User talk:Kirill Lokshin/Archive 9

Growing number of stub articles
Hi Kirill, would you be able to tell me what the state of the discussion, if any, on following de:wiki and changing the rules on deleting the massive number of unreferenced and/or stub articles is, and where I might contribute? Thanks Buckshot06(prof) 04:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Wording of some proposals
Hi Kirill. I was wondering if I could ask you directly about the wording used in some ArbCom workshop proposals (one that you wrote) and the BLP warning template (not sure who wrote that)? My concern is that the language is becoming very formal to the point of being impenetrable and forbidding, with overtones of authoritarianism. Here are some examples: I realise that latter statement was only meant as a general preamble, but I don't think Kim (on the workshop page of the footnotes case) is alone in finding that wording scary. It comes over as very aloof, imposing solutions from on high. "special" and "novel" can be bland words, but in some contexts they can be very scary words, doublespeak for an authoritarian approach that books no denial. The statements are also incredibly legalistic while being hamstrung with caveats: "apparent", "certain [...] areas". It mixes conciliatory language ("work towards") with brutal, forcing statements ("forces"). But really, it is the "forces" wording that has in the past (can't remember where I posted this now - was that wording from a previous arbitration case?) and still does raise serious concerns for me. No arbitration committee should be this authoritarian while still being ambivalent. The implication of such language is that the writer of such statements (if they speak for the Arbitration Committee) are abdicating responsibility and adopting a "victim" mentality. The attitude that comes across is 'we were forced to do this, don't blame us, blame them'. Anyway, is there a way to put things in plainer English without the extreme formality of Arbitration-speak? Carcharoth (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Pursuant to Arbcom finding this is the only warning you will receive on this matter before special enforcement sanctions will be placed."
 * "The apparent failure of Wikipedia's traditional dispute resolution system—including the Committee's traditional past approaches—to resolve the conflicts plaguing certain problematic areas within Wikipedia forces the Committee to adopt novel approaches and methods in order to work towards the resolution of these conflicts."


 * MBisanz wrote the template at the MfD, if thats what you're referring to. AvruchT * ER 23:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I designed the templates in question; BLP Spec Sanction and BLP Spec Warn without talking to the Arbcom. I was being BOLD in trying to get something on the ground when they closed the case so we wouldnt be making policy off the first bad act (and therefore doing it in a biased manner).  Everyone knows I make crappy templates, look at User:MBisanz/MESSAGES for a scary gallery.  I've toned down these templates a bit, but I still am trying to get the message across that "THIS IS SERIOUS, STOP DOING THIS" as opposed to a leaving BLP policy open for debate or letting other admins overturn sanctions done under these rules.   MBisanz  talk 01:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply, Kirill. Carcharoth (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Meaning of "special"
Following up the above and the footnote BLP remedy, can I ask what "special" was meant to mean? See here. We already have confusion where some people say nothing has changed, and others say this is a special thing, with "special enforcement guidelines" to follow. ie. Is this "special enforcement" as in 'over-and-above normal enforcement', or is it "special enforcement" as in 'all enforcement of this important policy is special'? Could the BLP remedy have been titled "Enforcement on biographies of living persons". What was the "special" bit supposed to mean? I think clarification on that is urgently needed. Carcharoth (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, this might answer my question. Missed that. Carcharoth (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Brief question

 * |Kirill Lokshin (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "207.112.124.123 (Talk)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Block evasion)

Is there some background for this? I don't see evidence that this was block evasion, was a checkuser performed? - brenneman  03:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. - brenneman  04:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Upon further reflection, could you please email me what it was that indicated that this was the banned user? Since check-user isn't for fishing, if I know what was the tip-off in 207's edits I will be aware next time and use RFCU instead of  .  Thank you again,  brenneman  00:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:207.112.61.127
This IP was apparently collaterally caught in the /17 you blocked; I'm not an expert by any means on rangeblocks, so I don't know what the best way to go about this is, except mentioning it to you. --Golbez (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Question
I've seen a number of different functionary positions on Wikipedia, such as administrators and bureaucrats. The problem is, I don't really understand how they all fit together. I realize that there probably ins't a hierarchy of authority per se, but I'm having trouble grasping how everything works in Wikipedia administratively. Can you help clear things up a bit for me?  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣  18:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That helped. Thank you.  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣  11:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Trajan tag
I was trying to fix the taskforce tag on this page, which has it in place, but am unable to; can you take a look? Buckshot06(prof) 00:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought I tried both upper and lower case. Would it be possible to make them non-case sensitive? That's been a continuing bother for me for a long while. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 01:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kirill. If it's not possible as you expect, can some warnings be added in the template instructions and possible at T&A 08: 'these are case sensitive'.Buckshot06(prof) 02:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves
Thank you, sir! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I apply for a hunting license?
Hi Kirill, Can I ask your advice on an admin-type issue? Over the last year or so an IP editor has been persistantly posting false information into military history articles which involve the Phillipines. This started as grossly inflated casualties and statistics for the number of Phillipino fighters in the articles on the Phillipines in WW2, and has evolved into what seems to be either persistant vandalism or a weird fantasty world - stuff like New Zealand involvement in the 7 Years War and, most recently, complete fabrications of foreign involvement in the fighting against terrorist groups in the southern Phillipines. He/she typically hits every article involved in the topic and inserts this material, and as a result dozens of articles are now corrupted - every time I think I've fixed one up I stumble across another few filled with this rubbish.

The problem is that this editor uses a dynamic IP adress and changes every time that they're blocked, and so the editors who are trying to counter this have to warn him/her several times before re-blocking. Is it possible to request permission somewhere (AN/I?) to be able to block this person for a few days each time that they turn up without providing warnings? Some examples of the IP addresses and the identical patterns of vandalism are:

Thanks, Nick Dowling (talk) 10:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It's good to know that the same principle as applies to sock puppets also applies to alternate IPs. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions concerning Arbcom case
Hi Kirill, I was wondering if there was any consideration of the 3 month/300 edit remedy I proposed in the Giovanni case (link). If there is, well I guess just carry on, and I'll find out how it was received at the conclusion. If there isn't, I would be interested in knowing whether the committee feels that this remedy is specifically not needed for the article in question, or is it rather that the solution is opposed more generally. I ask because a solution like this (or similar) could prove useful in tackling other problem areas, if used with discretion. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC) I am no longer interested in pursuing at this time. R. Baley (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Interest pending. . .but no hurry, you guys must be quite busy at the mo'. R. Baley (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: your reply. Thanks.  Though personally I think it would be quite easy to enforce (a technical means would be nice, but not necessary).  But if you guys aren't convinced, that's ok.  R. Baley (talk) 14:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

My question for Kirill is why did you introduce BLP principles to the arbitration of a case that concerned "Footnoted quotes" in the article of a deceased person. Bdell555 (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Category q
Hi, I wanted to ask you why you limited category:Wars involving Lithuania to modern times? where to put wars involving Grand Duchy of Lithuania? Renata (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, where did you go?
Are you currently discussing on the arbitration committee mailing list(s)? --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Same question... Although I don't see any contribs by you over the weekend, I urge you to get active. I see no reason for any arbitrator to be engaged in anything at all other than getting this matter resolved. Routine sock blocks, discussions of names of users, and the like should be, in my view, left to others or deferred. Your highest priority, each and every one of you, ought to be talking through this and coming to a resolution. Please. I posted this first at FT2's page and FT2 indicated he is waiting on responses... the longer this festers the worse it is for everyone... ++Lar: t/c 15:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, which is why you don't see any contribs from me; I'm pretty much fully engaged in trying to sort this out. Kirill (prof) 16:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool. Good luck! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool. I'd rather have wasted my effort with a needless urging than left it unsaid, though... best of luck. ++Lar: t/c 16:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

CU/OS access for Arbitrators
Noted. I'll adjust the proposal. I think this is more of an issue with oversight than it is checkuser; I can't think of a convincing reason why every arbitrator would need access to checkuser logs in order to carry out their role, but can understand why access to oversighted material would be needed. Neıl 龱  12:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Milhist reviews March-May 2008

 * Pleasure is all mine, Kirill. You may be interested in knowing that you did TWICE as many peer reviews as anyone else. Amazing achievement. I'm very grateful :) -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 02:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni33
I sent you an email about Giovanni33 case. Let me know what you think. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 12:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Operational plan
Hi. I see you've just updated that template. I originally copied that template from Template:Infobox Military Conflict, which doesn't have a fatalities/casualties section at all. Perhaps it should be updated as well. -- Nudve (talk) 12:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's even stupider than this: I didn't refresh the page, and was not aware that it's transcluded. Sorry to have bothered you :) -- Nudve (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ground Control to All Arb.s (a friendly request for comment)
I wanted to ask you to please consider posting some of your responses, or feedback to the current arbcom situation - I don't think it's massively hyperbolic to note that this really is in many ways a Wiki Summer of discontent (well actually winter for us southern hemisphere types...).

I believe it's the right thing for you, and all other committee members, to be doing right now - I don't think the community as a whole are getting the benefits of any private discussions, and I believe they, and the individuals named in the various debacles around the place, deserve much, much better.

I entreat you to consider signing up as available to offer thoughts, or answer some short, focused, questions. I would also ask you to consider contacting the Wikipedia Weekly team, or the 'Not The Wikipedia Weekly' team, if you might be available for a short voice conversation.

