User talk:Kirill Lokshin/Archive 6

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 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

I'd like to point to this diff as one of the reasons I felt that further RfCs would be pointless. (Bolding added by me)

I somehow believe they are ultimately impaling themselves by their actions, and I would appreciate it if you make sure to avoid not being a party to it by silently abiding their constant antagonistic actions and comments. They cite policy incessantly, yet have no interest in the adhering to the very spirit of those policies: decency and cooperation, and honesty. You've witnessed their lack of cooperation, including the refactoring incident, and it seems they are not complying with the spirit of the letter of that policy. Persuasion is not working, nor are olive branches. They've opened up a vicious complaint against me, and it's simply not an honest description of events, by both commission and ommission. I cannot say or do anything with them without receiving stinging rebukes, even when trying to build on common ground. Because their is a lengthy report filed against me filled with spin and innacuaracy, I'm pursuaded that Sarek and IP think they now are in a position of power and that cooperation and politeness aren't necessary. He also can lean on his cache, experience, and technical knowledge, and spin the dialog through through a constant barrage of scathing, obtuse, unjust criticism which would could quickly prejudice any third party dropping in right off the bat--and theri is no evidence that it is not meant to do that: notice his light bulb request for outside comment, he put a manifesto up against me that was again dishonest, wasting my time in forcing me to have to respond in detail and yet I didn't have enough space to dispel everything and that works to his advantage and he knows it: Launch six or seven salvos on my conduct and I'll have to spend half a page and half a day defending myself, or else look like the bad guy. Frankly it's disgraceful. If you can see something substantive and constructive in his dialog with me the past week, please bring it to my attention. I haven't seen it.

If you think that an RfC/U will be productive, despite his bolded comments above indicating a disdain for third party intervention that I bring in, I'll file it, but...--SarekOfVulcan 17:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I’m one of the parties involved in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine. With SirF on wiki break and despite continuing to report ongoing [1] harassment nothing is being done. This harassment has escalated with the absence of SirF, [2]., in my opinion. It is now set to escalate with no sign of any intervention. Your advice assistance or opinion would be grateful

I hope you can offer me an opinion here. It may be frivollous, yet I think it is of some formatical momentousness to the user friendlyness of the Wikipedia sources.

I think, basically, it may be useful to link every single date that is put in an article. This usually happens anyway, for the rescent events especially. Although the further back you go the more there is that is of importance, datewise, yet not necessarily important enoough to be of major historical note, which the date pages really should be for, like births, deaths, coronations, and battle, etc, rather than the ins and outs of particular people's lives which are usually only available on a yearly basis, while of little definitiveness to the times. I think, though, that if we put links on the dates no matter if they were on the date pages or not, this may be useful to provide historical significance still, as well as a higher level of presentation. Can you back me up on this?

Do you feel that it is within the ArbCom's merit to decide that BJAODN should be deleted, instead of recommending that the community try to a achieve a consensus on the matter? Melsaran (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You said earlier that collages of images are better suited for when there are several iconic images (ie, WW2) rather than more recent wars, but what is your view on using just one high quality photo in the infobox as opposed to a map, which doesnt always work for certain wars? Overall, this seems to be by far the most common practice for articles. But I dont know if this is an "accepted" practice, or one that simply is common. Is it suitable to use a high quality image, in the absense of famous/iconic ones? ~Rangeley (talk) 02:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

So there are not limitations against using single images in recent wars, per se, simply an increased difficulty in settling on one due to their contentious nature? I like to think that anything is possible, and we have had a rather constructive discussion in which many photos have been whittled down to just one or two for use in infobox, but there was a certain lack of clarity as to whether, by the rules, it was allowed to use one image. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 34	20 August 2007	About the Signpost

Bad Jokes, Deletion Nonsense, and an arbitration case	WikiScanner tool creates "minor public relations disasters" for scores of organizations
WikiWorld comic: "Tomcat and Bobcat"	News and notes: Wikimania '08, 200 x 100, 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 05:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You stated in the arbitration request history that my request had been moved to email. Please pardon my ignorance; I'm not familiar with the process at this point - what, if anything, do I need to submit by email, and to whom? Thanks, Evouga 22:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have submitted an email to the newsletter. Evouga 23:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Kirill, You stated that information regarding this requested case that you shutdown during the request period be followed up on in a mailing list, but neither WP:MAIL or WP:ARBCOM lists an address, do want the emails to go directly to you? Thank you, Please reply either on my talk page or at my email — xaosflux ^Talk 23:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, found it. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 35	27 August 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Helicopter parent"	News and notes: Court case, BJAODN, 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 06:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, you qualify for this. This award is based strictly on your time on Wikipedia and edit count. Cheers, BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 15:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

A while back you peer-reviewed Army Groups of the National Revolutionary Army. I've since made a lot of changes to that article, and would like you to take another quick look at it before I pass it on to WP:FLC. Congrats on your coordinator election, BTW. When are you going to amend the constitution to allow you a permanent term? :p -- Миборовский 00:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You're so fast that you added my FLC to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review before I could! :D Just wanted to say thanks for the peer reviews you did, not just for my articles but all the ones you have done for WP:MILHIST. Keep up the good work! -- Миборовский 02:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on your re-election as Lead Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. I wish you luck in the coming term. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well done from me too....and is it just me or I didn't receive this month's newsletter? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant the recap of July :). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Congrats Kirill. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Kirill, I have two questions for you regarding A-class articles: Are we the only project having trouble with A-class review participation, and if not do you think we could create an A-class barnstar for use across wikipedia as a way of encouraging people to work a little more on A-class upgrading and reviewing? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"Across Wikipedia" in this sense would mean only applying to projects that have an A-class status, but the reason I bring it up is that more people may be willing to participate in A-class reviews if they have some sort of incentive to work with the process, and creating some sort of generic award for work in A-class may proved said incentive, and may encourage other projects here to adopt an A-class setting if they haven't yet done so. (I'd put more thought into this, but right now I my mind is too burnt out from the 1st week of school.) TomStar81 (Talk) 07:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy has recently decided to try to break up into task forces similar to Military history. Template:Philosophy has been somewhat changed to reflect this new reorganization. I think you were the genius who first devised the complex banner. I tried to set up a similar one for Philosophy, and found myself in WAAAAAAY over my head. I'm not myself sure whether the reorganization is a good idea, although I think with college sessions just starting classes such differentiation might be in order. If you can suggest how to adjust the Template:Philosophy banner to function similar to the MILHIST banner, I think all of us in the Philosophy project would be very grateful. I have looked at that banner, like I said, and even tried to copy it into a Word document for conversion, but knew that there were several thoughts involved in its creation which frankly eluded me completely. Again, any help, or a response to the RfC on that banner, would be very appreciated. John Carter 23:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for helping out with the Philosophy template! I had revamped it to include fields, and things got out of hand. The test page I created should help you out Template:Philosophy/test. If you have any questions (about what the hell I was thinking for instance... ) let me know. Be well, Gregbard 01:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see the notice. I wanted to create it because there are plenty of Taiwanese military-related articles that have nothing to do with China. I do think Taiwan is a country, but I'm not saying Taiwan is a country by creating the task force. I think it's more neutral to have this new task force because it wouldn't be appropriate to place the Taiwanese aboriginal wars/conflicts as part of the Chinese or Japanese task force. Aren't I right?--Jerry 02:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, thank you.--Jerry 17:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you hold back your vote? It's not really a content dispute. (Wikimachine 04:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

Hi Kirill, i have the Vc migration project and noticed your suggestion. I think it would be a good idea. the instigator of the move was User:Mike Chapman who has been inactive for a couple of years. The project itself is now dormant. It serves as a reminder of the origins of most of the text and that is it. Most discussions now take place either on Milhist or Bio pages. Whilst it would be prudent to wait a few days for others who have it in their watchlist to comment, i think the move should go ahead. My next project is cleaning up all the articles, including tags, sections and infoboxes! Woodym555 12:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a note to let you know that I'm going to be traveling for business from today until 21 Sep which may keep me from fulfilling some of my coordinator responsibilities. I'll do the best I can and be prepared to more fully jump into it after I return home. Cla68 23:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Curious why Horses in Warfare fell short of "A" class, or if being in "GA" class is somehow the same thing. Would appreciate comments on how to further improve the article, or if the classification used just wasn't suitable for the article, or what. I'm not all that up on the military history criteria, I'm just a horse person. Constructive help or comments appreciated. Comments best to be placed on the talk page for the article, if you could be so kind. Montanabw^(talk) 02:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've db-author'ed the sandbox, perhaps you should csd the sandbox 2...

Sorry about the lengthy wikibreak. It taught me a bunch. Was watching quietly and carefully during. ACW Portal is running now. Still some writing to do. Then some page space goals. Then I'll start cranking the Military Science TF some. Goal is 500-600 quality edits a month. BusterD 11:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I'm back, users lists are ready and deliv scheduled for tomorrow :) (5th Sep)... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Delivered by grafikbot 09:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! However, there is still a lot of material that could be incorporated into the article, mainly from [3]. I still need a more complete account of the early manoeuvres before leading up to Tolentino. Centy – reply• contribs – 13:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Kirill I wonder if this entry qualifies for removal? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 36	3 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Interview with Jimbo Wales
WikiScanner tool expands, poses public relations problems for Dutch royal family	WikiWorld comic: "George P. Burdell"
News and notes: Fundraiser, Wikimania 2008, 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. R Delivery Bot 03:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your suggestions you are right, the list was a mess. I have taken action and changed the title, plus I have made the other changes requested. I would like to apologize to you because I had various doctor appointments and I couldn't make the fixes earlier. The featured list is a new concept to me, I have been so involved with writting articles that I was totally unaware of its existence until this nomination. I think it is a great idea and now I have an idea of requirements of an FL. I hope that after all issues are taken care of, that you will reconsider your vote. Take care. Tony the Marine 20:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This needs MilHist tagging.Rlevse 01:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi what about switching the info box color for military conflict in an olive green or light brown color? Wouldn't that be more suitable than the light blue? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 21:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC) I'm thinking something along the lines of #905D5D. I don't know it just gives it a more earthy feel to the article associated with combat ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 21:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Kirill. I don't know any other admins who would know about this, hence why you've been pegged. A concerned editor has moved 3rd United States Infantry Regiment to 3rd Infantry Regiment (United States). From past experience, I know I can't move it back without causing some sort of meltdown in Wikipedia's main reactor, so could you please do it for me? In the mean time I will leave a note for the editor explaining the issue (even though the unique unit's name has been discussed to death even inside the article itself). Many, many thanks. --ScreaminEagle 17:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Say Krill, I decided I should discuss this with you since I'm on a roll. (ask for forgivness instead of asking for permission) I went ahead and joined the Aviation Project, beacuse I thought it would be nice if I were a registered member, before adjusting the assesments on Amarican Military Aircraft prior to 1941. I've been through the list of Stubs and added some to my To-Do list, I'm now going through the unassessed list and culling out the Start and B-class ones within my area of interest. As I do this I'm finding a number of articles that I can quickly fix to get them up to at least a Start class. My question is, should the WPAVIATION tag be on redirect pages? I'm thinking not, but I have run across at least one so far. --Colputt 18:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have a question. Are events like the 228 incident be part of the military history?--Jerry 20:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think if events like that are considered as part of military history, there might actually be more Taiwanese military history articles than we have thought.--Jerry 22:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but I find that you often cut through the obfuscating issues... :)

There's a potential issue regarding redirects that's a bit unique, and I don't know what the approach should be. One of the editors at WP Films has been voraciously compiling film lists, mainly from national cinemas. While the work on the whole has been good, he seems to be trying out something new on the List of Argentine films list that alarms me. Starting with a data dump from the IMDb, it seems that he's taken every Argentine film name on tap and searched for our article on it. Where there is no article, he makes one for the film - but the article only consists of a redirect to the film's listing on the appropriate decade list within List of Argentine films. I first came across this when I saw that Category:Argentine films was populated with literally thousands of redirects - far more than the number of "real" articles there. This has been somewhat remedied (although the end of the alphabet for the category still gives you an idea how overwhelming this was). A look at "What Links Here" for any of the decade lists also shows a massive quantity of redirects.

