User talk:Kirill Lokshin/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 < Archive 11    Archive 12    Archive 13 >
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)


Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 11

Hey, just in case you missed it, there is an oppurtunity to get a free dinner this Tuesday August 11 and a chance to meet and hang out talk about Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy and WP:GLAM/SI. Sorry that this is so late in the game, I was hoping the e-mail would be a better form of contact for active members (if you want to get on the e-mail list send me an User e-mail ). Hope that you can attend, User:Sadads (talk)12:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I've mentioned you on ANI. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know; I've responded there. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Souvalou

YOU DELETED BOTH OF MY ARTICLES THAT I WORKED FOREVER ON!!!!!!! STOP IT OR ELSE I WILL DO SOMETHING AS MEAN AS YOU DID!!! Ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Souvalou (talk • contribs) 16:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

36th Division (National Revolutionary Army) and User:Дунгане

Kirill, I know you're pretty busy. Would you kindly please nominate someone semi-involved with Milhist and with a good head on their shoulders to review my actions and proposed course of action with this editor, this article, and the CCI? Would like to ask you to do it yourself, but aware you've got large numbers of other things on your list. Kind regards from Wellington, Buckshot06 (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I would have suggested Miborovsky, but he's no longer active. PericlesofAthens might also be an option, although his focus is usually on older topics. Other than that, I don't really know anyone active with Chinese military history.
Of course, if you're just looking for a general second opinion, without a need for topic expertise, I'd recommend asking around the coordinators; I'm sure one of them will either have time to review the matter themselves or be able to point you to someone who does. Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)



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

New parameter for military conflict infobox introduced;
Preliminary information on the September coordinator elections

Articles

Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content

Members

July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy

Editorial

Opportunities for new military history articles

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) 21:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OMT assessments

Kirll, I think there might be a problem. The chart is not showing but the assessment logs for the phases are showing activity: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Operation Majestic Titan (Phase I) articles by quality log. Is there a problem or has the bot not yet cycled? -MBK004 03:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bot simply hasn't created the statistics listings for OMT yet; looking at its activity, the stat updates don't necessarily seem to be synchronized with the log updates. Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese swordsmithing

Hi Kirill,

I like the new change; it looks like you did some pretty good work there. I have plans to try to improve that article's referencing this winter when things finally slow down around here. I'd like to add something about the decorations that are often forged into the blades or created during the quenching. I've seen flowers, clovers, rat's feet, and even entire landscapes, including specific islands surrounded by a wavy ocean. There is incredible artistry involved in shaping the clay with the grain to produce waves with misting spray or tress blowing in the wind, all portrayed in the hamon. I believe Cyril Smith's book goes into this in some detail, but that'll have to wait a few months.

Anyhow, I just wanted to say thanks, and it looks like you've done a good job there. Zaereth (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words!
I like your idea about the decoration; it's definitely a topic that we should cover in that article, particularly since breaking out the other parts of the construction process allows us to devote more space to the forging itself. I'm trying, at the moment, to do some rough cleanup of the existing article and category structure; once that's done, I'm going to focus on bringing the entire set of articles up to a decent level, but that will probably take a considerable amount of time.
I'm not sure if you saw this, but I created a working group on Japanese swords to try and organize efforts on this topic; if you have the time and inclination, I'd be very happy to see you join—you're one of the most active editors in this area. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I didn't see that. I'll check that out when I get a chance later today. Zaereth (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added myself to the list of participants. I'm not quite sure how to format the list of articles, but Some other articles to add to the swordsmith list would be Shintōgo Kunimitsu and, of course, Amakuni. There are others that we probably have articles on, but I'd have to look them up. That'll have to wait a while. Have a good day. Zaereth (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting; it seems that those two were categorized under Category:Swordsmiths, but not under Category:Japanese swords (which is where I extracted the original list from). I'll add them to the proper categories now; when I have a bit of free time, I'll probably need to look through all the swordsmith articles and see if there are any more Japanese ones that are under-categorized. Kirill [talk] [prof] 20:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Titan's Cross

 The Titan's Cross in Bronze 
I have the honor of awarding the Titan's Cross in Bronze to Kirill Lokshin for the enormously helpful behind-the-scenes work you have been doing despite not being a member of Majestic Titan nor having an special interest in the subject. In particular, your assistance with technical details our of special project has been greatly appreciated. On behalf of all participating members of Operation Majestic Titan, TomStar81 (Talk) 06:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your kind words; I'm happy to have been of assistance. Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

R4?

Is the new (unsourced) stub R4 Revolution the same as the Revolution 4 you deleted on 11 August? I found the latter when adding a redirect for the former while stub-sorting. PamD (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be about the same topic, but the article is different enough that we shouldn't have any problems. The version I deleted was a long promotional piece, not a stub. Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist A-class and Peer Reviews Jul-Dec 2009

The Content Review Medal of Merit  
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews during the period July-December 2009, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the award! Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recusal from EEML?

Hi Kirill, you have recused yourself from some prior amendments, etc to do with EEML, but you are currently active in relation to an amendment. Can I please ask under what circumstances you have previously recused yourself from EEML-related discussions and processes? I am just curious, as I thought one would need to be entirely recused? --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 02:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, I've recused myself on matters concerning a couple of specific points about which I had opined during the case. If you recall, I wasn't part of the Committee at the time the case was being heard, and so commented on certain aspects of the case in my private capacity; to avoid any questions regarding my motivations, I've decided not to vote on amendments concerning those matters. Having said that, I was not recused from the case when it was heard, and am not aware of any substantive grounds for a general recusal on the subject of the case or the parties to it, and have thus participated in discussions that did not concern those specific points (e.g. this or this). Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Kirill, thanks for your answer here. That's all that I needed to know. I just wasn't sure if recusing from one part but not the other was within norms, but it seems that it is. Cheers, --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 04:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then where can I post?

Where can I post? Village pump says to report it there. Please help me. MySQL Database is not a transparent copy. The Ideas mentioned there may apply to new articles. I asked for a modified 4-clause BSD license. Most users of Wikipedia like attribution rather than share-alike. Can't an article contain non-GFDL'd project? Please understand the copyleft GFDL contaminates every articles. Rishikeshan (talk) 06:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your speculation about what editors do and don't like aside, we're simply not going to adopt a license that's not compatible with our current one, because we'd be violating the licensing terms for the entire encyclopedia in the process. You can keep asking the same question as many times as you'd like, but you're not going to get a different answer. Kirill [talk] [prof] 06:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Insulting

Dozens of editors, in good faith on both sides, took this dispute to ArbCom and spent hundreds of hours on it. If you can't be bothered to spend a mere hour or two looking into the alleged BLP violations of William M. Connolley -- and despite what you say, that's all it should take since some of them become obvious pretty quickly -- and establish that he has a problem in several cases, then you're insulting a lot of us. If you need help looking into it, no doubt you'll get a dozen editors who will point out the particulars to you. Just ask. Don't dismiss their efforts. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather dismayed, to say the least. ++Lar: t/c 20:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certain we can spend a great deal of time going through WMC's edits and trying to determine whether each might be a BLP violation; likewise, I'm certain that, with enough digging, we will find at least some that are undisputedly BLP violations (although, for most of them, the question will come down to an evaluation of proper weight in sources, which the Committee is not really set up to determine).
Having said that, I don't believe that this will be a good use of anyone's time at this juncture; the purpose of the proceeding is to resolve the problem, not (necessarily) to sanction particular editors for past actions, and I think that the problem of WMC's participation can be resolved here without the need for extensive rulings on the propriety of individual edits.
You're quite welcome to disagree with me on that point, of course; but my actions are intended to be pragmatic rather than insulting. Kirill [talk] [prof] 20:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear on how a request to WMC is going to resolve "the problem of WMC's participation" as you put it, or, frankly, resolve anything. Nobody wants to be an uninvolved admin in this area and you all are not helping. ++Lar: t/c 21:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that WMC not editing in this area would resolve whatever issues there might have been with his participation, no? Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that isn't nearly enough. Until the bloc behavior stops, the issues won't be resolved. Unless you plan to ban him from commenting to his supporters and baiting the admins that try to enforce our policies? ++Lar: t/c 21:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Intent isn't necessary for an insult, but I won't dwell on it. It isn't hard to see that you don't need to spend "a great deal of time going through WMC's edits". Asking WMC to retire from the scene doesn't reflect the nature of his unrelenting approach over the course of many months. And when he refuses your polite request to disengage, his long-cemented pattern of behavior is unlikely to change. He called Fred Singer a believer in Martians, for crying out loud. He edit warred to keep in a source (Real Climate, which he used to help write) that disparaged the honesty of Singer in partisan language. It ain't rocket science. We have a right to expect more effort on your part than you seem to be investing. BLP is a policy. ArbCom is set up to enforce policy. And in this case it really isn't all that hard to do so. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He called Fred Singer a believer in Martians - no, he did not. Please don't present your misinterpretations as facts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 03:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, JWB, get your facts straight! When WMC added text about Singer believing Martians built a moon, that didn't mean he was saying Singer believed Martians existed per se, only that they built a moon. Singer could have just as easily believed nonexistent Martians built it. :-) ATren (talk) 05:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This edit is a fact. [1] Am I misinterpreting it? I've been looking through the diffs, but haven't seen everything, although I see that both you Stephan and ATren were involved in discussions about this at the time. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see WMC moved the sentence up to the lead with that edit and you, Stephan, had restored it to the article [2] after it had been deleted. Another WMC edit restoring it to the lead. [3] (It was originally added to the article here. [4], and here's Raul654 doing some dirty work [5] with an unfair snippet of a quote in the edit summary; this later edit put the whole thing into perspective [6]) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 06:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like Kirill is saying ArbCom cannot enforce BLP policy. Admins block all the time over BLP violations. Connolley was sanctioned for BLP violations under the probation sanctions and was banned from a particular BLP article. Of course BLP can be enforced. If we've now reached a point that BLP policy cannot be enforced by ArbCom, then we need to get rid of BLP policy -- saying it's unenforceable has the exact same effect. Minor4th 00:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does sound that way, doesn't it. But I don't think that is what Kirill really means. Maybe if he thinks it through he'll change. Because BLP is important, and WMC's BLP violations are so serious that something needs to be done. Something more than just separating the bully from his victims with an admonition to play nice. ++Lar: t/c 02:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite bans and arbitration

