This is an archive of past discussions with Kirill Lokshin. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

On my talk page at User_talk:Russavia#Comment_from_AGK, there is a discussion between myself and your fellow Arb User:AGK, concerning an issue which came to the attention of Arbcom. As the various links and diffs show, many editors saw the recent RFC/U against User:Fae as harassment, at best, and as homophobic harassment, at worst.

AGK firstly stated that he "voted" to ban Delicious Carbuncle, then has "corrected" himself to state that he merely was in favour of the Committee reviewing the case; either way there was opposition on the Committee to either banning Delicious Carbuncle or even reviewing the harassment that Fae was being subjected to.

As an Arb, the community elected you to represent the community for the community. The Committee time and time again pushes on editors who come before it that transparency is essential in our editing; in fact, transparency is one of the key tenets of this project, however the Arbcom often does not act in the same transparent way that it (and the community) expects of the community itself.

AGK states on my talk page that one can only expect a transparent hearing if a request for arbitration is filed, and states that most Arbcom business is conducted this way. This notion is somewhat correct, but it is also very wrong. As the committee time and time makes a point of stating that community transparency is essential, the community also expects the same of the Committee -- at all times. The Committee also makes many decisions "behind closed doors", and when pushed to explain decisions cites various "get out of jail free cards" to avoid being transparent to the community-at-large. This includes decisions such as banning editors for things done offwiki which can't clearly be attributed to that editor, or unbanning editors with a history of socking, etc, etc.

In aid of this, and in the interests of transparency to the Community at large, I am asking that you answer the following questions:

1. Did you discuss the harassment of Fae on the Arbcom-l mailing list?
2. If you did discuss this on the mailing list, were you in favour or against the Committee reviewing the information?
3. If the discussion got to anything resembling a vote, did you vote in favour or against banning Delicious Carbuncle?

These are very simple questions which one is able to answer if they are truly for transparency both on the Committee and in the community in general, and I would expect that many in the community would be wanting transparent answers to these questions.

The last thing, it is of course Fae's choice if he wishes to request a case for Arbitration, but these questions are not being asked to have an end-run around the Arbitration process, but are being asked in the interests of transparency on a specific example that the Committee was aware of and refused to act upon. I would expect Fae and other editors (especially LGBT editors) would be wanting transparent answers here now, before deciding if they wish to act. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 07:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your questions:

1. Yes.
2. The Committee was "reviewing the information"—were we not, there would be nothing to discuss. Did you perhaps mean "opening a case"?
3. The discussion did not reach a state where voting would have been necessary or appropriate.

Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 10:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Kirill Lokshin. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.

For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know; I'll drop by the discussion when I have a moment. Kirill ^[talk] 03:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please join us for a Wikimedia DC Meetup & Dinner on Saturday, May 5. This will be a great opportunity to meet other Wikimedians from the DC area, discuss upcoming Wikimedia DC activities and events, and have fun over dinner and drinks. All ages are welcome! Kirill [talk] 04:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Кирилл, здравствуйте! Пишу по-русски, так как увидел приветствие на русском и информацию о том, что Вы из Петербурга. Кирилл, я хотел загрузить логотип компании для иллюстрации страницы: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Development_Bank . У меня получилось загрузить только временно - не хватает прав. Администратор русской Вики посоветовал мне обратиться к одному из Администраторов en. Не могли бы Вы, если это возможно, дать мне временно флаг для загрузки картинки? Спасибо! Lupus-bellus (talk) 07:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Я дал вам флаг "confirmed user". Скажите, пожалуйста, если у вас возникнут любые другие проблемы с добавлением изображений. Кирилл 12:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Кирилл, большое спасибо! Lupusb (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to link the other wikis' talk pages directly off our talk page, instead of just the project page, which I for one never visit? Should note also my thanks and most probably many others' for all your hard backroom work. Kind regards from New Zealand, Buckshot06 (talk) 08:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way to get direct interwiki links on a talk page, but we're currently discussing other potential ways of achieving the same effect. Hopefully we'll have something ready shortly. Kirill ^[talk] 12:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RfX-notice has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. mabdul 19:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Скажите пожалуйста, что вы думаете о введении Pending Changes?--Николай95 (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Subhas Chandra Bose; Hawkeye on corps commanders; Nick-D on American special forces Op-ed: The Land on commemorating World War I

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please join us for the second Smithsonian Institution Archives Edit-a-thon! This event will focus on Smithsonian history including the history of the Institution's museums, archives, research centers and the people behind them. This will be a great opportunity to learn about the Archives, work within them & with staff, and learn more about the world's largest museum complex. We hope you'll join us on Friday, May 25. Please sign up here! Sarah (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] Note: You received this message because you were listed here. If you no longer wish to receive messages of this nature, please remove yourself from that list.

Hi mate, tks for removing from Showcase -- I deliberately didn't do anything there when I removed the MoH FAR from the news/reviews template because I had this weird impression I'd seen you remove MoH from Showcase already -- must've confused it with something else... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just made a move of this article, but I seem to have redirected it to itself, and the page history has disappeared. Can you help me out, or direct me to someone who can? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem's been solved; it was deleted, which allowed me to access all the revision history, and thus I was able to restore it. Cheers and all best for Wikimania ! Buckshot06 (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for signing up to attend the Smithsonian Institution Archives edit-a-thon, today. We are located in Suite 3000, the 3rd floor, of Capital Gallery in Washington, D.C. Please bring a government issued ID, a laptop, and, if you wish, a camera. We will be taking a tour of the facility so you'll have a chance to see rare and cool things from the Archives! Any questions let us know, and we'll see you soon! Sarah (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Chiang Kai-shek; Nick-D on the Falklands War Interview: Article writers discuss biographies Op-ed: Nick-D examines using news articles as sources

Category:Military history by era, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles by era, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Naval battles by era, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		Smithsonian Institution Archives Barnstar
		Thank you for contributing to the Smithsonian History Edit-a-Thon at the Archives! --Digitaleffie (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] 12:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note - on your comment you mentioned that all three admins may have been guilty of violating WP:TOOLMISUSE #3 and #4; Deacon could not have violated #4 as that refers to actions already reversed by an administrator (which at that point it hadn't been). Black Kite (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask you to please read the recent discussion at User talk:Deathlaser. The editor in question, apparently legally a minor, seems to have received mulitple e-mails from some unnamed party of a threatening nature, the most recent of which apparently contained a threat of physical violence. Deathlaser does not apparently know who has been sending the messages, and is on that basis understandably cautious around several others. He has indicated that he initially thought LadyofShallott might be the person sending the messages, for instance.

I hope that Deathlaser might be more willing to trust an Arbitrator like you. I don't know that he apparently trusts anyone else. I certainly believe this matter should receive some appropriate attention, like determining the identity of the person making the threats to see what if any action can be taken, but I don't know how to convince Deathlaser that he can trust me or most anyone else.

