User talk:Grafikm fr/Archive2

I have a feeling

That neither Deng or Kurt are going to be around much longer. They just won't stop this insanity. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AdQ

La version française d'Encélade est elle-même très fortement inspirée de ce qui existait à l'époque sur l'article en anglais. En fait c'est Volcanopele qui a fait la plus grosse partie du boulot ;) Mais bon, merci quand même ;) À+, Stanlekub 16:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC). [reply]

How

How can you not like soccer? It's really fun :-0 :). Raichu 01:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on Enceladus

Good to see that the English Wikipedia has yet another featured article corresponding to a francophone counterpart. And quite closely, too. I can't wait to see it on the Main Page (I see it's already been nominated). Daniel Case 02:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Second Battle of Kharkov

{{fact}} added, as requested. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your call. I can't think of anything else that needs fixing; but I generally prefer to leave a peer review open for two or three weeks anyway, just in case anyone else wanders by with suggestions. Kirill Lokshin 20:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khoikhoi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User%3AKhoikhoi he is allowed to revert? --168.126.28.25 18:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on your own talk page. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 18:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Binary star

Hi,

Thanks for commenting on the FA nomination of Binary star. I have tried to take care of your objections.

Regards, Nick Mks 18:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Many thanks for the barnstar! :) --Scott 08:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - U.S. FAC

Hi,

Thank you for supporting the recent FAC of United States, but unfortunately it failed to pass. However, I hope you will vote again in the future. In the mean time, please accept this Mooncake as a token of my gratitude.--Ryz05 t 15:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Kharkov

Sorry I didn't get you a message in time. A lot has been done recently! First, I'd like to thank you for the amount of work you've put into it. I have to re-read it and see what changes have been made thus far. I will further reference some of the parts I wrote, especially the battle, to give David M. Glantz what he deserves. Please, anything that you think general rewording, tell me - I will do my best. I hope we stay in communication until this article is either featured, or not. JonCatalan 16:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Glantz'sources are majority Soviet because he uses recently opened Soviet/Russian archives and then compares them with German archives to analyse their accuracy. I'll reread the article throughout the week and then think of ways of including a more German perspective. Unfortunately, German memoirs, like Manstein's Lost Victories, that I own are not very focused on this battle and the winter battles and Stalingrad seem to take priority over things like this. I will continue to look at sources, and I should be receiving a book on armoured warfare during the Second World War soon enough through the mail, and so I'll look through that for additional material. And, I'll scan in more images, although I'm not sure if that could create problems - I'll look around in other books, as well. JonCatalan 21:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Oleg

I would welcome your comments on this page. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Causion against removing the POV tags.

Please note that removing the POV-tags does not help to resolve disputes. The tag should indicate the disagrement until the dispute is resolved as described in WP:DR.--AndriyK 10:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks!

Thanks for voting!
Hello Grafikm fr/Archive2, and thank you so much for voting in my recent RfA. I am pleased to inform you that it passed with a final tally of (119/1/3), into the WP:100, so I have now been cleared for adminship and will soon be soaring above the clouds. I was overjoyed, shocked, and humbled by the tally, and, most importantly, all the support. Thank you. If there is ever anything you need, you know where you can find me. Take care.

--Pilot|guy 22:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Le français

Oh, the humanity! And merely because your French is far better than mine! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 22:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siberian Flying Squirrel image

Hi, I notice you added Assapan-drawing.jpg to the Siberian Flying Squirrel article. Unfortunately, the species depicted in the image is the Southern Flying Squirrel (Glaucomys volans), not the Siberian Flying Squirrel (Pteromys volans). While the scientific names may be confusingly similar, these species belong to different genera from different continents. Thus, I don't feel the picture is an appropriate illustration for that article.

