User talk: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.

Occupatin of Latvia arbitration

Dear Kirill, I have followed the arbitration, and while I do realize there were some concerns that you might have a conflict of interest, you were still handling the situation admirably. But since you have left, the situation has escalated, and the parties are proposing findings of facts against each other. This is sad, because they are all otherwise reasonable editors, and I don't want them to throw sanctions on each other. What can be done? Would you be willing to return? --Merzul 20:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Very good, I think WP:CIVIL is the main concern. While I would say I have a slight bias towards the "Baltic" side in terms of content, I'm afraid I think they have the biggest difficulty with staying civil. I can sympathize, I once lost control with a user who disputed the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy based on his own reading of a primary source; but that's not an excuse. In this case, if both sides would stay civil and listen to each other, they could easily work a solution. The Russians are clearly not "occupation deniers" and the Baltics are not "nationalists", I think most of them are reasonable most of the time, I the animosity that has occurred is the only problem. I'm glad you will handle it, you were really good!! --Merzul 20:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Kiril Strikes Again!

Thanks (once again) for the assistance with the nominating technicalities. I do not have a problem when it comes to writing these monsters, but when it comes to something as (relatively) simple as putting them up for nomination, I'm all thumbs. Once again, Thanks!. RM Gillespie 21:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Matt Maupin POW/MIA

Just a word of thanks for the link to Keith "Matt" Maupin, Americas only confirmed POW/MIA from the Operation Iraqi Freedom. I was going to put a page up, but cannot see any real improvements to make. I am from the Batavia, OH Area, consider myself a long term friend of the Maupin Family from Pee-Wee soccer Days, and will be happy to provide any assistance I can on keeping Matt's page updated, with your approval..

Swump Swump 05:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

MILHIST reviews and FAC

Hi Kirill. I'm quite enjoying reviewing MILHIST articles in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review and was wondering if there were similar pages to watch for MILHIST A-Class or FAC review requests?? I couldn't find any linked anywhere fromt he milhist project. Thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Just seems odd that milhist peer reviews are tracked on their own page but milhist FACs, of which there are an approximately equal number are not. Its these kind of minor inconsistencies that confuse people. Any chance of getting a dedicated page set up for A-class and FAC, as with peer reviews? At the moment there are three types of review, and three different ways of working. I'm sure this is legacy and for no real reason:

• milhist peer reviews get own page
• milhist FACs can't be viewed separate of main FAC list
• milhist A-class articles get a sub-section of the assessment page

Its bureaucratic madness! - PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks Kirill, I understand the rationale you provided, but in my own experience it was milhist members who gave me the toughest time trying to get the campaign history article through fac and the more eyes on an article during the review process the better. I think standardising the display of all articles requesting review can only be of benefit. The mockup looks simple and effective. I think this would help to get more peer reviews and FAC comments from people within the project. IMO, the main problem is getting enough critical eyes on an article at each stage of review - whilst general editors are very good at pointing out structural or grammatical problems in an article they are almost always going to lack the topical knowledge essential to judging an article's factual accuracy and neutrality. Anyway I'm getting sidetracked - yes, that mockup looks perfect to me, one nice simple page that anyway looking to contribute to article reviews on milhist can go to. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Military 'Veterans' become Military 'Personnel'

Greetings,

In regard to tbe below renamings:

