User talk:Kirill Lokshin/Archive 5

Category:Operations
I have nominated Category:Operations, which you created, for deletion. The category basically looks like it will be used to associate unrelated articles with shared names (see WP:OCAT). You may comment at WP:CFD. Dr. Submillimeter 09:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

French units whose names are in French
Hello, I'm currently helping some pages about French military and police, and I have noticed that that some units had their names in French and other in English. According to the guideline, they should be translated in English. Do you think that one should re-name French units articles whose titles are in French ? (such as GIGN, EPIGN, GSPR, RAID or ECTLO ?) Rob1bureau 10:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Multiple Banner discussion
Your participation is requested for a discussion of the multiple project banner issue at WP:COUNCIL &mdash; here. Thanks -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST
Thankyou for the warm welcome and pleased to meet you my dear sir. Your name sounds very familiar to me but I can't quite remember where I encountered it before.....:) Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So nice to see the newbies getting along... --kingboyk 11:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Arbitration
Hello Kirill,

Could we do a check user on ? I think he might be a sockpuppet of. I think he is playing both sides.

Thanks, Mudaliar 19:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong arbitration
Hi Kirill. I don't know if it might be useful for strengthening the FoF or not, but I compiled some more info on the edit warring on the main Falun gong page on the workshop. I'm recused since I locked the page frequently and blocked Samuel once, so I'm not going to edit the FoF. As well, I made two edits to the page; once when I saw Samuel add his own website, I removed it, and another time there was this unsourced info about a scientific study on six people which said that FLG caused health benefits. In any case, I haven't finished yet, but if you look in the bit about the June 2006 edit warring, there are clearly some guys there who did 20-30+ reverts. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Coordinator work
Hey, is there any MILHIST coordinator work (updating assessment statistics, maintaining the active members list, etc.) you'd like to pass along to someone else? I'm sure you have scripts, etc., to do most of the actual work, but if there are any tasks you'd like to foist on to one of us, I'm more than willing to take on a little extra work - provided you can give a little bit of guidance... Carom 00:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it will be time consuming, but I think it will be worth it. One way to go about it would be to create a subpage somewhere (userspace, maybe?) that divides the project members by their stated interests/specialties. Creating such a list would be time-intensive, but would be fairly easy to maintain, and would also make it fairly easy to find 8 or 10 (or more) users who might be interested in a particular review, as we could make it as fine-grained as we liked. Carom 01:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's probably a better location for it. I'd be willing to start compiling the list - provided, of course, that that seems like the best course of action. Presumably we'd notify editors with some kind of subst'd template that would produce a message like "An article that you may be interested in, Example Article, has been nominated for (A/FA/Peer) Review. If you would like to contribute, you can do so here (discussion subpage). If you would prefer not to recieve these notifications in future, please leave a comment here (coordinators talk page?)." Or something to that effect? Carom 01:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I've left a note on the coordinator talk page, and in a few minutes I'll set up the page itself (although any actual work might have to wait until I get home from work later on tonight). Carom 01:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a fair point - I'll add whatever specifications, etc. have been provided by the members. Carom 04:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, the lists are coming along (although not finished, by any means). I'd kind of like to take this for a test drive and see what the response is. I'm assuming we want to rustle up something subst:able to put on people's talk pages, and I'm also assuming we need a different subst:able something for each kind of review - is this correct? Carom 05:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool, thanks! I'll tweak them a bit and then take them out for spin at thenext opportunity. Carom 13:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I've started using the templates (the peer review for Hugo Stoltzenberg and the A-class review for Eiríkr Hákonarson are the first two), so I guess we'll see if this works or not... Carom 18:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...
Any idea on what's happened here (Requests for adminship/Kirill Lokshin) ? I know it's an archived page, but it may either be because a bot has malfunctioned as some edited the page after it closed, or it may have happened on another page. Thanks, Spawn Man 06:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 36 supports? :) Those were the days... --kingboyk 11:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. ;-)
 * (It looks like someone's signature is bleeding a color tag to the following text, I think.) Kirill Lokshin 11:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Lol, I remember someone passed with just 19 votes. Quite amusing looking back on it. :) Spawn Man 11:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * More amusing to me personally is that I got more votes than Kirill Lokshin!! :) --kingboyk 12:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC) (not by much tho)


 * Quite funny though is that someone voted twice on Kirill's RfA & it didn't get discounted lol... ;) Spawn Man 03:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed list of characteristics of attack sites, webpages, and forum posts
See Wikipedia_talk:Attack_sites I hope that you can comment on what I wrote there. Andries 08:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Village Pump conversation regarding talk page templates
See here this concerns several aspects of the WikiProject templates and their implementation. Quadzilla99 01:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

British anti-invasion preparations of World War II
I thought that you might like to know that British anti-invasion preparations of World War II, an article to which you have previously contributed, has been put forward as a featured article candidate. Thank you for your help. If you would like to comment on this article's nomination, please see here. Your opinions will be most welcome. Gaius Cornelius 12:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Photograph Dispute on the B-36 Article Page
This particular issue goes awhile back. I've done the suggested advice and let the situation cool down before I attempt to resolve this situation.

This is the problem, the user Rogerd has been trying to put his personal photograph on the B-36 article. He does not hide the fact that he took it since it is featured on his personal photograph gallery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rogerd/photo_gallery

I feel very strongly that he is bias towards his photograph versus the official U.S. Air Force photograph taken of the same aircraft, which in my opinion, is of better quality and is not crooked. In addition, this photograph does not show any museum spectators and does not obsecure the aircraft from view and shows more of the aircraft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:060315-F-1234P-001.jpg

I feel that I was unfairly overwhelmed by his inner circle of users on Wiki and the dispute is still unresolved in my opinion.

-Signaleer 18:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.
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 06:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Maniots peer review
Hey Kirill. Sorry to disturb you but the Maniots article has been up for peer review now for around a fortnight with no comments. If you have the time, could you possibly give me your opinion. Thanks. Kyriakos 09:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Armenian-Azerbaijan Arbitration
I would like to report that while I have worked on editing page [Armenian Revolutionary Federation] where I made edit based on 5 references user:MarshallBagramyan removed it without discussion (he is not covered by Arbcom parole) but used inappropriate language, and later user:Fedayee came with comments aling the national lines  the same tactis again exploited. Users, not covered by parole, make blind reverts, then others step forward with accusation along the national line. I made offer for mediation but it was not accepted. In the meantime, I have other positive experience with user:Aivazovsky on page [Qazakh]. But some other users, like Fedayee, keep attacking me on the ground of ethnic affiliation.--Dacy69 14:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ethnic affiliation aside, pov pushing is pov pushing. You just happen to be the one disrupting a good article.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 17:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This guy does nothing but make provocative edits and complains about them whenever someone disagrees with him. He rarely discusses his edits on the talk yet expects everyone to accept them lest we be accused of "suppressing the truth". What kind of atmosphere does he expect to be treated in? Ethnic affiliation remains irrelevant when all you do aggressively pov push.--MarshallBagramyan 20:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Kirill, I apologize for this situation. user:Dacy69 added the material without discussing them, he merely wrote that he added sources...his wordings were POV and unencyclopedic. Marshall removed it as it was already discussed previously. Sorry that my tone in the quote above was interpreted by Dacy69 along the national lines, it was what I felt as, his misconceptions. What Dacy69 interpreted as such was an answer to his statement: "You are just desperately trying to protect this page from truth." It is very difficult to debate with someone who sees only bad about Armenians and then adds in Armenian related articles one sided material with the mentality of "exposing" the "truth" about Armenians and without prior discussion and when removed, claims that I am desperately trying to protect the page from this "truth" he likes to speak of. Dacy69 does not understand that Wikipedia role is...to publish information about something and not truth. He proposed mediation and then took my answer as a refusal of the mediation, when I clarified to him what was mediation and his misconception of what mediation is. If he wants mediation, he should first understand that its role is not to prove that he is right. He understands it as either he can add everything he wants without proper discussion or either it is mediation, and frankly, that is not how it works. I also wish that the arbitration take a closer look at user:Atabek's conduct as he is still continue to bait Armenian editors. Thanks - Fedayee 21:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

My explanation, refrences and quotation on talkpage speak for itself. The problem whatever I wrote is not acceptable for certain people. I do not consider for example what user:Aivazovsky writes on Azerbaijan related pages bad though I disagree with him sometimes, still I am able to work on solution. Others don't. We are all advised to assume good faith and work on compromise version. I do not consider mediation as a tool to endorse my version. I had previous experience in DR and know outcomes. Editors who refuses to go for DR perhaps have poor reasoning or simply are afraid and protecting pages just like they own them. --Dacy69 21:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Question
Sometimes when I hit edit submit it says I'm autoblocked because my school ip was used by User:Cheeselord5. Please help me Kirill. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 20:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC) PS If you help, you may recieve a shiny star. ;)

American Civil War
Can you nom it for FA? Thanks. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 20:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

B rating
Ok, I wasn't aware of that fact, thanks

Climie.ca 15:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

User:The Question Mark
Thanks, Kirill, I appreciate your help. Ronnotel 15:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of this earlier today, but it seems that Cho is being referred to as the 'Question Mark Killer' in some media accounts. I believe the name of the user account itself is intended as vandalism - i.e. analagous to an user account called 'AHitler'. I'm not sure what the policy is but perhaps we should consider that the account be removed and salted? Ronnotel 18:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject banners and scopes
I really want to get some movement on scope reform, and anything you'd have to add to the discussion would be great. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject reform. -- Ned Scott 00:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Wars in Lombardy
If you're interested, I've just expanded the First Campaign of Wars in Lombardy. I think my English'd need some cleanup. Thanks and good work as usual. --Attilios 13:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Crisp
Thankyou for your help and support in getting this article to featured status.--Jackyd101 12:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Message for the mailing list
Regarding this, it's a long time since I've seen an example of such good sense. From a victim of severe Wikipedia-related real-life stalking *thank you*. I don't want to register and post at the mailing list, because it seems that you can't post without giving your e-mail address, and having already changed e-mail address in order to block out messages about my stalker's "love" for me, his plans to visit me, his threats against my family, his obsession with parts of my body, etc., I don't really want to expose myself to more threats. I wonder would you mind copying and pasting this into a message to the mailing list, attributing it to me? You can put it in the same thread, or a new one &mdash; whichever you think appropriate. You can give a diff, to show I really did write it. And just so that you don't get shot, as the messenger, these are *my* thoughts; they may not be yours!

I very strongly support the deletion of Brandt's biography. I have absolutely no love for him, and considered the administrator that he drove away last May to be perhaps the very nicest administrator we ever had. But I have always supported deleting articles that were causing distress to the subjects, and that were not on topics so notable that we'd look silly, as an encylopaedia, if we didn't have them. In that, I concur with Grace Note, who has made a similar point. We should delete the article regardless of our feelings about Brandt, simply because it's the decent thing to do. It's not as if he's someone we *have* to have an article about &mdash; like President Bush or Tony Blair.

I accept that Jimbo has the right to make decisions even if we don't like them. But I think in this case, he has completely failed to give due regard to the feelings of people whose privacy has been severely violated by Brandt, and who have suffered real life consequences as a result.

The community has not agreed to delete Brandt's biography, and the community has not agreed to unblock him. So why is Jimbo invoking his privileges to unblock rather than to delete? Brandt doesn't want to edit Wikipedia if his biography is gone; he just wants to have the biography deleted.

The argument for deleting it is that it's the decent thing to do, and it might stop the stalking. An argument against deleting it is that he's notable enough to *permit* inclusion. He is not notable enough to *require* inclusion. We would not lose credibility as an encylopaedia if the article were gone. Another argument against deleting it is that some people will complain that process wasn't followed.

