. Lots of details and expansion to work through. Really appreciate your comments. Thanks again Buckshot06 09:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Kirill,
My mind has gone blank: How might I edit {{Administrative divisions of the Republic of China sidebar}} and/or {{contains Chinese text}} such that the former appears below the latter rather than beside it when combined thus...?:

{{contains Chinese text}}
{{Administrative divisions of the Republic of China sidebar}}

Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. ;-)

clear:right; ...of course!   Thanks, David (talk) 03:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, another question for you about the template you helped me build: how can I make it so that pages rated "NA" are not added to Category:WikiProject Paranormal articles? Thanks in advance. --InShaneee 20:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Perfect. Thank you once again! --InShaneee 13:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Chanakyathegreat 12:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill,

Thank you for your review of the Prince David page. I have made some of the changes in the areas that you highlighted. In all I used 5 books and a copy of a paper given to Canadian Forces on the subject of The Prince ships in 1965. Some of the books were on inter- library loan and were returned. I have requested them again and will endeavour to add to the inline footnotes. In many cases, paragraphs that do not have specific citations were paraphrased from several sources writing on the same subject, while those with citations were single source rewrites. The 'trivia" section has been eliminated and as you suggested, that material was blended with the main body of the page (save for one item that was a bit redundant anyway). Although I feel that I'm making progress with Wiki mark up, I'm not sure that I'm ready to build a Commanding Officers table as you indicated. If you could point me to a page that has a similar item, I'll figure it out from there. I have also added a list of landing craft commanders as a sub section to the Commanding officers area. This may seem to be a bit oblique, but I feel that these guys should be mentioned as they had an important job to do. As for the lead in; I think that it is important to explain the situation in which Canada found herself in at the dawn of WWII. Without this bit of background, one would be hard pressed to understand why the RN and RCN would contemplate the use of un-armoured cruise ships fitted with antique guns and manned untrained crews to chase down Nazi warships. Thanks again. Alberg22 01:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, I'll rewrite the opening and add a background section with a bit more info. Thanks for the table reference. Alberg22 04:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

My administratorship candidacy succeeded with a final tally of 81/0/1. I appreciate your support - especially since you're someone I've worked with and hold in esteem. Results are at Wikipedia:Recently_created_admins#Durova. Warmly, Durova 21:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I started tagging the categories for renaming, and adding them to the list at cfd, but I think that I may have muffed the technical aspect somewhat badly. If you could take a look, and let me know what I'm doing wrong, that would be great. Carom 18:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll keep tagging. Carom 18:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. The manual of style you follow isn’t online that I could find it, but I was following erroneously Dash#En_dash, not noticing there was an explicit exception to that.

--
Leandro GFC Dutra 17:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Kirill, there is a very annoying user (anonymous actually) who keeps putting in a link at the French Foreign Legion article that does not belong there. The user has done this who knows how many times, despite getting reverted every time. I left a message on the user's talk page, but he is not responding and changed the link again (reverted again though). Can you give him a warning?UberCryxic 23:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

He continues to put it in. He changed it today and a few other times some days ago after your warning.UberCryxic 16:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

About Portal:Photography, you said that the selected image size was unacceptably large. I would like to know what the largest acceptable image size would be. I would like to make the image as large as possible, because the focus of the portal is images, but I would also like to accommodate all screen resolutions. Thanks, -Gphoto 01:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Kirill, could you check out the portal again to see if you have any objections to it? I have done some work on it and I was wondering if it met your criteria. Thanks, -Gphoto 13:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Have done all you suggested. Check it out again! Thanks, -Gphoto 00:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this good? -Gphoto 01:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This should be everything! Thanks for your co-operation and patience! Thanks, -Gphoto 01:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Kirill, I saw that there was Najaf on the Iraq War Campaignbox which had no article so I started it: Battle of Najaf. Just a stub for now. Also, I think the Category:Battles and operations of the 2003 Iraq conflict should be renamed or slip in two, for example: Battles and operations of the Iraq War & Battles and operations of the Post-invasion Iraq. --James Bond 09:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to get some help on creating an Armed Group infobox to classify certain armed organizations like Hizbollah or the FARC, which are using a social political party intended infobox. I've seen your participation in the military unit infobox and wondered if you could please create one.If there is already one, Please let me know. --F3rn4nd0 16:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried to apply the box to it. I think it works well. thanks.--F3rn4nd0 21:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

My first FAR. I should have reviewed the procedure more carefully. Hbdragon88 04:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Caspian expeditions of the Rus has a nice edit war. Do you know an expert on Medieval Eastern Europe? Wandalstouring 18:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo and Bet Or actually fight the edit war. Bet Or is a promising new editor and Ghirlandajo knows his subject... rofl Wandalstouring 21:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Kirill, thank you so much for being one of my nominators for RfA. I passed with a vote tally of 61/0/1. I don't think anyone dared oppose having you guys as my nominators! :-) I am honored that the consensus was to allow me the added privilege of the admin mop. I appreciate your nomination and complimentary words on my RFA, as well as the note of congratulations and champagne! --plange 21:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Kirill, I was looking at the requested articles section and noticing (i) that there were a number that have now had articles written for them and (ii) that there were no instructions about removing articles from the list. Is there any reason why I can't clean up the list to remove the ones that now have articles? Second point, you might want to take a look at Russian Ground Forces again to see if all your points from the earlier peer review have been answered, or there's anything else that needs fixing. Cheers and thanks

Buckshot06 05:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and let me express my astonishment concerning the speed with which you have covered these articles. I would be the first to admit that they are dense (information wise) and obscure. It would be an honor to join the project, although I am not really sure what that entails. Once again, thank you both the informative (and constructive) comments and the request. RM Gillespie 14:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh. good point. aAre you saing that every article with that infobox would then be in the category which I added? I thought only the template itself would be inthe category. please let me know. appreciate your help. thanks. --Steve, 16:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering if you could provide some guidance as to who is a combatant on the Iran-Iraq War article. There appears to be disagreement as to whether the U.S. should be counted as a combatant. In particular, I'm looking for a definition of what exactly is a combatant in a conflict. Thanks for any help. (also, please respond on the talk page for Iran-Iraq War not my talk page) Publicus 14:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

In a related matter on this article we're already involved in a revert war over the assertion Jimmy Carter instigated the conflict. The information is third and fourth hand and in ths ources is only alleged with the qualifier "If True." I edited it to remove the whole passage and then settled on adding this context. The scout running the article objects. To him it's gospel truth and asserting something is as good as proving it. It isn't and this is not NPOV. It' his POV. Please look at it.Marky48 15:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

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

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Kiril:

We've talked a bit before about how Wikipedia's Military History Project is about stating what the sources -- i.e., "authorities" -- say about the battles.

But what if there's reason to believe a given authority is flagrantly inaccurate? Surely you'd agree that if the evidence regarding such an authority's narrative strongly suggests that the authority is unreliable, then perhaps we should not use that particular authority.

I have some straightforward, powerful evidence that David Chandler's account of the Battle of Krasnoi is flagrantly inaccurate.

Chandler totally abuses the quote of Denis Davidov in his account.

Davidov's quote refers to an event that occured on 11/15/1812 (translated into the Gregorian calendar from its original Julian date of 11/3/1812) by misleading the reader into thinking that the quote supports an event that took place two days later...on 11/17/1812. It throws the verity of Chandler's entire account into question...here's the hard evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Borodino#Krasnoi:_More_serious_problems_with_Chandler

If you'd like, tomorrow I'll make Adobe copies of the passages in the two books and post them here for you.

