User talk:Kirill Lokshin/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 < Archive 10    Archive 11    Archive 12 >
All Pages:  1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  11 -  12 -  13 -  14 -  15 -  16 -  17 -  18 -  19 -  20 -  ... (up to 100)


invite in progress

Hi Kirill,

I'm just letting you know that at this very moment, I'm pasting the following invitation on the talk pages of law student wikipedians:

==[[WP:Hornbook]] -- a new law-related task force for the J.D. curriculum==

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Law/JD curriculum task force/invitation}}~~~~


Hi Kirill Lokshin/Archive 11,

I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in United States legal articles to take a look at WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".

Our mission is to assimilate into Wikipedia all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.

  • Over the course of a semester, each subpage will shift its focus to track the unfolding curriculum(s) for classes using that casebook around the country.
  • It will also feature an extensive, hyperlinked "index" or "outline" to that casebook, pointing to pages, headers, or {{anchors}} in Wikipedia (example).
  • Individual law schools can freely adapt our casebook outlines to the idiosyncratic curriculum devised by each individual professor.
  • I'm encouraging law students around the country to create local chapters of the club I'm starting at my own law school, "Student WP:Hornbook Editors". Using WP:Hornbook as our headquarters, we're hoping to create a study group so inclusive that nobody will dare not join.

What you can do now:

1. Add WP:Hornbook to your watchlist, {{User Hornbook}} to your userpage, and ~~~~ to Wikipedia:Hornbook/participants.
2. If you're a law student,
(You don't have to start the club, or even be involved in it; just help direct me to someone who might.)
3. Introduce yourself to me. Law editors on Wikipedia are a scarce commodity. Do knock on my talk page if there's an article you'd like help on.

Regards, Agradman talk/contribs 01:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tag and assess worklists

Hello, I sent you a message back in December about developing worklists for a WP:FILMS tag and assess drive. You said that there were Perl scripts that would automate the lists. Now that our drive is about ready to begin, I was wondering if you would be able to help me to develop 200-article ranges from the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Film articles by quality worklist. The list would only include stub, start, and unassessed articles (not GA/FA/B, etc.). There would be over 50,000 articles included in this list. Would you still be willing to help develop these ranges? Let me know if you need any additional information on my part. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can put the lists together, but not until next week; is that acceptable?
The lists should normally transclude some sort of instructions; see, for example, the various MilHist list pages. You'll need to decide on a location for the instructions page that I can put into the script before I'll be able to generate the lists. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping, I appreciate it. Next week would be fine, we're still finalizing details. The drive page can be seen here. The instructions can be found there so we likely don't need to transclude them for each individual range. Is it possible to just include the list of articles? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can certainly generate the lists with no instructions. My experience is that including extra copies of the instructions is helpful—many people won't want to switch to another page to check them—but that's just me. Kirill [talk] [pf] 22:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI.....

DC 8 (talk)

--NBahn (talk) 05:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about text appearing in edit mode

I forgot to thank you for answering my previous question, so I shall do so now: Thank you.

I recently noticed some text appears at the top of some pages when editing: "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should not be added and if present, must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relating to this policy, please report it on the biographies of living persons noticeboard."

Normally, I don't pay all that close attention to these kinds of things anymore; after several years, they just disappear into the background of Wikipedia (rather, I suspect that this may have started showing up some time ago and I never noticed it). But I imagine there has to be some kind of trigger for this to appear, else it would show up on pages where BLP doesn't apply... perhaps in the infobox or wikiproject templates? I'm very curious about how this works, it might just come in handy later. Would you know, or be able to point me to an editor who does? bahamut0013wordsdeeds 15:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The text is generated from {{BLP editintro}}, using some Javascript code that triggers based on the page categories; see Wikipedia:Editnotice#Edit intros for the full links. Kirill [talk] [pf] 16:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh... Thank you, that is helpful. Cheers! bahamut0013wordsdeeds 05:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

That looks great. Obviously there's a trade-off between making the arbitration process transparent and understandable to those who don't want to wade through the details directly, on the one hand, and fanning drama flames by publicizing ongoing disputes, on the other. But I think you strike a fine balance here.--ragesoss (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you're going to spend that much time studying what we're doing, come back and arbitrate! Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Planning Discussions Now Ongoing Regarding DC Meetup #8

You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future.

There is a planning discussion taking place here for DC Meetup #8. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know.

--User:Nbahn 04:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 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) 20:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

German infobox

Too much on your plate? I've been waiting a month! Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, things have been a bit hectic the last few weeks, as you no doubt know. In any case, I'll make the needed changes tomorrow. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know! That is why I haven't asked for a while as I know you have had a lot on your plate. Anyway you can see what needs doing in your archives from around July 2 if you can do it. Regards. Dr. Blofeld White cat 08:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated {{Infobox German location/sandbox}} to display the state location map side-by-side with the main one; I'd appreciate it if someone could test the sandboxed version out on some different articles and check if it breaks anything.
One issue that we need to consider is how to deal with the size difference between the two maps. We can try to make them render the same height, but then the columns will be different width; alternately, we can just align them to the top or middle of the block and ignore the height differential. Kirill [talk] [pf] 22:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for doing that. One thing though can you move the German national map to the right and the state locator to the left? If it doesn't work out it would be best to just use a regional locator map I think. Anyway see how it looks with switching sides.

Actually I think there is a way to deal with it. Could you remove the national locator map and keep the state map in the centre. What I'll do is replace the maps with e.g File:Bavaria location map G.svg so it shows where it is in Germany, sound good? Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, lets see how it looks first with the national locator on thr right, and the state map on the left. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've swapped the order of the two maps in the sandbox version now; does that look any better?
I think we could probably get rid of the national map if we use the new inset-display state maps; the state one should default to the overall Germany map if there's no state indicated, which should handle the error cases adequately. Kirill [talk] [pf] 14:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think though that the original map still looks good, it is the better detail I like of the regional maps... Anyway I was wondering if you could quickly sort out the UK infobox place as for instance see Llanidloes the map is horridly offline to the left. Also can you add a proper label to the map as it appear son Keflavik for instance? Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done; how does that look? Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, thanks for your help mate! Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

just fyi...

A Counter-proposal (September 26) is being discussed at DC 8 (talk).
--NBahn (talk) 06:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks again for developing the lists. I developed all of the subpages for the drive, and we'll probably be starting this week or next. Anyway, I appreciate you taking the time to compile and organize the lists, you saved me many hours of work. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Military of Africa

Hi Kirill, hope you're well and that things in DC are good. Armed Forces of Liberia, a topic close to my heart, is going through an A-Class Review and one of the things needing changing is the Liberia link in the template - from 'Military of Liberia' to 'Armed Forces of Liberia.' None of us know how to do it. Would you mind taking a look? Best wishes with your ArbCom activities and various wikiManagement projects.. Kind regards and thanks, Buckshot06(prof) 06:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that template is generated by {{Africa in topic|Military of}}, so there's no way to change the link for a single country. You'd need to create a stand-alone template for military links—one not implemented through the base Africa template, in other words—and change the link there.
I'm not convinced, however, that having a redirect would be unacceptable, given the difficulty in changing it. Kirill [talk] [pf] 16:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration report

Hi. I believe the Date delinking motion has been published now (and was published before midnight last night/this morning, if that is the official cut-off).

I am not sure the withdrawn "request" concerning Jimbo Wales' userpage should be further publicized, given all the circumstances and WP:DENY.

In the Abd-WMC case, you might want to mention that FloNight, in addition to Bainer, has offered workshop proposals.

And in general, if you are going to be scrutinizing our work in this much detail, I still think you might as well be arbitrating! Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that last phrase!  :-) Risker (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And third'ed. I wonder, if there are enough comments on this thread, if it might be included in WP:100. John Carter (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Curiously enough, summarizing arbitration activity takes much less time than actually generating the same amount of activity as an arbitrator. ;-) Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the best way of arranging the cutoff is, actually. In practice, the article is written sometime Sunday afternoon (EST) to meet the deadline at 11 PM EST, but isn't actually published until later on Monday; and, given that Sunday tends to be a fairly active day for announcements, there are obviously going to be things that take place between the time the article is written and the actual cutoff point.
I don't think pushing on the cutoff point is a good idea from a logistical standpoint, so the only thing I can think of would be to more explicitly indicate the time at which the article is written, to provide a better picture of where the real break in the narrative occurs. Does anyone have any other suggestions for dealing with this interval? Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could ask the people who wrote this feature before you how they handled this issue. I believe it was David Mestel who wrote the arbitration report the longest, so he might have a view. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, this hasn't been an issue until recently, because (a) the column never covered activity to this level of detail, and (b) the articles were almost always written after the deadline in any case. ;-) Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

possible correction

Thanks again for taking on the Arbitration report. See this comment; should this week's be amended?--ragesoss (talk) 03:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. The explanation given at the time the request was withdrawn was that the account was compromised, and this was the basis for the removal of the request. I suppose it would be reasonable to change the story from "it was discovered that the filing account had been compromised" to "it was claimed that the filing account had been compromised"; but, absent any further statement regarding the account from the Committee, digging further seems out-of-scope for a report that's supposed to focus on arbitration.
I'll defer to your judgment on the matter, in any case. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iz Ah Goin Senile?