It's my view that communication really really matters, and I think there's an urgent need for arb.s to step up.

cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks heaps for signing up as willing to answer a few questions - it's much appreciated! - I think it might be sensible to wait a little while longer before kicking off that page (and there's certainly no urgent need to rush through a process - it's just vital to get the ball rolling, in my book. Once again, thanks for signing up, and I'll drop you a further note in the next few days when there's something there to consider... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Clerking
Thank you for your kind words. :) Would you mind if I emailed you or vice versa? Have a couple of questions and things that I'd like to discuss with you prior to answering one way or another en-wiki. Cheers again - Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Greetings.. the Old Guard page has been re-moved and moved back again
Must be an annual thing for the 3d US Infantry article... we may need a refresher on the latest goings on. I just moved it back to the consensus name we concluded last year... Ryecatcher773 (talk) 03:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Is that the right case?
I saw this and it reminded me of the other case (the one that got rejected - you know, colourful fish). How does that principle apply in this case, which is just a back-room spat? I didn't see any of the parties engaging in wiki-politics, unless you count flouting an incivility sanction to be a political act? Carcharoth (talk) 03:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Any chance you could look at this discussion about nationalism?
An editor that I think is a very good editor was blocked (later released) for 3R which as you can see involved another editor not liking a book which was clearly a reliable source. This was clearly not a content dispute but one involving a nationalist POV. This has led to a more general discussion of  'cultural and ethnic edit wars' on Wikipedia. There's another editor commenting on this on my talk page though not on the ANI board. I know I've backed off from several articles because some of these POV pushers are there for the very long haul and just wear everyone else down. At the moment I think this is getting worse and won't be solved by just a few editors like Folantin. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 11:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)
The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence
I guess you will see it in due course, but I've started what I hope will be a joint analysis of your evidence. See Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Workshop. Not much there at the moment, but I hope the locations and timings and rearrangement into chronological order are a bit more organised than your initial presentation, and that others will add to it in due course. What I particularly want to see is who Giano was responding to, and (if relevant) a quote of what he was responding to. Hopefully others will tease out these details. If this works, this format can also be applied to looking at the conduct of others - specifically those who have baited or otherwise provoked Giano. While it may not be possible to apply ArbCom sanctions in those cases, if the evidence shows a pattern, I would then consider a warning or an RfC. I realise it is not a defence per se, and that it fails to recognise that Giano was under an ArbCom sanction (whether that sanction was justified or not is probably best mot debated here, though I think that remains relevant), but I do strongly believe that more context is better when analysing this sort of evidence. Carcharoth (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, one thing I hadn't realised, is that context depends on the settings of a user's preferences. I have my preferences set to not show the page version below the diff screen. I just noticed that the links you provided (to the secure server) force the page version to appear below the diff, at least I think that is what is happening. Is that an intended feature of using diffs from the secure server? Carcharoth (talk) 01:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Peer review for The Battle of Lake Erie (Put-in-Bay)
Is it regular for MILHIST to have a peer review to determine how to delete the article? Jappalang (talk) 02:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know, since I am not a member of this project. At this point, my interest is merely to determine the best way to merge this duplicate article. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 13:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A discussion
An important discussion on ''Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ? '' is open here. We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. You are receiving this note as you are a member of WikiProject Council --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) - 12:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Governance reform followup
Hello Kirill, I just stumbled upon this proposal of yours when checking out some of the older threads in the mailing list. I apologize for being so late to the game on this, but did anything ever come from the discussion? I noticed that talks sort of petered out around the end of May, but I really thought this idea had quite a lot of potential and merit. Is there any way that we could get the ball rolling again? Let me know if I can be of any help. Glass  Cobra  15:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom vote clarification needed
As a member of the Arbitration Committee that in August and September of 2007 heard the the this case, you assented to the following finding of fact:
 * 6) Seven editors (,, , , , , and ) voted to delete the allegations of Israeli apartheid article, largely on principle, after having earlier voted to keep the allegations of Brazilian apartheid article. Given the circumstances, the only reasonable explanation for this voting pattern is that the editors in question were attempting to prove a point regarding the allegations of Israeli apartheid article.

I took great exception to this assertion at the time, but decided not to vigorously defend myself, as it seemed clear to me that the finding would not get the needed majority to be established by the Arbcom; and that my scarce time was better spent on other issues, on the arbcom case and elsewhere on Wikipedia.

However, your vote for this finding has now been used as an argument to discount my vote on Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination).:


 * This case eventually collapsed due to unresolvable divisions among the arbitrators, but the fact that four committee members were willing to endorse the aforementioned statement suggests that it wasn't a completely arbitrary charge. It's probably also worth noting that nine arbitrators agreed that "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" was the locus of the dispute. I would tend to think that these matters bear some relevance to the present discussion. CJCurrie (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Other editors have similarly raised this proposed finding of fact as a basis to question mine and others' vote on the AFD in question.

I am obviously not asking you to get involved in the AFD, but would like you to clear up the following:

If your vote in this Arbcom case can properly be construed as a legitimate argument for discounting my vote on any article that is related to Israel or apartheid, then I would like the chance to properly defend my votes on the articles in question and see if I can change your mind.

Conversely, if your vote fails to give the closing admin the grounds to discount my vote, then I would appreciate this clarification.

Just to be clear, this is the first time I have gotten involved in any "apartheid" related article since the Arbcom case. My apologies for having to drag you into this messy business again, and with thanks in advance for your consideration. --Leifern (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ping!
Ping! -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 04:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANIME assessment drive
Hi Kirill Lokshin,

We at the Anime wikiproject intend to (re)assess all of our articles to have an updated view of the quality thereof. I have seen that you helped WP:MILHIST to create the necessary subpages to do so, e.g. WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008/100.

Can you give us some pointers as how we can set up similar pages, or help us do it?

Regards,

G.A.S 05:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply cross posted from my talk page
 * The listing pages themselves are generated by a script. If you can tell me what articles you want in the listing, I should be able to generate it for you (provided the criteria are not overly complex). Kirill (prof) 00:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the reply, and thank you for the offer. The articles are all listed in Category:Anime and manga articles by quality. We have decided to work through all of them, so I do not believe that criteria is an issue per se: it would be preferred if the pages are in the same format as WP:MILHIST's, as that seems to work; and located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008. Your help is appreciated. G.A.S 04:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We have now set up the assessment page at WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment, and following some minor issues, we should be able to start with the assessments. G.A.S 07:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Military Unit
Hi, I wanted to let you know that some of the parameters aren't displaying properly for this template. I noticed when you use the parameter for helicopters, the banner for aircraft flown doesn't display in the infobox or you may get a red link (attack helicopter parameter)Shinerunner (talk) 11:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This was the article I was working on when I noticed the problem Sarang. Shinerunner (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of the problem so fast! Shinerunner (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

GA under review messages
Jacky is making an awful lot of GA under review messages. I suggest to formalize them via a template. Do you have any suggestions? Wandalstouring (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That might be an alternative.Wandalstouring (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks again...
for being prepared to be open over at the RfC you've instigated about yourself... I think it's absolutely the right way to go about clearing up / resolving any issues. I also thought that asking three questions in relative short order about the same matter might come across as kinda badgering, and I wanted to explain that that is absolutely not my motivation - I feel that the confusion at the heart of that particular issue has caused so many problems that it was probably worth pursuing to the degree that I have....

on a side note, as I mentioned to thebainer the other day, my feeling is that the levels of arb activity 'on-wiki' are central to some of the problems perceived in the status quo, and I'd really like to encourage you to post your thoughts, comments, or just ask questions - or just generally encourage activity and engagement... the more posts the better, I'd say at the moment! thanks once again for taking such an open road, Privatemusings (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC) and if you don't reply to me, but go post some feedback as an observer in a current 'uber' case - that'd be great in my book! :-)

I feel unuserboxed
I understand the AFV TF userbox is available (or am I wrong?), but I can't find it. Can you post me 1, if it is? Thanks. Also, let me offer a cluster to your Barnstar of Awesomeness, if I can. (Feel free to add it yourself at your convenience. =])  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  16:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thank you!  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  10:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

arbcom-l
Hi Kirill, can you please add info-en /a/ wikimedia.org to the non-moderated list? I promise not to spam you :) Cheers, Daniel (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I make no such promises. I will, in fact, personally forward all of the OTRS penis spam to you.


 * No, actually, this would be really helpful. I just tried to forward a ticket to the arbcom and got moderation queued. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh :) Also would be great would be info-en-q, info-en-o and info-en-c. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Will do. info-en was already in the list, but presumably the ticket got forwarded from one of the other address variants. Kirill (prof) 02:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, info-en-q I think. Thanks much Kirill. Daniel (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal insults
Hi Kirill, I've been again insulted for expressing my opinion by Mrg. My constant requests for him to be civil draw nothing but scorn; would you or one of the other coordinators mind formally warning him again? Kind regards Buckshot06(prof) 03:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Military Person
Hey Kirill hows it going? I have a suggestion for the military person infobox. I think it woul dbe nice to have a field for Namesake or honor so that if the person has a Ship or building or something named afterthem that could be highlighted in the infobox. Let me know if you have any questions. I thought about putting it on the talk page but I never get any responses that way so I thought I would present it to you first and go from there.--Kumioko (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Your input is requested
The editors at WP:SHIPS humbly request your input on the feasibility of two items that have recently come up on our talk page related to WPMILHIST and how to maintain it: Wikipedia_talk:SHIPS, and Wikipedia_talk:SHIPS. -MBK004 00:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I am looking for an opinion
I recently added a picture to the USS Eurana article - a shot of the ship taken by my grandfather. I have been posting his pictures |here and was wondering if it is appropriate for me to put that link at the bottom of the USS Eurana page? I actually have a lot more of his pictures from that trip, and from his "European Tour" that followed, plus another album from WW2, but I have run out of space at my free flickr account - but that's another issue, not yours. So, what do you think?