It's been a few years since I had anything to do with the arbitration committee, but your proposals for indefinite topic bans of some editors in the climate change case (remedy 7.2, 8.3) looked a little odd. Arbitration committees used to be reluctant to propose unlimited-time bans, and normally observed a maximum duration of 12 months on editing restrictions. This could well have changed, of course. --TS 19:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's only ever been the case for site bans (which have, by convention, been limited to a year's duration); topic bans were traditionally indefinite, and it's only during the last couple of years that fixed-length variants have started to become commonplace. Kirill [talk] [prof] 20:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --TS 20:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your proposal of indefinite topic bans for two "skeptic" editors who have not been nearly as disruptive as William M. Connolley or ChrisO, while giving Connolley and ChrisO a walk is distasteful. I encourage you to read through the diffs again because there is no logic in your votes, other than the fact that they cut straight along ideological lines. That is very troubling. Minor4th 00:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your participation in the CC case

This in regards to your comment here, "Some of these are likely BLP violations, but we're hardly in a position to rule on each without examining the sources in this field in some detail."[7] If you cannot be bothered to read the evidence, perhaps you should recuse yourself from the case. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how closely we read the evidence—and let me assure you that I have read what was presented—we cannot rule on many of the alleged violations because doing so would be dependent on making a content ruling (which the community does not want us to make) about appropriate weight, sources, and so forth.
If you're not happy with that, then please convince the community to allow us to rule on the matter; I'm hardly in a position to force the issue. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which evidence did you read? What was your impression of the evidence I submitted? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All of it, actually; the case has been open for some time. Your evidence was quite good, if I recall correctly—it's the sort of thing I like to see when I'm drafting a case—but it's worth pointing out that civility issues are usually more clear-cut than things like BLP violations. Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you. But I think you might have been mistaken about ArbCom not ruling over BLP issues. In the Scientology case, ArbCom voted 10-0-1 that ChrisO had violated BLP policy ("disparaging material from an inadequate source to a BLP"). In fact, your vote is #8.[8] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; but that was a clear-cut example (in my opinion, anyways), while many of the instances presented in this case rely on making a deeper judgment of whether a particular source is appropriate (and, if so, what weight should be given to the reported claims).
I do appreciate that this is a subjective call on my part, though; so you're certainly free to disagree. Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So adding an unpublished critical presentation which was the subject of threatened litigation is not clear cut? Adding blog-sourced criticism to multiple BLPs over a long period of time is not clear cut? What do you consider clear cut? ATren (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know, too. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The best answer I can give to the general case is that I know it when I see it, vague and subjective though that may be.
Having said that, as I said to Lar a few sections above, if we look through the various edits presented, "we will find at least some that are undisputedly BLP violations"; and I think it would certainly be possible to construct a finding highlighting those (the current one is heavy on more complex cases). As I've also said, however, I'm not convinced that including such a finding would be beneficial in this case, given that the general approach I've taken is to have people disengage on "nicer" terms. I may, of course, decide to alter that approach, depending on the responses I see to my proposals. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go, Kirill, [9]. This is a list of six simple BLP violations by William M. Connolley. You'll know they're BLP violations when you see them, since they're all straightforward. Should you alter your approach, it's all right there for you. I'm happy to be of help. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for what it's worth, thank you for taking the time to put that together. Kirill [talk] [prof] 05:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why, then, are you taking a different approach with marknutley and TheGoodLocust and voting for indefinite topic bans? Why not suggest that they disengage on "nicer" terms? Minor4th 00:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed an obvious question to ask... Why let the editors who are far more problematic off the hook (without so much as even a fingerwag at them in many cases) while throwing the book at marknutley. Your sense of proportion is way off. ++Lar: t/c 01:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill, can you please identify the specific diffs that led you to propose strong sanctions against MN and TGL while proposing advisory requests to the others? ATren (talk) 02:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They're not specific diffs, but rather a general impression—based on the entirety of the evidence—that leads me to believe MN and TGL would not partake of an opportunity to walk away quietly. Kirill [talk] [prof] 05:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting, because I think if you ask admins on the enforcement board (Lar, LHvU, BozMo, etc), which of the editors in question responded better to feedback, I would guess they'd list Marknutley and TGL ahead of WMC -- who was frequently hostile to any suggestion that he back away. In my experience, Marknutley in particular was very responsive to feedback, even though he made some mistakes. Perhaps you should consult those probation board admins for their opinions on MN and TGL relative to WMC, Polargeo and ChrisO, particularly with regard to their attitude towards the kind of "nudges" you are suggesting in the PD.
And I wonder if you couldn't at least supply a few of the diffs which led to your conclusions? Even if your view is based on general impressions, there must have been a few that stood out -- for, say, MN compared to WMC -- which caused you to draw such different conclusions for these editors. It's especially perplexing since many others seem to have different impressions, especially with regard to willingness to accept critical feedback. ATren (talk) 05:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very important issue -- I think the "general impression" approach is unacceptable, as it is too easily driven by subjective criteria that should not influence such a severe sanction. Marknutley in particular has been exceptionally willing to work within sourcing paroles imposed upon him. I even made an alternate proposal that is much more limited in scope and would bring his behavior in line with expectations. I, myself, offered to participate as his mentor and review and approve or deny his sourcing of articles. Like ATren said, the admins enforcing sanctions against mark have uniformly stated that he is willing to admit error and work on improving. Mark recently had his sourcing restriction relaxed by the admin imposing the sanction because mark had made observable improvement. In the face of such evidence, I cannot understand supporting a proposal to topic ban him indefinitely.
This is all in stark contrast to WMC's willful violation of sanctions placed on him, his attacks on the admins imposing sanctions, and his immediate return to disruptive behavior once sanctions expire --- requiring the need to re-sanction him for the exact same behavior that he was previously sanctioned for (editing restrictions on reverts and reverts without talk page discussion, editing restrictions on refactoring other editors' talk page comments -- when each of these restrictions expired, he went right back to the exact same behavior that got him sanctioned in the first place and in general showed absolutely no intent to stop editing in such a way. The only thing that has calmed him down temporarily was the imposition of sanctions with a threat of more severe sanctions. The walking away and playing nice approach has most definitely shown to have been an abysmal failure with Connolley). Minor4th 06:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Is your suggestion, then, that MN should be offered the same opportunity for a quiet departure that WMC was, or that he should (be permitted to) continue editing on this topic? The first one is something I'd be happy to push—I'd much rather have a consensual disengagement than a topic ban (see e.g. the Race and intelligence case for a recent example); the second one, I'm not sure about, since frankly both editors ought to take a break from the area.
As far as threats of more severe sanctions go, the current "invitations" do come with those, albeit implicitly; but that's really neither here nor there. Kirill [talk] [prof] 06:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is to topic ban William and place Marknutley under an indefinite sourcing parole with a mentor.Minor4th 07:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, please see this: [10] Minor4th 07:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Kirill [talk] [prof] 07:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Minor4th 08:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might point out that Kirill has stated that he is open to recall. Refusal to look at egregious BLP violations as an ArbCom member is, in my mind, a reason to consider that option. I find it appalling that he would support sanctions on MN and TGL while allowing WMC to walk - again. GregJackP Boomer! 02:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with GregJackP -- an Arb should not turn his back on BLP violations and treat them as unenforceable. I think disqualification in the case is warranted and recall might be in order. I would like to know the answer to ATren's question.Minor4th 03:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I am deeply concerned about this series of votes I think calling for recall is a bit much. Kirill is recallable as an admin. But I'm not seeing where there are grounds for recall. Recusal? Maybe. Recall, no. IMHO anyway (as one of the early adopters of recall and someone who has worked to refine it for a long time) ++Lar: t/c 04:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, I understand your position, but since admins are not formally accountable to anyone but ArbCom, there are no intermediate measures. How is he made to recuse himself? No one can force him to do so. If the users of Wikipedia wish to hold him to account, they have exactly one method, and only if he agrees to it. So how do you deal with it? What is your suggestion? What sanctions or processes are available to deal with this? None.
You either have to ignore it or go for an overkill solution - not attractive options. GregJackP Boomer! 04:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that I've somehow acted inappropriately for an administrator, you are of course quite free to make use of my recall provisions. I should point out, however, that it's a recall from being an administrator, and has nothing to do with my status as an arbitrator; it's not the same thing as forcing me to recuse from the case (which, incidentally, is something that could be done by the rest of the Committee).
As for what else you could do, perhaps you could try to convince me that I should take a different stance? I have changed my votes based on comments from the parties before, after all; it's certainly quite reasonable to think that I might do so again (particularly given that the response to my proposals has not exactly inspired confidence that people will opt for the quiet option anyways). Kirill [talk] [prof] 05:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we'll go through this exercise, although I must admit that I have very little faith that it will matter.

After you posted your !votes absolving WMC of any realistic sanctions, he posted this and this and this. That is a strong indication that he is not going to play nice - all you do is play the part of Neville Chamberlain and empower him to do more. Just look at the edit warring - who is involved in almost every one of them? You have a FoF that WMC has been uncivil and antagonistic - while he has been on a civility probation! Past history is the best predictor of future behavior - you are asking for more of the same conduct unless you take some form of action that will dissuade him from that type of comment. He posted this on another user's talk page, right after he posted this. A reasonable interpretation is that he knew exactly what article I was talking about, otherwise why would he tell Viriditas that my statement wasn't credible? The fact that he was involved in the discussion on the article in question also belies his apparently feigned ignorance. I won't go through all the BLP violations, nor his use of pro-AGW blogs and sources while trying to keep out skeptic blogs and sources. The evidence already presented is clear and compelling.