Sorry for dumping this on you, but you're on ArbCom, and I think either it or the WMF should definitely know what is going on, particularly if they can somehow bring some sort of action against the abusive e-mailer. And I'm not sure Deathlaser is likely to trust anyone else. John Carter (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're currently following this up. Kirill ^[talk] 22:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Chaco War and the Bougainville Campaign Op-ed: Remembering conflict

Hello.. Ed told me that you're able to help with project banner coding. If you have spare time to look over requested changes to the ships banner it would be appreciated. So far all I get are pushes to switch to metabanner. Brad (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So essentially the desired end result is just to integrate the "needs infobox" block into the body of the banner? That's easy enough to change; I'll try to get to it sometime this week. Kirill ^[talk] 11:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; as long as the request is hidden under the "additional information" drop down. I don't want the banner to expand in size more than it is now. Let's test it out in the sandbox first. Thanks. Brad (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a keep alive Brad (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the delay. I've set up ((WikiProject Ships/sandbox)) to demonstrate the new functionality; please let me know if that's what you had in mind, or if there are any other changes you'd like. Kirill ^[talk] 21:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's going in the right direction with a few hiccups. I set up a test for the banner at Talk:USCGC Dorado (WPB-87306) and it's triggering the B-class checklist request even though the article is a stub. You can see the category on the bottom of the page. So if this version of the banner were to be implemented there would be thousands of stub articles asking for B-class assessment which would not be a good thing.

When I first considered combining ((Ship infobox request)) into the banner itself I envisioned the exact same size of that template showing in the banner which would have been too large. The horror of banner sizes like ((WikiProject United States)) was first and foremost in my mind. However, looking at the sandbox banner currently in place I feel that the size of the notice is small enough to appear on the banner without enlarging it too drastically. I think the drop down scenario is no longer needed.

I've also recently requested two new auto-assess features if they're feasible. The descriptions are here. Thanks for your help and excuse my long-winded explanations. More is better in this situation. Brad (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems you and a number of your colleagues will not push a Fof regarding more recent edit wars and personal attacks by another administrator (highlighted by the Community and submitted in evidence here), but will push a Fof regarding an edit-war from just under 4 years ago (which was not submitted in evidence here). How fair of you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Just noticed that it was you and your ex-arbitrator former colleagues who highlighted it 3 and a half years ago, so of course it should be highlighted again. One of your brighter moments by far. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The other case you refer to isn't mentioned because it never rose to the level of an arbitration case. The point of the type of finding in question here is not that someone has edit-warred per se, but rather that they were previously sanctioned by the Committee. Kirill ^[talk] 15:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the sanction was not submitted in evidence either. It was imposed in late 2008 as a narrow admonishment relating to edit-warring, for something that also happened about mid-2008. We are now in 2012; no evidence of warring behavior between late 2008 and today has been presented. All that has been noted is that this administrator has on this occasion made an administrative reversion without expressly discussing this matter first (and after previously making, on average, 2 edits per year on the Perth articles). No link has been made to the explanation of what he was thinking when he did make the move in the Fof. No mention is also made of the fact he had the opportunity to actually wheel war to compound this situation, but consciously did not do so. The finding also does not mention how many edits he has made altogether during that period either. The Fofs lack all that context (which you and your colleagues would want others to be mindful of in relation to arb actions). To top things off, you also favour (as a first choice remedy for him) that which you would impose on an administrator who has (i) wheel-warred (bright line), (ii) recently received admonishment from the Community for other bright-line edit-warring and personal attacks, and (iii) also move-warred before. Not "disproportionate and excessive", huh? You've sure got him now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	Wikimania Barnstar
	It was great to see you at Wikimania 2012! --evrik (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It was great seeing everyone in person! Kirill ^[talk] 22:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not having jumped in on Noetica's desysopping straw poll one way or the other doesn't necessarily mean the "community" agrees with him.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts on the block review on An/I. -- Avanu (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kirill - it was great to see you at Wikimania. Remember the Anger file I was telling you about? Here it is, and a photo of the people angrily arguing about God and atheism and the devil and everything else at the Columbia University Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speech. --David Shankbone 01:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great seeing you as well, and thanks for the link! Kirill ^[talk] 13:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another boring city? Wikipedia arbitrators' lives must be terribly dull. Proxies are my friends (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come now. Rockville might not be Las Vegas, but it's not that boring. Kirill ^[talk] 14:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors: Wikimania 2012; special projects note Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Australian 25th Battalion Interview: Article writers discuss buildings and fortifications Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports on a weekend workshop

"Masterpiece Museum" Edit-a-Thon at the Smithsonian American Art Museum

The Smithsonian American Art Museum and Wikimedia DC present the "Masterpiece Museum" Edit-a-Thon. Drawing from their vast vaults of art, the caretakers of the Smithsonian American Art Museum have meticulously drawn forth canvas jewels to import into Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia articles. The museum directors and staff are excited about this project, and would love to have experienced Wikimedians help in the effort! Kirill [talk] 18:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] When August 10, 2012, 10 AM - 4 PM Where Smithsonian American Art Museum, 7th & F St NW, Washington, DC Signup Details & signup

Re: this, I think it'd be cool to have more general contribution meetups. Not focusing on editing and definitely not focusing on a particular subset of editing, but meetups that are designed to facilitate Wikimedia project participation instead of just eating and chatting, y'know? Not that you couldn't do all three, which would probably be the ideal.

With this type directed and focused event (the Smithsonian Edit-a-Thon), my guess is that a lot of Wikipedians don't really want to commit to a six-hour block of work on a Saturday (well, probably closer to five hours with lunch, which was nice to provide). I'd like to attend, but mostly for the social interaction (people discussing Wikimedia and being interested in discussing Wikimedia). I don't really want to work on uploading gems or whatever to Commons; I have a long list of my own projects I want to work on. But then this event isn't for me, as I see it. And that kind of sucks.

This isn't to say that I have an issue with a directed event like this, but I think you could get more (and better!) participation by luring more people in and then getting a certain percentage interested in a particular niche topic (like Smithsonian collections or whatever).

Maybe we could do a standing (i.e., regularly scheduled, not physically standing) event of some kind? A meeting somewhere quiet/connectable every two weeks on a Saturday or Sunday? Make it a bit more relaxed. Not necessarily an indexed and recorded D.C. meetup, but a "hey, some people may be around this area, there are places to plug in your laptop and grab some food, and maybe you'll meet some other wiki-folks there." Busboy and Poets-style, kind of, but less pretentious and corporate. (o;

Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So more of a semi-social gathering than an event focused on performing some specific task? That should certainly be doable. Kirill ^[talk] 18:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, pretty much. We currently have two broad categories of meetups as I see it:

1. formal, indexed and documented meetups (e.g., Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 31) that include eating and socializing and generally exclude editing/participation; and
2. formal, indexed and documented meetups that include directed editing and possibly eating.

I want something like "informal, partially indexed and documented meetups (maybe a "I'll try to stop by" list) that include undirected editing/participation and socializing and possibly (or probably) eating. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good idea. Of course, this being Wikipedia, we'd need a set of rules to balance the event between the editing and the socializing/dining aspects. Perhaps "no talking to your neighbor or ordering any alcoholic beverages until you've made at least five mainspace edits...." Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee#KirillPing Nobody Ent 23:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kirill,

I've been working on setting up a new WikiProject lately and am involved in a discussion here, with an IP editor, regarding the tagging of pages with class=redirect, as well as disambig and project classes. I have been modelling the setup of the project on other successful projects, such as MILHIST and LGBT, and note that MILHIST has its own banner rather than the ((WPBannerMeta)), given its limitations. I wondered if you might advise me as to the reasons why MILHIST has chosen not to identify with those 3 non-article classes. There does not appear to be a standard Category:Redirect-Class military history articles but a barely used Category:Military history redirect pages, a Category:Military history disambiguation pages and no "project" class listings at all, that I can find. Though I have my own ideas as to why I find these assessment classes superfluous, or "clutter", I wondered if you might explain to me any other more practical reasons as to not using them, or why they are less obvious, resulting in little use, given your experience managing MILHIST's behind-the-scenes setup and organisation of such things. Would you generally advise for or against the use of any of these classes in a new project? Thanks, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 20:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The categories you mention are actually functionally equivalent to the standard ones; in other words, assessing a MILHIST article as "Redirect-Class" causes it to be placed in Category:Military history redirect pages, assessing it as "Project-Class" causes it to be placed in Category:Military history special pages, and so forth. The names are constructed differently primarily because I've always found using "X-Class articles" for pages which are fundamentally not articles to be confusing.

