User talk:Kirill Lokshin: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:59, 8 December 2006

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. Questions, requests, criticism, and any other comments are always welcome!	Archives June 2005–June 2006 June 2006–
Threads older than five days are automatically archived by Werdnabot.

Battle of Marciano

There's work for you at Battle of Marciano. I need the whole afternoon to write it!! However my English is poor, so you should clean up it a bit if you've time (also I've inverted the strength listing). In the link listed at the bottom there are also some maps, if you're able to wikify them it would be great. Bye and good work.

Disagreement over name

Hello. Thanks for your edit to Military History of the 1974 Invasion of Cyprus, but I'm afraid I disagree strongly with the change of name, particulalry the placing of 1974 in brackets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User383739 (talk • contribs)

Pauli or Paoli

As for the references in Italian Wars, if it is written in Latin it should be "Pauli Iovii". Bye. --Attilios 15:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I told you to be careful with Anglophone sources regarding Italian stuff. You should also cleanup the War of Urbino and Francesco Maria della Rovere I've just written. Bye and good work. --Attilios 16:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course typos have no geo origin. But I seem that Anglophone are (or mostly were) rather confused with format of Italian names (maybe scholars went sometimes confused between the Latin, English or Italian forms. You cannot imagine the horrors I am noticing here, especially from 1911 Britannica articles: they are not typos, they are total misunderstandings due to complete ignorance of Italian matters (I mumble if someone of the guys who edited the Italian articles of that Britannica even made a trip or Italy or knew any of Italian language), often with comical effects. Examples: name in... Spanish and surname in Italian, even for periods when Italy had nothing to share with Spain!! Bye.

Thanks for reply

Dear sir, thank you for your previous reply, and apologies for deleting "Disagreement over name" addition, this was me attempting to withdraw the remark. Respectfully, I request your instruction for requesting a peer review for the following article: Military Operations during the Invasion of Cyprus (1974). I am having trouble with the syntax peer-review=yes, and would like criticism so as to improve the article. Thanks again. User: User383739

Thank you

Thank you for the warm welcome Kirill. Since August 27, 2006 I contribute to the Wikipedia by creating articles regarding Sri Lankan military. Hope you would like these articles that I have started.

Problem resolved

Dear sir, regarding previous problem with syntax for peer review, this is now resolved. (User383739 16:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Longsword Article Peer Review

I'm considering putting the longsword article up for peer review at WPMH after adding a little more information on hilts (currently a stub section). Before I did, and wasted people's time, I wanted to know if you saw any immediately revolting elements to the article. I'd like to have it "on par" before peer review so it could come out shining. Eventually, I want to push it up to GA and FA (it's B, atm). Thanks for you time and commitment! - xiliquiern ^Talk 17:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand military history task force

Hi Kirill, thanks for creating the New Zealand task force! I started tagging articles but it doesn't seem to be working (See Talk:New Zealand Army).--James Bond 23:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Higher ranking Opinion needed

The page CVN 78 has been moved to Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), and all information about the name of the ship has been cut out save for the part where the National Defense Authorization Act of 2007 officially named the ship. OK, thats fine, BUT:

The article is incorrectly named (it should be located at USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78)),
No sources (inline citations or otherwise) have been provided for the alleged information,
No official announcement has been made by the Secratary of the Navy (or anyone else for that matter) that the name is now Gerald R. Ford, and
Things change. The space shuttle Enterpise was originally named USS Constitution until the Star Trek fans purswaded NASA to rename the vehical Enterprise. The same thing could happen here.

I feel that these circumstances warrent maintaining the article under the name CVN 78, with the name specualtion section included, until someone (preferably the Secratary of the Navy) makes an official press release or otherwise publicly announces the name of the carrier, but I want an expert opinion before taking any drastic measures. What are your thoughts on the matter? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advertise our project

The female members of the Scouting project would like to advertise that we cover Scouting. Some countries consider Girl Guiding as a bit different from Scouts and some project members want to recruit more females to work on the Girl Guide/Girl Scout articles. Our portal and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory/History_and_society#Social_organizations listing say we cover Guiding, but what else can we do? THanks. Rlevse 18:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea. I shoulda thunk of that! I just did that. I already have us listed, and mention the Guiding, on the WP Council page and our portal. If you have more suggestions, please let me know.Rlevse 22:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Operations of the South African Border War

Hi Kirill: Please see my latest comments at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 24#Category:Operations of the South African Border War for the reasoning why you have made a mistake. Thanks. IZAK 19:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I am thinking about it...