Here's a correct timeline and detailed map of Krasnoi, just to put things into perspective (it's footnoted): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Krasny.JPG

Can't someone with authority on the Military History Project arrange to get Chandler's rubbish removed from the Battle of Krasnoi article? I would like to replace it with a well researched, copiously footnoted article...quoting ALL RELIABLE SOURCES for a balanced end perspective.

Please advise. Thank you.

Kenmore 04:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

Removing "Chandler's rubbish" doesn't resolve our problem though. There are plenty of other sources, mainly Caulaincourt (the most relevant), that essentially corroborate the main events at Krasnoi (that is, the big attack by the Guard).UberCryxic 04:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Caulaincourt, if you look in the index of his book, you’ll see “Krasnoe” mentioned on pages 217, 220, 222, 224, 226, 228, 230-231, 237-238. Nowhere does Caulaincourt corroborate a “big attack” by the Guard.

On page 217, Caulaincourt corroborates the Guard’s attack on Ozharovsky’s tiny flying column…but Caulaincourt clearly disintguishes between Ozharovsky small detachment and the main Russian army, which isn’t present but is “in the vicinity”

Also on page 217, paragraph one, Caulaincourt indicates that the Guard’s attack is on Nov. 16th, and not on Nov. 17th, as Chandler claims. Didn’t you notice this?

On pages 219-220, Caulaincourt addresses the so-called “attack” on Nov. 17th, and he admits that Napoleon calls the attack off before it makes contact with the Russians. Paragraph two, page 220 admits that Napoleon wanted “…his marshals to get clear of the enemy…”, to flee.

And Caulaincourt is not the “most relevant source” just because he was an eyewitness. He is a memoirist, not a historian. Sir Robert Wilson was an eyewitness, too, from the Russian side…and he talks about how the Russians rout the French. Does that make Wilson “most relevant”? No...it's just his "slant" on what he saw, much like Caulaincourt. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1402198256?v=glance

Davidov himself was an eyewitness of 1812…does that make him the “most relevant source”? As memoirist, but not necessarily as a historian. http://www.amazon.com/Service-Tsar-Against-Napoleon-1806-1814/dp/1853673730

The most relevant sources on this battle are those that professional historians use, which you and I have never read because these sources are hidden away in dusty archives in various languages: Bourgogne, Chambray, von Wurttemberg, Labaume, Bogdanovich, Malibran & Chelmminski, Martinen, Bodart, and Lunsmann.

Please read more.

Kenmore 05:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

In short: nope, we can't do that. The neutral point of view policy requires that we present "all significant published points of view" about a topic—even if we believe that they're incorrect. Chandler—right or wrong—is generally considered a significant historian for this period, so we cannot entirely remove his viewpoint from the article. Once we've determined that a particular source (or set of sources) is generally viewed as an important one, we are tasked to do is to present the different arguments and versions of the event—even contradictory ones—fairly, leaving the reader to decide which he wants to believe.

This goes back to the point I made a while back about the need to explicitly identify which version of events is espoused by which historians. You're certainly free to say something like "Chandler claims X, but historians A, B, and C instead claim Y"; but you must fairly mention the version of events that Chandler presents, because his is not so insignificant a viewpoint that we can disregard it entirely. Kirill Lokshin 05:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Kiril:

Didn't you see the gross discrepency between what Davidov claims to have said...and what Chandler says Davidov said? Surely we cannot just ignore that.

Please tell me what you think about those two quotes...how do you, as a student and historian, view Chandler's misquoting of Davidov?

Do you believe that it's okay for Chandler to have done that? If a college student did something like that, he'd get in trouble for academic dishonesty.

I am interested in your views on this...even if you refrain from making about judgment about whether Chandler stays or goes...just from the perspective of intellectual honesty and self respect.

Thanks.

Kenmore 05:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

Well, Davivov said pretty much what Chandler says he said, except about a different event! ;-)

I'm not particularly surprised, actually. Conflating accounts of events from two different dates is one of the more common errors in historical writing, and usually a consequence of carelessness more than of any attempt at subterfuge. Chandler's account here doesn't really match up with a couple of others I've seen—I believe I mentioned this to either you or UberCryxic at one point?—so it's quite possible that he made an error in the dating and proceeded from there to a narrative that diverged from other ones. Given that we have, essentially, two disagreeing sources, it would probably be appropriate to mention this particular discrepancy (e.g. "Davidov writes of the events of Nov. 3... Chandler appears to attribute this quote to the events of Nov. 17.").

(But again, we're not removing Chandler, merely noting places where his account is different from others. It would be nice if we could have some explicit historiography here—another published historian commenting on the accuracy of Chandler's version, in other words—but I doubt we'll be able to find that.) Kirill Lokshin 05:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Davidov is saying something much, much different than what Chandler says. Davidov is referencing a light raiding party occuring on the road leading into Krasnoi on 11/15 (see Nikolino on my map). Chandler, by contrast, is talking about an alleged full scale attack by the Guard on 11/17 in the direction of Uvarovo (see map) which results in a major defeat of the entire Russian army. Chandler's claim is phantasmagoric. Kenmore 13:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

Hi, Kirill. You were involved in the discussion at WP:CITE of citation guidelines for math and physics articles. Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines was just added as a guideline for Scientific articles to WP:CITE. I reverted the addition, concerned that it doesn't have consensus from all areas of "science", and that labeling it a guideline is premature. You might want to review the article talk page: I have not yet carefully studied the proposal, but believe it should be exposed to the broader community before being considered a guideline that applies to all areas of science. (In most medical and biology articles, for example, there is very little that doesn't require inline citation.) Sandy (Talk) 15:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I know you've been involved in this dispute. I'd really appreciate your opinion on the current situation/solution. Thank you very much, Mark83 23:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Mark83 08:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Kirill, I'm surprized that you have not noticed this problem. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Please help me with a WIKI arbitration on the India-Pakistan section of FN CHarles de Gaulle. There is a user (who was also involved int BLUE WATER NAVIES discussions) who keep on reverting unilaterally to sections that involve unverified claims (in my opinion). What are the WIKI rules? Please arbitrate. I do not know how to call for an arbitration. Thanks.

I've reverted only twice, and would probably do so again if I did not care about violating 3RR (or getting close).UberCryxic 23:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Kirill, I am fairly sure this guy is operating under.....three IPs is what I've counted up to now. You can see them here in the edit history of the article.UberCryxic 00:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Kirill, is this, `French jets patrolled Indo-Pak. coastline', reliable enough?UberCryxic 01:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably; and getting the original French article cited in the first sentence would be even better. In any case, I've commented on the article's talk page with another potential source. Kirill Lokshin 01:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Kirill, here is that JED article, but it's not a full version. The best this does is confirms that the article exists, but the free excerpts don't include anything about the June 2002 operations.UberCryxic 01:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well as things stand, that guy will keep reverting (he just did so again) until he is convinced that this operation actually happened. I can't undo him now because I'd violate 3RR. If the only way we can really "prove" this is to use the JED article, then I think we're imposing some harsh standards on ourselves. Either way, how do you propose we go about actually getting that article? Also, his claims sound like original research at this point. Does it matter what he thinks about all this? Isn't the fact that a major Indian newspaper reported on this good enough?UberCryxic 01:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with high standards! ;-)

It's not really worth edit warring over this point, I think. While removing the section entirely probably wasn't the best approach, he does have a certain legitimate concern, insofar as we really ought to either (a) find a source that doesn't appear to originate with a French navy embedded reporter or (b) make explicit, within the article, that the operation is something claimed by French sources. I'm fairly confident that French and US planes were doing something in the area at the time, but details about carrying live weapons and so forth do need some more corroboration, I think, as they're not universally mentioned.