I've never really seen the purpose of categorizing redirects, disambiguation pages, and the like, since there's no meaningful progression along a quality scale for such pages, and thus no real benefit to collecting statistics regarding their presence and number. The MILHIST categories for these pages are mostly unused for that precise reason; while we have the capability to add pages to them, nobody finds it necessary to do so. I know that some other projects—particularly those that have special types of disambiguation pages—have a slightly different view; but, for the average project, I don't think there's anything to be gained in practical terms by tracking non-article pages of this type. Kirill ^[talk] 22:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have much the same thought, and would also like to avoid purely statistical categories in this new project, as I believe they can encourage people to invent drives that serve very little purpose, like "let's cleanup all Disambig pages" (poor example), taking time away from the main "improve and maintain" goals of a project. In some case I think they can also reflect badly, unintentionally, on a project and become a hinderance.. the "incomplete B-class checklists" in MILHIST for example, seems really to grate on people, because it is a high total, seen as a massive crippling backlog. Personally, I don't see the great effect reducing this category has.. anyone aiming to improve an article from C to B is going to identify the lacking areas for development themselves, just as they would improving one from B to A standards, and don't really need other editors to have done this for them in every single case, so it's more a "nice to know" than essential list, is my feeling. I don't think the WPBannerMeta produces this sort of category though, fortunately, to worry about. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 23:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill, The totals for OMT haven't been updated since 12 July; do you have any idea why that might be as I thought that the same bot updated all of the MilHist task force totals.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be being updated, albeit infrequently; see the history. Were you expecting updates to some other page? Kirill ^[talk] 22:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at the log at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Operation Majestic Titan (Phase I) articles by quality log and didn't see anything newer than 12 July, although the numbers match the one that you linked to. So I guess it's OK, although I'm puzzled why the log didn't update as well. But that's a minor issue.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if this helps, as it has affected my setup of stats for a new project also: Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index#WP 1.0 bot temporarily down 2012-8-7. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 02:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've started brainstorming this idea a bit more. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the legacy of World War II Op-ed: Bomzibar on German military history

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Military History's various awards, competitions, and other ways of motivating contributors. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation; I'll respond to the questions in the next few days. Kirill ^[talk] 16:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Something is wrong with all the MilHist task-force pages - the "Participants" header, and first few lines beneath, on every task-force, is are over-sized fonts.. I can't figure what's causing it. Somehow, it's the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Navigation box, as the font-sizes correct themselves if I remove it. I gather you're more familiar with their markup, mind taking a look? Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 19:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now fixed; there was an unclosed HTML tag in the election banner that was interacting with something else lower on the page. Kirill ^[talk] 21:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's what it was. Thanks for sorting it. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 22:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I added you to the access list, so your message should go out now. Regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I don't think that's the problem; I've been on the access list since April. The bot simply doesn't seem to be picking up on the change to the status page. Kirill ^[talk] 17:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Next time I'm going to use ctrl+F and not assume. Apparently you had an extra space... gotta love bots ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Backstage at the Smithsonian Libraries is part of Wikipedia Loves Libraries 2012, the second annual continent-wide campaign to bring Wikipedia and libraries together with on-site events. Running this fall through October and November, libraries (and archives) will open their doors to help build a lasting relationship with their local Wikipedian community.

Organized by Wikimedia DC, this event will take place on October 12, 2012, and will include new editor training, a "backstage pass" tour of the National Museum of Natural History, and an edit-a-thon. Everyone is welcome to attend!

Kirill ^[talk] 18:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't bold the section-header. DMacks (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kirill, I wanted to run something by you. Recently, I have been working on a proposal (with mock-up) for citing historical imagery in articles with regular footnotes, rather than having to click through to the image description page. The idea came about during meetings with several Library of Congress staff recently, which I could talk more about—but I thought I would just show you first. The explanation of the rationale is at User:Dominic/Image citation and the mock-up is at User:Dominic/Image citation/Sample. The idea of changing the manual of style or WP:CITE and editing thousands of articles to add these is pretty daunting, but my eventual goal right now is just to make sure that this is deemed an acceptable practice that people won't revert for being non-standard. I think this would be a great way for Wikimedia DC to build more of a partnership with the LOC. Before bringing it the broader community, I'm curious to hear any thoughts you have on that implementation or the idea in general. Thanks! Dominic·t 21:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kirill, thanks for the notice about the October meetup. I'm actually going to be in town on Sept 27, and I see you guys have a meetup at Starbucks (tho only the intern and I are signed up so far!) Would be nice to see you there if it's convenient. - Dank (push to talk) 02:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to make it out there, although weekday events tend to be a bit difficult for me, given my unpredictable work schedule. Kirill ^[talk] 02:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, hope it works. - Dank (push to talk) 02:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...I don't see any message about meetup at Starbucks, though I see a local Wiki Loves Libraries meetup at National Museum of Natural History, though I had to go to the main DC Meetup page to find that specific page. Kirill, next time you send out the announcement, be sure to include a link to the specific page about the meetup event. I put myself down in the Maybe section. Thanks all! --TheBlueWizard (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Started this. Need help expanding. Can you help looking in google books and making references using http://reftag.appspot.com/?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great work with this article Kirill (and it's always good to see a 2006 FA that's up to modern standards :) ). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 05:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (Which reminds me: I really ought to get back to writing FAs for the other Italian Wars topics at some point.) Kirill ^[talk] 05:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	bulwark against the stream of time
	Thank you for quality articles about historic battles such as Battle of Bicocca and those to come, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (19 October 2008)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words! Kirill ^[talk] 13:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: AustralianRupert on artillery in South Australia, and Nick-D on Venice's empire Op-ed: Nick-D on the "Kokoda: Beyond the Legend" conference

Hi Kirill Lokshin, I'm contacting you because I can see that you've been involved with the WikiProject Council, and I didn't want to make a post there if the answer was simple and I was just missing it. I'm curious if you know whether there is any ranking of the WikiProjects by monthly pageviews or by membership numbers. I am kind of curious which are the biggest WikiProjects and which are the most active. Do you know the answer off the top of your head? And if not, would the WikiProject Council talk page be the best place to ask this question? Thanks in advance, -Thibbs (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there's currently any ranking like that. It shouldn't be difficult to generate a ranking by page views automatically, since that information is available in a standard form for every project; generating a ranking by membership numbers may be slightly more challenging, since different projects track memberships differently (and some don't track them at all). Hope that helps! Kirill ^[talk] 13:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah thanks. Do you think this would be of interest to anyone else and if so would the WikiProject Council be an appropriate place to suggest keeping track of these figures? -Thibbs (talk) 13:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a friendly reminder, don't forget to weigh in on the interview questions for the Signpost article on MilHist's awards and competitions. Thanks! –Mabeenot (talk) 05:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kirill Lokshin. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/RISC OS#Discussion.
Message added -- Trevj (talk) 07:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