Before you answer, please check out the hullabaloo goin down here and here. Until now I thought I knew what a dreadnought is. Your thoughts on the matter would be most appreciated.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 13:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hardly an expert on 20th-century ships, much less the precise terminology for classifying them. Personally, though, I'd always assumed that "dreadnought" referred to the main battery arrangement, independent of any other characteristics of the ship. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The definitions I've seen say large battleships having a main battery of 6 or more guns all of the same caliber (12 inches or more) and steam turbine engines. But after much wailing and gnashing of teeth it has been resolved amicably.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 10:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page structure changes causing problems

Hi Kirill. Would you have time to look at this? I've mentioned it on the clerks noticeboard as well, so a note there might avoid you or them duplicating any efforts. I do recall an earlier discussion about something similar. In fact, it was the same thing. See here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for input

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Article probation requesting clarification of the terms of the probation, specifically, whether the terms of the ruling do or do not allow uninvolved administrators to place a block or ban based on that statement. One of the active arbitrators, Newyorkbrad, has requested that you be contacted regarding this, indicating that you were the one who wrote the statement. Your input on this matter would be greatly appreciated by all, and, well, maybe we can try to talk you into getting back on the ArbCom. Hey, it's worth a try. ;) Anyway, your input there would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human Rights Torch Relay

If you have some time please provide us with an input at this RFC on 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay article and this Merger Contest. Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Night

Thanks. :) [1] SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 31 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 17:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Hawk War

I just listed this at FAC. Input appreciated. The nom is here. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese swords

Hi Kirill! I noticed your edits on Japanese sword and figured that you know something about Japanese swords. I would like to complete the List of National Treasures of Japan by creating the list of all swords. See here for a basic Japanese draft version. Eventually the list should look like the other lists in Category:Lists of National Treasures of Japan and provide some additional information besides the name of the sword and the place it is located at. Since I don't know much about swords (they look all the same to me) it would be great if you had some suggestions on what information could go into the list (size, material,...?). Of course if you feel like helping with generating the list that would be even better. Cheers bamse (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For an overview list, I think the important information would be the name of the swordsmith or school, and the date when the sword was made. Things like precise physical characteristics aren't going to be of much interest to the general reader; even describing the shape of a sword would involve a series of measurements that are completely meaningless to most people, and the actual metalwork is even more arcane than that.
I don't know how difficult it would be to obtain images of the swords in question, but that's something that could easily be added in a column of the table as well. Kirill [talk] [pf] 22:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. Very helpful. As for pictures I am not sure there is a big difference between swords of the same type. In fact having seen some of these swords side by side in a museum I could not tell the difference. Maybe I am just ignorant or did not know what to look for. :-) In the table the pictures would be rather small and rather similar. Maybe some pictures for the various types of swords can be added to the lead section later. bamse (talk) 08:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 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) 20:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews

Good job on the interviews I've seen you do in the signpost. I really enjoyed participating in the DnD one. I was thinking it might be cool if you would interview the two sides (separately most likely) in some of our great debate(s). Notability and fiction has some very smart and dedicated editors on both sides (maybe even a moderate perspective is warranted). I know I would like to participate in such a thing as an inclusionist. There are probably other things we disagree on enough to create some lively interviews (RFAR?, FAC criteria instruction creep?, arbcom something or other?, who knows). I could give you some names for a fiction interview if your interested. Thanks again, and good work on the WP:VG interview. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - thanks for showing an interest! I never really know if anyone outside the project even notices us, except when they're looking for something to delete. :P BOZ (talk) 04:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shoot, your best stuff isn't going into the interview. You should put that in too. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just remembered that stuff I wrote on the wikiproject talk page just tonight! It's been years, and I forgot it all until I looked at the history again. I can rewrite it tomorrow. BOZ (talk) 04:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about "I never really know if anyone outside the project even notices us, except when they're looking for something to delete." If you don't use it, I will. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words!
Interviewing sides in a debate seems like a very interesting idea. I'll talk to Sage—hopefully he won't have any problem with setting up something like this—but, in the meantime, some leads for notability and fiction would be good. :-) Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies to anyone who feels I've miscategorized them, or doesn't like to be categorized. Remove your name if you want.
Inclusionist side: User:Ikip, User:A Nobody, User:Phil Sandifer, User:Pixelface, me, User:BOZ, User:Hiding (I think he created NOTE, ironically), User:DGG (maybe, he's borderline moderate lately).
Moderates: User:Masem, User:Protonk
Deletionist side: User:Gavin.collins, User:ThuranX, User:Collectonian, User:Kww, User:TTN.
There are more, but that's off the top of my head. It's a mix of people who have tried to get WP:FICT to look how they'd like it (or reach a compromise), and people who work on tons of AfDs. Here's the people who have commented the most at FICT. Some have retired. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, giving all of those people a voice at the same time sounds like a trainwreck waiting to happen. ;) (read any of the WP:FICT talk page archives to see what I mean!) Unless, you mean to do the inclusionist/deletionist separately (and let those who self-identify as moderate choose a side, or comment about both), then maybe I could see that working. As far as the D&D Wikiproject origins that I posted on our talk page last night, maybe when I have a good half hour to sit down and rewrite it, I will do so, and then post in a separate section on the interview page (Kirill you can reformat it if that makes it funky). :) BOZ (talk) 01:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like BOZ says, these people should probably be kept seperate. You can get two weeks interviews, and maybe even three, I imagine. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for WikiProject review

Here is a suggestion for a WikiProject in a future signpost - the Olympics. With the 2010 Winter Olympics coming to Vancouver in February, it might be a good idea to get several editors involved in that to talk about what is going on with this project. Chris (talk) 03:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the idea; I'll add it to my list of projects to interview. :-) Kirill [talk] [pf] 11:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo Security Forces

Hi Kirill, Greetings. Would you mind taking a look at the above page? It's not displaying at all for some odd reason. Cheers and thanks Buckshot06(prof) 00:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fine to me at the moment; did you already fix whatever the problem was? Kirill [talk] [pf] 11:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Örbom

Can you take a peek at the article Anders Örbom, its a translation of the Swedish Wikipedia, but the English version is up for deletion, maybe you can help. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of templates

The second parameter (nomination number) is not working properly. When I filled it in, it removed the candidate's name from the nomination page string. I know the template has been tweaked since you wrote but could you take a look please? Thanks muchly,  Roger Davies talk 03:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While my skills at reading your mind are considerable, it would save me a bit of time if I could have a hint as to which template you might be referring to. ;-) Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! {{subst:Administrator candidacy notice|Username|Nomination number}}  Roger Davies talk 04:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fixed. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks,  Roger Davies talk 04:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military conflict infobox

I think there was an error with the last edit. It now displays an extra }} in the location field. Anotherclown (talk) 09:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tamahagane question

Hi Kirill!

There is some confusion on the Tamahagane page about the exact translation of the word. I don't speak Japanese, and am not sure if you do, but thought because of your history on Japanese sword articles that you may have some insight here.

I am a student of English etymology, and so I tend to see tamahagane as three separate words, "ha" meaning "sword edge", "gane" meaning "metal", (combined translated as "steel"), and "tama" which could seem to mean anything from "jewel" to "spirit" to "ball." But I have been told that Japanese may not work the same as English. Do you have any knowledge or sources that could answer this question?

Zaereth (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't speak Japanese, so I can't really comment on the linguistics. Perhaps someone like LordAmeth or Cla68 could be of more help here.
As far as the term itself is concerned, the sources I've read generally either use it untranslated, or translate it as "Japanese steel" or something similarly descriptive. The precise translation is probably more of a trivia footnote than anything else; I suspect that even in Japan it has come to be used as a term of art rather than as a literally interpreted one. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kirill. Yeah, the literal translation does seem a bit trivial, but since it's there I think it should probably be as accurate as possible. (People keep changing it.) I'll look around and see what I can find. Thanks again. Zaereth (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Report on Lengthy Litigation

I have been recently perusing your Wikipedia Signpost articles on the arbitration proceedings. I have followed ArbCom for some time, and I want to commend you for the fine way you concisely summarize the proceedings. I am sure that your ability to neutrally summarize these proceedings in a eloquent yet simple manner stems largely from your previous service on the committee. In any case, this is just a brief note to say thanks for your good work. —Matheuler 00:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words! Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good job with the reports indeed. Quick question concerning our case: the archives might have been leaked... or stolen. We are not sure. Do you think this deserves a correction? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of how exactly the archives made the transition from being private to being public, I think they qualify as "leaked". I don't think that speculating too deeply as to who might be responsible would be appropriate for the Signpost at this point. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D.C. Meetup, Saturday, September 26

The 8th DC Meetup dinner will be held this Saturday, September 26, starting at 6 p.m. The event will be at Burma Restaurant (740 6th St, NW near the Gallery Place-Chinatown Metro station). For details or to RSVP if you haven't already, see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 8. (You have received this announcement because your user page indicates that you live in Maryland, Virginia, or DC.) --EdwardsBot (talk) 06:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure meeting you tonight. I just wanted to show you the following: Tony Santiago. I thought I remembered seeing an article about him on here... --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 04:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link; that was very interesting reading! Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 06:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

The WikiProject Barnstar
In gratitude for your coordination services to the Military history WikiProject, from March 2009 to September 2009, please accept this barnstar. --TomStar81 (Talk) 02:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your kind words, and congratulations (again!) on your new position. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MILHIST admins

