Kirill Lokshin

Please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) and add comments on a new topic in a new section. I will respond on your talk page unless you request otherwise. Threads older than five days are automatically archived by EssjayBot III. Questions, requests, criticism, and any other comments are always welcome!	Archives June 2005–June 2006 June 2006–November 2006 November 2006–February 2007 February 2007–
I am open to recall as an administrator. I do not place any restrictions on the petitioners beyond the standard ones found here; however, I reserve the right to disregard any petition that is unrelated to my use of administrative tools or my behavior as an administrator.

Knights Templar

Hello, if you have a moment, could you please take another look at the article? I've attempted to address most of the concerns from the peer review, except perhaps for the request to just plain make the article longer.  :) I'm curious though what you think of the current level of citation?

Also, though I'm going to continue to work on expansion, do you think the article currently meets GA status? If so, how would you recommend that I proceed? Do I need to get someone from MilHist to formally check off the items in the WikiProject talkpage banner? Or should I just nominate the article at WP:GA? Or what do you recommend? Thanks, Elonka 09:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You probably shouldn't ask me about the level of citation; I'm likely to keep pushing at it until the article looks like this. ;-)

(But, more seriously, it's not bad; I'd try, as a rule of thumb, to have at least one citation in every paragraph, though, as "uncited paragraphs" is a common complaint at FAC.)

As for nominating the article for GA: feel free to just list it there; I suspect it probably meets the criteria (unless they've changed them again recently!). MILHIST doesn't generally interact much with the GA process—we have an internal review for the next level up—so there's no real procedure to follow from our end. Kirill Lokshin 18:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've gone ahead and submitted it, thank you very much for your time, and also for updating the talkpage template.  :) I'm going to continue working on the article, with a focus on referencing and expansion. Then I guess the next step is to try for an A-class MilHist review? Or should I go through WP:PR or a WP:FAC first? I'm still a bit fuzzy on how the various review processes dovetail with each other. --Elonka 00:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:PR is basically a useless version of WP:MHPR; I wouldn't expect any useful input from it. Really, your next move would be a choice between the MILHIST A-Class review (followed, at some point, by a FAC), or just a FAC directly; which one you go with is up to you, but there's not that much benefit to doing an A-Class review unless you're intending to let the article sit for a long time before taking it to FAC (or not intending to go through FAC at all). Kirill Lokshin 00:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, that gives me more context. My longterm goal is definitely FA (we've been rumbling on the talkpage about requesting FA status on the article for over a year now). Coming in from the outside though, I couldn't tell if A-Class was meant as a stepping stone to FA, or more intended as recognition of really good articles that would probably never make FA status for some other reason. For example, I looked at the A-class example at the Project page, Operation Linebacker II, and I couldn't tell why it was chosen for A-Class as opposed to FA (or why it was only submitted for A-class, and never FA). Based on your response though, it looks like as far as the Knights Templar article is concerned, it's probably better to proceed on the FA track, rather than going for A-class first. --Elonka 20:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Update to the Wikipedia:banning policy to reflect your reasoning

I updated the Wikipedia:banning policy to reflect your reasoning. [1] in the arbcom case Sathya Sai Baba 2 in which you banned me, mainly for my off-Wikipedia affiliations (exbaba.com) that you assert constitutes a conflict of interest for editing the Sathya Sai Baba article. It will be clear that I continue to think that your way of reasoning is erroneous in many respects. Andries 19:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

reorganize project banner

could you reorganize the project banner like our task force list, so it is easier for people to find the relevant groups. Thank you and I'm running for adminship now to be able to do such things myself. Cheers Wandalstouring 22:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Break them up into topic/nation/period groups. Wandalstouring 23:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. It has been really messy to sort out the groups while tagging articles. Wandalstouring 23:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Congrats!

File:6Star.jpg

Lead Cooridinator of the Military History Wikiproject

Congrats on your re-election as lead coordinator! In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. I wish you and your staff the best in the coming term. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You voted before I had time to correct my Opening Statement

You had voted on my RfAR before I had an opportunity to correct my opening statement: I had gone over the word limit.

Also, when I had originally made an opening statement, I had not noticed that many editors on both sides of the issue (see other statements) are asking ArbCom to take the case, but many are indeed asking for ArbCom intervention. Are you deaf to their cries too?

If the ban restrictions placed upon me from the community noticeboard were against an editor who has not actually violated any policy, then don't you think that this action may be wrong? Just because you have several editors saying the same thing -that does not necessarily make it true.

My new opening statement here documents that I have not violated any policy -and others, even some of my detractors, seem to agree about this, which makes me wonder what all the furor is about.