If you do find a free picture of a Siberian Flying Squirrel, please do add it to the article. I've been trying to find one myself, but with no luck so far. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My answer

I've written an answer to your statement at User_talk:PatrickFisher#AndriyK.2C_L-word_and_so_on....--AndriyK 18:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A question

May I know who my political masters are ? :) --Molobo 00:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Molobo

Since you have taken an interest in the "Molobo's affair" let me elaborate a little on my stance in this. I am afraid that Molobo is just one of several problematic users that we will have to deal with in time. Blocking him, if not followed by action against some other users, will not do much good. But it is up to community to decide if and when those other users cross their tresholds. Regarding Molobo block, one note: I don't deny that he was disruptive at times and that he broke 3RR many times and in the end, acted in a way that had to lead to a block. What I was and I still am unhappy is 1) that such a block was done without taking the matter to ArbCom and by admins who were at some point engaged in content dispute with Molobo and 2) that other users he engaged with in revert wars and such have been treated much less harshly. That said, I don't intend to comment on this matter further, I don't think it would do any good. Majority of interested people seem to support this block, and in the end in project like Wiki the good of the community must be put above the good of any single individual.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement at Mediation Cabal

Hi! It's a pity you started this reasonable attempt to resolve the dispute with misinformation. I never wrote anything as "vile Muscovites that came to enslave Ukrainians" or similar. I suggest you rephrasing your statement. This would insure a more constructive start of the discussion.

I've never proposed to use the wording "Stalinist occupation" in the article. This phrase can be removed from your statement without loss of usefull information.

Also I did not insert the tags "everywhere", but only on top of the disputed article. It would be very kind of you, if you correct your statement.--AndriyK 16:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Single-celled Organisms

Hi, seems like we had a similar idea on were this should point, but it worked out differently [1]. Being a biochemist, I would prefer Single-celled Organisms, Unicellular and Single celled organisms all to point to Microorganism, since all single celled organisms are per definition microorganisms. Would you agree with a change? Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, its done. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for pointing that out. :) And whoops on the protection. I had protected it on June 21st because of a vandal but had forgotten to unprotect it. It's unprotected now. --Woohookitty(meow) 22:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Congratulations

Hey, that's neat! Thanks! (Although it seems to be positioned a bit higher than it should be. I'll see if I can figure out how to control the thing.) Kirill Lokshin 14:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that explains it; the FA stars have all been pulled up too.
(I do wonder about the wisdom of encouraging the use of that image as a badge of membership, since it is simultaneously being used as an award; it might create something of a mess in the long run. I might just be being overly pedantic, though.) Kirill Lokshin 15:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. That should work nicely, I think. Kirill Lokshin 15:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Battle of the Dneiper

Can you let me know wahat the dispute is about? Arthur Ellis 22:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I have added my opening comments on the project page. lets get to work. TruthCrusader 11:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration candidates

Did you mean to support the ones you nominated? You didn't list your name under the "Support" line (which is throwing off the counts from where one would expect them to be); I was wondering if that was intentional on your part? Kirill Lokshin 15:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that explains it ;-) Kirill Lokshin 15:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - June 2006

The June 2006 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. Kirill Lokshin 05:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism to my user page. Amusing that shortly after I unprotect it, it gets vandalized... TheProject 15:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summary by Alex Bakharev at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Irpen

Your have endorsed the summary by Alex Bakharev at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Irpen which misinforms the community. Alex Bakharev wrote about Russian architecture: "There is no discussion on the talk page, no suggestions on improving the article". In fact there was (and still is) a discussion on the talk page and solution has been proposed. (Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Irpen#Comment_to_the_summary_by_Alex_Bakharev_and_others). I suggest you to withdraw your signature under the summary.--AndriyK 08:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for July 3rd.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 26 26 June 2006

About the Signpost

Angela Beesley resigns as Wikimedia Foundation trustee Requiring confirmed email suggested for uploads
Wikipedia cited by the England and Wales High Court Unblock requests directed to new mailing list
News and Notes: Wiktionary milestone, privacy policy update Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report On Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line

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.

{{WPMILHIST}}

Nice work on getting AWB running with that, but the tags should be removed entirely, not replaced; {{WPMILHIST}} doesn't work properly when placed on non-talk pages.  ;-) Kirill Lokshin 21:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 21:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Project notice banners

Excellent! Assuming nobody drops by with angry denunciations, we can get the whole lot deleted; I don't think there's any use in keeping them around. Thanks for all of your help!