Out of curiosity, does the Wikipedia site track users who log in using some sort of system a bot could follow? Given the long term outlook for dropping membership and the discussion about our current membership list being woefully out of date I was wondering if it would be possible to use automated scripts or perhaps a bot to track Wikipedia wide project members and update their lists of active members based on whatever method the servers use to track registered users when they log onto there accounts. If such a script or bot could be created (assuming one doesn't already exist) then it would radically simplify the ability of projects to track active members based on the time of there last login to the site, which in turn could be used to determine who among a projects list of active members can and/or should be moved to the non-active/retired list. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I think logins might be reflected in the raw server logs, those are only available to WMF IT staff; the information that can be accessed by external users (e.g. through the Checkuser tool) is generated only when someone makes an edit or otherwise actively interacts with the site. Kirill ^[talk] 01:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kirill Lokshin. You have new messages at Template_talk:Infobox_military_test_site.
Message added 00:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Secretlondon (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tip of the iceberg...here...--MONGO 18:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, granted, Malleus is neither very subtle nor very well-mannered when dealing with people he regards poorly; I don't think that comes as a surprise to anyone. Having said that, I'm not convinced that the issue would remain unmanageable if RFA (and Malleus' various views thereon) were to be removed as a factor. Kirill ^[talk] 19:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rfa is his worst area...a motion to suspend his activities inclusively on anything regarding Rfa would have been the best option as of right now...but I fear that would be a mere stepping stone to further penalties which appear to be inevitable.--MONGO 23:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

I'm guessing my comments will be lost in the chaos, but anyway, just letting you know I mentioned you in a question for arbcom. - jc37 18:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noted; thanks for the note! Kirill ^[talk] 19:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, !vote is lame. So fix it -- Courcelles green lighted copyediting the remedy. express his own !vote on a specific RFA -> express his own support/oppose on a specific RFA Nobody Ent 12:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the wording of the motion at this point would require the concurrence of the other arbitrators supporting it; while I expect that they would probably not object to the edit you're suggesting, I don't really want to delay the process further just for the sake of indulging my inner copy-editor. Kirill ^[talk] 13:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I noticed your comment on MF arb clarification. I have to say I have been less and less likely to use "!vote" lately, especially when so many of the things here that we claim aren't votes clearly are indeed votes. They might not be straight headcount votes, but we are kidding ourselves to call them anything but a vote. I'm glad I'm not the only one to feel that way. Gigs (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; milestone for the Fortifications task force; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/October 2012/Hawkeye7 on mission command Op-ed: The ed17 on how The Bugle could be improved

Hello Kirill, can you take a look at Template talk:WikiProject Military history#Something is wrong with this template? It seems that something is wrong with ((WikiProject Military history)) and it is causing the pages that include it to be difficult to edit. See the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Very slow page loading for example. It's probably related to something in ((WikiProject Military history/Class)). Kaldari (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on the template talk page. Kirill ^[talk] 02:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kirill. Would you be able to find out why the Bugle is no longer centered? I assume some HTML was deprecated in Mediawiki, but I don't know how to fix it, and I don't think Ian or Nick do either. :-) Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I suspect the same change will probably need to be made to the other Bugle subpages that use nested tables. Kirill ^[talk] 03:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kirill, much appreciated. The rest of them should be fixed now. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel_66, AustralianRupert, and Nick-D look at ships, soldiers, and railways Op-ed: Nick-D on navigating the FA and A-Class review processes

Dispute Resolution – Volunteer Survey Invite Hello Kirill Lokshin. To follow up on the first survey in April, I am conducting a second survey to learn more about dispute resolution volunteers - their motivations for resolving disputes, the experiences they've had, and their ideas for the future. I would appreciate your thoughts. I hope that with the results of this survey, we will learn how to increase the amount of active, engaged volunteers, and further improve dispute resolution processes. The survey takes around five to ten minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have either listed yourself as a volunteer at a dispute resolution forum, or are a member of a dispute resolution committee. For more information, please see the page that describes my fellowship work which can be found here. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking so long to get this done, I've been a bit busy.

Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Showcase/FA (haven't taken a look at the other pages yet), is there a standard on which articles get ((subst:SMS)) or italics? And is it something that a bot could detect, like having a certain category, or page text?

Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 10:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; it's not really an urgent request.

As far as italics are concerned, they're typically applied to articles about ships, but I don't think there's an easy way to identify them by bot without parsing a lot of low-level categories. I would suggest taking out the italics entirely and just having those links appear normally, since it's purely a cosmetic issue. Kirill ^[talk] 11:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I got the -list pages working, see [2] and [3]. I'll try and finish the other ones in a few days. Legoktm (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks perfect; thanks for taking care of this! Kirill ^[talk] 02:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 10 is Ada Lovelace's birthday! Not only was she the world's first computer programmer, but also the world's first female open source developer! Come celebrate with Wikimedia District of Columbia at Busboys & Poets for an informal get together!

The Washington, DC event will be held on Monday, December 10, 2012 at Busboys & Poets on 5th St NW & K St NW near Mt Vernon Square. The area is easily accessible by the Red Line Chinatown stop and the Yellow Line and Green Line Mt Vernon Square stop, as well as by WMATA buses.

Kirill ^[talk] 14:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please join Wikimedia DC and four other local media nonprofits—the National Press Club's Young Members Committee, 100Reporters, IRE and the Fund for Investigative Journalism—in winding down another year with a night of well-mannered frivolity.

The festivities will take place on Friday evening from 6:30 PM to 9:00 PM in the Zenger Room on the 13th Floor of the National Press Club, located on 529 14th Street NW, near Metro Center. There will be meat and vegetarian appetizers as well as a cash bar with specially reduced drink prices all night long. In addition, we will be exhibiting the finalists of the Wiki Loves Monuments photo contest at the event.

Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 04:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Party went well. Missed you there! Warm wishes. -- Econterms (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Simon Harley on British battleships and Nick-D on the French Resistance Interview: Five editors discuss some less-represented areas of military history Op-ed: Ian Rose looks back on 2012

I do believe that this card explains
a lot of the hitherto misunderstood
and even ignored origins of a variety of Christmas stories.
I am considering writing an article about the theology involved
but am having a difficult time with sources.
Oh well,
have a good one, it does appear
that we have made it through the worst of 2012,
which is a great start to 2013
Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy Holidays!
	Hope you and your family are enjoying the holiday season, Kirill! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TheGeneralUser (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding ((subst:Xmas2)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello Kirill Lokshin! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some Christmas traditions are very difficult to explain. Kind of like Wikipedia policies.

Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2013. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement. For those of a more traditional inclination, I offer this rendition of my favourite carol.
Best, Risker (talk) 15:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the spouse parameter to the infobox for military persons. If you are around, could you please move the parameter above the "relations" parameter? It seems odd to list the wife after the children if both fields were used. Thank you. --My76Strat (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done. Kirill ^[talk] 02:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Mongol naval power Op-ed: Crisco 1492 on war films

Hi there. I see that you're the primary editor of the ((WPMILHIST)) project banner, so I'm guessing you're the technical expert who put together the A-class functionality for that template. I want to duplicate the A-class review system you WP:MILHIST guys use to such great effect at WikiProject Video games, and I was wondering if you could offer me some guidance and/or assistance in assembling all the code and subpages necessary to make it work. This is something I'd like to have up and running by April, when I plan on sending out an article on the process in our quarterly newsletter. Thanks for any help you can provide. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are two basic components to the A-Class review system that you'll need to copy:

• The assessment code located in ((WPMILHIST))
• The assessment page structure located at WP:MHACR

I can help you with either (or both) if you'd like; just let me know how you'd like the resulting system to look, and where it should reside within WP:VG. Kirill ^[talk] 15:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great! I looked at that template, thinking I might be able to figure out where the key piece to add the A-class parameter is, but it's extremely dense. Our project template is here. We have an assessment page, WikiProject Video games/Assessment, with a subpage for requests at WikiProject Video games/Assessment/Requests. We can copy your structure and have WikiProject Video games/Assessment/A-Class review. I'm a software developer, so I am interested in learning the code to make the template work if it's not too difficult to explain. You can either implement it and tell me what you did, or tell me how and I'll give it a shot, whichever you prefer. Thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your opinion on [4]; what exactly is the procedure? We already tried Talk page and ANI and both failed. What exactly must be done before bringing the case to ArbCom? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that Hammersoft has acted improperly, the correct course of action is to open a user RFC regarding his conduct. Neither of the discussions you refer to focus on Hammersoft's conduct specifically (as opposed to the general community consensus regarding IPH); if you want us to accept a case regarding a specific user, you need to demonstrate that you have followed the preliminary user (rather than content) dispute resolution process. Kirill ^[talk] 22:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birthday Kirill Lokshin! I know this is a special time for you, so here is my gift: some randomly generated binary code!

One again happy birthday! Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 02:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] 14:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please join Wikimedia DC for Happy Hour at the Capitol City Brewery at Metro Center on Thursday, February 28 at 6 p.m. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 34. Hope to see you there! Harej (talk) 02:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at US Army leadership since World War II

Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:

1. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), primarily for an array of warship GAs.
2. Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
3. Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:

• Sven Manguard (submissions), whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
• Sasata (submissions), whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
• Muboshgu (submissions) and Wizardman (submissions), who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
• Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic.

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kirill Lokshin, since you are interested in meetups in DC, I'd like to invite you to attend the Cato Institute's "Wikipedia and Legislative Data" events on March 14. (There's also an all day workshop on March 15; let me know if you are interested, we may be able to add more people.)

There will be an introduction to Wikipedia and open edit-a-thon in the afternoon, and a Sunshine Week Reception in the evening. I hope you can make it!

• Please sign up here
• Announcement on Cato's blog
• Background from Cato sponsor Jim Harper's perspective
• Background from Wikipedian Pete Forsyth's perspective

Hope to see you there! -Pete (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Guapo's at Tenleytown-AU on Saturday, March 9 at 5 PM All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 35. Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 14:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you check user me, and it is very common for curious Wikipedians to do so even though it is wrong, you will see that I used to be a frequent editor several years ago. Some of my edits were from this computer.

Wikipedia is a very hostile environment. After being attacked, the natural reaction is to leave, vandalize, or read but stop editing. I have done the latter. I hope that you will consider the following ideas.

1. It should be deemed a personal attack and a reason to ban an editor if they, lacking the ability to discuss things in a civil and convincing manner, then start to accuse another person of being a sock. This type of behavior is highly effective, showing how juvenile Wikipedia is.

Wikipedia would be far more effective if editors were not allowed to continue to edit if they cannot calmly and rationally discuss issues in the talk pages. This is a far better way to improve an article than to falsely accuse someone of being a sock.

2. Everyone should disclose conflicts of interests. There are plenty. Wikipedia is quick to block someone if their name is a corporate name but allows POV pushers all the time. The most common POV pusher is in biographies of politicians or articles about conflicts, such as Israel. Some will always push for inclusion of favorable material and exclusion of unfavorable material. They will use excuses such as "undue weight" or "trivia" or will call the other person a sock.

It should be automatically assumed that one is a POV pusher if all their edits are one sided or if they always support a partisan viewpoint in the talk pages. Wikipedia should be neutral.

One way to do it would be for people to disclose possible conflicts on their user page and update them as they edit articles. For example, one could disclose that they are American. Later, if they write about politics, they could disclose that they are a registered party member or a government employee. If they don't want to disclose this, they can stick with botany and animal articles. In academia, people do make disclosures when they give lectures.

Finally, I disclose that I have started an account because I have not edited for so long and do not have my password or even my exact name. It's been years since I edited. When I did edit, I improved articles to even get special designations (DYK, GA, FA, etc) VDAWP (talk) 04:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Talk:René Redzepi it is not difficult to predict another Balkan War on this article. But rather vaguely I remember that the ArbCom already has some active decisions to stop such an event. Unfortunately, I can not find them. Can you point me the way to those measures? This is absolutely not a request for arbitration or for your interference, just an attempt to avoid potential trouble. The Banner talk 20:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably thinking of "discretionary sanctions", which apply to all pages related to the Balkans. Kirill ^[talk] 19:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was the one I was looking for. Hope the warning works. The Banner talk 00:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should not be a Gestapo type state [5]. It should not operate on the word of secret informers and in-camera trials. Who was the informer on User:George Ponderevo or was s/he invented by the Arbcom) and please supply diffs for the supposed serious crimes. Then please tell the project how each Arb voted - or are the Arbs ashamed of their actions?  Giano  13:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a fine line between "informer" and "whistleblower"; whether an editor who reports something to the Arbitration Committee falls into one category or the other will probably depend on whether you agree with the substance of the report. Generally speaking, though, I'm uncomfortable with the idea that we should prohibit private complaints and instead require everyone to make their complaints publicly and face the risk of retaliation from the target of the complaint or their friends. (And while you may not consider that risk to be significant in this case, consider a similar scenario where the target is, for example, a corrupt administrator.)

As far as the arbitrators are concerned, I believe each arbitrator's vote was announced together with the statement itself (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Statement regarding Malleus Fatuorum and George Ponderevo). Or were you looking for something different? Kirill ^[talk] 14:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw the unanimous support - I don't believe it. That the Arbcom claims it listened to a secret informer for what was not a serious complaint (sexual abuse/outuig/intimidation ect is shameful and has disgraced you all. I wonder if there really is an informant and one of you was not just too trigger happy with the checkuser. let's face it, it wouldn't be the first time - would it?  Giano  14:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"let's face it, it wouldn't be the first time - would it?" Uh oh, the secret words to bring in co-founder Jimmy to no doubt give you another threat and praise the drama mongering that goes on here. You gon make him mad again. But yes, this does reek of deja vu. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 14:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Well, keep in mind that this was first reported to us almost two months ago; the unanimous support you're seeing—and the anodyne nature of the final statement, for that matter—are due to the fact that this was the only thing we could ultimately agree on. Obviously, there were alternative statements and potential actions that were discussed, but none of them received enough support to be adopted.