Finally, I don't believe that there is a significant difference between your role as a administrator and your role as an arbitrator. You and I both know that the Committee is not going to force you to recuse - it just doesn't happen. There are absolutely no provisions to reign in an admin that is out of line - and admins are not going to allow a proposal for such a grievance process to move forward into the policy realm So the only action available is recall - and you don't have to respect the results, able to withdraw at any time. Plus, you already set the precedent of an RfC/U for an ArbCom member. GregJackP Boomer! 06:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see anything in those edits that tells me whether or not he's going to abide by the request. It's obvious that he thinks you should be sanctioned, of course; but that's been obvious from the start, and is no more surprising than the fact that you think that he ought to be. I'd be more interested if he'd made some comments that spoke more directly to his view of my proposals; I've gathered some impression of the parties' reactions to them (mostly suggesting that the proposals won't work as I had hoped, incidentally), but that's obviously limited to those that have chosen to speak up.
(Had we continued the case with a normal open workshop, incidentally, we could have had this discussion there; but I suppose that's lessons learned for the future more than anything else, at this point.)
As far as recall is concerned, you're obviously free to do whatever you feel is appropriate here; I can hardly stop you from opening an RFC should you choose to do so. As you point out, it would hardly be the first. Kirill [talk] [prof] 07:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain on the PD talk page

I (and I'm sure other editors) would like explanations of arbitrators' reasoning and votes in several areas of this case. I'm particularly concerned about your Fof 10.1 on William Connolley and BLPs. I've set up a section at the PD talk page here. [11] Politely discussing specific votes and the reasoning for them is the most likely way for most editors to avoid intense frustration. Many editors have put in long hours on this case and would like to know why you're coming to various conclusions about it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you (sincerely), and a suggestion for editors coming to this page

Kirill, I've already gone into a lot of the problems I have with your proposals, and I've been pretty angry about it, but I want to thank you for being open to discussion and for saying you have an open mind that's willing to be changed. These two things are incredibly important for us all, and if you can do that, I and other editors who are concerned about this case can certainly respond by discussing it with you politely.

Please everybody: Criticize Kirill's statements and reasoning all you like, but since he's willing to listen with an open mind, do it politely and concentrate on examining his reasoning, not blasting him.

Let's lay out our reasoning coolly and we're more likely to get to a better result in the end. Certainly heated denunciations are not going to get us anywhere. I think most of this discussion should take place on the PD talk page, not individual arbs pages. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, and for my part I apologize for my initial comments that could properly be characterized as "overreaction.". I do think these points need to be made on the PD pages, but whats valuable about this venue is we get the benefit of feedback from the Arb -- something that is not happening with consistency or regularity on the PD pages (and I dont blame them -- it has the feel of a feeding frenzy). Minor4th 15:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to:

"They're not specific diffs, but rather a general impression—based on the entirety of the evidence—that leads me to believe MN and TGL would not partake of an opportunity to walk away quietly."

I quite clearly said in several areas that I'm essentially through with CC articles or with wikipedia. What makes you think I wouldn't walk away when I've already said that's what I'm doing after the ArbCom case? (going to the hospital now so if you need a response it may be a while) TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider your position on this

Per Brad; this is borderline for an arbitration finding, although there's obviously unhelpful conduct here. Kirill [talk] [prof] 18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

In light of that statement at F11 (Polargeo) on the PD page for the Climate Change case, I'd like you to reconsider the matter after reading the comments here on the PD talk page, including a list of 19 personal attacks made by Polargeo against me and others, mostly on that talk page, just since August 24 (I had to stop somewhere in the past since it was getting tiring to list them all). Look at them, please. Judge whether or not it's an exaggeration to say that any individual one of them is a personal attack as defined at WP:NPA, or whether there's some mitigating circumstance that would justify overlooking it. Your statement, above, calls Polargeo's behavior "borderline for an arbitration finding". I think 19 more personal attacks pushes it well over the border. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)



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

The return of reviewer awards, task force discussions, and more information on the upcoming coordinator election

Articles

A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound

Members

Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants

Editorial

In the first of a two-part series, Moonriddengirl discusses the problems caused by copyright violations

To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DC Meetup #12

An off-wiki discussion is taking place concerning DC Meetup #12. Watch this page for announcements.
—NBahn (talk) 04:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. 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.

William M. Connolley asked to disengage

I'd like to see rather more justification for this request. As near as I can tell, your reasoning is that while I'm not at fault, other people like to attack me, so I should back off. That sounds like the wrong reasoning: the answer to that logic should be to sanction the attackers. Which indeed appears to be on the cards, to some degree William M. Connolley (talk) 07:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit this is not really the response I was expecting; I was really hoping you'd take the hint and we could do this politely. Kirill [talk] [prof] 07:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't posted too much on the Arb's pages, but really? Really? Every time WMC has faced sanction he has grossly insulted the acting admin and when he and his friends managed to get sanctions reduced or removed he felt that was sufficient evidence to call those previous sanctions "worthless" and the admins "stupid" - this is a constantly repeated pattern. I think everyone involved in the CC area knew exactly what the response would be. TheGoodLocust (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill, TGL is onto something. In fact, William M. Connolley has a very strong pattern of questioning or objecting to nearly every sanction imposed or suggested for him. This is not meant sarcasticly: Since you didn't completely exonerate him, only largely exonerated him, he was bound to object. He and his allies will strongly object to any Administrative Enforcement action. They will object on the AE page, on the relevant admins talk pages, on their own talk pages and, if unsuccessful there, they will go to AN or AN/I. This is what they have always done. This is one of the reasons why your proposals would condemn us all to many more rounds of this fight, until one side or the other is knocked down and dragged out. WMC has been to ArbCom before, and he's not intimidated by your authority. He'll change his behavior depending on sanctions, not hints. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and he's not intimidated by your authority - what a strange thing to say, and what a terrible vision for wiki. What do you want, people cowering before the jackboots of arbcom?
@K: we don't all get what we want. I, in my turn, haven't had a reply to my question. I would appreciate onee William M. Connolley (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I rather think that the findings of fact in this case should be justification enough on their own; and that's without even digging all that deeply into community sanctions or past disputes. Kirill [talk] [prof] 20:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry, don't know what you mean. Could you point to which FoF you think justifies banning me from Cl CH? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This one is quite sufficient. To be quite blunt, there have been any number of cases where editors with such records of confrontational behavior were banned outright; a topic ban is mild by comparison, and my invitation to walk away was even milder than that. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that was one of the worst findings. I certainly don't agree with it. There is any amount of pointless mud-flinging in there to bulk up the diffs, e.g. [12] William M. Connolley (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Kirill, your surprise at this indicates to me that you really didn't really research this very well. That's how he's responded to every single admonishment and sanction from anyone. In fact, he even rejected the last arbcom ruling against him, starting a page listing which arbs were "fools" and "cowards", calling their rulings "rubbish" and even insinuating that the arbs were jealous of him (!!!). Not to mention him calling SF "SirFathead" just a week ago. I think a lot of the reaction on this page (some of it over-reaction) is due to the fact that your proposals are so disconnected with what we've all seen firsthand. ATren (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We allow blocked editors a little more leeway then most, and truth be told, it's not something I haven't heard before. I think basically, you need to consider the source. SirFozzie (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this reaction should have been anticipated, and indeed perhaps it was anticipated. Having seen this play out, however, and noting Kirill's willingness to discuss his votes and his willingness to amend when presented with new information -- at this point (hindsight), I have to commend him for his approach in his initial proposal and his subsequent reconsideration. Well done. Minor4th 15:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SF, are you talking about the block that you imposed which was later overturned? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If you check the timing, (the statement in question is still on WMC's page in one of the hatted sections), the comment was made after the block was placed, but before it was undone. SirFozzie (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies talk 19:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anime Newslettter

I saw on the Anime discussion page you posted the first newsletter I just wanted to ask if you can end the coding properly next time when you send it round, otherwise it ends up like this. thankyou. Afro (Say Something Funny) - Afkatk 11:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The person who put together the newsletter was Anikingos ([13]), not me; I wasn't even aware of the first issue until after it had been posted.
Having said that, I'll try to make sure that any future issues are cleaned up before they go out. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok sorry, wasn't aware just saw that you posted a comment on the page, I'll let Anikingos know. Afro (Say Something Funny) - Afkatk 12:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Footer

The Invisible Barnstar
Great job...Was just about to do the same thing Moxy (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was going to bring uptoday that the refresh should be the council link....Thnak you for being bold and getting the temple uptodate in looks and links.Moxy (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and thank you for the kind words! Kirill [talk] [prof] 18:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Report Admin Abuse - Help Please

Hello Kirill,

I have read that you are an arbitrator and would like to know if I am in the right place to report admin abuse. There is an admin (I think he is an admin) who is continuously sending me messages and editing comments I make on the discussion page. I have already repeatedly asked him to restrain from contacting me again and he continues to do so. He is obviously some mentally ill person probably enjoying hurting people from behind a computer. On the Discussion page of the USA article I posted a new section questioning the reliability of some statistics provided because the reference that was provided did not match the statistics nor mention anything relevant to what was written on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, DCGeist was the one who replied and instead of simply replying in a professional and calm manner, he made personnel attacks against me. I then commented back pointing out his personnel attacks at me with advice that he seek help given his comments it is obvious he suffers from some sort of mental illness (depression perhaps?) and he has been rewriting my comments made on the Discussion page. He has edited my comments to make himself look good and is now continuously sending me messages which are interrupting my use of Wikipedia. Please let me know how we can resolve this situation as I don't want that DCGeist to ever attempt to contact me again. I also suggest that we look into DCGeist's behavior as I was looking at his user page and it seems he has a history of making personnel attacks and having an unhealthy addiction to creating disputes with users and as you might guess not all of us are bored people like him just looking for arguments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.29.201 (talk) 07:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) 71.209.29.201 already blocked 48 hours for disrupting talk pages. --Stickee (talk) 07:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please review this

[14] Thanks. Minor4th 20:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And this as well [15]. Thanks. Minor4th 19:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be spam-an-arb time (or in M4th's case, spam-lots-of-arbs time). I have some questions for the arbs that haven't been answered on the talk page; shall I spam you with a link to that, too? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Souvalou

Hi. Remember Me? Well now that I have known who you are for a while now I need someone I can trust to nominate me to be an Administrator! Can you please help me with that? If you do I will never be disruptive again! And plus I have something for you! So I will try to be trusted! Can you help me Kirill Lokshin?--Souvalou (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be quite honest, asking someone you don't know to nominate you as an administrator a month after you vandalize their userpage is hardly an inspiring display of good judgment. Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Geez, Kirill, now look what you've done. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your desysopping is in the mail, no doubt. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have a good day!

