Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:34, 9 October 2007

User:Kirill Lokshin/Notice

I'm concerned about a situation at Mexican-American War over the last few weeks

A look at recent history suggests to my eye (and I assume good faith to my best ability) that one user using multiple socks and IPs is trying to advance a specific agenda relating to naming of this page space. As a watcher community, we've avoided 3RR territory, but I'm wondering how best to deal with this slightly complicated abuse of anonymity (IMHO). BusterD 01:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is currently under an 18 day semiprotect, but this very determined user hasn't let that stop him or her. A user involved early in this dispute bragged about using Tor, and seems to have created a range of sock accounts (the latest being "Ghost account 1"), so it's getting ridiculous. I know disputes get worse than this (3rd US Inf Reg, for ex.), but I loathe to believe this fellow thinks he's getting away with something. BusterD 14:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've done the tracking. He's now switched to using sock accounts, but I have seen at least three registered accounts (two blocked but I suspect more), and between 20-25 ips (some of which have been identified and blocked as TOR, some of which don't seem to do, and others which seem to be TOR but haven't yet been blocked as such). BusterD 15:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I decided to go here and here. Sorry to get you involved in any way at this early stage. Just needing elder statesman-type advice. BusterD 18:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

A class reviews

Hello. Since the military history project seems to be one of the few that offers an A-class review I was wondering, do you think any of the battle articles related to Black Hawk War are ready for such a review. I have been working on this topic for months, and several of the articles have been promoted to GA. My ultimate goal is to get the main article to FA and then submit them all for a featured topic. Eventually, I would like to see all of the articles featured and I figured an A-class review was probably the next logical step in the quest for collaboration, feedback and improvement. Any thoughts on the articles would be greatly appreciated. IvoShandor 05:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the location of its use a big deal? IvoShandor 04:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I can go with that. Is there any easy way to the conversion? IvoShandor 04:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That looks good to me, we might make a few little tweaks. Thanks for your help once again. IvoShandor 04:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

change

I made a change here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:WPMILHIST_Announcements James D. Forrester 19:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

Hi! Is it possible to clarify by the arbcom's decision whether Soviet and Russian sources appropriate for Misplaced Pages or not. I ask this because I several times saw statements (like this for example) by other Misplaced Pages users that those sources are inappropriate because of democracy issues in those countries. I see this as rejection of sources by political reasons. So I ask to clarify this if possible.--Dojarca 00:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Your vote @ Liancourt Rocks to ban me

Hey Kirill, the proposal & your "support" surprise me. So if you think I'm a disruptive editor (if I were to concede that whatever you perceive as disruptive are so & my fault), shouldn't my "good edits" still outweigh? For example, Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598). I'm trying to get that to featured status. Why trash a half-bad apple? Cut the bad side off & eat the good side. In other words, the worst I thought arbs could impose was to prevent me from engaging in edits in Liancourt Rocks. (Wikimachine 00:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for replying.

Your rationale for the question above is not comprehensive. I don't think my actions entail a ban from East Asia-related articles, and even my actions @ Liancourt Rocks, at best, haven't crossed the line; to translate that somehow into a complete ban is ...

For some reasons, you failed to note Opp2 (w/ very strong ev. of sock puppetry) + others. Even then, Good friend100 & I, on almost all other disputes, have taken similar stances. I'm wondering how you could have made the right calculation & analysis w/o having targeted the worst ones first? When the situation is much more complicated than one caused by a single editor, your proposal is unrealistic.

About the "Us vs. They" ideology, I think that you simply glanced over stuffs w/o making serious efforts to read the content. I could make list of all the disputes I've taken side on in the last 1 year & the reasons behind them. There is no reason to emphasize the risk that I'm pushing the" us vs. them" all by myself (or even amongst others). Simply, those disputes were ridiculous & POVish, and I just took side as any common sensed individual would have. If I were ever mentioning ppl by "CPOV" "JPOV" and "KPOV", I've put nota bene: "this is out of convenience". My edits at Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598) prove; I'm neutral. The only risk for provocation & POV lies in editors other than me.

Thanks. (Wikimachine 03:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

That's not indicative of anything. I was simply saying that they were using NPOV to manipulate consensus & "claiming nationality" was one of their way to provide illegitimate litmus test toward an illegitimate NPOV basis. I specifically said (I think in the request for arbitration, not evidence page) that I have no problem with him being Japanese or Korean-hater or anything else. Simply, claiming false nationality for your own POV ends is cheating & I have moral obligation to point that out.

