![]() | 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 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 > |
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) |
Hi Kirill, greetings; you may be interested to comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_June_12#Category:Warfare_of_the_Modern_era Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
See Sandstein's contributions for more info. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 13:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi. You have apparently directed that I be re-added as a party to the ongoing case. This leads me to speculate that you may think that I indefinitely blocked MickMacNee in order to circumvent, preempt or unduly influence the arbitration process. I would like to assure you that this was not my intent. Rather, I tried to address what I saw as an ongoing problem requiring "standard" discretion-based administrative intervention, with the added benefit of giving you, the Committee, the opportunity to use this community-based action as a way to close the case if you so desire (or to unblock MickMacNee and proceed with arbitration if you do not).
As far as I know, the Committee has previously closed requests or cases in which a stable community-based solution has emerged, and accordingly I acted on the assumption that an ongoing arbitration case does not prevent parallel administrator action (which can of course at any time be overruled by the Committee). If I was wrong about this, and did not heed any rule that may exist according to which ArbCom retains exclusive jurisdiction over users party to a case, such that they may not be blocked during the case except at ArbCom's direction, I apologize and would appreciate your advice about the boundaries in this regard.
I understand from comments on ANI that my block may appear strange to some in view of my previously expressed desire not to participate in the arbitration case. I do not see a contradiction, though. I was (and am) not interested in participating in the case because I was not involved with the events that triggered it, and because you said that the Committee does not intend to examine the events of November 2010 in which I was involved.
I hope that I have addressed any concerns you may have in regards to my action, and would appreciate any feedback by you to understand what such concerns may be. Sandstein 14:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for butting in, but I don't quite see your logic here, Kirill. There was already an official decision saying that Sandstein should not be counted as a party to the case; if he then went and acted in his capacity of an uninvolved administrator, how is that suddenly to be used as evidence that he was involved after all? And on a more general note, if administrators are to be held accountable in such matters, the nature of Arbcom participant lists needs to be scrutinized and clarified more generally. In my experience, being listed on a case page is not automatically equivalent to being a party in the dispute, certainly not "by definition". For instance, on ARBMAC2, Horologium was listed, purely because he had previously taken some key administrative decisions (as an uninvolved admin) on the issue, and while he did participate actively in the proceedings, he continued to wield the mop on related decisions during the same time, and arbitrators explicitly encouraged him to do so. On EEML, I myself was listed as a participant, merely because I had been one of the people who had received the leaked e-mails and forwarded them to Arbcom. I, too, have continued to do admin work in that field, both during and after the case. (Rather annoyingly, I'm still getting stray accusations that this random listing somehow magically made me an involved party, most recently in those rants by Jacurek on my amendment request). Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
When I asked to be un-named as a party, I did not anticipate that there would subsequently be grounds for a block of MickMacNee (i.e., personal attacks and edit-warring). More to the point, I could not have anticipated blocking MickMacNee at this time, because the conduct for which I blocked him had not yet occurred, and I had no reason to believe that something like that would subsequently occur. Had I indeed wanted to block MickMacNee on any pretext, I could have done so during the ANI thread that discussed his conduct and triggered the present case, but I did not.
I was also not aware of any (written or unwritten) rule specifically against blocking a fellow arbitration party, and so I did not seek to be un-named merely to evade any such rule. (Had I thought about it then, I would probably have considered that blocking an "opposed" party to a case would normally be improper because of WP:UNINVOLVED, rather than as a matter of arbitration procedure, but in normal practice, "involved" blocks merely result in an overturning of the block rather than in sanctions.)
To summarize, I did not ask to be un-named under false pretenses just so that I could block MickMacNee with impunity. Such an assumption appears rather contrary to the good faith that administrators, in particular, are expected to extend to one another. Rather, I asked to be un-named only because I considered that I had been named for no good reason and could contribute nothing of substance to the case then being discussed.
I was aware that the indefinite block also had, additionally, the potential to become a definitive solution of the problem, if (a) it was accepted as necessary in the ensuing community discussion, if (b) MickMacNee did not convince an unblock reviewer that the block was no longer necessary because he understood the reasons for it and would not repeat such conduct, and if (c) the Committee did not overrule the block, as is their right, in order to proceed with their case. But I did not view the block as a way to circumvent the arbitration process, in particular because I have neither the authority nor the ability to do so: the Committee can lift the block at any time if they think it necessary for the purpose of the case.
Furthermore, I blocked MickMacNee because of his disruption, not to prevent him from defending himself (if a block could have this effect, the same would have been true for the 72h block I replaced) or to prevent an examination of the other parties' conduct (I do not know them and have not looked at what if anything they did in the context of this matter; furthermore, I - again - have neither the authority nor the capability to prevent ArbCom from pursuing the case as regards these others).
So, rather than as interference, I see the block as a way to simplify the Committee's work and give them an option: if the block survives the community process, you have the opportunity to accept it as a stable outcome (at least as concerns MickMacNee), or you can unblock him and continue with the case if you think the outcome is wrong or a more permanent resolution is needed.
(a) It is always possible that an amicable agreement that obviates the necessity of a block is reached while a block lasts. In fact, this is the preferred outcome, and all people involved in a block situation should work towards it, because it is preferable to the block simply expiring on its own and the conflict continuing where it left off. But such an amicable agreement can just as well be reached during an infinite block as during a block of limited duration, and therefore the possibility of such an agreement is not in and of itself a reason not to extend the block. On the contrary, I believe that an indefinite block is even more conducive to reaching such an agreement than a short block, because during a short block the blocked user has the option to simply wait out the block, and has therefore less of an incentive to engage in good faith discussions about an agreement. Sandstein 18:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
(b) Not necessarily: the purpose of the block was not to resolve the question of whether the specific text at issue should remain deleted or not, but to prevent MickMacNee from continuing to resolve disagreements by edit-warring and personally attacking others, and the removal of the text in and of itself does not substantially reduce the likelihood of this happening. Only some recognition on the part of MickMacNee that his approach to disagreements is part of the problem does.