Hi. Since you're an admin and a member of the Military History WikiProject, feel free to list yourself here. Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk 19:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kirill

Greetings. Would you mind telling me how you do your archiving? I'm fed up with manually archiving my huge talkpage backlogs. Kind regards Buckshot06(prof) 23:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The archiving is done by MiszaBot III. To set it up on your talk page, you'll need to put the bot invocation template on it:
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 16
|algo = old(5d)
|archive = User talk:Buckshot06/Archive %(counter)d
}}
Hope that helps! Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(driveby) If you want a visible archive box on your page, you may want to precede that code with:
{{archive box|auto=yes}}
...hopefully helpful, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey

I'll just say, i think the article on wp:NRHP really missed a lot of good/extraordinary stuff to mention. I thot i gave some good suggestions about what a signpost article could address, but I didn't see your "questions" post, and you didn't let me know otherwise. Oh well. doncram (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolicited musings

There is a certain group of contributors, not as many as when you last were directly involved with them, who may benefit from the temporary return of an experienced and well regarded former colleague. Also, it is not very long until the end of the year - and there may well have been some matters that a conscientious past participant may be interested in bringing to a conclusion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 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) 00:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

The Signpost Barnstar
For staggering ongoing contributions to the Wikipedia Signpost, I award this barnstar to Kirill Lokshin. PretzelsTalk! 03:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! I'm happy to help. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Favour?

Any chance you could answer this question?, preferably on Jhfireboy's talk page? Many thanks in anticipation of your magnanimous approbation.  Roger Davies talk 03:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering I already reverted his change...
What he's trying to do is technically possible—see, for example, how the overall "featured content" count is generated for the progress bar on WP:MILHIST—but it's also something that shouldn't be done, since (a) the bot will just overwrite it all anyways, and (b) it will cause the statistics to be out of sync with the log, making monitoring of the assessments impossible. Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Kirill, for the explanation.  Roger Davies talk 03:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Redirect from Plural; your guidance sought

Dear Kirill, I'm interested to learn a tiny bit more about CFD. I'm a novice editor, and I'm not really aspiring to be anything more than this. Normally I don't communicate with any other Wikipedians or try to learn much new. But in this case, as you were the person who dealt with the {{db-g6}} tag I put into Pink peppercorns, I'm asking you two questions so that I can learn a little more.

I have added {{R from plural}} to Pink peppercorns.

Q1. Is this the right thing to do?

Q2. The Pink peppercorns page is obviously now reduntant. No pages link to it. So should it be deleted? Will it get deleted automatically? Can I flag it for deletion?

I've searched around trying to answer these questions myself, but couldn't find an answer. I haven't read up about page deletion though, so asking you is a lazy way for me to learn. Here are a couple of places I read:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 63

  1. 19 Redirecting plurals

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 20

  1. 1.5 Category:Redirects from plurals

thanks - Permacultura (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly:
  1. Yes, {{r from plural}} is an appropriate template for the redirect.
  2. Generally speaking, redirects are (a) harmless and (b) may help someone searching for the article find it more quickly, so the normal practice is to avoid deleting them unless there's something inappropriate about them. In this case, I would say that keeping it in place is perfectly sensible. (Keep in mind that checking what links to a redirect is likely to present only a partial picture; many redirects are heavily accessed by people typing them into the search box, but rarely linked to directly.)
Hope that helps! Kirill [talk] [pf] 11:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TROP

Are you still interested in doing that Signpost story? If so, I'll type out the answers ASAP. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd like to run it if possible (probably either this week or next week, depending on how quickly I can get the MILHIST story written). If you could put together some answers, or ping on other project members who might be able to, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks! Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've typed up some draft answers with a bit of help from Jason Rees. Feel free to copyedit my answers and let me know what you think needs to be clarified. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good to me. If any other members of the project would like to comment, that'd be great; but, in any case, I'll run with your answers next week. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

signpost thanks

The Signpost Barnstar
for not one, not two, but contributing four great stories this week -- and for diligently contributing every week. You're awesome. (And I'm not the only one who thinks so -- there is lots of praise for your Law article this week). thanks again! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 21:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the award! I'm happy to help out. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help with a WP:MILHIST template

I have looked at making the assessment templates more representative of the truth on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history. To that effect I've modified the current status statistics template found on the assessment page of the WikiProject giving accurate figures using the {{PAGESINCATEGORY:}} template. However, I'm struggling to come up with a way of updating the total and was wondering if you could help. Thanks. Jhfireboy Talk 14:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the section above where Roger relays your question. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Audit Subcommittee vacancies

You may be interested in a world exclusive for Signpost :)


 Roger Davies talk 21:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noted; I'll try to give this some coverage in the next edition. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refactored your Signpost article

Hi Kiril - huge apologies for this faux pas, but I refactored part of a statement you made in your latest Signpost article. diff.

What you wrote was entirely based on an administrative error (*my* error, to be precise) and not on fact. Apologies to you and in general. Manning (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no problem; thanks for correcting it. :-) Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much :-) I've spent all morning cleaning up this mistake. I have *absolutely no idea* how I got it into my head that it had passed, given that I updated the tallies indicating it had failed in the first place. Oh well, pass the cluebat. Manning (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kiril. Incidentally, dunno how close (past?) your deadline is, but the PD in the mailing list case has been posted. — Coren (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's past the deadline, so I'll cover it next week. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox color

Hi. Can I still not persuade you to change the colour to #7BA05B, an an army green color. It just seems more suitable. than the quite bright blue.... It would seem the "natural" military color to use. Are you open to a project discussion about it, see what most of the members think? I understand you use this is other various military related templates and not all of them are about battles as such but have a try of #7BA05B, I think it looks good... Himalayan 21:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I quite disagree with your core point, concerning natural colors. While green drab may have a certain immediate association with modern army uniforms (at least in some parts of the world) it has nothing to do with naval or aerial warfare—and, indeed, nothing at all to do with any warfare prior to World War II. Historically, the most common "military" colors are probably various shades of red (e.g. crimson, scarlet, etc.); but, as those make quite poor backgrounds, metallic colors (e.g. steel blue and silver, which is what the templates currently use) are a decent alternative.
(In practical terms, as well, black text on a light blue-gray background is easier to read than black text on a green one.) Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, aren't most of the war planes like File:Color Photographed B-17E in Flight.jpg, helicopters, submarines, tanks and military equipment also dark green? White text on dark green works well for headers.... Himalayan 17:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solothurn S-18/1100
 
About these coordinates     Color coordinates
Hex triplet#7BA05B
sRGBB (r, g, b)(123, 160, 91)
CMYKH (c, m, y, k)(45, 11, 66, 3)
HSV (h, s, v)(92°, 43%, 63%)
CIELChuv (L, C, h)(62, 48, 113°)
Source[Unsourced]
B: Normalized to [0–255] (byte)
H: Normalized to [0–100] (hundred)

Looks fine to me.... Himalayan 17:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The B-17 was, indeed, painted green; but most military planes are shades of gray or black (e.g. B-29, MiG-25), as are submarines (e.g. Los Angeles class); I've never heard of a submarine being painted green. Tanks are painted according to camouflage color schemes (e.g. yellow); they're not particularly predisposed to green either, except in the sense that forest camo happens to be green of various shades.
In any case, this is limited exclusively to modern equipment; before World War II, green was quite rare as a military color, typically appearing only in jaeger regiments and so forth (and, even then, as a much darker shade rather than the modern olive drab colors). Using green on a WWII battle might have some implied connection to the topic; using it on, say, a Roman battle would be utterly meaningless. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments subpages (Village pump discussion)

I was following a discussion at one of the village pumps about the comments subpages used by some articles, and having a vague memory that WP:WP 1.0 started them, I went looking for the old discussions that started them and found these: 1, 2, 3 (May to July 2006). You were one of the five main participants at those discussions, so I'm notifying all five of you so that some input from when this all started can be obtained for the current discussion, as I'm not sure the full picture is being presented there so far. I'll leave a note at the Village Pump discussion saying who I notified. I also left a note at the WP:WP 1.0 talk page, but not sure how much you each follow that page now, hence the user talk page note. Carcharoth (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

/Status used at AUSC elections

I've adapted the Milhist election status page for the upcoming AUSC elections: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/October 2009 election/Status. It strikes me that as the AUSC closing date for voting is the following month – i.e. 00:01 30 October (UTC) until 23:59 8 November (UTC) – the automation will probably not work properly as Milhist elections happening in the same month. Is there any chance you could look at this for me please, and fix it? With very many thanks in advance,  Roger Davies talk 14:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I think. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Kirill.  Roger Davies talk 03:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paraguay working group in Military history.