...should the articles USS Missouri (BB-63) and Iowa class battleship also be put through a Featured Article Review when I get around to citing them, or should I go with the peer review option instead? I ask because there seemed to be some confusion about that on the FAR page for USS Wisconsin when I added the 300+ inline citations for the material, and I would rather not repeat that experince again for the other two articles. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

template

Well the project is technically apart of the indian project. I've try to generate more interest in it. I like how the koreans did their nav template.--D-Boy 23:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask about making it smaller.--D-Boy 23:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks- RE: Land warfare feedback

Thanks heaps for your assesment on the land warfare article-as you can see I'm rather new to Wikipedia and your feedback is greatly appreciated. :-) Bennyboyz3000 (talk). 06:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crécy Campaign

Hi, I understand why you merged the Crécy campaignbox into the Edwardian War one and thankyou for contacting me about it. However, I'm not sure why the original Hundred Years War box was broken up in the first place. It covered the major operations and would have allowed the creation of smaller campaignboxes for specific campaigns. As it currently stands, the Edwardian War box has the four closely linked battles of the Crecy campaign and two largely unconnected operations seperated by six years in one direction and ten in the other. Would it not be more sensible to go back to the original larger box and then branch down by campaign rather than era - I can think of several campaigns from this war which could merit their own box but currently don't have one? I also notice a lot of very small boxes on the American Civil War (including several with only one action in them), which seem to breach the guidelines you mentioned, should these be merged into one large one?--Jackyd101 17:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy reply, I see your point, your last sentence in brackets was the closest to what I was thinking, but I'll leave it for now and try to expand the articles on Hundred Years War battles as a lot are onr line stubs and others are missing completely. Maybe when there are more entries in the boxes it will be more practical to use the boxes by campaign rather than by historical era. A box is needed for the Breton Civil War which made up a substantial part of the early Hundred Years War and currently has no box, I'll add one for that if there is no objection. Thanks--Jackyd101 18:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military Brat name

Hi Kirill, I was hoping to get your thoughts/input on the new name. Is "Military brat (U.S. subculture)" the best name or should it be "U.S. Military brat" or do you have a better idea? I've started a discussion on the talk page on this.Balloonman 22:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Amstetten

I have completed the article on the Battle of Amstetten. Can you please verify the infromation (esp. numbers) and add additional information to it? I do not have many resources on that specific battle. --Ineffable3000 01:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portfolio for ArbCom

On Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Summary table, I added a column "Examples" with links that exhibit a candidate's arbitration skills. My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. Since you were one of the first candidates to register, I included some links which you provided on your questions page. You may want to check if you're OK with them. — Sebastian (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Cambodian Civil War A-class review

Kirill, I've started reviewing the article. I made some copyedits. I'm about halfway through the article. I've left some requests for clarification on the talk page. I'll return to it tomorrow to complete my review. As earlier reviewer have noted, there are some tone issues. — ERcheck (talk) 06:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Part 2 of my review completed. Editor has found the comments and is addressing. — ERcheck (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your advice would be appreciated

Hi, I'm trying to get the LGBT Wikiproject back off the ground and I was wodnering, as co-ordinator of easily the most successful WikiProject out there, if you could give some advice as to how to go about it. How did MILHIST build itself up? Were there lots of members from the beginning? How did you recruit new ones? What can we do to ensure maximum productivity without wasting time on stuff we don't have the manpower for? Do you have any simple ideas we can try? Your advice would be deeply welcome. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I'm so glad you said that, because I was planning to make a project template, and develop article assessments and the Wikiproject banner anyway - I feel like I'm definitely on the right track now. :) Thankyou for your reply. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 06:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again, but the WikiProject Council's guide is slightly confusing me. I want to get the bot automated assessments, and the guide says to add a parameter to our banner - but our banner code looks nothing like the example. Is it already there, or do I need to put it in, and if so, where? Does the bot simply then just create all the pages needed? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K, I added all the code and fiddled with it: the guide mentioned categories. Do I need to create them, or does the bot do it, or what? Maybe you could add this to the guide? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've created and beautified them all. Thanks for your help. I discovered what I needed to know at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot - you might want to add some information to the Guide from it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afd Discussion