Checking the link i see that it is not very good, but probably good enough for this discussion. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks for getting back to me. I might put some of these pictures in Commons, but my experiences with photographs and wikipedia has is not generally turning out to be a good thing.  Copyright and lack of pan-o-rama copyright laws (or whatever) in the US, Iceland etc. (not-wikipedia's fault, but . ..) have led to the removal of maybe hundreds of my pictures, and a controversy over another family archival picture of mine in the Merchant Marine article have left me with a bad taste.  But your answer was/is a good one and I will proceed somehow or another.  EInar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

IRC
Thanks for you comments on the RFC.

"given the choice between a new venue with tight control and the old one without them, who would choose to use the new one?" Where there's a will there's a way. For instance -
 * 1) Set up a new channel with tight control.
 * 2) Officially sanction it.
 * 3) Encourage all new admins to use it and old to migrate.
 * 4) Persuade the group contacts to publish the logs of the old channel on wikipedia - I believe JamesF is one of your number, so this shouldn't be too hard - and given that the whole rationale of the admin channel is that it is where sensitive BLP issues and sanity checking of blocks are performed, the moment it becomes an open channel, people will be disinclined to use it for that purpose and will migrate. Any miscreants left at this stage, will at least not have their actions hidden from the general public.

Seems quite simple to me, but of course the suspicion that Admins just like their chat room for cock jokes and slagging people off but defend it with a facade of 'it's needed for official business' is hard to abate, and the clear lack of will from the admin community just adds to the suspicion.

Perhaps Arbcom can have another go at forcing the issue before Giano has to again? Professionalism you know. <--levity is here>

--Joopercoopers (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Kirill, I appreciate you are very busy, but would you drop me a line regarding whether you intend responding to this so I can take your page off my watchlist. Many thanks. --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So are you saying I should raise the issue further at your RFC and use that as a forum for discussing this? I stopped myself from doing so, considering the issue is entirely tangential to whatever 'user conduct' issues are being discussed there, but I'm ok with it if you are. All I ask really is for some level headed debate, I still find it incredible that it appears beyond the wit of man to set up a talk channel that can be adequately administered by WP, particularly as it appeared originally to be Freenodes explicit desire What happened to that? --Joopercoopers (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

July/August Arb Stuff

 * Just to remind you (or inform you in case you're unaware) that in the Geogre-WMC case, except for principle 4.2, remedies 2, 2.1 and 2.2 and the proposal under enforcement, you've voted on everything proposed-to-date ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

JC's page
I have responded to your point here Giano (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I request you  to be the Honorable Arbitrator to my case Brhmoism
As I feel only a 'rational wise judge' can do justice to my case of deletion. I am not a good writer but my content is crucial and only trapped in sub-communities religious bias which has become a Brhmo-Phobia in wikipedia too. I request your highness to post some urgent translator of Hindi to my references /notability of news/reviews at : Alan Sun --203.194.98.177 (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Brhmaand Pujan Critics’, News-Reviews.

Military History Wiki
Dear Kirill Lokshin, you are a member of Wikiproject Military History, and I would like to notify you that a new Wiki has been made for Military History. If you are interested in participating in this project, please follow the following link.http://www.militaryhistorywiki.scribblewiki.com/Main_Page. Cheers,  Ṝέđ ṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a lineReview Me!

You champion!


EZ1234 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Bedford Arbcom Case
Just thought you'd like to Charles is no longer accepting the case, you referred to his acceptance.  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)
The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

102nd IW
I don't mean to sound harsh, but do you or do you not support the A-Class review for the article? It needs some action or it will stall and crash with no decision like it did the last time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Something I found
Seems that this enterprising lad has been making a great deal of bold edits in the last couple months, but then I found Page protection patrol. I thought this was something that you might like to chew on... it just seems to reek of excessive bureaucracy to me, as well as being almost... "half-assed" isn't quite right, but it's the closest I can think of. I can't think of too many occasions where an editor couldn't simply ask an administrator to unprotect or make changes, even if not the one that added the protection; after all, isn't that why we have Template:Editprotected? Perhaps the user in question doesn't know about logs?  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣   05:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Does this mean you're not giving me a barnstar for this either? Sigh, I can see that once again I must take on the responsibility myself. Admins are often unresponsive to requests for unprotection, otherwise P3 would be unnecessary. In cases of permanent protection, their view is typically that everything has been fine while it's been protected, so we should leave it protected. Permanent protection may be appropriate for high-risk templates (e.g. those transcluded to the Main Page) but it is not an appropriate way of dealing with edit wars and disputes; and even salting of deleted articles should be a temporary measure, renewed as needed but otherwise left open so that someone can create a better article later without seeking permission. That's the wiki way. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:WPMILHIST Announcements
Do you do Template:WPMILHIST Announcements by hand or is it automated (automated would include the generation of a list somewhere else)?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You may want to have some input on discussions about a bot to perform this task at User talk:B. Wolterding/Article alerts.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you help me with something...?
Hi- I have a favor to ask of you, and it is just a favor so feel free to say no. I've been dealing with a disruptive user, Alastair Haines who contributes okay edits to article space, albeit sometimes edit warring, but his people skills leave a whole lot to be desired. He makes personal attacks diff1, diff2, diff3, calls others trolls diff4,, and continually claims that others are slandering his good name when they try to offer constructive criticism. I've already had one editor, a co-mediator that I was with, burn out from trying to handle this guy. He's gone through an RFC/U, which he refused to even look at- it can be found here: Requests for comment/Alastair Haines. The admin that closed the RFC warned him that his behavior was poor, but he ignored that admin's actual words and turned around and thanked him for warning us to be civil to him [Alastair]. Around the same time, I opened a request for mediation to handle the content dispute issue between Alastair and a few other editors. Prior that, it had been a medcab case which I had mediated- which was how I became acquainted with him. He rejected the rfm and demanded that it focus on all the perceived wrongs against him by virtually everyone else. He was blocked temporarily because his message contained a legal threat, and then unblocked after he redacted that part. Here's his message: diff5, and the legal threat: diff6. Now, all of this happened about a month ago, and after the RFC things seemed to have calmed down, and I moved on. I was browsing AN/I a few days ago, however, and the old edit war he had been involved in was right there. I immediately shared by experience with the other administrators, and he came along and started doing his old thing. He wrote a good two paragraphs whining about how everyone has slandered, defamed him, how he's perfectly innocent and the rest of us are out to get him. He challenged anyone to give even one example when his edits have been less than perfect, so I provided him with a long list of unappropriate and uncivil edits on his part diff7. His response was: "If these flawless edits are the best examples you can find of what you think is poor, it's time for us to turn from what is innocent to what is far from innocent in your own and other users' comments, and Ilkali's original edits that still need to be brought to scrutiny from behind this smoke-screen of hearsay. Your empty rudeness and slander above ill becomes a would-be mediator. I expect we will come to those matters eventually. You have been and are being very foolish." diff8. I talked to another administrator, who advised that I start preparing an arbcom case. However, I don't have the energy to do that right now in between a lot of stuff that's happening IRL. In the past, this user has expressed that he puts a lot in stock by the arbitration committee, so I'm thinking if even one member of the committee-- that's you if you feel up to it-- would just tell him that his editing is inappropriate, he might listen to you and take it to heart. He certainly hasn't listened to anyone else, and I would really hate to see him get banned because he does has stuff to contribute. Thanks for reading through this beast of a message. Once again, feel free to decline. L'Aquatique [  talk  ] 22:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll do that! Thanks for your time.  L'Aquatique  [  talk  ] 01:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

ACG RAAF
Thank you for doing this! I can't believe that I forgot to do that! I meant to but it seems studying for an Aeronautical Engineering degree takes a long time. -- Cheers mate! C YCLONIC W HIRLWIND talk 14:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANIME assessment drive
Hi Kirill Lokshin,

We at the Anime wikiproject intend to (re)assess all of our articles to have an updated view of the quality thereof. I have seen that you helped WP:MILHIST to create the necessary subpages to do so, e.g. WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008/100.

Can you give us some pointers as how we can set up similar pages, or help us do it?