Thanks so much for the help! I'm a new editor and I'm just getting my bearings on how to do things here and am aware I'm still pretty mesy sometimes, so thx a lot for cleaning after me in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/South American military history task force/Paraguay! Could you help me by giving me some tips and directions regarding editing and doing things here? Currently I'm having some issues with pictures upload (as you can see in my talk page), creating tempaltes (which hopefully I'm done with) and organizing my user page. I wat the sub-sections books and video games in the userbox box on the right to be a collapsible box so it can be hidden normally and only the About me userboxes be seen. I still struggle a lot with the whole wikilanguage. Veritiel (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC) PS: Please answer in my talk page, that way I'm sure to read any reply.[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting articles that are not sourced

Hi Kirill. Hope all your various projects are going well. Where would you think discussions have taking place about a policy amendment about deleting unsourced articles. I've raised a query at the Pump but nobody seems to know about previous discussions re this issue (if there have been any.) Is there anyone particular you'd point me to / forum in wikipedia I should look in? Buckshot06(prof) 07:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic (talk · contribs) tried to start such a criteria in late-2006. It was about getting a CSD for way old, unsourced articles, same as for pictures with no source for 7 days. YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 07:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the CSD talk archives are probably the most likely place. I'd also check the PROD talk archives, as I vaguely recall something along those lines being brought up there at one point. Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki

Right now, the above "translation" project is primarily focused on developing lists for coutries. Do you think the MILHIST project would have any interest in having a list of the relevant articles in other languages that don't yet exist in English? I know you aren't the leader anymore, but I have a feeling Roger is kind of busy and I think you probably are as familiar with the project as anyone. John Carter (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that could be useful. The best scenario, in my opinion, would be not a list for the entire project—that would likely grow so large as to be pretty useless—but lists for each of the "national" task forces, organized by the prevalent languages there. So, for example, the French military history task force would get a list of articles from fr.wiki, and so forth. Would that level of precision be feasible? Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fritzpoll told me that that the best way to proceed would be to give a list of categories which were to be included in the listing for each project or work group. On that basis, I tend to think that there is a slight chance that some of the articles included in each list wouldn't be necessarily relevant to the specific work group, but only a slight chance, as I don't think the French wikipedia, for instance, is likely to have many articles on military personnel who have nothing to do with France. Give me some time to look over the various relevant categories in other languages and I'll see what I can do. John Carter (talk) 13:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 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) 19:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COIN

Hi, could you please explain what the problem is rather than just referring to a talk page, it isn't immediately clear what's been going on. Thanks Smartse (talk)

Oh crap, just got really confused by someone linking to your essay about professionalism in their signature.... nevermind! Smartse (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kirill

Any chance of you running for a new term on arbcom? You have done a stellar job in the past, your influence would be missed. ViridaeTalk 03:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I firmly second this comment. AGK 22:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had the pleasure to meet Kirill in person at the last Wikimania, and used the opportunity to demand his return at least several times every hour. He can testify to the sincerity of my desire to have him return (and, possibly, to how annoying I can get!)  :-) — Coren (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Me four. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno what I was doing when I wrote that originally - spelling and wording mistakes now corrected. ViridaeTalk 01:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure Kirill would get the most votes. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. ;-) Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, and you should know better because you've been there done that, but YEE HAA !!! — Rlevse • Talk • 02:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice, I was hoping you would! Still quite a drought in candidates. Cheers, Amalthea 02:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amalthea, ganz gut nicht wahr? — Rlevse • Talk • 03:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Am besten, Amalthea auch eine "arbitratorin". — Rlevse • Talk • 03:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was sad to see you resign, and I'm glad you're willing to put your name back in the ring. Good luck. MastCell Talk 22:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Planning Discussions Now Ongoing Regarding DC Meetup #9

You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future.

There is a planning discussion taking place here for DC Meetup #9. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know. --NBahn (talk) 04:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the RFAR:West Bank - Judea and Samaria

There is supposed to be decision there appended somehere concerning the names to be used. I'm unable to find it. Would you happen to know exactly where it is?
--NBahn (talk) 06:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the end result was Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank). Kirill [talk] [pf] 14:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Double check

Hi Kirill. Does this edit constitute vandalism? I warned User:Intelligent Mr Toad on User_talk:Intelligent Mr Toad about it, but he's protesting. Would appreciate your thoughts. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't say it's vandalism per se—merely because something has a citation attached doesn't mean that it can't be removed, or that such removal is automatically a bad-faith edit—but that doesn't make it any less of a bad idea, particularly as far as the provocative edit summary is concerned. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement is likely to be instructive reading here, I think. Kirill [talk] [pf] 07:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that the only justified removal of sourced text was to replace it with something else more correct/better sourced. Is that not correct? Buckshot06 (talk) 07:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, no; sourced text may be removed if it is irrelevant, if it is better placed in another article, or for a myriad of other editorial reasons. Merely because something happens to be sourced doesn't exempt it from the normal wiki process—it just means that it can't be removed for lack of sourcing in and of itself. Kirill [talk] [pf] 07:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleonic fiction work group

Thank you for the support and the barnstar. I will be glad to meet you in person at the D.C. meetup in January.SADADS (talk) 05:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject report

Are you not covering this beat any more, just noticed your name absent on the list. Hiding T 10:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've decided to let someone else do this one, at least for the time being; I haven't really had the opportunity to do a proper interview for a number of weeks now, and there's no sense in my simply taking up the spot. Kirill [talk] [prof] 04:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Is there a list of projects to do, I might pick this up. You used to set up a sub-page with questions and invite people to answer, is that right? Hiding T 14:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't really have a list set up; mostly, I was looking for projects that had accomplished a significant amount—it's not really worth it trying to do an interview with an inactive project. Hunting through the WP:1.0/I statistics to look for projects with a high number or concentration of well-written articles is probably a halfway-decent way of finding potential interview candidates.
As far as the logistics are concerned, I was setting up the interviews as subpages of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject report, and then moving them to the actual article location when they were about to be published; see the history of, say, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-09-28/WikiProject report, for example.
Hope that helps! Kirill [talk] [prof] 05:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MILHIST template

See message at Template_talk:WPMILHIST#Book-class. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright cool. BTW could you take a look at the WP:SHIPS banner and make the changes there too (discussion)? It seemed to share a lot of the same code as the MILHIST banner, and I don't have editing right anyway even if I could figure out what to change. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Planning Discussions Now Finished Regarding DC Meetup #9

  • You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
  • Planning — for the most part, anyway — is now finished (see here) for DC Meetup #9.

--NBahn (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grats...

on coming in first in the election. Guess you shouldn't have resigned! Nathan T 23:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me echo that. Assuming the appointments shake down in some predictable manner, I look forward to working with you. Steve Smith (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that you're back on the Committee. Cla68 (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! —Amelioration 23:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well deserved. At a time when anti-incumbency seems to be the trend, this community has endorsed your past behaviors and asked you to continue an earned leadership role (such as it is). BusterD (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
500+ supports :O Now what was that you said a few months ago about you being unqualified for arbcom? :P Congratulations :D J.delanoygabsadds 01:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hah! I win! — Coren (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know you but congratulations on the highest support versus oppose votes for ArbCom. Hopefully, you will try to do the best job possible so that you can convince the 489 neutral and oppose voters that the 507 support voters were correct in your selection. That's not a criticism of you but that everyone should always do their best in life. Congratulations on your success. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. This result is quite a surprise, though certainly a welcome one. Thank you everyone for your kind words; I'll try to do my best to live up to the expectations of the many editors who supported me. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, don't know you, but I remember thinking that you looked young and dedicated (when I was preparing to vote) ... too young to have many dedicated enemies. May you live to a ripe old age ... when you can resign from a life of service ... with surely a few enemies to vandalize your Wikipedia retirement page. :-) Cheers! Salute! Happy holidays. Proofreader77 (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might like to know. With 507 votes for you, I think that is now the second highest number of support votes of all time, with Newyorkbrad's 552 in December 2007 being the only higher number ever recorded. Well earned, too. John Carter (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. I hope you enjoyed your six-month break. Since you've been following the committee's activities for the Signpost, you should be pretty current, so here's to your picking up where you left off. Can we have a draft decision in the Tothwolf case by Monday at noon? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 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) 18:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Season's greetings

Thank you for being one of the people who has made 2009 such an interesting and enlightening year for me. It has certainly had its challenges, but also many highlights. I wish you peace and contentment in 2010, and a joyous holiday season to you and yours.


In honour of the season, I hope you will enjoy a little musical token. Your choice: traditional or cheeky.