(In retrospect, having access to AWB would have made a lot of things we've done much easier.) Kirill Lokshin 23:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about AWB, then: is it possible to feed it a list of articles (or a category? I recall hearing it does category-to-list conversion somehow) and have it (a) check for a particular template on the talk page of each article and (b) add it if it's not present? (I'm wondering if it would be possible to somehow apply it to the problem of adding {{WPMILHIST}} tags to all the vast expanses of articles under Category:Military people, Category:Military organization, and Category:Military equipment that haven't been tagged yet.) Kirill Lokshin 23:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, even if it can't do true recursion, it might be sufficient to be able to read in a list of categories for processing. Then, we can use something like this to do the recursion up-front and feed the resulting list to AWB. (I think the en: corruption issue has been mostly fixed, but it'll probably be necessary to run through the generated list from that tool just as a sanity check to make sure something utterly bizarre didn't get included.) Kirill Lokshin 00:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J'ai essayé

J'ai essayé mon meilleur mais il refuse de changer d'avis. TruthCrusader 12:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'll throw my 2 cents in. TruthCrusader 12:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that by naming so many parties to the mediation, that they ALL must agree to it or the process will not go through. TruthCrusader 13:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will follow through. We actually had this same debate once during my doctoral thesis, about the use of "liberation" and its overt/covert meanings. TruthCrusader 13:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Battle of the Lower Dnieper/Lviv]], and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Hi there. Could you possibly reword your mediation statement to at least pretend impartiality? Thanks in advance. //Halibutt 12:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Military equipment

From the article: "The .22 LR has also seen limited usage by police and military snipers". So it qualifies. ;-)

More generally, I would guess that (a) the overwhelming majority is quite clearly in-scope (it wouldn't be under "Military" equipment otherwise) and (b) if we do tag some things we shouldn't, the editors of those articles will point that out and remove the tags. I don't think anyone will really complain about a few false positives. Kirill Lokshin 19:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please! :-) Kirill Lokshin 19:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming

Yo, stop spamming hundreds of article talk pages with advertisements for the Military History WikiProject. These should be added on a case-by-base basis, not en masse to every page that vaguely pertains to military history. Remember, WikiProjects are merely informal groups of Wikipedians, and as such, they have no ownership over any articles. --Cyde↔Weys 19:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership issues aside (the Military history WikiProject has, as far as I know, never made anything even vaguely resembling a claim of ownership over any articles), what exactly is the point of forcing the tags to be added by hand? Certainly I'm not aware of any interpretation of our guidelines that would consider legitimate addition of WikiProject tags—automated or otherwise—to be unacceptable. Kirill Lokshin 19:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute tag at Ukrainization

Today, you deleted the dispute tag twice from the article Ukrainization. I would like to point you out that the dispute concerning this article has not been resolved yet. There is a discussion at the talk. Please note, that blanking dispute tag may be qualified as WP:Vandalism.--Mbuk 21:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: your message at my talk

Please read the talk and study the article history. The solution was proposed. It clearly looks like these are you, Kuban kazak and Irpen who "aggressively revert to his preferred version". Please stop edit warring and switch to the discussion at talk. Read WP:DR. Removing the tag is not a solution.--Mbuk 21:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was not me, who wrote WP:Vandalism. If you disagree with this policy please try to change it as it is proposed in the corresponding guideline. But do not break the rules addopted by the community.--Mbuk 21:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Problem

I'd let it sit for another day or so, to make sure there aren't any more major concerns voiced. There's no real rush here; the articles have sat untagged for months, so a few more days shouldn't be a problem. Kirill Lokshin 18:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the talk page color thing was pretty uniformly rejected; I would go ahead and add tags even to empty pages if/when you start running this again. Kirill Lokshin 18:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Just a courtesy notice. I noticed that you are using this one.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Template

It's just a redirect to {{WPMILHIST}}, so using the two is functionally equivalent. It should eventually get cleaned up, to keep vandalism opportunities to a minimum if nothing else, but it's not something I would actually worry about doing. They tend to get replaced when those articles get assessed anyways. Kirill Lokshin 22:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt

Yes I am following his edits. I'll talk to him. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking at the edits you mentioned, I don't see a problem. I do think he needs to be encouraged to discuss changes he wants to make. But in this case, the place is Germany, not Nazi Germany. And if it was just Germany involved, it should just say Germany. But the methods are suspect. I'll still write him. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirla's pique at Briangotts

Just want to say it might or might not be related to the fact the two of us have been having a discussion about ghirla on our respective talk pages. Circeus 20:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C'est l'impression que les quelques interactions que j'ai eues avec lui (aussi à Template:Languageicon, que j'avais oublié) m'ont laissé. En tout les cas, je persiste et signe concernant le block. Il a été averti par l'ArbCom en Janvier, et de manière répétée par plusieurs utilisateurs depuis. C'est tout juste s'ilne s'est pas bloqué lui-même. Circeus 21:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
J'avoue que je me demande s'il a même remarqué que le block a(ou devrait être, à tout le moins) expiré. Je suis tenté de lui proposer d'annoncer aux 90 utilisateurs qui ont fait de moi-même et BrianGotts des admnistrateurs qu'ils ont remis des pouvoirs de sysop entre les mains de trolls, mais ça serait un peu exagéré, je crois. De toute façon, ce n'est pas comme s'il tenait à écouter qui que ce soit. Circeus 21:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Je savais que Ghirla était (avait été?) impliqué dans plusieurs disputes concernant l'Ukraine, la Pologne, le Kievan Rus, des translitération et trucs du genre, mais je connaissait pas les détails. Circeus 21:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is English language wikipedia. Please translate this into English. I would like to know what you are talking about a colleague. Of course, it is not in policies, but I consider this way of discussing a third person simply rude. `'mikka (t) 00:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make a translation of the full discussion to Mikkalai's talk page. Circeus 00:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
done: [2]. Circeus 00:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Memoirs

Looks nice; much better than the current article, anyways ;-)

As I've said many times, though, I'm not really an expert on WWII. I can comment on writing and style, but not so much on the actual historical detail (unless I go and dig up some of these books). Kirill Lokshin 22:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not an expert on not-yet-WWII either; everything after Napoleon is pretty much out of my usual haunts ;-)
If you're reasonably certain that his memoirs are accurate, I see no problem with citing them. Obviously you should add additional citations from other sources where they're available; but I wouldn't leave things uncited—or omit them entirely—just because you can only cite them from there. Kirill Lokshin 22:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Overhauling

Very nice! (But the list in the "Awards" section sort of spoils the impression. Any way to make that more prose-like? Do we have information on what particular orders were awarded for, for example?) Kirill Lokshin 23:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history Collaboration of the Fortnight

You supported Urban warfare, which has been selected as the Military history WikiProject's new Collaboration of the Fortnight. Please help improve this article to featured article standards. Kirill Lokshin 00:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for July 10th

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost


Volume 2, Issue 28 10 July 2006

About the Signpost

Reuters tracks evolution of Ken Lay's death on Wikipedia Creating stable versions using existing software proposed
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages News and Notes: Blocking changes, privacy policy update
Wikipedia in the News Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report On Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line

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.

Signpost delivered by: RoyBoy 800 04:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

I appreciate that you think Mbuk's view of matters is slanted, and I agree: he accuses you of edit warring, while not mentioning that he himself is edit warring. So of course, I've warned him, but that does not change the simple fact that you are edit warring. [3], [4], [5], [6]: it doesn't matter what the situation is, these are all unproductive reverts that further the edit war. Edit warring is never acceptable or appropriate; edit warring never improves a conflict, but always makes it worse; the proper response to a content dispute is talk page discussion and dispute resolution, and no edit warring. As you are not a new editor, and the article has already been protected before, I'm giving you and the rest of the edit warriors there a 24 hour block to cool down. Dmcdevit·t 04:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


La République nous appelle, sachons vaincre ou sachons périr

Citoyen Grafikm, je ne sais pas si vous célébrez le 14 juillet mais au dit cas mes sincères félicitations républicaines. En train de regarder A2. "Bom bom-bom-bom-bom. Tiens - y en a du boudin (3x), pour les Alsaciens, les Suisses et les Lorrains, pour les Belges y en a plus (2x), ce sont des ..."--Pan Gerwazy 09:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You gonna love this...