As far as getting the article, I'm not sure. Is the JED available in university libraries? Kirill Lokshin 01:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Not just high...harsh. About the embedded reporter: that's the guy's claims though. No source so far has said anything like that. My main point of contention is that, now, what he's saying borders on original research. Why do we even need to consider what he's saying in light of The Hindu article? Doesn't that trump him under all circumstances allowed by Wikipedia? Or maybe I'm missing something....if so, I'd love to know about it. Right now I'm pretty pissed that the guy just went in there and removed an entire paragraph that had been there for months.UberCryxic 01:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

And he's doing a good job at getting away with it too. That's also infuriating. Also, sorry for bitching on your talk page haha.UberCryxic 01:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ehh, no problem. ;-)

As far as The Hindu article, it could be used as a source to put "According to the French newspaper Liberation..." into the article, but not necessarily as a source to have the story without such a disclaimer, as it pretty explicitly states that the story is not something it came up with independently. I'm not certain if that's something worth doing in the short term, though; on a certain level, it'd be better to make extra sure that what we're putting in is as accurate as we can determine, rather than (admittedly probably successfuly) pushing material in based on the letter of the policy. Kirill Lokshin 02:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Freaking UVA doesn't have it....and I think we're supposed the backup to the Library of Congress too. Embarrassing...UberCryxic 02:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, no matter what course we decide to pursue, my main worry is about how the article will look in the end. What do I do, for example, if I write, "According to the..." and he reverts it? He's violated 3RR up to the wazzoo but I don't want to report him for it (for reasons I've explained to you before). Right now it just seems like he can revert at will. I am pretty sure that someone else will revert him at some point though. I think there was controversy with this particular issue before (same user maybe), and the statement stood then.UberCryxic 02:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Meh. I'm hoping he'll be reasonable; but if he persists in reverting sensible text, he'll get blocked in short order.

(Having said that, working on a draft version of the paragraph on the talk page before inserting it into the article may be a good idea.) Kirill Lokshin 02:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll get started on that.UberCryxic 02:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey....it's not going well. We started talking about rephrasing the paragraph, but now the person is insisting on removing it again. The article is now fully protected. The user even made a condition I guess?

Are there any (other than UberCryxic) takers with valid arguments for the case on maintaining this section ? If in 24 hours we have not received anything, we can assume that the issue is settled and the content can be recommended for deletion (through the appropriate channels & procedures). Also, I'm going ask for a clean-up of this article.

Is that allowed? Not too sure. Anyway this doesn't look like it will have a happy ending for both him/her and I.UberCryxic 03:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok I found something else, but it's still not quite the jackpot...someone at this forum quoted the following from that JED article:

According to French executives, some unofficial training engagements have already taken place between Rafales and US Navy F/A-18s. On June 9, 2002, Rafale Ms of the French Navy operating from theCharles de Gaulle participated in a joint patrol with American fighters. Although the assignment was for reconnaissance over the tense India-Pakistan border and no shots were fired, it marked the official combat debut of the aircraft.

This is both good...and bad because it comes from a forum, although really there's no basis to doubt that this person is lying or misquoting the JED. But still...I don't know.UberCryxic 03:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok....we're getting warmer. This site almost completely quotes directly from that JED article:

According to French executives, some unofficial training engagements have already taken place between Rafales and US Navy F/A-18s. On June 9, 2002, Rafale Ms of the French Navy operating from the Charles de Gaulle participated in a joint patrol with American fighters. Although the assignment was for reconnaissance over the tense India-Pakistan border and no shots were fired, it marked the official combat debut of the aircraft (see "It Takes Two to Interoperate,"JED , August 2002).

What do you think now?UberCryxic 03:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Btw I plan to post this all in the talk page eventually, but I wanted to get your opinion on it first. Is this good enough or....not? Or more research? Or something else?UberCryxic 03:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Kirill, there now seems to be some uncertainty about how authoritative the JED article is. I think overall we're agreeing that the event has been verified, but apparently not enough to remove the disputed tag (at least it's not longer protected though). What's your impression of this?UberCryxic 00:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey do you have any suggestions on attempting to get rid of the disputed tag? I suggested a straw poll to Mark and am still waiting for his opinion. Anything you can offer would be great.UberCryxic 03:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

DAMN how'd you get it? Did you actually pay for it?UberCryxic 03:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Five bucks is a small price to pay for getting this problem out of my hair. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much man. I'll remember this. However, we still have the problem of the tags....do you think there is sufficient cause to remove them now?UberCryxic 04:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Bleh. I'd wait for some more (mostly) uninvolved people to comment, rather than do it now and risk further provoking him (them? Is the "we" thing just a translation issue, or is it actually a group account?). Kirill Lokshin`

I think it's just one person, but not too sure. All-right I'll wait, but this just feels like it won't have an easy ending.UberCryxic 04:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I have opened a straw poll regarding some of the things we have discussed.UberCryxic 20:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Kirill how appropriate is it to request that users vote in a straw poll? Nat is going around and basically asking everyone and anyone with a username.UberCryxic 23:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of people who participated in the talk, and decisively too, any chance you might make a contribution?UberCryxic 01:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Kirill: You are correct that my Italy 1494 had 3 errors as noted on my Talk page. I can only offer that 2 of my mistakes came from the original map source listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Requested and orphan maps (here). I did not need any help to make the 3rd mistake (associating Savoy with Sardinia).

In any case, I have corrected these and uploaded a better map. Thanks very much for finding these embarrassing mistakes. You're welcome to go over my other maps as well. : ) MapMaster 16:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, poo, sorry about that. I was copying your template across to the comics one, and I must have cut and paste the category to the wrong open tab. Very sorry. Hope that explains what in the world that was about. Steve block Talk 19:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, no problem; I was just surprised to see that we were part of the Comics project now. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 19:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Saw you insert Rif War 1920 ten seconds after I removed Infantry School! Wanted to check whether I was doing the right thing as I work through these 'immediate attention reqd' articles. If I cannot work out why the tag's been inserted, and there's nothing major wrong with the article, I'm removing the tag (or, like Deny Flight, closing up a very small stub altogether). Is this correct? Also, wanted to get your opinions at some point on my next project- Red Army to Red/Soviet Army And Military of the Soviet Union. What topics would I ideally include in each? Take a look when you have the time and drop me a note - no rush. Cheers and thanks for all the hard work. Buckshot06 03:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

File:Esperanza.Party.gif

On behalf of everyone at Esperanza, I hope you have a great day, and we hope that you continue to edit for many more years to come. Once again, have a great day! Jam01 00:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem! I feel everyone needs to have something special said to them on their special day, whether it is their birthday, first edit day, or like in your case, an adminship anniversary! Best Wishes, Jam01 00:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

A very happy Adminship Anniversary! All the best for all the time! --Bhadani 02:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

	Happy Adminship	from the Birthday Committee
	Wishing Kirill Lokshin/Archive 2 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! -- Randfan 15:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

All the best! Randfan 15:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I, Randfan, hereby award you, Kirill Lokshin, this award for your tireless efforts in the military departments. I could not find anyone who deserves this more. Wow! Randfan 18:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for my abruptness in responding to Wandalstouring. Today is a new day however, so I'm sure that's behind us now. Thank you for your comments. I look forward to contributing further. Raymond Palmer 19:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are currently listed as a coach in the 'Active' section of the coaching box.