Best, Risker (talk) 00:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Featured Article

Congratulations, Italian War of 1521–1526 has been selected to be the TFA on 31 December 2009! -MBK004 08:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time for celebrating is over...

off to work you go!
Congratulations :-) FloNight♥♥♥♥

Member's list

I recall you once said that were/are automated scripts that could update the members list we have. I was wondering when the last time the list had been subject to a run by the scripts; our active member list says its last update was February (although the talk page says March) and in either case I would guess that some have fallen off the bandwagon since then. Assuming they have not been run since February/March, having them run again sometime in January could be useful insofar as getting a better idea of who we still have with us for the new year. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, will do. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and Happy New Year. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Best Wishes for 2010, FloNight♥♥♥♥ 12:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Scouting broken

When Jan 1, 2010 rolled around this portal display went awry. I checked it on both my computers and it looks the same: some portlets display on the left with blank space on the right, some display across the whole screen, and then some display on the right with blank space on the left. I changed my screen settings and it doesn't help. I have not changed any of the portal's code, so one would think something with the new monthly content is breaking it, but I have no idea what. It displayed fine prior to that. Can you help? Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yea, it seems to have fixed itself, go figure, New Year Wiki Gremlins I guess. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An anon realized I left off <div><center> tags on the picture page, hehe. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 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) 03:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3rd viscount monckton of brenchley

This subject has suffered from Graves' Disease, which causes ocular proptosis. Various people who may be part of a paid network of wreckers who tamper with the biogs of people who disagree with global warming have repeatedly inserted an obviously offensive photo of the subject that exploits his physical disability by making a feature of the proptosis in a ludicrous way. Please refer these people - one of them is ChrisO, who has been warned before - to the arbitration committee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.85.112 (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final arguments in COI complaint against Yehoishophot Oliver, Shlomke, Zsero, Debresser

The WP:COI complaint of pro-Chabad POV editing and violations of WP:OWN in Chabad-related articles against Users Yehoishophot Oliver (talk · contribs) and Shlomke (talk · contribs) and Zsero (talk · contribs) and Debresser (talk · contribs), is now in its final stages as admins review it. The debate and discussions have expanded greatly since their start. If any outside party still wishes to add their comments and observations, now is the time. New sections have been added at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Yehoishophot Oliver. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block not expiring

I recently blocked BilCat (talk · contribs) for a 3RR violation. While I initially set the block to 12 hours, I reduced it to 3 hours shortly afterwards. While the block should now have expired, Bill is finding that he is still blocked and receives a message stating that he's been autoblocked. When I try to manually lift the block I get a message saying that the block has expired. Do you know what's going wrong here? Please note that Ajh1492 (talk · contribs), who I also blocked for 12 hours but reduced to 3 for the same edit war may also be affected. Thanks Nick-D (talk) 05:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC) (I've also posted this at WP:AN, but am contacting you directly as I see you're online).[reply]

This has now been fixed. Nick-D (talk) 05:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrapping text around tables

Hi Kirill, happy new year!! Hope you and your loved ones are well. I'm facing a problem at Iranian Air Force. I'm attempting to insert a units/bases chart but it is set to stay in the left-hand side of the column, and I cannot force text to fill up the rest of the column. Can you help me or point me to someone who can? Kind regards from Aotearoa, Buckshot06 (talk) 08:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've aligned the table so that the text wraps around it, but I'm not sure how well the end result really works. You might want to consider moving "Jane's Sentinel Estimate of Units 1993" into the table itself as a header and adding an outer border; otherwise, the heading isn't really attached to the table. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much

...for both the barnstar and your advice and guidance throughout the process. Both were/are greatly appreciated :) EyeSerenetalk 14:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concern about your motion

Haven't you learned something since your last resignation? Backroom dealing and ignoring the community are not acceptable on Wikipedia. ArbCom is elected to resolve disputes, not to govern by fiat. "Unsourced BLP" is not a criterion for speedy deletion, though "Attack page" is. Your motion reflects a poor understanding of these circumstances. Jehochman Brrr 15:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and before you think about moving this concern to my talk page, I'll say please don't do that. I'm familiar with the various tactics arbitrators use to deflect criticism. Jehochman Brrr 15:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The results of last month's ArbCom elections, would indicate that Kirill has the community's trust, and that he is not the one here needing to learn a lesson.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my argument, just added there. [2] You are moving much too fast. DGG ( talk ) 17:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been wondering what you meant by that, are you wanting to ignore BLP then, or ??? ++Lar: t/c 22:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not for long if he keeps acting this way. Jehochman Brrr 18:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And what do you mean by THAT? ++Lar: t/c 22:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The community is in favor of change on the BLP issue. I don't think it's unreasonable for ArbCom to recognize the tension and compel the participants to continue their campaign in a more measured way. Cool Hand Luke 18:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Motion passed! Good on ya. It was almost like, no, can it be... leadership and responsibility? You've done a very good thing.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the motion does that. I think it exonerates out of process deletions and encourages admins to disregard objections. Jehochman Brrr 19:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're interested in process, not in the persistence of tens of thousands unmaintained, unsourced BLPs for years, and are opposed to bold action to behave like responsible adults. That was already clear.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
JEHochman, come back when you have a workable alternative proposal to solve this problem that has been accepted by the community. Just about any of the ones being floated at the RfC work for me. But stop sniping at people who are actually trying to solve the problem instead of policy wonking. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. ++Lar: t/c 21:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check the timestamp on my proposal at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. (About five hours before your snipe.) Jehochman Brrr 00:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As of this writing your proposal there appears to be the one that's garnering the most supports and the widest margin of support, among those proposals that are concrete and that acknowledge there is a problem. So, bravo! Glad you came up with it. But you have also been sniping. Needlessly. ++Lar: t/c 17:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, how can you honestly say this?
"JEHochman, come back when you have a workable alternative proposal to solve this problem that has been accepted by the community"
You have shown that you have absolutly no respect for consensus by your behavior yesterday.
Three year old policy:
Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
Jack Merridew's reversion:
Contentious Material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
Jack Merridew's reversion version is the one you protected the page on at 02:13, 21 January 2010. From 03:55, 21 January 2010 to 03:35, 21 January 2010 you deleted several articles against established consensus on the page you just protected, now you are lecturing JEHochman on consensus?
You have absolutly zero credibility lecturing anyone about consensus. Ikip 22:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh hi Ikip, I thought your wife took your password or something? I think you're confused, you need to walk the history, someone turned up on my talk page talking about edit warring, so I (knowing I'd not edited that page recently (ever?)) went and protected it. As usual, it was protected at the Wrong Version. I didn't even notice who edited it last or what state it was in. But I see someone else edited through protection to flip it. Oh well, I'm not going to worry about it. Normally you are supposed to insist that it needs to stay the Wrong Version but I just don't really care all that much about someone editing it that way. But is this the right page for that? Why don't you pop by my talk page if you want to harangue me about something. ++Lar: t/c 22:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, am concerned about the motion - primarily due to it's lack of clarity. It seems to simultaneously endorse and condemn the practice of summarily deleting unreferenced BLP articles. I don't really care which way you decide, but you need to make it absolutely clear which it is. Otherwise, you invite further escalation in the conflict as people on both sides of the dispute push the boundaries in order to determine exactly where those boundaries are. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to issuing clarifications, but I'm hopeful that the recently opened request for comments—which I'm happy to see is proceeding smoothly—will make further statements from us unnecessary. There won't be a need for anyone to push boundaries once the community comes up with a better way of proceeding with the resolution of this issue. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well... I guess this is where I say "told ya' so." And the new RFAR isn't the only incident of people assuming that they have carte blanche to force their interpretation of policy over all other opinions, citing your poorly worded motion. Please take the opportunity to clarify - or you could again just sweep it under the rug and hope for the best. -Chunky Rice (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, in response to your original inquiry, the core role of the Arbitration Committee—in many ways the very reason why it exists—is to examine a dispute that is brought before it and to determine whether the editors involved conducted themselves in a way that is compliant with Wikipedia policy and community practice. That is precisely what we have done here—no more, no less. The rest, we leave up to the community.

You are, of course, entirely welcome to disagree with my judgement on whether the actions involved here complied with policy. Ultimately, however, the community has given myself and my colleagues on the Committee the responsibility for making that decision; and it is a responsibility I do not take lightly. I will not shy away from making the decision I believe to be the right one merely to make myself more popular in certain circles. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. For whatever reason the motion does not talk about the behavior of the editors exclusively. As I read it, which might not have been your intention in writing it, the motion says "carry on chaps with the speed deletions". No, there is no CAT:CSD criteria that allows such an action, and the community is expressly against it. ArbCom cannot overrule the community. Would you and Lar please review my proposed resolution at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people and comment if you wish. I think my recommended approach has far and away the most support. It would be helpful to retract or rewrite your motion, as the current version serves to confuse the matter. Jehochman Brrr 00:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the way that I see the motion. It says that the deletions of old, unsourced BLPs was in accordance with BLP policy. ArbCom is charged with interpreting policy when judging editor/admin actions, and have done so effectively here. Cla68 (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I once argued for exactly this thing at CAT:CSD and was shot down. The community has not been silent; they oppose speedy on these grounds. I think we should give PROD some teeth and say that users may not remove prods, especially en masse, without stating a valid reason. Jehochman Brrr 00:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's fine. I think your idea at the RfC, if current trends continue, will pass and become policy. If it doesn't, however, I believe the Committee is making it clear that mass deletions of old, unsourced BLPs will once again be justified and IAW with current BLP policy. Cla68 (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And thus our judiciary seizes executive power from the people; and the first act of our new totalitarian regime is to issue amnesties to anyone who breaks the rules in support of its policies. Bravo, Dear Leader Kirill! When shall I expect your militia of above-the-law supporters to teach me the foolishness of dissent? Hesperian 04:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably worth noting the the BLP-related views of most of the arbitrators, particularly those most recently elected by the community, were very well known before their election. Looking at Kirill and Coren's prior votes in arb cases on BLPs and their vote on this motion subsequent to re-election, it follows the same form. If it is the arb's fault for passing this motion, it is also the community's fault for electing people who it knew would do such a thing. Can you really say the community could not have expected to see such a motion coming from Kirill, when he drafted a very similarly toned remedy at WP:BLPBAN prior to his election? Or the exhortation at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles#Biographies_of_living_people that BLPs must have sources, which was passed by Wizardman, Rlevse, Coren, Roger Davies, and Kirill. Acting like this finding came out of left field by an Arbcom that hid its intentions until the last moment denies the prior actions of the arbs. MBisanz talk 05:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For fuck's sake, we elected a judiciary, not an executive. We make the rules; we set the reform agendas; ArbCom addresses behaviours. The community had every right to ignore the political views of the people standing for ArbCom, because they had every right to expect that our judiciary would stay the hell out of politics, like any self-respecting not-openly-corrupt judiciary does. This is Justice 101: you don't issue amnesties to people solely because you like the reform agenda they have put on the table. You don't decline to examine behaviours just because you share the political views that drive that behaviour. You don't prostitute your judicial neutrality for political gain. If the most you can say in ArbCom's defense is "you should have seen this coming", then they are indeed damned with faint praise. Hesperian 05:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying this motion was a natural continuation of their prior findings and people shouldn't be surprised to see the exact same individuals make findings on the exact same path that they've been making them since 2006. MBisanz talk 05:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you say so. That it is unsurprising, to you at least, doesn't make it any less rotten. Hesperian 05:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's always surprising to see disruption "commended". When Ed Poor deleted VFD, it may have been for a 'good' reason, and it may have spurred reform (or, it may just have distracted from the ongoing discussion). Good or ill, the arbcomm didn't commend him. No reasonable member of the community would have expected the arbs to commend disruption. Your claims to the contrary are simply specious. Guettarda (talk) 05:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)You honestly think that most people who voted dug through their past decisions with an eye for things like this? Most people are here to write an encyclopaedia, not to peruse the minutia of arbcomm decisions. Regardless, the ruling may interprets BLP a tad more widely than the policy reads, but it's within the scope of a reasonable application of existing policy. It's one thing to say that information about living people needs to be reliably sourced. That's a given - everything in the encyclopaedia needs to reliably sourced. But that's a far cry from saying "all unsourced statements need to be deleted", and even further cry from endorsing disruptive behaviour by a select group...I'd say "of editors", but at least one member of that group has barely 500 mainspace edits in the last 2 years...so "editor" is a bit of an misnomer.