If I am right, but ArbCom is the wrong place for addressing this violation, then I would be amenable to your suggestions.--GordonWatts 05:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

In addition, we now find that no WP:CONSENSUS existed against me

In addition to the fact that you voted before I could put forth a statement that fit protocol, we now find that no WP:CONSENSUS existed against me - since, of course, a minority of the votes went against me. Observe:

There were 33 parties who participated in the Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Community_ban_request_on_User:GordonWatts, but no more than 14 of them endorsed ANY one type of community action against me -as shown by this perma-link diff.

The reason was, obviously, that NO WP:CONSENSUS existed to penalize me. Also, other than having a minority opinion, I committed no crimes -at all -so censorship executed by User:JzG here (based on LESS than a majority of the participants) was certainly inappropriate, and if you allow this matter to stand, then you are implicitly endorsing this behaviour.

Don't feel bad: We all make mistakes, and I am the 1st one to admit that I mistakenly thought consensus existed, but hey! I was wrong.--GordonWatts 10:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You might also be interested in another interpretation of the community ban consensus. ChazBeckett 10:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Samuel Luo arbitration case

Hi Kirill. This is just a message to request a reconsideration of your opinion to accept an Arbitration case.

I felt this ArbCom case should be opposed on the grounds that not all dispute resolution steps have been taken to a sufficient degree as laid out by policies for bringing cases to the ArbCom. Launching an ArbCom case merely to seek someone else's view (see Olaf's reason in the Confirmation that All other forms of Dispute Resolution have been Tried) is clearly not valid. A third-party view can be sought on that, and does not need to waste the ArbCom's time for something so petty.

I strongly urge you to reconsider your opinion, but will respect yours if you still think yours is valid in spite of mine. Jsw663 15:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

A thought regarding wikiproject templates

(Cross-posted to Ned's talk page too)

First, I wanted to say that I agree 100% with what you said here. I had an idea, and wanted to know what you think about it. I suggest that there be an absolute limit of no more than two (2) reasonably-sized wikiproject templates on any talk page, and (per my previous comment) that "daughter templates" (like the one on Asperger syndrome - "This article was selected on the Medicine portal as one of Wikipedia's best articles related to Medicine.") be strictly prohibited.

Reasonably-sized, in this case, means that they are the same size they are now. I'll leave it to the wikiproject council to decide, in cases where an article has more than 2, which ones get priority (I think it should be the ones that have either made significant improvement to the article, and/or the ones that have the narrowest scope).

What do you think of my idea? Raul654 16:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

modified project banner

I have been doing several assessments in a row lately and was confronted with the fact that the template can be improved. New version of milhist banner below:

{{WPMILHIST

<!-- B-Class checklist-->
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->
|B-Class-1=
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-2=
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-3=
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-4=
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B-Class-5=

}}

and the corresponding section in the Template:WPMILHIST:

{{#if:{{{B-Class-1|}}}{{{B-Class-2|}}}{{{B-Class-3|}}}{{{B-Class-4|}}}{{{B-Class-5|}}}||{{#if:{{{B-Class-1}}}{{{B-Class-2}}}{{{B-Class-3}}}{{{B-Class-4}}}{{{B-Class-5}}}|To fill out this checklist, please <span class="editlink noprint plainlinksneverexpand">[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}|action=edit}} add]</span> the following to the template call:<br/>
<tt><!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --></tt><br/>
<tt>|B-Class-1=yes/no</tt><br/>
<tt><!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --></tt><br/>
<tt>|B-Class-2=yes/no</tt><br/>
<tt><!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --></tt><br/>
<tt>|B-Class-3=yes/no</tt><br/>
<tt><!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --></tt><br/>
<tt>|B-Class-4=yes/no</tt><br/>
<tt><!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --></tt><br/>
<tt>|B-Class-5=yes/no</tt>}}}}
}}

It be great if you insert the new versions. Thank you Wandalstouring 23:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure I like that idea; it'll mean that we'll be hardcoding the current wording across many, many pages, severely limiting our ability to modify it in the future.

Would perhaps using the short descriptions (i.e. <!-- Referencing and citation -->) instead of the full text work?

(We could, incidentally, show the full text in the template itself—and we should probably do so regardless—but I'm not sure that it would help with the particular issue you're seeing.) Kirill Lokshin 23:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The discussion was about establishing a clear list for assessments, as long as we are not able to make this list accessable in an ergonomic way it is rather arbitrary and makes assessments unnecessary difficult.

Your concerns that these descriptions once established can't be altered isn't comprehensible for me, we still can change the template and new descriptions show up which can be copied down and used for any new assessments. On the other hand, if there was a change under the current version, none could tell whether old or new criteria had been used for the assessment. The most drastic possible approach in case of description changes would be to alter this stereotype text with an automated tool, but I see no need for that now, nor in the future. Wandalstouring 00:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The new descriptions won't show up, of course; the instructions for inserting the list only show up when it hasn't been inserted yet. If we do substantially change any of the criteria, we'll have a nightmare trying to update all the old copies—and we will have to update, or people will still assess against the old version.