So, I called someone not Korean & that entails a ban? No. You focus on these trivial things & neglect the larger picture. (Wikimachine 20:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

Oh, in case you don't know what a "litmus test" (it's a debate term), basically you offer some standard to compare it with something & see if it's positive or negative (better or worse). So, if Komdori were to claim that he was a Korean & he was arguing against other editors who claim to be Korean on something that has a clear POV issue, then ppl's perception of neutrality changes in the spectrum of what's neutral & what's not. (Wikimachine 20:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Request - Red Army

Hi Kirill, user:Miyokan moved few weeks ago the Red Army article to Soviet Army. In my opinion, that would be wrong, as the Army of the Soviet Union had the official designation "Red Army". The most common and often used designation for it, is also "Red Army", so I consider this renaming quite innapropiate. Could you please use your admin tools and revert this? P.S. I also consulted user:Buckshot06 on this - which is a truely expert in Military of the Soviet Union topics - and he shared my opinion. Best regards, --Eurocopter tigre 15:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice to hear I'm well thought of! I have another move request which looks like it will need your admin tools. Light Horse is exclusively about the Australian Light Horse, and should be at that page(which currently is a redirect back to the first one!).

But I can't move it there for some reason. Would you mind doing so? Buckshot06 17:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you also mind moving Military of the Soviet Union to Soviet Armed Forces over another redirect? Misplaced Pages seems to be the only place where the term 'Military of the SU' is used - and I created the page! Buckshot06 11:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Gallery

Does this image Image:Thistlegorm train parts minus red edit.jpg, fall under the WP:MILHIST project. The SS Thistlegorm was a transport and supply ship sunk by the Germans in the Second World War. It was carrying tanks, rifles, trains etc when it sank. I think it does, i'm not sure though, so thought i would ask you. By the way, the image is not actually of train parts, it is some sort of winch despite its name. If i remember rightly the wheels were connected to the trains! There is currently no way of moving to new image names at Commons so it will do for the moment. Thoughts? Woodym555 16:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Your shocking accusations

I am shocked and scandalized to find this proposal on the proposed decision page. I was involved with the case rather tangentially if at all and was not even listed as a party. The "input" of User:Colchicum and several others who has agitated to have me involved in the case was altogether more substantial. You listed the following edits to accuse me of "personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith":

• Even if you don't agree with my characterization of the BBC article I was talking about as "vile racist propaganda", this does not qualify as a personal attack unless either the BBC or the Economost register Misplaced Pages accounts and involve themselves in the dispute. Please quote the policy that prevents us from discussing media publications robustly and openly.

• This was a factual characterization of the way the AfD was developing, accompanied with a request for sysop involvement. If you qualify it as "personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith", you may just as well pick up every regular ANI poster and impose "editing restrictions" on him.

• What does qualify as a "personal attack" in this comment - my reference to Digwuren as a "tendentious editor" or my statement that I don't care about him? This is really enigmatic.

• This comment is entirely out of the scope of the case (as defined by yourself) and refers to the Bohdan Khmelnytsky controversy. Please consider removing.

• Since you qualify this comment as a violation of WP:AGF, you may be well served to delve into the conflict in order to see whether there has been enough room for assuming good faith after four or five months of this "denialism" talk. Furthermore, there was borderline consensus during the AfD that the terms like "denial" and "denialism" were taken up on purpose and are inherently inappropriate for the title of an article. Do you really need to single out my frank assessment of the situation, of all other comments?

• This comment was again a pretty factual description of the AfD situation which has nothing to do with alleged personal attacks. If you disagree with my conclusion that people were commenting "along pre-established ethnic lines", you should just consult the AfD page to refresh your memory.

You know that I have been primarily active on Russian Misplaced Pages these days, and your unsubstantiated accusations actually confirm my feelings that there will be no healthy editing environment in English Misplaced Pages for me in the nearest future. I have had to put up with accusation of "being a troll", "racism issues", "bad faith slander and lies", "posting hate-filled piles of lies", "vandalism and continued slander", "paranoiac commentaries" on a day-to-day basis for five months now. Now I am accused of "personal attacks" of which I am not guilty, and folks who have thrown those accusations end up by not being mentioned in the decision at all. As long as editors are treated arbitrarily rather than equitably, I don't find it resonable to continue my involvement with this particular wikipedia. --Ghirla 10:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. I thoroughly understand your lack of patience with those Russian and Polish names that keep popping up again and again for years, but I tend to disagree with your contention that draconian measures is the only solution at hand. The draft indicates that you propose to place me on the same footing as Suva who in cold blood created Template:Notpropaganda (in its original inflammatory version) and Template:POV Russia. This is quite enough to make me understand how you assess my activity in Misplaced Pages.