• If the coaching has finished please add your trainee to the archived requests section of the archive, and remove the entry from the coaching box.
• You can fill in information about your former students, at the main archive.
• If the coaching is ongoing please continue :) This might serve as a useful reminder to check with your trainee if they have any new questions!
• If you are ready to be assigned a new trainee, or have any other questions, please let me know on my talk page.

Thank you for helping with admin coaching! Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 20:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast. Does the Military History Wikiproject usually move that quickly on calabarations, or was this a special case? TomStar81 (Talk) 01:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Aparently when nominating this article I failed to notice that there is/was an arbitration request involving several people and the article. Is this something we (the members of the project) should be worried about, or should we treat this like any other collaboration? TomStar81 (Talk) 06:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see you are not currently assigned as a coach to anyone at Admin coaching. Are OK to receive a new trainee? Thank you for helping with admin coaching! Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 22:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

One user is pushing POV on a non public living figure. Ignores consensus. Could you look? BusterD 17:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

No. I'm not pushing a POV. That is untrue. I'm just trying to get some consistency in Wikipedia.--Getaway 15:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you provide feedback on my behaviors here? No hurry, I just want your opinion. BusterD 21:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll refrain from discussing it right now. I'm trying to step up a bit, wikiwise. Going to try to activate the portal this weekend, if all works out. Then I can focus on the new task forces. BusterD 21:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Task force scope, sorry about that. I was hoping we'd iron this out before the TF pages were created. Wanted to swing big elbows, so folks can gauge distance. BusterD 01:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Kiril - I just have been using this as a standard guidance The convention has been to add task force tags to everything within the scope of a particular task force, regardless of who has actually edited the article, since those tags are more for bookkeeping and advertising purposes. (Much of the stuff tagged with WPMILHIST tag in general hasn't necessarily been written by anyone in the project either.) taken from the assessment talkpage (maybe a definition of the word everything is needed. If it doesn't comply with that particular task force then I believe they should remove it - I just move it in some direction to get others to look at it.--Oldwildbill 21:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I whole heartedly agree - I admit their has been a few articles that I have tagged that way but usually it is a list which I give an NA and it has some serious gaps in its coverage. The new task forces are helping a lot on cutting down on the tags. I do think there should be a Latin American task force - usually you have to tag it with an european centric tag or none at all. I have been redeploying back to the US and have just occassionally been one - Got to catch up with the changes that the group is headed towards.

What do you think are there already enough to start this group? Wandalstouring 22:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I've done a "dry run" with the bot, just taking a look at the wikitext. Would you like me to add the peer reviews listed on your page to the main page, and do a "wet run" - this will test my template stuff (which is my way of not having to do a database :)). Let me know! Thanks -- Martinp23 22:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi - it's running now with a huge edit throttle (15 second) finished! I think that it's worked (see WP:PR - they're all there :)). Hopefully, next time the bot runs, it will see that these projects have the other tag on them and will not try to re-add them. I'm just going to test this now. I'll fix the capitalisation tomorrow :) Martinp23 22:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hehe - should be interesting :). I just saw that redirect before I=== read your message - I think there's some easy way to fix this. I'll try something - one minute :) Martinp23 22:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

OK - fixed :). Thanks :) Now to wait for all hell to break loose :P Martinp23 22:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for sticking my nose in, the headline intrigued me - do you need me to do the same thing for WP:BIOGRAPHY? --plange 22:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

(sorry for using this talk page - should answer other questions for people :)). If you want MartinBot to run on another wikiproject's peer review listings, take a look at the bottom of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#Hello_and_what_can_I_do that topic, where there are instructions :). For now, I'll be waiting until I get approval from WP:BRFA before doing anymore. Yet another task to get approval for :) Martinp23 22:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, it seems as though the argument is in the doldrums, but I am curious to know whether or not it would be permissible to move the US 3rd Infantry article back under the heading listed as the unit's proper name, which would be the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment. There has been a somewhat substantial debate, mainly around the proper WP format. You weighed in on the issue, asking if all regiments would require renaming. I don't believe it would, as the other three Infantry regiments that I served in did not have the 'U.S.' included in their name. As you are likely aware, most regiments are attached to a larger group. Unlike other active Infantry regiments, which are (as least as far as I am aware) attached to Divisional size elements, the 3rd U.S. INF is, for nearly all intents and purposes, a free standing Infantry unit under the blanket Command of the Military District of Washington.

In any case, since you are the admin on WP Military History, which seems to indicate that you have the final say, may we please move the article back? I am asking as a former Old Guard soldier. It is my old unit, and as you may see by my passionate quest to reverse the order of a few small letters, it is quite a big issue for those of us who served there. Thank you.

Ryecatcher773 02:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering when and if portal:photography was going to be a featured portal? Thanks, -Gphoto 14:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The only problem is, that Uber has already copy editted it. Kyriakos 07:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the advice Kirill. Kyriakos 20:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Stubclass 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. —Mets501 (talk) 03:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you certain that, the Duchy of Milan still existed as such in 1522? I am not. So thats why , i just put milan. I also added the Black Bands on the french side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LOM (talk • contribs)

There is a Napoleonic Era task force but would it be possible to either:
1)Extend this to have Napoleonic Fiction
2)Start a new task force which could deal with Napoleonic Fiction such as Sharpe and Hornblower - it would also cover such items as board games and PC etc games. Don't worry if this is not possible/a bad idea but please give me your thoughts. Thanks Ethers ^[talk]

Program Feature: Admin Coaching (needs coaches!) Admin Coaching needs coaches!!! If you are an administrator, or even a generally experienced user, do consider signing up to be a coach. Admin Coaching, now being coordinated by HighwayCello, is a program for people who want help learning some of the more subtle aspects of Wikipedia policy and culture. People are matched with experienced users who are willing to offer coaching. The program is designed for people who have figured out the basics of editing articles; they're not newcomers any more, but they might want some help in learning new roles. In this way, Esperanza would help keep hope alive for Wikipedia because we would always be grooming the next generation of admins. What's New? The Tutorial Drive is a new Esperanza program! In an effort to make complicated processes on Wikipedia easier for everyone, Esperanza working to create and compile a list of tutorials about processes here on Wikipedia. Consider writing one! A discussion on how Esperanza relates to the encyclopedia has been started; please add your thoughts. Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.

The last AC meeting (full log) The list of proposed programs has been updated, with some proposals being archived. There is now a new program: the Tutorial Drive! Consider writing a tutorial on something you are good at doing on Wikipedia. The suggestion of adding a cohesive look to all the Esperanza pages is being considered; join the discussion if you are interested! In order to make a useful interlanguage welcome template, those involved in translation projects will be asked what English Wikipedia policies are most important and confusing to editors coming from other language Wikipedias. A discussion of Esperanza's role in Wikipedia is being held, with all thoughts of all Esperanzians wanted! Shreshth91 informed everyone that he will be leaving the Esperanza council as life is rather busy; his spot will be filled by the runner up from the last election, HighwayCello. Signed... Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, The Halo, Shreshth91 and HighwayCello 20:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.

Hi Kirill,

Please, let's keep footnotes, tables, and other complex formatting out of the documentation; for straighforward lists, it makes things harder to read rather than easier. ;-)

You honestly believe so...?  Surely the (invisible) table showing the list of parameters (with the required in bold) is far easier to scan than its unaligned predecessor...?  (Also, surely tables and <ref>s hardly that complex; one or other (or both) probably occur on every (say) four of five pages...?)  Surprised, David Kernow (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
PS Pity your revert also removed my alignment of the code examples...