Souvalou has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

I am sorry I offended you in any way. To repay you, I give you a fresh baked cookie!--Souvalou (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re:Upcoming A&M newsletter issue

thanks for the move and all the closing work. Alekhya Emani (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese sword working group

In light of this, is there really much point in having a working group of two members? Surely when the number of members is so small it would be easiest and most efficient to use direct communication between editors. A centralised discussion place such as the talk page of the main article (Japanese sword gets just under 20,000 views a month) is only useful when there are large numbers of participants to prevent conversations becoming fragmented. At the moment, the working group looks stillborn. Nev1 (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From that perspective, so are the rest of the working groups. Working groups were never intended to function on the same level that the task forces were, however; they were explicitly set up as a low-overhead way for small groups—or even single interested editors—to set up workspaces within the project for tracking articles, putting together to-do lists, compiling resources, and so forth. They're really an alternative to doing the same thing in individual editors' user spaces (which is less visible to other potentially interested editors, and dependent on a single editor remaining with the project), nothing more. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(I should point out, incidentally, that article view statistics don't necessarily correlate to talk page views; Talk:Japanese sword had 82 views last month, for example.) Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm not convinced working groups of this minuscule size are a good thing but I suppose they do no harm. There is a correlation: talk pages get a small percentage of views in relation to the article. A more popular article gets more talk page views than an unpopular article. Working on the talk page of the most popular article related to a subject would be more visible or more likely to be seen by interested parties than hidden away in the maze of Milhist project pages, especially when the scope is so small. As the subject of Japanese swords gets such little interest, you can't really afford to hide things such as working groups if they're supposed to be useful. Nev1 (talk) 11:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome

However, I'm not a rookie. I sneaked into writing for WP two years ago, and just never did let you guys know. Guess you could call it wiki-freelancing.

Georgejdorner (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject United States

I am going to try and clean up some of the defunct, inactive, under active projects that fall under Wikipedia:WikiProject United States and restructure some of the project to be a little more organized (in many cases more like the Milhist group does it). I have started by identifying some of the projects that seem to have bubbled under or lack interest and I am going to start there. I am also going to attempt to restructire the Project page similar to how the MILHIST and GLAM/SI pages are. Feel free to comment on the WPUS talk page but I was wondering if you could tell me if there is a way to tell how active a project is? I was also wondering how you determined how many watchlists a page is on (I remember seeing you did this for the WPMILHIST task forces). Thanks --Kumioko (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to keep an eye on the changes you're making and drop in with suggestions as they come to mind. My personal experience is that coalescing a set of inactive projects into a single active one is in large part dependent on your own ability to spend time on the background work; people tend to participate only when they see activity already taking place, so getting a process infrastructure (e.g. assessment, reviews, etc.) will require you to do much of the initial work yourself, just to keep the processes going long enough for people to find an interest and join in.
As far as determining whether a project is active or not, there's no single metric that produces consistent results, and the results may or may not be particularly meaningful in and of themselves (since article activity may be taking place even if the project itself is defunct). I would suggest that the volume of talk page discussion is probably as good a rule of thumb as any; if you'd like some numbers for comparison, you might want to take a look at my posting on the MILHIST talk page about the activity levels on the department talk pages, since that provides some statistics for the core MILHIST page as well.
The tool for tracking the number of people watching a particular page is this. Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome thanks. I Just left a message on the MILHIST talk page as well with a breakdown of where I would like to start and were I am so far. Please let me know if you think of anything else that would be useful or helpful. --Kumioko (talk) 03:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just happen to see this talk ..i use Useractivity tool when i am not sure about how active a project is what results look like.... still not sure how or y this page is on my watchlist.Moxy (talk) 04:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision#Sockpuppetry in the Climate Change topic area

I have posted a direct and simple question for arbitors to verify. I believe the finding of fact referenced may materially mistake facts (writing "accounts" when it actually means "the effect of year old rangeblocks"). It would be nice if you could verify the wording of this proposed, currently passing, finding of fact. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question about a banner

Hello again, It looks like interest is picking up in WP:US so good news there. I was thinking about creating a banner for the Project like the milhist banner but I am artistically challenged as it were. Do you know anyone who might be willing to chip in an come up with something? Im not even sure where I would go for such a request. --Kumioko (talk) 02:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By banner, do you mean the one with the logo that appears at the top of WP:MILHIST? I wasn't really involved too much in the creation of that; you might want to ping on Roger to see if he remembers who put it together for us. Kirill [talk] [prof] 18:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 07:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcommunication

Where is the place to interact with Arbcom members, to ask them questions, to see if the lights are really on? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 02:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC) PS: Did you see my edits to the War article? I'm curious what you think. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 02:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of different venues available, depending on the topic of discussion:
You can, of course, post comments to the "wrong" venue, and we'll eventually see them; but, generally speaking, you're likely to get a faster and clearer response if you post to the location that corresponds to the topic you're discussing.
Finally, please feel free to ping on individual arbitrators at their talk pages, particularly if we've missed something you've said on the case pages; as the drafters for this case, SirFozzie or myself would be the preferred points of contact for any inquiries. Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't discussion centralized? Is it to break discussion apart and make it so that Arbs can be ambiguous about directly responding to questions, comments, requests, or concerns? You say that posting to the "wrong venue" means one's posts will not be immediately seen by Arbs. Isn't this a way of penalizing parties for the technicality of not posting in the "right venue?" -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 06:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is split up to better handle the extremely large volume of comments that is seen during a typical arbitration case. This may not be apparent in the current instance—the case you're involved with has been unusually quiet—but please rest assured that we're not splitting things up merely to make them more confusing. (If anything, we're making things more difficult for ourselves by having multiple places we need to monitor.) Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS: You didn't answer my question about the War article. I find it surprising that though we have such a strong Wikiproject Military, the introduction to the war article itself had eroded to such a state that even I had to go in and fix it. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 06:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen any allegations made about your editing of that article. Is there something in particular you'd like me to look for? Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its evidence of my work. It is an example of an kind of edit to the lede sections of articles that I do routinely. Are you only looking at evidence of certain problems and then looking at these one-sidedly to apply concepts such as "edit warring" and "battleground" to me alone? Note that I am the one that filed the case. How is it that Arbcom has been taking such a one-sided and adversarial approach toward me? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 20:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC) PS: How can Arbcom competently adjudicate the worth of particular editors if it doesn't consider the positives?[reply]
Kirill wrote: "please feel free" to "ping on individual arbitrators at their talk pages, particularly if we've missed something you've said on the case pages; as the drafters for this case, SirFozzie or myself would be the preferred points of contact for any inquiries." - This is unacceptable for several reasons: 1) Individual talk pages are even more scattered than Arbcom talk pages, 2) Having only two "points of contact" in the Arbcom is arbitrary and unfair, as all Arbcom members who are active on a case should be interacting with the parties in making decisions. If Arbcom pretends to model itself after a legal forum, then it should also have the kind of open hearings that legal forums do. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 20:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Committee is not a legal body, and makes no claim to be such. My invitation to contact me personally was intended to make it easier for you to get a response; if you do not wish to avail yourself of it, then by all means limit your comments to the case pages, where they will be seen by the entire Committee and responded to as necessary. Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration

I hereby ask the Arbitration Committee to deal with political operativeswith biases. Specifically, there should be an article on Malia Obama. It has been a year since it was edited but those with an iron fist have prevented (locked it up). Those who live and work on Wikipedia can require that I fill out forms. If you want to purposely create roadblocks, do so. If you really want to help a sporadic user, then accept this.

Milowent and Tvoz are on opposite sides and can be representatives.

Tvoz thinks that the President of the US doesn't want coverage so he will think of any excuse not to have an article. Say that the person is not notable or use some other excuse. There are plenty of excuses. Yet, Bo the Obama dog, has an article and I see that I was reviewed for deletion and kept. If Tvoz' excuses are used for Bo, that article would have been canned long ago. The Tvoz group also immediately locked up the article despite no edits for a year. So any discussion is old and should be reopened.

Also if discussion is the key, it looks like the talk page actually shows support for the article.

Wikipedia should not be hostage to a certain political viewpoint just because they have a few paid people to edit for them. It is a fact that there are paid bloggers to edit. I can't say that user A or B is paid, but I can safely say that there are paid people. So we should discount convenient excuses.

Milowent represents the side that says that the person is notable enought for plenty of coverage and certainly more than the dog.

Please do not be a bureaucratic nightmare and just submit this for me. If you do not want to submit it to arbitration, at least submit it for discussion. Presidentmalia (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you need help with filing a request for arbitration, please contact one of the arbitration clerks, and they'll be happy to assist you. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)



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

The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals

Articles

A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles

Members

Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)

Editorial

In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

Hi Kirill—I've emailed you with a request. Tony (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, me too. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 01:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About my critique

Kirill, hopefully now that the outcome of the case is clear, I can take this opportunity to apologize for my stronly worded statement at Community discussions. I hope you have a thick skin, and were not offended. I want you to know that I rarely allow an emotional worded statement of mine to stand (on Wikipedia). I usually copy edit towards neutrality, which I am sure is understandable. For some reason, I decided to mostly leave it in tact this time. I am thinking that exposure to other editors, related to, and unrelated to, the recent ANI showed me that not everyone tamps down their emotions. In fact, one editor was humorously uncivil on Georgewilliamherbert 's talk page one day. Apparently, he has reputation for not being civil, as well. But, it works for him.

