Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:19, 19 May 2008

User:Kirill Lokshin/A

Of candlesticks and kings

I was going to do the country TFs yesterday but other things intervened. Among other things, I've got major building work going on at the house and it's started to go wrong ... I'm off to France in a half an hour for a meeting so I'll try to sort it later. Korea probably needs handling slightly differently because it's not "on" Milhist turf. If you find yourself with a little spare time ... :)) --ROGER DAVIES  05:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for sorting that, Kirill, I'll work up the announcement tomorrow. --ROGER DAVIES  19:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That was extraordinarily kind of you ... A very nice surprise, indeed. Thank you, Kirill. --ROGER DAVIES  17:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing all the review announcements and so forth just now :) By the way, I'm about to raise a thorny subject in Coords and I'd particularly value your wise counsel there. --ROGER DAVIES  13:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely. --ROGER DAVIES  13:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

My take is that the future lies in large wikiprojects, with an efficiently administered shared support structure, and considerable autonomy for the task forces within it (which effectively act as mini-wikiprojects). The theory is that this combines effective logistics with effective decentralisation.--ROGER DAVIES  13:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I was interested by the low take up for the proposed new task forces. (Apart from Pakistan, which is probably inflated by newbies who may or may not actually contribute once/if it's up and running.) --ROGER DAVIES  13:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, pretty much my feeling. My approach (which may or may not have been transparent) is first let's see who's interested then if there are enough of them, let's fine tune and perhaps implement it. --ROGER DAVIES  14:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't get Talk:79th Fighter Squadron (USAF) to automatically assess as B-Class after I'd completed the checklist. I had to enter it manually. Previously, it was unclassified. I thought the template read the perimeters no matter what the starting class. Can you cast any light on this, please? --ROGER DAVIES  06:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks for clarifying, Kirill :) --ROGER DAVIES  17:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like "Special Projects Dept" is finally up and running. I'll create the home page later today, probably here Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Special projects with shortcuts of WP:MHSP and WT:MHSP. Do these seem sensible to you? Also, there's been little discussion of the mechanics so far so input from you would be welcomed :) --ROGER DAVIES  13:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I thought. As I'm away for a few days next week (21-25 May) can you pay it extra special attention then please? (I know you'll keep a general eye on it anyway ...) --ROGER DAVIES  13:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Kirill :) --ROGER DAVIES  03:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if you have a minute, could you take a look at this please? --ROGER DAVIES  13:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Am I alone in thinking that giving a user this is a curious decision in the light of this? --ROGER DAVIES  18:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Professionalism essay link

How would I get my signature line to link to your professionalism essay? Not exactly the same way, superscript as you've got it, but something like Buckshot06 (prof)? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete obsolete userpage

Hi Kirill, is there anyway to delete this dead and inactive user page: . I used it years ago here to edit but when I switched computers in early 2006, I found I couldn't access it anymore. So, I created a new user site for myself at Leoboudv. I ask you this since you signed the first introduction to my old talk page above. I found it on google a few days ago..and am surprised to see it still exists. Regards, Fabian Leoboudv (talk) 03:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The standardness of "Who's who"

