User talk:Kirill Lokshin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Raymond Palmer (talk | contribs) at 19:06, 12 August 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Kirill Lokshin/Notice

  • 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 seven days are automatically archived by Werdnabot.
  • Questions, requests, criticism, and any other comments are always welcome!

Archives

June 2005–June 2006
June 2006–

User:Kirill Lokshin/Accountability

Latin America Portal

Hi. It appears that this is an awkward time to ask, but what would your opinion be on removing the Featured History section on Portal:Latin America and replacing it with a quote? There aren't enough Featured Articles to fill up both that and Featured Article. I was considering changing the portal to an automated daily update on a monthly cycle, which would be roughly possible with only one featured box to fill (an FA/Featured List every day, and a Featured Picture once every two). You're the portal guru, so what's your opinion? --Estrellador* 18:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I've noticed too. That was why I asked you - so that I could get some feedback. Cheers.--Estrellador* 20:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi Krill, I have an interesting question for you. I've seen you around on Wikipedia quite a bit, and respect your opinion. As such, I'd like to know what you think about the following diffs: [1], [2], [3] and [4] from the same FAC, and [5]. I'm asking because you opposed User:Ambuj.Saxena's RfA for issues that to me appear very similar to what I have been doing constantly to scores of FACs for over a year. Thus, my question is: if I were to stand for adminship today, after seeing this evidence and knowing that I fully stand behind these edits, would you support? I have no desire to continue as an admin if you or others who I respect feel that I should not hold the position. Thanks for your help. --Spangineeres (háblame) 07:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Hope you had a great time at Wikimania! --Spangineeres (háblame) 17:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guo Kan

Kirill Lokshin Greetings my friend! I sourced the article, and moved on to work on the Military History of the Roman Empire with Wandalstouring, and went over to the Decline of the Roman Empire, as rather incredibly, no one had posted Bury's theory, which is probably the best. (I rectified that) The only problem so far as to Guo Kan is that one of the persons who was using the Guo Kan article for POV came along and fouled up the cites, so I will keep an eye on it for awhile. On the assistant coordinator elections, do you think edit counts would be of any use? I suppose it shows to some extent one's involvement but the trouble is that it does not divulge either the quality of the edits, or a person's willingness to work with others. SO, I thought I would kick it up to you for your opinon! old windy bear 19:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assistant Coordinator MILHIST

Hi Kirill. If you would, could you give me your opinion as to whether I'm worthy enough to stand for Assistant Coordinator. You are the mover and shaker of the project, so i may as well get the 'gen from the proverbial horse's mouth. Cheers, --Harlsbottom 21:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DagosNavy

Sorry to bother you, but am I being fussy? This user User talk:DagosNavy makes reasonable edits (IMHO) but frequently uses multiple commits to make relatively small changes (example: Operation Harpoon (1942). I tried a comment on his talk page: no response or effect. Either I'm being prissy and should back off or I need to gain his attention (by reverting his changes?) without causing offence. Comments, please. Folks at 137 22:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think my kids would agree with you! Folks at 137 23:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Coordinator stuff

Well, I doubt I'm going to run and was trying not to be too obvious. :) -- Миборовский 23:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a Thank you card!

Good idea!

I'll keep that in mind, dear Kirill, thank you! :) Tho I usually find myself having to archive my talk page every 5 days or so, and often I keep them unarchived until I can reply them... the result? over 100 messages there, ahhhh! ;) I swear I'll use every bit of free time to reply everything so I can keep a more efficient archive, I swear I will. One last thing, hun - if you haven't yet, drop by our friend Spawn Man's talk page and leave him a little note. He seems to be pretty stressed, and he specifically mentioned how much he misses you at RDH's talk page too. It'd be very sad to see a great guy and editor like him leave, and if we can encourage him a bit, he may reconsider. Will you do that for me, please? Hope you're doing great at WM, bring some pics and hugs! ;) Phaedriel The Wiki Soundtrack! - 04:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecating obsolete weapon infoboxes

Hi Kirill,

I started to look for possible semi-auto ways of deprecating obsolete weaponry infoboxes and I'm hitting a wall...

I started with {{Firearm}} and more precisely, the AK-47 article. I get this diff, everything seems OK, yet what I get is messed up.

Do I understand that fields must in addition be specified in a certain order to be taken into account? Or what am I missing? :(

Thanks, Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Okay, it would seem that I forgot to activate the is_weapon parameter, but I still don't get all the fields... :( -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another question: the weapon-firearm template has a field called platform that does not go into the new box. Is this normal? Thanks, Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 10:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is DYK today and needs your project tag.Rlevse 09:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added it Kirill. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 10:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weapon infoboxes conversion done

Overall time: just under 1h30. AWB and Excel rule... :)

Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 11:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is not just AWB... I also coded some Excel formulae to automatically generate the right XML settings for search & replace in AWB and things like that... :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my... Many thanks for the barnstar :)))) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 18:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invite Template

Hi Kirill, do you know how to create a template to post in users talk pages who may have an interest in a specific task force? I'm not really an expert at this wiki stuff yet! Thanks, Motorfix 02:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reassure me...