In any case, is this proper? If not, what should be done? I don't like the idea of having bluelinks for every Argentine film, where over 75% just go to this list. And I am fearful that this editor is going to try to extend this idea to all potential film articles via a complete IMDb entry list dump. However, I can't find any particular policy, guideline, or precedent. What are your thoughts?

Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 01:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm cool with the blue color. But unfortunately Giro hasn't a clue about my intentions!!!! The redirects direct to brief info temporarily until the articles are created and the lists were most certainly not created by text dumps. I spent a great deal of time filtering out films which I thught weren't appropriate and indeed creating the pages ny sorting the films by year. I think I am an excellent editor which I am rarely credited for particularly from my own Films project ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see Category:Argentine films -there is now no problem but I won't even be congratulated by him for cleaning this up to. I put in some 1000 edits to clean it up. Please note that this category before my work on Argentine films only had 8 film articles in it. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I may be a little busy this month and I might be AWOL due to RL stuff :(. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

We have a project underway at WP:SHIPS to tear through our terrible backlog of unassessed articles. At this point, we are doing fast assessments, only assigning stub or start class (unless MILHIST has assigned B class, in which case we continue to accept that assessment as our own). Personally, I'm finding loads of articles that have not even been tagged by MILHIST; thus far I have been tagging them for you, but not applying any class assessment. As I'm adding a fair amount of work for you all down the road, though, I thought I would ask if you'd prefer that I apply 'my' class assessment to MILHIST tags as well (keeping in mind that we are only tagging at stub or start, not higher). I know I can do it, but I'd rather ask first than step on any toes. Maralia 02:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll encourage our folks to spread the tagging/assessment love - hope you will do the same. We were already sitting at over 2,700 unassessed at the first of the month, and I know there are hundreds if not thousands still untagged, so every little bit helps. Thanks. Maralia 02:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been going around cleaning up lists of red links to deleted band pages, and I noticed this: List of Christian worship music artists has a lot of external links. Should I change these into red links or simply delete them altogether? And what's your opinion on entries that is just plain text with no links? I'm probably nit-picking but I'd just like a second opinion on what would be best. -WarthogDemon 02:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi we meet again!! I want to create a standard infobox Tibetan settlement for all the towns and villages in Tibet under Template:Infobox Tibetan Settlement. Is there anyway we can have something like this: Domartang but with parameters to include the Tibetan/Chinese language section like on Deleg at the top so it all goes neatly in one box for settlements? PLease repsond on this as soon as you can as I feel it very important thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 13:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Something like this:

Domartang, Tibet

Tibetan name
Tibetan:	{{{t}}}
Wylie transliteration:	{{{w}}}
pronunciation in IPA:	[{{{ipa}}}]
official transcription (PRC):	{{{z}}}
other transcriptions:	{{{e}}}
Chinese name
traditional:	{{{tc}}}
simplified:	{{{s}}}
Pinyin:	{{{p}}}
Location	30°53′N 94°49′E / 30.883°N 94.817°E / 30.883; 94.817
Region	Tibet Autonomous Region, China
Prefecture-level division	Qamdo Prefecture
County-level divisions	Banbar County
Population Approx. in a 7 km radius	439
Major Nationalities	Tibetan
Regional dialect	Tibetan language
Area code
Postal Code

I'm sorry I didn't get to your talk page before opining on the talk page at WP:WIAFA; I hold MilHist in much higher regard than WP Medicine, largely because of your leadership. (Perhaps I wrongly assumed MilHist was also covered in MOS.) If this alteration in wording affects the process, I'm open to change. I know how medical articles are impacted, which is why we worked for more than half a year (I think) to get medicine covered in the Manual of Style. I'm sorry you're disappointed; if you have a convincing reason to keep Projects mentioned, I'll change. The problem is that few of the Projects are as exemplary as MilHist, so I saw Bishonen's point that they shouldn't be dictating FA standards. I'm open to change depending on your thoughts, Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand. The wording was removed rather quickly, and I regret not asking your input *first*. I'm divided because MilHist is so superior to most other Projects (certainly superior to Medicine, which frustrates me on my best Wiki days, considering the amount of dangerous medical misinfo on Wiki and no concerted effort to do anything about it, my pet peeve), and frankly it worries that some less solid Projects would have sway in the FA process. As I said, if there are strong arguments put forward that it's better for the FA process to have that wording, I'll reverse my position. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably because MilHist is the only Project that would have been certified :-) Perhaps I "need to get out more often", but I'm not aware of others that function as well, and I even signed off of Medicine the other day and de-watched it, so disillusioned over the non-reliable medical articles. You all set the standard, so I understand your disappointment in how quickly that discussion went. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ack, you're right, how could I forget those two. My mouth has been full of foot all night tonight. Must be bedtime, 'night! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The wording here appears ambiguous. I'm not sure whether disruptive users can be banned from the article outright, or whether I have to seek Committee approval first. Clarification? Moreschi ^Talk 12:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This needs a milhist tag.Rlevse 17:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Kirill, just wanted to add a note to the comments at FA criteria talk. I think scaling FA is going to require WikiProjects to become more central to the process, and MILHIST is, as far as I know, the most capable of the WikiProjects. I said on the talk page that I thought it would be fine for MILHIST to have a guideline tagged MOS; I actually think it's desirable, not just acceptable. I'd like to see some explicit discussion about how to use the skillset of MILHIST to scale FA. Just my two cents. Mike Christie (talk) 03:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that there may well be any number of projects which will be creating "subprojects" for the purposes of reducing the number of banners. Thank you for your assistance in the philosophy banner, which recently went that way. However, to prevent you or someone else having to be called in anytime such a complex banner is contemplated, would it be possible to create, as it were, a blank template which could have the various elements added to it by the individuals working on the projects? Particularly for the recently proliferating cities in the US projects, and others, they might be willing to perhaps change banners if they could themselves fairly easily do so. If it isn't really technically possible, of course, thank you anyway for your attention and earlier assistance. John Carter 17:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Also, my apologies for the less than accurate phrasing. Maybe not "fill in the blanks" per se. Perhaps just a base template with an instructions sheet attached which indicates that the name of the project or the short identifier for the subproject would be inserted at a given point. Something so that, for instance, the project for Canadian music would be able to add parameters for the Billy Talent project without necessarily knowing much about banner construction. And, again, thank you for your willingness, and my apologies about the imposition on your already busy schedule. John Carter 15:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That's ok, I was so slow because I didn't want to do something wrong, as it is the first time I close an review. Best, --Eurocopter tigre 12:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 38	17 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Reader survey
Wikimedia treasurer expected to depart soon	WikiWorld comic: "Sarah Vowell"
News and notes: Template standardization, editing patterns, 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 03:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What's the point of bringing up dead horses? Do you really think it appropriate, or even remotely constructive, to bring unrelated past grievances up, apparently with the sole aim of disparaging someone? >Radiant< 11:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Durova has this thing called the Triple Crown which I'd like to nominate you for if you have both, as you already more than meet the featured criteria. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 19:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting take on the GAs. Thanks for responding. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 01:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to tell you that you have my respects and regards for being the voice of clarity and reason in this debate. Without any disrespect to other ArbCom members, only you seem to have a completely clear view of what Wikipedia is and what it should (or should not) do. If you ever run for the board, you will have my support. Loom91 11:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ciao! I've just finished Battle of Mentana... as usual, I'm afraid it'd need some polishing and copyediting. Have you time? Ciao and good work. --Attilios 22:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be approaching the issue sensibly. Are you able at all to give any insight into what Fred is thinking? His clarifications on the proposed decision talk page confuse the issue to the point where I think it is useless to ask him for further clarification. Seriously, those discussing it on the talk page are pretty conused as to what is going on. Viridae^Talk 01:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

HI military guy. I know you are usually busy but can you check out the new sub stub article Kure Naval Base and expand a bit I believe it was a Japanese naval base during WWII. Or let somebody know who has a knowledge in this field Thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 14:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see No. 3: Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy#Rules Fred Bauder 17:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

We are dealing with some pretty thin skinned people, on all sides of this dispute. That they may be seriously harmed, when we would not expect them to be, is a consideration. The link to the suicide being a case in point. Fred Bauder 18:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you may be having some trouble following my reasoning in certain cases. For example the original research principle is linked to the findings of fact regarding Teresa Nielsen Hayden, whose brilliant, but unsourced, writing was apparently unappreciated. Fred Bauder 18:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have substantially changed the first two findings of fact at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#Proposed_findings_of_fact. Fred Bauder 18:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You didn't note a support vote on a couple of the paragraphs of this decision. Was this inadvertent, or were you saying that these are just for discussion and you're not ready to commit to supporting? I assume the former, so you will want to go back and sign them. Newyorkbrad 18:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You can add this one once its complete. Would be appreciated if there is anyway you can actually move along the RFCU at a faster pace just to prove the absurdity of the wealth of allegations. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Zer0faults --SevenOfDiamonds 20:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I am a little worried about a "Finding of Fact" Fred Bauder posted on my RfA, as its not actually a fact at all. I do not think anyone would even argue about the events. I left a message to Fred asking him to clarify or strike it through etc. He has however not responded. The message is quoted below:

“

I noticed the item you added was kind of vague, well someone noticed before me. Fayassal apologized for blocking against concensus which was established on the Request for Arbitration Enforcement page. I think that should be noted, the items seems to imply no second judgment was given. I also was not unblocked to participate in the arbitration. I was unblocked because he was wrong to act as he did. He left it on MONGO to pursue and told him he would have to file an Arbcom, MONGO refused and Theresa then filed.

”

Perhaps you can assist in some matter, as its not a fact that events unfolded in that manner, nor why I was unblocked. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way to generate a list of articles that don't have task force tags? I'd be keen to go through them and allocate tags (where appropriate), at the same time assessing them and removing them from the Assessment Drive lists probably. Buckshot06 21:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have also been taskforcing as I find MILHIST tags missing, but I haven't been actively looking just for taskforce tags. How do I find the ones I've done in the assessment drive lists? Will the lists update eventually? --Colputt 21:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For your many excellent Wikipedia:Arbitration proposed decisions and arguments. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You have so many Barnstars, that one more probably won't make much of an impact, but I noticed you don't have this one, and should. Between your Solomonic proposal on RFAR/7ofDiamonds, to your ability to argue fiercely against on RFAR/Attack sites (where Fred may have thrown a cog just a smidgeon), while being able to work together smoothly in the overwhelming majority of cases when Fred is right, to just writing the large number of proposed decisions that you have. And I understand you actually write articles too? :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Kirill. I appreciate the feedback on Battleaxe, I've done a few of your suggestions and I'll try to get the rest as soon as possible. Thanks! Oberiko 20:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Volume 3, Issue 39	24 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Survey results
Wikimedia announces plans to move office to San Francisco	WikiWorld comic: "Ambigram"
News and notes: Times archives, conferences, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. R Delivery Bot 02:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If you guys really think the case is necessary, then ok, but given how infrequent I even cross paths with Cat I'm really confused as to how it even got proposed as an arbcom case. The only thing listed as an attempt to settle the dispute was an RfC on myself, and that did resolve at least part of the issue. I still don't believe I crossed the line in listing an article for deletion (but I did cross the line in being down right rude to him), and it's already apparent that the evaluation of any given admin regarding Cat and I, is enough to block either of us. Aside from a finding like "Ned and Cat should try to stay away from each other" I fail to see what starting up an entire arbcom case is going to achieve. As I said in my statement on the request page, I also think this will fuel the drama more than it would help. I'm open to mediation of some kind, and hearing how others suggest we handle such situations (although I already know what went wrong this last time). There are many other ways to resolve this dispute, lessen the drama, and take up a lot less of our time. -- Ned Scott 01:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kirill, wondering if I could pester you again for more advice... ;)