But, in any case, I suppose that we can worry about that we come to it. In the meantime, I've updated the template as you wanted. Kirill Lokshin 00:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Disable the function that makes this information disappear on assessed articles and the issue is solved. Wandalstouring 00:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, another trick: the old version is kept functional, but the new assessment uses different variables. If they are positive(get commented), the old version completely disappears. Wandalstouring 00:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

As long as it's not the assessor's pain I'm inclined to be a masochist (supposing you mean that writing the new template will be a pain). Wandalstouring 00:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, we will add a section about how to alter the template (in case we have new criteria) in our handbook and possible sourcecode. Probably something we should consider in the future on other cases as well. Wandalstouring 00:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been looking at the source for some time now. I think it isn't that difficult to create any replacing assessment system. Will add more information tomorrow. Carpe noctem Wandalstouring 01:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Rlevse Rfa

Thanks for the rfa support. Glad we have worked so much together and so well. Rlevse 03:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources for Italian Wars

Kirill,

After I finish my goal of achieving featured article status for "my" T-26 article I want to embark on a personal project of improving the articles which comprise the Italian War of 1551; first, the Battle of St. Quentin (1557) article. Currently, I've been able to pin down a four sources and, personally, I don't think this is enough. They include two books by Henry Kamen: Empire and Phillip of Spain; The Hapsburg by Andrew Wheatcroft and finally an article published in an issue of Tierra, a Spanish magazine published by the Spanish Army (and available online for free). It seems to me that you are probably the best person to ask about sources, given your work on articles revolving around the Italian Wars. Do you have any suggestions? As long as individual books are not too expensive I am willing to buy certain books (depending on how much they help).

Thank you,

JonCatalan 04:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the resource. Unfortunately, the cheapest I could find it for was $75, but I'll certainly keep it in mind and keep looking for it and see if I can find a cheaper seller - or buy it at a later date. I guess that for now I will continue scavenging for sources and instead work on a seperate article on something I already have sources on - namely Panzer I. Thanks again! JonCatalan 22:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 9	26 February 2007	About the Signpost

Three users temporarily desysopped after wheel war	Peppers article stays deleted
Pro golfer sues over libelous statements	Report from the Norwegian (Bokmål) Wikipedia
WikiWorld comic: "Pet skunk"	News and notes: New arbitrators appointed, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

More boxes

• err.. now more boxes are up for deletion... See
• One of those was even created by YOU. I think it's fair you are noticed on that --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Aviation Project banner help

Could you take a look at User:Trevor MacInnis/sandbox/Aviation banner. I've been messing around trying to find a way to merge all the aviation related project templates into one, using the {{WPMILHIST}} style template. One difference being that if the article belongs to a sub-project or task force, I don't want it to also be tagged as belonging to WP:AVIATION. It should be an easy fix with soemthing like {{#ifeq:{{{Rotorcraft-task-force|}}}|yes|put it in rotorcraft X- class category|put it in aviation x- class article}}. But I just cant see clearly how to do it. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, and just to be clear, I'd like them to belong in multiple sub-projects or task forces at the same time, but at the moment the scope of WP:Aviation is limited to articles that don't belong in the other projects. For example, currently, Cessna 172 belongs in Category: Start-Class aircraft articles, but not in Category: Start-Class aviation articles. Do you think that this should be changed, that WP:Aviations scope should be all articles, including the ones in the sub-projects? As far as I can tell, articles such as Talk:B-17 Flying Fortress get placed in Category:FA-Class military aviation articles, Category:FA-Class United States military history articles, etc, but not in Category:WikiProject Military history articles. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops, Category:FA-Class military history articles was the category I meant to say it wasn't in (and of course I missed the fact that is in it). I'm happy to allow every article to be in the aviation project categories, but the only thing I'm worried about now is the fact that there are articles that don't fall under sub-projects or task forces. Are there any issues associated with this WP:MILHIST? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbcomm case

Hey
I am referring to this case [2]. In case I get banned from Wikipedia, could you please point out that I am on a shared IP, and tell them to ban the account only. The IP is used by lots of people. If any activity of me using the IP is found, then they can ban the IP. Thank you. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 22:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:ACID