There is no argument for unblocking him that would not apply equally or more to deleting his biography. He wants it deleted; it might stop the stalking. So are the arguments *against* deleting more compelling than the arguments against unblocking? An argument against unblocking is that he has shown absolutely no remorse for the harm he has caused, and that the unblocking shows a colossal lack of respect for his victims. It's nothing short of creepy for people who have watched him posting their supposed photos, his speculation about their identity, where they live, where they work, who their work superiors are, how he's contacting their supposed ex-boyfriends, etc. to edit Wikipedia alongside him, both being considered as Wikipedians in good standing. It's inconsiderate and insensitive to expect them to. And it's outrageous that Brandt was unblocked without even a courtesty notification to his main victims. I don't have a reputation for being touchy, but I would feel profoundly disrespected if someone who knew about my case unblocked my stalker, and if the first I heard of it was when Tony Sidaway posted about it on the Commnuity Noticeboard. People are arguing that Brandt hasn't done anything bad on Wikipedia since he was unblocked, so there has been no disadvantage. There is a *huge* disadvantage in allowing a situation where so much ill will is generated, where victims feel undermined, where the feelings of excellent contributors who have worked tirelessly to improve the encyclopaedia are set aside like that, and where their stalker is not even told that his off-wiki harassment of them must cease.

Now, one could argue that there would be a justification for reluctantly permitting a situation in which Brandt's victims feel undermined, in the hope of bringing an end to the harassment they have suffered, if there is no other option that would achieve that end, and that would not cause so much ill feeling. But the article could have been deleted without the same amount of ill feeling, and with the same result &mdash; perhaps with a better result, since it's what Brandt actually *wants*.

Jimbo put as one of his reasons for unblocking that it had been "more than a year" since he was blocked. It is indeed more than a year since he was blocked, but it is *not* more than a year since he has been engaged in posting private information about our editors to public websites. It's more than a year since *my* stalker was blocked, but the phoncalls to my workplace, the threats to my family, the e-mails about parts of my body, the maps of my city with my workbuilding highlighted, the words "now that we have you surrounded, we start slowly tightening the ring" are all much more recent. And Brandt was still posting stuff about one of our administrator's supposed identity at another website within hours of being unblocked.

But for those who sincerely think Brandt is too notable for deletion of the article to be an option, I have my last point. I would have said all along, and I'm sure I *have* said, "Keep him banned; he can e-mail his concerns about the article to the Foundation." And I would have assumed that I was being fair. Brandt claims in his open letter (now on Talk:Daniel Brandt) that he has been sending e-mails and faxes for eighteen months, that he sent a fax to Jimbo, a fax to Brad, and a fax to Danny, and that he did not receive a reply to any. Is it true that he was informing the Foundation of his concerns with his biography, and that his messages were ignored? If so, and if deleting his biography was not an option, why was unblocking him considered, rather than having someone from the Foundation respond to his communications, and help him to have inaccuracies removed from his biography?

Ann

Musical Linguist 18:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've copied your message to the list. :-) Kirill Lokshin 21:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Many thanks &mdash; even with my embarrassing apostrophe error in the last sentence of the second last paragraph, which I see now, and which can never be corrected because the mailing list isn't a wiki! Anyway, I hope this mess can be sorted out without anyone else getting hurt. Musical Linguist 19:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

re:cheverons!
Wow thanks Kirill! I was only saying to another user that I hoped to earn one of those awards one day... I hope you didn't just see that comment and decide to award them to me just because of that! I'm sure you didn't, and I appreciate it. Thanks! :) SGGH 14:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Kirill, I'd also like to give a big thank you for the Cheveron you gave me! I wasn't expecting it so soon after joining the Military History WikiProject, but I really appreciate it. Here's another thanks from me! Jagged 85 00:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As my way of saying thanks for your work to help me with my contributions to WPMILHIST, I have added you to my own checklist of wikipedians (see my user page) with whom I have exceptionally enjoyed working. It's not much, but I hope it serves as some recognition! Though undoubtedly you are on similar lists for half of this community! Incidentally, I assume you don't mind the US flag next to your name as opposed to the Russian, (I am assuming that you have taken US citizenship since moving to Maryland, and if not would still call the US your home) thanks again! SGGH 09:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh and I also looked at your award set up when designing my own on my user page. SGGH 10:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you can help me
Hi Kirill. I was recently digging around (I'm pretty sure it was in the WP MILHIST area, but might just have been a link from there) and I ran across a page where editors who had physical access to sources could post there, so that other editors could make requests for quotes and citations from that source. I've been trying to relocate that page, and have not had any luck. Do you know what I'm talking about, and can you direct me there? I have a really great resource that I want to share. It lists every place name, firebase, camp, airfield, and piss hole that Americans were at in Vietnam between 1945 and 1975, and includes maps, coordinates, lists of events and units at those places, and also covers naval vessels. Hope you can help. Heres a cite of the book I have: - Crockspot 17:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

ArbReq/Libby
I apologize if it is not appropriate to respond here to your vote against sending the dispute to arbitration. I just wanted to clarify that I believe I have taken many of the other steps in the dispute resolution process. I disengaged. I initiated a mediation proposal that the user declined. There has been an rfc. I have asked many other third party editors and administrators to weigh in on the debate. I had some difficulty posting links to all of these actions, but it's all there in my editing history, the article talk pages, and on my talk page (and NYScholar's, which he archives immediately). The admin that recently blocked him (and continued his block after NYS left a post questioning my sanity) suggested to me that I take this to arbitration. Don't know if this changes your opinion. Notmyrealname 22:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was having a hard time figuring out how to properly link to all this stuff.Notmyrealname 02:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The Art of War in Italy
Kirill, you are doing a great job here in the military section. I am doing research on the man who wrote the source, quoted in many articles about Italian Wars: Frederick Lewis Taylor (1892-1961). I use his name as user name, because I am related to him. I have just read his book, and found it surprisingly readable. Could you tell me how you got hold of his book and if it is still frequently used? I am new to Wikipedia, up to now I have only used it as source of information. I'd prefer to write to you by email, but couldn't find your email address. Please let me know how to contact you directly, if that's alright with you!

FLT 15:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Soviet occupation of Romania
Hi. I'm not sure where to answer so I'll do it here. I'm sure you've noted that three of the participants are the same and many of the arguments too, plus the same lack of willingness to cede when facts are provided (at least that's how I see it). However, we have tried mediation, and nothing seems to be working. Biruitorul 18:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, what else is there to do? Conceivably, the other side can keep putting back the tags, with edit summaries like "tags should remain until dispute is solved" or "disputed title", for another 10 years. What's the point at which someone can say, "One side has shown strong arguments, the other has no valid objections [and I don't consider "Article's title is purposefully inflammatory" to be a valid objection], case closed - move on"? Or is there no sense of finality, no way to move out of this trench warfare? What I'm trying to say is this: we've provided copious citations that Romania was occupied for 14 years - fully in accord with WP:V, we've provided verifiability, not truth. So I don't know what to say. What more do we need to do - or can someone, at some point, say the other side is simply being disruptive and have the tags removed on a more permanent basis? Biruitorul 21:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And that, if I may respectfully say so, is a flaw in the process - the lack of any sort of finality, the equal weight given to unequal (based on sources provided) opinions, the ripe potential for endless, fruitless, energy-sapping edit-warring. But never mind that; I thank you for your interest in the matter and for this discussion. I'll wait for the other arbitrators to weigh in, if that's all right. Biruitorul 21:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 23rd, 2007.
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 06:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Disputed article
In the article Great power, The user Traing has in many attempts tried to manipulate/vandalise the article by adding this sentence to Great power "It engaged in a close relationship with the Soviet Union and defeated political rival Pakistan in 3 wars." I believe that this sentence violates NPOV and Five pillars policy and sparks up a debate on who won or who lost. According to most of the articles on these wars (Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and Kargil war) most were stalemates and ended in ceasefire. We have been trying to solve the matter in a civil manner but most of my attempts were unsuccessful great power talk. I will greatly appreciate any help from your part on this issue. Faraz 12:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Elections
Hi, Kirill. My purpose here is to ask you the date for next Arbitration Committee Vote. But I know that many wikipedians support or oppose for various editors to become an arbitrator in last year December. I just decided to support or oppose for new or other wikipedians to become an arbitrator in the future. As far as I know, Arbitrator needs to have good communication skills, and good judgements on different kinds of conflict. Do you know when will this open in the future? I think Arb Com Election will probably open in December 2007. Could you please tell me when Arbitration Committee Election will open? Please, reply in my talk page. Thanks in Advance. Daniel  5127  23:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. In last year, Were you elected by other wikipedians for arbitrator? Daniel  5127  00:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This was answered on your behalf by, Kirill, to save you having to look. --kingboyk 16:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Requesting a favour
Hi Kirill, I know you're an extraordinarily busy chap these days, but if you have a moment could you do me a small favour? WPBiography needs the necessary parameters to support our new A-class review department, and I wondered if you could add them, based on your MILHIST work. Also, if, as a trailblazer in these matters, you can give any advice on organisation and procedure at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/A-class review I'm sure it would be most welcome. --kingboyk 16:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Favor #2
Hi Kirill,

Since that last guy asked for a favor, I thought I'd ask too. :)

There is a debate that involves infobox design and standardization to replace manually constructed infoboxs. You may have missed this post from 52 pickup at WikiProject Infobox but it bears repeating and as a member of the project, your input would be appreciated.

Instead of repeating all the points, I'll just direct you to the discussion here. In the interests of consistency, and taking on a few new ideas for infobox design, I would like as many people as possible to get involved.&mdash;MJCdetroit 00:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, but I have those compromising photos of Kirill I've promised not to release ;) --kingboyk 11:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC) (kidding) (Thank you ever so much Kirill, if you didn't already see the thanks on my talk page)

Images
Hey, quick question: what are the rules for creating derivative works of an image that is in the public domain? For example, I cropped out a section of Image:Western Front 1917.jpg to use in the Battle of Arras article - I can do that, right? Sorry if this is an obvious question, but my knowldge of copyright law (and Wikipedia's image policy) is incredibly limited, and the policy pages are not neccessarily easy to understand... Carom 17:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Carom 19:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject reform
I just noticed this edit of yours. You're correct to remove mention of WPBio, as in my not so humble opinion it's a pretty good project.

What I'm wondering, though, is if you have the process the wrong way round? Would it not be better to encourage rather than disallow tagging by the top-level (Tier 0) projects, with the lower level more specialist projects attaching themselves to these banners by way of parameters? i.e. as MILHIST and WPBiography do right now.

I'm also a little concerned by the suggestion that procedures and limitations will be imposed on WikiProjects that already function well (with a caveat: a few large projects work really well, so do a few small ones; most don't work at all). --kingboyk 21:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied at User_talk:Kingboyk for threading. --kingboyk 21:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC) And again. (Do you watchlist my page or do I need to alert you like this?) --kingboyk 21:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong page template/tag remove problems
I apologise if I am not supposed to contact any of you while the arbcom is on. There are currently revert wars on the Epoch Times, Suppression of Falun Gong, and Falun Gong pages. The revert wars are not about content, but about tags and templates. I feel embarrassed having to request someone do something about this, and I have no desire right now to seriously involve myself in these articles until the arbcom is done and mediation is up and going again. At the same time, it is difficult for me to allow other editors to remove legitimate tags and templates on content that has been the subject of heated debate and resulted in the current arbcom. The content is very much disputed, and the last resort, to avoid revert wars about the actual content, was simply to tag it, leave it, and see what happens with ArbCom. Now the pages are unlocked and even the tags and templates are being removed. This is extremely bad behaviour as far I as can understand. I would like to know if anything can be done about this, or perhaps you could advise me on a possible course of action. I've made it clear that I will not engage in revert wars, but I never expected this, and now I don't know what to do.--Asdfg12345 00:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

'War' or 'war'?
Hi Kirill, I realise that you are busy, but perhaps you would care to comment (or send someone else) on what the proper capitalisation of the "war" in 2006 Lebanon War should be. There is a discussion ongoing here. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 06:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Project Banner
Kirill, knowing that you are good at designing and redesigning WikiProject banners, John Carter suggested that this request should be forwarded on to you. I hope you will be able to help, as the WikiProject Christianity seems to have some good ideas for making their work more effective and efficient. Thanks in advance. Pastor David † (Review) 18:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Wars in Lombardy
Ciao! If you're interested, I've substantially expanded the several campaigns in Wars in Lombardy into much detail. As usual, I think they'd need some language clean up. Thank you and good work. --Attilios 15:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

rating
Hello Kirill, thanks for re-rating my article on the Battle of Verrierres Ridge. Climie.ca 19:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC) cam