Tables are good when you actually need a table layout; here, the information is just a straight list, so presenting it as one seems more sensible (and isn't as dependent on the vagaries of CSS settings as the table version—somebody reading it with, say, a text-only browser wouldn't be able to make any sense of it). The invisible table is part of the problem, for example: the field names and descriptions don't align properly when the description runs onto multiple lines.

(This quite beside the point that those documentation pages are transcluded in some non-obvious places with strange alignment issues; unnecessarily complex formatting makes them much harder to use.)

As far as code example alignment: that has to be the single most annoying thing I've seen in all my work here. If a longer parameter name is added, for example, every line will need to be fiddled with. (More practically, funny whitespace tricks are quite dangerous to use, as the whitespace is often passed into the template parameter unchanged, causing interesting things to happen in the final rendering.) Kirill Lokshin 03:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess one editor's perceived benefits are another's problems...

Re the table, I don't see this kind of information as just a straight list, i.e. one-dimensional, but in two dimensions, the second (the vertical) being a key to scanning this kind of information quickly. That the parameter names weren't all aligned with the first lines of their descriptions is something that could be rectified easily. Meanwhile, are there really that many folk using a text-only browser to visit Wikipedia...?  (Is there a text-only version of Wikipedia...?)

Re transclusion in non-obvious places with strange alignment issues: well, perhaps those places need some attention; I'd say using a straightforward table and <ref>s is orthodox.

Re code alignment, I reckon the lack of it is the single most annoying thing I've seen in all my work here. For the sake of making code so much easier to read – in particular, parameters – just how hard is it to add some spaces if/when only occasional changes are required (such as accommodating a new parameter, something that only seems to happen very infrequently)...?  To date, I haven't seen nor had my attention drawn to any curious renderings produced this kind of whitespace. One place where I'd say whitespace is less than useful is in instances such as:

| colspan="2" style="blah; blah blah; blah;" | This is the cell's content...

...rather than:

|colspan="2" style="blah; blah blah; blah;"| This is the cell's content...

...which, when scanning code, I find makes it easier to discriminate between cells' modifications and contents.

Still, I'm relieved that you seem happy with my substituting "Part of" for "Command structure" in the template itself; I was wondering whether the former might be too vague / simply incorrect / etc.

Vive la différance, David (talk) 03:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

...I suppose a table could be done ... I'll see if I can come up with something useful.

Don't worry; I'm not unhappy there's no table, especially as the page isn't a frontline encyclopedia page, so please continue your sterling work on said frontline material instead.

As far as transclusion: the table isn't too bad, but transcluding anything that uses cite.php footnotes is a very bad idea; if, say, two sets of instructions are transcluded...

Or indeed any page using cite.php that is or might be transcluded into another already using it – good point, with my thanks for the reminder. Yours, David (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd be very interested in your thoughts on this version...

Apologies; life offline is intervening, so I'll respond on my return. Best wishes, David (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok; there's no hurry! I've also brought up the question here...

Hi again – yes, I guess a wikitable should be fine, if you/MILHIST would be happy with it; I'd suggest removing the need for the "Required" column by e.g. formatting required parameters' names in bold/italics/etc. Meanwhile, have left brief comment at #Infobox documentation layout. Yours, David (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Since you merged this template into the new Mexican-American War campaign box, please correct the double transclusion of {{Campaignbox Mexican-American War}} in the articles related to the Taos Revolt. Thanks -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 15:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Highly appreciated. Thanks! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 16:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Krill, Thanks for commenting on WP FAC West Wycombe Park, I've attempted to address your concerns, perhaps you could have another look, one problem is I can't see the gaps to which you and Ganymead refer perhaps you could have a tweak, the last time I had pictures left and right someone objected saying they all had to be on the same side - so I 'll happily leave that one to you to defend! I have eliminated the "see also" as suggested, the only problem with that is that people often come along don't know such pages as List of films shot at West Wycombe Park exists, don't bother to read the page and then just insert their film in the wrong place, usually in my experience when a film is shot somewhere like West Wycombe it means there is one distant shot of the house a mile away for 2 seconds, and the interiors are all in a studio in America, which is why I seldom insert such trivia myself, and like to have a separate clearly visible page for such information - but anyway that is my reasoning but I have removed that section as that seems to be the majority view. Regards Giano 08:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill, coming from you that means a lot. Publicus 20:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

do we have a good editor on cavalry or horses associated topics? The war horse article profoundly misinforms. I had some major arguments with the guys who want to run this show. I don't think it convenient to advise someone to take a look now, but maybe in a week when the issues have settled down. Wandalstouring 20:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just dropping you a line - I've made a proposal for an infobox to be included in this article and there is a discussion currently under way on the talk page. I was wondering if you could help out. Esn 01:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. That was pretty quick on your part. T Rex | talk 03:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice and support of Portal:Houston! Postoak 04:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Kirill,

I'm trying to get the T-26 to be evaluated as a good article, but nobody seems to be paying attention to it because they may not be particularly interested on the topic. I felt that I wouldn't lose anything by asking you; even if you weren't interesting in looking at it, do you know anybody that would?

Thanks,

JonCatalan 23:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I remember us having a short discussion a while back about commas and quotes and you said something about wondering exactly when it's appropriate to use quotes around a single word. I didn't have an answer for that at the time, though (I usually just relied on what seemed logical to me, not on any rule that I knew of). Today, when I saw this page from Purdue describing that very thing, I thought of your previous concern and thought you might be interested. Always nicer to have a rule to reference, eh? --ScreaminEagle 15:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

From the Purdue University Online Writing Lab:

Quotation Marks for Words

Use quotation marks to indicate words used ironically, with reservations, or in some unusual way.

• The great march of "progress" has left millions impoverished and hungry.

For words used as words themselves or for technical or unfamiliar terms used for the first time (and defined), use italics.

• The English word nuance comes from a Middle French word meaning "shades of color."

The use of chiasmus, or the inversion of syntactic elements in parallel phrases, can create rhetorically powerful expressions.

Hi Kirill,

I tried to add a new icon to the WPMILHIST template, but I have a weird problem: though the size says 43x30, the final pic is very small... Resized as said, it should be 43x27, not 15x24... Do you have an idea where it went bad...

Thanks! Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I added Union Army Balloon Corps to peer review, and then realized I was supposed to put it on peer review inside the project. So I did both. Foolish. How best to proceed? BusterD 23:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Kirill Lokshin. If you can offer some tips on the respective portal talk pages about how to improve Cats and Dogs up to "featured" quality, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Rfrisbie^talk 17:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your great contest entry. I have decided to expand the prizes and you are a runner up. Congratulations. Please send me your contact info for a $35 Amazon gift certificate. Thanks again for the great work! Danny 00:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Did I do that to you? I'll be more careful. Thanks! Outlook 00:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Because we work together closely and because I want to get much better, please consider contributing to my ER. If you'd rather not participate, I'd still love ya. BusterD 02:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the gracious words. I hope my pace of growth is not too slow, I think that 30-40 edits in a day is plenty, and I sometimes (heaven forbid) skip a day or two. I really want to get the ACW Portal finished and then I'll put some more energy into the ACW and MilSci TFs. I think of this all as one huge arc, and we're just starting upwards. BusterD 04:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You, Lord Kirill, are a wiki-machine. Call on me if ever needed. BusterD 04:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Congrats on your runner-up win in Danny's contest! You earned it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and congratulations to you as well. Three battle/general finalists is a real testament to the culture of good research and writing that you've helped develop at WP:MILHIST. --Robth^Talk 03:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The U.S. Army uses the terms "Lineage" and "Heraldry" not "Culture" and "History." Can we please change the box at the U.S. 14th Armored Division page to reflect this? It seems confusing that we should be using different terminology. The "LIBERATORS" thank you for your assistance. 14thArmored 1625 Hours 2 November, 2006

Thank you for effecting a speedy solution to the problem. 14thArmored 2000 Hours 2 November, 2006

Thank you for your welcome to the military history project. I would give you a barnstar but looks like you have enough already! Chris Kreider 19:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill, thanks for your comments and other input to the process of A-listing the Russian Ground Forces page. How do you suggest I proceed in getting it to FA status? Cheers Buckshot06 07:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I should respond to this this seemingly well-intentioned, but somewhat misguided, contributor without pissing him off. I considered replying something like this,

“

OK. But I'm not convinced the average reader, knowing that we're talking about a nonbelligerent, would interpret "significant" the way you do. I think it makes perfect sense to call Spain's input "significant" with regard to what one would expect from a neutral, i.e. nothing.