Anyway, I did mean what I said on the workshop talk. However, I am thinking that since you are on the ArbCom, I should have copy edited for neutral. Anyway, please let me know if you were offended. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted; you needn't worry too much about offending me. In all honesty, while your comments may have been strongly worded, they are hardly as unpleasant as many of the ones I've received over my tenure as an arbitrator; if I were thin-skinned, I'd have quit years ago. Kirill [talk] [prof] 19:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, I have changed my mind regarding this proposal. I now agree the community discussions were most likely chaotic in format and structure, and that this format still is chaotic in those areas. This is probably because, I am watching it happen (right now) to an editor who I have had previous positive experiences with. In general, a pile-on mentality can and does happen. For example, it is possible to interpret the recent Stevertigo ANI as a pile-on from one point of view. As an aside, one admin mentioned that the more appropriate venue would have been requwst for comment RFCU. I am beginning to think he may have been correct.
I didn't think so, because I was heavily involved. This other one, which I am viewing as very much an uninvovled person, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough/October 2010, also appears to have elements of pile-on, and chaos.
You have hit the nail on the head with this: "...These factors may limit the ability of uninvolved users—particularly less experienced ones—to participate meaningfully in the community sanction process, and the ability of users facing sanctions to adequately respond to allegations made."
For example, it was very difficult for me to "particpate meaningfully" in Rich's ANI. I admit I should not have come-off like "shaming parent" with my third post. Fortunately, that did not become a big issue. And I used the word "should" a few times instead of "could" or "suggested options" in that same response. But where the lack of meaningful participation comes in is; this format was like a whirl-wind at one point, and trying to keep up with it is difficult. Furthermore, this whirl-wind probably creates a more emotional atmosphere, than if there were a different structure. So, I don't know how this affects the sanctioning process other than it gets lost, because there is no focus. In Stevertigo's recent ANI, I was lucky because proposed sanctions became apparent, in the "*Proposed Sanctions*" section. However, as you noted, there were a lot of secondary debates, and I did not realize this.
"...and the ability of users facing sanctions to adequately respond to allegations made."
It is difficult to for Rich respond to allegations made, with the pile-on of issues, and this is an expereinced editor. Hence, it appears to me that someone who is not adept at addressing the allegations, will probably be lost. Also, there is the factor of resentment toward the other editors levying the allegations; who might appear to be not only judgemental, but emotional as well.
So for me, your "#10) The community discussions" turns out to be very insightful, and I would like to know what you propose? I think I would be willing to work with you on developing, and presenting a proposal. I am even thinking that maybe a new format is needed to supercede the current ANI format, for the reasons illustrated above.
Also, I don't think its needs much more work on the original wording, but that is only my opinion. As an Admin, with more expereince, you may see ways to make the wording better. In any case, what is your proposal for this matter? ----Steve Quinn (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be quite honest, I don't have a specific proposal in mind. Certainly, the fast-paced, single-threaded discussion style used at AN/I and similar noticeboards is not ideal for newer editors (who will be overwhelmed by the rapid flow of the conversation) and difficult for the subjects of the discussion (who will have to hunt through every comment to find the allegations to which they must respond). Something more formalized would be better for a discussion of this sort, I think; arbitration, mediation, and requests for comment are three possible models, but I'm not sure that any of them is usable "as is". Out of curiosity, how would you have preferred to see the discussion you refer to structured? Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue administrators

I am writing because one or more admins are blocking accounts from users who happen not to agree with them. My crime was to post these comments: User talk:BadBabysitter. I will leave it to you to decide whether or not the charges are valid. My attempts to complain have also been blocked. Attempts to contact you by email and phone also failed. I had to change my IP address in order to be able to contact you. I suspect a very large number of users have similarly been falsely accused and have been unable to contact you because they did not know how to alter their IP address. Alternate user name (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to submit an appeal, please contact the Ban Appeals Subcommittee at the listed address. Engaging in sockpuppetry is rather unlikely to help your case, on the other hand. Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

communicat - arbcom

Hi,

I hope I'm not breaking protocol or something, by directly mailing you in your capacity as arbitrator in my current application to arbcom. If I am breaking with protocol, please disregard and hit delete.

I've asked in my statement section for permission to factor my application by adding a third party. That is because the party I wish to add filed an ANI notice a day after I made application to Arbcom. So, I find myself in the unenviable position of having to fight simultaneously on two separate fronts, which is tending to deplete my limited faculties. The issues involved at the two fronts are closely overlapping, intertwined and virtually inseparable from each other. It also seems that the two main parties concerned are working in tandem. This is why I wish to join them together in just one, undivided process, but so far no response from Arbcom.

I've noted your comment at Arbcom application page, to the effect that I've not attempted prior resolution. In fact, I applied for mediation a while back, but the party whom I wish to add refused to consent to mediation. The other party, whom I have named in my present application to Arbcom, has failed/refused to engage with me in discussion, and I mentioned this in my statement, together with a link to the relevant discussion page showing he had failed (and is still failing) to enter into discussion. That constitutes evidence of an attempt on my part at dispute resolution through discussion. There is further proof of same at the current World War II discussion page. In fact, my resorting to arbcom is essentially because this party acts arbitrarily and unilaterally while failing and/or refusing to engage in discussion, (and much the same applies to the party whom I now wish to add). So, I have difficulty in understanding why HIS failure to cooperate should be viewed as a failure on my part and to my detriment in this matter of applying for arbitration.

Sorry to bother you. Communicat (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The normal dispute resolution process for user conduct issues includes a request for comments regarding the users with whom you have a dispute prior to filing an arbitration case. I don't see any great urgency in your complaint; an RFC will allow the community to evaluate the conduct of everyone involved in this matter, and will either lead to a resolution of the dispute, or provide a compilation of evidence for a future arbitration proceeding. Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary

Wishing Kirill Lokshin a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Armbrust Talk Contribs 03:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you very much!
(Five years! How time flies when you're having fun!) Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No open cases

So I notice that ArbCom has no open cases at the moment. Though I'm well aware that arbitrators do a great deal of behind the scenes work, I would like to suggest celebrating this rare occasion as if it were a holiday, and offer up a mug of beer to a man well deserving of a break. Cheers! bahamut0013wordsdeeds 19:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 04:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia DC Meetup 13

You are invited to Wikipedia DC Meetup #13 on Wednesday, November 17, from 7 to 9 pm, location to be determined (but near a Metro station in DC).

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can join the mailing list.

You can remove your name from future notifications of Washington DC Meetups by editing this page: Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List.
BrownBot (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution team IRC meeting

Greetings! We will be having a meeting of the Contribution and Social Media teams tomorrow in #wikimedia-SM on IRC. Feel free to rebroadcast on social media and invite interested guests. The meeting will be at 11/11 19:00/7pm UTC (2pm Eastern Standard Time, 11am Pacific.) We hope to see you there! ⇒DanRosenthal Wikipedia Contribution Team 19:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:KIA

Template:KIA has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Marcus Qwertyus 17:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution team

Hi Kirill, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Contribution_Team/Backlogs? We're trying to make a big effort to reduce these for the rest of the month. Thanks! ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date delinking

Hi Kirill, I've responded to your query at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Date delinking. Thanks - Kingpin13 (talk) 06:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record

I am aware of at least one arbitrator who will not shut off their email when there are concerns about the mailing list. Even if a majority is trying to overrule him for some other reason, or if you've decided to make these changes unilaterally, that doesn't give you the right to hide these things out of view; this is a page that is actively used by the Community and it needs to be aware of all of it. The formatting changes you made are actually less helpful, and the removal of content is misleading regarding the nature of ArbCom's relationships with each of the mentioned bodies. Your reason(s) are simply not good enough to justify these changes. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns regarding the presence of the personal emails are noted; we're currently discussing how to best address them.
Having said that, blanket reverts of formatting changes and copyedits are not particularly helpful. If you have particular concerns or suggestions, please let us know; but simply reverting every change made to the page over the course of several days does little to explain your thoughts. Please do remember that the Arbitration Committee description page is managed by us, as are all arbitration-related pages; while I would prefer to have it fully open for general editing, that is only possible when everyone collaborates with us. Edit-warring with arbitrators on arbitration pages is not really kosher. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, unless my memory is imagining something, I have raised such concerns before - if that's the case, it shouldn't be spectacularly new.
In any event, your summary and conclusion is misleading. Some people would find your edit ("This was removed for a reason") as offensive, and combined with your above comment, they'd think you're saying "I'm an arbitrator and this page is actually mine anyway...if I'm allowing such mortals to edit it or I'm ready to look into their concerns from time to time, it's only because I'm a saint...so they shouldn't be offended...the fact is this: if I don't agree with them, those mortals will be in the wrong by default - not me". Let me put that into perspective. You made a series of bold changes about two to three days ago, and I reverted them to the previously-accepted version with a summary which quite clearly conveyed the main point: there are concerns with enough of these bold changes. After that reversion, I made some bold edits towards a compromise. Instead of assuming I actually have no idea and then reverting on that basis, you could have asked just to be on the safe side. In this case, I did have an idea regarding what it is you were trying to accomplish (and I did read your edit summary from the 21st). In other words, it's not really kosher that this had to happen and that anyone felt strongly enough to do so; that is, instead of getting on a high horse, perhaps you should consider that the way you think you were 'collaborating' was not preferred or effective. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, recall that your edit summary ("add") when you reverted my original edit didn't actually mention any issues; I don't think it was unreasonable for me to assume that you were simply re-adding the material merely on the basis of personal preference, or because you thought I had removed it unintentionally, not because you had substantive concerns about its presence. Keep in mind that arbitrators do traditionally have authority over the content of arbitration-related pages; and while this doesn't necessarily mean that everything we do is correct "by default", it does mean that the onus is on you to explain why our edits are bad ones, not vice versa. Kirill [talk] [prof] 20:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh noes!

Kirill! What did you do?! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh noes indeed! I've replied there. Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence in Longevity Arbcom

Hell Kirill. I've been getting messages about the deadline approaching for evidence. I am working on mine, but some unexpected RL commitments are getting in the way. I should still be OK for the deadline, but is it OK if I post here on Monday if I need a short extension? Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be fine. Kirill [talk] [prof] 19:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FA count

Tks mate, redeced the A-Class count but forgot to update the corresponding FA one... :-P Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :-) Kirill [talk] [prof] 04:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Campaignbox Arab-Israeli conflict

Template:Campaignbox Arab-Israeli conflict has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution Team

Why would completely throwout and redo my contribution to the page? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 02:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't throw your contribution out at all, and I'm sorry if it came across that way. The changes I made were to the location of the userbox (moving it to Wikipedia:Contribution Team/Userbox, since I assume we're going to use it for the project) and the text describing it (moving it below the list of names, to avoid a top-heavy appearance. I didn't think either of those would be controversial; is that not the case? Kirill [talk] [prof] 04:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the changes did not show up on my watchlist for some time, so it appeared that my user page had been somehow edited without my knowledge and the redirect did not show in the watchlist either till later. Therefore it appeared that my userbox had been replaced. I don't think addeing Wikipedia was a substantive change since the logo makes it apparent, but a matter of taste I guess. I guess wiki was acting up, so I apologize for being wrong. It's just that I did spend quite a bit of time on it due to some formatting things I didn't understand, which I copied from another similar page. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 13:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MILHIST task forces