But the fact that the message is in part a personal attack does not, as you put it, "mitigate MickMacNee's culpability" in my view:
The above may be interesting but the story is a lot simpler than this.
End of story. Cheers. - BorisG ( talk) 13:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
for my "records", you've changed your mind now about removing your individual email? Ncmvocalist ( talk) 15:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Herschelkrustofsky on WR apparently has a response (a positive one) to this comment that you made. Would you like a link to it? Silver seren C 03:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Kirill, further to the recent Political activism request for arbitration and various arbitrators' comments at that request to the effect that there had not been to date an RfC/U on Cirt, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cirt. Best, -- J N 466 13:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Tell me have you thought about applying for a job with Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition?
*"I figured I would take it easy to start and see how willing he is to work with us. We already know the answer to some of these questions, so we will also be able to determine if he is lying about his actions. We can then get` into specific questions about Usher, etc. KL"
*That seems reasonable. I expect he's going to come back with "you'll never make me talk!" or something along those lines, but I suppose I could be pleasantly surprised. Kirill"
You say "reasonable", what was next stage to be the thumb screws? Earlier in the thread your mate, Coren, calls me paranoid - amazing if I bloody wasn't with such a bunch of clowns running the show. Do none of you feel no shame for the way you have all behaved? Angry does not even begin to describe how I feel. Giacomo ( talk) 15:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
You have been listed as involved regarding a current request for clarification to Arbcom. Communikat ( talk) 18:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The next DC Wikimedia meetup is scheduled for Saturday, May 7, 3:30-5:30 pm at the Tenleytown Library (adjacent to the Tenleytown Metro Station, Red Line), followed by dinner & socializing at some nearby place.
This is the first official meeting of our proposed Wikimedia DC chapter, with discussion of bylaws and next steps. Other agenda items include, update everyone on our successful Wikimania bid and next steps in the planning process, discuss upcoming activities that we want to do over the summer and fall, and more.
Please RSVP here and see a list of additional tentatively planned meetups & activities for late May & June on the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC page.
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
Kirill, I'm a terrible coder. Can you modify Template:WPMILHIST Newsletter header 3 so I can hide an editorial if needed and add additional sections? Or make Template:WPMILHIST Newsletter header 4 as a final change to the header so it's somewhat customizable? The top of the header is fine, but I'd like to be able to add and subtract sections as necessary. Thanks very much! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I have proposed that ArbCom extend the editing restrictions which it placed on Communicat ( talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Motion to extend editing restrictions on Communicat/Communikat and would appreciate your views on this. Thank you Nick-D ( talk) 11:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
All editors' behavior should be looked and going by Elen of the Roads comment that due to family trouble she has been unable study this properly. Elen quote "I have the sense that there have been other people who have been problematic, but not the time to look at it deeper. It's unfortunate" Will you please come and comment here about this. Blackash have a chat 08:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Do you agree that this statement is not going to earn you much sympathy?
How about letting the community decide how to govern itself, and let the people selected have real power, not mere illusions of power. Jehochman Talk 22:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Archives of American Art Backstage Pass! - You are invited! | |
---|---|
![]() |
The Smithsonian is hosting its first Backstage Pass at the Archives of American Art on Friday, July 29. 10 Wikimedians will experience the behind the scenes aspects of archiving the world's largest collection of documents and photographs related to American art. After a complimentary lunch, an edit-a-thon will take place and prizes will be awarded. Followed by an evening happy hour. We hope you'll participate! SarahStierch ( talk) 14:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot ( talk) 23:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you with this, but since you put the A-class review for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (J) on the Military History project page, I am turning to you with my concerns about these lists in general. According to the assessment criteria, in particular A4, the article - or in this case list - should be in accurate English. The lists in question however seem to me like crude translations from some German lists, I have heard about but not seen myself, though. I am kind of familiar with German military terminology and some of the terms used in the list don't feel right. The articles I find in Wikipedia are not very helpful either. E.g. a deputy leader in a military unit would be a executive officer or second in command in English; a troop doctor would be a Medical Officer, and so on. I am not sure were to raise these issues, as in the past my attempts have come to nothing. I hope you can point me in the right direction where to discuss this sort of problem or do it yourself. Yours -- FJS15 ( talk) 18:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi! There's an edit war going on at Battle of Cortenuova. A recent user is endlessly reverting my recent expansion of what was a mere stub, to a version based on 19th century, non-Italian sources, full of some strange features such as unjustified capitalization, wrong naming of Italian cities and titles etc. Can you help? -- '''Attilios''' ( talk) 12:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The first ever WikiProject National Archives newsletter has been published. Please read on to find out what we're up to and how to help out! There are many opportunities for getting more involved. Dominic· t 21:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
|
Template:Campaignbox Wars of Beleriand has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) -
talk
09:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
DC Meetup 21 - Who should come? You should. Really. | |
---|---|
![]() |
DC MEETUP 21 is July 29! This meet up will involve Wikipedians from the area as well as Wiki-loving GLAM professionals. See you Friday! SarahStierch ( talk) 16:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC) |
DC Meetup 21 - Who should come? You should. Really. | |
---|---|
![]() |
DC MEETUP 21 is July 29! This meet up will involve Wikipedians from the area as well as Wiki-loving GLAM professionals. See you Friday! SarahStierch ( talk) 16:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC) |
You are invited to the first Wikipedia Baltimore meetup on Saturday, July 23, 10:00am-12:30pm at the Walters Art Museum. Come meet Wikimedians, learn about GLAM-Wiki partnerships, get involved, and discuss future wiki outreach and activities in the Baltimore area!