If you, as an editor, identify an article that needs to be sourced, the expectation is that you'd give it a shot. If you can't find sources, then you'd move to delete the article. It's quite another thing though to go on a deletion spree based on the fact that a bot had characterised them as unsourced. It's pretty safe to say that no attempt was made to check whether the bot was correct in its characterisation. (Betacommand found that 17,000 of the articles tagged as unsourced actually appear to have sources.) Deleting an article based on the judgement of a bot is unacceptable. But the arbcomm choose to "commend" that behaviour.

Why this ruling is problematic is that throws out the most basic ideas about the way this community operates. Collaborative work has always been key. This ruling throws out the principle of collaboration. It says that any editor or group of editors have a carte blanche to operate as the like, no matter how disruptively, if they secure the support of the arbcomm. That kind of approach stands in stark opposition to the way this encyclopaedia was built. And is maintained. The more you de-motivate editors, the fewer people you have to actually maintain the articles that have sources, but still, amazingly, manage to end up with damaging or misleading statements. On all levels, this hurts the project. Guettarda (talk) 05:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Arbcom adopted an almost identical stance to both non-free images and copyright violations, and that both of those are well-known to any experienced editors, again shows this motion did not just drop out of the sky. Also, the community did re-elect the individual with barely 500 mainspace edits within the last month, so they knew exactly what they were getting when they voted. MBisanz talk 06:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arbs with barely 500 mainspace edits? Really? Who? As for the rest of it - don't be ridiculous. Copyvios are like unsourced articles? What utter rubbish. Guettarda (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Coren was the arb with less than 500 mainspace edits in the last two years, and he was elected the first time and again in December by a community fully aware of that edit record. MBisanz talk 06:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I can behave like an utter twat, whilst working towards an agenda that the ArbCom likes, and be commended for it, then the question has to arise: what will ArbCom do if I behave perfectly, whilst working towards an agenda they don't like? Will I be banned simply for failing to align myself with their reform agenda? Does behaviour even matter any more? Or does your survival here depend on your ability to stay in policy step with the new regime? Hesperian 06:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know, come to think of it, that is exactly what is happening. People are out there right now, removing prods from unsourced BLPs, in accordance with policy, and I understand that some of them are in serious danger of finding themselves banned as disruptive. So here's your truth table:
Behaviour in accordance with policy
No Yes
Outcomes promote ArbCom agenda No User is in deep shit. User is in deep shit.
Yes User is commended User is commended
There you have it. The data is in. Behaviour doesn't matter any more. If you want to survive in Wikipedia, you have to toe the ArbCom policy line. Hesperian 06:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmph, I didn't get my commendation yet for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war, which fell into the lower half of that table. MBisanz talk 06:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but that was before ArbCom seized executive power and proclaimed an amnesty for supporters of their reform agenda. This is a new regime, my friend. Whole new vistas of policy violation lay open before you. Go for it! So long as you're doing ArbCom bidding, you can do whatever the hell you want. Hesperian 06:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the bottom right probably should be "no comment". Hesperian 06:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So this is a question for Kirill, and Kirill alone: Kirill, does behaviour still matter? Hesperian 06:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course behavior matters; people who behave well while pursuing agendas that arbitrators don't like are not going to be sanctioned merely because we don't agree with their ideas; and people who behave poorly while pursuing agendas that arbitrators do like have regularly been sanctioned, and will continue to be sanctioned in the future.
One issue here is that you're conflating "disliking" an agenda and believing it to be incompatible with the core mission of the project. For example, the idea that we shouldn't make statements about living people unless we can back them up is not merely a community policy; it is a fundamental quality of our being an ethically responsible publication. While a certain amount of disagreement on the precise methods we use to achieve compliance is expected, outright rejection of the underlying principle is not. The community does not have the authority to turn the project into a tabloid, no matter how much it may wish to do so, because that's simply not why Wikipedia exists; and, consequently, anyone whose agenda is turning Wikipedia into a tabloid is likely to find themselves rather unwelcome.
Having said that, the intent is not to beat everyone into submission. Personally, I would much prefer it if the community were to get sufficiently diligent about handling BLP issues that they never need come before ArbCom again; and, ultimately, that requires broad agreement for the methods that will be used to keep BLPs in adequate shape. But editors who obstruct progress for their own ends, who play games with biographies of living people, and who think that making a political statement about "inclusionism" or "deletionism" is more important than meeting our ethical obligations to those we write about are no longer going to be given free rein, as they have been for so many years. Kirill [talk] [prof] 07:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're conflating something too. You're conflating rejection of dreadful behaviour with "rejection of the underlying principle". Was that the choice for you?: Either reject both behaviour and principle, or endorse both behaviour and principle? Did it not occur to you that behaviour and principle are different things, and the role of ArbCom, a judiciary, is behaviour and behaviour alone? You guys are so busy pushing a policy agenda—something a judiciary has no right to do—that you failed utterly to do your job of examining behaviour. And then, to issue an amnesty, solely because you're glad this shit finally hit the fan!

<redacted> There's no point spreading the love all over your talk page. Do me a favour and scrape up an ArbCom response, or at least your own personal response, to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration#Corruption. Hesperian 07:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) You forget that the Arbitration Committee is not, and has never been, a judiciary body (although we have, at times, borrowed related terminology). ArbCom's purpose is not to provide "justice" in the absolute sense; it exists only to resolve editor disputes within the context of a project to write an encyclopedia, and every action it takes is ultimately meant to advance and uphold that fundamental mission. Trying to draw close parallels to real-world legal systems, while enlightening in certain situations, is of very limited use in others. Kirill [talk] [prof] 08:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The separation of powers, especially the separation of judiciary from executive, is widely recognised as a fundamental principle of good governance; if you're not willing to import good governance from the real world, you shouldn't have nominated for ArbCom.

I think we're done here. Obviously it is beyond my ability to move you. If ArbCom truly thinks it has the right to dismiss bad behaviour with the ruling that "the end justifies the means", then I have nothing more to say to any of you. Hesperian 10:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

#switch help

Would you mind coming over here and helping me with some intricate #switch/#if stuff for a template? I'm still learning how all of it works, and these bits are still somewhat confusing to me. I appreciate your time. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, shortly. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Portal:Speculative fiction/Selected works/Layout should do what you need now. Please look over the result and let me know if it needs additional changes, or if you need any other help. Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that works like a charm. :) ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

102nd IW

Even though you offered help months ago, I have finally need your input. What do you think of my changing the list to text on the page? I'm finally just going to give in, so whatever you might have for ideas is a good start. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 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) 04:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[[3]]

Hi Kirill, hope you had a good holiday. We've had at WT:MILHIST request about this 'article' which is some sort of wikipedia tech page. Are you able to take a look? Best regards from Aotearoa New Zealand, Buckshot06 (talk) 07:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an old test page for checking template outputs; as far as I can tell, we should be able to delete it with no ill effects, as whatever it was used for is no longer an issue. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Participant (member) list tools