I have started an important AfD discussion related to lists of battles. Please share your opinions. --Ineffable3000 02:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for December 4th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 49	4 December 2006	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections open	The Seigenthaler incident: One year later
Wikimedia celebrates Commons milestone, plans fundraiser	Wikipedia wins award in one country, reported blocked in another
News and notes: Steward elections continue, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

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 05:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Caspian expeditions of the Rus

Hi, this article was peer-reviewed some time ago, but since then it has significantly progressed, and it is now a good article. The reviewer said we may consider nominating for FA, but I'm not sure whether the article should go through another peer review before nomination. Your advice will be greatly appreciated. Beit Or 18:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crusades

Hi - I strongly prefer this format for the Crusade box, but noticed on the discussion page of Template:Crusade that you chose the current format so it could be used in conjunction with another type of template (a battlebox?). The thing is, the two or three Crusade-linked articles that I checked don't actually use that other box. So, maybe you could help me add them, or maybe you would reconsider your thoughts about this version of the template?[1] Best, Kaisershatner 15:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

manually created template of task force list

at least I managed to understand enough coding to get such a template at this place. That was the hardest part. Wandalstouring 14:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User FrummerThanThou and Leads

Hi Kirill, notice you reverted this editor's tag at Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942). He's doing the same to my Russian Ground Forces, also under FAC consideration, which, as far as I can see, meets all WP:LEAD requirements. Would you mind reverting the tag - or seeing if it is actually applicable, and if so, appreciate how you think I should redo it. Thanks Buckshot06 17:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ghazni

Hi Kirill,

I just created this new article, Battle of Ghazni which took place in 1839 during the First Anglo-Afghan War. I was wondering if you could help link this article around so that it generates traffic.

thank you. Mercenary2k 20:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MedCab

Hiya, glad to see that your ArbCom bid is going well. :)

By the way, do you remember that "WikiProject autonomy" issue that came up at the Village Pump? The dispute that I was referring to, at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television), continues to escalate, and it's looking like it's having a good chance to proceed to ArbCom. :/ Formal mediation was rejected, but we're making a last-ditch effort via MedCab to see if we can work things out. Would you be interested in offering a statement? If you'd rather stay low-key while the ArbCom proceedings are taking place, I understand, but I did want to make you aware since we'd discussed this before. So it's definitely your call. :) If you would like to participate (and I'd really love additional opinions on the matter), it's at: Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-05 Naming conventions (television). Thanks, El on ka 21:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krasnoi

Could you take a look? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think that "unreadably choppy" is way too harsh? I believe you should leave your prejudice towards Kenmore in the past. Best, Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 193: / Line 193: @@
 By the way, do you remember that "WikiProject autonomy" issue that came up at the Village Pump?  The dispute that I was referring to, at [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)]], continues to escalate, and it's looking like it's having a good chance to proceed to ArbCom.  :/  Formal mediation was rejected, but we're making a last-ditch effort via MedCab to see if we can work things out.  Would you be interested in offering a statement?  If you'd rather stay low-key while the ArbCom proceedings are taking place, I understand, but I did want to make you aware since we'd discussed this before.  So it's definitely your call.  :)   If you ''would'' like to participate (and I'd really love additional opinions on the matter), it's at: [[Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-05 Naming conventions (television)]]. Thanks, [[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 21:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
+== Krasnoi ==
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGhirlandajo&diff=92862939&oldid=92750385 Could you take a look]? --<font color="FC4339">[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">[[User_talk:Ghirlandajo|-трёп-]]</font></sup> 10:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
+:Don't you think that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABattle_of_Krasnoi&diff=92918418&oldid=89442524 "unreadably choppy"] is way too harsh? I believe you should leave your prejudice towards Kenmore in the past. Best, <font color="FC4339">[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">[[User_talk:Ghirlandajo|-трёп-]]</font></sup> 13:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)