Hi Kirill - I've attempted to do one of the task force conversions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Dutch military history task force. Could you take a look and let me know how I did? (Probably fairly badly, but I figure it's a first try...!) Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind me butting in, but for the most part the page looks good. Aesthetically it's fine (the coat of arms makes a good logo) and the white space under article statistics will be filled in when the bot runs. The scope is clearly defined and the intro section is concise. It might be worth considering adding the open tasks template; the fortifications task force uses it and while I'm dubious as to whether it has any real worth (the template history suggests no one paid any attention to it) I suppose it can be used to highlight areas for improvement and in ideal circumstances may lead to some collaboration around the articles specifically highlighted. I think the resources section could use some work. For example The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall 1477-1806 is listed, but is that the name of a book or a description of what should be listed under Dutch republic. If it's a book, it would be useful to include fuller bibliographic details, and the same throughout the section. I think the bit about how to add new sources to the list would be better as a hidden comment which can be seen only in the edit window as it's just taking up space at the moment as won't be relevant to all the people reading the page. Nev1 (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added the open tasks template and section - knew I forgot something :) As for the resources section, I really don't know what should be added or changed here - I was mostly just working on the format and leaving the statistics to editors knowledgeable about that area. Dana boomer (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Nev1 said, the result looks good. Personally, I've found that it's easier to just reload the task force boilerplate onto the page and then copy over the substantive parts than it is to manually apply the formatting, but your mileage may vary.
As far as the resources section is concerned, I'd actually suggest getting rid of the "annotated bibliography" boilerplate entirely; it's an idea that never really took off, and I think the space can be better used for more ad-hoc resource collection. Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies, guys. I've done a couple more (American Civil War and American Revolutionary War), which hopefully are done properly as well. The thing I'm most concerned about is getting the coding for JL bot right (i.e., did I take out the little bit of code that actually makes it work!), since I haven't used that bot/code before. Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The JLBot code looks fine, although we won't know for sure until the bot runs on each task force. Aside from that, there were a couple of minor errors—mostly links left pointing to other task forces' pages or remnants of the old formatting—that I've fixed. As I've said above, re-applying the initial boilerplate (i.e. replacing the page with {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/Task force boilerplate|Fooish military history|Fooish}}) and then copying over the scope and other details is probably less error-prone than trying to replace all the boilerplate and formatting manually. Kirill [talk] [prof] 04:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't even know about that subst template for the boilerplate. I guess I should have clarified when you mentioned it above... Thanks for that link, it should definitely make things easier - and also thanks for cleaning up behind me :) Dana boomer (talk) 14:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

Hello. Can you please, as member of arbitration comity, read Talk:Kosovo#Kosovo article split and post your opinion? Threat is based on WP:ARBMAC, and we are trying the last step in normal dispute resolution, before requesting full arbitration. Please, read the post, at least to the line, and post your opinion. As this is lasting for years now, we need your help to end it nicely, and without sanctions and arbitration's. Once again, Please, we need your help. --WhiteWriter speaks 11:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are still eagerly waiting for your input. :) --WhiteWriter speaks 11:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a general rule, I don't involve myself in the dispute resolution process prior to arbitration, as doing so would tend to conflict with my duties as an arbitrator. There are any number of other experienced users who could be called upon to provide additional opinions. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify your comment

Given the information that has been provided to us, it appears that this understanding was not correct; in other words, some or all of the "disabled" accounts in this batch apparently retained the ability to view material on the arb-wiki. The accounts in question were not used to perform any edits or other actions on the arb-wiki subsequent to their being disabled; however, we cannot determine whether, or when, any of the accounts may have been used to view information on the wiki, as viewing of pages is not tracked by CheckUser-accessible logs.

From your comment, I get the impression that Giano supplied arbcom with evidence of a security breach. But based on KnightLago's most recent reply, that appears not to be true. So, I'm confused as to the nature of the problem and the evidence that one existed in the first place. IIRC, when we had the leaks of material from the mailing list, the security of the arbwiki was examined and no breaches were noted back then. So, I was surprised to hear that the arbwik was THIS unsecure. (We knew that it was somewhat vulnerable because MediaWiki was not intended to host top secret material but rather to be a vehicle for group collaboration.) Since this might have happened while I was an active arbitrator, I would appreciate an update as to the actual problem spotted by Giano, and the research done by ArbCom and the developers to sort this out. Thanks, FloNight♥♥♥♥ 10:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for help with WikiProject

Thank you for the speedy response to my question on inactive subpages of WikiProjects, on both counts! --Pnm (talk) 02:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OMT in the Signpost

Hey there! I know you're familiar with the WikiProject Report (a quick glance at the archive is more than enough proof). I've asked some of your colleagues at Operation Majestic Titan to participate in an interview for an upcoming article. Judging from OMT's talk page, some folks are really excited about this. You're welcome to join in the interview if you'd like, although I'd like to give the first-timers a little more attention. Your help would be most appreciated on the next-to-last question which asks for an update on WP Military History as a whole. Have a great day! -Mabeenot (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invitation; I'll be sure to add some comments on that question when I get a chance.
I agree with your point about giving the OMT folks more attention, incidentally; it's really their success that we're reporting. Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration question

Hi Kirill, what's the correct place to respond to claims made during the evidence phase of cases? Should I use the workshop page for this? Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the claims are made in someone's evidence presentation, the best place to respond would either be in your own evidence (you can simply make an assertion that rebuts the other party's, and present appropriate evidence there), or, if there are space constraints (or the other party's assertion doesn't actually lend itself to a reasonable discussion), on the talk page of the evidence page. Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution Team

Hi there! This is a message sent to all members of the Contribution Team. We're letting you know that there has been a rather major update - you can read more about it at Wikipedia talk:Contribution Team#Backlog Drive Update And Other News. Kind regards, Panyd and Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Hi Kirill,

Sorry I haven't had time yet to work on the Japanese sword articles yet. I've been very busy, and tend to be pretty slow with any progress here. I have a big weekend planned ahead, so I'm leaving this message a little early. I hope you have a very Merry Christmas, and a great New Year! Zaereth (talk) 02:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Please accept this 'Coming of the Cavalry' Award for saving myself (left to right: Shell, Kirill, Brad). It is, I can assure you, much appreciated. Perhaps this year will not be that bad after all... :) Piotrus, 01:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For your prompt input into the AE case involving me. The fact that I can thank you here shows that it was quite effective :) Nonetheless I do believe that I will have to seek a clarification and/or an amendment soon; I certainly don't want to end up on AE again - yet the last few week do show that navigating the topic ban is hard, and not only for me. Any further advice is, as always, appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; that's what we're here for.
As you said, though, you should probably ask for a clarification (assuming that Brad doesn't propose a motion when he gets back from his trip); the current wording of that remedy is admittedly quite confusing. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Task force restructing

Hi Kirill - I've finished restructuring all of the task forces that aren't located in other projects' space. It is now likely time to begin approaching those projects to see if they are OK with us redesigning part of their space and redirecting the talk pages. Do you have any special ideas on how to go about this? Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the easiest way to approach this would be to put together a fairly concise (yet sufficiently detailed to be understandable) description of the changes we're trying to make, and to leave each project involved a message that:
  1. Outlines what we're doing;
  2. Asks for the other project's concurrence in making the same changes to the joint task force; and
  3. Queries the other project's preference with regard to the target of the talk page redirect.
Given the general lack of controversy with our changes, and the inactivity of many of the other parent projects, I suspect a significant portion of them will be happy to let us do whatever we think appropriate. A couple of projects might have issues, and most of our time will probably be focused on either resolving those or determining what to do if they can't be resolved.
As an initial step, I suggest we jointly draft a suitable message for the other projects on the coordinators' talk page; once that's done, we can figure out the details of actually posting it. Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps something like:

Greetings from the Military History WikiProject! In recent months, we have been working on transfering our project task forces into a standardized style, in order to make them more readable and user friendly, especially for new editors. We have also been redirecting the talk pages of those task forces to our main project talk page. The latter is partially because many of the posts on the task force pages are duplicates of those on the main talk page. It is also partially because the main talk page has many more watchers than the individual task force pages, and so discussions will have more input and queries will be less likely to become "lost" or otherwise go unanswered. You can see a sample of the new style and the talk page redirection at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/British military history task force or many of our other task forces. We would like to do the same to [insert task force name here]. However, as this is located at [enter location], which is part of this project's space, we would like to make sure there is no objection to us changing the style or redirecting the talk page. We would also be willing to move the task force into our project's space, with a redirect from your project's space, if that is preferable. [signature], on behalf of the coordinators of WikiProject Military history

I wasn't sure how fully formed you wanted this to be before we presented it to the other coordinators, or even if this was at all what you had in mind. Feel free to tweak, change, or just wholesale delete as you'd like; either one of us can transfer it over to the main coordinator talk page when it's slightly more ready. Dana boomer (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That looks quite good, actually; please go ahead and post this for everyone to review. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Dana boomer (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikiportal/War listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Wikiportal/War. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Wikiportal/War redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji 13:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikiportal/War listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Wikiportal/War. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Wikiportal/War redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji 13:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiXDC: Wikipedia 10th Birthday!

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)

You are invited to WikiXDC, a special meetup event and celebration on Saturday, January 22 hosted by the National Archives and Records Administration in downtown Washington, D.C.

  • Date: January 22, 2011 (tentatively 9:30 AM - 5 PM)
  • Location: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), downtown building, Pennsylvania Avenue & 7th St NW.
  • Description: There will be a behind-the-scenes tour of the National Archives and you will learn more about what NARA does. We will also have a mini-film screening featuring FedFlix videos along with a special message from Jimmy Wales. In the afternoon, there will be lightning talks by Wikimedians (signup to speak), wiki-trivia, and cupcakes to celebrate!
  • Details & RSVP: Details about the event are on our Washington, DC tenwiki page.

Please RSVP soon as possible, as there likely will be a cap on number of attendees that NARA can accommodate.

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. BrownBot (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for notifying me of the award of a Barnstar from the Military history WikiProject. An unexpected honour that I am pleased to accept. Emeraude (talk) 10:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010



To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5th Air Army

Good day, Kirill. I think that article 5th Air Army should be splitted into two articles - 5th Air Army (USSR) and 5th Air Army (Russia) (like ru:5-я армия ВВС и ПВО, ru:5-я воздушная армия (СССР)). Can you help me, where I should put this request ? Maybe in some place of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, but where ? Кстати, говорите ли вы по-русски ? --Movses (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The normal place for such a discussion would be right on Talk:5th Air Army. If you'd like to get more eyes on the article, of course, you can cross-post a link to the discussion on WT:MILHIST as well. Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Kirill,

Thanks for your help with getting the contribution team page started and off the ground. We really are crediting it as a success with drawing a lot of attention to the fundraiser this year. Looking forwards to next year! Regards, ⇒DanRosenthal (WMF) 08:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JJBulten: How Long Will This Continue?

Greetings,

I find it incredulous that JJBulten, one of the main parties to this arbitration, is pronouncing who is "conflicted" and who is not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity/Workshop#Proposed_index

I note he lists himself, DavidinDC, Itsmejudith, and Blade of Northern Lights as "unconflicted."