Hi, when you update the Military History member list, do you have any tools or scripts you use? I'm trying to get a sense of what's out there because I need to clean up the WP California list, and in general I think some kind of tool to update those lists would help me and other people trying coordinate projects. Also is there any particular number or participants or project size where you think formal coordination should be looked at? Thanks for all your work on the Council. -Optigan13 (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a script that I use for updating the list; I can send you a copy if you let me know your email address.:As far as coordination is concerned, it's somewhat of a fluid thing. I think that almost any project large enough to survive and stay active could use a coordinator; whether that role is formalized is mostly a function of how much work is involved, and how many people are needed to do it all. A smaller project can get away with informal coordination; a project with dozens of task forces and hundreds of members is likely to benefit from a more formalized system. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I sent you an email. For now I'll try to do a write up on the project guide and have other people give it a look just to outline the various roles and responsibilities of a coordinator. Did you start MILHIST out as the founder/coordinator? -Optigan13 (talk) 05:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really; MILHIST, in its earliest incarnations, considerably predates my presence on Wikipedia, although I played a large role in coalescing it into its current form. If you're curious about the history of the coordinator position, there's some material at WP:MHCOORD#History that might be useful. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:notable commanders

I suppose it because its my idea of notability that I like to see people in the section who were actually notable rather than a mile long list of all the 2-star commanders of a particular unit which to me poisons the point of the box since it lumps everyone into the same category rather than listing one or two or so extraordinary commanders whose names were associated with the unit that really went the extra mile, or had a unique rank, or gained their notability not just in the unit but outside of it as well. I've reverted my edits in any case, I should not have acted without consensus on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent

Hello, Kirill Lokshin. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators#Major_milmos_incident.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TomStar81 (Talk) 06:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add a "public interest" clause to Oversight

A proposal to add a "public interest" clause to Wikipedia:Oversight has started at Wikipedia_talk:Oversight#Proposal_for_new_.27public_interest.27_clause. SilkTork *YES! 10:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3rd US Infantry naming convention problems... again

Hello, I've come to ask again for your assistance in the matter. For the third time in as many years, the article's name is in contention and once again, it is an argument being made by someone who really doesn't understand the nature of the unit's Please have a look at the Talk page if you'd be so kind. Thank you. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably worth writing up a FAQ on the talk page explaining why the article is named as it is, since the reasoning isn't necessarily obvious to anyone not familiar with the history.
As far as this new move proposal is concerned, this isn't really my area of expertise—I was involved in the previous discussion only because I was active in setting up the MILHIST naming conventions at the time—so I would recommend leaving notes at WT:MILHIST and WT:USMIL asking for input from people more familiar with the topic; some of our editors with a deeper knowledge of US Army naming practices will probably be more helpful in any discussion (or FAQ writing) than I would be. Kirill [talk] [prof] 06:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/March 2010/Status

The da Vinci Barnstar
You, sir, are a life saver. Thanks for fixing this; I kept tinkering with it and simply could not determine what I was doing wrong. Thanks for the help, Kirill :) TomStar81 (Talk) 05:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your kind words! Kirill [talk] [prof] 06:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Gong

Hi Kirill. I believe you were involved in the very first Arbitration case on this. I do not know if you have seen this. FYI. --Asdfg12345 09:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 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) 22:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom thread re BLP deletion

Please see [4] for an example of why this is a live issue and not hypothetical. Others have mentioned other instances of articles del;eted out of process.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

A query

One of your fellow admins has directed me here, so here is my question. So many other websites use the Konami Code in one way or another, why does Wikipedia not do so as well? If you cannot answer my question, please direct me to somebody who can. Thank you. Sincerely, Watcher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.18.95.84 (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an entertainment site; as such, we have no possible use for tricks of this sort. Kirill [talk] [prof] 05:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Welcome

Please see HERE for a overview of my recent work and intrests Mlpearc MESSAGE 06:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

Milhist PR help

It appears at this point that there is no major objection to the addition of the {{Peer review tools}} to the milhist pr system, but I have two questions: can this be done in our PR system in a manner similar to what we did with the ACR project, and is there any part of the tool set that we need to clarify the use of? TomStar81 (Talk) 04:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...Also, did we ever get the membership list updated? TomStar81 (Talk) 05:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We should be able to add the PR tools transparently by using a preload template for the peer review pages, as we do for ACRs; I can work on this when I get the chance, or one of the other coordinators should be able to set it up as well.
As far as an update is concerned, the script I used to use doesn't seem to work correctly, probably because something in the formatting of the pages has changed; I'll need to do some testing before I can get it up and running again. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010


Thank you for the welcomeSteven1969 (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

Military Dagger

Good morning Krill. Per this discussion, I was wondering if you had any hard references or authoritative examples of use of a dagger as a symbol for death in battle? I'm fairly certain I've seen it used in numerous books in the past, but I can't for the life of me find any now! It would be great to get the usage clarified, as I think there may need to be further discussion on its appropriateness of use in some articles (ie whether KIA is better for more recent battles or for the visually impaired). Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 10:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything that would be an authoritative reference. I'll try hunting through some likely books when I get a chance, but the usage seems more tradition than anything else, at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Krill. Personally I think its well established use in Genealogy is more than reason enough for its use on Wiki, even if an RS for military use couldn't be found! Ranger Steve (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request Help with Infobox Choice

Hi Kiril,

From WP:INFOBOX, I understand that you are the point of contact for MILHIST infoboxes. I have a unique situation and hope you could point me in right direction. I want to know if there are any infoboxes for entire Military Arm of a nation ? Specifically, if we talk about Luftwaffe organization, wouldn't there be something similar to Template:Command structure ? If there's one, I'd like to put it in Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933-1945). Thanks in advance. '  Perseus 71 talk 20:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On looking through some military branch articles, it seems that the normal convention is to use the normal {{infobox military unit}} with one or more instances of {{command structure}} below that as needed. (There's also {{infobox national military}}, but that probably wouldn't add any real value given the scope of the article.) Overall, I don't think that there's any need to treat top-level military branches differently from any other high-level formation; they tend to have the same key data points available, and so lend themselves to use of an identical infobox. Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That's exactly what I was looking for. '  Perseus 71 talk 01:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

The March 2010 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) 22:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asgardian Arbitration

Thank you for all the hard work you and the rest of the Arbitration Committee put into the case. Your intervention into what has been a three-year problem is much appreciated! Nightscream (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force categories

Hi Kirill. I don't know if this is something I've done, but the category links for the new TF seem to be doing something very odd. Some hours ago I created the new Category:Australia,_New_Zealand_and_South_Pacific_military_history_task_force_articles page, created the various sub-cats, and these seemed to be populating correctly. I just went back to check on progress and found that the links to the sub-sub-cats (eg "FA-Class Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history articles") now give a 404; something seems to be adding extra parameters into the URL. This isn't the case if you try clicking first on the sub-cat and then on the sub-sub-cat from there (eg first "Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history articles by quality" and then "FA-Class Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history articles"). Any ideas? EyeSerenetalk 20:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any problem with the categories at the moment, but it sounds like something not working quite right on the server; a malformed category name—or pretty much anything else appended to the end of the URL—should return a "Category does not exist yet" page at worst, not a 404 error. Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was inserting an additional /en/wiki/ (or something similar, can't remember the exact syntax) at the start of the URL. Having said that, the links seem to be working properly now, although they are still showing up as empty on the main category page. Thanks for taking a look - I'll put it down to the ghost in the machine :) EyeSerenetalk 07:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)

The April 2010 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) 19:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Planning Discussions Now Underway Regarding DC Meetup #10

  • You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
  • Please be advised that planning is now underway (see here) for DC Meetup #10. --NBahn (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

S dnem podey! (don't have Russian keys, and I'm only posting this since it's 2 in the morning in London, or morning in Moscow)

File:Marshals.jpg
You and User:Roger Davies, on white and black horses respectivly, with two others following you. User:TomStar81 is in the background, preparing to mount his brown colored horse, which is not visible. Standing in rank and file are the thousands of members of WP:MILHIST.

Этот День Победы

Порохом пропах,

Это праздник

С сединою на висках.

Это радость

Со слезами на глазах.

I know that it's not original. But I think my caption of the photo is. And I think that's what matters. Thank you for your service to Wikipedia in the fight against Fascism, and for your joining of WikiPrject Wars, BAttles and Military (did I get them right?). Buggie111 (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supplement style guide

The discussion over at WT:MOS seems to be favorable to a proposed "Supplemental style guide" (SSG) as a companion to the main MoS for content-specific guidelines. Gnevin proposed that several of the current MoS-tagged pages could be moved into this SSG. I was wondering if you'd be willing to help me in starting up the proposal? Since the current sentiment is that the MoS should be pared down and streamlined to accommodate only guidelines of a generalized sort, I think we both agree that there should be some way to collect style guides that are based on content together in a single place for reference and consultation. Imzadi 1979 → 09:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gnevin has started a very rough draft at WP:Supplemental style guide. It looks like we're going to discuss ideas related to it on its talk page. Imzadi 1979 → 10:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good; I'll try to help out as I have time. Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

Response from you required at arb case

Hi Kirill, a response from you is required at [[5]] in relation to Shell's statement and the clarification that you posted in relation to Offliner. Either Shell is incorrect, or the clarification is incorrect. This absolutely needs to be clarified. Because it goes down to the crux of the issue as it actually does exist. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 10:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a request regarding D.C. Meetup #10

  • If you are able (and willing, as well, of course!) to furnish a credit — or debit — card, then please contact me so that I can furnish you with the necessary contact info.<br. />—NBahn (talk) 03:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kerill