I started the ball rolling on a Coordinator process at WP Films, modelled much on the MilHist precedent, with open positions for one lead and two assistants, and a two week self-nom window, followed by two weeks of elections. We've now reached the starting point of elections, but with only three candidates (and only myself interested in lead). Oh, and no questions or comments at all, despite notifying all the members and announcing on the project page and project talk page. So my question is what happens now? Should we bother to hold the election? I'm uncomfortable with just closing it, since I'd like to see process followed, but it seems a pointless exercise if the noms are closed now, it's an approval vote only, and we have just enough to fill the slots. Almost seems worse to throw the party and have no one come. Alternatively, I've considered (assuming the other two noms agree to it) keeping the election deadline firm, but amending the rules to allow self-noms to continue to be declared up until the election's end, in the outside hope that maybe at least one other party will enter the ring, thus making the election participation more pertinent. But maybe that's just insecurity speaking. In any case, any thoughts proffered will be very gratefully received! Many thanks (as always), Girolamo Savonarola 01:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. I agree with most of your sentiments, but I also believe that projects of certain size in membership or article scope may still need coordination by those very facts, regardless of community lethargy. In the case of WP Films, I don't know what's happened; certainly we have an active talk page and many facets of the project require regular maintenance, etc. On the other hand, there is always "In essence silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community" to be considered. <shrug>. Girolamo Savonarola 02:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

My first impulse upon seeing the proposed decision by the Arbitration Committee, was to protest by saying it is unfair to simplify matters thusly and equate User:Giovanni Giove with myself (because of my being on the "defensive" in the edit-warring, because of my numerous attempts at dicussion). I realised, though, that that kind of stuff is probably often heard in such situations, and that my protests will be disregarded (due to my obvious personal interest). This is why I tried a different approach.
I came to Giovanni Giove with a proposal that just might do the trick to first stop, and then finally "dismantle" the conflict (see Giovanni Giove's talkpage). Such attempts at discussion have been made before and have proven effective in resolving several issues with Users PIO and Brunodam, but have been essentially useless with Giovanni Giove. Now however, he (and I) face a very real possibility of severe restrictions lasting an entire year. I believe we may resolve the issue. (User:Giovanni Giove is currently under a 72 hour block for 3RR violation and may not check his messages for another day or so, so I do not expect an answer that soon.) The question, of course, is would you support such a solution to the problem at hand? I, for one, truly hope so, since the proposed restriction would effectively put an end to my work on Wiki, something I'll do my best to prevent. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

True, it does seem unlikely we would stop when previous incidents are taken into account. However, the circumstances are now completely different than earlier on, thanks to the Arbitration Committee's simple post I believe all can be settled without such drastic measures. In any case the restriction will always "be there", so to speak, if the agreement is violated. (And I'm sure I won't do it, I really wan't to remain fully active since I have any other areas of interest. I guess you more or less scared me off Dalmatia :) DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you consider our cooperation on creating a new article evidence? DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Giovanni Giove has agreed to my proposal. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Kirill, I hope it's not inappropriate to ask you look over the MALICIOUSSITES proposed principle and reconsider your support. On a first reading, it seems reasonable, but I worry that it has the potential for being just as abused as MONGO/BADSITES was.

Additionally, any future community policy will be take place in the shadow of any default "interim policy" passed by Arbcom in this case. If Arbcom passes as strongly worded statement, either for or against linking, it be harder to achieve a policy that represents consensus, as one faction in discussion will prefer "no consensus policy" to a new "more middle-of-the-road consensus policy"

Just a thought. Hope it wasn't inappropriate to express. :) --01:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I view the matter of linking versus not linking as a bit of a red herring here. External links are essentially a mere convenience rather than a vital aspect of an encyclopedia; if, say, MediaWiki were to break tomorrow and no longer render any URLs as links, the impact on our ability to produce and distribute the encyclopedia would be insignificant. Plenty of perfectly good encyclopedias function with no external links at all.

(Beyond even that, the only real need for full URLs at all is in the context of citing an external site; and a raw URL works as well as a link there. Indeed, given that a large number of such citations wind up pointing to the Internet Archive, raw URLs may actually be the neater approach. And the impact here would be minimal regardless, as the sites in question aren't exactly being cited all that much.)

My concern has primarily been the attempts to eliminate references to sites, which does impact encyclopedic content; that, I'm quite firmly against. But I have no fundamental objections to not having links to these sites; there's certainly no great need to direct readers to them. Kirill 01:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't realize that listing a url wouldn't be covered by that principle.

It's still hard for me to understand how not linking to some sites is consistent with NPOV. If, for encyclopedic reasons we have to list a url, but we go out of our way not to make that url hot-linked, isn't that having our articles make a moral judgement about what sites are Good and what sites are Evil?

That objection probably seems sort of trivial when we're just thinking about ASM or ED, where they probably don't merit mention anyway. But to see why the "not linking to some sites" is a problem, imagine we decided not to link to terrorist sites, and then we decided not to link Hamas's official site on the Hamas page-- to list the URL, but not to allow it to become an actual hotlink. Technically, the site might still have the same content, but it seems like forbidding hotlinks to Hamas would, in itself, be making a moral and political judgment about Hamas. (I know the analogy is strained, we're dealing with non-notable trolls here, rather than major political movements, but the principle is basically the same)

Anyway, I've probably talked everybody's ears off enough in this case. Thanks for listening :) --Alecmconroy 01:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I find it silly to give a URL or site name and not actually link it; it shows some sort of vindictiveness on our part, like we're mentioning it but saying we're not going to link it, nyahh nyahh nyahh, take that evil attack-mongers! *Dan T.* 04:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Kirill, I am being an effort to get Portal:Military of Greece to FA and I would greatly appreciate our opinion on what needs to be improved before I can nominate the article. Thanks. Kyriakos 10:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again Kirill but there is a formatting error now on the Portal which I'm not able to fix, would you be able to see if you could fix it. Thanks. Kyriakos 03:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

What would you suggest about this: User_talk:Journalist#Civility. He is a 19-or so year old admin who doesn't see the errors of his ways. I feel we don't need admins who are constantly cursing and being condescending. Rlevse 01:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

He apologized, most of the banter is on his own talk page.Rlevse 09:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/3rd US Infantry. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 00:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you add a category for US Navy Bases and US Coast Guard Stations?

Also there are two uniformed services that are not technically part of the military but their members have served in the military. These are National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the uniformed corps of the US Public Health Service I believe these should be categories as well as they are a logical fit. --Saebros 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Kirill,

I've heard from several sources (parents, news, friends) that Wikip�

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/3rd US Infantry, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Daniel 05:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If you agree to mediation, I only ask that you demand my mandatory joinder as a party, as I see the caller's (1) failure to include me and (2) failure to include my talk page CMH citation showing the 19th century use/approval of 3rd United States Infantry Regiment by the general in command of the Army at the time as forming the basis of any allegation against you of NPOV violation. If you agree to mediation but cannot effect my inclusion, then feel free to look up and use the CMH source I cited on the article talk page. Hotfeba 23:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have put the shortest form of my position regarding the first point of mediation (the official name of the unit in question) at the end of my talk page, including related citations of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide#Military units and formations. It's fairly short, it adheres to current MILHIST style, and it does not require changes to that style for agreement. Unless I am mistaken, this in combination with the citations from AR 600-82, AR 220-1, AR 220-5, and The Army of the United States (1896) are persuasive. Hotfeba 06:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Volume 3, Issue 40	1 October 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox"	News and notes: Commons uploaders, Wikimania 2008/2009, milestones
Wikimedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

A look at recent history suggests to my eye (and I assume good faith to my best ability) that one user using multiple socks and IPs is trying to advance a specific agenda relating to naming of this page space. As a watcher community, we've avoided 3RR territory, but I'm wondering how best to deal with this slightly complicated abuse of anonymity (IMHO). BusterD 01:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is currently under an 18 day semiprotect, but this very determined user hasn't let that stop him or her. A user involved early in this dispute bragged about using Tor, and seems to have created a range of sock accounts (the latest being "Ghost account 1"), so it's getting ridiculous. I know disputes get worse than this (3rd US Inf Reg, for ex.), but I loathe to believe this fellow thinks he's getting away with something. BusterD 14:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've done the tracking. He's now switched to using sock accounts, but I have seen at least three registered accounts (two blocked but I suspect more), and between 20-25 ips (some of which have been identified and blocked as TOR, some of which don't seem to do, and others which seem to be TOR but haven't yet been blocked as such). BusterD 15:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I decided to go here and here. Sorry to get you involved in any way at this early stage. Just needing elder statesman-type advice. BusterD 18:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Since the military history project seems to be one of the few that offers an A-class review I was wondering, do you think any of the battle articles related to Black Hawk War are ready for such a review. I have been working on this topic for months, and several of the articles have been promoted to GA. My ultimate goal is to get the main article to FA and then submit them all for a featured topic. Eventually, I would like to see all of the articles featured and I figured an A-class review was probably the next logical step in the quest for collaboration, feedback and improvement. Any thoughts on the articles would be greatly appreciated. IvoShandor 05:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the location of its use a big deal? IvoShandor 04:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I can go with that. Is there any easy way to the conversion? IvoShandor 04:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That looks good to me, we might make a few little tweaks. Thanks for your help once again. IvoShandor 04:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I made a change here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:WPMILHIST_Announcements James D. Forrester 19:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Is it possible to clarify by the arbcom's decision whether Soviet and Russian sources appropriate for Wikipedia or not. I ask this because I several times saw statements (like this [4] for example) by other Wikipedia users that those sources are inappropriate because of democracy issues in those countries. I see this as rejection of sources by political reasons. So I ask to clarify this if possible.--Dojarca 00:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Delivered by grafikbot 09:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Kirill, the proposal & your "support" surprise me. So if you think I'm a disruptive editor (if I were to concede that whatever you perceive as disruptive are so & my fault), shouldn't my "good edits" still outweigh? For example, Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598). I'm trying to get that to featured status. Why trash a half-bad apple? Cut the bad side off & eat the good side. In other words, the worst I thought arbs could impose was to prevent me from engaging in edits in Liancourt Rocks. (Wikimachine 00:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for replying.

Your rationale for the question above is not comprehensive. I don't think my actions entail a ban from East Asia-related articles, and even my actions @ Liancourt Rocks, at best, haven't crossed the line; to translate that somehow into a complete ban is ...

For some reasons, you failed to note Opp2 (w/ very strong ev. of sock puppetry) + others. Even then, Good friend100 & I, on almost all other disputes, have taken similar stances. I'm wondering how you could have made the right calculation & analysis w/o having targeted the worst ones first? When the situation is much more complicated than one caused by a single editor, your proposal is unrealistic.

About the "Us vs. They" ideology, I think that you simply glanced over stuffs w/o making serious efforts to read the content. I could make list of all the disputes I've taken side on in the last 1 year & the reasons behind them. There is no reason to emphasize the risk that I'm pushing the" us vs. them" all by myself (or even amongst others). Simply, those disputes were ridiculous & POVish, and I just took side as any common sensed individual would have. If I were ever mentioning ppl by "CPOV" "JPOV" and "KPOV", I've put nota bene: "this is out of convenience". My edits at Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598) prove; I'm neutral. The only risk for provocation & POV lies in editors other than me.

Thanks. (Wikimachine 03:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

That's not indicative of anything. I was simply saying that they were using NPOV to manipulate consensus & "claiming nationality" was one of their way to provide illegitimate litmus test toward an illegitimate NPOV basis. I specifically said (I think in the request for arbitration, not evidence page) that I have no problem with him being Japanese or Korean-hater or anything else. Simply, claiming false nationality for your own POV ends is cheating & I have moral obligation to point that out.