And, yes, I can assure you that there was indeed an outside complaint made to us; whether you choose to believe that is obviously up to you. Kirill ^[talk] 14:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I cannot believe that was the true vote - that so many Arbs would have been so gullible, totally naive and acted like sheep going over a precipice is not possible. If that vote is true and the anonymous email made no allegations of RL illegal/intimidating activity, then performance of a secret checkuser was a grave misuse of trust by the whole Arbcom. The sender should have been advised to request an onsite checkuser - that is the correct procedure. As it was - you claim: As a group, having performed a secret checkuser, you then executed a secret kangaroo court. What is even worse, you then claied unanimity to protect yourselves. That none of you foresaw the resultant furore shows a basic lack of understanding of what is expected from arbitrators.  Giano  08:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kirill, Are you the right person to ask for help distributing a talk page spam invite to DC Wikimedians? I created one here: Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/Women in the Arts2013. Thanks in advance for your help! Sarasays (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've set up a bot task to send out the invites; they should be going out shortly. Kirill ^[talk] 23:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! --Sarasays (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In honor of Women's History Month, the Smithsonian and the National Museum of Women in the Arts are teaming up to organize a Women in the Arts Meetup & Edit-a-thon on Friday, March 29, 2013 from 10:00am - 5:00pm. The event is focused on encouraging women editors while improving Wikipedia entries about women artists and art world figures. This event is free of charge, but participation is limited to 20 volunteers, so RSVP today! Sarasays (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at refugees during the Battle of France Interview: Editors discuss writing articles about the former Yugoslavia Op-ed: Prioryman on German V-weapon sites and the historian's responsibility

Please take a look at this. Thank you very much. --Lecen (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said you agreed with SilkTork and Risker about their suggestions to seek mediation once again. Today I did exactly what you suggested. This[6] and this[7] is what happened. You should have noticed by now that I was the only party who went through all stages of dispute resolution while they played with the time. The Arbitrators need to step in and do something about it. --Lecen (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I consider my explanation at the mediation talk page valid. For example, take a look at the Blood tables article that Lecen lists in the Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Argentine history on Wikipedia. When did Lecen edit the "Blood tables" article (or its talk page)? What exactly is wrong with this article that Lecen wishes to improve? Has Lecen's improvement to this article been unjustly denied for there to be a mediation?

And it's not just that article. Lecen also lists Sociedad Popular Restauradora, a stub article. The same questions apply.

Moreover, as I mentioned in my "decline" explanation, plenty of third opinions were heard (with regards to Juan Manuel de Rosas) that favored my position. Lecen refuses to acknowledge these opinions.

Lecen comes to ArbComm with a clear intent at WP:GAMING, skipping the WP:BRD process, blatantly avoiding any consensus, and seeking to avoid collaboration in Wikipedia with those who have a distinct point of view from his own (see [8], [9], and [10]).

Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kirill. I talked to Hahc21 and he told me that I should come over here. I added my statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Evidence. I don't know if it's larger than allowed. Once you read it, you'll understand that the issue is quite complex, mainly because it has stretched for four years and over several different articles. I'd like to ask you to keep it is as it is, since it will give a fair representation of what is the problem without the possibility of presenting diffs and information out of context. Plus, I won't need to add anything (unless someone asks me a question). Thank you, --Lecen (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Almost half of my statement is spent explaining why revisionist sources represent fringe theories. Only then I could move to Cambalachero and MarshalN20. Everyone knows that holocaust deniers represent fringe theories. If that was the cause I wouldn't have the need to write almost half of my text explaining it. --Lecen (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would be open to grant a reasonable allowance for longer evidence submissions, given the complexity of the dispute, but a statement that's almost four times the permitted length is simply not acceptable. Please edit your statement to comply with the stated evidence limit of 1000 words

Having said that, I do understand the need to discuss the reliability of the sources in detail. I will therefore allow each of the parties to submit an additional statement, of up to 2000 words, to deal with this issue, subject to the following conditions:

(a) The additional statement may only discuss the historiography of the topic, the sources used (or not used) in articles about it on Wikipedia, and whether those sources represent majority, minority, or fringe views of the topic (cf. WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE).

(b) The additional statement must not discuss, reference, or mention any editor or their actions.

(c) The additional statement must be submitted in its own, distinct section on the evidence page.

Once the historiographical discussion is separated, I don't anticipate that you will find it difficult to reduce the length of your substantive evidence to comply with the stated limits. Kirill ^[talk] 21:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you grant me a greater limit for the 1000-word statement? I'll have to write about two different users, who did not act together in many moments. On the other hand, they will have to reply solely to what has been said about each. --Lecen (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to consider any further extensions when you have made no attempt to condense your current statement. Please be aware that what we're looking for is evidence (that is, specific assertions supported by diffs) rather than general observations (which properly belongs on the workshop page). Kirill ^[talk] 00:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You told me that we should have an statement with 1,000 words and a part to discuss the historiography with 2,000 words. I was able to diminish my overall statement from almost 4,000 words to 2,803 words. I believe that if I remove anything else it will make the life of the Arbitrators much harder since it will be far more difficult to understand what has been going on. I don't want to merely place diffs with short explanations since I want to avoid the impression that this is a personal dispute between me and the other two editors. I have another request for you. I exchanged e-mail with Professor Michael Goebel[11][12][13] He wrote "Argentina's Partisan Past: Nationalism and the Politics of History" (published in 2011). It's the newest book in English about the Argentine Nationalism/Revisionism. I believe his opinion could be useful in here. Is there anyway I can send the e-mail to you? --Lecen (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also got an e-mail from David Rock, author of Authoritarian Argentina: The Nationalist Movement, Its History and Its Impact. --Lecen (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill, I tried my best to trim my statement. It has now 1,210 (out of a maximum of 1,000) words for evidences and 1,618 (out of a maximum of 2,000) for sources. Cambalachero and MarshalN20 have both a total of twice the limit of words I'm allowed. Which means that even if I had divided my statement focusing on each editor, they would still have a disproportional limit in relation to mine (a total of 6,000 words against 3,000). I can't remove anything else without hampering my case. I'd like to ask you to allow me to keep it as it is. --Lecen (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have already been granted a significant extension; I see no reason to grant another at this point. Please trim your statement to comply with the evidence limit. Kirill ^[talk] 00:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A significant extension that has been also granted to Cambalachero and MarshalN20, which means that I have 500 words to each while they have 2,000 words combined against me. Do you really consider it fair? --Lecen (talk) 01:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lecen, you were the one who gave me the 1000 word limit ([14]), not Kirill. In fact, Kirill has been kind enough to provide you the 2,000 extra words you requested. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The strength of one's evidence is not determined by the number of words one uses to present it. A limit of 1000 words should be more than sufficient to address the conduct of two editors. Kirill ^[talk] 02:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, April 13 at 5:30 PM All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 36. Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 19:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You reversed my edit on the page: http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ceresole. You were right to do so. But it has inspired me to make an English svg-version of the file: Battle_of_Ceresole_start_en.svg and I replaced your png-version of the file with my svg-version of the file. Just to let you know. Regards. Wereldburger758 (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The SVG version looks good; thanks for putting it together. However, I noticed two typos in the new version:

• "Conzaga" should be "Gonzaga"
• "Baglion" should be "Baglioni"

Could you please update the SVG files to fix those when you get a chance? Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] 13:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Wereldburger758 (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know about the terrain upon which the battle took place like: lakes, rivers, streams, hills, mountains etc.? Wereldburger758 (talk) 06:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only terrain of note seems to have been two ridges; the French army was positioned along one ridge, and the Spanish army along the other. Kirill ^[talk] 15:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said that the Arbitrators kept an eye on users' behavior during the Arbitration and elsewhere. I suggest you take a look at this. It will help you understand what is going on perhaps far better than the evidence page itself. --Lecen (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for two exciting events this weekend:

On the evening of Friday, April 19, we're hosting our first-ever WikiSalon at our K Street office. The WikiSalon will be a twice-monthly informal meetup and collaborative editing event to help build the community of Wikimedia enthusiasts here in DC; please join us for its inaugural session. Light refreshments will be provided.

On Saturday, April 20, we've partnered with the George Washington University to host the All Things GW Edit-a-Thon at the Teamsters Labor History Research Center. Please join us for behind-the-scenes tours of the University Archives and help edit articles about GWU history.