Sorry to bother you, but could you please take a look at the Castle nomination WP:ACID? It will fail today if we don't get another three votes. --Grimhelm 22:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For your reasoned comments on the template for deletion issue - I appreciate having something like that to respond to. It is my belief that in time, WP Projects will need to have a negotiation guideline for where projects style differences and variations will need to have some standardisation of how to inter-relate and negotiate . vis a vis this particular template issue - Lets hope that comes sooner than later. cheers SatuSuro 06:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If its any guide as to where I come from I was dead against an article title where the mess of 1965 1966 in Indonesia had been called 'Indonesian civil war' by an editor. It took a long time, but it is now The Overthrow of Sukarno - which is still far from satifactory - but which nevertheless allows some credence to the issues of violence and conflict inside Indonesia do not under scrutiny - fit easily to outside labels and simplistic generalisations of what has occured. cheers! SatuSuro 06:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to respond and the way you have - I dont envy your position at all in relation to the larger wikipedia pictures. In line with your suggestion -an admin has pointed exactly that out to the nominator and the process of withdrawing has happened - probably to reconsider a single template rather than the bunch. Thanks again SatuSuro 13:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Per Thatcher131's request, I have created this section for you

I wonder if you have looked at the facts in this case of mine: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_User:GordonWatts

I'm not the only one who thinks I have a case. Since I last posted, many new people have posted in my support!

Besides having over 4,500 edits with no major discipline or major problems, I now note that Thatcher131 suggested that: "I think a rebuttal to the votes of the arbitrators is a reasonable addition, but can you do something about the rest? If your main concern is that there was insufficient agreeement to constitute consensus, a link to the discussion and a brief recap should be sufficient; I would normally expect the arbitrators to follow significant links and verify them as part of their determination. Thatcher131 13:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)" [3]

I hope you do as Thatcher suggests and follow the links! I know I have posted a lot, but several statements by other editors were well-over 500 words, so please indulge me if I go a little over too: I'm being falsely accused!

To grant Thatcher's request, I have created a new section for you:

• 1.4.3.2 Rebuttal to the votes of the Arbitrators
  • 1.4.3.2.1 -No Consensus existed to support Guy's admin action-
  • 1.4.3.2.2 -These editors support my claims of innocence-
  • 1.4.3.2.3 -These editors desire ArbCom intervention-
• [4]

If you mess up, it isn't my fault: I've done my part, and I have little to add to the somewhat lengthy ArbCom page in my matter.

--GordonWatts 06:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Loshank/Lokshin

Sorree. David Mestel^(Talk) 18:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks

Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --— Indon (reply) — 15:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 15:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wesley Clark

Hey Kirill! I just wanted to thank you for the bits of editing you did to the infobox for Wesley Clark and, of course, hit you up for a vote on the FAC. Thanks either way! Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

How is this fair?

Looks like the arbcom has decided to ban me for a year. I honestly dont know how this conclusion was reached. I contributed like a good user, never insulted any user and never vandalised any article. The Indian users openly made racist remarks against Pakistanis, Muslims and our Prophet and Literally hijacked Pakistani articles to prevent anyone form editing. If this isnt good enough for you, then let me explain the 2nd major flaw. This arbcom was opened The Day After me and Nadir were unblocked from one of Ramas unfair blocks, and minutes after we tried to complain. It was simply to save himself from our complaint against him. We barely posted a word between the unblock and the complaint, and all the evidence used against us, is old evidence he had already used to ban us before. Not to mention the lousy evidence is the reason we complained against him in the first place. The only thing I see happening here is the arbcom banning the Minority users to solve the problem. Rama started the arbcom and omitted certain Indian users who were the Key causes of this dispute, and this lets them off the hook, even though they have made extremely racist remarks. Why treat me worse than a vandal? The so called evidence used against me doesnt even make sense. Is PoV pushing defined as making suggestions on Talk Pages? I am so shocked by this outcome.
I guess it helps to have a lot of people supporting you blindly. A 6 month punnishment was rejected for a guy who openly insulted the muslim Prophet (by linking him to paedophilia), insulted muslims by comparing slavery to the Hijab, said Pakistanis enjoyed killing people, and clear evidence was shown that he reverts every single edit from other users on Hinduism pages which doesnt fit his PoV. The Arbitrators didnt even suggest punishing any Indian users. Instead, a proposal to give all Pakistani users bans were put forward.
I dont know what has happened here. I really want to discuss this matter with you. I am an honest guy, I have nothing to hide, yet here I am being treated like an obvious vandal who deserves to get banned. In the first month I joined Wiki, I made some minor mistakes. I went through more than 3 weeks of bans by the same admin for this. And now the Same mistakes are giving me another year? Please get back to me. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 19:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Was this solved by another subproject?

This refers to that question :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. On another topic, how is the work going on the 'templates to minimize wikiproject template spam' issue is going? Seems like half a year after we discussed this at Wikimania we have some interesting solutions :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Congrats!

I know I'm a bit late to the party, but congradulations on getting re-elected. I'm glad that you're still here as a coordinator. Hope all goes well with the Military History Wikiproject. --S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 04:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)