So, I called someone not Korean & that entails a ban? No. You focus on these trivial things & neglect the larger picture. (Wikimachine 20:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

Oh, in case you don't know what a "litmus test" (it's a debate term), basically you offer some standard to compare it with something & see if it's positive or negative (better or worse). So, if Komdori were to claim that he was a Korean & he was arguing against other editors who claim to be Korean on something that has a clear POV issue, then ppl's perception of neutrality changes in the spectrum of what's neutral & what's not. (Wikimachine 20:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

Hi Kirill, user:Miyokan moved few weeks ago the Red Army article to Soviet Army. In my opinion, that would be wrong, as the Army of the Soviet Union had the official designation "Red Army". The most common and often used designation for it, is also "Red Army", so I consider this renaming quite innapropiate. Could you please use your admin tools and revert this? P.S. I also consulted user:Buckshot06 on this - which is a truely expert in Military of the Soviet Union topics - and he shared my opinion. Best regards, --Eurocopter tigre 15:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice to hear I'm well thought of! I have another move request which looks like it will need your admin tools. Light Horse is exclusively about the Australian Light Horse, and should be at that page(which currently is a redirect back to the first one!).

But I can't move it there for some reason. Would you mind doing so? Buckshot06 17:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you also mind moving Military of the Soviet Union to Soviet Armed Forces over another redirect? Wikipedia seems to be the only place where the term 'Military of the SU' is used - and I created the page! Buckshot06 11:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Does this image Image:Thistlegorm train parts minus red edit.jpg, fall under the WP:MILHIST project. The SS Thistlegorm was a transport and supply ship sunk by the Germans in the Second World War. It was carrying tanks, rifles, trains etc when it sank. I think it does, i'm not sure though, so thought i would ask you. By the way, the image is not actually of train parts, it is some sort of winch despite its name. If i remember rightly the wheels were connected to the trains! There is currently no way of moving to new image names at Commons so it will do for the moment. Thoughts? Woodym555 16:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you please review the diffs, before posting them to proposed decision? One of them is even not to my edit, [5], it is Digwuren's reply to my posting already shown in this diff (I notified of this in Workshop and Evidence talk page quite a while ago, but Irpen has refused to change this glaringly obvious mistake). And in several other cases would you kindly clarify what exactly constitutes to be incivility, bad faith or personal attack in them - if not for anything else, then at least so I could avoid such behavior in the future.

As for the proposed remedy - I am/was going to share voluntarily Alexia's punishment in any case.

-- Sander Säde 11:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

_{(Responded on my talk page as well, but shorter. Could we please talk in one place?)}

I do apologize for them - but not for those concerning Dojarca. Please see his three deletion nominations: 1, 2 and 3. In all three his reasoning is "POV, because created by Estonians"; in fact he fails to give any other reason to deletion (note that I am not commenting on the content of articles or template here). In all three cases he brings forward checkuser cases - one of which was declined by checkuser clerk and other is irrelevant. In all three cases he attempts to show that the content was created by Estonian mob, while only Digwuren was actively involved. In case of Czechoslovakia, my involvement was inserting one inline source - already present on the page - when it was asked for, Suva and Alexia have no edits at all. In case of template there is no involvement by any other Estonian editors except Digwuren. In case of "Denial of Soviet occupation" AfD, article was created by Digwuren as a total rewrite, even as noted by closing administrator - and yet Dojarca portrayed it as recreation of deleted material - and that "accounts created a mob" (direct quote). My involvement in that article was very minor and only in latter stages (I cannot see history to be sure) and I don't think Alexia and Suva were involved as well.

I do believe that Dojarca's behavior violates grossly everything that Wikipedia stands for.

-- Sander Säde 12:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it just obvious? I'm a mob of one! Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 13:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please correct your proposals in regard to my gender. :) I'm a she, a female... Thanks, Alexia Death the Grey 12:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I am shocked and scandalized to find this proposal on the proposed decision page. I was involved with the case rather tangentially if at all and was not even listed as a party. The "input" of User:Colchicum and several others who has agitated to have me involved in the case was altogether more substantial. You listed the following edits to accuse me of "personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith":

• Even if you don't agree with my characterization of the BBC article I was talking about as "vile racist propaganda", this does not qualify as a personal attack unless either the BBC or the Economost register Wikipedia accounts and involve themselves in the dispute. Please quote the policy that prevents us from discussing media publications robustly and openly.

• This was a factual characterization of the way the AfD was developing, accompanied with a request for sysop involvement. If you qualify it as "personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith", you may just as well pick up every regular ANI poster and impose "editing restrictions" on him.

• What does qualify as a "personal attack" in this comment - my reference to Digwuren as a "tendentious editor" or my statement that I don't care about him? This is really enigmatic.

• This comment is entirely out of the scope of the case (as defined by yourself) and refers to the Bohdan Khmelnytsky controversy. Please consider removing.

• Since you qualify this comment as a violation of WP:AGF, you may be well served to delve into the conflict in order to see whether there has been enough room for assuming good faith after four or five months of this "denialism" talk. Furthermore, there was borderline consensus during the AfD that the terms like "denial" and "denialism" were taken up on purpose and are inherently inappropriate for the title of an article. Do you really need to single out my frank assessment of the situation, of all other comments?

• This comment was again a pretty factual description of the AfD situation which has nothing to do with alleged personal attacks. If you disagree with my conclusion that people were commenting "along pre-established ethnic lines", you should just consult the AfD page to refresh your memory.

You know that I have been primarily active on Russian Wikipedia these days, and your unsubstantiated accusations actually confirm my feelings that there will be no healthy editing environment in English Wikipedia for me in the nearest future. I have had to put up with accusation of "being a troll", "racism issues", "bad faith slander and lies", "posting hate-filled piles of lies", "vandalism and continued slander", "paranoiac commentaries" on a day-to-day basis for five months now. Now I am accused of "personal attacks" of which I am not guilty, and folks who have thrown those accusations end up by not being mentioned in the decision at all. As long as editors are treated arbitrarily rather than equitably, I don't find it resonable to continue my involvement with this particular wikipedia. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. I thoroughly understand your lack of patience with those Russian and Polish names that keep popping up again and again for years, but I tend to disagree with your contention that draconian measures is the only solution at hand. The draft indicates that you propose to place me on the same footing as Suva who in cold blood created Template:Notpropaganda (in its original inflammatory version) and Template:POV Russia. This is quite enough to make me understand how you assess my activity in Wikipedia.

I also infer from those diffs that you don't share my concerns about the prevalence of ethnic cliques in the Eastern Europe-related segment of Wikipedia. Fine for you; but I still stand by my opinion, especially now that the same folks have been rehashing the silly "denialism" issue for a third time, this time on the Deletion Review. When I see the same guys posting the same predictable comments over and over again, it makes me pessimistic indeed. So I still subscribe to my words that it is ethnic cliques that make Wikipedia suck.

In short, we should bring more neutral people from non-involved countries to the minefields of Eastern European history, rather than threaten and penalize very few long-standing, knowledgable and generally reasonable contributiors still willing to deal with the mess. --Ghirla^-трёп- 23:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for moderating down your proposal- is it a reminder or a preliminary consensus before going somewhere else.

I don't think I have used Wikipedia as a battle field to push my own national sentiments, or else that would show in my mainspace edits. I'll instead provide you all the list of disputes I've been through in the last 1 year b/c w/o the context of the disputes my edits in talk pages might look bad. I probably had some nationalistic elements in my edits (mainly in discussion) 2 years ago up to 1 year ago, but since then I've gotten better (thx to the age). To me, it was appropriate to call them "nationalist", etc., because their suggestions were indeed so, just like you call a vandal a vandal. I won't continue, you don't have to reply to this, you can just see that list & my justifications. Thanks. (Wikimachine 12:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC))

Never mind. I see it again. Still, see User:Wikimachine/Arbitration_Evidence. (Wikimachine 21:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC))

Long time no write. I have a question relating to the naming of biographical articles and I cannot seem to find it anywhere. Is it more appropriate to use the full middle name for an article if known or just the middle initial? I have also find several articles of folks who have middle names but the article title shows first and last name only. If you need examples scan List of Medal of Honor recipients and you will see several of each. I have seen cases of both and wondered if there was a standard.--Kumioko 19:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, the reason I asked you is because most of the ones I have been working on are military members, especially Medal of Honor recipients. As for using the name that is most common, information on many of them is scarce and from what I have seen and what I have learned talking to others using the First name middle initial. last name format (like John J. Doe for example) seems to be the most common because thats whats on the Medal of Honor citation.--Kumioko 19:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kirill, is there any way to identify the source of a harassing email? I've been observing this situation and wasn't sure how we handled things like this...and thought an Arbitrator might be able to guide us... Thanks! Dreadstar † 20:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you happen to know if redirected pages (such as those related to military history) should have the military history or other applicable banner on its talk page.--Kumioko 21:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you think this falls in or outside the scope of MILHIST (I am considering A-review).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Melsaran (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Kirill, my appologies for the intervention I made in reverting the MfD tag placement, but I didn't pay enough attention and really thought it was vandalism. This was unbelievable, but at least it ended quickly in our favor! Pardon me and best regards, --Eurocopter tigre 21:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kirill, I don't know if here is the best place to discuss this, but I would like to ask if you agree with the creation of the Romanian Military History task force? As I am myself an assistant coordinator, i'm not sure which will be the proper procedures in this case. Thanks, --Eurocopter tigre 13:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Cheers, i'll do that! --Eurocopter tigre 14:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kirill,
I recently discovered Wikipedia:WikiProject History in a bad way. I decided to do some work reviving the project and have got it quite far. We only have about 8 members, 7 of whom do not edit the project's pages. I would like a template similar to Template:WPMILHIST for Wikipedia:WikiProject History following this scale but I don't have the skills required. I was wondering if you could make it? The best destination would be Template:WikiProject History. You can remove the stuff that's currently there. Thanks!!--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 18:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

When I saw that proposal, at first, I kind of doubted my edits; however, the more I look through those disputes, the more I see the injustice in you making that proposal to begin with. Is this some strategic move or what? I think it's about time that you justify your proposals in light of my defenses at the link above. Thanks. (Wikimachine 21:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC))

I don't think that what you say is really true. You still avoid attempting to defend your accusation against all of my rationale & just justify it at the surface level. That's not enough, and I don't see that as being fair.

Wikipedia's consensus building policy states that when a disagreeable change is made, anyone can revert and discuss about the proposed changes; after consensus is established the changes or compromises are introduced. That applies to your first set of links (i.e. "Korean terrorist" articles).

"edit warring, assumptions of bad faith, and refusal to work constructively w/ others" can be justified at certain times -that's my point. When others are trying to edit war & push their way in, you can edit war on the sole reason that they've violated Wikipedia's consensus building policy. You can assume bad faith when something obviously wrong are happening - such as new accounts popping up (--> sock puppetry?) When the other side refuses to talk to you, or if the other side ignores all of my contentions that they see as disadvantageous for them, or makes these "concessions" that don't matter at the end of the day with their doubly more ridiculous "compromises", I don't have to "work constructively with others" - if by this LactoseTI means "yes, yes, you're right, our king".

My edits and my existence in Wikipedia are reciprocal, I reserve right for them to be reciprocal. Unless you examine other editors more and all closely you can only get a biased view.

When somebody says George Washington was a colonial rebel, & already made edits to the main space & will make ridiculous compromises on talk page but will never agree to what you say, what will you do. Tell me how you can "cooperate constructively". But see that happening on almost every other disputes with the same old guys. And these same old guys start the disputes, they make the edits to begin the disputes. I almost never have in the last 2 years, and in the last year I'm confident I've never done so.

You may not realize but common-sensed people like me have kept the East Asia-related sector of the Wikipedia articles from going really messed up. You must respect my very presence & my willingness to participate in disputes. I deal with all the dirt here -it's all concentrated on me, but that's the evidence you get of how messed up this place is. Maybe I should have been more like the other admins (want me to name some?) & be more ambiguous in disputes while readily going on with edits where easy compromises can be made.