New article
Hi Kirill. I created a new article today, Julia Compton Moore, which is somewhat military history related. I'm having trouble finding categories to apply. I don't see any cats for the things that Army wives like her might be categorized as. Do you have any suggestions? - Crockspot 23:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Snowball marches - edit conflicts
Thanks - I was just getting there having worked out that peer review was more what I was looking for! Regards--Golden Wattle talk 00:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Departure of valued MilHistProj member
User:Looper5920 has apparently left the project, according to a message on his user page. I believe that he may be upset by what happened with the FA nomination for List of United States Marine Corps aircraft squadrons. I believe that Looper was an extremely valuable contributor to the project and is worth trying to bring back. His email link is still enabled in his user account and I just emailed him. By the way, I don't agree either that that list should have failed the nomination process. The votes were 7 to 1 and I didn't agree that the one objection was significant enough to warrant disregarding the seven support votes. Cla68 01:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

get well card
My adopter, NDCompuGeek is not doing so well. Can you sign his get well soon card? Spread the word please. Sincerely, Sir intellegent - smartr tahn eaver!!!! 02:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article
Military Brat (US Subculture) got listed on FAR unexpectedly. I put my two cents in and updated the announcement template (hope you don't mind) and notified the related task forces (the nominator, it seems, is already aware of the development). I believe this to be a bad faith nom, and have commented to that effect, but there is a chance that the FAR will not close but remain open, in which case I expect a lot of other Wikipedians to comment there. I can't help but feel a little bad; these sorts of comments on the day one's article is the main page article is a real thunderstorm on the parade. Anyway, thought you might like to know. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: The FAR page was axed! It would seem that my assessment of the nom was correct, it was bad faith, and has been deleted (for now). TomStar81 (Talk) 08:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you Kirill for the chverons, I will try to work harder for the project since as I late I have been quite busy.Cheers &mdash; Wils Bad Karma (Talk ) 12:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.
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 06:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

South American wars Reply
Hi,i've listed the categories i have created,but in simple tex without the cause i dint wanted to categorise the page,not sure if i did it rigth--Andres rojas22 03:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

'War' or 'war'
Hi Kirill,

I saw that my last message was bot-archived, so I'm not sure if you saw it. I realise that you are busy, but perhaps you would care to comment (or send someone else to) on what you believe the proper capitalisation of the "war" in 2006 Lebanon War should be. There is a discussion ongoing here, and we would very much benefit from your expertise on this subject. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 03:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping out - it will be very useful.  Tewfik Talk 08:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a bot...
That can slap an unassed wikiproject tag on articles in given category? If it could tag those in stubs categories as stubs it would be great... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Proposed decision
The proposed decision seems inconsistent given the evidence at /Evidence and the discussion at /Workshop. I think it would be best to postpone to closing the case to consider all of the evidence. Other editors have also expressed concern over this. It doesn't seem like the recent evidence submitted are being considered. None of the messages on the talk pages there are being replied to. Some more people have put their evidence forward after the 'voting phase', but it doesn't seem like the Arbitrators is reading all of the evidence, including the diffs provided. Why isn't all of the evidence being considered in the final decisions? Please reply here. Thanks. LionheartX 15:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've certainly considered the newer evidence presented; but I believe the decision as currently proposed will be sufficient to resolve the dispute without the need for additional remedies. Kirill Lokshin 18:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying. The proposed decision may be be sufficient to resolve the short-term disputes, but it is insufficient given all of the evidence at /Evidence and the discussion at /Workshop. As noted by other users, Certified.Gangsta has made very few productive edits, if any. In fact, most of his edits are reverts. Placing him on revert parole doesn't seem like it would work because almost all of his mainspace contributions are revert warring. His contributions speak for themselves. This is a long-standing problem for him, and he will probably never quit edit-warring. Users with an extensive history of aggressive edit-warring and attempts to turn Wikipedia into a battleground should be strongly sanctioned per the precedents set in this arbitration case. In addition, Certified.Gangsta's violations doesn't just include extensive edit-warring, they include personal attacks, incivility, sockpuppetry, battleground, and other violations. Note this user's extensive block history . Regards, LionheartX 22:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Petition on Spawny's page
I've put up a petition on Spawny's Talk Page to cheer him up/make him come back. cheers, Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 09:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Nivelle Offensive‎
I was wondering if you could take a look at the Nivelle Offensive‎. Roger Davies moved it from Nivelle offensive by cut-and-pasting it, which messed up the edit history. The new naming is consistent with other offensive like the Tet, Brusilov and Spring, all with capital O, so if you just could fix the edit history. Carl Logan 12:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Air Force portal
Kirill, I have become unexpectantly detained by my local hospital, and have not had the opportunity to update the Air Force portal for this month. Is there any way you could do it for me, or ask someone to get it done? My time on-line will be extremely curtailed, especially if the doc finds out that I had a laptop smuggled into my room.... :-) Thanks,  - NDCompuGeek 07:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess the doctors got sick and tired of having me around, so they kicked me out for a week or two while they decide where and what to cut.... In any case, thank you VERY MUCH for your assistance!  - NDCompuGeek 11:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions on rendering
Hi! Been a while! I know how busy you must be, but I need some advice from others with your experience on various standards discussions, wide articles experience, and policy experience with such problems. (At least this should be a pleasant change of pace from ArbCom evidentuary matters! )

re:  &&  The various links here leading to a host of others documenting'' 'issues' with HTML rendering because of our reliance on info boxes et. al.:


 * 1) Most of the links are mid-section, meaning there is related pertinent material above in the threads as well, but NOT beyond the preceding major section title.
 * 2) (to links) documenting problems attempting to tighten up the 'presentation and aesthetic appearance' of many articles wrt to TOC and things like Battle boxes, info boxes and so forth. (partial too, these are about a couple a bigger articles, in the main, where I've invested a lot of time and effort. [You made an edit here in the middle of this too!]
 * 3) Others with a better outcome TOCnestright )
 * 4) Similar issues with the tried and true TOCleft

In sum, the above experience over the last week or so makes me infer there is a systemic problem in HTML generation as Mrzaius calls it, but what makes it much worse is that a solution for one browser causes a different problem in another. If and when a solution works, as Mrzaius noted, there is not infrequently a distasteful side effect in the click-links:  size, location and such. (Not a surprise!) What works fine in Firefox frequently has a problem in IE browsers... which predominate in the actual numbers of computer screens out there.
 * 1) I'm wondering whether the MILHIST with our large population and many template/HTML savvy persons should perhaps take it on ourselves to conduct a time co-ordinated experiment, or whether to just accept  the technical disjuncture (causing such ugly gaps in pages) as incurable. I suspect, if we can document a few specific patterns of symptoms, the programmers might be able to break the HTML generation into two segments, thereby establishing an anchor point from which the TOC would then display on all pages the same way.
 * 2) (minor but related as impacts early text wrapping in articles significantly) How did the MILTHIST project come to settle on 350px, which is to say more than a third of available (screen width in the default skin of the average customer reader) typical screen widths (1024) in pixels for many folks? Has there ever been an MOS discussion on this to your knowledge? (Yesterday I ran into a chemistry infobox that was nearly half screen!)

In any event, I'm looking for advice as to how to document this (RFC?) kind of inconsistent rendering in various browsers, and any other history on the matter you might recall running into over the years. (Bugzilla ####?, prior discussions? etc.) Thanks // Fra nkB 16:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

re:
Thanks for the thoughtful response Kirill, (and please forgive the numbers mixup! ) but one correction: re: ''Beyond that, though, I think what you're proposing is not necessarily a good idea regardless of whether it's doable. From an interface usability standpoint, denser visual layouts may be harder for users to navigate than sparser ones, even if the latter contain more "wasted" space. (Moving the TOC from its expected position to one where it's visually subordinate to the more prominent infobox is a particularly bad idea, in my opinion; when readers have come to expect a TOC to be in a particular position, suddenly hiding it off to the side is likely to confuse them as they try to find it, rather than impress them with our layout skills.) I'd actually argue that a layout that minimizes the multi-column stacking of visual elements in favor of having them offset vertically is actually a better approach than one that removes the extra whitespace but compresses everything into narrow blocks.'' What I was trying to do, as seen for example in timeline of chemistry was to 'Marry or weld' the TOC to the large element on the right and float text around it.

From where I stand, that's at least equivilent to 'standard position' on most small to medium pages (where it's less needed and is ''hardly subordinate, inasmuch as I should say it's subordinated now, and my thought was to give it equal billing LOL! <g>), but better on long pages where the article introduction itself is also long... the idea being to present the TOC up high enough to get a couple of good paragraphs in, with the TOC showing as well on the top of page screen.

In any event, I got a belated answer from CBD on a related tech problem and width of page is also a major player in this (and in that of 315px! <G>), and with such stacking elements predominating on the right, there is likely not a good solution thats going to work in all cases. I'm going to make sure I document some of this to the unwary on the TOCright/doc page and so forth. I'd be interested in hearing whether you have any problems, concerns, or negative comments to make reviewing the articles listed on the whatlinkshere of TOCnestright. Thanks again! (Back to RL for a while, alas! <g>) // Fra nkB 17:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Part III

 * new concerns:
 * I'm going to toss this in here, as it's a very related issue... In fact most of the failures on the TOCright/TOCleft/TOCnestright templates are because of two stacked structures like this had. Note the double edit to attempt a fix. The problem with the edit tab was pointed out to me by one of the guys discussing things in that first link and/or the links it leads to up above.

So a new question... has anyone discussed inverting these things like this change so the long element is below... the TOC problems all seem to key off the upper corner of the second stacked element including images. CBD solved one issue by relocating image, down, and a preliminary trial on this page worked similarly on this page, (but then the template output was too low) etc.

That puts things into 'Style turf', so has it been raised anywhere? // Fra nkB 00:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. note using to force the TOC generation between paragraph's is ALSO failing because of the 'Corner Issue', if I can coin a term <g>! Cheers! // Fra nkB


 * That's a known issue, and the conventional way to fix it is by using an enclosing div or table; see How to fix bunched-up edit links. (I'm fairly sure there's a link to that page on WP:CAMPAIGN, incidentally; we've run into it a few times before.)  Reversing the order of the templates should be a distant second option here; the primary infobox really ought to be the first one on a conceptual level. Kirill Lokshin 00:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks -- I figured you'd have a handle on it. Also that such inversion was probably as welcome as a skunk at a picnic! Thanks! // Fra nkB 03:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * re: Yes, much!!! (I must be gettin' ole and slow... I was just getting back to try this! <g>) Thanks // Fra nkB 06:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

McConn on revert parol for a year?
I've just noticed that this is the conclusion you've come to, and I'm quite surprised. I doubt that there is anything that I can do about your decision, but I still feel the need to defend myself. It's true that I've engaged in edit warring, but rarely have I ever reverted without discussion (in fact using the talk pages to explain each of my edits is something I make a priority of), and rarely have I ever participated in a revert war that wasn't over edits that were quite clearly inappropriate. I believe that I've also been regarded by most other users as very reasonable, including by those that are on the opposing side, such as Firestar and Tomananda. It's rare that people rationally complain about my editing behavior. I also make a point of using the talk pages to discuss content without pushing my opinion about Falun Gong. And because of these things, I haven't felt any warning or threat that some action might be taken against me. I appologize for the fact that I haven't been following the arbitration case or participating in it. This is mostly because I was away from wikipedia for about two months, and only really came back after the pages were opened up to make some edits that I thought were rather straightforward. (I understand now that this was probably wrong and that I should have waited for the arbcom case to finish before making such content changes). Anyway, were I to know or have been warned that my editing behavior has been a problem I would change immediately; you don't need to put me on any kind of restricting parol to do that. I respect your position and understand that you've done your homework, but from my perspective this kind of decision without any warning seems like jumping the gun. Thanks for listening. Mcconn 16:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

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

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Rules applied inconsistently? Seeking clarification
Note about this query in this section: This is more of a question seeking clarification from arbitrators / similar ranked persons on Wiki about Wiki rules rather than a complaint. I wanted to keep the query to the ArbCom decision talk page but if I can't get an answer there, please give me a reply either here on your talk page, or preferably, my talk page, thanks!