Kirill -- I have to say I'm disappointed in the sentiment you expressed here. You really haven't thought this through. Surely you don't think that beyond the borders of Maryland, the rest of the country is just more Maryland but I don't know what else to think. I guess I think we wouldn't be having this discussion if Northern California were a nation state, because your war brain would kick into gear and you'd get it right away. If I tried to argue, by way of personal example, that every Israeli nationalist wikipedian I've ever disagreed with was the same person or a meatpuppet thereof, I'd be laughed out of the project. Sure, it really feels that way sometimes, but I know that's not the case: this is a culture of people, though Western (perhaps even "Maryland-ish") in many regards, that got the same education, were taught to believe the same things, were raised by parents who believed the same things, and so on. Do you know the population of Israel? 7 million. You know what the population of metro San Fran is? 7 million. It's not that different; I wouldn't be surprised to find out there's some nutty professor at UC Berkeley telling all his students the U.S. is a terrorist state; it's a liberal and permissive culture and such ideas easily spread. I wouldn't even be surprised to find this suggestion in a high school textbook there, just like every Israeli is taught it's the Arab-Israeli conflict, not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and thus all think they are the underdogs, and so when they come to wikipedia and switch out those links, I know why. San Francisco, I assure you, likewise has a unique culture, maybe not as monolithic as Israeli nationalism, but which nevertheless shares many cultural memes -- especially radical anti-Americanism -- and we simply can't just decide one day they are all the same person. -- Kendrick7 03:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, OK, I see where you are going with this then, but I too often see editors labeled as "disruptive" in much the same was Caesar was labeled as "ambitious." When you scratch the surface, as Shakespeare's Marc Antony eloquently did, it's as often as not merely a pretext to break out the knives. -- Kendrick7 16:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI, governence reform

User_talk:Kim_Bruning#Tangential_question. I am sorely tempted to do just what I wrote here. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 04:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Distance in military affairs: an essay?

This is looking perilously close to an essay to me, but wanted your thoughts. Regards Buckshot06(prof) 06:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

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 (talk) 10:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

cla68, fm, sv

Hi. I request that you not recuse from participation in the potential case. It will be a case about personality, and personal issues within en.wikipedia and not having full personal particiaption from the committee I think would hurt the end result. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely understand, I think my point is that the entire committee is likely to be insufficiently impartial with these users. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Links in Camera Lobbying

Hi Kirill, hope this finds you well. I was just wondering, would you have any objection to me going through Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Proposed decision and converting all the secure.wikimedia.org links to traditional en.wikipedia.org links? Some proxy servers, my university and local library included (so I presume the issue is prevalent to some degree), do not allow for whatever reason access to secure.wikimedia.org (as I have established with both trying to access OTRS and now this). Feel free to reply here or on my talk, I'll see either way. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Quote of the evening:

"Damn boy, you're white!" -- random homeless guy outside Union Station talking to Kirill. ⇒SWATJester 03:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

clarification

Hi Kirill, unfortunately the request for clarification was closed and archived before I got a chance to say anything. I am willing to voluntarily avoid biophys as I have done so far, but he has not avoided me (his revert was on Nuclear terrorism is a case in point). He has persistently filled the article with material that has nothing to do with nuclear terrorism (to the point where the page is an embarrassment). He did that on Communist terrorism before, and he used the RfA to bully me away from that page; I have avoided it since then even though it is even more of an embarrassment. Now he is using this clarification as a way to bully me off of nuclear terrorism as well. Do I have to back off of any article he tells me to? May I tell him to back off of articles as well? I don't think it's a good way to work here, it makes it seem like there are ownership issues with the page. I have expertise on terrorism related issues; while I can live with avoiding certain pages just so he stops attacking me, I just wonder where we decide who gets to edit which pages. csloat (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

TTN

TTN got recently blocked because he honestly did not think his restrictions meant that he wasn't able to start a thread on a project notice board, myself and several other Wikipedians in good standing were under the same assumption. That's not gaming the system or pushing the limit, that's nothing more than miscommunication. TTN even pleaded with you guys to get some guidance, and you ignored the request for clarification for weeks. Now you come out of no where with a complete and total ban? That's a horrible idea. TTN has been behaving very well, and hasn't been doing anything wrong. The flames you see that you want to get rid of are nothing more than the left over feelings from the past, not because of things that are happening now.

And you come completely out of left field with a proposal to ban Kww, who hasn't even had any kind of RfC or mediation, or focus of any kind in the last two cases. It's like you're swinging around blindly, smashing furniture and breaking walls, just to put out a candle. I beg of you to reconsider your proposals. -- Ned Scott 02:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)