There also is a Wikipedia & Cultural Heritage at the Young Preservationist Happy Hour on Friday, July 22, 6:30pm at the Midtown Yacht Club, an unpretentious neighborhood pub.
Note: You can remove your name from the Baltimore meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude
National Archives Backstage Pass - Who should come? You should. Really. | |
---|---|
![]() |
On Saturday, August 6, the National Archives is hosting a Wikipedia meetup, backstage pass tour, and edit-a-thon in College Park, Maryland. Meet staff and fellow Wikipedians, go behind the scenes at the National Archives, help digitize documents, and edit together! Dominic· t 21:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC) |
![]() Not joking about the chocolate! |
This is a reminder that the
National Archives Backstage Pass is tomorrow at 11 am. National Archives-themed chocolates and temporary tattoos await! Also, historical documents. :-) Please see the meetup page for updated information on transportation, security, and other other event details. Dominic· t 22:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC) |
Category:Depictions of war, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
You've got mail. - Dank ( push to talk) 19:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you are the correct person to ask, but it seems you've done a lot of work on the Military Navigation templates… Is there anything wrong with Template:Campaignbox Morgan's Raid in Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio having a map of the campaign? I did some cleanup on it last month, and I was wondering about it then, but forgot to ask. I like the information it imparts since a campaign could have few battles, yet cover a lot of territory and a simple list of battles doesn't really give a picture of the campaign. It seems like it would be especially good for campaigns with a campaignbox, but no actual article to link to. Thanks. Mojoworker ( talk) 22:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
If you could write up a rationale for having embedded maps, that would be great; I'm not quite certain whether I could make a particularly convincing case for it if left to my own devices. If you're comfortable starting off the discussion, then please feel free to post your thoughts directly to WT:MILHIST; I can then chip in with technical details as needed. Alternately, if you prefer, I can start off the discussion once I have your input. Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
You may remember a recent Arbcom decision in which editors were requested to agree on an appropriate name for the article currently at Tree shaping. There has been a careful discussion on the subject, followed by an RfM which was hastily closed as 'No action' by involved administrator SilkTork. Was this what was envisaged by Arbcom? Perhaps you could take a look and give your opinion. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 22:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot ( talk) 22:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
On the WikiProject Military History disucussion page there is talk about a merge and eliminating WP:Espionage altogether. Would like your feedback there. It would be appreciated. Adamdaley ( talk) 08:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey there! I was going to be in Leesburg, Virginia for the 150th anniversary program and re-enactment at Balls Bluff. One of my friends is a battlefield guide up there, and I was wondering how you'd feel about coming up the historic Balch Library or the Leesburg Public Library to be part of a WLL event? I'm just roughing in the idea right now. Get you a private wikipedian tour of the battlefield before the reenactment... I'm going to ask a couple of other DCers. BusterD ( talk) 16:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I have a question about the Template:Infobox military conflict "place=" parameter. For example, at Battle of Big Mound it has for Location: "Dakota Territory, Present-day Kidder County, North Dakota". While Battle of Dead Buffalo Lake has simply "Kidder County, North Dakota". Is there a standard to specify place as the current location (i.e. Kidder County, North Dakota), the location at the time (i.e. Dakota Territory), or a combination of the two (i.e. Dakota Territory, Present-day Kidder County, North Dakota)? I did some searching, but I couldn't find anything documented.
Also, any update on the map overlay for the campaignbox? I was thinking a CSS solution might work, but I'm not CSS guru. Thanks. Mojoworker ( talk) 19:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466/Proposed decision#Proposed remedies
Hi - There appears to be a motion to close this case later today. In the case that you have not noticed - there are two new proposals predented by Newyorkbrad - 3.3.2.1 Cirt restricted from BLPs and 3.3.2.2 Cirt restricted from "political" biographies - that you have not voted in. Thank you for your attention to this. - Off2riorob ( talk) 01:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi mate, as a last-minute op-ed for the August Bugle I penned a brief recollection of September 11 for the 10th anniversary. I agreed with Ed that perspectives from various nationalities would be appropriate if people can manage it in time (have to be in the next 24 hours or so!) and thought you might be interested. Here's what's there at the moment, pls feel free to add or comment. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 02:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot ( talk) 18:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
For some reason, this is defaulting to the page for the September 2010 tally and I don't know how to fix it. Could you look please? TIA, Roger Davies talk 01:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
A few years ago you kindly carried out a peer review of Battle of Vukovar at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of Vukovar. Having rewritten the article (again!) I've now nominated it for featured status with the aim of getting it to that position by 18 November, the 20th anniversary of the battle. You are very welcome to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Vukovar/archive1. Prioryman ( talk) 00:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
DC Meetup 23 & Annual Membership Meeting | |
---|---|
Wikimedia District of Columbia, the newest officially recognized chapter, is holding its Annual Membership Meeting at 1pm on Saturday, October 1, 2011 at the Tenley-Friendship Neighborhood Library. ![]() Agenda items include:
Candidate nominations are open until 11:59pm EDT on Saturday, September 24. We encourage you to consider being a candidate. (see see candidate instructions) The meeting is open to both the general public and members from within the DC-MD-VA-WV-DE region and beyond. We encourage everyone to attend! You may join the chapter at the meeting or online. |
Note: You can remove your name from the DC meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude, 15:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Greetings,
My name is John-Paul and I am a student with the University of Alberta specializing in Communications and Technology.