1. I notice that Samuel has been deemed incapable of promoting a viewpoint outside his activism and has an obvious conflict of interest in that sense, but don't Falun Gong practitioners also have a similar COI? Many of the pro-FGers did not even want to see a Criticism section. Now, they are only willing to see one that is heavily truncated and has been responded to by their Leader or Master. Isn't this an inconsistent application of the Conflict of Interest rule? (If not, pls explain)

2. Moreover, if users like Asdfg (pro-FG) are given a second chance and commended for turning over a new leaf and now appears to conform to Wiki rules, why shouldn't Tomananda be given that chance, and Samuel (who had 3, not 7 blocks btw, if overturned blocks are not to be counted)? I find it once again an inconsistent application of Wikipedia rules that anti-FGers must be banned yet pro-FGers have, at the very most, only been given a year's parole (except McConn). I also note with amusement that despite User:HappyInGeneral having declared a POV war previously on the FG discussion page, he can be found not to merit even a revert parole.

3. Arbitrator Fred Bauder also mentioned that the real flamers have not been sanctioned (e.g. User:Omido) so far so should this ArbCom decision be expanded to include these users? Or are arbitrators bound to only consider the users involved and mentioned in the ArbCom case?

4. I note from Fred Bauder that NPOV does not require excision of POV language. I accept that, but hope that he would expand on this point further, preferably by giving examples in this FG case. Moreover, if that edit I made was objectionable then does that mean Fire_Star's one (the version I reverted to) was also objectionable, or is it my edit in itself that was objectionable?

5. How exactly do we deal with unregistered users who vandalize Wikipedia + Wiki user pages? Note that there have been a series of anti-FG vandalism actions recently, which is curiously well-timed as they hardly existed before this ArbCom case, as well as the fact that there have only been numerous pro-FG vandalism actions before. See also the numerous times anti-FG and '3rd-party' users had their talk pages vandalized. So how do we prevent abuse of this, especially when banning IP addresses does little good to an organization that exploits the weaknesses of Wikipedia? (If you cannot answer this one, that is understandable, but if you have an answer that would be of great use)

Now just one suggestion:

1. Instead of revert parole-ing numerous users, how about simply revert parole-ing entire Wiki entries, namely the FG-related ones here? This would be the best way of preventing edit wars ESPECIALLY by unregistered users (or users exploiting this Wiki weakness), as has been supported by my relatively limited number of edits on the main Wiki FG-related entries (compare the edits I made + content I wrote on the pages' talk pages, compared to the actual entries themselves). Jsw663 19:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking For A Coach

 * 1) Ready to move to the next level, but would like some advice and help on the best possible way to avoid any and all land mines. Will let my record speak for itself. Thanks in advance for any and all help.Shoessss 02:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.
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 06:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Milhist tagging/assessment
Hey, Kirill - what's the current status of this project? What kind of time frame are we looking at for moving forward? And is there anything I can do to help at this point? Don't feel harassed, I'm just curious... 23:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and on an unrelated note, I'd like to get you thoughts on this (in particular, should Milhist submit an "ad" for use in this template?) Carom 23:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No prob - there's no rush, really, as the backlog will still be there whenever we get around to it... ; ) I think the script has probably moved well beyond my (fairly) limited abilities in that respect, but I don't suppose there's any harm in taking a look (maybe I can convince someone who knows what they're doing to take a look at it as well...). Strike that, no point in my looking at it, I'm not really familiar enough with Perl to make a contribution.


 * I'll bring up the ad thing on the coordinators page and see what people think (I suspect you are right about people's feelings towards ads, but we'll see...). Carom 17:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Image option
I thought you may want to check out our template WikiProject Scouting, at my request, NThurston add an "image" class option.Rlevse 19:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Busy
Trust you are as always. 'Category:Battles of the Gallipoli Campaign' - you trimmed some categories last year - a new one has been added - is it kosher in your opinion? SatuSuro 04:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies I have just seen it being worked on and the link to Milhist - I'll assume it a better fit than the lot you edited - please ignore. SatuSuro 04:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Military history of Oceania
Do you have some suggestions? I started it off in the hope it would attract others to help out with building it. I'm not even sure which direction to take it and thought you would have insights! Thanks, SGGH speak! 11:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Categories and so forth...
In a matter related (somewhat tengentially) to the new discussion on the Milhist talk page regarding categorization for World War I: User:Roger Davies has been struggling rather manfully to make the categorization system make sense, with the result that he created Category:World War I literature, which duplicates Category:World War I books, and then proceded to empty the latter and blank the page. I'm not quibbling over whether the name is better or worse, just looking for some advice on how to "clean up" as it were. Could the empty category be speedily deleted as redundant? Or is there another tactic that should be employed here? Carom 14:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

contact
seems like the contacts don't receive much criticsm and if you don't mind, I will start creating the necessary sites and organisation in a few days. Wandalstouring 15:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * the taskforces can link to some contacts they think useful within their scope. We have 700 members. I think about 70-140 could be nominated contact for something. The longer this project exists, the more people we have to deal with... Wandalstouring 17:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's see how active our enlisted personnel is. Wandalstouring 17:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * WikiProject Military history/Contacts is created. Feel free to style it. Wandalstouring 17:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Peninsular War
Have a look at the recent Peninsular War history and this exchange (my reply). I assume I've taken the correct position as per MILHIST? Which way is best to deal with this manner of disruption? Because I'm requesting arbitration/meditation/a terrible swift sword right now. And I'm ashamed even to do so; someone like UberCryxic would have reverted his nonsense by now, 3R be damned. Albrecht 16:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think it even depends on the term having any currency in the English-language literature (although I agree I might need to make a case to that effect to keep it in bold), considering that no other article on wars uses skeleton sections for foreign names; instead they list multiple names right in the intro as I did (three more picked at random: Italian War of 1494-1498, Yom Kippur War, Russo-Swedish War (1741–1743)). Also, we should bear in mind the ubiquity of the name in other languages; if every language but English used "Great Patriotic War," I don't think we would object to the intro reading: "The Eastern Front of World War II or Great Patriotic War was a...". As for "sitting down," I'll point out that he continued to edit the page after I commented on his talk page. Anyway, let's hope it dies down. Albrecht 02:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Take a second look. He has consistently refused to discuss the issue and continues to edit war. Albrecht 07:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, for Christ's sake, Kirill, that's an obscene request. Albrecht 16:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 14th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"Battle of"
Hi, is there a guideline/outline/template for "Battle of X" articles? Thanks! Ling.Nut 12:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :-) Ling.Nut 21:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

A-class review result
Hey there. Just curious about the final result on the review of Battle of the Plains of Abraham. I'm curious as to how the 'failed' result came around; I thought I'd answered the problems with it reasonably well, but there's no summary or commentary regarding why it failed. Could you elaborate a bit, please? Tony Fox (arf!) 22:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification; I was hoping for further comment on my response there, but ah well. I'll see what I can do from here. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

TOC Status report
Just thought I'd offer you A BRIEF on the TOC experiment. See User_talk:CBDunkerson, but a screen or so down-- the post a moment ago! Cheers! // Fra nkB 04:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Xellentnature.jpg
Hello Kirill Lokshin, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Xellentnature.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Kirill Lokshin/Archive 3. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 08:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Men in Black Poster.jpg
Hello Kirill Lokshin, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Men in Black Poster.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Kirill Lokshin/Archive 1. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 13:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Military History
I have seen elsewhere someone saying that books of family history may not be cited in this project. Is that the case? If so might I make the strongest possible protest. Throughout the 19th century and early 20th there were a string of extremely fine publications on many families. Most were, in fact, written by people who were not family members (Sir William Fraser - see Sir William Fraser Professor of Scottish History and Palaeography - wrote several on famous families), whilst others were. In nearly all cases months if not years of careful research went into such histories and the National Library of Scotland has a very impressive collection. To ignore, or banish, such histories seems not only lunacy but an example of some sort of bias. In a great many cases the only other source material on many military people can only be found at the Public Record Office/National Archives, or from poorly researched secondary sources where figures are mentioned in passing or as 'also-rans'. I could list the professors and other writers who would agree with me. Could you possibly clarify the situation? Regards, David Lauder 14:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.
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 May 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom case involving Zeq and Zero0000
"No evidence that this is necessary; [Zeq] seems to have kept in line with his existing probation since last August."

Zeq has been blocked 9 times since his probation was enacted (and only twice by Zero0000). Not to mention the endless edit warring and POV-pushing that have consistently characterized his editing since day 1 (and continues to this day). How is that acceptable? If he makes it through this ArbCom with no remedy against him, I will be astonished. Kaldari 17:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Dinosaurs:
Hi Kirill! The portal is going great, I'm back from my Wikibreak & everything's going great. How are you? Anyway, I was wondering if you could created a new box on the Dinosaur portal: A notice board at the top of the page (probably like the one on my user page, except you'd be able to edit it). I'd do it myself, but the browse bar keeps on going funny - also, should the browse bar be above this notice board, under neath it, or should we even have a notice board at all??? Cheers Kirill! :) Spawn Man 02:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

E104421-Tajik
Thanks for getting to this. I had expected more of a delay between the suspension and voting so I could actually offer evidence in this case, or perhaps I just missed it. In any case, I don't think it would be wise to close the case on the basis of Tajik's sockpuppetry without addressing the other issues, mainly E104421's edit warring, which was equally problematic in leading to the arbitration. I've added two findings of fact to the workshop at Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik/Workshop and I hope they can make their way into the decision with an associated remedy or remedies. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 02:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm, I didn't really think that there was much difference between the two. Tajik used a sockpuppet (not to war with E104421), but that doesn't make E104421 any better. Based on his history, I have no confidence that E104421 won't immediately resume warring... Dmcdevit·t 05:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it turned out to be an abject failure. He used it to justify reverts, he reverted pages once a day repeatedly, he still neglected to give any rationale for reverts, and, the parole was limited to a small set of articles, so he simply shifted to other ones. That was the reason for my subsequent block afterwards, which was (inexplicably, in my opinion) reversed, when it was clear he was following the letter, not the spirit. Dmcdevit·t 06:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hkelkar 2
I have produced my evidence. It is available here – Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Evidence. After viewing it, I hope you will consider changing your propositions on the Proposed decision page. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  09:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/TingMing
Sorry to bother you, however I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at Requests for arbitration/TingMing. The arbitration has been stalled for a long time, while the situation on ROC/Taiwan related articles continues to deteriorate. Penwhale was initially assigned the case, but has recently indicated that he feels unable to proceed due to a potential conflict of interest. Any help you could provide to keep this from spinning out of control would be appreciated. Thanks. -Loren 08:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. -Loren 16:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is spinning out of control. Stop over exaggerating and recruiting users to your cause, Loren36. Please assume good faith and stop violating the Wikipedia rules. Thanks TingMing 00:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Italian Wars
I share your feelings for unmotivated, mechanical reverts, but please make no mistake here. I wish you could cut Wetman (of all people) a bit of slack, given his huge amount of vandal fighting. Please don't take the incident to heart, the guy is one of the greatest assets of the project and the model of civility (most of the time). --Ghirla-трёп- 14:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A small irony
Compare your proposals here and the parties' reaction to them with this from last year. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Help
We're well on our way to losing Goya's masterpiece because Commons has a happy-go-lucky, neon pastel version which happens to be slightly larger. The Third of May has already been replaced by this travesty (God forbid Goya's paintings stay dark). It seems the madness is catching. Albrecht 17:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

cquote
I support the use of cquote because in my opinion it makes quotes more visible. Could we decide upon a unique quotation style, cquote or blockquote, or are there other possibilities we should consider? Wandalstouring 06:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No content in Category:Theatres of World War I
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Theatres of World War I, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Theatres of World War I has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Theatres of World War I, please affix the template  to the page, and put a note on its talk page. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Category:Theatres of World War I itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 08:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Conversions
Hey, what's the status of the remaining conversions here? Are the infoboxes ready to be deprecated, or do the "replacement" templates still need additional parameters added to them? Carom 18:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

unjust treatment and false accusations
Hi. This is User:Tajik and I am writing to you because of. I write to you from an IP account, because my real account was blocked by an admin, using false accusations. I am accused of using "sockpuuepts" and "diferent IP accounts", although I have never used any. I am even accused of being User:Tajik-Professor, a known sockpuppet of User:NisarKand and a blocked vandal in Afghanistan-related articles. This is by far the most rediculous accusation, because I am the one who used to revert his vandalism - my edits are totally contrary to his. He has also vandalised my user-page, calling me and my family "rats"! The admin who blocked me claims that "CheckUser proved that I am using sockpuppets". Now, he has blocked me, he does not give me the chance to defend myself, and he refused to do another IP check, although it is a fact that he or CheckUser made a mistake.