No, you cannot "make those accusations". And so on and so forth. You seem to be laboring under the impression that you can ignore behavioral policies merely because you happen to be correct on some matter of fact. Then what do you have? Is it simply incivility or misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policies or really pushing my nationalist wants by making Wikipedia a battle field? If it's incivility, it doesn't entail a block. If it's misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policies then you should remind me (but I'm sure I got it down all correct). If it's my POV battling, then that may justify your proposal but this doesn't seem like it. (Wikimachine 03:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC))

Hey, thanks for the correction :) It's much appreciated! Cheers, ( arky ) 22:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

So after much work to bring WP Films up to a higher standard (much of it on the shoulders of your excellent MilHist structure), we finally talked with many of the active editors of WP Indian cinema and managed to gain consensus for a move to a task force, located in WP Films and jointly-run by Films and WP India. Ganeshk was the only oppose vote, and to my knowledge, he doesn't seem to get involved in the group except when we suggest this move. Now we have had consensus and left the discussion open over 2 weeks, so I went ahead and moved it. And now he's brought the matter up in WP:COUNCIL. Given your familiarity both with this case and things such as the Indian military history task force, I thought you might be as good a person as any to help resolve this. Many many thanks as always, Girolamo Savonarola 03:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and also for your recent category revisions! (Oops indeed.) Girolamo Savonarola 04:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 42	15 October 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Brion Vibber interview
Wikimania 2008 awarded to Alexandria	Board meeting held, budget approved
Wikimedia Commons reaches two million media files	San Francisco job openings published
Community sanction noticeboard closed	Bot is approved to delete redirects
License edits under consideration to accommodate Wikipedia	WikiWorld comic: "Soramimi Kashi"
News and notes: Historian dies, Wiki Wednesdays, milestones	Wikimedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Military history	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 09:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The Romanian task force has just been created. Could you please help a bit with it, as i'm not sure what to do to completely put it in order. Cheers, --Eurocopter tigre 16:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Kirill, I still didn't figure out how to create the template in the Tagging and assessment section, could you please help? Cheers, --Eurocopter tigre 19:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• And another question, how do we change the icon of the Romanian-task-force in the article talk page tags? --Eurocopter tigre 20:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• • In this case, this one would be great - The official Romanian Armed Forces roundel --Eurocopter tigre 12:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I took your advise and changed the quality scale. I was wondering if you could create a template similar to Template:WPMILHIST at Template:WikiProject History. I would like our quality scale to be included in the template, with a checklist for B-class articles. Additionally, I would like it to be possible to for This article has been improved since its last assessment and the current rating may be inaccurate or similar to be displayed and the article to be added to Category:Improved history articles if the article has been improved. There's no need to add task forces or portals to the template. The template should add the article to Category:Assessed history articles and Category:WikiProject History. Thanks a million!!--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 19:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Evidence page of Digwuren's ArbCom case has been noticeably expanded - partially by myself, but by other users as well. I am unaware of rules regarding this, are there any - is it even allowed after arbitrators have started to vote? It seems that arbitrators do not pay attention to evidence page after the initial proposed findings of fact have been posted. -- Sander Säde 10:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kirill. FYI. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for tidying up that mess with the archiving - I was about to call on you when I saw it'd been taken care of... Cheers, Ian Rose 15:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I know that you don't do much with biographies normally but I have been working with a couple of others on getting the article for Smedley Butler up to GA status and I think with a little work we can get it up to FA. I have submitted the Smedley Butler article up for Peer Review and I would appreciate any help you can provide. I have never gotten an article up to GA status and I learned a lot so I want to keep going on it until it gets to FA.--Kumioko 12:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look whether Eurocopter tigre (talk · contribs) correctly applies the military tag. I am not familiar with the Mil project, but inclusion in it article like Kingdom of Romania‎ or History of Romania‎ looks dubious to me. Are there any rules about tagging? `'Míkka 04:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was convinced that the History of Romania article would be part of the MilHist WP, but then I checked other countries similar articles and figured out that I was wrong. --Eurocopter tigre 12:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I've been shying away from the general histories that just touch on a war or two, but I would definitely tag Romania during World War II FWIW Now on another note, sometimes I'm just itching to put the tag on a stub about some person that just happened to be a private in the army for a couple of years, but I have contained myself so far. Another editor asked me why I put the tag on Cornish National Liberation Army I just decided that one person's terrorist is another person's liberator. --Colputt 22:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that WP Films has Coordinators elected in, I'm starting to look more closely at the way MilHist uses them, and how they are "deployed", if you will. The problem is that I can't seem to find any discussion about it either at the coordinator talk page or on their individual user talk pages! What I seem to have deduced so far is that the Work Area of the Coordinator talk page lists specific tasks at hand for the moment - things that aren't open in the sense of continual need to check daily the way peer review, for instance, would. And then the coordinators just jump in? Is responsibility for the task force and departments specifically split up on an individual basis, or is it just presumed that they'll all be attended to? Is there another discussion area I'm missing where this would all be plain as mud to me?

To be brief and metaphoric, I see the marionette moving very gracefully, but I can't see the strings! I'm assuming you're not Gepetto (yet - but wouldn't be too surprised). ;) With admiration as always, Girolamo Savonarola 04:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you as always for the quick response! So the task force work really is just keeping their formatting consistent and dusting things like bluelinks in the requested section of the announcements? Or do you really just leave them be? Girolamo Savonarola 04:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

So would it be fair to say that the coordinators do most of the "annoying" open tasks so that the rest of the members can concentrate more of their energies on the articles themselves instead of things like parameter tagging? (Which is not to say that they can't help out, and of course not to say that there aren't exceptions like the big assessment drive of '07.) Or am I overstating the division of labor between coordinators/members? Girolamo Savonarola 00:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It's very kind of you. And thank you very much also for cleaning up after all the typos and bizarre formattings I leave scattered all over the landscape! :)) --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 15:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Kirill, could you look into this? Talk:Hindenburg Candle I agree with the statement, but I also don't know how to go about doing it correctly. Would it be a simple merge and a speedy delete? --Colputt 22:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

		The Golden Wiki
		Thank you, Kirill, for your help with Template:WikiProject History! not many people have one of these so take care of it! Also, being dumb and all, I was wodering how to use this template...perhaps you could put the syntax at Template:WikiProject History/Documentation?Phoenix 15 (Talk) 17:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, you're welcome!--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 22:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello. You were part of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik which got Tajik banned. New evidence from checkuser suggests that the accusations against Tajik were wrong. This is supported by a few admins and other users in a recent comment. The case was already reported to User:Jimbo Wales. Please take a look at this and comment on it. I would also appreciate it if you could contact other clercs since I do not know how to do that. PS: I am not Tajik, but I know Tajik. I do not know how to prove that, but it does not matter anyway. Thank you for your help. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.142.88 (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Kirill, I need a little help with figuring out this transclusion code; the WP:TRANS article isn’t terribly helpful. I’m trying to transclude a talk page entry to several other talk pages. When I try {{:WT:ABC#Xyz}}, it tries to transclude the entire source talk page; if I try {{WT:ABC#Xyz}} – another format given by WP:TRANS – I just get a broken link. Can you give me a pointer? Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 04:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, sensei, I think I understand that basic part – as long as I don't have to try to explain it to someone else – but the problem I'm having is with not transcluding the entire source page. Here's the specific example I'm struggling with. I've proposed a generic structure for "XYZ Air Force" articles on WP:MILAIR and wanted to invite comments from WP:Aviation, WP:AIR and WP:MILHIST for broader input and consensus. The code I attempted to insert was {{:WT:MILAIR#A proposed generic structure for "XYZ Air Force" articles}}, but in previewing that, saw that it added the whole WT:MILAIR page. If I removed the first colon, I got a broken link. What, Oh Wise One, am I doing wrong? Just a wikicode grasshopper, Askari Mark (Talk) 17:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ... it's nice to know it's not just me being dense. Fortunately, there's always Plan B. I appreciate your help! Askari Mark (Talk) 20:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey again Kirill,
I recently started up the A-Class review for WP:HIST. I was wondering if you could change Template:WikiProject History to say "This article is currently under A-Class review at Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Review/Whatever article" or something similar when an article is under a-class review. I wouldn't mind you taking a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Review either, it's a bit of a mess and could benefit from someone of your experience improving the system (ie. Have a look to see if it's okay. If it isn't, could you improve it) Thanks!!!. --Phoenix 15 (Talk) 16:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, It would be great if you could add the new task forces to Template:WikiProject History. Each task force could have its own category that is added to automatically--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 19:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot; You can add the assessment categories to {{WPMILHIST}} whenever you have the time, thanks!--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 21:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for giving you extra work but could you put the new syntax at Template:WikiProject History/Documentation? I'll learn how to work these templates in the meantime...--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 21:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't our neat little project be listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject? Thanks Wandalstouring 12:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

My fault I didn't find it at first glance. Wandalstouring 09:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you again but I've set up proper peer and a-class reviews at Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Review. I was wondering if you could modify Template:WikiProject History to display ssomething similar to:

This article is currently undergoing a peer review here

whem the article is having a peer review or

This article is currently undergoing an A-Class review here

when the artice is having an a-class review. Also, could you add the new syntax to the documentation; thanks!!!--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 19:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Will do--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 20:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

See this exchange and follow the diffs. You can't "cherry-pick" in real time.Proabivouac 22:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No answer? As an arbitrator, if you can't be expected to get it right, who can? I'm not talking about good faith. I'm talking about getting it right. MONGO saw the right answer, I gave it straightaway, then so did Fred Bauder. I don't expect any editor(s) to be competent in sock investigations; most aren't. But please, if you can't give a reliable answer, recuse yourself from all such further investigations (such as another one before you now.) Almost every thread of this nature suffers from editors weighing in without having any idea what they're talking about. The linked exchange proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that your assessment was wrong. Or do you still deny it?Proabivouac 09:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I certainly can't blame you for calling findings of fact as you see them. Thanks for looking, at least.Proabivouac 19:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A template has been created that seems to have substantially changed the wording and the extent of the remedy you voted for at [[6]]. I am currently discussing this at [[7]] and I would welcome you input. I have posted this same message on the talk pages of the other 5 arbritrators who voted for remedy 2. Meowy 16:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed you participated on the talk page previously, I created a new template and I am attempting to build a consensus for it's use, would you mind taking a look at the talk page Chessy999 17:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As part of the assessment drive, I just tagged Sylvanus Morley, based on his being a rather unique WWI spy. I mention it here because he's a borderline case for MilHist, and the article is FA - so I figure you'll either want to untag it if you disagree on relevance, or update the MilHist FA list if you agree. Thanks. Maralia 03:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'm supremely motivated at the moment, after a weekend visit from a distant relative who was just thrilled that I could bring up instant information on the ships he served on in Vietnam. It's not hurting that Ken Burns' The War is on tv at the moment, too. Feels like the least I could do! Maralia 03:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kirill, I hope you won't mind if I turn your attention to the final decision of the Dalmatia ARBCOM, with respect to recent events.
Now, snitching isn't my game, but I think that in this case I really ought to make an exception. With the final ecision not one week old, User:Giovanni Giove has already made, not one or two, but a little under two dozen reverts of varying size in the Marco Polo (history page: [8]) and Dalmatian Italians articles (history page [9]).
In the Dalmatian Italians article (besides reverting more than once) he also made no attempt whatsoever to discuss his edits, and the discussion page does not have a single explanation of these numerous reverts and provocative edits ([10]).
In the Marco Polo article he quite flagrantly ignored the instructions of the ARBCOM and reverted on several occasions this week (on the same article).

I edited as well on a few occasions myself, but (as per instructions) you will find only one revert per week per article, and a thorough and honest discussion each time ([11], [12], [13]).