I would like to include your Wikipedia user page in a study I am doing about how people present themselves online. I am interested in whether people see themselves in different ways, online and offline. One of the things I am looking at is how contributors to Wikipedia present themselves to each other through their user pages. Would you consider letting me include your user page in my study?
With your consent, I will read and analyze your user page, and ask you five short questions about it that will take about ten to fifteen minutes to answer. I am looking at about twenty user pages belonging to twenty different people. I will be looking at all user pages together, looking for common threads in the way people introduce themselves to other Wikipedians.
I hope that my research will help answer questions about how people collaborate, work together, and share knowledge. If you are open to participating in this study, please reply to this message, on your User Talk page or on mine. I will provide you with a complete description of my research, which you can use to decide if you want to participate.
Thank-you,
John-Paul Mcvea
University of Alberta
jmcvea@ualberta.ca
Johnpaulmcvea ( talk) 22:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank-you for agreeing to participate in my study, entitled “Online Self-presentation among Wikipedians.” I appreciate it.
As I indicated before, here are five questions that I would like you to answer. Please be as brief or as thorough as you like.
5 QUESTIONS
1. Are you a member of social networks such Facebook or MySpace?
2. In addition to maintaining a user page in Wikipedia, have you also written or edited articles? If so, about how many times?
3. What are the key messages about yourself that you hope to convey with your user page?
4. Have your Wikipedia contributions ever received feedback, such as being edited by others or commented on? Have you received a message from another Wikipedia user? If so, do you think your user page positively or negatively affected what other people said and how they said it?
5. Do you see your “online self” as being different from your “offline self?” Can you elaborate?
Please indicate your answers to these questions on your talk page, or on mine. If you like, you can email your answers to me instead (jmcvea@ualberta.ca).
Thank you again : )
Johnpaulmcvea ( talk) 23:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
INDICATING CONSENT
By answering these questions, you indicate your agreement with the following statements:
• That you understand that you have been asked to be in a research study.
• That you have read and received a copy of the Information Sheet, attached below (“Additional Information”).
• That you understand the benefits and risks involved in taking part in this research study.
• That you have had an opportunity to ask questions and discuss this study.
• That you understand that you are free to refuse to participate, or to withdraw from the study at any time, without consequence, and that your information will be withdrawn at your request.
• That the issue of confidentiality been explained to you and that you understand who will have access to your information (see “Additional Information”).
• That you agree to participate.
ADDITONAL INFORMATION
Background
• I am asking you to participate in a research project that is part of my MA degree.
• I am asking you because you have created a user page in Wikipedia that other people can use to learn about you.
Purpose
• My research is about how people present themselves online.
• I will look at how people present themselves when presenting themselves to the Wikipedia community.
Study Procedures
• With your consent, I will analyze the language of your user page and gather basic statistics such as the count of words, the frequency of words, the number of sections, and so on.
• I will also read the text of your user page, looking for elements in common with ads posted by other people. I will note whether you include a picture, or links to other content on the internet,
• I ask you to answer my five questions, above. This will take about ten to fifteen minutes to complete. I will ask you to answer the questions within a week, and send your answers to me.
• Throughout my research, I will adhere to the University of Alberta Standards for the Protection of Human Research Participants, which you can view at http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/gfcpolicymanual/policymanualsection66.cfm
Benefits
• There is no direct benefit to you for participating in this research. You may, however, find it interesting to read my perspective on how you present yourself online.
• I hope that the information I get from doing this study will help understand how technology affects the way people come together into a society.
• There is no reward or compensation for participating in this research.
Risk
• There is no direct risk for participating in this research.
Voluntary Participation
• You are under no obligation to participate in this study. Participation is completely voluntary.
• You can opt out of this study at any time before October 10, 2011, with no penalty. You can ask to have me withdraw any data that I have collected about you. Even if you agree to be in the study, you can change your mind and withdraw.
• If you decline to continue or you wish to withdraw from the study, your information will be removed from the study at your request.
Confidentiality
• This research will be used to support a project that is part of my MA degree.
• A summary of my research will be available on the University of Alberta website.
• Your personally identifiable information will be deleted and digitally shredded as soon as I have finished gathering data about you.
• Data will be kept confidential. Only I will have access to the computer file containing the data. It will be password protected. I will not be sent by email or stored online.
• I will always handle my data in compliance with University of Alberta standards.
• If you would like to receive a copy of my final report, please ask.
Further Information
• If you have any further questions regarding this study, please do not hesitate to contact Dr. Stanley Varnhagen, my research advisor for this project. If you have concerns about this study, you may contact the University of Alberta Research Ethics Committee at 780-492-2615. This office has no affiliation with the study investigators.
Thank-you again!
At Tenmei banned for one year, you support a harsh sanction.
Please consider a less severe remedy in light of a wider contribution history which may have been overlooked -- see
In 2009, Roger Davies observed,
The Senkaku issues were not simple; but there you have it.
Even this diff does not alter your judgment in this instance, I hope it will influence your thinking in other cases which arise in the future? -- Tenmei ( talk) 04:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Muchas gracias, merci, vielen Dank and many thanks for your trust and voting me into the team of coordinators.