Regards,

G.A.S 05:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply cross posted from my talk page
 * The listing pages themselves are generated by a script. If you can tell me what articles you want in the listing, I should be able to generate it for you (provided the criteria are not overly complex). Kirill (prof) 00:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the reply, and thank you for the offer. The articles are all listed in Category:Anime and manga articles by quality. We have decided to work through all of them, so I do not believe that criteria is an issue per se: it would be preferred if the pages are in the same format as WP:MILHIST's, as that seems to work; and located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008. Your help is appreciated. G.A.S 04:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We have now set up the assessment page at WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment, and following some minor issues, we should be able to start with the assessments. G.A.S 07:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable. I'll try to put together the worklists when I have some time; hopefully, either this week or next week. Kirill (prof) 12:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have created all of the pages for the assessment drive. Thanks for the offer. <font face="Brush Script MT" size="4">G.A.S 15:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Review
I am starting to set up WikiProject Chicago/Review like MILHIST. Do you have any suggestion on handling GA discussions that are currently at level 2 subsections instead of level 3.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that WP:MILHIST is so much more mature/active/successful than WP:CHICAGO. I see that you do not include WP:GAR community assessment discussions.  However, do you think that if WP:GAC GAonhold and WP:GAR individual assessment GA discussions were at the proper subsection level you would transclude them?  Is there a reason you do not transclude GAR community assessment discussions? You may want to comment at Wikipedia_talk:GA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:GAN.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Milhist Quality Scale
Hi Kirill!

Is there any reason why we can't transclude the A and B class criteria into the quality scale? It would make it much easier to refer to them if they were separate articles. I trust all is well with you :) -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 18:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Incidentally, I've moved the see also bits back to the Quality Scale for reasons which will be apparent shortly.
 * Also, may I ask you please to take a look at this?. I'm not sure I have anything coherent to contribute there but I'm sure you do :) -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 04:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've left a comment on the template talk page.
 * Incidentally, I've just been looking at your contributions and I'm in awe of the speed with which you do the task force notifications :) -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 05:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing the dynamic date in WPMILHIST A-Class Review alerts. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 06:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Combatant redux
Please tell me what you think re. comments here. I don't find the archived discussion particularly helpful; it strikes me that ""W.W.2!" amateurs have a habit of enforcing whatever sounds "snazziest" in their field of interest, forgetting about, you know, the rest of Wikipedia. Our tendency to internalize news stories about "unlawful combatants" doesn't help either, nor does our tendency to forget that the English language existed long before the international bureaucracy whose codes we, at WP:MILHIST, apparently now obey. In any event, I'm sure you'll agree a mistake was made. Albrecht (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Chicago A-Class review
Woody has suggested that I talk to you about overhauling ChicagoWikiProject so that it operates an A-Class review like yours does. He said it will likely need an overhaul. If you would be willing to assist in that regard, it would be great. Elkman has previously handled all our template tweaking so you may want to coordinate with him. Also, we have a bot adding our template and parameterizing it on various articles. Stepshep‎ runs our bot and any changes probably should not interfere with his bot programming.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For reference: Help_desk and User_talk:TonyTheTiger. I say it needs an overhaul because it currently uses WPBannerMeta which I haven't come across before. I can't find a parameter that would allow the A-Class system that we use to be integrated into it. Regards. Woody (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Curious; I was under the impression that the meta-template could show such reviews. Tony, you might want to ask  whether the meta-template can handle this for you; if it doesn't, I'll be happy to add something directly your template; but I'm probably going to have to rewrite it completely to do so, so using a built-in feature might be a less drastic step. Kirill (prof) 00:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was not watching your page. Sorry for the delay.  I will check with him.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It depends on what you want to do - probably you want a note, which involves adding just a couple of parameters. Do you have a demonstration or another project to copy off, so I can see what you want to achieve? <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 16:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe MILHIST's banner works like I would like. What I basically want is a banner that initiates a discussion page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added some code which should do something like you wanted. Of course there's still a lot that can be changed - hopefully it's fairly obvious how to get the effect you want.  Any issues, do let me know. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 13:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * When I added A-Class=current to one of the talk page templates nothing happened. There was no link appearing on the banner to start a discussion page.  What do I need to do?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd called the parameter a-class rather than A-Class, as all the other parameter names are lowercase. I've changed it to be the same as MILHIST's, so what you did would now work; however I'd personally recommend using the lowercase version for consistency with your other parameters.  You can see what I did to change it, if you prefer the lowercase version, all you have to do is change it back.  Give it a try now - it should work properly. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 14:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you make the parameter insensitive to case?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe. I'll have a look. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 18:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you add a project peer-review parameter as well?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been distracted. I'll take a look. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 11:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Hehe, I remember now.  I've actually already done it; I just forgot to mention it here.  yes displays the 'current peer review' note, and yes displays the "archived old peer review" note.  If any of the links are incorrect do let me know and I'll try and correct them. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 11:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me if WikiProject Chicago/Project banner is now correct and whether you have desensitized it to case.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That parameter list is correct; however only the a-class parameter is case-insensitive. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 12:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am testing the new parameter at Talk:Jay Pritzker Pavilion and am unable to generate a review page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmn.... not entirely sure why it wasn't working before, but it's now. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 09:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to make it a little more like WP:MILHIST in the sense that the page hierarchies are WikiProject Chicago/Assessment/Name of nominated article and WikiProject Chicago/Peer review/Name of nominated article instead of both using WikiProject Chicago/Review/Name of nominated article for both.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. You mean WikiProject Chicago/Assessment/Name of nominated article for A-Class review, and WikiProject Chicago/Peer review/Name of nominated article for Peer review, right? <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 18:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅, I hope. Was that what you wanted? <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 20:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If there are any problems, I will let you know.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Harriet Tubman
Regarding this edit, please see Harriet_Tubman. There's more reason to include Tubman among MILHIST FPs than the "Rosie the Riveter" photos: Tubman actually served in combat. Durova Charge! 18:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

1964 Gabon coup d'état
Hi Kirill. Hope you are well. COuld you add a military infobox or whatever it is to this article. Thanks  The Bald One       <font size="-4"> White cat 20:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Task force naming advice
Kirill, I'm certain you're already fairly busy, but I'm having a bit of an issue involving some task force management and I couldn't really think of a better person to solicit advice from at the moment. I created a Soviet and post-Soviet cinema task force a few weeks ago, after proposing it amongst the related WikiProjects back in May. Now I've suddenly hearing complaints here and here from two non-film editors heavily involved in WikiProject Estonia who are demanding that I completely restructure the task force. (Doing so based on current proposals would cause - IMHO - more problems; I wanted a Nordic task force along similar lines to MILHIST's, the Baltic cinema is not really large enough to demand a task force on its own, CIS-based would now exclude Georgian cinema, and creating a Northern European task force is even more inelegant and lumpen, historically, than a post-Soviet one. On top of it all, I'm now being told that a period-based Soviet cinema task force is insufficient, because "technically" Soviet cinema is only Communist propaganda film, and therefore I should retitle it as "Cinema of the USSR task force"...)

I can't seem to get them to agree or compromise at all, but unfortunately most of our other editors are either indifferent or unwilling to even weigh in. I know that in your advice essay for coordinators, this may be a case of your third point, but it seems to have gotten intractable, and I feel that I've gotten too sucked into this at the moment without any support - or even opposition - from uninvolved editors either within or outside of the WikiProject.

If you would be willing to at least look at this dispute and offer some general coordination advice, I'd be so grateful. Whether or not you want to get involved with the debate itself, I leave up to you. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.
Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 06:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kirill Lokshin
Hey. To let you know, this has now been formally archived. You may read the conclusion at the bottom of the page. Wizardman 15:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Kirill, I mentioned on the talk page that some conclusion in your own words might be good, or some indication of whether you agree with the conclusion. Would you be prepared to add that somewhere? Would seem to be the final loose end to tie up. Carcharoth (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry to clutter your point. I'll stop arguing in your workshop section.Tim (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Milhist elections
When you have the time, could you take a look at WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2008/Status please? The switch doesn't seem to be working correctly. Many thanks, -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 00:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Kirill :) -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 01:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I understand. I'd missed out the opening line. Thanks again :) -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 01:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Style guides
OOps. Sorry about that, hope it hasn't caused you problems with editors trying to edit milhist articles in line with it. :) Hiding T 07:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Late Roman army
Hi. I'm consulting you because a while back, you were kind enough to comment on another article I wrote, Roman auxiliaries. Late Roman army is now under A-class review, for the second time, at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Late Roman army. I would invite you to add your own comment asap before the review closes. Best wishes EraNavigator (talk) 08:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)
The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You're invited...
...to the 5th Washington DC Meetup! Please visit the linked page to RSVP or for more information. All are welcome! This has been an automated delivery, you can opt-out of future notices by removing your name from the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It was great meeting you. Cheers! bd2412  T 23:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision -Alastair Haines
All items pass now, and there's a move to close. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

C68-FM-SV
I'm having a difficult time trying to find who's recused and who's not, but AFAICT, you endorsed this being opened, and are (I think) the only "active", non-recused, arbitrator who hasn't commented.
 * Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision

So, in case you weren't aware that it's about to be closed, I thought I would give you a notice. (If you aren't interested, I understand, and as a "safe" answer, feel free to merely wait until it's closed before commenting.)

Part of the reason I'm asking is that this case has become such a "deal", that I thought it would be nice if all active arbitrators commented. (While understanding that you are in no way required to do so.)