But this is itself a conflict.

If this were a court of law, does the prosecutor serve as judge as well?

JJBulten's own talk page says that he is paranoid and delusional. It's clear that his editing has some "sense" to it, enough that people won't notice, like frogs boiling in water. But if one pays closer attention, these types of egregious edits are representative of someone suffering delusions of grandeur.

Again, I ask: why is no one calling him out for his misbehavior?

Ryoung122 01:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Offer

I'm so convinced that JohnJBulten is the problem, not me (I am the person that reacts to others), that's I'm willing to consider a "mutual topic ban" for one year. That is, I won't edit any longevity-related articles if JJB does the same.

That said: it's more than clear that JohnJBulten is on a personal vendetta. A lot of what I do is, in fact, editing limited to what I feel is important, things that make a difference. For example, the article that claimed Miami's record high was 98F failed to understand that that was just 'station data' limited to a 30-year period, not all-time recordings. So, I properly sourced the fact that Miami's record high was 100F in the 1940s. That JJB wants to make an issue of THAT suggests that he is a problem.

Some of the other so-called "wars":

1. "Bolding war": I was not involved, but JJB launched what he called a "war" to change the "style" of Wikipedia articles. A lot of kids thought that bolding the living persons made it easier for others to see. I agree. There was no reason to undo the bolding, other than to cause trouble.

2. Date-links "war": Wikipedia once had date links for all articles on biographies. However, even with the decision to remove year of birth links, an exception SHOULD have been made for world's oldest persons. Many, many sources on World's Oldest Persons have "linked" the persons' year of birth to events in the past, such as this article:

BBC NEWS | Americas | World's oldest woman dies at 116 Aug 28, 2006 ... Maria Esther de Capovilla of Ecuador - the world's oldest woman ... the same year as Charlie Chaplin and Adolf Hitler, Capovilla was 22 when ... news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5293436.stm - Cached - Similar

Outside sources, not me, establish that linking supercentenarian birthdays to yearly events is a good idea.

3. Wikipedia list of editors by edit count...I actually proposed a solution, using a "placeholder" for those who wished not to be named. Again, I proposed a solution, not "fought" from one position.

4. "Tennis war" with Fyunclick...much of what Fyunclick does on tennis is, in fact, a Walled Garden. Fact: the word "grand slam" was not even employed in tennis until the 1930s. Sources such as the World Almanac and Encyclopedia Britannica listed French championship winners from 1891-1924 as "Grand Slam" winners. Fyunclick tried to exclude pre-1925 French winners on the basis of being limited to "French only," but the FACTS were that the very first winner was British, and that the U.S. "Open" was limited to U.S. players only in 1881, according to outside sources.

So, in any dispute, I am only arguing when Wikipedia editing is not following reliable outside sourcing.

5. GRG, GWR, and COI. Fact: I actually have made few edits regarding longevity articles in the past year. Most of the editing concerned scientific issues and policy issues. The GRG is NON-profit so by definition, I fail to see that as COI. And as for Guinness, Time Magazine proclaimed Guinness the "official arbiter of longevity." If I were using my account to promote Guinness, that would be one thing. But I'm not. I'm using my editing to promote a scientific view on human longevity, one based on scientific records. When someone claims to be "157," like Turinah, are we forced to accept this claim prima facie? Or are we allowed to employ scientific perspective that points out that the claimant has no proof of birth and that the age claim is 35 years beyond the proven record? That is the real issue here, not COI. COI is an excuse JJB has used to deflect from the original dispute, which started when somone categorized Noah's age of 950 to be "mythical." JJB has stated that he believes that Noah really lived to be 950, because the Bible said so. If you want to believe that in church, fine. But for JJB to be censoring scientific perspective on Wikipedia shows that the real walled garden is religion. I note that Itsmejudith, also from the religion group, didn't want scientific mention of the unlikelihood of human virgins giving birth on articles on the "Virgin birth of Jesus." That's an analogous discussion, but it makes the point: the real walled garden is religion attempting to exclude science.Ryoung122 06:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Longevity ArbCom: David in DC

Greetings,

I think much focus has already been made on JJBulten's POV-edit-pushing on longevity articles, but aside from the religious versus scientific dispute, there is a second dispute.

This one concerns David in DC's POV-editing, herewith:

The problem is pervasive. We can fix the bios, stubs and line item paragraph bios easily enough, according to BLP, BIO, RS, V, N and a whole bunch of other policies. But all of the lists that rely on the GRG, OHB, and other self-published data, near-exclusively, have turned this encyclopedia into a web-hosting service. Watch the list pages. They're meticulously maintained in synch with these outside lists, and woe be unto the editor not afiliated with these lists who tries to enforce stylistic matters like MOS:FLAG or MOS:BOLD, let alone even the much more important rules about OWN, NOR and SYNTH.David in DC (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


1. First and foremost, the GRG is NOT self-published data. If a family sends to us material on their grandmother turning 110, it's not the family publishing it, it's us. The GRG members are well-qualified in what they do. Dr. Coles has a Ph.D. I have two Master's degrees. Oldest Human Beings is not self-published, either. Louis Epstein (my rival/competitor) lives in New York, the data is published in Germany. How is that self-published? So, David in DC needs to kindly step back from false assertions such as "self-published," "data dump," etc.

2. Don't blame the GRG for "web-hosting." It is, in fact, the third-party editors (kids, essentially) that built lists of supercentenarians utlitizing data from the GRG, OHB, etc. But even then, the Wiki lists often end at "top 100," whereas the GRG lists over 1200 entries.

3. I am more and less than the GRG. I am associated with ALL of the major longevity-related databases, including:

--International Database on Longevity http://www.supercentenarians.org/project_contributors.htm --Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research http://www.demogr.mpg.de/books/drm/007/3-3.pdf --New England Supercentenarian Study http://www.bumc.bu.edu/supercentenarian/our-staff/ --Supercentenarian Research Foundation http://www.supercentenarian-research-foundation.org/organization.htm --Guinness World Records http://community.guinnessworldrecords.com/_Oldest-Living-Man-Turns-114/blog/2667504/7691.html

I have worked with persons from the Okinawa Centenarian Study, the Social Security Administration, the World Almanac, etc.

So, In a way I feel like I don't have a COI because I'm not promoting one group against the other.

If most of the cites go to the GRG, that is because the IDL and Max Planck groups are organized around demography and privacy; the SRF and NESS seek to get blood draws from supercentenarians for research purposes. Guinness World Records focuses on just the top spots, at most a top-ten list once a year. That leaves the GRG, by default, as the de facto source for the Wikipedia lists.

Again, David in DC's mischaracterization of the GRG as "self-published", "hobbyist," a "data dump," all reflect an underlying bias against the GRG and the topic in general.

We also saw JJB and David in DC work in lockstep to not only delete articles, but to tarnish the entire field with comments like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tase_Matsunaga

Delete There are absolutely no sources in the article's text. Under the "External links" header there's a single link, to a Gerontology Research Group web page. There's some controversy about whether GRG pages are simply not reliable, whether they are biased against non-western centenarians or whether they are primary sources, prohibited for citation by WP:NOR. Whichever way one goes, this GRG web page cannot be the sole source for an article on Wikipedia. David in DC (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

We also saw JJBulten comment (not here, see the AFD for List of African supercentenarians and List of South American supercentenarians) that once he and David took out articles on non-Europeans, it would be easier to charge the GRG material with being biased.

Yes, JJBulten stooped to that level: by deleting articles first on non-Europeans, he could accuse the GRG of bias, even though the GRG material is limited to the state of recordkeeping from 110+ years ago and the GRG has added material from places like Ecuador, Colombia, Cape Verde, etc. when the standards of documentation were sufficient.

JJBulten's motivations for this current ArbCom, which dates to at least 2009 (yes, it's been going two years now) began when someone dared label the Noah article a "longevity myth." I find it interesting that Itsmejudith wants NO scientific material on the article on the virgin birth of Jesus. Perhaps the "walled garden" was the religious articles, not the longevity articles.

Like Galileo, I'm willing to back down temporarily for the sake of cooperation. Of course, nowadays we don't lose our actual heads for being scientific, but our virtual ID on Wikipedia might suffer a virtual lopping-off of editing privileges.

I'm going to say this: I have NOT made a lot of edits regarding the GRG on Wikipedia. Most of my recent focus has been on two issues:

1. ensuring that Wikipedia reflects the scientific POV when it comes to extreme age claims; and 2. ensuring that Wikipedia reflects outside sources when determining the notability of individual articles on supercentenarians.

David in DC's "self-published" accusations need significant adjustment, in the least. He seems less fanatical than JJBulten (who refused to deny that religious motivation was behind his POV editing). Note that JJBulten is also involved in disputes such as with Planned Parenthood. David in DC is more secular, but it seems for David to be a matter of EGO, to show that he can "take down" articles at his whim, regardless of whether they are accurately sourced to reliable sources. David in DC's long track record in the AFD debates of disparaging the GRG and claiming articles had "no sources" when they did (often not GRG sources, as I pointed out with the Louisa Theirs article) indicates to me more a Wiki-culture of personal vendetta. There is a certain resentment to my being notable outside Wikipedia, and Wikipedia confers for some the power (the power to tear down, rather than build up) that many do not have in the real world.

I note that your comments were well-received and that both you and NewYorkBrad have done a good job so far keeping up with this mess, but the second issue (David in DC mischaracterizing reliable sources as unreliable) is one that needs to be addressed in the long run.

Ryoung122 21:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday

From the Wikipedia birthday committee ;) -- œ™ 22:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Longevity case

As you are the drafter, I would to draw your attention to a point about this case; particularly, what I said in response to Coren's reasoning - here. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, but I think you might be expecting this finding to be deeper than it actually is. The GRG was singled out—both because it is the group with the most real-world prominence, and because the key conflict of interest allegations revolved around affiliation with it. The Yahoo! groups and such can be painted with the same brush as far as lacking an inherent conflict of interest, but I think they are of significantly lesser interest otherwise. Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robotics infoboxes

Hi

I am soliciting some opinions on my first attempts at designing infoboxes and wondered if you might have time to help.

I made a post a few days ago at robotic infoboxes concerning the first attempt I had started, an proposed expansion of the current Template:Infobox_robot.

As no-one has replied I was hoping that if you had time you might be able to have a quick look and perhaps comment on the discussions page.