MisterBee1966 (
talk)
07:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
National Archives Backstage Pass - Who should come? You should. Really. | |
---|---|
![]() |
You are invited to the National Archives in College Park for a special backstage pass and scanathon meetup with Archivist of the United States David Ferriero, on Saturday, October 8. Go behind the scenes and into the stacks at the National Archives, help digitize documents, and edit together! Free catered lunch provided! Dominic· t 16:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC) |
Greetings Kirill hows it going. I haven't talked to ya in a while and had a question that I thought you might have more info on. What ever happened to the Smithsonian project activity? I know we met a couple times but it seems to have really died out. -- Kumioko ( talk) 19:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
Kirill, you do a grand job for
WikiProject Military History in terms of project maintenance, functionality and organisation – don't think it goes unnoticed!
![]() |
I noticed that Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive 105#Proposal to add List-Class was archived (actually it was archived twice in Archive 105 and some other duplicates were in Archive 106 so I removed the duplicates from Archive 105). But, my question is, does it need to be closed, summarized, next steps listed or anything? Thanks, Mojoworker ( talk) 10:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Writer's Barnstar |
As you are working for the WMF, I appreciate you're support. Thanks Mohamed Aden Ighe ( talk) 16:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC) |
Hi Kirill, I just added a note on the Military history/Open tasks page under the blue 'Articles to be created' banner, asking users to scan the list of subject/links before adding another, but somehow the note is not 'exactly' in the right place. This is the note: Before adding a Subject/link please scan the existing links for keyword(s) to see if your topic already exists.. Is there any way to insert this in the blue-colored 'Articles to be created' banner? The template layout is a bit complex and so instead of doing a trial and error approach perhaps it would be best if someone more familiar with the template layout handle it instead. Could you check into it? Thanks, -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 22:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
He was blocked again, but for a slightly different reason than last time. As you seem to have more knowledge about his previous issues, perhaps you care to comment at ANI? Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 15:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot ( talk) 02:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on the Bugle for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to WikiProject Military History. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. - Mabeenot ( talk) 03:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia Loves Libraries DC & edit-a-thon | |
---|---|
![]() Wikipedia Loves Libraries comes to DC on Saturday, November 5th, from 1-5pm, at the Martin Luther King Jr Memorial Library. We will be holding an edit-a-thon, working together to improve Wikipedia content related to DC history, arts, civil rights, or whatever suits your interests. There may also be opportunities to help with scanning historic photos plus some swag! You're invited and we hope to see you there! | |
Note: You can remove your name from the DC meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot ( talk) 18:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC), on behalf of User:Aude
Thanks for proceeding with the Scjessey motion; I had intended to do it earlier this week but have been offline for much of the time. Risker ( talk) 17:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey Kirill! I've started work on a November op-ed here. As you are someone who's been here god knows how long and knows many of the editors that are the subject of this op-ed, I'd like for you to go over the op-ed and add/change anything that is necesary. Thanks, Buggie111 ( talk) 19:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Dear Kirill Lokshin, thank you for nominating yourself as a candidate in the 2011 Arbitration Committee elections. On behalf of the coordinators, allow me to welcome you to the elections and make a few suggestions to help you get set up. By now, you ought to have written your nomination statement, which should be no more than 400 words. Although there are no fixed guidelines for how to write a statement, note that many candidates treat this as an opportunity, in their own way, to put a cogent case as to why editors should vote for them—highlighting the strengths they would bring to the job, and convincing the community they would cope with the workload and responsibilities of being an arbitrator.
In order for your candidacy to be valid, your nomination statement must also include a declaration of any alternate or former user accounts you have contributed under (or, in the case of privacy concerns, a declaration that you have disclosed them to the Arbitration Committee), and must express your willingness and ability to meet the Wikimedia Foundation's access to nonpublic data policy.
You should at this point have your own questions subpage; feel free to begin answering the questions as you please. Together, the nomination statement and questions subpage should be transcluded to your candidate profile, whose talkpage will serve as the central location for discussion of your candidacy. If you experience any difficulty setting up these pages, please follow the links in the footer below. If you need assistance, on this or any other matter (including objectionable questions or commentary by others on your candidate pages), please notify the coordinators at their talkpage. If you have followed these instructions correctly, congratulations, you are now officially a candidate for the Arbitration Committee. Good luck! -- DQ (t) (e) 05:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2011 candidate:
Kirill Lokshin
|
The minor question is regarding this article in the Norwegian Bokmål/Riksmål version of Wikipedia. Could/Should it be translated to English, or is it covered by other existing articles?
The large question involves this (and innummerable other articles). Ideally articles on Wikipedia should be neutral, derived from that implies that within time the same content should be present, regardless of language version. Even though our volunteers strive for neutrality today I think we have a long way to go. So with the Finnish War (Русско-шведская война] as a basis, could it be of interest to try to work out how this could be done, by volunteers, in practice?