Anyway, whatever the case, I hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 01:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am, in fact, recused in that case. Kirill (prof) 03:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, oh. My apologies for the misunderstanding. Thanks for the clarification : ) - jc37 08:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Civility
Hi there. I recently quoted you at Wikipedia talk:Civility. Would you have time to check that I haven't misrepresented what you said? There are several other threads on that talk page that you might be interested in as well, and a proposal to rewrite the policy. For the whole recent story, read downwards from Wikipedia talk:Civility. This will need to be advertised more widely to get more balanced input, but for now I'm notifying those I quoted from the RfArb, and a few other editors who have either written essays on this, or have been active on the talk page recently. Apologies if you had this watchlisted anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 06:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Firearm Cartridge
HI Kirill,

There's a problem with the example displaying in Template:Infobox Firearm Cartridge. It looks like it's not handling the template properly. That said, the infobox displays perfectly on the example article. Could you take a look please? (As you know, this stuff is beyond me.) Thanks :) -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 08:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's very strange. Thanks :) -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 20:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Banner Shell
FYI, Template talk:Talkheader Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Needs tag filled out
John Alan Quinton — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 03:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Request
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China Basically, there is a group of users who are Falun Gong members going around and inserting POV material into any article they can. In this instance, it is demanding inclusion of Epoch Times as a legitimate source. The same people refuse to allow any government sources on Falung Gong related pages. They have a history of abusing the system, abusing other editors and are most likely sockmuppets. I do not know why this is allowed to continue the way it does. Please help resolve this, it's getting really old. TIA Laomei (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

A little problem
Hi, Kirill. Do you mind looking at this thread and bringing it to the attention of the Committee? Thanks, Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 07:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I did already. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 11:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Something for you
Congratulations, good sir! I hope you continue to benefit us with your good counsel as the project moves ever onward.  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣   01:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Congrats!


Congratulations on your election as Coordinator Emeritus of the Military history Wikiproject. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. I wish you luck in the coming term. -- TomStar81 (Talk) 01:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Your stars this time are unique: they were designed by John J Pershing after his appointment to General of the Armies. Pershing was offered the chance to create his own design, but choose to remain a four star; however he elected to change the color of his stars from silver to gold. Just in case you were curious :) TomStar81 (Talk) 01:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Fort Henry review
Hey, I was wondering if passing this article's ACR was a good choice. Although the article did receive three supports, they were followed by conditions which were not met. What's done is done, but for future reference, should these articles be failed or passed? In my opinion, they should be failed because the conditions for support were not met. What do you think? JonCatalán(Talk) 01:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

USS Nevada A-class promotion
Thanks for promoting it! =) Cheers! &mdash;<font face="Monotype Corsiva"> the _ ed 17  &mdash; 02:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)
The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Lapalissian?
Ciao! I just expanded to a decent status Jacques de La Palice's entry (translation from the French article) and Battle of Garigliano (1503). Maybe you could give it a glance, as I am not english motherlanguage. Thanks and good work. --Attilios (talk) 09:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

checkuser
i hope you do not mind my taking it here, I do not want anyone to think this is aout lar. I am asking you to help me better understand checkuser. i realize most times it is used at the request of ArbCom. But am I not right that it is generally used when (1) an account violates polices and (2) there is cause to believe the account is a sock-puppet? If so, i just see no reason why there cannot be a page where people (including ArbCom) publically post there requests for checkusers, providing evidence of policy violation and evidence suggestive of sockpuppetry. Then as in ArbCom cases the appropriate authority can say "accept" or "decline."

The details of the investigation can be kept entirely confidential.

If someone is found innocent, why not post it, publically?

If someone is found guilty, we already make this fact public.

I repeat: the reasons for the findings, and the procedures and details of the investigation, can all be kept private. But why can't this other stuff all be public?

Am I explaining clearly what I propose shoud be public and what I recognize cannot be public?

Is there something I do not know about?

I am hoping you can answer in a general or abstract enough way that does not compromise any actual investigation.

Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 05:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Oversight is the process of permanently removing an edit from Wikipedia, usually for privacy reasons. See also, Oversight. Anthøny (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your thoughtful and informative reply. Just to clarify: I am indeed trying to think through some way to make the process more transparent (and I realize it may not be possible) but I wouldn't say I am yet at the state where I am actually proposing anything or even have a specific proposal in mind.  I still have a question.  You wrote, "n some cases, the evidence driving the check is itself private, and simply cannot be posted on-wiki."  Can you give me an example?  Obviously I do not mean a real example - I am NOT asking you to comment on or reveal anything about an actual case.  I am hoping you can construct a hypothetical or generic example to illustrate the point.  I also understand your point about the biggest problem/issue.  Has there been any discussion among checkusers about ways to make the process more transparent?  Can you imagine anything? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, makes sense but what is an "oversighted edit?" Slrubenstein  |  Talk 01:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If I may pitch in for a second:

Happy 's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:EVula/Userboxes/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 01:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:Campaigns of the 2003 Iraq conflict
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Campaigns of the 2003 Iraq conflict, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Campaigns of the 2003 Iraq conflict 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:Campaigns of the 2003 Iraq conflict, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Case needs intervention
I request some urgent arbitrator's intervention into the pages of Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2 and I am leaving this same note to all four Arbitrators who commented on the case so far.

The pages of the case have deteriorated beyond reasonable due to the conduct of some of the case participants. Please take a look at this new section of evidence for details. Yes, many bitter cases are filled with nonsense claims but there must be a limit to how much outright crankery can be tolerated at the ArbCom cases without any action taken.

Case' pages being turned into a total mess adversely affects the chances of the cohesive outcome. Too much nonsense in the cases pages buries the constructive entries and make the whole pages unreadable or incomprehensible. This leads to the arbitrators' non-participation in the discussions, which, in turn, brings, and I am not going to sugar-coat this, the case's outcomes being often too disconnected from actual concerns raised at its pages. This is why, I am calling for a rather unusual remedy to be applied to a case itself.

I would like to request that some aggressive clerk-like work is applied to the pages of the case: the workshop and the evidence. This cannot be left to clerks since this requires application of the discretion on the cases merits beyond the freedom given to clerks. If you could go over the current evidence and workshop pages and aggressively remove the patent nonsense and senseless rants (including my own entries if they are perceived as such), the benefit would be two-fold. First, it would make case pages more readable and, thus, more useful. Second, it would send a strong message to all parties that their conduct in the case is being monitored and may have consequences that would, hopefully, switch everyone to a more constructive mode. When looking at the pages you would see at once that the nonsense there is abundant and its presence disrupts the case.

I am not requesting any sanctions against anyone at this point. All I am asking is to return some normalcy to the case' pages.

Thank you in advance. --Irpen 21:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * After requesting "ethical_conduct" from ArbCom, Irpen found my evidence so important that he decided to intervene, contrary to his own request. I replied here (please see "bare facts").Biophys (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment on your proposal posted
Hi, just letting you know that I posted a general comment on your workshop proposal to the  workshop's talk page. --Irpen 19:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I answered your question here. --Irpen 19:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking for help on Guidelines
Hi Kirill,

User:Askari Mark suggested you might be able to help with an issue I ran into. I am working on an article for a Luftwaffe Wing from WWII. Here's the problem. The guidelines of Milhist project require usage of equivalent allied ranks. However the folks who did a peer review for me were equally divided. One group suggested using Allied Ranks with German ranks in italic next to it to reduce jargon. Others contend that since its a German article, you should have German ranks first and allied equivalent in italic next to it. The German military history task force does not have clear direction on this issue. Would appreciate your help. Perseus71 (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Perseus is talking about JG 1. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My bad, should have mentioned Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II)before. Your point on subsequent use of ranks for that person is absolutely right. I can certainly fix that, but there are instances when you'd have to use that rank for someone else. Although I agree the parenthesis part needs to be dropped at later use, what goes in the parenthesis the German version or the English version, is the question. Some contend that since this is a German Article, German version should be used. I guess you are going to go with English version. Please let me know your thoughts. User:Perseus71(talk) 12:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Couple of things
Strange that the transclusion problem in Infobox Firearm Cartridge should persist. When we last talked about this, we thought it would clear up when the caches sorted themselves out but it hasn't. Hmmm. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk


