User talk:Kirill Lokshin: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:47, 15 March 2008

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. Questions, requests, criticism, and any other comments are always welcome!	Archives I • II • III • IV • V • VI • VII • VIII
I am an administrator open to recall. To request this, please start a request for comment; if the consensus there is that my conduct has been unbecoming of an administrator, I will resign.

Three things

First, thanks for the input on the Logistics dept. I'm working on it at the moment in Word. I probably will do as you suggest but I'm trying to get the balance of info and motivation right :)

Second, are you up for doing the Tag & Assess script again? This is just an "in principle" as they'll need fine-tuning to reflect the workshop discussions. Do you remember how long it took to run the last one? You said "ages" somewhere.

Third, I was thinking that worklists was probably the best way forward on B-Class (ie sorting out the incomplete B-Class checklists). Could you, in principle, generate these as well? And would they take long to set up? I'm just trying to get a handle on the logistics of this at the moment.

All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kirill, for the input on this and the Logistics dept.

I've been thinking that we could shunt the T&A08 back to 15th April and sneak the B-Class one in first as a curtain raiser. Would you be able to get B-Class sorted by say 10th-11th March?

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List alphabetically. Display article name + article talk. Say, 25 entries per sub-range, 100 per range. Minimal transcluded instructions (hidden). That gives us a worksheet grid of 44 x 4 cells. Have I forgotten anything crucial? And is this your reading of the workshop recommendations? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made fairly extensive suggestions for T&A drive improvements at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Drive/Workshop way back when, and Roger tells me I should revisit them with you, as you'll be running the script again soon. My comments are interspersed throughout the workshop, but they're also consolidated in one place at User:Maralia/MHA07. The section User:Maralia/MHA07#Lists and false positives is of particular relevance to pre-drive preparation for next time. Do you think those are feasible changes? Maralia (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kirill:

I think the BCAD page is pretty much ready. Could you please take a quick look at it to see if anything is missing and to check that your and my understanding of the worklists is the same? If not, could yo tell me what the drift is so that i can address it? Thank you very much in advance, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill, thou art a star! Much appreciated. I'll create the worklist in a sandbox and then drop it into the drive page to open the drive tomorrow. In the meantime, here's another litle something as a token of my appreciation, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer! If you've got time, could you check the links and shortcuts please? I've moved the drive, its talk page, and the ancillary pages, to a much shorter address and updated the main links, but I would appreciate if you could ensure that I haven't broken anything :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kirill :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For numerous acts of unobtrusive kindness during The Transition, including the creation of the worklists for the Milhist BCAD drive--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you, at very short notice, be able to knock up some extra worklists, say 2000 or 3000 more articles, plucked from Category:Start-Class military history articles or Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists? We have more people signed up than we have ranges you see :) Talk about hitting the ground running .... I was going to give it twenty-four hours to see how it went but if we were seriously over-subscribed I was just going to add extra ranges. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking like we will definitely need a secondary worklist. Is your offer of help still open? If so, it would be for 4000 articles running from /20 onwards in 200 article increments, drawn from Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists. The other thing is the path is shorter than the last batch:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/BCAD/n (/20 to /39 inclusive)

I'll knock up a worklist table at User:Roger Davies/BCAD. Hope you don't mind me presuming, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Kirill, for responding to the call :) As ever, much appreciated, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Year in country categories

Hi Kirill. In my view, cats like 1509 in France should be used for all articles that are about events in which France was involved in 1509 - this has been the common practice to date. As a reader I would want to see everything related to France in 1509, events that took place in France would be very restrictive and not give a historical or accurate perspective. Otherwise, for instance, you could not include the Battle of Trafalgar for 1805 in England as it took place at sea and not in England, yet it was a major English event. Another renamed cat would only further add to confusion and work to be done. Hope this makes the logic clear. Ardfern (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Franco-Mongol alliance