I had asked for a break from the arbitration, because I was not home for at least one month (until May 14th). In that whole time, I logged in 2 times, one time reverting vandalism, and on the last day writing a short comment in a discussion page (see Talk:Safavid dynasty).

I have the impression that the admin who blocked me just wants me out, and that he is just looking for excused to push for my block. Now, he just takes the similarity of our nick-names as a proof for his false accusation. I need your help.

84.58.110.86 14:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.
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 06:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Release Version Nominations/Set Nominations/Wars of Africa
Hi Kirill. Could you please have a look at the link and see if you can help? Some articles are needing more references in order to get released. You can leave your comments at the page as well. Thanks in advance. -- FayssalF  - <sup style="background:gold;">Wiki me up®  17:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

moving Second Battle of Passchendale
I recently created a page entitled the Second Battle of Passchendale. Unfortunately, I discovered that it's actually spelt Passchendaele. I tried to manually move this page, and then discovered that I couldn't since Second Battle of Passchendaele automatically redirects to Passchendaele. The message told me to contact an admin. Could you administratively move this page for me to "Second Battle of Passchendaele"?

Thanks Cam 19:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Fallout
Protecting has caused  to leave. Sumple is a valued contributor to WP:CHINA, what has gangsta contributed, a bunch of revert wars including over a joke banner? Maybe you know something I don't, but I cannot understand why gangsta gets treated with kid gloves every time. It doesn't do much for my faith in the project. (watchlisted you, or reply via e-mail) --Ideogram 13:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

A-Class Review for Battle of Red Cliffs

 * I really appreciate all the times you've answered my questions!
 * I believe I followed the correct procedures for an A-Class Review for Battle of Red Cliffs. If there are probs, please drop me a line on my Talk. Thanks! Ling.Nut 16:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Siege of Malakand
Hey again Kirill, I've had a go at the above article, and barring a couple of minor annoyances with the aftermath section, and a few spelling mistakes probably still in there somehere (I wrote it in one day, and kept typing Makaland instead of Malakand and 1987 instead of 1897) I think it has come along okay. However, I'm hitting a mental block when it comes to categories, as it isn't really part of any conflict (which is why I was hoping you would also scrutinize the infobox where iv put that it was part of the Afghan wars). Would you mind taking a look and suggesting some categories for me? I've chucked a load in there at the moment. Also any other comments you might have I would appreciate. Thanks! SGGH speak! 19:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank looks cool! Except you wikilinked Fakir Saidullah as one thing when a Fakir is a term for a religious leader, not a name. Howcome you put those refs in bracket incidentally? Just curious, thanks for helping me out :) SGGH speak! 23:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * scratch that middle part I've just worked out what you did :) good stuff thanks SGGH speak! 23:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC
Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC into my conduct in the Gary Weiss dispute. It's here. CLA 22:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm worried that the RfC may be deleted due to a misunderstanding of the rules. User:Anynobody has stated that RfC is not the appropriate forum and that, in spite of me openining the RfC on myself, it still needs admin approval to be placed in the approved section on Requests for comment/User conduct.  The 48 hour mark on the RfC will be reached in about 12 hours and I could really use some direction on what I'm supposed to do, if anything, to keep the RfC, which has produced some productive discussion, from being deleted. CLA 07:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Opnion requested
Hi, Kirill. I was very impressed with your suggested ruling here. I wonder would you mind taking a look at a concern that I raised at Guy's page here (third post from the bottom of that section, assuming that nobody adds to it, and the remaining posts) and give your opinion. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

help
Hi,I received some vandalism warnings few days ago and I dont know why. I think somebody is using my username to vandalise articles. Is this possible? If yes, how can I stop him? Should I change my username? Wikipedia is one of my hobbies and im trying to have as much good contributions as I can.Please help me fix this problem, cheers. Eurocopter Tigre 20:50, 15 March 2007 (EET)

help 2
Thanks for your help. Im a bit less stressed now. Hope nobody will block me if the vandals are using my username again, cheers.

PS: Military history is one of my hobbies and I really like your articles about the Battle of Ceresole and Italian War of 1521. Eurocopter Tigre 21:14, 15 March 2007 (EET)

request
Can you please delete the Dorin Danilă article. The real name of the chief of the Romanian Naval Forces is Dorin Dănilă(I also created an article with his real name). Cheers, Eurocopter Tigre 16:27, 17 March 2007

Infobox Military Conflict &amp; wandering/stacked edit links.
Hi, I left a comment on Template talk:Infobox Military Conflict that I think would go far to prettify many of the articles in MILHIST wikiproject... yes I know there are 5K pages that link to that infobox; that can be handled... thanks Ling.Nut 01:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.
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 07:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Michael Brown FAC
I notice that you added the Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident to the FAC watch page in MILHIST. I hadn't passed it through the MILHIST peer review and A-class review forums because I thought that it fell outside of the MILHIST area (more law or political in nature). Next time I'll ask before I assume that it isn't military-related and, of course, I appreciate the support from the MILHIST project. CLA 01:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess the fact that the MILHIST tag is on the article does make it automatically part of the MILHIST project. Thanks again for the support. CLA 01:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria arbitration
I would like to express my surprise concerning the probable outcome of the Transnistrian arbitration.

On one side you have an astroturfing network, proved media manipulation, and sockpuppet farms. On the other, you have guys that uncovered this large-scale manipulation and are now calm and reasonable (once the main manipulators are gone, that is). And what this ArbCom does is to inflict similar bans on both sides.

How is this ethical? Do you mean that fighting manipulation attempts is punishable? The only way of bringing down a manipulator being to accept the same punishment? And how about balancing punishment with evidence? Dpotop 12:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Old Friend
Well... not that old. Perhaps you remember the great times with Lotus Domino and eTegic. In any event I met someone who reminded me of you, so I googled you. You can reach me at my wikipedia username at gmail. Weinmatt 21:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
<font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy ">Eddie 14:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Remedy modifications
Please see these edits  and repudiate as needed. Thatcher131 00:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Question on proposed remedy
With regards to the #Probation and parole remedy you proposed in the Piotrus case, how do you intend notification of the subject probation to be given out? To phrase the question differently, how will the editors of these articles be informed of the decision, if this remedy passes? Tagging every article with a probation notice seems unrealistic, and I can't seem to find any other cases where such a wide-ranging probation was passed to compare with (although I'm sure there have been some.) Picaroon (Talk) 00:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed FA push
Battle of Okinawa is very close to FA quality already. I think getting this up to FA status would be a good milhist collaboration. Raul654 00:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget...
Please don't forget to add [] and [] to the "Proposed decision" area for arbitrators to vote on. This area []. Martinphi and Davkal are the main focus of this arbitration and the person who initiated it. I would hate to see their frequent violations of policy be overlooked because it was never nominated to be voted for. Also please add [] and []. Thanks. Wikidudeman  (talk) 05:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought I would remind you of this just in case. Wikidudeman  (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.
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 02:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

A little help
Hey Kirill, I just created a new wikiproject and I'm trying to use WP:MJJ as the shortcut. However, I messed it up and created a separate article with that title, "WP:MJJ." Do you know how to fix the redirect so that WP:MJJ goes to WikiProject Michael Jackson?UberCryxic 02:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ugh never mind it works fine now. Don't know if it's something I did or what, but I'm good.UberCryxic 02:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

New articles
Hey Kirill, long time, no talk to! I have written and posted four new articles which fall in the military history purview: Buffalo hump about the real life Comanche war chief who led the Great Raid of 1840 which was in revenge for the Council House Fight and included the Battle of Plum Creek. You will get a laugh out of this. My grandson had to do a project for American History on the Texas Republic (which we need a separate page for, I think) and found to his dismay that there were no wikipedia articles on many of the famous battles, and events in military history. I decided to rectify that, and am doing so. If you get a chance, please review them, and let me know what you think! I worked about six weeks getting ready, reading exhaustively! old windy bear 21:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

BLP Admin
As one of the arbitrators who has already voted on Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Proposed decision, and in particular in support of Summary deletion of BLPs, I wanted to ask if you were aware of BLP Admin (a rejected proposal), and the discussions on its talk page? Do you think that rejected proposal is relevant to the proposed principle? I've also asked FloNight, the other arbitrator who had voted as of the time of writing, but as she is away on wikibreak, I was wondering if you would be able to draw that rejected proposal to the attention of the other active arbitrators (I left I note on the talk page, but I don't know how often they read that). Thanks. Carcharoth 16:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bug you again, but I've also brought up the idea of courtesy blanking on the talk page. Please see the detailed proposal at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Proposed decision. Again, I'm not sure if you ar the other arbitrators read that talk page. If you don't have time, or feel you have said all you can, I be grateful if you could find the time to say that. Thanks. Carcharoth 23:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. It is reassuring to know that arbitrators do watch the talk pages. Just a few points of clarification re: BLP Admin. I'm very much against that proposal, as indeed was the community, which is why it was marked as rejected. My fear is that this sort of ArbCom precedent (and though many people think ArbCom shouldn't set policy, they do seem to be strongly guiding it), may lead (possibly inadvertently) to that sort of situation arising. I suspect that not all admins will want to get involved in BLP deletions, and some may be strongly discouraged if they show poor judgement, so what we will end up with is a de facto pool of self-appointed BLP Admins, which is fine as long as they are responsible and there are a few checks and balances in place. But quite how that situation would look when WP:BLP Admins has been marked as rejected, well, it would look a bit silly. I also think that blanking allows non-admins to be more involved in the process. Frankly, there are some long-term non-admin editors whose judgement I would trust more than some admins. On a side-note, I also wish Jeff's remedy had been less draconian. He was climbing the Riechstag a bit towards the end, but surely a rewording to make clear that he can still edit articles in non-controversial areas could still be implemented? I've run out of things to say on this now, but I'd like to thank you again for taking the time to respond. Carcharoth 01:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Question on acceptance vote
Hi Kirill. Back when the case was just Atabek-Hajji Piruz, you voted to "Accept as review of previous case. If the existing sanctions are insufficient to resolve the problem, then we shall have to consider further ones." I merged it with a new request that also had to do with (formerly ), and renamed the combined case as Armenia-Azerbaijan 2; this done per the precedent from the rejection of a case that had to do with TingMing while he was already involved in one. In addition to the fact that some of the parties dislike this new name, there has been an influx of new parties due to the merge. So, I have three questions. Do you think my merge was appropriate, what are your opinions on the naming, and does your vote to accept a review stand, or do you think a whole new case (under whatever name we eventually settle on) is more appropriate due to the additions? Picaroon (Talk) 19:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

RFAr question
Sorry to bother you with this, but there are several people at Badlydrawnjeff's RFAr that consider the remedy too harsh. In particular, BDJ's editing of articles has never been problematic. Would you consider limiting said remedy to, e.g., deletion discussions on BLP articles, rather than the articles themselves? The remedy as written boils down to banning one of our most prolific editors from a very substantial set of articles, and that seems hardly worthwhile. Yours,  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the impression, but this is not true. If there's some evidence of my blatantly ignoring policy, I'd love to see it someday, but I'd appreciate it if you took a second look at this statement, as I believe it to be patently false. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

RFAR:Bdj - additional remedy needed
Namely, this one, as discussed here. As main proposer of the harshest remedies, it would mean a lot if you also proposed this one, to give some sense of proportion and fairness. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi and Paranormal RfArb
Note: this is similar to the message I sent to Fred Bauder.