I will post this to your fellow arbitrators as well, hope none of you mind... DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Listing shows Ludendorff fired this day (as per October 26. The bio page, Erich_Ludendorff implies his tenuere ended in Sep & he would have already fled. Not really my subject area, but seems to be a contradiction. Thoughts? Bridesmill 02:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow - that was quick. Thank you - I'll amend the Luddedorff article as per your cite to clarify it. Bridesmill 02:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kirill Lokshin,

I say that you made the Template:Infobox_National_Military. Could you send me the code? I would like to translate and use that infobox on the Dutch Wikipedia. --Kevin 990 07:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on the latest comments, it looks like the Sadi Carnot case will have to be accepted after all. The dispute seemed to be resolved for awhile, but apparently not.

Also, please take a look at revised remedy 3.2 in The Troubles if you haven't already and vote on it confirm it correctly states the outcome the committee is enacting.

Thanks, Newyorkbrad 15:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

	Happy Adminship	from the Birthday Committee
	Wishing Kirill Lokshin/Archive 6 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! PatPolitics rule! 02:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi kirill. Just want to let you know, i just emailed you. Appreciate your help with something. Feel free to write back when you have a chance. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 43	22 October 2007	About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens, budget released	Biographies of living people grow into "status symbol"
WikiWorld comic: "George Stroumboulopoulos"	News and notes: Wikipedian Robert Braunwart dies
WikiProject Report: League of Copyeditors	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

Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You recently deleted Category:Automatically assessed military history articles. It's currently in first place at Special:Wantedcategories with several hundred articles in the category. I was wondering about recreating it but thought (a) you would know why it was deleted in the first place and (b) if it needs resurrecting, you could perform an undelete! Any thoughts? Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 22:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

How do we deal with indef-blocked users on the member list. Move to inactive? I ask because Politics Rule has just been indef blocked for sockpuppetering. Also, thanks for creating the b-class cats, we will see how useful they can be. We do need a system though for discussing the quality of sources though. I just don't yet see how it would work. Woodym555 02:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That was why i was asking. I thought commenting out would be a bit like revisionist history and ever so slightly vindictive. Thought i would ask. Thanks for the response. Woodym555 02:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Kirill, on October 12 2007 Yamla blocked an IP range because of suspected COI at the Fellowship of Friends article. A discussion was started at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard but Yamla hasn't participated for almost 2 weeks. Meanwhile, the IP block is affecting 3 editors of the page. Could you help decide if the IP block is appropriate? I am one of the editor affected by the IP block and strongly feel that Yamla's action was too harsh. Thank you in advance. Mfantoni 07:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm looking for your help with the history template (Template:WikiProject History) again. I'd like you to change the thing about the article being improved to needs attention and to say something like:

This article requires the attention of experienced editors

It would be good if it added articles to Category:History articles needing attention thanks--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 17:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

While you're getting derailed from your existing staggering workload on this matter, it looks like the military history articles are somehow showing up in the history project's assessment figures. I think we all know that there's probably very little the history project could do for those articles that Military history can't already do better, and the numbers can be, well, kinda intimidating. If you could find out how the military history articles are showing up in the history projects statistics page (I'm thinking that's what's happening; the numbers are close) I think it might make the History Project a bit better able to deal with the articles it will be dealing with. Thank you for all the work you have done, and will probably be asked to continue to do, for all the other projects out there. John Carter 17:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Phoenix-wiki agreed to remove the articles. For what it's worth, I think the scope of the extant project will deal only with articles which explicitly relate to history per se, and, with any luck, not become too big in the process. I'm going to try to tag a few of the articles like History of New York City which I think are among the few that will clearly fall within the scope of the project. As I'm one of the few people who really does that sort of thing regularly, I think I can ensure that at least initially the project won't try to take on too much or move into other projects' territory. John Carter 19:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, got your request to look at this article, and I'll be happy to, in the next day or two. Larry Dunn 19:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Why did Battle of Gondar not get B-class? I am not arguing, just curious. Dreamy ^§ 01:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Interested in meeting-up with a bunch of your wiki-friends? Please take a quick look at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 3 and give your input about the next meetup. Thank you.
This automated notice was delivered to you because you are on the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite. BrownBot 01:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 44	29 October 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Florence Devouard interview
Page creation for unregistered users likely to be reenabled	WikiWorld comic: "Human billboard"
News and notes: Treasurer search, fundraiser, milestones	WikiProject Report: Agriculture
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 05:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Kirill--I see you that you were one of the arbitrators on this article's case. Do you know whether the prescribed mentors have been assigned? Some other editors and I need a person who's familiar with the case to review recent activity on the article. Dppowell 18:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've posted request for arbitration. I noticed that you have 'protected' the same page and removed my request.

So, the 'quality' of Wikipedia's article De Administrando Imperio is preserved. Congratulations! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.72.238 (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

On 2 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Italian War of 1542–1546, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 18:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a new bot, User:Erwin85Bot, that is being used to count articles in categories, specifically to create maintenance backlogs pages. To see what I mean, any how your project may be interested in creating such a list, see the page I recently created, Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Maintenance. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Delivered by grafikbot 14:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kirill,

There is one point, which comes up due to my ignorance: I never admitted to disruptive behavior. When I said that I was working from a flawed understanding of the term (that I had stood in the way of what others wished to make of articles). I withdrew that edit, because it wasn't true. I don't believe I have been disruptive in the WP sense. That out-of-context quotation is another example of how my edits are used against me unfairly. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you (: And, I actually have to say you are right that this was provocative [14]. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a question about your proposal. Cardamon 06:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Editors recognize that the Arbitrators do not have time to follow, in real time, all of the diffs on all of the pages of all of the arbitration cases. Editors recognize that questions that they would like to ask the Arbitrators would usually get no response, or a much delayed response, if asked in one of the several talk pages of the arbitration. In response to this, many editors will message Arbitrators directly on their talk pages, which garners a much faster response.

The problem with doing so is that, consequently, discussion relevant to the Arbitration is split from the remainder of the discussion. Those who haven't watchlisted Arbitrators' talk pages might not even be aware of the communication. I think that this is problematic, but I would like to suggest a solution.

I believe that a Question and Answer Page (by whatever title is appropriate) would be a useful addition to Arbitration. There, users could ask questions, and arbitrators could reply as needed. This resolves the current problems: it provides a clean space that arbitrators can readily keep track without getting lost in tens or hundreds of daily diffs, it allows users a place to ask a question and reasonably expect that an Arbitrator will see it, and it keeps all of the discussion within the Arbitration, instead of allowing it to get scattered across Userspace where some participants might not see it.

If you think this is reasonable, would it be possible to add it to the current Science Apologist and Martinphi Arbitration that is currently ongoing? Thank you for your consideration. Note: I am canvassing all active arbitrators on this issue because I feel that this is a neutral suggestion. Antelan ^talk 06:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I like your idea even better; many of the questions may be more-or-less procedural in nature, so answers to questions on unrelated Arbitrations may actually be instructive. The page could, in theory, be split into major headings by (Active) Case, and then subheadings by participant/other, perhaps. How do you think I should proceed in getting more feedback and suggesting this idea officially? Thank you. Antelan ^talk 06:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I support Antelan's idea, and hope that a Q & A page will also be used for the current Ferrylodge Arbitration that is ongoing. I had assumed that it would be improper for me to message Arbitrators directly on their talk pages, but Antelan indicates above that this is the best way to get a fast response.

Kirill, to simply announce that I am guilty of soapboxing and propaganda, without explaining why any of the evidence I presented is unpersuasive, gives the impression that evidence is not being considered. Would you please identify a specific example of such alleged wrongdoing by me, and explain why you think the specific evidence I presented on that point is unpersuasive? I have opposed people who have soapboxed and propagandized at Wikipedia,[15], and I had hoped that the Arbitrators would not uncritically accept evidence from those very same people.

Additionally, I find your proposed remedy somewhat vague. For example, am I to be banned from the Roe v. Wade article even though I brought it through a Featured Article Review,[16] at the end of which I was praised for “brilliant work”?[17]Ferrylodge 09:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kirill,

I'm sad to announce you that after more than a year, I'm getting increasingly bored with the delivery job and rewriting everything with each AWB version. Besides, RL constraints make that job less and less possible as lists grow bigger and bigger.

Consequently, I'm informing you that this delivery will be the last. I can handle the next one in December if it's really needed, but nothing more after that I think.

See you around, Graf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grafikm fr (talk • contribs) 16:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I've commented on your proposed remedy "Ferrylodge and Bishonen" here. I wasn't sure where best to post it, as the proposed decision talkpage seems little used and probably little read, so I thought I'd better mention it. I'd appreciate a response. Bishonen | talk 19:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC).

I've presented my evidence, so although I do think it is unfair that I'm being penalized almost entirely for actions which the previous ArbCom made me aware are not good and which I've not repeated, I'll not try to change your mind.

There is one thing though: Please won't you tell me either that I've been wrong to say that edits like this (see also edit summary) are incorrect per the Paranormal ArbCom, or else say that I was right? It's really necessary. See this discussion.

If I am right in my interpretation of the ArbCom, please be aware that under your restrictions my ability to uphold it will be almost non-existent (I won't try, because it will be futile and frustrating). There are plenty of admins out there who will call whatever I try disruption: you saw the proposals. Will you share this with the other Arbitrators? I don't want to canvass, and I won't bother you again unless something really new comes up. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 01:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm watching the Martinphi-ScienceApologist RFA, and you are the only supporter so far of a statement saying that SA has used sockpuppets abusively. I'd like to ask you to reconsider that statement, given the evidence presented that SA was only using sockpuppets as he was recommended to by the rest of the community, to mitigate threats being made against his job. I have been a target of personal threats as well, and I think it would be a really bad precedent for ArbCom to say that using sockpuppets to avoid personal threats is "abusive". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[18] sock says, "I'm afraid you are outnumbered here..." 216.125.49.252 was SA. So it seems he used 3 socks on the page, 2 of which were known or suspected, and one was not, and the unknown one said the quote about outnumbered (I think that's all correct...). At any rate, he was using them to avoid harassment? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kirill, am ready to archive the AFAGIR peer review as nobody seems likely to add to what you and JKBrooks have already done (for which I thank you!) I know from looking at your archiving of Red Army's peer review that I add old- in the WPMILHIST template, but what else do I do? Thanks Buckshot06 22:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you comment on Wikipedia talk:Vandalism#Make it less vague, define "deliberate" & "good-faith effort", please? Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 22:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thankyou for all of the hard work you do in MILHIST. I love Military History and is one of my strong points. But, you have done so much to expand it. Thanks for everything that you do.Knowledge is Power 01:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Since you seem to be very active in the German section of the Military History Wikiproject, I'm forwarding a question to you that came to me from KjellG (original diff here).

Copying the text from the question...

How are the the commond way of solving this issue on enwiki: (example)

On dewiki you will find Großadmiral Dõnitz. How to give him rank on enwiki? Possible options:

• Grand Admiral Dönitz
• Grand Admiral (Großadmiral) Dönitz
• Großadmiral (Grand Admiral) Dönitz
• Großadmiral (Grand Admiral) Dönitz

Personally I like the two last the better, but I see a lot of confusion on enwiki on this matter. Any "rules" or opinions, regarding this? KjellG 22:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the answer, and I would appreciate it if you answer this user directly. Thanks, Lisatwo 02:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Lascilo capirlo correttamente: Stefanomencarelli vi chiede (RfA) aiuto. Nomi 2 genti implicate. Il Bordo permette che ogni moron parli. Allora votate per vietare la persona che chiede l'aiuto. È allineare. Wiki sta cadendo a parteNoPeDa 02:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kirill, thanks for supporting me in my rfa. If i am honest, i am slightly humbled by the unanimous support of 58-0-0. My admin ship has now set sail on the high seas of wikipedia and the large amount of tabs at the top of the page will take time to get used to. Now, back to work on all the VC lists! Thanks again. Woodym555 13:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This case: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:Bksimonb could benefit from your input as an arbitrator. I don't think they are socks, but agree with the submitter that they are meats. What most troubles me is that the article in question was central to an arbcom case and has an arb tag on it and in the arb case they arbs said there was violations of WP:OWN. I really need input on what to do here (I've been doing lots of SSP cases lately but nothing quite like this one). Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

..for your help with my user page. Dhpage 02:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, to unambiguously embrace all arms and all operations. (Even US usage distinguishes between military and naval operations.) --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 07:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Which is why (I think) we left it alone last time :) I suggest we revisit this along with the armed forces discussion after Tag & Assess? (That's going well, by the way. Nearly 20,000 articles tagged.) --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 08:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw you posted the email to WP:AC, which was for so long left off because people signed it up to spam websites and other annoying stuff, so it wasn't well-publicised.