Hey, I know you have been really active on WP:Military History in the past. Today I started an internship with the United States Army Center for Military History and I was wondering if, in your opinion, you think their could be a good collaboration/interaction between the Wikipedia community and the Center? I would be willing to coordinate something like that as an intern, once I am more established in the office, but I wanted to start putting together some ideas from my own end before I propose anything to my boss or the WikiProject and the broader community. Your help and experience would be greatly appreciated. I was thinking something along the lines of the activity that was held at the NIH last year, but focused on creating a long term relationship, like what is happening with the British Museum. Any thoughts? 23:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This seems like an excellent idea, assuming that the Center would be willing to entertain it. Certainly, from our perspective, we would be very interested in both a collaborative relationship of some sort, or, if that's not feasible, then simply an increased flow of PD material to Wikipedia.
I'll be happy to help with this as time permits; unfortunately, my schedule tends to be rather unpredictable, so I would suggest getting a few of the other local MILHISTers involved as well. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who would you suggest? before I start posting stuff on their central page. Sadads (talk) 12:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite remember who is in the area at the moment; I would suggest simply asking on WT:MILHIST whether anyone local to DC has some time to spare. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

Infobox weapon

I tried adding a passengers label to the weapon infobox but only the label shows but not the text as seen on M2 Bradley. Not sure if i'm ever going to complete the countermeasures infobox. Marcus Aurelius (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed now; the parameter name was misspelled in the actual displayed invocation. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note re Lar/Polargeo

The situation between Lar and Polargeo, similar to the situation between Lar and Stephen Shultz is escalating. Here is the sequence of events:

  1. Polargeo adds some views to the uninvolved admin section.
  2. Lar moves these and adds one of his own views.
  3. Polargeo reverts this, accidentally removing Lar's view.
  4. Hipocrite returns Lar's view.
  5. Lar move's polargeo's view again, and threatens to block Polargeo if he returns his view.

Lar was asked to stop removing views on his talk page and instead take a lower-drama action of noting his problems on the page by me, seconded by Thparkth.

This is rapidly spiriling out of control and needs emergy Arbcom intervention to prevent further disruption. I have asked both Lar and Polargeo to stop. Perhaps the individual who choses to stop first should be rewarded, as opposed to losing by default. Just a thought. Hipocrite (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

quote

I seem to recall you once using an excellent quote, but I cannot recall it verbatim, nor the author. It ran something along the lines that individuals much be thick-skinned to praise as well as criticism... can you clear this up for me? bahamut0013wordsdeeds 05:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The description doesn't quite ring a bell, but if I remember which quote you're referring to, I'll let you know. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

Task force assessment help

I've created a Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology/Social movements task force. I would like to have a quality assessment statistics (like those), but simply using Template:WPMILHIST Task force assessment code (with milhist->sociology) change didn't work (as you can see on the socmov task force page). Since you seem to be the person who set this system up for MILHIST, I'd appreciate your advice (see also this thread). Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem seems to be that the task force name (usually parameter #1) was never inserted, so the template code substituted the parameter invocation syntax instead. It's probably an easy fix, but I'm not quite sure where to make it; is there a new template that you're working from, or did you copy the code onto the task force page manually? Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

The May 2010 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) 21:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

WP:GLAM/SI

Hey, I created a page at Wikipedia:GLAM/SI as a good central place for discussion of ideas of what we can offer to the Smithsonian. Sadads (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

RECREATING PAGE

Hey! I wanted to update the information for the band Against Empire and have found that it was deleted a long time ago. There is no reason for this as this band is very well known and a huge influence on the Contemporary Hardcore Punk music and political scene. This band has been on numerous tours throughout USA and Europe and have toured and released records with many notable bands and record labels. They have a new album that is released and wanted to add that information As well as revamp all of the old info that used to be there) but came to the quick realization that the page was deleted for false reasons. It would be great if you could email me back instead of using Wikipedia to discuss this. but whatever works for you. Thank you,

PUNKTRUTH (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC) brianlevy1@gmail.com[reply]

I'm not Kirill, but my two cents -
The article was deleted a long time ago, because it had no reliable sources for the information in it and didn't explain how the band was notable.
You should review some relevant Wikipedia policies:
If you can review the WP:BAND criteria and the band meets one or more of those, and you can provide a source for the fact that it meets the criteria, then you can recreate the article and list the source for the information. There are fancy ways of formatting sources, but if you're not familiar with those then just list out the source's information (book title, author, isbn, date; magazine article, author, date; etc) and someone else can do the source formatting.
Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:GLAM/SI

Above is the project page for working with the Smithsonian. Sadads (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

War

I fail to see how this improves the navigation. Someone looking at the category Category:War might expect to see "Wars" linked to, but to get to it they have to navigate to "Military operations", and then "Military operations by scale", which is not at all intuitive. So regardless of "appropriate sub-categories", the reader is not well served. Someone looking at the category "Wars" should also easily be able to navigate to the general concept "War". This is not overcategorisation by a long shot. Fences&Windows 20:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I recall correctly, the general category guidelines frown on having a category placed in one of its own ancestors; unless we remove "Military operations" from "War" and only leave "Wars" there, we have that issue in principle. Having said that, I don't care enough about the issue to argue the point, so if you want to undo my change, I won't object. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with that principle - it's called "diffusing categories". You put articles into sub-categories to aid navigation and avoid the parent category getting clogged up. And apparently loops are evil (just imagine, a reader might get stuck in an eternal clicking loop!). An alternative to adding a category would be just to include a link to "Wars" from "War" and vice versa, though that seems like a clumsy approach. Military operations are not all wars, though all wars are military operations. As not all military operations have to do with war, one could argue it doesn't belong in "War", but I'm not going to be that pedantic. To me this direct connection between these categories seems like 'common sense'. Fences&Windows 23:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)



The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010) 		Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank

Articles

Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content

Members

June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members

Editorial

LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TB

Hello, Kirill Lokshin. You have new messages at Gnevin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gnevin (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First Smithsonian workshop conversation

Please check out the conversation at Wikipedia talk:GLAM/SI#First workshop session, thanks Sadads (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

Workshop sign up is up at WP:GLAM/SI/Events

Hey, the final date and time for the first Workshop has been set. If you want to sign up for the team check out Wikipedia:GLAM/SI, Sadads (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blablaaa's impending rfc

I've never actually been privy to an rfc of this nature before; is there anything I should know about the process that I couldn't read at WP:RFC? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not much; RFCs tend to be fairly unstructured, with the only real "process" being editors writing and/or endorsing particular views. The normal rules regarding conduct, civility, and so forth apply, just as they would to any routine discussion; beyond that, this is largely just a chance for the wider community to offer its input on the matter. Kirill [talk] [prof] 07:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty then, I guess we'll just see where the rfc takes us and then move from there. Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of basic economics topics

Yes, it is controversial - that is why I have asked for the original name to be restored. Could you please reconsider in this light? Thanks, Verbal chat 16:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the past history—I'm not entirely certain how controversial the original renaming might have been, as I haven't been following the relevant discussions—it would be inappropriate for me to use the housekeeping CSD criteria to reverse it given the amount of time that has passed; under the circumstances, I would simply be inserting myself into the underlying dispute, not performing uncontroversial administrative work. The appropriate thing to do at this juncture would be to either (a) start a renaming discussion for the individual page or (b) wait for a consensus on naming to emerge for the entire set of pages. Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "outline project" has had over a year to put its house in order, which I would think classes as a reasonable amount of time. At ANI they were instructed to prepare an RfC to show whether their project had community consensus, but they have not done so (despite the help of myself and others) and the most vocal member of the project compares an RfC to shooting himself or helping run gas chambers (his Godwin confirming analogies, not mine). How much longer would would you recommend to wait? In this amount of time a proposed policy would have been rejected (which they originally claimed outlines were). Thanks, Verbal chat 20:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

Arbcom req blaaa

Hi

Is there a time frame for the first stage before the case is accepted - also do we make statements now or wait till it is accepted/rejected ? (If we make one now is it expected to be a brief outline or should it include diffs?)

I have just finished for the night and would rather wait till tomorrow to have a fresh brain on the matter as have been doing edits all evening for the backlog elimination drive and my brain is a bit too frazzled for that sort of diffs reporting and evidence collecting. Obviously I do not want to leave it in a state of missing comments when I should have made one though.

Chaosdruid (talk) 23:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It usually takes a few days for a case to be accepted unless the Committee decides to treat it as an urgent matter, and I see no reason why that would be the case here.
As far as statements go, the ones being made at the moment are simply explanations of why the Committee should hear the matter, not substantive presentations of evidence; so if you'd like to make a statement at this point, it should be fairly brief, and not go into too much detail. If the case is accepted, there will be a full evidence phase to allow us to present the more comprehensive version. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I don't know if a statement at this stage would be necessary as you seem to have covered most things. I may just add a synopsis of the OR accusations but will see tomorrow as others may make statements that cover it Chaosdruid (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to do this Kirill. I've had no involvement with ArbCom for four years and then two cases within months of each other (the other). Strange place, this... :) EyeSerenetalk 12:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just like to say ditto. In addition, am unsure weather to make a statement or not; it would feel like am repeating myself from the RFC, but will gladly do so if that is not a problem (as long as it is within the word limit). Lastly, should one avoid or respond to the allegations made in Bla’s statement? I believe he has removed it now but the original comment “Several german editors are already pushed away from this articles and more have troubles” is quite frankly laughable!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kirill_Lokshin/Archive_11&oldid=1166522362"