User talk:DonaldDuck/Archive

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

thanks for reminding me about the unfinished job of spitting the cpsu member category. - Altenmann >t 05:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you did not accuse me of anything in Russavia request, I should not respond. But I have to mention you as a part of my response to Russavia. Sorry. Any unsupported accusations will be avoided of course.Biophys (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Putinism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Putinism. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. TFD (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Maashatra11 nominated Mikhail Khilkov for DYK (Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_August_11).

I found that the original Gudok ref does not precisely back up the DYK hook, and added another, this time an English book, that addresses this concern - although, again, not completely. I'd suggest that you take a look into this book (Railwaymen and revolution: Russia, 1905, available at googlebooks) - there's a lot of info for expanding the article.

Cheers, East of Borschov 20:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I did not write this article, just split it from Khilkoff. DonaldDuck (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Donald Duck! I just wanted to add a little remark, for the next time that you split pages, you have to include that in the edit summary. See Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure : To conform with Wikipedia's licensing requirements, which require that content contributors receive attribution, the new page should be created with an edit summary noting "split content from article name". (Do not omit this step or omit the page name.) A note should also be made in the edit summary of the source article, "split content to article name", so that users can follow the content trail and to protect against the article subsequently being deleted and the history of the new page eradicated. It may also be helpful to place the {{Copied}} template on the talk page of both articles to make attribution clear
  In this case, it made a lot of confusion because I nominated it for DYK when it was not eligible as old material. You can also make a dummy edit when you forgot to write an edit summary. Thank you for your consideration, and keep up the good work! :) Maashatra11 (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, DonaldDuck. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 18:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please stop. Wikipedia is not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of censoring an article, such as you did to Operation Pike, will be regarded as vandalism. If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Sander Säde 07:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The article Aleksandr Gradovsky has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind (not living person). Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

If you have any sources on this [1] please help out! Volunteer Marek  05:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Please stop. Wikipedia is not censored. Dozens of changes of two articles you've made today without whatsoever reasoning, including vast deletions have the effect of POV article censoring, which approaches to what is regarded as vandalism. If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Kindly ask you to explain in comprehensible English the reasons for each edit you make over here. References to WP:5P and its derivatives are more than appreciated. Hope for your understanding of this warning. Cherurbino (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Your article was basically an attack page, with multiple unsourced statements, misrepresentation of sources, and full of Wikipedia:Original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. I removed some paragraphs without sources, or not supported by given references. If you want add something to the article, please give references and use talk page of the article. Do not revert blindly.--DonaldDuck (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You did not support any of your edits and deletions with the relevant comments. Please use the talk page to specify exactly: what, in your own opinion, "is not supported by references" I've provided. Requests for sources are also appreciated in a form of templates "citation nedded". If you experience difficulties in understanding English sources, you may pre-process scans with the OCR software and try to automatically translate the ASCII output with Google. You were the first to delete and edit texts without any explanation, so please be so kind to explain each of the diffs. Until that time such interference, and such kind of behaviour cannot be treated other than destructive.

Your mentioning some attack page as a source has no grounds. The article is built upon mainstream research works of American historians, their European counterparts, and other encyclopedical sources.

Your charges that articles are "full of Wikipedia:Original research" are baseless. Until you prove them I shall consider this your statement to be a personal attack.

Also consider this is a second warning, since you've reverted your unmotivated edits again recently. Cherurbino (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you read article talk page (Talk:Ivan Dumbadze)? I described my edits there.--DonaldDuck (talk) 11:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I also noted that you wrote all that on 02:53, 21 February 2011, i.e. next day after you started your unexplained edits and deletions on 18:12, February 20, 2011. Anyway, I'll answer each of your statements within a reasonable time. However I still can not deal with all these comments out of context of the whole tone of your initial claims presented above (02:26, 21 February 2011).

I must again draw your (and everybody's) attention to the signs of WP:NPA in your phrase above ("Your article was ... full of Wikipedia:Original research"). Cherurbino (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Cherurbino (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, DonaldDuck! I appreciate the steps you've made towards consensus about the disputable article. First of all, I mean your long list of complaints etc. on the Talk:Ivan Dumbadze. That's what is appreciated in Wikipedia.

I've just started with this list. It shall take a few days, so my only appeal to you is not to hurry. Surely, all your notes shall be revised in proper time. Thank you in advance for your patience.

P.S. I shall also post an extract of this message in ANI. Cherurbino (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, DonaldDuck.

Just noticed that in breach of your late promise at the AnI board

Now I will not make any big changes to the article, without discussing it first at the talk page.

— DonaldDuck, diff 05:43, 22 February 2011

you resumed editing the article Ivan Dumbadze without waiting for my response to your cues. Meanwhile one of your statements published at the Talk:Ivan Dumbadze

I'm not going to discuss my interpretations of sources, concepts of honor, legality etc. This would be WP:Original research. Just remove edeverything in the article text that is your original work and not supported by sources. Or I will remove it.