... is the prose in Battle of Moscow really so crappy to justify a B? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... I expected this of course, but I thought I learned from Vasilevsky's writing. Looks like not <_< I think I'll run a copyed or two and then go through a long PR... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WPMILHIST announcement template

<joke mode on>

Don't you have anything better to do than stalking me on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations??? Such as doing the PR of Battle of Moscow for instance??? :)

</joke mode off>

Erm... Seriously though, I tried to add a WWII task force list to {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} but was pathetically unable to figure out the template use. Can you please add a blank container with categories (expansion, request, cleanup and so on) and I'll fill it? :)

Best, Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, if you want to laugh a bit, you can see me trying to put an article where it should be in the history :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decline of the Roman Empire

Hey Kirill, I have been working on the "Decline of the Roman Empire" article, which is sort of in the military province, since most of theories involve barbarian invasions. ANYWAY, I added Bury and Heather, (who for some mysterious reason, since Bury is arguably the second most regarded historian in all history on Rome), and am expanding the remainder of the sections, especially Gibbon and Ward-Perkins. When you get time, (ha, ha, since you are asked to look at everything!) please let me know if you think I am headed in the right direction. I have also been dabbling with the Mongol articles with Wandalstouring and working on an article on the role of the low countries in the wars of the HRE for Rex and the Dutch military history project. Thanks! old windy bear 00:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Coordinator election message

Sure, ping me when the message will be ready :)

Cheers, Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delivery started at 13h13, finished at 14h24. Overall delivery time: 1 hour 11 minutes. :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some help

Hello Kirill! I and some others are having a bit of a problem with a user (Marneus) who claims that Spain has a blue-water navy in the Blue-water navy article. I'm not really asking you to plunge into the arguments or whatever, but Marneus has violated 3RR and is generally making some extraordinary remarks while taking some weird actions. For example, he reported me for 3RR, but I clearly did not violate it (check the history of the article). I do not want to report him because I think 3RR is just about the gayest rule we have in Wikipedia, but I was hoping that you could talk to him and tell him to stop being so impulsive. As for whether Spain should be included in the list of blue-water navies, we can hopefully resolve that on our own, but don't be surprised if I come back here again haha!UberCryxic 18:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that Kirill. I just got a little irritated. Anyway, your advice for sources was well taken and I went and found a bunch of stuff. The case for excluding Spain isn't complete, but I think it's fairly strong.UberCryxic 15:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for offering your help for the copyedit. I appreciate it very much. And grammar problems are easier to spot than prose problems :P -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are taunts customary in wikipedia?

Are taunts of other users customary in wikipedia?

I sincerely tought this was a enciclopedia where people discussed and got a consensus about matters and instead I'm finding that people like UberCryxic use personal acusations and changes articles at will without discussing and they get their way. Maybe I was wrong and then I'll expend my free time in another task.

--Marneus 10:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for jumping in, but....there are knuckleheads everywhere in the world, just ignore them as best you, but on the other hand, most all wikipedians get into a dispute with someone eventually.Rlevse 10:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reporting a user for 3RR while there was no 3RR is not a good thing either. I suggest you either settle this one the talk page or request a Mediation Cabal. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 11:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I have to interject here. I never once made any personal accusations in the article to which the user is referring. Marneus has made this charge consistently, but why is really puzzling. I attacked the arguments and that's as far as I went. Furthermore, I made sure to drop an extensive statement in the talk page before I first changed the article.UberCryxic 15:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction I think I made one: "The desire to include the Spanish Navy has been largely pushed by one person that appears to have attachments which outweigh impartial logic and thought." And for that I apologize.UberCryxic 15:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One final thing (sorry but I just have to set the record straight since this has been publicized like this): Marneus has actually been reverted by four different users. The insinuation that my actions were arrogant or arbitrary is ridiculous.UberCryxic 16:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history wikiproject

What are you aiming for as the featured article? Thanks for the newsletter! --TheM62Manchester 12:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you in the process of writing the comment for WP:ANI regarding Jtkiefer's actions. This is clearly a serious issue, and Kelly Martin's comment on the RfA appears to confirm that this is no joke; Jtkiefer and Pegasus were indeed the same person. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 16:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was hoping somebody else would go ahead and post it, saving me the trouble. But, fair enough; if you think I should go ahead with it, I will. Kirill Lokshin 16:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to go now, actually. Perhaps you or someone else could take care of it. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 16:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a proposal of a community ban on the table by Tony; you may wish to comment on it or/and explore possible alternate course of actions (such as RfAr). - Mailer Diablo 17:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commander Lists

Hey Kirill, what are your thoughts on lists of former commanders of commands/joint commands/installations/whathaveyou? I was going to include a list of all the former commanders of the MDW from 1921 to present (and their ranks and dates of command of course), but then I thought, "Man, that's an awfully long list." In such a case do we not do that and just leave it alone or just make note of notable commanders/first commanders/present commanders or what? --ScreaminEagle 17:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, so perhaps a succession box in the main article and maybe create another article just for the list and link to it? Or just see how long it is first? --ScreaminEagle 18:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing Bows

Hey Kirill, Wandalstouring and I were thinking of putting together an article that compares the various types of bows - Hun and Muslim compound, Mongol compound and longbow, Welsh longbow, crossbows of various types = would you approve a box for the comparisons, distance, penetrating power, etc.? Thanks! old windy bear 18:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some help needed

Hi Kirill,

There is a new user called User:Ironplay who today reverted Cla68's great copyedit work to Battle of Moscow, because he "like the way it was" (the old version being full of awkward sentenced of mine, of course). While I hope that it won't scale in a silly revert war, this is annoying. Additionally, when I read his talk, he has already a similar case on a different WW2 article. As an admin and our lead coordinator for life :), can you please intervene and explain him a bit how things work, what policies are and things like that?

Thanks a bunch, Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 11:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry about that :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Blenheim

Hi Kirill. I was wondering why I was the only FAC that you hadn't commented on? Its not a problem , but I was curious. As the leading Military admin I would be interested what you thought of the article. Is it something I said? ;) I'm working on the Battle of Schellenberg at the moment and I would be interested in your opinion on this article so I could improve on future articles. Thanks. Raymond Palmer 18:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry Kirill. I know how busy you are.