Category:Military veterans to Category:Military personnel Category:Fictional veterans to Category:Fictional military personnel Category:Lists of veterans to Category:Lists of military personnel Category:British military veterans to Category:British military personnel Category:British World War I veterans to Category:British military personnel of World War I Category:British World War II veterans to Category:British military personnel of World War II Category:Korean War veterans to Category:Military personnel of the Korean War Category:United States military veterans to Category:American military personnel Category:American World War I veterans to Category:American military personnel of World War I Category:American World War II veterans to Category:American military personnel of World War II Category:Gulf War veterans to Category:Military personnel of the Gulf War Category:American Iraq War veterans to Category:American military personnel of the Iraq War Category:Native American veterans to Category:Native American military personnel Category:Vietnam War veterans to Category:Military personnel of the Vietnam War Category:British Korean War veterans to Category:British military personnel of the Korean War Category:British Iraq War veterans to Category:British military personnel of the Iraq War Rationale, based on discussions at WP:MILHIST: Wikipedia categorization of biographies is generally not dependent on whether someone is still involved in the topic of the category, or was only involved with it at some point in their life; thus, there's no Category:Retired scientists, Category:Former monarchs, or Category:Footballers who no longer play. Military "veterans" should simply be categorized in the normal categories for all military personnel. Kirill Lokshin 01:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with the renamings, and your rationale, while at first appearing reasonable, falters under its own 'consistency' mantra.

First...'former monarchs' is irrelevant, since for most of history, most monarchs tended to hold the throne until death (or at least was the goal). Being a former monarch was a disgrace, not an honor (as being a veteran is generally accorded honor).

Second...being a scientist or even a footballer, while having some risk (such as an exploding beaker), doesn't really carry with it the same idea as putting oneself at major risk of death in exchange for the defense of nation, usually for a limited time period. Also, scientists can work until age 104 if they so choose, I highly doubt a veteran will make a career to that age. And even for those military personnel who DO make the military a career, I think there is a huge distinction between 'military personnel' and 'American veterans of WWI'. For the latter, there is a distinct time-period limitation. If you join the military tomorrow, you will never be a WWI veteran. The idea of being a VETERAN does involve the idea of survivorship and reward, which is why we have a VA hospital system, a US Dept of Veteran Affairs, etc. We have 'Veterans Day' NOT "Military Personnel Day" or "Scientists who survived the invention of DNA in 1953." You are comparing apples and oranges. There simply is no comparison.

Basically, doing a mass rename without informing affected article-users of the debate is not a fair way to reach a consensus, and should be reverted and re-voted on, after labeling and information is applied.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 08:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth I agree with Kirill's rationale for the renaming of categories. IMO "veteran" in modern parlance is misleading. It used to be applied only to highly experienced troops. Now it is applied to any troops who have been in a conflict, ie now it is equivalent of "military personnel of X conflict" anyway. A "Gulf war veteran" can be someone who was in Kuwait for a week in an office building doing military admin. The modern use of veteran is emotive and innaccurate, and "military personnel of X conflict" is much more accurate. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 09:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, pretty much. There's a distinction between using "veterans" in reference to veterans' organizations (e.g. the DoVA), and using it as a general term for people. There's no substantial difference between "Veterans of WWII" and "Military personnel of WWII" aside from the fact that the "Veterans" label implies—sometimes incorrectly—that the person in question is no longer in the military; maintaining two sets of redundant categories is utterly pointless, and the one with the less confusing name has been kept here. Kirill Lokshin 17:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Question about ArbCom

Hi, I have a question about moving a current ANI report to ArbCom. The ANI is here [1]. Most of the users who listed problems in the report think it should go to ArbCom to ban User:Patchouli, but I am not sure how this should be done. It seems ArbCom requests are divided into statements. If various users have made statements on the ANI and elsewhere, do I need them to re-post them on the ArbCom request, or is it possible that I re-post them myself? The Behnam 01:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"Needs"

Hadn't thought of G.A. and F.A., since they're not statuses assigned by the WPP, just noted by them after said processes, but I see your point. Happy with the "leave it to imagination" solution, though more specific references to G./F. A. would work too. Anyway, I just thought the original implied that the WPP had its own internal processes that Wikipedians "must" follow.  :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please help

Hi. I was hoping to add Mongol invasions of Vietnam to the 'wars involving the mongols' page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wars_involving_the_Mongols). I would have appreciated if you could help me out. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tridungvo (talk • contribs) 05:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

TfD nomination of Template:WikiProjectBanners

Template:WikiProjectBanners 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. -- Ned Scott 08:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Polish-Soviet War Campaignbox