We look forward to seeing you at one or both of these events! Kirill ^[talk] 20:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we may have accidentally both sent out notices for the editathon around the same time. Hopefully people will forgive us. :-) On that same topic, though, would you be able to get a geonotice up for it? I'm concerned by how few local regular Wikipedians are signing up compared to the recent Smithsonian and HSW editathons, and this one is on a Saturday, too. Dominic·t 23:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to set up a geonotice, actually; perhaps MZMcBride or Aude would know more. Kirill ^[talk] 23:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check this user IP? I have strong feeling he is a nother person and I made a sock puppet case against him. His user is User:RashersTierney. Norseman2000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill, since the Arbitration case was accepted I've had growing doubts. I asked the ArbCom to accept the case on the basis of whether or not is acceptable that editors write articles using Fascist authors and pushing the political views of these same authors. The other party's statements were used to bring diffs against me, not to respond about their acts. You are well aware that I always complained that I considered unfair that I had only a total of 3,000 words to discuss the actions of two editors while they had a total of 6,000 words to talk about me and only me. Even with greater advantage that did not prevent Cambalachero from using sources (which can be read on Google books) and misrepresenting what they actually said. I warned about this on the Evidence page talk page and nothing was done about it. MarshalN20 used quotations out of context and I also warned about it.

Not only that, but two editors (Dentren and Andrés Djordjalian) appeared out of nowhere to write statements about the case. I never saw them before and they were never in any of the previous discussions regarding the subject. What I do know is that they are MarshalN20's friends. Now Wee Curry Monster also appeared (he is also a friend of Cambalachero and MarshalN20). He did not participate in any of the previous discussions since I opened a thread on Juan Manuel de Rosas in December 2012. He says that he is not part of any group related to Cambalachero and MarshalN20, but they are well known friends. In fact, I warned Cambalachero back in January that Wee Curry Monter should not appear out of nowhere. Take Astynax as an example: he and I are long partners and we wrote several articles together. He has made comments here and there about this case, either on Rosas' talk page or even here on the Arbitration. But he expressed himself solely regarding the use of Fascist sources, and not over MarshalN20 and Cambalachero's behavior toward other editors.

How can I defend myself? My statement was about their edits on articles. They changed the focus of the case toward me over how I deal with other users. Cambalachero has misrepresented sources in his very statement and MarshalN20 took diffs out of context and gave them a whole different meaning. I have no other explanation to their three friends' appearance if not for obvious canvassing. The last three editors who wrote statements did not respect the time limit (12 April). Thus it mean that the time limit is not being enforced? How can the ArbCom be aware of editors who misrepresent sources in an Arbitration case? And what can I do about their accusations against me? Will I be given a chance to defend myself later? --Lecen (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration proceedings examine the behavior of all parties equally; the fact that you requested arbitration based on a particular allegation regarding Cambalachero and MarshalN20 in no way limits the scope of the actual case. More to the point, your assertion that the other parties are pushing Fascist political views is merely that—an assertion. You seem to be under the impression that the Arbitration Committee will simply accept whatever assertions you make as facts; that is not the case, and it's quite possible that the case will conclude with the other parties' assertions about the situation accepted as facts instead. Kirill ^[talk] 23:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not assuming. I can only be sure of what I think, not of what others think, including Arbitrators. I am truly confused because I'm unaware of how the Arbitration works. Does it means that I won't have an opportunity to respond to what they said about me? --Lecen (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I would like to point that Lecen has provided no proof for those accusations. I have no special relation or influence over the other users, who act on their own. For instance, Wee Curry Monster. I do not need to prove that I do not influence what does he do or stops doing: Lecen has already done that for me. See the "Justin" user in Lecen's evidence page, that Lecen cited discussing with me? It's the same Wee Curry Monster, who renamed his account in 2010. And, as I pointed in my own evidence page, this is not the first time Lecen makes this type of gratuitous accusations. Cambalachero (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kirill,

I just read the messages above. I would just like to add that I have not canvassed anyone for their opinion.

Neither Andrés Djordjalian nor Wee Curry Monster are friends of mine. I barely have ever interacted with Andrés, so there is not much I can say about him other than that he seems like a good person. I know Wee Curry Monster from the Falkland Islands article, but our "relationship" has been one filled with severe disagreements about content. Nonetheless, we have always kept our disagreements solely on content; outside that, our interactions as editors has been one of mutual respect.

However, Dentren is indeed a Wikifriend of mine. I have known him throughout nearly all of the years I have edited at Wikipedia. My first few years at Wikipedia had a rough start (I was cocky, rude, and uncaring), but Dentren helped me reform by leading through example. I did not ask him to provide any comments about me, but his comment (and concern) continues to show me his quality as a human being.

Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel 66 and Hawkeye7 look at aspects of the Pacific War Op-ed: ErrantX considers the rabbit hole of research

hi. I have left a note for Arbcomm, at this page. just a suggestion. just letting you know. feel free to comment if you wish. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

please check relations of am not new with child star.

listion the ip of child star is 182.188.190.59 taken from its investigation page and my ip is 119.154.4.48.there is absolute no relation between range.the only relation which is visible is relation between location internet service provider and location.and it is because there is only one ISP in Pakistan that is PTCL.i request another clerks to please check my relation again.Dil e Muslim talk 06:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

please i request you to see "am not new" and child star relation once again.please its importantDil e Muslim talk 14:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kirill. A number of us are asking abrcom members a few questions regarding a prior case here [15]. The questions are basically 1) did you vote on this ban appeal 2) if so how 3) or are you against releasing this sort of details to the community. Many thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, I didn't express an opinion on this at the time that it was discussed. Kirill ^[talk] 22:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, May 11 at 5:30 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 23:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Water main break near Vapiano

NBC4 says that M St. between 16th and Conn. will be closed due to a water main break that won't be fixed until 11pm tonite. Should we call Vapiano ahead of time to see if they're open?--FeanorStar7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.223.225 (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like they're open at the moment. Hopefully nothing will change for the worse between now and 5:30, but we'll keep everyone posted. Kirill ^[talk] 16:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Приветствую! Please express your opinion on the meta:Grants:WM UA/Free Vocal Music concert, as the wiki-concert is planned on May, 15, and we need to know the GAC decision at least a day in advance. Большое спасибо! --Perohanych (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next DC WikiSalon, which will be held on the evening of May 24 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill ^[talk] 18:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Dumelow on the French Foreign Legion and Nick-D on New Zealand military history Op-ed: Nick-D on military history tourism

Join us at the NLM next week, either in person or online, to learn about NLM resources, hear some great speakers, and do some editing!

On Tuesday, 28 May there will be a community Wikipedia meeting at the United States National Library of Medicine in Bethesda, Maryland - with a second on Thursday, 30 May for those who can't make it on Tuesday. You can participate either in-person, or via an online webinar. If you attend in person, USB sticks (but not external drives) are ok to use.

Please go to the event page to get more information, including a detailed program schedule.

If you are interested in participating, please register by sending an email to pmhmeet@gmail.com. Please indicate if you are coming in person or if you will be joining us via the webinar. After registering, you will receive additional information about how to get to our campus (if coming in-person) and details about how to join the webinar. Klortho (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please notice the reasons for a username change here. A simple name change was done here --Enkyo2 15:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next DC WikiSalon, which will be held on the evening of Thursday, June 6 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill ^[talk] 11:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, I am moving several time zones away; please take me off the talk-page distro. list for DC-area wiki-happenings. Thanks! --EEMIV (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for the last-minute notice, but on Saturday, June 8, from 3 to 6 PM, Wikimedia DC and the Cato Institute are hosting a Legislative Data Meetup. We will discuss the work done so far by WikiProject U.S. Federal Government Legislative Data to put data from Congress onto Wikipedia, as well as what more needs to be done. If you have ideas you'd like to contribute, or if you're just curious and feel like meeting up with other Wikipedians, you are welcome to come! Be sure to RSVP here if you're interested.