 * I'm glad you're as baffled as I am :) -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 16:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking at perhaps including something in WP:MILMOS about ranks and titles as we seem to be getting queries. This has spun out of a discussion at here. I'd appreciate your counsel :) -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 04:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Kirill. I was aiming to consolidate everything in one section (for instance, as you know, we already have the generic/proper noun thing covered elsewhere) but that is probably not the best way to go about it. I'll restrict the proposal to abbreviations and broaden it to include stuff like Coy, Regt, Flt, etc. I picked up Perseus' concerns too and was going to add something on that but that is probably, as you say, handled separately. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 16:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Arb
I've endured half a year of solid barrages of personal attacks, incivility, vilification, demonization, outright lies, antisemitic ranting and other nonsense (all starting when Piotrus officially declared some sort of open season war on me by threatening me with a block for removing an egregious and and antisemitic BLP violating slur--an abuise of his admin authority which gave a green light to his minions to wage this war). All because I made a series of edits--all well sourced, fully within Wiki guidelines and still standing to this day--to some articles concerning Polish Jewry which had material that eas indisputably relective of an anti-Jewish bent, and which were an embarrassment to this encyclopedia. any number of admins have backed my efforts. If the end result is that I get banned, the impact on me is to remove one solid pain in my butt for the past six months. The impact on this encyclopedia though is a bit more embarrassing and sad though. I don't have the time nor interest in compiling "evidence" yet again. It's all out there. Please do as you feel appropriate. It's too silly and petty for me to spend much more of my time arguing about issues which every "outside" observier I've shown this case too finds to be patently absurd and offensive. Boodlesthecat Meow? 13:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision - Abtract-Collectonian
In under 19 hours, this case will be two weeks old soon. All proposals pass, and one move to close has been made. If you could kindly hop on over to this page and vote on closing, that'd be great. Cheers :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Template help
Hi Kirill, I am trying to edit the WPSCOTCASTLE project banner to include C class articles, but when I put "class=C" in the template (as at Talk:Menstrie Castle), the category is still "Unassessed". If you have a spare moment, could you take a look and let me know what I'm doing wrong, or point me to some instructions? Many thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, scrap that. Borgarde has updated the template to use Template:WPBannerMeta. It seems to be working fine. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of paedophilia against Putin
Hi Kirill, as one of the arbcoms members, I feel that I need to draw your attention to the re-insertion of serious WP:BLP on the Alexander Litvinenko article, in particular his unsubstantiated accusation that Putin is a paedophile. I posted a message at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard and got no response. I asked on IRC, and several editors, including admins, said this is an absolute BLP violation. Information was posted at Talk:Alexander_Litvinenko. I was accused by Biophys on the Piotrus arbcom (which I am not a part of mind you) of "Protecting Vladimir Putin" in the removal of such information, and I responded to this (and other accusations) here. As per this arbcom of which you were a member, there are special enforcements in place for serious BLP infractions, and I believe that having an unsubstantiated claim presented as fact in the article of one person to attack the subject of another article is not on. As I have posted a response to the arbcom in question, editors would have known of the other arbcom, now we have Biophys. This information needs to be presented in the arbcom but it seems to be such a mess, I have no idea where to place it, so if you could tell me that would be good. The issue of re-insertion of BLP information also needs to be dealt with, and I am quite reluctant to remove it or touch it for the accusations which could very well follow from it. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 08:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I forgot also to ask. I am somewhat confused where to take this. Is the Piotrus arbcom the place for it? The administrators noticeboard? The administrators special enforcement noticeboard? It would be so much easier if such disputes didn't arise in the first place, but when they do, it can be so fricking confusing at to where to place information. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 08:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have placed this information at Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2/Evidence, and removed it from the article again. No need to get back to me. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 06:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)
The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Workshop - Piotrus 2
I've avoided pinging arbs on this case because this case is a sheer nightmare to go through. But it's been a few days since you've edited on there, and you've still got a few placeholders - will you need much more time to finish? If you can finish it soon, that would be good. If you're basically done, then if you can hop onto the PD page and make proposals there, that'd be great. Hopefully the case can be closed just before the beginning of December. :) Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, reminding or informing arbitrators about things they are overdue to vote on and so forth is great, but in this case, I bet Kirill already knows that he still has to finish the workshop. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think so too. ;) However, there were a couple of specific points covered in my message, and Kirill's thoughtful reply (found on my talk page) has addressed/clarified them. Cheers again, Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ping! :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

RFArb page - Motion: Tobias Case
Would like to request that you switch vote to oppose (from abstain) so this may be archived sooner, before the RFArb page gets too much longer. I make this request given that the active current case (Kuban) has similar proposals - I expect they can be tweaked in such a way that it will eliminate the need for amending the Tobias case, while providing any necessary clarification. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC) ✅


 * Cheers - unfortunately, it appears FT2 has posted an "alternate motion" now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus arbcom
Just so you know, I don't think in any way you are arbing in bad faith or lack integrity. I think I was rather clear about that on the workshop talk page, but as despite this Martin and/or Piotrus will undoubtedly say again that I do think this, I thought to reassure you and everyone that I don't. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 05:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Principle 3 and 6 in Piotrus 2
Hi Kirill. Sorry I didn't comment on this earlier (I should've, given my earlier nagging). But, my comments on these proposals are pretty much identical to Newyorkbrad's (but possibly slightly more wordy and confusing than his). Could you tell me the rationale for removing the "exceptions" from the original principle? At this point, I'm thinking at least 6 can be redrafted into an alternate principle, though at the same time, I'm concerned if it's a net benefit to exclude the generally-accepted exceptions, and to exclude BLP completely from #3.

I was hoping you and/or Nyb would consider my request to draft a principle as a proposal (#6.1 if you like), that isn't icky and excessively long (like the motion on RFArb page), but still broadly touches on those caveats mentioned by Nyb? :) Again, apologies for bugging you, and would appreciate it. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I left a note for Nyb, so if the above doesn't make sense, this might. Cheers again, Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks to be one of your patrols
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:WPMILHIST#Exhausted

Such experiences shouldn't suck up so much time. Be well! // Fra nkB 20:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Haines
I can't see where to report violations so I picked you ... see two reverts in one day at Gender of God. Abtract (talk) 07:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

RfAr/Piotrus 2
You seem to be following me around, up and down the page. :) Please make sure you see the general comment at the foot of the proposed decision. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Cold fusion
It seems like nobody besides the participants is interested in this case, and they seem to have said whatever they wanted to say. Perhaps it is time to post proposals and vote on them. Jehochman Talk 10:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 11:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Coordinator discussions
It would be helpful to have some input on the following discussions, some of which you may have missed:


 * WT:MHCOORD - Proposal for filling the last three TF coordinator slots


 * WT:MHCOORD - Job description re task forces. Some input already but much more welcomed so we can get a summary/checklist in place.


 * WT:MHCOORD - Views welcomed on whether in principle Milhist should adopt C-Class.


 * WT:MHCOORD - Finishing touches on getting the reappraisal review in place.

Very many thanks :) -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 09:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * PS: This is just for info, Kirill :) I've sent it to all the coords. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 09:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus Arb 2 additional evidence
Directly overwhelmingly supporting the findings against Tymek. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

SV motions
Hi Kirill, good set of motions. One question: with motion #2, where SlimVirgin is prohibited from reversing an enforcement action, does that apply even when an explicit consensus exists (as detailed in motion #1)? I'm presuming it is (given it's otherwise redundant to motion #1), but it wasn't specific, and I thought it best to clarify; the last thing that is needed down the track is SlimVirgin overturning an enforcement action on the rationale that she believes consensus supports overturning it, and then requesting this clarification at that point. Regards, Daniel (talk) 02:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My guess is they're redundant if they both pass (because what would be the object of prohibiting an action supported by a clear consensus?) but that there is no guarantee that the general restriction will pass and Kirill offered a more narrow restriction (which is also, helpfully, an alternative to desysop) just in case. <strong style="color:#000;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;border:0px solid #000"> T 03:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to note that I left you and/or other arbitrators a couple of questions here. Given you've already voted, I'm not sure you've seen them. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you - I've replied to 1 in the same link. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? The arbcomm doesn't make policy. You know better than that. Guettarda (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Greg in Piotrus arbcom
Wouldn't some form of restriction/parole be enough? Greg did not have any history of blocks, bans or warnings before his interactions with Boodlesthecat, and even now his block record is clean. I'd think that a stern warning should be at least tried before a permban, and I also don't think he has been doing anything wrong in the past weeks - further, this post indicates he is now taking BLP into consideration and he has recently posted a pledge in the workshop (see discussion here). Perhaps an alternative, more merciful remedy could be proposed? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Notice how Piotrus once again attempts to imply that Greg's egregious violations somehow stem from "his interactions with Boodlesthecat" rather than them being his own initiative, which were fully supported/enabled/defended by Piotrus. For a detailed account, see here. Piotrus' pleas for mercy would be more convincing if they were accompanied by an apology for his own overt support for Greg's reprehensible behavior (including a threat to use his admin authority in defense of Greg's violations). Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Also note that the characterization of greg as a model editor prior to encountering articles on Polish Jewry (and me) is not quite accurate. And the of course there is Greg's block log on Polish Wikipedia. Boodlesthecat Meow? 01:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Pot calling the kettle black? Boodle's habitual tone, uncivil and apodictic, calls into question his own appropriateness as a collaborator on an encyclopedia—leaving aside instances of his poor judgment concerning article content.  Nihil novi (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you disputing the evidence I presented above, or are you just chiming in with personal attacks because the opportunity presents itself? Boodlesthecat Meow? 19:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I made mistakes, I recognize them, pledge not to so again and I am ready to work with arbcoms regarding appopriate restrictions/mentorship that would allow me to continue to productively contribute to non-controversial aspects of this project. greg park avenue (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Lebanese Armed Forces
Ping! -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 12:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