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on the discussion page there. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania 2012 bid, DC chapter & next meetup!

  1. At WikiXDC in January, User:Harej proposed that DC submit a bid to host Wikimania 2012. A bid and organizing committee is being formed and seeks additional volunteers to help. Please look at our bid page and sign up if you want to help out. You can also signup for the bid team's email list.
  2. To support the Wikimania bid, more events like WikiXDC, and outreach activities like collaborations with the Smithsonian (ongoing) and National Archives, there also has been discussion of forming Wikimedia DC, as an official Wikimedia chapter. You can express interest and contribute to chapter discussions on the Wikimedia DC Meta-Wiki pages.
  3. To discuss all this and meet up with special guest, Dutch Wikipedian User:Kim Bruning, there will be a meetup, Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 16 this Tuesday at 7pm, at Capitol City Brewery, Metro Center. There will be a pre-meetup Wikimania team meeting at 6pm at the same location.

Apologies for the short notice for this meetup, but let's discuss when, where & what for DC Meetup #17. Also, if you haven't yet, please join wikimedia-dc mailing list to stay informed. Cheers, User:Aude (talk)

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude 18:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed on combined info boxes

Hello, I'm developing an article on a military person: Troy H. Middleton, who was a U.S. Army General and then the president of Louisiana State University. I want his infobox to be that of a military person, but want to add his tenure as the x'th president of LSU from xxxx to xxxx preceded by xxxxxxxx and succeeded by xxxxxxxx. How do I combine both of the info box types into a single info box that FOCUSES on his military service? I looked at the box for Dwight D. Eisenhower, but it focuses on his civil service. I see that military info boxes is one of your areas of expertise, so I am asking you. Many thanks.Sarnold17 (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the infobox nesting mechanism only works one way; {{infobox military person}} can be nested inside {{infobox person}}, but not vice versa. The two available options here would be either (a) using {{infobox person}} as the main infobox and including two sections for his military service and academic work, or (b) using the laterwork= field in {{infobox military person}} to summarize his academic career.
Hope that helps! Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you help! I'm not sure infobox person will give me all the rank, battle, and war options that are needed, but I'll try it out.Sarnold17 (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
{{infobox person}} should be able to support everything in {{infobox military person}} by using the module= parameters; see Template:Infobox military person#Embedding for instructions on how to set that up. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. I'm not sure I like the look of the skinnier info box. The military info box has grown on me and I'm very reluctant to change it. Is it OK to use two separate info boxes?Sarnold17 (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't have any problems with using two infoboxes; but I suspect you'll see objections if/when you take the article to FAC, if nowhere else. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's another idea: may I use a succession box at the end of the article? Does a succession box exist for university presidents?Sarnold17 (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea; you might want to ask around some of the university-related projects. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

hi

Do you think its easier to communicate academically in the Russian language or in English? Pass a Method talk 15:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a difference in the general case; it depends more on which language the participants in the discussion are more comfortable using. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

The Signpost interview

Thanks for the invitation; I'll respond to the questions sometime in the next day or so. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A-Class Review Request

I was wondering if you could do an A-Class review on the Frank Buckles article. You can find the review page here. You were suggested by User:Dr. Blofeld, which User:Wehwalt backed up. If you can or can't, please let me know. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 17:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to take a look at the article when I have a bit of free time; please ping me again if I haven't gotten to it in the next few days. Kirill [talk] [prof] 18:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in responding, got caught up in an episode of NCIS. Anywho, thanks for taking the time to give it a look. Look forward to working with you. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 20:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jimbo Wales for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

Milhist March 2011 backlog reduction drive

 Military history service award 
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your contributions to the WikiProject's March 2011 backlog reduction drive, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject award. AustralianRupert (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you!

SMasters has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a fresh pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
For using more dashes than anyone I have ever known, in their Signpost interview! :-) -- SMasters (talk) 09:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)†[reply]
Well, I do like my dashes! ;-) Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining taskforces

Hi Kirill - I recently realized I'd dropped the ball a bit on rolling the four remaining task forces into the new MILHIST format. Since there hasn't been any comment since your Feb 9 comment, what are your opinions moving forward. My thoughts were that, since none of the other projects seemed to care what we did with the task forces, that we could bring them into MILHIST space, while retaining a redirect from the other project's space, and re-format them to the new style. I'm more than willing to do this, but don't want to move unilaterally since it was never really discussed. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest leaving the biography and Korean TFs where they're currently located (since nobody commented on the idea of moving them) and moving the other two; but I have no particular objections to moving all four, if that's what you (and the other coords) consider the cleanest approach.
As far as cleaning up the format, the Crusades TF is likely to be a pain, since we'll need to pull in content from their (many) subpages; the other ones should be a reasonably straightforward conversion using the same process as the ones we've already done. Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Kirill Lokshin. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/US Military.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 14:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

Zuggernaut's ban

Please take another look at Zuggernaut's ban, request made as per Use reminders Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at this fresh statement Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

Cheers for the swift revert. Would love to know why that user decided to stick an unblock template there! Regards, Brammers (talk/c) 08:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No idea on their motivation; it seems to be a sockpuppet of someone banned, so they're probably doing it just to cause trouble. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DC on May 7?

You guys mind if I pop in for the planning meeting, or would it be better for a newbie to just attend the meal? I've been wanting to hook up with you guys for a while, I should be able to attend a few meetings and put in some effort on GLAM projects and Wikimania prep. - Dank (push to talk) 19:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're certainly very welcome to attend the planning meeting. Some of the topics are probably going to be a little obscure—there's a fair amount of procedural; paperwork (needed to set up a corporate entity) that we need to deal with—but we're also going to be discussing plans for Wikimania and other outreach work that would be of interest to you. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great. - Dank (push to talk) 22:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 03:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline MilHist content

You never responded to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_101#Showcase or Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_101#Hemingway_photo (regarding) File:EdwardTeller1958 fewer smudges.jpg. Note, I have boldly added File:Ernest Hemingway in Milan 1918 retouched 3.jpg, since he won a Silver Medal of Military Valor for his service. Also, regarding Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_101#More_showcase_candidates, I have added both now although not sure on the first.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that both of those questions had been responded to, either by myself or by others; but, for the avoidance of doubt, I don't see any problem with listing any of the items in question. In general, please feel free to add items without asking about each one individually; most of them will doubtless be within our scope, and any which are later determined not to be can easily be removed after the fact. Kirill [talk] [prof] 19:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Navigator Barnstar

Navigator Barnstar
For finishing a tedious job that makes it easier for all of us to navigate the Milhist pages. Kudos! - Dank (push to talk) 21:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP and flagged revisions case

I would like to ask you to re-read the comments at the "BLP and flagged revisions" case and reconsider your decision to decline. In particular, I would draw your attention to:

Statement by SlimVirgin

Comment by Sjakkalle

Comment by Eraserhead1

Comment by Guy Macon

...and if you don't re-read anything else, please at least carefully consider the points made in:

Comment by TotientDragooned

Statement by Will Beback

Thanks! Guy Macon (talk) 08:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent you a mail just now

Kirill, please note that I've sent you a mail just now and the message starts "Dear Kirill, I have been a Wikipedian since 2005 but...." This talk message is to establish that it is indeed me who sent you that message. --Gurubrahma (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kirill Lokshin. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

FYI about a new featured class proposal

Greetings Kirill, I hope things are going well with you. I wanted to let you know I have proposed on the Village pump about adding a new class to the assessment table for Featured media (Pictures, sounds and videos). I did this mostly because of the number that WPUS has and wanting to watch and track it better but MILHIST also has a lot and with all the activity at Milhist I thought I would let you know about it. --Kumioko (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

FLC/C-Class

Hi - what can I do to help you implement this?--v/r - TP 02:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the changes are automatic, but there are a couple of manual items that you could help with. The most immediate one would be to go through all the featured lists in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Showcase/FL and change the rating in {{WPMILHIST}} to "class=FL" if it's not already set that way. Kirill [talk] [prof] 10:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually TP, you don't need to, I've just done it. ;) I was just going to head over here and ask if you wanted any help with the categories. I didn't want to duplicate any effort. Regards, Woody (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're done with everything at this point; the only remaining item would be spot checks to make sure that everything is working as intended. Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, I'll keep my eye out to make sure it's working correctly.--v/r - TP 13:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

Template:Infobox_military_unit

Hi - would it be possible to make it so unit symbols can be centered with no left-side "lebal"? I ask because of Medical_Education_and_Training_Campus article where I'd like to remove "Logo" and have the image centered in the infobox.--v/r - TP 19:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done; the label will now be turned off if identification_symbol_label= is set to "none". Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a ton!--v/r - TP 00:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A new class for Featured media

I just wanted to let you know that a new class for Featured media (Images, sounds and videos) has been created and added to allow WikiProjects to track the featured media. --Kumioko (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, and thanks! We're actually having a discussion at WT:MHCOORD#Featured media about using it for MILHIST; if you have any thoughts about how useful it would be for a project of our size, your input would be very welcome. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A request to resolve dispute issue

Dear Kirill,

I kindly ask you to help us to resolve a dispute with user Lvivske whose allegations seem to insinuate reputation of Rinat Akhmetov, who is a living public person; thus, his statements are contravening Wikipedia’s policies as for neutral point of view, sources verifiability and biographies of the living persons. The mentioned user is constantly creating negative image of a public person by adding unproved allegations on his crime ties, unbacked by any official reliable verifiable source. Sources provided by this user are either unofficial or seem to belong to original research materials or are impossible to check due to dead links, which is contradicting Wiki’s rules about verifiability; such, the statement re alleged crime activities and frauds, referring to the Ministry of Internal Affairs report, contains the link to some pdf-file, belonging to some foreign investigating journalism program.

Offensive attributions, such as “thug” are used, taken from non-English or/and non-verified sources, which is as well is interfering the policy about dispassionate tone and verifiability. Allegations about belonging of the discussed person to criminal world are presented as facts and mainly referred to a non-English self-investigation of a Donetsk journalist that was officially declared a plagiarism by Region Court of Appeal. So, I just put into practice Jimbo Wales’ advice: I can NOT emphasize this enough.There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. --Orekhova (talk) 08:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't normally involve myself in disputes on articles outside of my own areas of interest. If you have concerns about the content of another user's edits, you should follow the normal dispute resolution process. Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kirill_Lokshin/Archive_12&oldid=1144587342"