I'd like to request that attention be brought to Martinphi's editing conduct for the paranormal RfArb. He was one of the main reasons the request was made, but no proposed decision concerning his conduct has been written. As a convenience, I have compiled most of the complaints leveled against him at Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Workshop. Also needing attention is Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Workshop. In this case, you can see that Fred Bauder agreed that a strong remedy was needed. Unfortunately, nothing has been written on the Proposed Decisions page. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 21:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

NPA
In light of this edit: Please be aware of our policy on personal attacks. Violation of that policy can lead to a temporary block from editing. violet/riga (t) 23:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This was intended as patronising, which is not appropriate and I apologise for that. I am just disappointed that any arbitrator would use the word "disgrace" in reference to any user other than one that is intentionally trying to damage the project.  violet/riga (t) 21:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not one to stick to the letter of the policies and understand the dangers that defamatory material poses. My discussion is intended to explain my actions and to try and develop the BLP policy into a less ambiguous document. I've tried to further explain this in a (very lengthy) posting on the RFAr talk page. violet/riga (t) 22:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The recently deceased
I have proposed a new finding of fact on the Badlydrawnjeff arbitration workshop, with associated evidence, which is in essence a counter-argument to the proposed principle BLP applies only to living people. --Tony Sidaway 19:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Warsaw Uprising
Hi Kirill. This one has been up at FAR for a long time. I'm wondering if you might comment at its review about whether it is still up to standard. Cheers, Marskell 11:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOS
FYI, ship conversation on WP:MOS—it's always troubled me, but I defer to MilHist. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 05:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

ad
This WP:MILHIST ad created by User:Miranda. : &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    Denny Crane.  16:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.
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 07:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I voluntarily go adios
Sorry but after 2 years, I'm voluntarily adios. The fact that you got involved in a conspiracy to place me under arbitration is the last straw. Therefore go to another editor if you want various articles to be edited. I don't have any time to waste with Wikipedia anymore. I leave Wikipedia with this one warning: there will be even more fragile editors like myself and soon there will be opposition to Wikipedia's oppresive rules that y'all will have to think things. I don't care about those articles anymore and nobody cared about my edits anyway. Sorry, but I'm voluntarily finished here. &mdash; Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 12:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

WWI template
Hey Kirill, I wonder if you wouldn't mind commenting on the discussion taking place across my talk page and the talk page of User: Mrpouetpouet regarding the use of World War I. As you may recall, we initially deprecated the template in favor of a link to the portal, but this user has raised some questions about whether or not this was the best course of action, and so I am soliciting further opinions on the matter. Feel free to comment wherever you think most appropriate (or not at all, I suppose). Carom 00:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Grant65
Hi Kirill,

It is accepted practice, at least in some parts of this great sprawling encyclopedia, to advise interested parties on RfAs. Grant65 is currently at RfA, and I judge this would be of interest to WP:MILHIST. I would have posted an announcement, but I couldn't see an appropriate place on WP:MILHIST to do so. If you don't mind, I'll hand this over to you. If and only if you think it appropriate to do so, can you please communicate Grant's RfA to the MILHIST people.

Cheers, Hesperian 05:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

REQUEST for arbitration in the WORKFORALL case
Dear Arbitre,

An original request for arbitration was initiated by WorkForAll on June 8, 2007. The request was almost immediately vandalised and erased form this arbitration request page even before an arbiter could give his advise. The same request was again vandalised  today. Therefore we bring the request to your attention on Your talk page, and ask You to consider the case.

Involved parties

 * -User:Bully-Buster-007 and their solicitors User:The-Advocates-For-Free-Speech representing the think tank “Work and wealth for all” in Brussels (Belgium)


 * versus


 * -User:Requestion and his conspirers User:BozMo, User:Femco, User:A. B. all members of a group of self-declared spam fighters

WorkForAll comments being systematically blanked on their talk pages, other parties in the dispute were not yet informed of this request.

Statement by WorkForAll.net
Workforall.net is a respected think tank in Brussels, involving economists, entrepreneurs and philosophers. They publish scientific research as well as economic essays for a wider public. WorkForAll regularly contributed to Wikipedia since 2005 with articles and links under economic titles covered by their research. WWFA staff operate from different IP's in Belgium. During present discussion they created an account Bully Buster 007.

-

End April spam project member User:Requestion systematically blanked WWFA contributions and links without gaining consent. Early Mai WWFA complained and opened a thread "Please stop indiscriminate mass destruction" on Requestion's talk page. Early in the debate WWFA agreed that contributions by different staff members had not been coordinated, and that some links were disputable. They excused, and proposed six times to reach consensus where the contributions were appropriate and where not. Although unsolicited third parties requested reversal of blankings, Requestion dismissed a consensus, providing as sole justification for giving all WWFA contributions the qualification "spam" the mere number of their contributions.

-

During the debate WWFA did not attempt to add new contributions, nor committed deliberate “offences" other than disputing Requestion's blankings. Still WorkForAll got blocked and blacklisted during the debate obviously as punitive and not as preventive measures. Being wrongfully blocked, WorkForAll appointed The-Advocates-For-Free-Speech to defend their interests. They were also blocked, and since then Requestion and his conspirers made further debate impossible by systematically blanking and blocking WorkForAll comments.

-

WorkForAll requests reversal of the blocking and blacklisting because blocking and blacklisting were based on disputable accusations of spam and because the modus operandi of Requestion and the spam project's are illegitimate:


 * Requestion fails to provide justification for his massive blankings. According to a universal judicial principle of supremacy of conflicting rules the spam squad should not be interpreting a general and suggestive WP:EL rule "You should AVOID linking to a website that you own" as an absolute prohibition when a much more concrete WP:EL instruction "What to link:" is most explicit, affirmative and absolute in inviting to link the source in case the source is relevant and reliable, but cannot be summarized in an article.
 * their editing procedure constitutes qualified vandalism as they systematically blank established and amended content without gaining consent.


 * Their systematic blankings on talk pages disturb debates and constitute qualified vandalism


 * Some spam project members being self declared communists selectively censor content contrary to their ideology and disturb neutrality.
 * Their qualified intimidation is incompatible with 5 Pilars and cause grief to many bona fide contributors. Some of their methods constitute qualified criminal behavior as to common law:


 * Spreading viruses through the Sandbox
 * Deliberate misconduct to inflict maximal damage to the reputation of other users: After repeated formal warnings they continue to spread (disputable) accusations over Wikipedia, with the deliberate intent to fool search engines, spreading flase accusations over the internet and to ruin their victim's  reputation.


 * Disclosure of WP user's name and address with the sole purpose of intimidating opponents and to have their victim’s name associated worldwide with spamming or wrongful activities constitutes a qualified assault on WP user's privacy


 * See more evidence in this case here

Archive refs?
Kirill, I've got a question

Recently, i've been putting a ton of work into the Battle of Verrieres Ridge article, and it's coming along quite nicely. However, I've looked and looked for a ref for one casualty figure (for the Calgary Highlanders), and I haven't been able to find it. Fortunately, the Calgary Highlanders archives are a fifteen minute drive from where I live, so I have a question: Are we wikipedians allowed to use Archive information as refs for articles?

Thanks, Cam 22:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

User owns several sock-accounts, and has much connections to several sockpuppets. this might be interesting? He is also did some rather useless edits, and marked several articles for blocked users for deletion, without even watching sources. He also triedv to change his own RfA, months ago. here, connections with the vandal Murlock can bed found. I think, you'd better ban the user indefintelt now; he has got away with it to often. block him indefinetly, and protect his talk-page, so that he cannot svae his ass this time. Just the way you blocked Haggawaga - Oegawagga aswell. Randalph P. Williams 12:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox image
We have seemingly come across another bump in the road with the Iraq War Infobox. This time, its the image rather than the "partof" field. Timeshifter is arguing that its a "systemic bias" to have the infobox image which shows only one side of the war. I have argued that this is a misinterpretation of what a systemic bias would be. A systemic bias in images would be a situation where we have images of both sides, yet only use photos of one side, consciously leaving out the other. Having individual photos which show just one side is not a bias - but having every image in an article be of one side when others are available would be. To avoid systemic bias, you would include a variety of images within the article itself.

Therefore, I have suggested we merely go for a good quality image for the infobox, regardless of the side it depicts, because the rest of the article will hold other aspects. He, as I stated above, says that the infobox image itself must be "balanced" and show both sides. Your input was very useful in ending the last longstanding issue, so if you could help in this situation it would be grand. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 23:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

userbox contact
Hi Kirill is it possible to create a shortcut for the contact userbox? And User:Beit Or needs some help to implement it in line with his other boxes. I think you are better in coding than me. Wandalstouring 18:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * exactly. Wandalstouring 18:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Contact userbox
Many thanks for your help, it looks perfect. Beit Or 19:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Featured portal:
The Dinosaur Portal is now featured! Thank you ever so much for all the work you put in to creating it; it's appreciated a lot. Don't be a stranger. Cheers, Spawn Man 02:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 2nd, 2007.
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 07:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone evaluated my Comanche articles, they are more than starter articles
Hi Kirill,

Has anyone evaluated the series of articles I posted on the Comanche wars in the Republic/State of Texas? I think they are all considerably more evolved than a starter article. (around a B level) Frankly, it is discouraging to put the amount of work into them I had, with extensive sourcing and citing, et al, and only get a starter grade. I just wondered if you had looked at them. Thanks! old windy bear 17:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Royal Canadian Army Cadets
Thanks for evaluating the article on the Royal Canadian Army Cadets. I'm gonna try to make it a B-class article, and now I know where to improve on. --Patar knight 21:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hkelkar 2
Hi Kirill! Have the arbitrators examined the (onwiki) behaviour of all involved parties and was it ignored? I am unable to make out whether anybody apart from Rama Arrow's behaviour has been looked at carefully. As you are probably aware, there were many uncivil comments and personal attacks made by other people. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Discuss  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 00:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, Mackensen has addressed this concern. If you have the time, Please see the talk page. User:JFD has requested the arbitrators to look at one of particular remedies. Thank you <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Discuss  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 06:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Question about the contest.
About the WikiProject Military history/Contest: I read about it when it started and then didn't pay too much attention, so I hadn't been logging any of my new articles. I noticed that I created 10 articles in May. Is it too late to add them to the log for totals? (I know they wouldn't count retroactively for that month.) &mdash; User: (talk) 03:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a note
Kirill Lokshin and Wandalstouring Greetings! One of our members in the military history project was kind enough to nominate me for adminship. I just wanted you both to know if I am elected that I will NOT cut back on my committments to the project. I am in the process of polishing up the Republic of Texas/State of Texas military history, (most articles concern the struggle against the Comanche) and have begun to compile the full list of articles on the Mongol Era towards getting some input from you both on which ones need complete rewriting and which ones can be salvaged with upgrades. I see a mountain of work on this era, and just wanted you to know that I plan, if I am indeed elected to admin, to add 90 minutes to 2 hours a day to do admin tasks, and under no circumstances (unless I fall over!) will I shortchange the military history project. I believe whole heartedly in this project, and just wanted to let you know, if you saw my name on the admin-nominated list, that I was still committed to this project, and would not shortchange it. By the way, as a note that people do notice, (even if they are relatives!), my grandson, who got me started on the Texas/Comanche series, wrote me an email yesterday saying "Grandpa! You finally have a good article on the Great Raid on wikipedia!" That sort of makes the work worthwhile! old windy bear 20:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