Hi Kirill. I am asking you to reconsider your judgements at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision. It has just been made clear that a large part of the accusations made against me were based on a false claim being made by Elonka and Arangar about a name "Viam agnoscere veritatis" being used for a multiplicity of Papal bulls Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis#Untangling (arbitrary section break). Both were making a false claim, intentionally of not, and have been using this claim to motivate a multiplicity of editors to make depositions against me (here, here and the numerous "Viam agnoscere depositions of the Workshop page such as [1]). It's clear that the discussion heated up (on both sides) but it turns out I was right to dispute their misrepresentation of historical facts. I challenge judgements which are based on such false evidence and manipulation. Another recent case of Elonka obviously misrepresenting sources has been exposed here Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Introduction. All my contributions are properly referenced from published sources, and if sometimes we can have differences in interpretation, nobody has been able to identify a single case of fabrication of sources or whatever (as demonstrated in User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed, embedded responses [2]). I am asking you to think twice before believing the accusations of such editors. Regards PHG (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please view Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision for a update of these issues. PHG (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: Project management tool

Looks very useful indeed. Thanks very much for the tip :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BCAD

Could you please add the ranges 40-49 to Worklist B? I've added them, and they're currently showing as redlinks awaiting your attention. Thanks in advance, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Kirill. (Sorry I forgot to thank you sooner.) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I'd really be interested in your advice. Since becoming the lead, I've had perhaps a dozen email requests for admin involvement in various tangentially-related-to-Milhist problems. Some, but not all, under the Old Pals Act. Is this normal? And then there's this, which is not my sort of thing at all. Thoughts on it? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much the tack I've been following. I've very little interest in dispute resolution or dealing with contentious issues when there are other things I could be doing (Operation Castor, Arthur Rimbaud or Jacky Fisher, for example). Thanks :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

chekuser data

Why are you going out of your way to ignore this? What must I do for you to see it? -- Cat ^chi? 23:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Circa

You wrote in a review: "Circa is generally only used for dates, not for numbers; "identify c.40 of these units" should be "identify about 40 of these units", for example." Where is your source for this? Thanks Wandalstouring (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an AE/CE issue to me. Wandalstouring (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banned user circumventing ban with anonymous IP

Hello Kirill,

I am not sure where to post this, and since you seemed to "preside" over the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks, I thought maybe you were the one to ask.

The user banned (Wikimachine) has continued to edit with very obvious and sarcastic comments, attempting in my opinion to continue disrupting the same pages as he did before.

He has edited from various anonymous IP's making essentially the same arguments as he did before on the same pages, some which are edited by very few other editors. Some example IP's he has used are 69.245.41.113, 69.180.210.99, 69.180.193.52, etc.

Aside from these comments being essential copy and pastes of his old arguments, and him signing with "A former Wikipedian," and referring to how he will "continue the fight when is allowed back in a few months" they are from the same geographic area as the original user (see [[3]]). If you would like further information please let me know. If this should be put somewhere else and not here also please let me know and I will follow up. Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.165.177 (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/AE would be the appropriate place if there's any evasion of Arbitration remedies to be dealt with. Kirill 23:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I posted there. Sorry to disturb you.

Revision as of 23:37, 15 March 2008 edit Kirill Lokshin (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users 75,365 edits →Banned user circumventing ban with anonymous IP: WP:AN/AE ← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:47, 15 March 2008 edit undo 128.205.165.177 (talk) →Banned user circumventing ban with anonymous IP Next edit →
Line 109:		Line 109:

	:[[WP:AN/AE]] would be the appropriate place if there's any evasion of Arbitration remedies to be dealt with. [[User:Kirill Lokshin\|Kirill]] 23:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)		:[[WP:AN/AE]] would be the appropriate place if there's any evasion of Arbitration remedies to be dealt with. [[User:Kirill Lokshin\|Kirill]] 23:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
			:: Thank you, I posted there. Sorry to disturb you.