”

but I think I'll make myself scarce instead, given that we're not even contemplating any changes to the article. What would you advise? Albrecht 21:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You never visit, you never call! I'm beginning to think you're avoiding me? ;) You're still on my friend's list, but I hardly see any of you Kirill. I'm gonna be sending this to all of my buddies, cause nobody's dropping by... *Sigh*... Spawn Man 06:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill, I'd like to ask you to have a look at my talk page for this message left by Novacatz (talk).

Just in case you don't wanna go through the trouble of reading it all, he/she has added Category:Counterstrike weapons to a few firearm-related articles, which I have removed. Asams10 (talk) has removed a couple as well, and tagged the category for deletion. Novacatz has then asked us both to reconsider, and I'd like to ask you, as the Lead Coordinator of the Military history WikiProject, whether or not the categorization is acceptable.

Thanks for your time. —Squalla 03:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice comments. I've copied your reply to Category talk:Counterstrike weapons in case you wanna keep track of the discussion. Thanks again. —Squalla 15:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Kirill, I was wondering how to include the Template:Russo–Ottoman War Series into the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Campaignboxes. It looks like a "series" list not a campaignbox. Any thoughts? Publicus 18:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This person does not deserve to be mentioned in the military history project. Comrade Buckshot06 rewrote the biography of that maniac murderer, but still Frinovsky never was a military person. A Deputy Chief Hangman he was, even if he wore Komandarm insignia.

I would remove this article from military history at once, but I think it would be impolite to do that without at least asking advice from a superior editor.

AbuAmir 21:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

How's it going Kirill. Thanks for dropping by my talk today. Anyway, I've been having a revert war with Hoshidoshi on the Nero article. You have some experience in the area (I think?), so I've asked you too. I've made some good sourced edits, that are both factual & well written. However the user has reverted them about 3 times now. I'm at my wit's end!!! Hoshidoshi has placed a comment here link, before reverting my hours of edits to the Nero page link yet again!! I've left an annoyed post on User talk:Hoshidoshi, stating that in some cases, he is not right. I've refrained from simply reverting his edits constantly, instead opting to talk it out. However he continuously reverts my edits & gives pathetic reasons such as they're not primary sources. In all my FA's, I've never had this quarry!! I mean I had one souce from Bob Bakker, a well trusted paleontologist, yet he got his info from other's work. This is insane!!! It's putting me off working contructively here & I need a resolution now!! I'm going to contact a couple of other admins to sort it out, cause I'm trying to get 1000 edits this month. I can't if my current project is being destroyed by a newish user who has no idea about refs, reverts every single edit of mine & doesn't even know how to sign his name properly!!!! I'm losing it Firsfron. Please revert his revert please as it took me nearly an hour writing all of that & he has no right to revert it without discussion first & considering it's cited & acurate. I'm prepared to let some stuff go (as I have many times before on my FA's), but this user is being very unreasonalbe, & is not aware of rules on Wikipedia... I don't want to have to request the article be protected, as this would serve no purpose to anyone & he isn't interested in talking it out!!! Thanks, Spawn Man 01:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

About to post a reply on the talk page. Thanks for giving some calm to the situation. :) Spawn Man 02:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Now I've rpelied... Thanks again Kirill... So what have you been up to lately? Any more FA's?? Spawn Man 02:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I notice your comments on User talk:HQCentral. We have just discovered that that user was a sock puppet of notorious plagiarist Primetime, who was banned by Jimbo. Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Primetime, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Primetime As a banned user all of his edits may be removed, and as a serial plagiarist all of his edits should be scrutinized. If you have a chance to review his article and talk page contributions on articles where you've worked with him it'd be a help. HQCentral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Cheers, -Will Beback 04:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 46	13 November 2006	About the Signpost

Full accessibility, dramatic growth reported for Chinese Wikipedia	ArbCom elections: Information on Elections
Report identifies Wikipedia as a leader in non-US traffic	News and notes: Board passes four resolutions, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

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 05:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I've proposed some changes on the discussion page of "Roman military system" given that its contents are currently a misnomer and do not match the title. Could you comment/vote on whether you approve of the proposed action on the talk page please? Cheers - PocklingtonDan 13:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, many thanks for the peer review on "Military of ancient Rome". I've been talking to oldwindybear (what a fantastic username!) and he's doing some research now prior to posting his own peer review shortly - PocklingtonDan 13:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you also please take a look at the same sort of problem on Military history of ancient Rome - I've started a thread on the talk page but basically the article content has nothing to do with the article title. If you were able to add your opinion on the proposed changes I would be grateful. Many Thanks, PocklingtonDan 13:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you ask a knowledgeable person to add needed refs at Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell, see Wikipedia:Good_articles/Disputes#Robert_Baden-Powell.2C_1st_Baron_Baden-Powell. Rlevse 03:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

ERcheck found some for me.!Rlevse 11:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

SSG Cornelius Seon and I have done some work to create an initial pseudo-template for a state Army National Guard unit. The Alabama Army National Guard article is, for now, our model, such as it is.

My question for you is: Is there some wikipedia-magic we should consider doing in order to keep some of the boilerplate, the stuff that will need to be on every one of the fifty state Army Guard pages, up-to-date and the same on each of these 50 pages? I suspect there is. But I don't know how to do such things. If you know of a mil-project editor who is good at this stuff and might like to help out with some cool technique for keeping the standard stuff on these pages looking good, please have them look at the Alabama Army National Guard page. Maybe they could help us make a first cut at it before we grow it to 49 other pages. Mvialt 07:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your advice Kirill. Since that is the recommended WP approach, I will use the copy-and-paste technique to create additional state-level NG units. Mvialt 13:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Kirill,

I have two task force proposals I've been thinking about for a while but haven't really had the guts to submit. I was wondering if the Military History project could add a project for the Military History of Egypt and for Space Warfare. Both are pretty notable, as Egypt has one of the longest and most well-documented military histories ever, and space warfare is likely to become a major component of warfare in the future (although space is already greatly used in modern-day warfare in the field of communications).

