Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:04, 4 November 2007

User:Kirill Lokshin/Notice

Hi kirill

Hi kirill. Just want to let you know, i just emailed you. Appreciate your help with something. Feel free to write back when you have a chance. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315

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 14:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A category you deleted... question

You recently deleted Category:Automatically assessed military history articles. It's currently in first place at Special:Wantedcategories with several hundred articles in the category. I was wondering about recreating it but thought (a) you would know why it was deleted in the first place and (b) if it needs resurrecting, you could perform an undelete! Any thoughts? Regards, Bencherlite 22:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Couple of things

How do we deal with indef-blocked users on the member list. Move to inactive? I ask because Politics Rule has just been indef blocked for sockpuppetering. Also, thanks for creating the b-class cats, we will see how useful they can be. We do need a system though for discussing the quality of sources though. I just don't yet see how it would work. Woodym555 02:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That was why i was asking. I thought commenting out would be a bit like revisionist history and ever so slightly vindictive. Thought i would ask. Thanks for the response. Woodym555 02:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

IP block due to suspected COI

Kirill, on October 12 2007 Yamla blocked an IP range because of suspected COI at the Fellowship of Friends article. A discussion was started at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard but Yamla hasn't participated for almost 2 weeks. Meanwhile, the IP block is affecting 3 editors of the page. Could you help decide if the IP block is appropriate? I am one of the editor affected by the IP block and strongly feel that Yamla's action was too harsh. Thank you in advance. Mfantoni 07:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:HIST

Hey, I'm looking for your help with the history template (Template:WikiProject History) again. I'd like you to change the thing about the article being improved to needs attention and to say something like:

This article requires the attention of experienced editors

It would be good if it added articles to Category:History articles needing attention thanks--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 17:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

While you're getting derailed from your existing staggering workload on this matter, it looks like the military history articles are somehow showing up in the history project's assessment figures. I think we all know that there's probably very little the history project could do for those articles that Military history can't already do better, and the numbers can be, well, kinda intimidating. If you could find out how the military history articles are showing up in the history projects statistics page (I'm thinking that's what's happening; the numbers are close) I think it might make the History Project a bit better able to deal with the articles it will be dealing with. Thank you for all the work you have done, and will probably be asked to continue to do, for all the other projects out there. John Carter 17:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Phoenix-wiki agreed to remove the articles. For what it's worth, I think the scope of the extant project will deal only with articles which explicitly relate to history per se, and, with any luck, not become too big in the process. I'm going to try to tag a few of the articles like History of New York City which I think are among the few that will clearly fall within the scope of the project. As I'm one of the few people who really does that sort of thing regularly, I think I can ensure that at least initially the project won't try to take on too much or move into other projects' territory. John Carter 19:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Italian War of 1542–1546

Hi, got your request to look at this article, and I'll be happy to, in the next day or two. Larry Dunn 19:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Contest Department at WP:MILHIST

Why did Battle of Gondar not get B-class? I am not arguing, just curious. Dreamy 01:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

DC meetup #3

Interested in meeting-up with a bunch of your wiki-friends? Please take a quick look at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/DC 3 and give your input about the next meetup. Thank you.
This automated notice was delivered to you because you are on the Misplaced Pages:Meetup/DC/Invite. BrownBot 01:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.

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 05:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Mentors on Great Irish Famine?

Hello Kirill--I see you that you were one of the arbitrators on this article's case. Do you know whether the prescribed mentors have been assigned? Some other editors and I need a person who's familiar with the case to review recent activity on the article. Dppowell 18:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What are you protecting ???

I've posted request for arbitration. I noticed that you have 'protected' the same page and removed my request.

So, the 'quality' of Misplaced Pages's article De Administrando Imperio is preserved. Congratulations! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.72.238 (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Italian War of 1542–1546

On 2 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Italian War of 1542–1546, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 18:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Maintenance bot

There is a new bot, User:Erwin85Bot, that is being used to count articles in categories, specifically to create maintenance backlogs pages. To see what I mean, any how your project may be interested in creating such a list, see the page I recently created, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Aviation/Maintenance. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 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 14:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Small point

Hi Kirill,

There is one point, which comes up due to my ignorance: I never admitted to disruptive behavior. When I said that I was working from a flawed understanding of the term (that I had stood in the way of what others wished to make of articles). I withdrew that edit, because it wasn't true. I don't believe I have been disruptive in the WP sense. That out-of-context quotation is another example of how my edits are used against me unfairly. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you (: And, I actually have to say you are right that this was provocative . ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Question re: "ScienceApologist limited to one account"

I have a question about your proposal. Cardamon 06:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Q&A Page

Editors recognize that the Arbitrators do not have time to follow, in real time, all of the diffs on all of the pages of all of the arbitration cases. Editors recognize that questions that they would like to ask the Arbitrators would usually get no response, or a much delayed response, if asked in one of the several talk pages of the arbitration. In response to this, many editors will message Arbitrators directly on their talk pages, which garners a much faster response.

The problem with doing so is that, consequently, discussion relevant to the Arbitration is split from the remainder of the discussion. Those who haven't watchlisted Arbitrators' talk pages might not even be aware of the communication. I think that this is problematic, but I would like to suggest a solution.

I believe that a Question and Answer Page (by whatever title is appropriate) would be a useful addition to Arbitration. There, users could ask questions, and arbitrators could reply as needed. This resolves the current problems: it provides a clean space that arbitrators can readily keep track without getting lost in tens or hundreds of daily diffs, it allows users a place to ask a question and reasonably expect that an Arbitrator will see it, and it keeps all of the discussion within the Arbitration, instead of allowing it to get scattered across Userspace where some participants might not see it.

If you think this is reasonable, would it be possible to add it to the current Science Apologist and Martinphi Arbitration that is currently ongoing? Thank you for your consideration. Note: I am canvassing all active arbitrators on this issue because I feel that this is a neutral suggestion. Antelan 06:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I like your idea even better; many of the questions may be more-or-less procedural in nature, so answers to questions on unrelated Arbitrations may actually be instructive. The page could, in theory, be split into major headings by (Active) Case, and then subheadings by participant/other, perhaps. How do you think I should proceed in getting more feedback and suggesting this idea officially? Thank you. Antelan 06:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge Q & A

I support Antelan's idea, and hope that a Q & A page will also be used for the current Ferrylodge Arbitration that is ongoing. I had assumed that it would be improper for me to message Arbitrators directly on their talk pages, but Antelan indicates above that this is the best way to get a fast response.

Kirill, to simply announce that I am guilty of saopboxing and propaganda, without explaining why any of the evidence I presented is unpersuasive, gives the impression that evidence is not being considered. Would you please identify a specific example of such alleged wrongdoing by me, and explain why you think the specific evidence I presented on that point is unpersuasive? I have opposed people who have soapboxed and propagandized at Misplaced Pages,, and I had hoped that the Arbitrators would not uncritically accept evidence from those very same people.

Additionally, I find your proposed remedy somewhat vague. For example, am I to be banned from the Roe v. Wade article even though I brought it through a Featured Article Review, at the end of which I was praised for “brilliant work”?Ferrylodge 09:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)