That means, how do we work to try to reach some kind of similarity on the same content, across language versions? Best regards, Ulflarsen ( talk) 23:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Kirill, Piotrus some time ago came up with User:Piotrus/Morsels_of_wikiwisdom#On_the_perils_of_anonymity - Solution. Basically a level of editing wikipedia accessible only to named editors. I would really like to push this. What do you think (a) of its usefulness, and (b) of the chances of getting through the wikipedia changes system. I'm really willing to push this hard if it has a chance to be seriously considered.. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
You may be interested in this. Peter jackson ( talk) 11:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Fine Art Edit-a-Thon & Meetup - Who should come? You should. Really. | |
---|---|
![]() |
FINE ART EDIT-A-THON & DC MEETUP 26 is December 17! The Edit-a-Thon will cover fine art subjects from the Federal Art Project and the meet up will involve Wikipedians from the area as well as Wiki-loving GLAM professionals. You don't have to attend both to attend one (but we hope you do!) Click the link above and sign up & spread the word! See you there! SarahStierch ( talk) 16:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC) |
Kirill Lokshin,
As a candidate for the Arbitration Committee elections, please be aware that your name has been entered into the SecurePoll ballot and can no longer be removed barring the most dire of emergencies and direct manipulation of the database. While you may still withdraw from the election, your name will not be removed from the ballot, but only struck through. If you have any further questions on the process, feel free to contact myself, the other election administrators, or the election coordinators. -- Tznkai ( talk), 2011 Arbitration Committee Election Administrator. 21:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot ( talk) 08:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
FYI, Kirill and Risker: you're receiving this message because FT2 has posted similarly on the questions pages of all four returning arbs, while I've posted to Jclemens's and Coren's questions pages, urging FT2 to move his sections to Talk. [9] [10] Then I ran down.. but in the Coren version I alluded to his posts on you guys' pages, too, so you might like to be informed. FT2 has responded to me on Jclemens's questions talkpage. Bishonen | talk 22:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC).
Hi. Just out of curiosity, is there a particular reason you're named "Kirill Lokshin 5132" at https://arbcom.en.wikipedia.org/? Was that from the days where people scrambled the account name to prevent a user from logging in after ArbCom service? -- MZMcBride ( talk) 23:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Kirill, I have asked all candidates the same set of questions, with a minor variation between whether they are sitting arbs or not. Is there any reason that you haven't answered the questions I have asked of you. I am especially interested in hearing from you exactly what your role was in the unblocking process, and given that it was yourself who emailed me to tell me the committee had discussed the evidence, I am especially interested in hearing from you what your input in the discussion was. I ask this, because you totally ignored the clarification request, which has now been quietly removed by the Committee from Clarification pages. I would appreciate it if you could provide some feedback on that for me. Russavia Let's dialogue 01:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
G'day Kirill, sorry to trouble you. I think you have a bit of knowledge around templates and as such I was wondering if you could find what is wrong with these two: {{ Australian Officer Ranks}} and {{ Australian Non-Commissioned Ranks}}. For the life of me, I can't work out how to fix the "[[Template:|v]] · [[|d]] · [[[:Template:Fullurl:Template:]] e]" which appears in the top left hand corner. Any advice would be great. Cheers, AustralianRupert ( talk) 09:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Kirill. Please check your email. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 20:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I guess this is about the MQS redactions, so I am not starting a new section. I think the revision deletions were an overreaction. The fact that for people with very common names such as "Michael Smith" (whether in English or in German) one can easily find criminals of the same name is hardly a secret, so it was perfectly sufficient to make sure that the connection doesn't appear in search engines. As a result of the extensive redactions, one can no longer see that MQS reacted relatively poorly. He pretended that the drastic demonstration of where his nonchalant approach to BLP sourcing can lead was nothing but an unprovoked attack, and changed the topic. I have also left a comment on the RfA page, but maybe part of the discussion can be restored. Hans Adler 21:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Per your permission, I have notified the users whose votes were not recorded in their contributions about the oversighting. Cunard ( talk) 22:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I have placed this on several history-related WikiProject talk pages. I am interested in hearing your opinion on these ideas, if you have a chance to reply at some point in the near future.
Below are some ideas on restructuring and revitalizing WikiProject History.
WikiProject History should be a visible, important part of the encyclopedia, as it should work to coordinate other projects and direct various task forces and drives on the website. Newcomers interested in history should be assisted and guided by the Resources Coordinator and other helpful editors.
WikiProject History should work together with other projects to achieve some of the goals of the encyclopedia as a whole.
Thank you for reading this, and for commenting, if you are interested. DCI talk 23:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Please help to ensure that Prof. Joel Mata's publications regarding life at All-Saints including Filipa Moniz as member of Military Order of Santiago is taken into consideration on Wikipedia's the page about Filipa Moniz, since all my edits are immediately deleted. Colon-el-Nuevo ( talk) 04:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey Kirill, I wondered if you noticed this: WT:WikiProject Military history#Campaignboxes with multi-line titles messed up, which I posted a while ago. It's beyond my debugging abilities. Thanks. Mojoworker ( talk) 01:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
That newline was deliberate. Please restore and check with User:Edokter and User:WOSlinker. It's about ensuring that bulleted lists in titles (a fair number, these days) appear at the beginning of lines so that MediaWiki generates lists. With out that newline, we get raw '*' in titles. I'd have to dig for an example... Alarbus ( talk) 02:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
←I've been review my template edits and have not found a milbox with a list in the title. If there are any, someone will probably revert the hlisting and I'll then I'll notice. I'm not sure if I ever used it for other than that dodgy flag trick. Alarbus ( talk) 04:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
WOSlinker has some scripts you might find useful:
They don't handle it all, but they get things pretty close most of the time. Alarbus ( talk) 04:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Archives of American Art Barnstar | |
I, SarahStierch, hereby award you, Kirill Lokshin, with this award for your participation and contributions made at today's Fine Art Edit-a-Thon. Thank you for helping to improve fine arts coverage on Wikipedia! SarahStierch ( talk) 02:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC) |
Congratulations on your re-election to the Committee! I'm looking forward to working along side you for the next few years. :-) Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 22:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. We appreciate it. TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The full template seems to stay lopsided these days, and more people (including me) are keeping the full template on their talk pages. Would it be possible (and desirable) to move the "unfinished tasks" at the bottom into the right-hand column? - Dank ( push to talk) 15:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 24 December 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kyra Markham, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Kyra Markham, whose images were used as propaganda against the Nazis, briefly had Frank Lloyd Wright as a father-in-law? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kyra Markham.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 25 December 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Letterio Calapai, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that artist Letterio Calapai was taken as a boy to the Fogg Art Museum and the Boston Museum of Fine Arts which now own examples of his work? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Letterio Calapai.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Would like to say "Merry Christmas" for 2011! Hope you have a wonderful day and have good memories with family and friends. Adamdaley ( talk) 00:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 12:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC).