re:Abu
Kirill, I just wanted to point to an interaction on WP:MILHIST that typifies the response of most people when their images are questioned. . All I did was point out that the images in question are not public domain as tagged, and that they are almost certainly unusable on wikipedia - I haven't even tagged them as or tried to get them deleted. Read the whole conversation. If I did this on a larger scale like Abu - it's easy to see how I'd pick up a crowd of users mad enough to start an RfC. We need more users aggressively dealing with image copyright problems (like Abu) - not less. Megapixie 22:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Hemlock Martinus is abusing his power as an administrator.
Hello, My name is Ravi. I am a new Wikipedian. My nickname is ‘Sam’. I made few changes in articles like Purdue University and Indiana as an anonymous user. My e-mail address is Ravi-141@hotmail.com. User:Hemlock Martinus is abusing his power as an administrator. On 9 June 2007, My friend User:Devraj5000 was introducing me to the policies of the Wikipedia. Devraj5000 accidentally violated 3RR. User:Hemlock Martinus, who is an administrator blocked Devraj5000 for 24 hours. Then, Devraj5000 asked me to create an account. I created an account User:R-1441 and I made some comments on the behalf of Devraj5000. Then, Devraj5000 left the computer. After that, User:Hemlock Martinus accused Devraj5000 of sockpuppetry and blocked him for a week. He also blocked IP address: 202.52.234.194 and User:R-1441. Sir, User:R-1441 is my account. I created this new account because User:Hemlock Martinus blocked my account without informing me. It is totally wrong for an administrator to block so many people from editing. User:Hemlock Martinus is an arrogant human being and he is abusing his power as an administrator. He should be blocked from the Wikipedia. Thank you. Ravi. RaviJames 07:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This has been put on many editors's pages. User talk:Charles Matthews and User talk:Jimbo Wales have a couple of responses. Flyguy649 talk contribs 08:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007.
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 07:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Soviet invasion of Poland (1939)
Soviet invasion of Poland (1939), an article reviewed by you for the A-class of WP:MILHIST, is now a Featured Article Candidate. You may want to see how it has changed since then, suggest further improvements, address current comments and vote.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Islamic/Muslim military history task force
Hi, there are several wikipedians to start the task force. It includes Muslim conquests as well as civil wars. Please describe the procedure for me.-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 13:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

archiving a talk page
I just wanted to seek administrator help in archiving Kargil War's talk page. btw, can you see that the military project also includes several military related Good Articles on the project page that currently has only FA and A content lists? I have also worked to bring 1 article (Kargil War) to FA status and 2 others (Operation Gibraltar & Atlantique Incident) to GA and want to make it known that I'm willing to help anyone interested in Wars of the subcontinent. where should i do it? --Idleguy 07:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Task Force
Psdubow 21:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's nice. Have you seen our new article about Basque witch trials? :) --Ghirla-трёп- 22:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Anglo-French war 1557
I would be grateful if you could help me identify the Wikipedia article about the English-French war of 1557-59 (the one mentioned in the article about Thomas Charnock). --Ghirla-трёп- 22:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I think the passage refers to. Unfortunately, there is next to nothing about English participation in the events. Thanks, anyway. --Ghirla-трёп- 22:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

MILHIST Assess Drive
Is it on yet?- Flubeca Talk 02:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Can't wait. Also, Great idea.- Flubeca Talk 02:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Miskin arbitration case
I've put a proposed finding of fact on the workshop page which may be useful in closing this case. Sam Blacketer 14:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

DC Meetup notice
Greetings. There is going to be a Washington DC Wikipedia meetup on next Saturday, July 21st at 5pm in DC. Since you are listed in Category:Wikipedians_in_Maryland, I thought I'd invite you to come. I'm sorry about the short notice for the meeting. Hopefully we'll do somewhat better in that regard next time. If you can't come but want to make sure that you are informed of future meetings be sure to list yourself under "but let me know about future events", and if you don't want to get any future direct notices \(like this one\), you can list yourself under "I'm not interested in attending any others either" on the DC meetup page.--Gmaxwell 00:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Help
The template on USS Iowa turret explosion has gone all fun house mirror, and is taking up way too much room in the article. Any idea how to fix it? TomStar81 (Talk) 04:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologizes, it would appear that Cla68 has fixed it. Thanks just the same :) TomStar81 (Talk) 06:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for your support in my unsuccessful RfA. I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me; however, this time around things just didn't work out. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Lokshin, I am battleship fan who has been keeping track of the Military History User TomStar81. His recent descion to withdraw his rfa was admiral, however the speech that he gave on the talk page was full of spelling and grammar mistakes. Out of respect for his descion I tried to correct the spelling and grammar mistakes, but my corrections to the speech were reverted by a user on the grounds that the rfa was already closed. I am sure that Tom would appreciate the spelling corrections made to the rfa (as J clear points out, he does award his own spelling star for people who correct his spelling and grammar), but I appearently lack the clout to see this through. Can you help?

Sockpuppetry
Kirill,

I promise you it was not done lightly, and was done with a certain amount of dread that it was going to blow up in my face. I wish I had time to devote the day to this, but I don't. I will file an RFCU as soon as I can, probably in a couple of hours. Right now I'm trying to juggle work with keeping an eye on talk pages and threads, it's not working I need to go. --barneca (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI, since you expressed concern, it is here. --barneca (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirill, I think I snapped at you over this, and I'm sorry. I seem to be a sockpuppet magnet, and this frustrates me because I don't go out looking to help other people with sock problems, I get my own sock problems. I'm sorry if I was abrupt towards you. --Deskana (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Random request
Hey Kirill, I know this is a little out of your usual sphere of interest, but I was wondering if you might be willing to weigh an opinion on a controversy currently brewing at the Harry Potter 7 page. I have no interest in the topic itself, but I've been watching it because I think it is undergoing issues which are pertinent to encyclopedia function and policy - namely, the conflict between publishing interest in secrecy and fans trying to "protect" this vs. the encyclopedia's NPOV and V policies.

What has happened is that the book seems to have leaked. Several reliable news sources have issued articles regarding both the leak and subpeonas being handed out regarding the case. When I added this to the article (fully NPOV and referenced, at least AFAIK), it was reverted several times by overzealous fans. Whether they are doing this to subvert attention away from the leak or not, they are arguing that since the leak isn't "confirmed as real beyond a reasonable doubt". In essence, that the NPOV and V policies regarding the discussion of the matter should be bent to prevent acknowledgment of a leak. Despite the fact that the other books' pages discuss leaks in depth.

My main concern is that if this is not dealt with firmly and unambiguously, it will be seen as de facto acknowledgment that this is okay and later used as precedent for further instances. The complicating matter is that this a book, so it is easier to claim away any leaks, real or false, as unworthy of discussion until release day, as they cannot be confirmed as real (and some have mooted concern that the publisher will deny all leaks regardless). With films, for example, it's pretty difficult to create a fake leaked film with the same actors and quality of filmmaking, so this issue generally hasn't been broached in the past wrt books.

I don't know if I'm interesting you or boring you half to death, but the fact is that I'm outgunned by a ton of fans and would appreciate your opinion on the matter on the talk page one way or another, as I (and many others) respect it. Many thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 18:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Iraq Operations
There are currently 3 Different lists of Iraq Operations; Iraqi coalition counter-insurgency operations(which is also somewhat POV), a chonological list and an alphabetical list. I have added a lot of operations to the alphabetical listing and have been updating it faithfully but I haven't updated the counter insurgency or the Chonological listing much. Before I do I recommend that we consider other methods. I figured out how to add a column sort function and added it to the Alphabetical listing. I recommend the other 2 articles be merged into the alphabetical listing and then we can rename the alphabetical listing to something more appropriate like Iraq Military Operations since 2003 perhaps. I added a blurb on the discussion page and recommended the merge for the chronological list and the counter insurgency operations page. You seem to do a lot with the Iraq war articles what do you think? --Kumioko 15:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Pike and Shot
Thanks, Kirill, for adding the generic pike and shot end of the article. It was definitely bad to have placeholders for the seventeenth century and the end-period, but it was much worse to have the article just drop dead at 1600AD. Larry Dunn 19:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

early muslim military history
Hi Kirill, are you going to create this task force or should I do it? Wandalstouring 11:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. Wandalstouring 14:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion 'Periods and conflicts' is the better header for ths task force. Wandalstouring 08:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem not very familiar with Muslim concepts. Muslims see themselves as a community and thus Muslim military history is the history of the community, while early (until 1000 AH) makes a reference to the time. You can compare it to Middle Ages, a term for the European history from 500 AD till 1500 AD. Wandalstouring 15:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Islam really isn't the topic you are most knowlegable. Wandalstouring 16:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Italian War of 1494-1498
Hello Kirill,

In the article Italian War of 1494-1498 you state that the war lasted from 1494 till 1495, this does not correspond with the title, however. Where is the 1498 based on? The articles describes no actions after 1495. You can answer here by the way. Thanks! BoH 21:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The last major action—the Battle of Fornovo—took place in 1495, but the final treaty ending the war was not signed until 1498, and minor skirmishing continued at least into 1497 (see e.g. here). Kirill 21:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok thanks. I don't have access to Britannica, do you know if they give the name of the treaty? BoH 22:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not as far as I can tell; I'll see if I can find it in some of my other books. Kirill 03:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I did find something, although I'm not sure whether this is the concluding treaty, but on August 5, 1498, the Treaty of Marcoussis was signed between Spain and France. (See here). Thanks anyway! BoH 05:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.
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 19:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Military History tagging and assessment
Greetings, Kirill Lokshin. It appears that you are the creator of a page called WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Drive/147. Can you tell me why the page has a category of Category:Songs by Bob Weir? Perhaps the page and its category were created by a bot, I'm not sure. If you reply here I will check back and see your response. Thanks. — Mudwater 00:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Fixed now; thanks for catching that! The way the category was linked from Category:Grateful Dead songs confused the script I used to generate these lists, unfortunately. Kirill 03:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. — Mudwater  03:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

template getting popular
shows the popularity of external images. Admittedly, its use is not limited to military history. Wandalstouring 11:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Korean War review
Hi, thank you for the peer review for Korean War. I finished most of the suggestions you offered at WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Korean War. I was wondering if you could look through the article and see if anything is wrong, thanks.

I hope you don't mind me crossing out your suggestions as I did them. Mr. Killigan 10:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Twelfth Army (Soviet Union)
There's a few Russian words in this article, and I'm not sure what translation would be. Could you cast an eye over it? Leithp 18:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The battles and operations category
Krill, I noticed that the category for Battles and operations of the 2003 Iraq war was changed to Battles of the Iraq war. I do not agree with renaming this category. There are many operations that are not battles. Some are humanitarian missions to provide food, medicine or services to the Iraqi people, some are classifications (such as the ones for Canadian, British or australian participation) and some are simple searches or security operations were no or limited fighting occured. I notice that someone ran a bot that is changing the category for the new name and I recommend we stop it before the true battles are lost in an unrecognizable blur.--Kumioko 00:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * S is running a bot right now that is chaning them--Kumioko 00:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will start to work on that.  I am also moving the Iraq War template that someone changed to the bottom. It just don't look right--Kumioko 00:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.
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 06:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

wikistress hotline
I want to create within our project a page as hotline for wikistress where you find some useful advice and some people who councel you. I have the feeling that most departures are rather emotional decision because the editors feels confronted and left alone. Wandalstouring 08:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Merkey proposals
In remedy #3, to adopt to this case, you might want to change "other Wikimedia projects" to "other online sites." Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind, taken care of. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Campaignbox names
Hi Kirill. Please let me have your ideas on how to incorporate the Peninsular War campaignboxes I've developed here into the relevant pages (namely WikiProject Military history/Campaignboxes). They seem to defy easy implementation: Although my organization of the battles works fairly well and closely follows e.g. Gates, it must be borne in mind that the various campaign/theatre names are my own, purely arbitrary, (and probably temporary) inventions and so probably shouldn't appear in the template page names (which is at odds with some of the recent trends I've observed). In the absence of historically-defined "campaigns" or "theatres" of the sort that govern many other conflicts and are easily translatable to MILHIST, I'm at an impasse. What do you think? Albrecht 15:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have done as you suggested. Thanks. Albrecht 16:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Question
As a standing member of the Arbitration committe I assume you can make better sense of this than I, so I have a question for you: my name appears on the page User:Proabivouac/Oldwindybear&Stillstudying, which outlines the alleged sockpuppets of OWB. The page merely notes that I was the one who refiled OWB's rfa after Stillstudying botched it. My name on what appears to be an official inquire has me shaken up really badly, so i would like to knowif I am in any trouble for refiling OWB's nom for adminship. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh thank God. I have to say I was worried I was in trouble. Thanks for the reply. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Query
If you wouldn't mind giving a second opinion on something... I've been working on cleaning up John Ruthven, 3rd Earl of Gowrie (not sure how I came across it), and I'm wondering if some of the material (specifically that related to the Gowrie conspiracy) might not be better off in an article all of its own. Although it's probably the most important part of his biography, there's more to the conspiracy story than Ruthven's biography (if that makes any sense). A second opinion would be appreciated before I go ahead with a split. Carom 05:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, that seems sensible enough. Also, on another topic completely, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking care of end-of-the-month details regarding the contest department (this month only)? I'm moving cross country next week, and won't have reliable internet access until at least the weekend, and I'm not sure when I'll be able to reliably attend to anything that requires more than a few minutes at a time. No worries if you're too busy - it's not critical, and it can wait until I'm back to full speed. Carom 21:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Coordinator elections
I'd like to stand but I'm away on holiday from 1 August to 2 September so I won't be able to enter myself. Can you help? -- R OGER  TALK 15:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hopefully yes:) My deadline is midnight on Tuesday. I'm off first thing Wednesday, you see. -- R OGER  TALK 15:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much indeed for opening the elections early for me. Very very much appreciated. this'll be my last message for a bit: I'm off on holiday now. Thanks again! -- R OGER  TALK 05:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