Hope my ideas aren't completely ridiculous. Sharkface217 21:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I completely understand. Egypt is covered generally, and Space Warfare is too theoretical right now. Eventually, there probably will be a Space Warfare (if when man moves past Earth and into the great beyond, war will inevitably follow) task force. Just not yet. Sharkface217 21:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I will be sure to join both if and when they are formed, assuming it is within my lifetime.Sharkface217 22:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If you have some time, I would greatly appreciate your participation at Portal talk:China. --Ideogram 04:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and took your advice...I wrote a nice fair use rationale and uploaded the picture. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm working on trying to get Portal:Psychology up to Featured portal status. Any tips you can offer on how to improve it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Rfrisbie^talk 15:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Any idea what the ass this is all about? Someone on Commons apparently noticed that "50yrs pma not enough on commons," even though Library and Archives Canada clearly says "copyright expired" and "no restrictions on access or on use for reproduction or publication." Am I missing something here? Albrecht 16:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, to clarify, I don't really care about the duplicate on Commons (which someone else uploaded from wiki); what worries me is that my original wiki version has for whatever reason been tagged for deletion as well. Albrecht 18:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you be interested in helping out atWikiProject Munich? Kingjeff 21:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to know anything. Remmeber there is no original research allowed. Maybe they is another way you could help. Are you good at assessing articles? Kingjeff 21:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you think Munich has much of a militry history? Maybe you could contribute to both with Military history in Munich. Kingjeff 21:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Kirill, this user is clearly not interested in working with me. He will not listen to my objections unless you agree with me, and he ignores my requests to slow down editing while we discuss my objections to changes he has already made. What do you think I should do? --Ideogram 18:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Kirill, I sent you an e-mail. I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thanks. — ERcheck (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Are_You_a_Wikipediholic_Test#How_often_you_use_Wikipedia. Just a quick test. I stopped above 750 and was not halfway through. Wandalstouring 00:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Greetings I tried to add Military brat to the military peer review process, and it is not showing up on the list of items requesting peer review. I'm not sure if I requested it properly, but you look like you are active over there and thought you might be able to help me out. ThanksBalloonman 08:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Your comments are welcome. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill Lokshin, thanks for your updates to the Polish-Russian Wars template. It looks a lot better now as a campaignbox! Appleseed (Talk) 17:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I was futzing around the WWI portal this morning, trying to decide what do regarding the selected articles etc., and came to the conclusion that the best solution would be to set up an automatically updating queue from the FA, A and GA articles. Unfortunately, the Portal FAQs are either unfortunately devoid of useful information, or I am considerably denser than previously assumed. What, precisely, is the technical procedure for doing this? (Presuming of course, that I haven't completely misread the portal FAQs, and it is, in fact, possible to do something of this nature)? Carom 20:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Bah! No wonder I couldn't figure it out... (although this clearly proves the point, repeatedly made by both my mother and my wife, that I am quite dense).

Is it possible to have the portal update automatically from a preset queue? That is, if I create the subpages for say, 52 articles, can I set the portal to change the selected article once a week without any further input?Carom 21:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hiya, I was interested in your comment at the Village pump, about WikiProject autonomy. May I have permission to copy your comment to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)? Or, would you be willing to come in and say it yourself? Your thoughts would be very useful to our discussion. :) Thanks, --Elonka 22:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, the specific post I'm referring to is this one: [14], since one of the things that we're discussing is whether or not WikiProjects should be allowed to set their own guidelines (such as at WP:LOST/Episode guidelines). If you're not comfortable with whether or not your comment would apply to such a case though, then I'll hold off. If you would like to offer a comment though, the best place would be Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Request for comment. --Elonka 00:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 47	20 November 2006	About the Signpost

One week later, Wikipedia reblocked in mainland China	Military history dominates writing contest
News and notes: Wikibooks donation, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

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 06:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm well aware that a generic WikiProject template will not work across the board, as I mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates#Generic WikiProject template; this attempt was more to see what can be accomplished with a common template. The target is WikiProjects without any active "techy" participants, to allow them to get the most bang for their buck in their templates by keeping the "esoteric" details out of their face. As you may have seen from the examples I created at User:Mike Dillon/Sandbox, my current template actually covers a lot of ground. You're right that it doesn't easily handle some of the more evolved WikiProjects.

As for the server load issue, I don't think this has been a problem for quite some time. These things are now handled in a job queue (see Special:Statistics for the current queue size).

Also, it may be possible to handle the custom sections like I did with the beer listings in {{Infobox Brewery}}. Feel free to let me know what you think on my talk page or comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates#Generic WikiProject template. Mike Dillon 05:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The really ironic part is that if this thing gets any adoption at all, I probably won't be able to edit it because it will be protected ;) Mike Dillon 05:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to pepper you with messages, but if you can point me to any of the previous attempts, I'd appreciate it. I haven't gotten a huge response at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates (the project page does say it's inactive...). Mike Dillon 05:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologize, you've been quite helpful and I'm glad to get some feedback. If this thing ever gets to the point where I want to make it better known, I'll post to the WP:COUNCIL talk page. In the meantime, I'm going to have a look at {{WPMILHIST}} and see what I can do with it. Mike Dillon 06:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

If you don't mind, please have a look at my sandbox. I made an attempt to show how something like the Military history task forces would be handled by a generic infobox. You're right that this pushes esoteric details up from the generic template to the project template, but on balance there is far less esoteric stuff since the esoteric parts of handling standard params are all wrapped up in one place.

My main fear with something like this is that a non-technical admin will try to edit it and add half a million entries to the job queue... I'm not familiar enough with the job queue to know if it's smart enough to only have one entry per page (to allow quick corrections to result in 1 * N queue entries instead of M * N, where "M" is the number of edits to the shared template and "N" is the number of transcluding articles).

Also, the main sticking points that I see still are related to category naming, not crazy params. Besides that, I probably need to deal with "peer-review" and "past-peer-rewiew" to cover most of the banners out there (if they don't want to customize the text too much). Mike Dillon 06:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I had a look at JobQueue.php from MediaWiki 1.8.2 and I see what you mean. It is quite bare-bones. It also has no way to optimize finding refreshLinks jobs for the same page, since the only place that you could store a revision_id is effectively an opaque binary field that can't be indexed for any special cases. This thing could be improved, but it would probably require adding another table for job params and some indices; I'm not sure how consistent the MySQL infrastructure is for Wikimedia's server universe, but they would probably need to be InnoDB tables across the board to perform well. Maybe I should be spending my time writing a new job queue system instead of hacking templates ;) Mike Dillon 16:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This is still going. Sandy (Talk) 16:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wanna make me an administartor good man? Dermo69 17:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

For submitting an article that was identified as a contest winner (as an honorable mention) I herby award you the Military history WikiProject Distinguished Service Award. Congradulations, and better luck next time. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm working on the Education Portal to get it up to featured status. As always, I look forward to your tips at its talk page. :-) Rfrisbie^talk 06:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill, Thought I'd ask your advice about this page, which is 231 kb long. It's very thorough but VERY massive, and the only time I've snipped a single ANG wing out of it, to build up another page, it's been reverted. My thought would be to reduce it in size a bit and incorporate much of the rest in other articles, but user:R.E. Mixer obviously does not agree. He has put a massive amount of work into it. Your thoughts? Cheers Buckshot06 09:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill, As with a lot of other big pages R.E. Mixer has done, he's not very happy with changes. I suggested he split off Air National Guard SAC wings into an article to cut the size down. He replied (at my sandbox, which took me some time looking for it!):

"I know of no way to seperate the common history of a number assigned to a Bomb Wing, which later became an Strategic Missile Wing that was later designated as a Strategic Reconnaoissance Wing." R. E. Mixer 22:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Buckshot06/Sandbox"

This is a MASSIVE article, and needs to be cut down. But how? And while we're on the subject, same goes for Strategic Air Command divisions and something needs to be done about Organizational Order of Battle... Buckshot06 09:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

What I will do soon to reduce the size of the Strategic Air Command wings page is move the Strategic Wings (mostly the 1000+ numbered MAJCOM wings) to the Strategic Wings page, unless there are better suggestions. I anticipate this will simply be reverted however Buckshot06 22:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It's also unreadable! Big shame given the effort and commitment. Folks at 137 22:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Kirill:

Ghirla has mentioned submitting the Battle of Krasnoi article for Wikipedia peer review. Right now however I don't expect that the article warrants much better than a "B" rating, as there are the following final improvements I still plan to make:

1. I still need to footnote sections #1 ("Background") and #2 ("Rout of Ozharovsky"). This is especially important because some major historians confuse the Ozharovsky skirmish with the Guard's feint two days later. I want to explain the distinction in a footnote.