A random thought: would it be better logistically to have users email to the address via, say, Special:Emailuser/Arbitration Committee (userpage)? This way, all mail would be via the Wikipedia email system and therefore from users and not spammers, no-one'd be able to impersonate anyone else (as it has to come from a user account - dbryant[at]gmail.com, for example, isn't me, but if someone emailed your list it may automatically be assumed that it is), and all mail through there could be set to an auto-filter to cut down on the moderation required as all email via the interface is from users (the stuff coming directly in via the actual email address, the majority of it probably spam, would still need moderation).

Just a thought that I had whilst randomly scrolling through Special:Listusers for Meta-named accounts :) Cheers, Daniel 12:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, fair point, didn't think of when people need to forward things. Cheers, Daniel 17:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kirill, I've written this article few days ago and it had been nominated for deletion. However, a compromise had been reached and its AfD can be closed now. As an admin, could you please do this for me? Cheers, --Eurocopter tigre 19:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

How do I request comment/involvement from MilHist Wikiproject members? I am very distressed by the tendentious editing that is going on Nachtigall Battalion and Roman Shukhevych and wish to have some project members involved, Beit Or 20:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the extra "i" in your name for the first time today.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 45	5 November 2007	About the Signpost

Wikimedia avoids liability in French lawsuit	WikiWorld comic: "Fall Out Boy"
News and notes: Grant money, fundraiser, milestones	WikiProject Report: Lists of basic topics
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 3, Issue 46	12 November 2007	About the Signpost

Unregistered page creation remains on hold so far	WikiWorld comic: "Exploding whale"
News and notes: Fundraiser, elections galore, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Missing encyclopedic articles	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 07:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi - could you clarify the recent arbcom decision here? Thanks! csloat 21:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi - I wonder if you could respond to the ongoing discussion there. Biophys has made extremely objectionable changes to Operation Sarindar including moving the page against consensus and using Wikipedia as a platform to validate fringe conspiracy theories. Yet we have never agreed that he should "own" that page, and it is not clear how we should break down who gets to edit which page. I proposed a solution based on your comment, which is that both of us refrain from editing the two pages where we had substantive disagreements in the past -- Operation Sarindar and Communist terrorism. I will agree to such a solution and will take those pages off my watchlist, but I don't like the idea that I should agree to stop editing them unilaterally simply because he made the first edit to them. Am I being unreasonable here? Thanks. csloat 23:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

I've gotten no response to these yells for help or advice (I just got into 'this part of history' from some cleanup stuff, and one thing lead to another):

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history

• Romanian_military_history_task_force

• Please note as well, as the Dacian Wars (edit talk links history) article isn't even mentioning the First Battle of Tapae battles. None of these talks has gotten a response.

Problem is I don't know how the MiltHist project defines Wars (seems to me there are two, not one though I can squirm and dance enough with prose to get around that. But the fact that three battles, not two took place at "Tapae" (Whatever that is or was--I guess an outlying fortress or stronghold per these edits: my "done", diff)

OTOH, I just spotted a note questioning whether the second battle listed in First Battle of Tapae (edit talk links history) has any credence for the location whatever... which hasn't been answered, it seems. I'll see if I can find something at the library, this just turned from a "should I be BOLD" renaming question to researching further... any suggestions would be welcome. Or perhaps you know who is the resident expert in this history of timeline or region? Thanks // FrankB 19:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who our expert on this period would be; it may well be that we don't have one resident at the moment.

The situation is not an uncommon one; the same thing comes up with, say, the Italian Wars, which have a dozen different numbering schemes. Personally, I'd suggest either of the following:

• If there's little material on the individual wars, merge the war sub-articles into the main Dacian Wars one, leaving us with one article about the overall series of conflicts and some sub-articles for the battles.
• If there's a desire to have individual articles for the wars, disambiguate them by name rather than number; so we'd have Dacian War of 101–102, etc.

The battles should be disambiguated by date unless they're in the same year in any case; so we need to have Battle of Tapae (87), etc.

Hope that helps! Kirill 19:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

OK Thanks -- the years suffixing is a good idea. But things just got WORSE! this guy Says the Dacian king was two different people (ca. page 82) and neither of them "Duras" (if I recall that right) our Decebalus article is claiming preceded him. OTOH, he establishes the Romans themselves used the term for the '88 encounter. He also mentions that a lack of contemporary names generally means the issue was open or unresolved and ongoing, and by no means unusual. Since he's clearly regurgitating research from primary sources, he probably knows his stuff! Darn it. <g> Sigh. // FrankB 20:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I've found some sourcing that suggests the Dacian Wars be moved to Trajan's Dacian Wars (per scholarly titles) and the first 87-88 campaign is referred to as Domintian's Defense of the Danube Frontier or Dominitians Punitive Expeditions... Tapae is a mountain pass in same readings, and one source used First Battle of Tapae explicitly for the 87 battle, backing the current article. Anyhow, I've a question... If I buy the Adobe Editor package, can I extract quotes from such as http://caneweb.org/pubsnref/AnnBul06.pdf (Search Trajan... about 80 pages down, iirc). In sum, I'll likely move some stuff by mid-to-or by the end of the week. I still want a book in hand of some kind... call it a security blanket! <G> cheers! // FrankB 21:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I missed your response...
re I'm not very familiar with the exact capabilities of Adobe Editor, but I had no problems copying the text via Adobe Reader. Or were you looking to do something more sophisticated than straight copy-and-paste? Kirill 01:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I confess I'm clueless... how do I get the stupid hand tool to go away and let me grab a sentence or a paragraph? (Perhaps I've been malaligning the program this past decade for no good reason! Ooops!)
check the backlink to my page, Pegships and my cross posts here. Thanks... I moved Dacian Wars last night per some of those references. // FrankB 00:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Gracias, blind prejudice at work likely... never liked the look see feel of the reader, so shun it unless no choice. Alas, there's no choice these days. Mostly, I used to just print a hardcopy. Back to parsing problems! I think I'm going blind! <g> // FrankB 02:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Kirill, I was only trying to be helpful, because the description of the scope of the Russia/Soviet TF I alway interpreted as covering the three Baltic states, though I left off tagging articles like that with Rus/Sov tags because I didn't think they really belonged in the same TF. Do I understand you correctly that you would want that - I thought it was guidance - deleted? Buckshot06 22:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

My thought was that when it said 'CIS states', post 1991, it included the Baltics in the Rus & Sov TF; that was my original understanding and the source of the query. Cheers Buckshot06 00:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

However the composition of the CIS changed over time and I now think I was wrong in thinking that initially- I will link CIS in the description, and then we can leave it fluid-ish. Buckshot06 00:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've replied to your comment on my talk page. I'd be happy to have the discussion there, or here if you prefer! Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 23:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The thread was deleted and I thought that all ANI threads were to be archived (didn't know that what the user was trying to do was to deny recognition...that one's on me). I reverted to copy the massive thread, archived it in it's proper place and then redeleted it. If it looks "bizarre" it was not my intention, just trying to archive. Hope that clears up the "bizarreness". Take Care...NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Rantburg has a huge collection of War on Terror News articles from all over the planet. This article database can be searched from links on the right hand sidebar. The site is slanted toward the US military in the War on Terror but the articles are not. They are mined from all over the planet when they were posted by various media outlets.

Turban Watch is a selection by date and sorted by government or organization of articles. It requires a login but any unused name will work.

The Continuing Story is a selection of key events and articles since 9/11 within groupings {Terror strikes on US, Euros urge US to limit campaign. Demonstrators Converge in D.C. for Anti-War Protests, Taliban holler 'terrorism' as bombing begins .... etc.}

Thugburg names individuals and groups of interest with their names linking to chains of articles where they appear.

example. clicking on Al Muhajiroun gives a table with peoples names associated in articles with Al Muhajiroun and where the links are still valid the news article the linkage appeared. For this example clicking on the Al-Fostock Al Muhajiroun association gives this TimesOnline Article

So I think Wikipedia editors might find this resource would be a good way to find/confirm cites and references to various statements pertaining to the WoT and the Middle East.

Watermod 02:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)watermod

Hi sorry if this comments in the wrong place but thanks for your comment on my discussion page it was very helpful. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs).

Would you mind keeping an occasional eye on this article. user:BanyanTree has improved greatly the original article, but the first creator is reverting large additions of sourced text. I'm keeping an eye on it but if you wouldn't mind giving me you thoughts on what we ought to do further, that would be great. Buckshot06 —Preceding comment was added at 19:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Kiril, I seem to be in a edit war with an ehthusiastic editor. The subject is the Tet Offensive article that recently went to A-Class. A view of the discussion page provides a ready view into the sources of contention. The concepts of footnoting, comparison of sources, and separation of opinion from documentation, seem to be foreign territory to this editor. Or am I just being overly protective of an article that I wrote? Could you possibly have a look at this, just to set me straight? RM Gillespie 19:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Kirill, I was just wondering if you removed the casus belli from the military conflict template again or if it was someone else. I thought it had been discussed many times and we came to the conclusion that it should be included for those articles in which it was applicable enough to be useful. Did something change that I am not aware of?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The funny thing is that I pretty much agree with everything that was said, but I have come to a different conclusion. In my opinion it seems that an article about a military conflict involving classical Greece or the East Roman empire during late antiquity has completely different requirements than an article about a 20th century war that still turns up bitter ethnic hatred. As a result it seems like it may be a good idea to have different templates for the aforementioned periods (as well as others). A renaissance painting of the battle of Marathon or a photograph of a Greco-roman statue is a whole lot less controversial than a picture of a crying child standing over a corpse. In addition an academic debate about the causes/casus belli of the Chremonidean War is going to be a whole lot less passionate than an argument over the Yugoslav wars. Anyways I'm sorry if this has already been discussed and declined but I feel that it could solve a whole lot of problems.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Kirill. As I watch these proceedings progress, I feel indifferent to your suggestion of me being banned. What concerns me however, is the behavior of the chief architect of the Railpage article - the editor who uses the Thin Arthur/Dbromage/Null Device names seems to be getting off scott free Suspected_sock_puppets/Dbromage. I would hope you would be impartial and as one administrator requested examine both sides, and make come to a conclusion to my sock puppet allegations that was requested by editors Rlevse and Jreferee. As for the Railpage article I have not engaged in edit waring, indeed my edit history to the article is minimal [19] , guilty as charged - vocal discussion about topics such as COI and proper referencing supporting my arguments with by online references on the talk page [20]. By the way, while you and I have been active on the arbitration, the users with a proven COI are moving back into the Railpage article [21] and [22]. I expect the same sock puppet to follow them Suspected_sock_puppets/Dbromage. Regards. Tezza1 09:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you Kiril. Just needed some reassurance. Hey, at least we are remaining civil (although exasperation has set in a few times). Thanks. -- RM Gillespie (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kirill. Could you take 30 seconds to give me some advice on this entry at WP:AN/I? This was something I had previously mulled taking to ArbCom as the user has ben banned in the PT Wikipedia for the same type of behavior, but it's now openly disruptive, so I don't know if a longer admin block is a more efficient solution. Thanks!--Dali-Llama (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman gave her a one-week block since I posted this. If this continues after the one week, would you say it's a case for ArbCom or as Jehochman mentioned, an indef block?--Dali-Llama (talk) 05:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove the two FAs from the project showcase? As per Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log they have been promoted. Woodym555 (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Now i know why, I completely misread the diff. Sorry!!. Woodym555 (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I assume you would like us to leave the #RFAR/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram request up until you or another committee member says one way or the other whether the restrictions will be lifted? (Your last comment was on the 6th, and the last edit to the section on the 10th). Picaroon (t) 19:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I was involved in a re-write of this page some months ago. A while back, I took a long Wikibreak and I now find that the article is rather less critical of the subject matter, a notably controversial film. I have attempted to fix this, and encountered some disagreement. Martinphi has removed content, claiming that removing mention of criticism from the article's lead paragraph constitutes being neutral, and being his usual blunt self on the talk page. I'm trying to decide if this counts as being disruptive. Would you be willing to review this, in light of the ArbCom case? Even if it is not yet disruptive, it may bear watching. Thanks. Michaelbusch (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do people outright lie about me? Look at this [23]. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As a general rule, the Committee leaves enforcement of remedies up to other administrators; the proper place to bring up such matters would be WP:AN/AE. Kirill 01:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Understood, and thank you. Martin seems to be exercising some restraint at the moment, so I don't think a formal report is in order. Michaelbusch (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For being with us for so many years, and for many years to come, raise a glass. Marlith T/C 05:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 47	19 November 2007	About the Signpost