I promise :) Там СТОЛЬКО вкусного, and more is in the works! All praise JF!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rest is in the works. JF has just started (Murmask was easy for starters). From what I gather all maps are not going to happen overnight, but they all are going to happen eventually :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

I supported your current FAC, but I have one question: why are all the dates are the same format except in the body his birthdate id DD MMM? Rlevse 21:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tagging

I don't think anyone will object further, so please feel free to resume at your leisure. (I think Category:Individual military units and Category:Military people will probably have fewer false positives than Category:Military equipment, if that's something you're concerned about; but it's not a significant point in either case.) Kirill Lokshin 22:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably not going anywhere until the last week of the month, though. And I'm hoping we can settle on something for the coordinator elections before then ;-) Kirill Lokshin 22:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The weekends seem to be downtimes, surprisingly enough. I'm sure there will be more comments later. Kirill Lokshin 22:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be getting some mistakes when you're tagging - [7] and [8] are the first two to hand; you've duplicated already-existing tags. Not sure what's going on with AWB there, but you might want to check it out! Shimgray | talk | 23:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! (It's finally taken us past WikiProject Films in terms of articles tagged, incidentally.) Out of curiosity, is the 3,000 count just for military units, or across all categories? Kirill Lokshin 16:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem

Little problem: looks like you've caught Category:Deaths by firearm. Most of that isn't military-related in any meaningful sense. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 22:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also Category:Shooter games. Meh, this is going to be messy. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 22:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And likely Category:Gun politics, although you haven't gotten to any of those yet. Kirill Lokshin 22:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 2004 newsletter

The July 2006 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.

Re: FAC

Well, my last FAC had some complaints about prose style as well. But I'll see what I can do, probably tonight. As far as other copyeditors are concerned: UberCryxic was kind enough to do some copyediting on my last FAC. Other than that, I really don't know (it would be a nice thing to put together a list of copyeditors in the project, no?). One of the real professionals, like Bunchofgrapes or Tony, would be ideal; but I don't think that they will have the time or interest to copyedit a full article. Kirill Lokshin 14:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried my hand at some copyediting. I've only managed to make it partway through the article; if I can find time, I'll go through the rest as well. One question: what's the original Russian term for the "Direction of Military Training"? The translation sounds pretty forced, and I'm wondering if there's a better wording that could be used. Kirill Lokshin 03:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting

Hey, I wondered if you could take a quick break from editing your FAC article so I could finish copyediting it. There is an edit conflict since we're both trying to do it at the same time. It won't take long, promise. ScreaminEagle 20:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks a lot for letting me finish. Now, I tried to only change wording where it was less understandable or there was a conflict with verb tenses, etc. If one of my edits changed the meaning of the sentence, by all means revert it. Like I said, I tried not to fool with the facts, but please review my work.
There was one section that proved slightly confusing, but I was unsure of how to change it because I didn't want to change the intended meaning. I can't remember the heading, but it states, "In May 1916, he led his men during the Brusilov offensive, becoming a battalion commander because of heavy casualties among officers and gaining the rank of captain by age 22." Now, is his gaining the rank of captain a result of becoming a battalion commander or was it a direct result of heavy casualties among officers, or is it a separate fact altogether? I'm not sure if I'm making sense with what I'm asking, but the bit about being a captain seems tacked on to the end of another idea. If so, I would put it in its own sentence to avoid confusing readers. If not, there are better ways of phrasing it so it's very clear how and why he was promoted.
Also, I noted that the quote in the very next paragraph following that sentence seems to have been misquoted because of its awkward wording. Could you review the source and compare it to what's written in your article?
You might note that I tried to change several sections to past-tense. Changing tenses in the middle of a paragraph is not only a weakness of mine, too, but is distracting for other readers. If it happened in the past, state it in the past. Oh, and for future reference, commas and periods always go inside the quotation marks, no exceptions.
Thanks for letting me read through such a great article and letting me edit it. I'm not the greatest editor on earth so you should probably get more opinions just to be sure. --ScreaminEagle 21:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure! :) As for that quote, it's the "the we have been" part. "That we have been" perhaps?--ScreaminEagle 22:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Signpost updated for July 17th