Nyah, I prefer the {{Campaignbox World War I}} format instead. It seems much more clean in case of such lengthy campaignboxes. Besides, this one should perhaps be split onto separate campaigns one day. The problem is that such a division would be pretty much artificial. Of course, there were large campaigns (Target: Vistula, Kiev 1920, Russian assault on Warsaw, Battle of Warsaw, Battle of the Niemen), but at the same time there were lots of unrelated, yet important battles and I'm not really sure how to represent them in one campaignbox. Any ideas? //Halibutt 10:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote, most of the battles, both the large and the small, were part of some larger campaign. However, as the war of 1919-1920 was somehow non-typical, there would be a problem with dividing it in a consistent way. On one hand we could split it onto:

• Opening moves (1919, up to April 1920
• Kiev Offensive (southern front, everything that happened between April and July between the Pripet marshes and Lvov)
• Belarus (Polish attempts at holding the Berezina line, the Russian offensive, battles for Wilno and so on)
• Soviet Offensive on Warsaw (mostly minor skirmishes)
• Polish counter-offensive on all fronts (with Battle of Warsaw)
• Battle of the Niemen and all the final fights (mostly the raid to beat the deadline of the cease-fire)

There's plenty of battles to fill the boxes (the current one is far from complete and I'm planning to write articles on all of them), but such a division would be a tad problematic, as some battles belonged to more than one category and historians of the war barely ever make such a division. Moreover, such a division would be a mixture of two categories: geographical (as in the fronts of WWI) and chronological. On the other hand we could subdivide the battles purely by period of the war, without going into too much details:

• Opening moves
• Kiev offensive and all that happened during it
• Soviet counter-offensive
• Polish counter-offensive until the end of the war

Of course such a division would have its cons as well: at the time the Polish forces were still on the offensive side in the south, the forces in the north were already on the receiving end of the stick. Besides, there was a lengthy period of typically WWI-ish warfare in the north for a large part of 1919 and 1920 (until early summer), and the battles fought there were rarely part of a larger plan.

In any way, I'll think of it and try to prepare something nice. There is also a question of technicalities: an ideal campaignbox would include all of the battles, yet it would be too long and too overcrowded. Do you know of any way to implement the "show-hide" function? That way we could list all of the major battles of the war (5 or 6 altogether) and allow the readers to expand the list should they need it. That would be really nice... //Halibutt 14:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I said, the Polish-Bolshevik War is a tad different from many other conflicts. Hell, one cannot even present an OOB for the early stage of the war since it started... before both sides had real armies. Those differences are also visible in the case of major/minor battles: in most cases historians agree (and it's pretty evident) that some battles were part of other battles. For instance, the Battle of Warsaw is in fact a term that includes a number of smaller battles, that could be treated separately, but in fact were part of a larger conflict (battle of Radzymin, battle of the Wkra River, Ciechanów, Pułtusk...). Same goes for the battle of Zadwórze that was evidently a part of the defence of Lwów. On the other hand it would be hard to classify some major battles as part of other battles: for instance the Battle of Komarów, the largest cavalry battle since Napoleonic times (and perhaps the last such major cavalry battle in the history of mankind) was a single skirmish, pretty much unrelated to other battles. Anyway, let me sleep with the problem, as we say here in Poland. //Halibutt 14:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

B-class status

Why is it that the MILHIST wikiproject definition of B-class differs markedly from the definition at Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments? Based on those criteria ironclad warship woudl fairly clearly be a B. The Land 17:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Merging GA with A class

Kirill, I've put up a proposal for thoughts regarding the future of GA and its assessment level. I was wondering if you'd be interested in weighing in some opinions. And just to address a possible concern - since assessment remains the provenance of the WP's, MilHist would of course have the discretion to decide which GAs can have A-class status. I know that you guys are more stringent about it. It wouldn't be an overnight thing, either - more like the phased FARC/FAR process for the FAs granted prior to the citation requirement. So you would be able to integrate the GAs into B or A class slowly over time. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 18:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Military conflict infobox guidelines