I also infer from those diffs that you don't share my concerns about the prevalence of ethnic cliques in the Eastern Europe-related segment of Misplaced Pages. Fine for you; but I still stand by my opinion, especially now that the same folks have been rehashing the silly "denialism" issue for a third time, this time on the Deletion Review. When I see the same guys posting the same predictable comments over and over again, it makes me pessimistic indeed. So I still subscribe to my words that it is ethnic cliques that make Misplaced Pages suck.

In short, we should bring more neutral people from non-involved countries to the minefields of Eastern European history, rather than threaten and penalize very few long-standing, knowledgable and generally reasonable contributiors still willing to deal with the mess. --Ghirla 23:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you please review the diffs?

Could you please review the diffs, before posting them to proposed decision? One of them is even not to my edit, , it is Digwuren's reply to my posting already shown in this diff (I notified of this in Workshop and Evidence talk page quite a while ago, but Irpen has refused to change this glaringly obvious mistake). And in several other cases would you kindly clarify what exactly constitutes to be incivility, bad faith or personal attack in them - if not for anything else, then at least so I could avoid such behavior in the future.

As for the proposed remedy - I am/was going to share voluntarily Alexia's punishment in any case.

-- Sander Säde 11:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

_{(Responded on my talk page as well, but shorter. Could we please talk in one place?)}

I do apologize for them - but not for those concerning Dojarca. Please see his three deletion nominations: 1, 2 and 3. In all three his reasoning is "POV, because created by Estonians"; in fact he fails to give any other reason to deletion (note that I am not commenting on the content of articles or template here). In all three cases he brings forward checkuser cases - one of which was declined by checkuser clerk and other is irrelevant. In all three cases he attempts to show that the content was created by Estonian mob, while only Digwuren was actively involved. In case of Czechoslovakia, my involvement was inserting one inline source - already present on the page - when it was asked for, Suva and Alexia have no edits at all. In case of template there is no involvement by any other Estonian editors except Digwuren. In case of "Denial of Soviet occupation" AfD, article was created by Digwuren as a total rewrite, even as noted by closing administrator - and yet Dojarca portrayed it as recreation of deleted material - and that "accounts created a mob" (direct quote). My involvement in that article was very minor and only in latter stages (I cannot see history to be sure) and I don't think Alexia and Suva were involved as well.

I do believe that Dojarca's behavior violates grossly everything that Misplaced Pages stands for.

-- Sander Säde 12:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it just obvious? I'm a mob of one! Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 13:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for moderating down your proposal- is it a reminder or a preliminary consensus before going somewhere else.

I don't think I have used Misplaced Pages as a battle field to push my own national sentiments, or else that would show in my mainspace edits. I'll instead provide you all the list of disputes I've been through in the last 1 year b/c w/o the context of the disputes my edits in talk pages might look bad. I probably had some nationalistic elements in my edits (mainly in discussion) 2 years ago up to 1 year ago, but since then I've gotten better (thx to the age). To me, it was appropriate to call them "nationalist", etc., because their suggestions were indeed so, just like you call a vandal a vandal. I won't continue, you don't have to reply to this, you can just see that list & my justifications. Thanks. (Wikimachine 12:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC))

Never mind. I see it again. Still, see User:Wikimachine/Arbitration_Evidence. (Wikimachine 21:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC))

A little note...

Please correct your proposals in regard to my gender. :) I'm a she, a female... Thanks, Alexia Death the Grey 12:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Article title for Biogrpahies

Long time no write. I have a question relating to the naming of biographical articles and I cannot seem to find it anywhere. Is it more appropriate to use the full middle name for an article if known or just the middle initial? I have also find several articles of folks who have middle names but the article title shows first and last name only. If you need examples scan List of Medal of Honor recipients and you will see several of each. I have seen cases of both and wondered if there was a standard.--Kumioko 19:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)