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Volume 2, Issue 29 17 July 2006

About the Signpost

Library of Congress, Holocaust Museum negotiate with Wikimedia Issue of article subjects requesting deletion taken up
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages News and Notes: Blocking changes, single login
Wikipedia in the News Features and admins
The Report On Lengthy Litigation
Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View RSS 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. --Michael Snow 05:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Stolen article

Well, at least they got all the way through translating yours; look what happened to mine! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 00:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Well, not much to be done, unless you're willing to dig in and rewrite your own article in French. My recollection of the language isn't nearly good enough for that sort of thing ;-) Kirill Lokshin 00:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vasilevsky

I did actually read the article (I am not the type who'd vote "support" without knowing what it is I am actually supporting :)), but I decided not to make any style changes as it seemed there were enough native speakers willing to proofread the article in and out. Otherwise, the article looked well-referenced to me, answered all of my questions as a reader about who Vasilevsky was and what he did, and was reasonably interesting for a featured article (sure as hell more interesting than Final Fantasy X or Mariah Carey). If there is anything in particular you think I can help with, let me know, but please bear in mind that my knowledge of military history is not very advanced, so I'll be of little help with the factual side of this article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Grafikbot

Ooh, neat! This will make things a lot easier. Kirill Lokshin 13:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Smolensk (1943) : la traduction en français

Bonjour Grafikm,

Comme tu l'as déjà constaté, ainsi qu'en témoigne ton passage sur la page de discussion de l'article en français sur la Bataille de Smolensk (1943), ton excellent travail vient d'être traduit pour la Wikipédia francophone. Je me suis chargée de la relecture et, pour finaliser le texte, j'aurais besoin d'éclaircir un point sur la bibliographie :

J'ai constaté que la quasi-totalité des ouvrages de référence avaient été édités à Moscou (exception faite de Operations of Soviet Armed Forces during the Great Patriotic War, 1941-1945, document pour lequel aucune référence n'est indiquée) et que, par ailleurs, tu étais de langue maternelle à la fois française et russe. Par conséquent, très logiquement, je me pose la question suivante : les ouvrages cités existent-ils en version anglophone, ou as-tu traduit les titres dans un souci de clarté, les russophones ne courant malheureusement pas les rues ailleurs qu'en Russie ? Si tel est le cas, je traduirai ces titres en français, mais je voulais auparavant m'assurer auprès de toi de la justesse ou non de mon intuition.

Si tu en as le temps et l'envie, je t'invite aussi à jeter un oeil sur notre traduction, afin de traquer les éventuels petits problèmes qui pourraient subsister. Merci d'avance pour ton aide, et grand merci aussi pour cet article passionnant. Bien cordialement, --Playtime 15:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Georgy Zhukov Mediation

Re:PSW facts

Yes, the {facts} were not then during the promotion, obviously :) Some IIRC were added by myself at some point - the article had been substantially edited by Irpen, myself and several others after its promotion, especially around the time it appeared on main page. I do not think that the current facts would merit a WP:FAR, although of course anybody is free to request reviews. I don't recall any sources which I could use for references now; a good strategy to prompt some editors to react is to comment the unreferenced parts now and/or copy them to talk asking for the citations. On the bright side they don't seem to be too important to the article and concerned with rather minor details.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In related news, could you help adress some of the concerns which prevented Józef Piłsudski from reaching the FAC level?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Vasilevsky

For your tireless efforts towards turning Aleksandr Vasilevsky and the Battle of Smolensk into featured articles, I award you this featured article medal. Kirill Lokshin 22:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me to be the first to congratulate you on your newest accomplishment! :-) Kirill Lokshin 22:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats. Good work. —Michael Z. 2006-07-21 23:25 Z

Thank you!

That was kind of you, and it was my pleasure (although I didn't really do that much). Congratulations on having such a great featured article! Hooray! --ScreaminEagle 02:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. Congratulations and great work on the article. Cla68 19:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me?