Hey Kirill, I was thinking of doing an interview for the Bugle's new year edition. Would you be interested in being the interviewee or, if you have someone different coming to mind, being the interviewer? Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page.
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan]
20:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, you attended the scanathon at the National Archives in October. I recently noticed that most participants have yet to upload scanned documents to Commons, so I just wanted to check and see if you have any files to upload. Please use the October 2011 NARA Backstage Pass category when uploading (and tag any files you already uploaded without it) so we can track them. Any documents you upload will also cataloged by NARA, as well as being available for Wikimedians to use, so this is important! Also, if you have any photos from the tour or other aspects of the event, please be sure to upload those as well. Thanks! Dominic· t 20:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to the
National Archives ExtravaSCANza, taking place every day next week from January 4–7, Wednesday to Saturday, in College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC metro area). Come help me cap off my
stint as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives with one last success!
This will be a casual working event in which Wikipedians are getting together to scan interesting documents at the National Archives related to a different theme each day—currently: spaceflight, women's suffrage, Chile, and battleships—for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. The event is being held on multiple days, and in the evenings and weekend, so that as many locals and out-of-towners from nearby regions1 as possible can come. Please join us! Dominic· t 01:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 1 Wikipedians from DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, and Pittsburgh have been invited. |
![]() |
Hello. I hav a minor request. I see you recently changed the color of the underbar on Infobox military conflict. I was wondering—as I'm afraid of messing something up—would you do the same on related infoboxes such as infobox operational plan, infobox civilian attack, infobox civil conflict and infobox uprising? ~Asarlaí 14:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The da Vinci Barnstar | |
Awarded to Kirill, as part of AustralianRupert's 2012 New Year Honours List, in recognition of their technical support work within the Military History Project during 2011. Thank you and keep up the good work! AustralianRupert ( talk) 10:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC) |
Hi there! My name is Whenaxis, I noticed that you are on the Arbitration Committee. I created a policy proposal called Wikipedia:Representation. I think that this policy would help the Arbitration Committee as well as the Mediation Committee because the goal of this proposed policy is to decrease the amount of time wasted when an unfamiliar editor files a Arbitration or Mediation Committee when other forms of Dispute Resolution have not yet been sought. For example, an editor may come to the Arbitration Committee requesting formal mediation when other dispute resolution areas have not been utilised such as third opinions or request for comments. A representative works much like a legal aid - there to help you for free and:
This proposed idea can also help the editor seeking help because it can alleviate the stress and anxiety from dispute resolution because mediation and arbitration can be intimidating for those who are unfamiliar.
I would highly appreciate your comments on this proposal at: Wikipedia talk:Representation. Cheers and Happy New Year - Whenaxis about talk contribs 22:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' ( link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot ( talk) 00:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' ( link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot ( talk) 00:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Greetings, I was wondering if you knew what happened to the SI project. It seemed like there was a lot of interest form the community and the museum but things just fizzled out. -- Kumioko ( talk) 20:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
What you mean by the failure of BAG in the Lightmouse case? The page you linked to [11] only has the decision, which eventually placed Lightmouse under the same BAG-only restrictions that are proposed for Δ, but it's not clear at all from that page how that decision faltered thereafter. Thanks, ASCIIn2Bme ( talk) 14:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Nominations for the " Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D ( talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.
That might be technically true, in that he is not disruptive elsewhere right now, but are you aware that he was topic banned from Astrology and that ArbCom cautioned him in yet another case? See my /Evidence for links. ASCIIn2Bme ( talk) 06:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey Kirill, I finally put it together. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/January 2012/Interview. Thanks so much! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan]
00:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
On the IP address that I use, there seems to be a disturbance. Sevral people use Wikipedia on the same network, but a User:Shakinglord was banned some time ago, and a block had been enforced. Recently the block was lifted, but shortly after that, we were autobocked again. He seems to be still logging on to Wikipedia. I have looked into this and discovered that he has exiled to Simple English Wikipedia, creating articles there. I have collaborated with the other users on my network. These users are: User: Old Man Cactus, User: Ice Patroller, User: Endurance Captain, User: Lego Clone Trooper User: Chimeramax and User: Kaishu Tachibana. We ask if something can be done. Sevral of my colleages have also contacted other admins as well. If anything can be done, that would be great. Hoyle Casino Man ( talk) 15:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I have left some questions for you at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Proposed decision#Questions for Kiril regarding Comment in FoF 1.2 Guidance is needed. Thanks. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 10:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Kirill, could you please check your mail? I wrote you a few days ago. Cheers. -- Eurocopter ( talk) 16:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Duplicate Florida wikiprojects. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 13:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Кирилл, подскажите мне в одном вопросе. Я здесь пока плохо разбираюсь в традициях разрешения конфликтных ситуаций, но у меня серьезные претензии к одному из участников, NovaSkola (см. обсуждение и секции ниже, там все коротко и очевидно). Я не представляю как достичь консенсуса с человеком, который, как мне кажется, задался целью внести в википедию заведомо ложную информацию, и вопреки правилам, не достигнув консенсуса, вносит в статью оспоренные сведения ( [12], [13], [14]). В рувики есть специальная группа посредников, к которым обращаются за решением таких конфликтных ситуаций, они рассматривают вопрос и выносят решение. За возврат неконсенсусной информации, например, сразу следует блокировка. Как поступают в таких случаях в английской википедии? И как надо реагировать на обвинения в том, что я чей-то клон? Divot ( talk) 11:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
P.S. Чтобы было понятно, какой я "клон" ( yep, it is well known both of them are clones), моя страница в русской википедии. Divot ( talk) 11:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Privet kolega. U menia yest odin vopros. I have a problem with my topic ban. I was banned according to "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren" [15] by admin Fut.Perf.. Of course I agree that my behaviour was battleground. But I think that better fit to my case some kind of Interaction topic ban. I had problems only with certain editors and not only in connection with "Slovak/Hungarian ethnic and national disputes".