I hope to see you there!

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for D.C.-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Harej (talk) 03:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day, Kirill Lokshin, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Vatsan34 (talk) 08:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, June 15 at 5:30 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 19:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As the original creator of the template, and contributor to past talkpage discussions, you might be able to provide useful input (thoughts, or ideally references), in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Dagger symbol, confused with cross symbol, alternate symbols, and default settings for template:KIA. Much thanks. –Quiddity (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi
As You can see there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MDNA_Tour#Controversies_-_important_addition There was an addition to section of Madonna pop singer important controversy. Of course generally controversies section is well balanced. However nobody for long time added this important addition, despite being well sourced.

First of all Indian:BIO said negative to addition because, he don't treated sources well, and probably is "for Madonna" in this case. Then after other talks and voices in article, well sourced nobody(who can add info to semi-protected article) answered for long time.

Why this important? Because this is not only first real controversy(not usual Madonna where she defends herself as a public right advocate), which is related to misuse of public money. This case is famous across whole Poland(about 40 million people), and was prosecuted by highest control bodies, which after neutral said that government misused money. Lot of sources can apply, and minister accused of this said, that "yes, I send the money to this artist performance". Just for NPOV of Wikipedia it is important, not if somebody likes or dislikes Madonna and inserts only that controversies that are related with lesbian/gay rights or her "fight" for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.74.109.107 (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you an email, please check your inbox. Regards, --Vitilsky (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Доброго времени суток. Извините, что пишу не на английском, он у меня ужасен. Не могли бы Вы присмотреть за статьей Matzoon. Я не сторонник войн в статьях, но в этой статье именно это и просиходит. Дело в том, что в статье есть источники прямо говорящие об армянском происхождении напитка, а это не нравится моим грузинским коллегам. Последние, забывая про этичное поведение, нарушая ряд правил википедии, начинают править меняя "Armenian" на "Gergian". Причем меняется слово не только в статье, но и в цитате из источника, приведенной мною в разделе "ссылки". Я, на странице обсуждения страны, несколько раз пытался вразумить коллег, но меня упорно не хотят слушать :(. Дошло до того, что один из участников создал отдельную статью об одном и том же напитке (см. Matsoni (yogurt)). Мне кажется, что спор без вмешательства администратора не разрешить. --Lori-m (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	Great American Wiknic DC at Meridian Hill Park
	You are invited to the Great American Wiknic DC at the James Buchanan Memorial at Meridian Hill Park. We would love to see you there, so sign up and bring something fun for the potluck! :)

Boilerplate message generously borrowed from Wikimedia NYC. To unsubscribe from future DC area event notifications, remove your name from this list.

Harej (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kirill:

I've copyedited the principle and I believe this now removes your concern.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this edit and Tim made it,  Roger Davies ^talk 06:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kirill, how do I add padding to a table so that the text doesn't run into it? The problematic beastie is at South_American_dreadnought_race#Argentine–Chilean_arms_race. Thanks for anything you can do! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way is to add a margin setting to the CSS for the table itself. I've added a 2em margin to the table in question; please let me know if that's what you were looking for. Kirill ^[talk] 10:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Margin? Augh, I thought it would be padding. Guess that explains why I couldn't figure it out. The margin looks great—thank you! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There are, at present, no particular clear guidelines for religious material here, or, for that matter, guidelines for how to deal with ideas in general, particularly those ideas which might be accepted as true by individuals of a given religious, political, or scientific stance. There have been attempts in the past to draft such guidelines, but they have quickly been derailed. I am dropping this note on the talk pages of a number of editors who I believe have some interest in these topics, or have shown some ability and interest in helping to develop broad topic areas, such as yourself, and asking them to review the material at User:John Carter/Guidelines discussion and perhaps take part in an effort to decide what should be covered in such guidelines, should they be determined useful, and what phrasing should be used. I also raise a few questions about broader possible changes in some things here, which you might have some more clear interest in. I would be honored to have your input. John Carter (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Works on the RNZAF, World War I in the Baltic, and British battleship construction Op-ed: Anchors Aweigh for the Majestic Titans

This is getting posted on every arb's talk page and I will courtesy notify Doc J. I am appalled at how low the standards of wiki admin behavior have sunk. We've seen admins lose their bit for nothing more than one wheel war and yet here we have multiple instances of involved protections, edit wars, hounding new users, involved blocks, etc, and absolutely nothing gets done about it. Why? So Doc J can "adjust"? What about all his victims? What do they get?--diddly squat, just like in the real world. I actually truly hope Doc J can change, but that is not what wiki history teaches us. Wiki history teaches us he will lay low until the heat dies down then steadily go back to his old ways and he'll be back at RFAR within 6-30 months from now. Just like the arb case from my day when a drafting arb came within a hair of posting sanctions on Willbeback but didn't and what happened? Will kept going on in the same old fashion and two years and countless victims later, Will loses his bit and gets banned. And Doc J gets to use a secret mentor? He'd only not disclose that person if he felt the community would not accept the mentor, such as the mentor wasn't neutral or some such reason. By not taking this case and not issuing any guidelines or admonishments, especially with several extremely weak comments by the arbs (ie, how can some of you see nothing wrong in his behavior) all AC did here was send a clear signal to admins that there are no more admin standards of behavior and admins can do whatever they want and get away with it scott free. This juxtaposed with those who lost their bit for one wheel war also shows there is no consistency at all in AC's rulings on admins. At a minimum AC should have issued a statement on unacceptable behavior rather than turning a blind eye to the RFAR. This is an unacceptable precedent for which the community and AC will pay for many times over in the future. The UN can do a better job of fixing things than wiki and AC can, and that's really sad. This is a classic case of how those committing harmful acts rationalize their behavior and others rationalize excuses on their behalf. See you at "RFAR/Jmh649 2".PumpkinSky talk 21:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, July 13 at 6:00 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 00:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:SAAM facade.jpg American Art Museum

Luce and Lunder Edit-a-thon at the Smithsonian American Art Museum You're invited to the Luce and Lunder Edit-a-thon, part of a series of edit-a-thons organized by the Smithsonian American Art Museum to add and expand articles about American art and artists on Wikipedia. This event will include a catered lunch and special tours of the Luce Foundation Center for American Art and the Lunder Conservation Center at the Smithsonian American Art Museum. 9:15 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. on Friday, July 19, 2013 Smithsonian American Art Museum Meet at G Street Lobby (9th St. & G St. NW, Washington, D.C.) Capacity is limited, so please sign up today! If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from our distribution list. Message delivered by Dominic·t 00:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Luce Foundation Center

Hi Kirill, In the upcoming edition of The Bugle Ian and I would like to run an interview with editors who have an interest in military history topics and are also active in Wikimedia chapters about their experiences with the chapter(s). If you're interested in participating, I'd appreciate it if you could respond to some or all of the questions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/July 2013/Interview by next Monday 22 July. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: Thanks for setting this up! I'll provide my responses this weekend. Kirill ^[talk] 17:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Nick-D (talk) 02:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those responses Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]