— DonaldDuck, diff 20:03, 22 February 2011

clearly sounds like an ultimatum, which violates the norms of dispute in Wikipedia. You should know, that WP:Original research is not applicable to the discussions at the talk pages, so your statement "I'm not going to discuss" can not be treated differently, as a general waiver of dispute procedures.

I also note that neither the Wikipedia community at AnI, nor me were informed by you about this your unilateral renunciation.

I strongly advise you to withhold from further edits. Besides WP:GOODFAITH I may guess some other motives may exist on your behalf, incliding ideology. Stating that allegedly

"Black hundreds" is derogative term. Such terms should be avoided per WP:NPOV

— DonaldDuck, diff 20:03, 22 February 2011

and giving your own personal political estimates of the sources to the forefront:

was extremely hostile to Dumbadze, because of his party affiliation

— DonaldDuck, diff 05:44, 23 February 2011

you "forget" that the a critical view upon Dumbadze's activities has been already documented in 1913 in such a reliable encyclopedic source, as «Brockhaus», the Russian counterpart to the 1911 Britannica (I place in quotes, because I've already proved that you are aware of this source). You "forget", that these are not "enemies of Black-Hundreds" in general, or of Dumbadze (as one of its known supporters) — but modern American scientists, who use the term "black-hundreds" to denote this extravagant anti-semitic political movement.

Most of your edits impose your biased WP:NPOV; they ignore encyclopedical and scientific sources in favour of biased memoir of Dumbadze's fan, of black-hundredist press, and the secondary materials based on the above. I'm going to bring all this issues to the broader community discussion to decide upon your capability to fill Wikipedia with an unbiased material. This article must be returned to its normal, unbiased state. Cherurbino (talk) 13:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Cherurbino. You were not replying to my comments at the talk page for 2 days (Feb. 23-24-25) and now you accuse me of not discussing the changes? --DonaldDuck (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

DonaldDuck. Be honest to yourself and don't mislead the community:

• I've put the last dot on the talk page on 07:01, February 23, 2011
• You resumed editing without having answered me on 19:37, February 23, 2011

What "2 days" are you speaking about here? Whom do you want to mislead? What you actually posted on 20:03, February 23, 2011 sounded as an ultimatum, not the counter-argument to dispute. Cherurbino (talk) 09:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Since you have worked on the article, you might be interested in this ITN nomination: Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Georgia_recognizes_the_Circassian_Genocide. What do you think? Is it notable? I really don't know yet. Nanobear (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about notability, but IMO this nomination is political advocacy and not in spirit of Wikipedia. Wiki should not be tool of promotion for someone's political agenda.--DonaldDuck (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, The article looks much better now after your editing though it is is very short of citations. I noticed that User talk:Roltz where I left a note is a page that keeps getting all the content removed by the user. This means we have to go into History to see previous interactions with that user which is inconvenient. I am not sure whether anything can be done about the blanking.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, his knowledge of English language is limited. User:Roltz fails to notice that results of google transtaltion are always very confusing and hard to understand and don't reply at his talk page. --DonaldDuck (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes that looks reasonable enough; now I have a Commons file File:Glafira Ivanovna Rzhevskaya (nee Alymova).jpg where two persons seem to be confused. I have no idea how to clarify this, if that is what is needed.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

According to filename this is portrait of Glafira Ivanovna Rzhevskaya (nee Alymova), while according to the file description it is Maria Pavlovna Leontieva (there is identical image under different filename File:Leontieva MP.jpg). Source link for the file is dead. Tineye reverse image search gives zero results. I will ask uploader of this image.--DonaldDuck (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the translations here [2] - I had quite a hard time finding the precise names of these buildings in Russian. If you know of any other of Lalewicz's works in Russia please add them. I'm very busy presently but I'm hoping to finish expanding that article soon.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

		Russian Barnstar of National Merit
		For your extensive work on Russia-related articles.--INeverCry 22:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Given your interwiki edit here, and some notes here on your talk page, I'm guessing you have some knowledge of Russian that might help. I'm looking to put this picture on Commons (and have asked about it there) but I haven't a clue if it is compatible with Commons licensing (or en.wiki). Thanks in advance for any help you can offer.  Frank  |  talk  18:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it is not compatible. It was downloaded to ruwiki as non-free fair use image. --DonaldDuck (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm...would it be compatible for here, rather than Commons? (And thanks!)  Frank  |  talk  01:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you can use it here under fair use. Just feel in the necessary templates as it was done in the Russian wiki. --Glebchik (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The article Alla Geifman has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Pascal (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The article Alla Geifman has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pascal (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm asking why you have put the new article I've started Daryal radar on your arbitration list. It makes it sound like it/I am being taken to arbitration. Thanks Secretlondon (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hi. Back in 2009 I used this subpage for drafting my arbitration statement. Later I replaced its contents with new Russia-related articles feed generated by this bot User:AlexNewArtBot/RussiaSearchResult. I renamed this subpage to avoid confusion. --DonaldDuck (talk) 03:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Secretlondon (talk) 05:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to add {{cite jstor}} references to articles; please create the appropriate {{cite jstor}} template. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Viktor Nikitin (pilot), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page JAT (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)