The WWII issue will be quite difficult to solve and possibly have a snowball effect of edit wars if we judge everywhere who contributed how much to a war. Currently the discussion is rather focussed on excluding France. I suggest to start a public discussion to narrow down the criteria. Should we focus on being recognized as a major power when the war started, acting on the scale of a major power during the war, or being a major power after the war? Wandalstouring 19:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If you say so, chief. Wandalstouring 19:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiprojectBanners

I think a more intuitive wording could be made such as "...is in the realm of the following Wikiprojects: [x], [x], [x]..." I think that sounds better but I like your proposal. Quadzilla99 20:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"..is in the scope of the following Wikiprojects:..." sounds good too. Quadzilla99 20:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Banning policy

Hi Kirill, With regards to your comments here [2] I would like to know the following. Is it okay to ban a person indefinetely for?

1. Off Wikipedia affilations, such as my self-addmitted affiliation to exbaba.com? If so, then would you advise new editor not to edit under real names and not to reveal affilations?

2. Repeatedly linking to one of the homepages of the subject in question in complete accordance with WP:EL and generally accepted Wikipedia practices, such as I did on Robert Priddy?

3. Editing responsibly as you described my edits on Sathya Sai Baba?

I will advertize your answers to other contributors to enable them to develop an informed opinion about your functioning as an arbcom member. Andries 03:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 8	19 February 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Arbitrator Dmcdevit resigns; replacements to be appointed	Essay questions Wikipedia's success: Abort, Retry, Fail?
In US, half of Wikipedia traffic comes from Google	WikiWorld comic: "Tony Clifton"
News and notes: Brief outage, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
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 07:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Technical problem

I'm having a technical problem and you appear to have a good grasp of the programming here on Wikipedia. I asked for help over on Meta but have gotten no responses thus far. I think I messed up my monobook profile or something. Now when I highlight a section while editing it pops up above the edit section area in a blue tinted version. Also it's very hard to highlight a section in order to cut and paste it or delete it, as it always includes other irrelevant paragraphs and pops them up above the edit section box. How do I turn this off? Quadzilla99 13:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey DICK!

I've read and reread what I wrote at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject#Curious Question About Removing WikiProject Tags, and can see no reason why you decided to invoke meta:Don't be a dick.

Quite frankly, all I see is a severe breach of Assume good faith and Civility. In over two years of editing on the Wikipedia, I've only invoked that essay once, and only after I was called a motherfucker. Even then, I regretted it and was going to delete my comment (until the troll came back with another provocation about an hour later). (see here)

Except for a run-in with User:Netoholic close to when I first started editing on the Wikipedia (who ended up being sanctioned by the ArbComm for that action and many others), I have not experienced any incivility from a regular editor on the Wikipedia until the last two months. It is interesting that both of incidents happened on pages associated with WP:COUNCIL. WP:COUNCIL is going to have to clean up its act if it expect to be taken seriously, rather than being something that most active WikiProjects have been ignoring as just another layer of useless bureaucracy.

One more item (Since you are part of the Wikipedia's power structure): There are studies that have been done that show that the number of Wikipedia administrators are not growing near as fast as the Wikipedia, and so the amount of work administrators do has doubled. From my experience as a regular vandal and spam fighter, I think that matters have become much worse in the trenches. The Wikipedia is not doing anywhere near a good enough job recruiting active, conscientious editors, and is not doing enough to retain the editors that do join up. I have been seeing much more vandalism and spamming, which is usually getting past the Wikipedia's first line of defense (WP:CVU and WP:RCP), and it is staying on the Wikipedia much longer. If things don't change, things will get worse and worse, although admittedly slowly at first. In the end, however, the Wikipedia will be as bad as the Wikipedia's critics say it is, and the Wikipedia will become as useless to the average internet user as the Usenet is today. BlankVerse 15:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)