FT2 and David Gerard


Now that the Arbcom has finished de-sysoping Slim Virgin (albeit very unpopularly ), it will doubtless want to show the same speedy diligence in other worrying matters. Could you outline the time scale and agenda for the investigation of David Gerard's suspected misuse of oversight rights in regard to the election of FT2 to the Arbitration committee. Obviously FT2 will be suspended from the Arbcom and its list during this investigation, can you give the community an approximated date for the conclusion of the investigation and the names of those carrying it out. Thank you. Giano (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Please assist
I would appreciate your intervention here, where I find myself in acute risk of violating your recommended standards of professionalism. Albrecht (talk) 04:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Need help
The code for externalimages has been altered and the template merged into external media without any prior discussion. I think the new layout is ugly and the new template site rather uninformative, not providing a visible example for our editors who aren't that familiar with coding. I need your help to adjust these changes. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)
The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom ignoring myself
On 17 September I sent an email to Arbcom, which can be viewed in its entireity here. I have repeatedly asked for a response from Arbcom, and I have yet to reply a single response in regards to the botched checkuser performed by an Arbcom member, which resulted in me having to out myself in order to show said Arbcom member that they had made a monumental mistake. All throughout the checkuser, I was treated in what I believe was an uncivil manner, particularly as an assumption of WP:AGF was never made. And I stated at the time that a simple apology would not cut it. As I stated above, I have repeatedly asked Arbcom for a response, with emails being sent to the Arbcom list on 21 September, 20 October and on 4 December. To date, I am yet to receive a response from Arbcom, except an email 5 days ago which stated that I would be gotten back to within a week. Given that Arbcom is absolutely aware of my case, as I brought it up at the Kuban_kazak Arbcom, here, and given that Arbcom does not have the common decency to even acknowledge it, one can't help but feel that I am being completely ignored. If I haven't received a response from the Arbcom by the end of the week, I will be opening a case in full view for all of the community to see, because as far as I am concerned, Arbcom members are not above the same standards that us mere mortals are held to. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 17:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Snowded
Did you mean to remove his/her statement when pruning or was that an accident? Daniel (talk) 05:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Awards
Thanks very much for doing that. I've been meaning to get round to it for a couple of weeks! -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 16:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, you could say that :) -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 23:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding alternative remedy for greg
In light of votes to close and this passing, may I ask if you have seen this alternate proposal? If you have seen it, could you post your vote there, with a rationale? Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I just wanted to make sure it wasn't missed. Can you tell me why finding 25.6 is so unpopular? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am afraid most comments were not very helpful; only nyb and sam made statements with clear logic. Nyb unfortunately seemed to have forgotten about my question at User_talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2008/Nov. Sam never replied to User_talk:Sam_Blacketer. Flo as well has not replied to my request for clarification (now archived here), even through she just like nyb indicated that she would reply. Morven expressed his belief, which is not exactly easy to analyze, and the rest made no meaningful comment; James did not reply to my request to clarify the rationale for his vote at User_talk:Jdforrester. I have not asked the other arbitrators who voted there for rationale, but I will do so soon. Last month I have posted a general request regarding this on the arbcom proposed talk page (Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2/Proposed_decision) and it was completly ignored, too :( Since you proposed this finding in the first place, I was wondering if you have any thoughts on its current state, and if it can be changed - or at least discussed more. I'd imagine if you bring the need for further discussion up, it would be less likely to get ignored, like my posts often are. I would really like to learn why most arbitrators don't want to pass it, and I believe that without this passing we will see a lot of stuff rehashed at Piotrus 3 in a year (and with current findings and remedies I am pretty sure there will be a Piotrus 3, as a lot of issues remain unresolved). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Military History
Thanks for welcoming me to the task force. I created Bayeux War Cemetery before I found the group; so I'm going to go back and review the article. If you'd like to check it out, that would be great. It is still being added to. I'm going to look at other projects that need help. Thanks again, and have a nice holiday! -- K72ndst (talk) 16:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

A review of the ArbCom "constitution"
Should you be minded to start such an exercise, for possible future reference or to gain a perspective that is informed by viewpoints from outside and within, I should be pleased to work with you on it. As the current crisis is receding I would think that you need not consider whether it might be pursued until after Christmas (any intervening crisis will not allow sufficient time anyway) and likely the New Year. If you would like to pick up on the idea in 2009 I hope I will be available. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Something for you

 * Incidentally, I've shamelessly ripped off your top of page fez etc row. Thanks for doing that. Very neat :) I've used the stars insignia as I thought it worked better at small sizes: coordinator emeritus = six stars (US-O12 insignia.svg) no? -- R OGER D AVIES   talk 10:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Another incidentally ... there's something strange happening. Text about proxy connections is being inserted here and in the middle of this. It looks like a template playing up. Any ideas? -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 11:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Tag & Assess WP:Military History question
Hi, I'm one of the coordinators of WP:FILMS, and we are planning on doing a tag & assess drive of our own next year modeled after the successful ones WP:Military History has had in the past. I was wondering how the worklists (such as this one) were developed and split up by 200 articles each (and then by 10 articles). Was this done manually or did a bot perform this? I was just wondering as it seems pretty tedious, and I want to ensure there is an easier way of doing it. I posted here since your name was the creator of that particular worklist, but if someone else knows more about the process, I'd appreciate it if you could guide me to the right person. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be great. As we get closer to finalizing the drive I'll let you know which articles we're looking at and we'll go from there. Thanks for your help. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Campaignboxes
Hi, Merry Christmas. As I recall, you know a lot about Campaignboxes and I have a problem at Timeline of the Adriatic campaign, 1807–1814 where at some resolutions the text overlaps with the box. This has been raised as a problem at the Featured List candidacy but I can't work out what the problem is. Can you direct me to a solution? Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This problem now appears to be the result of screen resolution issues, although if you have any feedback it would still be appreciated. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

help
Thumperwand is messing up with his edits and I need someone to repair. Can you take a look. I inserted the functioning Template:External media/sandbox version in Template:External media, loosing the whole documentation in the process and I can't track the error. Thank you. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you do one more fix. I edited targe and the external media is shown with a problematic layout that can cause considerable disrupture of article layout. Can you fix it, so the header is again included in the box. Thanks. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is, that the header of external media is not included into the box. We had this problem before and it can cause disruption of article layout. I haven't been searching for an example for the disruption. Can you fix it, so the header is again included into the box? We agreed in a discussion that it should be that way, but Thumperwand simply pushed his objective... Wandalstouring (talk) 14:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I can only see the header external media at targe and it's not in the box with the images. Can you fix it, so that the header again appears in the box with the material and that only if there's an image, but neither audio nor video it says external image and so on for audio and video? In case there's mixed media it should say external media. Thanks a lot and merry Christmas. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that did it. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; I shall look forward to working with you on the Arbitration Committee in the coming year. Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement. Best, Risker (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)



Piotrus 2
I am curious...what case before involved removing names from cases? All I remember is White Cat trying to rename "Davenbelle, Coolcat, and Stereotek" – wait. It was "Nobs1 and others," right? hbdragon88 (talk) 07:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit to A-Class
Hi there, I was wondering if there was any consensus to change A-Class? There's currently an editprotected at Template talk:B-Class citing your edit as a reason to make the change. I couldn't find any discussions on the change and was wondering if you could point me to one? Thanks. §hep  •   ¡Talk to me!  02:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So should the same changes be made to B-Class, C-Class, Start-Class, and Stub-Class? That way we can make them all appear the same. §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  03:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They're File:Symbol b class.svg, File:Symbol c class.svg, File:Symbol start class.svg, and File:Symbol stub class.svg. There's also File:Symbol template class.svg and File:Symbol list class.svg. §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  03:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Do I need to put in the separate requests at each template? §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  03:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. Will do. §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  03:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

feedback requested at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Committees
Hi, if you have time, I'd appreciate any feedback on a slightly crazy idea I had at Wikipedia Committees. It's related to the Arbitration Committee. Thanks! <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 18:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Del debate
Hi Kirill, would you mind taking a look at []? I've just created this and it's up for deletion. The story goes that I created the Russian military districts, and then the category Category:Military districts of Russia and the Soviet Union for them, then the Chinese military regions, and Category:Military regions of the People's Liberation Army for them, and then, according to Category:Military units and formations by country, a unifying category, Category:Military district and regions by country though slightly misspelt. Now I've created a category for the equivalent Israeli formations so that they can sit alongside, and run afoul of WP:OC, a rule I was totally unaware of. Your advice, as practically the creator of this category system, would be much appreciated. Kind regards and Happy New (Occidental) Year, Buckshot06(prof) 20:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Thanks again Kirill for all off your hard work with the officers. Here is some fuel from my tree to keep you firing in the new year! Happily retired from AC....  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 04:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Task Force 402
Thanks very much Kirill for your earlier thoughts. The other thing I'd like to ask you about about is 'transwikiing' something to WikiLeaks. We get the occasional 'leak' from the US military, such as Task Force 145, the original details for the |95th Civil Affairs Brigade, and this one, Task Force 402. It's totally unreferenced and nothing on the internet backs it up. Yet it's likely to be pretty factual - at least it jibes with everything I know about the US military. Can we move it over there? Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 17:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009
Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.

