![]() | This is an archive of past discussions with Kirill Lokshin. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
< Archive 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) |
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)
I've mentioned you on ANI. Gimmetoo ( talk) 14:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
|
|
|
July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy |
|
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)
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? - MBK 004 03:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
![]() |
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) |
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)
![]() |
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
My suggestion is to topic ban William and place Marknutley under an indefinite sourcing parole with a mentor. Minor 4th 07:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
|
|
A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound |
Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants |
|
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) |
An off-wiki discussion is taking place concerning DC Meetup #12. Watch
this page for announcements.
—NBahn (
talk)
04:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
The Invisible Barnstar | |
Great job...Was just about to do the same thing Moxy ( talk) 15:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC) |
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)
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)
[14] Thanks. Minor 4th 20:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
And this as well [15]. Thanks. Minor 4th 19:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
thanks for the move and all the closing work. Alekhya Emani ( talk) 16:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
|
The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals |
|
|
|
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) |
Hi Kirill—I've emailed you with a request. Tony (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, me too. -- THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 01:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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! bahamut0013 words deeds 19:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
|
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)
Hi Kirill, I've responded to your query at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Date delinking. Thanks - Kingpin 13 ( talk) 06:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
Kirill! What did you do?! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 12:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Why would completely throwout and redo my contribution to the page? -- THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 02:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
{{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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
From the Wikipedia birthday committee ;) -- œ ™ 22:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
|
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)
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)
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | "WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Council for an upcoming edition of The Signpost. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, you can find the interview questions here. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. If you have any questions, you can leave a note on my talk page. Have a great day. – SMasters ( talk) 16:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC) |
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)
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)
![]() |
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)
![]() |
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) |
![]() |
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) † |
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)
- Talk to you later, Presidentman ( talk) Random Picture of the Day ( Talkback) 14:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Please take another look at Zuggernaut's ban, request made as per Use reminders Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 17:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
|
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)
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)
![]() |
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) |
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hi - what can I do to help you implement this?--v/r - T P 02:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
|
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)
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 - T P 19:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions with Kirill Lokshin. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
< Archive 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) |
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)
I've mentioned you on ANI. Gimmetoo ( talk) 14:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
|
|
|
July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy |
|
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)
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? - MBK 004 03:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
![]() |
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) |
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)
![]() |
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
My suggestion is to topic ban William and place Marknutley under an indefinite sourcing parole with a mentor. Minor 4th 07:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
|
|
A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound |
Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants |
|
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) |
An off-wiki discussion is taking place concerning DC Meetup #12. Watch
this page for announcements.
—NBahn (
talk)
04:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
The Invisible Barnstar | |
Great job...Was just about to do the same thing Moxy ( talk) 15:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC) |
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)
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)
[14] Thanks. Minor 4th 20:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
And this as well [15]. Thanks. Minor 4th 19:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
thanks for the move and all the closing work. Alekhya Emani ( talk) 16:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
|
The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals |
|
|
|
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) |
Hi Kirill—I've emailed you with a request. Tony (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, me too. -- THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 01:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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! bahamut0013 words deeds 19:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
|
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)
Hi Kirill, I've responded to your query at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Date delinking. Thanks - Kingpin 13 ( talk) 06:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
Kirill! What did you do?! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 12:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Why would completely throwout and redo my contribution to the page? -- THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 02:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
{{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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
From the Wikipedia birthday committee ;) -- œ ™ 22:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
|
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)
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)
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | "WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Council for an upcoming edition of The Signpost. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, you can find the interview questions here. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. If you have any questions, you can leave a note on my talk page. Have a great day. – SMasters ( talk) 16:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC) |
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)
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)
![]() |
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)
![]() |
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) |
![]() |
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) † |
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)
- Talk to you later, Presidentman ( talk) Random Picture of the Day ( Talkback) 14:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Please take another look at Zuggernaut's ban, request made as per Use reminders Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 17:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
|
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)
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)
![]() |
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) |
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hi - what can I do to help you implement this?--v/r - T P 02:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
|
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)
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 - T P 19:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)