2. I have a few more details to add to section #3 ("Defeat of Eugene") regarding specifics of the combat on that day.

3. I need to better research the data in section #6 ("Summary of Results"). There's some controversy as to how many cannon the French lost at Krasnoi -- some say 133, others say close to 200. Also, it's not clear how many of the cannon were lost at Krasnoi itself, as opposed to being guns lost on the 40 mile road between Krasnoi and Smolensk due to Cossack raids.

4. The same holds true for the 39,000 French casualties at Krasnoi: there's controversy as to how many of them fell at Krasnoi itself as opposed to being captured on the march from Smolensk to Krasnoi.

5. I still need to better specify corps and division numbers of Russian and French units involved, and to standardize the manner in which those numbers are used in the article.

6. I still need to do a final grammar and diction check. No doubt sentence mechanics and paragraph construction in many instances need to be improved...from the perspective of writing, it's still a bit raw.

I've seen your articles on the Italian Wars, and I regard them as the standard of excellence that my articles should live up to before they are truly "finished".

Any peer criticisms in the meantime are entirely welcomed by me.

Kenmore 05:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)kenmore

Ciao! Carlo Gonzaga was clearly Italian. I'm curious to know if it was an error of yours to write he was Spanish, or if he was cited as such in your sources for Battle of Ceresole. Are you writing something more about Italian wars? If you have further doubts, please ask me without problem (I frankly admit that I cannot stand at all typical errors about Italy of which anglophone sources are full... say, distorted names of city, people, of those of nationality like the Carlo Gonzaga one). Thanks and good work. --Attilios 23:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just corrected also Aldobrando Madrazzo and Ridolfo Baglioni. They are both Italian. As for the latter, you cited him as "Florentine" but I don't know why your sourced cited him as such, as the Baglioni were a family from Perugia. I advice you this fine site about Italian condottieri:

• [15]

Bye and good work again. (PS: I see that your source for the battle of Ceresole is from 1937. As for my experience, for what concerns Italian matters you can throw it directly into the trashbin, or at least consider it as precise as a Catholic Encyclopedia... I strongly advice you to take a more recent source and revise the entire article- I will try to do the same if I'll have the time. Bye) --Attilios 23:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I've found another mistake. The Pietro Colonna was not Pietro, but Pirro. Pietro died in 1505. I think this could might give you an idea of how reliable was Oman... Bye. --Attilios 23:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, but not be so sure... my experience of English sources about Italy is tremendous ("Pietro" for "Pirro" is clearly a misunderstanding, not a Francesizing). I will continue to try to improve the article. See you soon and thanks for good work. --Attilios 23:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you in turn: if you weren't so enthusiast to write such a long article, we wouldn't be here speaking of minor figures at all. I've posted a rationale about the reason to have "d'Avalos" instead of "del Vasto" in the battle article to the talk page there. Hope you'll agree... otherwise, any Italian reading it will have the clear idea that who wrote it had a scarce knowledge of Italy and Italian language at all. Bye and good work again.

I've just reminded a counterexample for you. Maybe you'd know David Nicolle, a very respectable and acculturated writer (he seem to know all history like his hands...) for Osprey Publishing. so, when I was writing a condottieri battle from one of his book (maybe the Battle of Castagnaro) I used him confiding he was the most reliable source. Only to discover, when I had the curiosity to see if there were something about it in the Internet, that even he had committed plenty of errors (names, locations, even people who wasn't even there and events which had never happened). From that moment I started to be very careful with English language sources about Italian history. Ciao! --Attilios 00:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the article on this knife Strider SMF. It's the first knife issued by the USMC to an individual unit since the Ka-bar. Does it need anything added or more imortantly does it need to lose anything?

I have a tendency to be verbose, so I tried to stick to the basics on this one. Thanks in advance, Sir!--Mike Searson 20:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, the move of Garspad de Saulx was simply an expedient to have immediately the redirect from the simpler form, maybe the one which a user will attempt first. Bye. --Attilios 03:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick off the mark. My mistake; my thought was to put it on two pages so that everybody involved would see it... Cheers Buckshot06 05:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here's a big one! Please offer any feedback you have at its talk page on how to improve this portal to featured status. Thanks. Rfrisbie^talk 14:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Kirill, can you have a look here? It has elementary referencing errors, but the nominator says you wanted it reviewed at FAR ... this is basic stuff that could be addressed on a peer review, so I'm wondering if this was really what you wanted - I'm thinking a citing tutorial would help the problems with this article, and this could be easily addressed on peer review. Sandy (Talk) 20:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

OK - just checking. Maybe you can add your concerns to the FAR (and get some good referencers to work on it :-) Regards, Sandy (Talk) 20:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

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

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're doing a series on ArbCom candidates, and your response is requested.

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?

2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed you've rated the article as "B-Class" while adding the Military history WikiProject tag. Could you please provide some arguments as to why you regard it as B-Class — it's a current FAC and I don't really see why it wouldn't become an FA in the near future. I think it covers all A-Class requirements. Thanks :) Todor→Bozhinov 12:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see :) Apparently, I didn't know about this, thanks for pointing that out. And sorry for bothering you :) Todor→Bozhinov 13:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill: Could you please help. Military history of Africa is no longer a "stub" it's talk-page tag needs to be changed. I have created new articles for Atlas Aircraft Corporation and Denel Aviation and they need talk-page tagging. Let me know how I could do it and where to find the right tags/templates. Thanks a lot. IZAK 17:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ya really think that the box looks neater halfway through a line?? Well if you say so. I'm not goign to be able to look at the article ever again as it erks me everytime I look at something that's not perfectly straight. ;) It's my OCD. Yes my OCD. Yes my OCD. ;) Joking incase you didn't get it... Hope you're having a good week... Well, see ya round. Spawn Man 23:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, since you're the most active admin I've seen lately, what's happeing here: Luz?? This article reads like a disambig, yet it leads to another dismabig page: Luz (disambiguation). Don't know where to go from here, but it definately is kinda confusing, especially for newcomers... Spawn Man 01:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Thansk Kirill.

WikiProject Chemistry would like to see this portal attain featured status. If you have any tips, tricks or suggestions, please feel free to add them here! Thanks, riana_dzasta 05:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirill. Just wanted to let you know that I reconstructed our conversation about the banners and another that I had with User:BlankVerse at User talk:Mike Dillon/WikiProject banner. If you want to continue the conversation, please do so on that page instead of my talk page. Mike Dillon 16:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on Portal:Mathematics nomination for featured portal status. I've now replied to them, and I'd be greatful if you could respond to a couple of issues I've raised. Tompw 22:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 48	27 November 2006	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections: Candidate profiles	Steward elections begin
Group apologizes for using Wikipedia name in online arts fundraiser	News and notes: 1.5 million articles, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

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 01:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Good wiki buddy, would appreciate and non-Scouting project member's input at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting#Scout.2FGuide_or_Boy_Scout.2FGirl_Scout_equality. Rlevse 08:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)