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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Image tag
Hi Kirill. I recently uploaded the squadron badge for No. 5 Squadron RNZAF from the RNZAF website because the following text appeared to clear it for use here: 'Material featured on this site is subject to Crown copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. The Crown copyright protected material may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission.' However it's just been deleted for not having the right image tag. Would you please indicate what the right tag would be so I can reupload it? Thanks (User Buckshot06)

Cam's RfA
Set up here. It's all ready for co-nom statement when you are :) -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 17:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 17:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOSKOS
Can you tell me what the process is for these type of things becoming policy, as opposed to draft guidelines, and where I would find the relevant discussion? Kind regards and Happy New Year, Buckshot06(prof) 18:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Quick question
Hi Kirill, quick question about the Milhist template. Occasionally users tag the talkpages of images that are on commons with the milhist tag, it then shows up in the "milhist needing attention category." (see File talk:Undervandsbåden Havmanden 1914 gs.jpg. Is this because the template looks for a page but cannot find it as the image is located on commons? Is there a way of making the template not look for image pages? Should image pages be tagged in the first place? (though I suspect that is one for WT:MHCOORD) Thanks and best regards, Woody (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)
The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No content in Category:Unassessed Avatar: The Last Airbender articles
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Unassessed Avatar: The Last Airbender articles, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Unassessed Avatar: The Last Airbender articles 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:Unassessed Avatar: The Last Airbender articles, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank You!
Kirill, thank you for agreeing to co-nominate me (along with Roger) for adminship. I am pleased to report that the request passed at 106/7/2. Oddly enough, your co-nomination actually changed an oppose to a neutral (go figure). I will, however, warn you in advance that I am likely to inevitably end up plaguing this talk page with requests for advice/assistance in admin-related matters. Thank you for your support. Best regards, Cam (Chat) 00:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009
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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)  §hepBot  ( Disable )  19:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009
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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ireland article names: Request for Remedy 2
The case was closed on 2009-01-04. Attempts to achieve consensus regarding Remedy 1 began shortly thereafter. It is now 2009-01-18, and no consensus has been achieved. Will the ArbCom now proceed with Remedy 2, please? -- Evertype·✆ 10:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Good luck regarding coordinating the new WikiProject (such as it is)
Was always wondering when the success of the military history coordinators program might extend itself into administration of the pedia itself. We've been having these discussions for several years now, about how the amount of content was starting reach critical mass, administrators had gotten a handle on applying endorsed societal norms, but we didn't have a strong institution for page improvement. You (being young, bright and energetic) have applied your youth, intellect, and energy in the affirmative arena of WikiProject:Military History. Those of us (myself much older and more sedentary than you) who have watched and supported your wikicareer have witnessed not only the simultaneous rise in WikiProject participation, but (not coincidental) vast improvement in the quality of pagespace (especially more accurate assessment). Hopefully the can-do, have-proven, and will-try attitudes you and Roger have displayed in project leadership will stand you in good stead in your current scrap. Good luck to you, Roger, and all the other arbs developing an improved process. We're nowhere near out of need for quality pagespace, either. BusterD (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Problem
Wikipedia is having great problem which is refusing to go away with article Jasenovac. After multiple RFC and 1 demand for reliable source we are going nowhere and there is administrator proposition for Arbitration Committee. You are member of Committee interested to military articles and so.....

Questions are:
 * 1 can we use like source "historians" which have been on state payroll (in this case Serbia) during Yugoslav Wars and are writing about crimes of other side ?

For example Cadik Danon which is writing about Croat WWII crimes and then in 1995 he is writing how USA are like Nazi ?
 * 2 can we use like source witness of crimes ?

For example we are having Djuro Schwartz. His statements are never published, but we are having user claims that they are writen in Yad Vashem.

We are needing somebody (Arbitration Committee, Reliable sources...) who will solve this. What is your thinking and maybe advice ?--Rjecina (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Kirill. I don't understand how voting can start without the independent review of the evidence by Arbitor Cool Hand Luke being completed. Isn't that totally against proper procedure? I am afraid this is not fair at all... Cheers PHG (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitor Cool Hand Luke has now completed his independent review of the evidence here. It basically shows that my contributions have been based on proper sourcing and are not even "undue weight", contrary to what has been said. Isn't it then highly unfair to ask for continued restrictions? It would be a shame if the Arbcom followed (and encouraged) the lingering enimities and unwarranted accusations of a few critics, rather than pass a fair judgement about my work. I strongly appeal to your sense of justice in this matter. Best regards PHG (talk) 07:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009
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.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered at 04:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot  ( Disable ) 

Nice work!
I guess you'd say that it wasn't such a big thing, but although it was only a small modification, it is a very important one I think. I'm feeling generous too, and I haven't given a barnstar in a long time... ;D

The barnstar template doesn't allow me to link to the actual edits. Sorry about that.  C h a m a l  talk 12:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi
I think I am leaving. Cheers PHG (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009
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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations
Upon your ascension. Cool beard BTW:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Unbanned?
Was that part of the wording supposed to come out? Seems odd... <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 04:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh... I don't mean to sound stupid, but does that mean there is some intentional provision where some banned users can !vote? <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 04:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That should have been obvious, sorry. It was a momentary head-scratcher. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 04:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Help
First I apologize for contacting you this way, but not sure what is proper. I had bookmarked you at sometime in the past, evidently because of some arbitration or comment I noticed that you were involved in. Could you please offer your advice on a problem I have. I noticed that an article "House of Moytoy" that is somewhat related to Cherokee history had been deleted of all content. On the talk page, I have been challenging the reasons for this with the person who did it. Although his reasoning is that the information there was wrong, I felt it could be edited rather than deleted. In addition, I don't believe he has as much knowledge of the subject matter as he thinks he does. Today I recieved notice that the article was up for deletion, and that I could make statements about it. However it specifically said that the article could not be cleared off. That is exactly this person had already done. I don't know who gets to make the final decisions about these things, but I would like to have the article replaced if possible until the debate is complete. I do write on wikipedia occasionally, but am not well versed in procedures. I am an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation in Tahlequah, Oklahoma, and am concerned that without this article a search for the name "Moytoy" returns no results on Wikipedia. There are articles on Moytoy I and Moytoy II, but they do not come up if a person simply enters "Moytoy" as most would do. This is an important name in Cherokee history, though as with all Cherokee names, it isn't entirely correct. Thank you for any guidance you can offer.Odestiny (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

After thinking it over...
...we decided you would like this version better. :) has a user box for you as well, if you would like to add that your page. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. After thinking it over it occurred to me that if we were going to adopt emeritus then we ought to be prepared for the eventuality that others may join you there someday. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009
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.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 22:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)
The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)
The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Dummy 4
I've dropped Bellhalla's Milhist logo into the dummy 4. It needs some tweaking - the panel needs to line up on the right with the tabs etc - but it don't look too bad, I think. Reaction? -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 18:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the dots are intentional. Once we've got the principle approved, I was going to get the image fine-tuned a bit, lighter colour for greater contrast, smaller WikiProject, military history in caps (perhaps) etc, then turn it into an SVG (loads quicker). -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 23:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You have been busy :) Great progress on the frontpage. The banner will work much better in gold rather than bronze and a stylised version of the map could go nicely with it. I like the naxbox tucked up into the banner but the visual problem is the switch from two columns, plus nav box, to two wider columns further down the page. (Incidentally, would the graphic logo work well in the navbox, do you think, and can we make it clickable?) My favs are probably 1 & 2. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 03:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Too cluttered, I think. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 16:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been playing with the graphic and for reasons I don't understand, I can't edit Bellhalla's images to tamper with the colours. It's to do with the way the graphic is made: the individual letters appear to run into each other. I'll have to ask him to change it. I don't like the gold map much though: too blurred. The gold would probably look best with highlights, like real gold, rather than a flat colour, and yes a tad redder/darker.
 * The Gallery layout is neater than the built-in one, has less white framing round the pictures, and "seems" to load quicker. Is this my imagination? I am generally worried about the load times - the big milhist logo for instance - but we do need to break the page up a bit: it's currently a wall of type. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 11:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

William Bostock
Hi mate, do you know something everyone else doesn't?! I notice you've taken this off the MILHIST FAC list and added to FAs, but doesn't look like the review has actually closed to me...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I see now that Raul took it off the FAC page, along with a number of others, and someone else has commented on the fact that many review pages are still open - so I guess it's kosher, even if the final paperwork's over there is a bit slow...! Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinating Arbitrator
You say in your user page that you were designated as Coordinating Arbitrator in January 2009. What does that mean?. Thanks. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 05:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

New Page implementation
The links to all of our awards are now broken: See: User:TomStar81/Awards, especially for the ACM and Chevrons with Oak Leaves. -MBK004 23:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, then it might be nice to go through the recipients of the Oak leaves and ACMs and update those links as a courtesy? The Chevrons can't be helped since we don't keep records. Are the award templates being updated to reflect this? -MBK004 23:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Updating the templates now,but there still is the updating of those that have previously been awarded, which is something that I will volunteer to try and accomplish. -MBK004 23:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost &mdash; February 16, 2009
<div style="margin-left:30px; margin-right:30px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:135%; line-height:120%;">

<div style="margin-left:20px; margin-right:20px; text-align:center; color:#333; margin-bottom:-20px; font-size:90%; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; padding-bottom:5px; font-style:italic;">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.

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 06:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Art: DC
See:Wikipedia Loves Art

The Smithsonian American Art Museum will be having a Wikipedia Loves Art! meetup on Friday, February 27 from 5-7 pm in the Kogod Courtyard. Come share your experiences, meet the other teams, and take some photos! While RSVPing isn't necessary drop Jeff Gates an email if you're planning on attending so he can get a head count: gatesj (at) si.edu. (Note: The SAAM is located in between Metro Center and Gallery Place (closer to the Gallery Place/Chinatown metro), and is convenient to all 5 metro lines.) &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT Jester   Son of the Defender  17:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Gentleman, Feast your Eyes!
For your awesome redesign of the milhist main space you are henceforth awarded the Barnstar of Awesomeness. Feast your eyes on the awesomeness, while we feast our eyes on the fruits of your redesign :) In all seriousness though, thanks for the overhaul, I hope that with a page that now wows those who visit we may be able to attract more attention to the project, and perhaps incourage more people to join or stay with the project. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was about to award you the WikiChevrons for this great work but they're not, well, awesome enough. Thanks for this great work. Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur with the above, and the award of the most exclusive and least tasteful barnstar on the 'pedia. Thank you. EyeSerene talk 12:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)