Problematic articles were not only about national/ethnic disputes:
Article Principality of Hungary was not about "Slovak/Hungarian ethnic and national disputes" but it was about relevance of the whole article and about his scholarship. Here is a contest: [16][]
I made a new article about history Slovak lands and it was about old name of present day Slovakia. Here is a contest: [17]
Principality of Nitra is article about first Slavic state. Here is a contest: [18]
I tried to make a cooperation board, solve this problem by discussion. Here is contest: [19]
Article about politics Fidesz. Here is contest: [20]
I founded article about Slovaks in Hungary, than I left this article. And same editors are involved in and have an opposite point of view [21]
So you can see, that problem was not only about Slovak/Hungarian national and ethnic disputes. Its about certain editors with different opinions. When I left to the completely their area of editing, problem finished. But its only one Point of View in these topics now. Coz a planty of editors with different point of view were blocked. Only in 2011 it were placed on notice 4 editors which had topic battle with same editors as me [22] (Panonian, Wladthemlat, Omen and me).
I would like to know your opinion if its possible to change my topic ban and make a neutral compertorium which exact problems are between the point of views of Hungarian editors on the one side and Slovak, Romanian a Serbian editors on the other side. This would be helpful to this project, Wikipedia have to be a neutral. Iam not extremist and I believe that I have a knowledge to contribute to these topics and ability to make a compromises with opponents (at least at talkpages of articles - for a test). Vsio horosho i spasibo za otvet. Poka -- Samofi ( talk) 10:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan]
10:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Template:Pbrk has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Alarbus (
talk)
02:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I think that the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#WikiProject_Conservatism would benefit from another WT:COUNCIL regular. It's yet another round of "these people shouldn't be permitted to collaborate on their areas of interest, much less to tag articles that interest them". WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
In monitoring the behaviour of this long-term nationalist troublemaker, I am looking for an ArbCom case called 'Azerbaijan-Armenia-Iran-Kurdistan-Turkey', but can find details nowhere -- can you help? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 05:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear Kirill, upon re-reading this discussion (in which I, unfortunately, was not able to participate) I realised that some arguments are somewhat questionable. You write:
However, this is not correct. ¶2 implies that a warning is issued to the editor, who "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia". In other words, a situation when some editor, who committed no violation of WP policy, simply by reading the edit notice found himself sanctioned (edit restricted) is totally counterintuitive. In actuality, the full sequence of the events that lead to application discretionary sanctions is:
In other words, the article wide sanctions do not meet these criteria: (1) a good faith editor coming to the area of conflict has committed no violations by the moment he opened the article's page; (2) the edit notice is not a warning at all, because it cites no violations committed by this particular user; (3) the sanctions are imposed before any violations took place.
I think the article wide discretionary sanctions issue should be revisited, because I see a direct violation of basic WP principles there.
Regards, --
Paul Siebert (
talk)
20:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
There is no explicit requirement that the warning contain a reference to a prior violation; the only requirement imposed on the warning itself is that it include a link to the authorizing case. Implicitly, the wording of the second clause ("where appropriate, should be counseled", emphasis mine) suggests that a warning may be issued without stating any "specific steps" for improvement—and, since any mention of a specific violation would necessarily indicate something that the editor being warned might improve upon, suggests that a warning may be issued without stating a specific violation as well.Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
Hiya. I have received a private e-mail from someone who is currently the subject of a discussion at WP:AN/I. In the e-mail, he makes some statements about himself which I believe may be very relevant to that discussion. Please advise regarding how I should proceed in this matter, if I should do anything at all, that is. John Carter ( talk) 21:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
DC Meetup #28: March 10 at Capitol City Brewery | |
---|---|
![]() DC Wikipedia meetup #28 is on Saturday, March 10, 2012, from 7pm on at Capitol City Brewery in downtown DC. (11th & H St NW). Join us for an evening of socializing, chatting about Wikipedia, discussing Wikimedia DC activities and the latest preparations for Wikimania 2012. ( RSVP + details) |
Note: You can remove your name from the DC meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot ( talk) 03:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC), on behalf of User:Aude
Who should come? You should. Really. | |
---|---|
Sarah ( talk) 22:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report ( link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot ( talk) 00:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan]
02:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I hope at this stage for merging espionage and intelligence as a combined separate from milhist intelligence this far down the track seems to make sense - they are both basically dead projects to revive one seems to make sense even if only to keep the intelligence portal alive and gather the huge number of intel categories and arts under one roof.... very long time no speak - cheers Satu Suro 03:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)