Did you take a look at the talk page (You know what I am talking about)? Kurt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurt Leyman (talk • contribs)

Re: Accusing of 3RR

Either you are very new to WP and don't know what reverting is (Wikipedia:Reverting). To quote it "leave an explanation on the article talk page". I suggest reading the talk page instead of continuing reverting. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pudeo (talk • contribs)

Kurt

Yep looks like Alex covered it. Gave Kurt a month. The most shocking thing? Kurt used a talk page! --Woohookitty(meow) 00:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July newsletter

The July newsletter is ready to go; is the bot capable of handling the delivery at this point, or do we still need to do this one by hand? Kirill Lokshin 00:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Whenever is most convenient for you would be fine. (Incidentally, you get mentioned in the newsletter; feel free to remove that line if it's something you're not comfortable with.) Kirill Lokshin 00:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice! Thanks a lot for the help! (One minor quibble: can the bot's signature include a timestamp?) Kirill Lokshin 14:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, it seems to have missed Leithp and Gala.martin when doing the full delivery. No idea why, though. Kirill Lokshin 15:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Vasilevsky

Hey, congratulations on this FA. I could not reply to your request because I was on vacation and did not have internet access for a whole week. But I'm glad it got through! Great job.UberCryxic 03:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006

The July 2006 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot.

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue V - July 2006
Project news
Current proposals and discussions

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot.

WP:VPP and WP:SOCK

Since your response to my post on WP:VPP about WP:SOCK terminology is currently your only edit to that page, I thought I would leave you a note here to tell you that I responded to your comment their about bots and sock puppets. While your comment makes sense intuitively, it is not in line with the current policy, which states that any additional username of a user with multiple accounts is a sock puppet. It does not depend on use, so any bot is also a sock puppet, regardless of whether it is used abusively. However, as I noted, most people don't understand this, and the people that do, and use the terminology in the current version correctly, only confuse the people who don't understand it. --Philosophus T 20:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:83.5.250.98

How many IPs? Just curious. If this one persist in that way, I'll probably give it 12h anyway. Circeus 23:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for July 24th

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Volume 2, Issue 30 24 July 2006

About the Signpost

From the editor: Special report, writers wanted
Another country reportedly blocks Wikipedia School files suit against anonymous user(s)
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages Wikipedia featured in The New Yorker
Election officials named to handle vote for board seat Report from the German Wikipedia
News and Notes: Biographies of living persons, milestones Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins The Report On Lengthy Litigation
Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View RSS 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. --Michael Snow 04:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grafikbot- fair use images

Just a heads up- some editors are now removing images from user pages if they are only tagged as 'fair use', since fair use only justifies the use of the image in the related article(s), so you may want to remove Image:Reaver_pop.jpg on User:Grafikbot before someone else does!

Regards,

EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 13:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Election message

Will do. Barring any unexpected objections, it'll be ready by this time tomorrow. Kirill Lokshin 00:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, seems we're ready to go here. The message (which I assume can be copy-and-pasted directly into AWB; let me know if you need it on a subpage or something):
The [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history#Coordinators|Military history WikiProject coordinator]] selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/August 2006|'''sign up here''']] by August 11!
Producing:
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 11!
Appropriate section headers and bot signatures are up to your discretion ;-) Kirill Lokshin 18:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Kirill Lokshin 20:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

 Thank you so much for voting in my recent RFA. It passed on the relatively narrow vote of 38/8/8. It was also one of the least-participated-in RFA nominations in several months, so pat yourself on the back, and join the party on your left, but first, take your cookie!

NOTE: I can't code HTML to save my life. I copied this from Misza13. I guess I should write him a thank you note as well. Cookies sold separately. Batteries not included. Offer not valid with other coupons. May contain peanuts or chicken. Keep out of the reach of small children, may present a choking hazard to children under the age of 3. Do not take with alcohol. This notice has a dark background and therefore may be eaten by a grue at any time. The receiver of this message, hereafter referred to as "Pudding Head" relinquishes all rights and abilities to file a lawsuit or any other litigious activities. RyanGerbil10, Jimbo Wales, and the states of Georgia, North Dakota and Wisconsin are not liable for any lost or stolen items or damage from errant shopping carts.

Thank you so much! RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]