User talk:Kirill Lokshin

Please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) and add comments on a new topic in a new section. I will respond on your talk page unless you request otherwise. Threads older than five days are automatically archived. Questions, requests, criticism, and any other comments are always welcome!	Archives I • II • III • IV • V • VI • VII • VIII • IX • X
I am an administrator open to recall. To request this, please start a request for comment; if the consensus there is that my conduct has been unbecoming of an administrator, I will resign.

Ahoy Hoy!

If you have the time and would be so kind, I'd like to know your thoughts on this. Thanks:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference New York Update: 3 weeks to go

For those of you who signed up early, Wiki-Conference New York has been confirmed for the weekend of July 25-26 at New York University, and we have Jimmy Wales signed on as a keynote speaker.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

need water for small fire

Hello Kirill, Your response at WT:MILHIST#Are subsections in firearms articles okay? is the basic response Some guy has been getting from several others (and I also agree with you) but two members of WP:Firearms keep reverting him and telling him about an elusive consensus that neither have been willing to point out to anyone. Rather, they are telling Some guy that he will have to get a consensus at WP:Firearms before he can make changes to any of the articles in question. When he has placed a tag for subsections, they will not let it stand in the article. This has led to this AN/I report. It looks like ownership to me. If you have the time, could you please look this over? I would like to see the whole thing de-escalate but I'm also inclined to agree with Some guy about the freedom to make changes. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for helping. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox German location

Hi Kirill. I've made a proposal for the German infoboxes to use regional locators. Could you offer your thoughts and also would you be able to reprogramme the infobox to read each of the 16 states it is in and use the relative svg pin map? Each if the word Bavaria appears in the state section of the box by default it displays the File:Bavaria location map.svg from Template:Location map Germany Bavaria? I'm sure you know what I mean. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah thats a good thing because people don't mind either way. I was thinking about something like below to feature the regional map and national map side by side and get the pin to display on both. We'd need to shrink the country map size to about 160px. The reaosn why I think the regional maps are useful is because they show where the settlements are within the sub districts of them. If you see Hockenheim for instance at the moment there is quite a gap either side of the central map so fitting the two in could be done I think. We have all 16 state maps at Category:Germany location map templates and I believe they all follow the same naming convention so I'd imagine you just programme the template to read the state parameter with that {{if thing and programme it to display the relative svg map by default.

Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

OK that sounds good thanks. We might have to do a trial and error in regards to individual state maps as they may differ in size so the px may vary for some state locators to align tidely with the national map. Regards. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Actually there is something you could do in the mean time. Can you move the general information section of Template:Infobox City Spain to the bottom below population, move the Time zone : CET (GMT +1) - summer : CEST (GMT +2) part down to just above post code once the general information section is at the bottom and shrink the width of the box. It's too bloated! Perhaps impose a set width on it, otherwise you could write something and it will float the width of the page! Sometime I'd like to impose Template:location map Spain to the template and replace the old set markers but first things first. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 07:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

My involvelent

Thanks for the clarification, but please consider this: how I am involvement when the arbitration case is being cited with regards to an editor with whom I hardly interacted, in an article which I have never or hardy edited, in a content conflict in which I have not taken place? If mere fact that I was a party to those arbitrations is sufficient to make me involved, fine, but could you clarify if this is indeed the definition being used, and if this makes every admin who was a party to those cases involved as well? Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Restriction

Hi, please could you have a look at my "appeal" at WP:A/R/A. The situation I find myself in at the moment is ridiculous - I'm being warned for commenting on pages (the RFC on the date unlinking bot) which are not in any shape or form "style and editing guidelines". This leads me to conclude that when the arbs set this restriction, they were using "style and editing guidelines" as some kind of euphemism for "anything to do with date linking". In any case I've yet to hear any justification for the scope of this restriction - it seems entirely arbitrary and nothing to do with the supposed offences. For example, I was just about to make a comment at WT:Disambiguation, but on checking found that this WP page is marked as an "editing guideline", so going by the wording of the restriction I shouldn't be commenting on it, but WHY?? It makes absolutely no sense to me, yet most arbs have not even responded to my request for amendment, and those who have responded negatively have not answered my reasonable enough points made in response to them - in particular, no-one has given any reason as to why the restriction should include discussions. So please, could you have a look at this and help get this entirely inappropriate restriction changed - at least so as to exclude discussions that don't relate to dates.--Kotniski (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:Cold War

Thanks for fixing that, I couldn't quite get the coding. The important thing those is that we have the TF coordinators now. Happy Forth of July! TomStar81 (Talk) 01:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reviews

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the coordinators, for your help with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews April to June 2009, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award.  Roger Davies talk 12:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Request for clarification

As per your sugegstion, I have opened Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  13:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)