An interview with Florence Devouard	Author borrows from Wikipedia article without attribution
WikiWorld comic: "Raining animals"	News and notes: Page patrolling, ArbCom age requirement, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: History
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 (talk) 10:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've recently made what is probably a harebrained proposal for getting bots to place banners on as many articles as possible at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Placement of banners on all (most, anyway) articles?. Given your greater knowledge of how things work here, and much greater experience, I was wondering what if anything you thought of the idea, and just how bad you actually think it is. Anyway, if such a thing could be enacted, I think it would probably help most of the relevant projects, despite the staggering workload it would probably give them for awhile. John Carter (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You need to hear the evidence before ruling, and there is more to this. I will post the facts ASAP.

Asgardian (talk) 09:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments in evidence.

Regards

Asgardian (talk) 09:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

For the Wikipedia:WikiProject Artemis Fowl banner, I have copied some of your source and have made my changes to it, but how would I change the link on FA and GA, to say, WP:FA and WP:GA? Please help. This would effect every link for everyone of the titles. Including Stub, etc... <DREAMAFTER>^<TALK> 02:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you do it when you have time, as I'm not quite sure what was said... I understood most of it, but I don't know how do do the #switch: statement... Sorry for my ignorance... <DREAMAFTER>^<TALK> 02:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely!

• FA = WP:FA#Literature and theatre
• A = Wikipedia:WikiProject Artemis Fowl/A-Class
• GA = Wikipedia:Good articles#Language and literature
• B = Wikipedia:WikiProject Artemis Fowl/B-Class
• Start = Wikipedia:WikiProject Artemis Fowl/Start-Class
• Stub = Wikipedia:WikiProject Artemis Fowl/Stub-Class

They will all have articles in them once I find the time, probably pretty soon. Thanks again! <DREAMAFTER>^<TALK> 03:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You are amzing! Thanks a lot. <DREAMAFTER>^<TALK> 18:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Kirill, I left a comment on this [24]. Also, it's not quite clear how you addressed the other paroled case of User:E104421, whose edits were not marked by incivility either. Besides it's also not clear how did Arbitrators ever address a list of these incivilities under the ArbCom case [25], when VartanM continues to revert war, push nationalist instead of neutral POV, and essentially claiming WP:OWN over an article along with a group of other contributors. Atabek (talk) 09:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Please see my comments [26] and [27]. I never edited incivilly in Wikipedia. I edit-warred with Tajik previously and blocked many times for this, but even in those i never committed any incivility. My last block was dated 1 April 2007, and now i'm being accused of my previous block-log. I edited for the first time an Az-Ar related topic (just 4 times + 1 minor spell-check). I introduced a new section on "Cultural life" with references and quotation for the first time in article's history. In addition, i did the necessary explanations in the talk page. I did not broke 3RR as VartanM claimed. 1st revert:[28] 09:15, 20 November 2007, 2nd revert: [29] 10:24, 20 November 2007, so-called 3rd revert: [30] 20:43, 20 November 2007. The third one is not actually a revert, since i added extra sources and quotations. In addition, i restored the previously removed sourced material, and added the missing see also link that VartanM suggested in the talk page. VartanM, on the other hand, just deletes the sourced information, but creates artificial reasons to accuse editors. Placing me on that parole is not fair, i think. Regards. E104421 (talk) 10:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If you guys see my response at WP:RFArb, per Kiril's clarification, I've stated that I'll remove both E104421 and VartanM from the supervised editing list, just let me have a chat with User:Nishkid64 out of courtesy as he placed E104421 under restrictions. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Kirill, I saw your proposals at the Macedonian case. I'm not quite sure, when I brought the case I wanted specific sanctions against various people, but I realise I haven't so far found enough time and energy to collect the necessary evidence for individual cases. It's a huge heap of material to sift through. I'd like to know, from your point of view, would it be worth bringing in this kind of material at this stage? Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I am generally opposed to the communication with Arbitrators outside of the ArbCom pages, but I am merely asking you to read what I posted to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Advise to ArbCom by Irpen since this message would loose part of its relevance once the case is accepted and the acceptance is pending. So, I am posting this message to all Arbitrators who indicated the interest to this case by casting their votes so far. You do not have to respond if you think that my concerns have no merit. Regards, --Irpen (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've read it. I'm well aware of the lack of resolution that our decisions have produced; to be quite honest, I'm not particularly fond of hearing what is essentially the same case with slightly different players over and over again.

For what it's worth, the proposed decision re: Macedonia should serve as a fairly good indication of my current thinking regarding such areas of conflict. Kirill 22:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, your current thinking in that proposed decision is throughly flawed. This idea is coming from you not for the first time and several editors commented on it at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Proposed decision (search for "ANI court" string on that page.) This is precisely another wrong-headed decision and I see the danger of the pending case become yet more of the same. That said, you, not me, are elected to solve the Wikipedia problems and the decision to continue with same non-working tools is yours. I merely pointed out (repeatedly) what's wrong with this combination of Arbitrators keeping their hands off the case and then reigning with executions or handing a loaded gun to any block-happy admin. --Irpen (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you have better ideas, you will have ample opportunity to present them. (Do, incidentally, keep in mind that the Committee is not authorized to rule on content, or to empower anyone else to rule on content.) Kirill 22:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I already had this opportunity and did present them at the proposed decision's talk of both Piotrus' and Digwuren's case where I even thoroughly step by step showed what's wrong with your approach. You did not bother to respond and one of the results of the cases that you handled is 100+ recent DYK articles by Ghirla at ru-wiki that could have been here. You ignored my comments thus implying they are worthless. As I said, I am in no position of power. I am just a content writing editor who is frustrated by this pity state of affairs, ArbCom's pathetic handling of the situation and the arbitrators who do not bother to respond when I write something that takes me a lot of thinking to come up with the proposal that may improve things while engaging in private communication with parties who find it proper to communicate off-line.

I see no reason why anything would be different for this n+1st time and I just expressed my skepticism to the ArbCom on this and suggested they apply the "do not harm" principle and drop the case as one possibility since leaving things where they are is better than making them worse, something that ArbCom have done thus far. --Irpen (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Why did you state you were accepting the case twenty minutes prior to my statement?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not asking arbcom to change the policy, I want to know why they accept it and how the *** it ever came to exist. With permission from their parents minors can identify themselves to the board to, so I don't see why they should be excluded. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. I have never seen a WikiProject so thorough with everything it does. Wow.   jj137 (Talk) 02:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help clearing up the MILHIST scope of civil wars and civilian weapons. I appreciate your help. DutchTreat (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Since I have not been able to get an answer to this on the project page, let me ask you directly: Did you receive Durova's "secret evidence" prior to the blocking of User:!!? Isarig (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) Isarig (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 48	26 November 2007	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections: Candidate profiles	WikiWorld comic: "Cursive"
News and notes: Ombudsman commission, fundraiser, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Education in Australia	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 (talk) 08:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Would a proper infobox exist for this - Evacuation of East Prussia?? --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kirill. Regarding the Burntsauce's appeal, is there any reason just removing the request now as redundant to any discussion you guys might have via email isn't all right? Regarding Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram, has there been any progress on this matter? Picaroon (t) 01:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am trying to determine a copyright for this image [31] it's little bit difficult. It was drawn by a boy who died in 1944 in the concentration camp. It was published in the magazine Vedem and the original of the painting is in the Yadvashem museum in the Israel. Could you please help me with that ? Thanks. (Please respond here [32]. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 10:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your proposal: I just wanted to say thanks, that's much better. See Mackensen's talk page. It is a bit odd for me to just pop up, I know, but I just wanted to just say nice job, and register my approval. :) Happy editing! Prodego ^talk 02:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there Kirill. Seeing as you know stuff about computers...is there anyway you could deconstruct this frame-by-frame rotation and take out the 1938 map for me? I was looking to use it on Yen Bai mutiny....I'm short of pictures there since most of the lower half is about military policy changes, changes in regulations etc, and Eurocopter wants more pics...and I can't think of anything useful except a French colonial empire map. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's ok, someone did it for me by freezing a screenshot.... but if you know a better way of extracting it properly, I'd be glad to hear it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks a lot :), Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

In the past you have commented in MILHIST A-class review on this article. Perhaps you could comment on it in the FAC process? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 03:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Kirill, how do you change the task force' image that appears on the talk pages? ThisFile:Baltic states.png to thatone ? I haven't been able to figure it out, so if you could help out with this, would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 09:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Can u tell Howard the Duck that the mutiny though a failed rebellion is appropriate to use the warbox Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Kirill I want to change my user name to something more anonymous. Shall I just start a new account and blank my old pages. I dont want to use my real name anymore.

What's the best procedure. Gratefully. Raymond Palmer 21:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I would ask you to reconsider ruling this premature. An RfC would be a waste of time - we've had several administrators comment on this, Luna Santin, John, JzG, and their attempts at mediation failed. Both editors want to take this to arbitration. Jose João 22:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 01:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my error there. --John 02:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kirill. Long time no see. You might remember me because I queried you about WP:BUNCH in regards to military history articles some long time ago, and you were very helpful. I went on to vote in your favor for your ArbCom election, and I'm quite proud of that. I believe anyone who understands the history of warfare would do well there, and, in the cases I have followed, I have never disagreed with any of your opinions. You are indeed a wise soul as I predicted. Still, if I might add, it is apparent Privatemusings isn't quite aware of the exact inappropriateness of his edits for which he is being blocked for. They are deleted edits, so I can't judge for myself, and PM isn't going to take Guy's word for it. As you voted in favor of the proposition, it would be helpful if you explained exactly what it is PM did wrong. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

As an arbitrator involved in the Privatemusings case, I thought you should know about a recent event. An IP address has been autoblocked because it had been used by Privatemusings in the past. I have posted the info on the log sheet here. Happy editing. Icestorm815 22:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Kirilll Hi! I note you are interested in historical military history articles. I have been doing a bit of work, this year (2007), on some articles related to the antecedent regiments who were merged to form the infantry regiment I served in. I note from their talk pages that they were assessed early in 2006. I wondered if you could take a fresh look at them and give some advice on what else needs to be done to make them more presentable. They are:- Battle of Magdala and 33rd Regiment of Foot additionally I am looking to improve 76th Regiment of Foot next. Regrettably illness limits the time I can spend on these, so knowing what really needs attending to would be most helpful. Richard Harvey 17:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)