wikistress hotline
I don't want to push you, but what are you considering to do about the intended wikistress hotline? Wandalstouring 13:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I like your approach. Wandalstouring 19:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Energy portal review
Hi Krill. Knowing that you have an interest in a couple of unconnected featured portals, I wondered if you might like to comment on the one I've been working on - energy portal - which is now under consideration for featured status. Compared to other candidates it has had relatively few people contributing to the debate, despite being up for discussion for 2 months. If you have time perhaps you would like to take a look? The candidate page can be found here. Gralo 19:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Contribution
Hello. I am currently trying to contribute to a battle in respect to giving a reason why a Viking force had to withdraw from a native attack, which I think was instrumental to the article itself and since the person in question received her place in history for that act. Its my understanding that Wikipedia is meant for contributions, but the people at that region see fit to leave the situation vague. They have told me that I cannot simply copy and past from references and, in short order, I re-wrote the small addition in my own words. I don't see what the problem here is, however, they simply revert my edits and give me vague conclusion to why they have done so. The site is intended to be used for non-commercial reproduction so we have no problems in copyright infringement. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. InternetHero 22:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * He's talking about Freydís Eiríksdóttir where I have, it is true, reverted all edits he has made. Haukur 23:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Peer Reviews
Thank you for the feedback on the first two, I've put a another one up that I'd also appreciate some feedback on. If you could, add John Watts de Peyster to your watch list because I am planning on making some major additions (possibly doubling or tripling it in size) and I will assuredly need more feedback on it.

Also, point of information--another obscure Civil War article I've written is Roeliff Brinkerhoff. Nearly the entire thing comes from one source, a six page long obituary. I think the article is fairly informative, and there's not much more I can find to put in. How would I go about citing this article to get it to B-class? Every single sentence would end up having the same citation. Thanks a lot! MrPrada 09:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Horseshoe Bend
That must be the convention with battles that have their name used more than once? The year in the parenthetical? Thanks for fixing that too. These are the first set of articles regarding military conflict I have worked on, I must have missed that when I read over the project page. : ) IvoShandor 14:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of the articles I did not create (the ones without citations) but will add cites to later, that is kind of daunting task wise because it is tedious and requires some thought, bleh. ;) And Battle of Waddams Grove is about to go from red to blue....watch the magic. IvoShandor 17:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You are the Military history project director, no? I would encourage you to drop by the Black Hawk War page and its related articles. Two of the battles have been promoted to GA so far and another, Battle of Wisconsin Heights has been nominated for GA. My goals are many but I hope to bring the main article, Black Hawk War, up to Featured article (especially now that I have some experience with FAC following the promotion of Rock Springs massacre). In addition it is my goal to bring all articles on Campaignbox Black Hawk War up to GA and then nominate the whole lot as a Featured topic. I have been collaborating with another user, the page is at User:IvoShandor/Black Hawk War if you would be interested in helping out or just checking it out.


 * I have a book on order called Black Hawk War: The Battle for the Heart of America by Kerry Trask (ISBN 0805077588), which I hope will help me clear up some of the discrepencies between sources. Thanks. IvoShandor 17:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.
Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. 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 00:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Jean de Carrouges
Hi, thanks for your contribution to this article at peer review, I have implemented most of the comments you made. There is however one point I do not understand. You mentioned: "The image sizes should be standardized" - I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that, do you mean that all image sizes should be the same? I'm not sure that works because not all the images are the same size to start with and not all the images have the same importance to the article. Is there a page explaining this that you could link me to? many thanks, --Jackyd101 22:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the reply, I have sized most images to 250px, except those depicting the arms and armour used, which I have kept smaller due to their relative unimportance to the article. I don't however have any idea how to resize the text boxes:- is it necessary for me to do so? Regards--Jackyd101 01:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thankyou very much for your help, all the best.--Jackyd101 01:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Publication/Selected readings
Hey, I've just seen this concept above. I think that's a fascinating idea, particularly as some months in the future I will be putting forward my own fiction novel for publication, and as a history student I am planning to write historial works as well during my career. I was wandering what kind of work you would be willing to let me help you with? Any areas you need help with? One of my thoughts was that, along with your sections on classical warfare, napoleonic, WWI etc. You might want one on "revolutionary warfare" to hold articles on revolutionary wars, I notice there are a couple there already. I thought it would broaden things away from straight chronological arrangement. But hey, it's your idea, and I am willing to help in any way you see fit. I think it's excellent. SGGH speak! 23:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok dokes, when it gets closer to fruitition please keep me in mind! Unless there is something I can do now in this development of process phase? SGGH speak! 01:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Highest Awards for gallantry
Do you think that the countries should be wikilinked in the template. There is a discussion on the talk page. I am actually beginning to err on the side of not wikilinking but would like a third opinion. Thanks Woodym555 20:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Input please
I'd appreciate your input here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting Rlevse 23:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Coalition military operations of the Iraq War
Hello again Kirill, If you get a moment could you stop by this page and take a look. I believe it has come a long way from what it was. We eliminated the INsurgency operations page and the alphabetical listing and consolidated them into this one. I also added some info to help explain the war. I know that some is duplicative and I tried to keep it to a minimum but I felt it was necessary to get the point across to the readers. Any input you can give is appreciated.--Kumioko 02:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 6th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Coordinator
As much as I appreciate your suggestion that I run for coordinator, I'm afraid I must decline. I'm not sure I would be able to perform the job with an appropriate level of skill, and I don't want to damage the Project in any way shape or form. --MKnight9989 12:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to run for the position again? --Thus Spake Anittas 12:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I just noticed it. I will ask you a few questions, when I get back home from work. --Thus Spake Anittas 13:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Elections, other things
Thanks for the reminder about the coordinator elections... ;) On another note, I wonder if you wouldn't mind taking a look at something in my sandbox. I've been futzing with one of the WWI divisions lists (in the hopes of bringing it up to featured status), and I wonder if the direction I'm going is a good one. I realize that you may not have a lot of experience with lists (featured or otherwise), but I trust your judgement, and would appreciate any thoughts you have on the matter. Carom 22:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.
Thank you for the suggestion that I should run for a position. I have accepted. Dreamy \*/!$! 02:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Military of the DRC
Hi Kirill, greetings. Do you think Military of the DRC is ready for A-class review? I've incorporated just about all the suggestions offered by people, including a thought by Nick D: emphasise how little solid ref'd info there is, but I'd appreciate any further comments before I stick it above the parapet. Cheers Buckshot06 11:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting Discussion
You might be interested in this discussion and in particular the comments made in the diff Gnangarra 08:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Election message
Sorry about that Kirill, I was on vacation during a week with not even a 56K line to show... <_< I thought everything was OK since I would be more or less back by the newsletter delivery time... :) However I missed that coordinator stuff..:( Everything should be back to normal for the August delivery. -- Grafikm  <sup style="color:red;">(AutoGRAF)  13:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Military navigation templates in th Hundred Years War
Hi Kirill. I noticed you have been working on the various templates for military navigation.

I recently saw a problem with Campaign boxes in the Hundred years war page. The Campaign box was being floated to left, but still pushed below a large Info box. I resolved the problem by placing both boxes within an html div element, which rendered them as being stacked up nicely on the right. At least, it did in my Firefox 2.0.0.6 browser.

However, on review I noticed that the previous version was suddenly rendering stacked up on the right as well; so I suspect some sort of simultaneous change to the templates themselves. Could you be so kind as to have a quick look at what I did with the Hundred years war in this edit? If the div element is trying to resolve a problem that no longer exists, I should remove it as a potential source of conflicts in the future. But the help of someone a bit more experienced would be good. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  01:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you're into barnstars or not . ..
. . . but here's one anyway. : )

Thank you!
Thanks for the barnstar. :) If you'd like to help, the list I am working off of is here. I've been creating new cats if it goes beyond 6 or 7 templates about a particular war or conflict. This is the main cat I created. Thanks again for the award. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 02:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WOW! Thank you! :) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 02:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Council
Hi Kirill,

I want to become active on the WikiProject coordination. I have started two WikiProjects which failed due to a lack of participance. I want to make these two WikiProjects a success by cooperating with users who are active on WikiProjects and help establishing a recruitment program. I saw that you are the most prominent member of this council, since you started it yourself.--Daanschr 07:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Content dispute
Hi, Very quietly and sincerely, I tell you that if you cannot deal content dispute (because you are not mandated), you cannot either put a message in front of a talk page stating anything. Whether you feel mandated to take constructive iniatives, whether not. I permit myself to add I found your message particularlu uncivil. I think that if you don't feel like helping to solve this difficult matter, you should simply refuse to deal with this... I would ask you to read this message with empathy, leaving your seat of arbitrator and taking the one of somebody who tries hardly to contribute on the Israeli-palestinian conflict in what is a impossible mess to deal with ! Alithien 16:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Citing sources
Just wanted to draw your attention to this: Citing Wikipedia articles. Thanks! Dreadstar †  18:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 13th, 2007.
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 20:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Take a look
You might be interested in this. Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scouting/Merging%2C_moving_and_deleting_articles.Rlevse 12:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you missed the point. What I object to is not the existence of these pages, but the fact that they have an official-looking tag falsely proclaiming them to be guidelines in the MOS. Fix the tag and there's no problem.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So you file an MfD on a page to get rid of a tag? Interesting action by an admin.Rlevse 10:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Something nice to read
I was recently in attendance at the NYC meetup. I was listening to administrators bemoaning projects as not being that useful, and then when I mentioned WPMilHist and Kirill, the tone changed completely. The phrase "FA machine" was used. Good on ya and project members for efforts to keep this whole juggernaut moving. BusterD 23:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we in a real army?
far too efficient.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 06:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Private Military Company
I've been a wikipedian for almost two years now and have been watching the Military history project with interest for a few weeks. I am almost exclusively interest in modern warfare, more specifically the development of private military contractors (which some see as analogous to mercenary-type work).

I guess I would like to start on the Private Military Company article itself. User CSIC has talked about a rewrite, but there's been no change since May.

I can't see any category or task force to which this would be an appropriate addition. I would like to head one if possible but would need to get up to speed with the MILHIST project then. What's your take?

Good luck with the election --Jabbi 12:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Named Military Operations
I have a question regarding adding military operations to Wikipedia. I was previously under the impression (perhaps mistakenly so) that all named Military operations should be added but THeFEARGOD keeps putting notibility tags on the pages. I was wondering if you could add some clarification to what qualifies an operation to be added. Based on the notibility tag, many of the operations already on wikipedia (and other articles for that matter) don't meet the qualifications. Thanks in advance.--Kumioko 16:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comment that helps clarify things a little. The Coalition military operations of the Iraq War has a reasonably accurate listing of the operations so far (at least the ones that I could find) and its broken down by year and then by date.  We merged the Alphabetical listing and the Counter Insurgency operations articles into this one also.  I will review the rules for notability and the like and see if I can get enough info to fill in some more.  I have a lot of the data in a database on my computer so I can generate the articles rather quickly once I clarify.  --Kumioko 18:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Off the air
In light of the fact that I will be staring at it for school work for the next 4 monthes I have decided not to take my laptop with me on vacation; I thought I would let you know on the off chance that someone leaves a question or comment for my on the coordinator election page. I expect to roll back into town late on the 23 of August, which by wikipedia time (UTC) should be early on the the 24th; if anyone posts a question or comment for me could you inform them of when I will back? I would apreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I will :) TomStar81 (Talk) 16:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)