User talk:Danloud

Welcome Danloud!

Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 48,298,982 registered editors!

Hello Danloud. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions!

I'm Rasnaboy, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

Some pages of helpful information to get you started:

Introduction to Wikipedia

The five pillars of Wikipedia

Editing tutorial

How to edit a page

Simplified Manual of Style

The basics of Wikicode

How to develop an article

How to create an article

Help pages

What Wikipedia is not

Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:

Do be bold

Do assume good faith

Do be civil

Do keep cool!

Do maintain a neutral point of view

Don't spam

Don't infringe copyright

Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest

Don't commit vandalism

Don't get blocked

If you need further help, you can:

Ask a question

or you can:

Get help at the Teahouse

or even:

Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.

There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:

Fight vandalism

Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome

Help contribute to articles

Perform maintenance tasks

Become a member of a project that interests you

Help design new templates

Subscribe and contribute to The Signpost

To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.

Please remember to:

Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp.
Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.

The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!

Sincerely, Rasnaboy (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC) (Leave me a message)[reply]

January 2020

Hello, I'm Meters. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, European Americans ‎, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Meters (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

University of Business and Social Sciences moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, University of Business and Social Sciences, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. b uidhe 17:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Large geographical areas

Hi Danloud, I hope you are well. I saw you made an edit to 2018 FIFA World Cup, in which you were reverted. I'm not sure the reason why this was done was particularly explainatory, so as a newish user, I'd like to clarify. Generally, we don't link in articles to major geographical areas, or very common terms. So, Europe would only be linked in articles where it's suitable to link to for the reader to understand the topic. In this way, we might link to smaller areas, say Shrewsbury or Volga Federal District, but not a country such as Russia, or even well known places such as London or New York. WP:OVERLINK is the particular policy in place for this. Of course, if writing about a subject in terms of geography, a lot of these rules are changed as the context means the links are more suitable.

I hope some of the above is of some use to you, and keep up the good work. :). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Doug Weller talk 05:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Europe

Your addition of map and infobox has been challenged. Please respond at Talk:Eastern Europe#Moved from my user talk page. --T*U (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting small help

I was looking for some small help. I created an article en:Kithaab(French fr:Kithaab/Spanish es:Kithaab/de:Kithaab) -a play about women rights issues- which has been copy edited and is ready for translation in various languages.

Russian is one of top 9 most spoken global languages. Out of first 9 languages the article is already got translated in 8 of them, but Russian language Wikipedia is remaining to get article Kithaab translated in. Translating in Russian will also help translating in other global languages.

Looking for your possible help in translating the article en:Kithaab to your Russian language Wikipedia. If you are unable to spare time yourself then may be you like to refer the same to some other translator.

Thanks and Warm Regards

Bookku (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Para resizing

Hi @Danloud: recently I noticed that you rearranged the lead of Bangladesh article. Since you have fair amount of experience in writing the lead can rewrite the lead of West Bengal particularly the 2 & 3 para. You must be aware that West Bengal is the other part of Bengal. Bangladesh form the east part and west part is called West Bengal which is an Indian state. Thanks--Amrita62 (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Danloud: I noticed your recent edit in West Bengal. Thanks for crisping the lead section. Could you have a look at Chennai and Kolkata; I guess these two articles need some serious fixation in the lead section. Also kindly go through the entire article if it needs some fixation.Thanks--Amrita62 (talk) 07:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter knubel moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Peter knubel, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Celestina007 (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matterhorn and Peter Knubel

Hello Ivan. First off, I am delighted to see you working on Draft:Peter knubel. He is definitively worthy of an article. If you would like any help, please let me know. I'd be happy to copy edit the English (we say 'routes' not 'races' or 'tours'), and I could check sources in my collection of English alpine climbing guidebooks for first ascents, or add wikilinks. But I do not want to 'muscle in' on your draft. It is unfortunate that the English attitude to alpine guides in 19th century means that they rarely get much of a mention in the published literature, though I am told the Alpine Club (UK) are currently digitising the early editions of the Alpine Club Journal, though this has been going on for some years now, and they're only back to the 1930s. (I have made a small list of alpine people at WP:ALPS who I think would merit a page about them. See here).

I'm sorry to have reverted your edit to Matterhorn. I think a poor wikilink in the lead was rather misleading, as it is definitely not the 6th highest 4000mer summit in the Alps, though it seems to be the sixth most prominent, according to List of mountains of the Alps above 3000 m. So I changed it to link to List of Alpine four-thousanders instead. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:University of Business and Social Sciences concern

Hi there, I'm MDanielsBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:University of Business and Social Sciences, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. MDanielsBot (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Idell (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:University of Business and Social Sciences concern

Hi there, I'm MDanielsBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:University of Business and Social Sciences, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. MDanielsBot (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Russian culture into Russians. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:University of Business and Social Sciences

Hello, Danloud. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "University of Business and Social Sciences".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Central Business District

Your attention is called to the addition of this display to the article on the Central Business District, Los Angeles (1880s-1890s). Do you have any feelings, for or against? Discussion should take place on that article's Talk page. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your edit here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russia&type=revision&diff=981105336&oldid=981048046

You argue that this is "a lead of an article about a country, not about how its president is". However, Vladimir Putin has been the dominant element of Russia's government and politics for close to twenty years now, more than two-thirds of Post-Soviet Russia's history. Most other articles for countries with similar longtime governments, especially authoritarian ones that are still in power or recently ended, such as Zimbabwe, Equatorial Guinea, Belarus, Tajikistan, Eritrea and even Turkey tend to mention that the country has had or still has such a leader, and that they have highly problematic human rights records. I cannot understand how details on Putin's longtime authoritarian regime are inappropriate. DeathTrain (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russia&type=revision&diff=983310543&oldid=983161408

You have now undone the edit again. Please state why you believe that information on Vladimir Putin is not necessary in the lead section. --DeathTrain (talk) 01:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you act like it's such an unknown fact how our government or Putin is, i believe everybody already knows that. Again it's absolutely unneeded and not important to put information about a country's president on its lead, and by no means is our government as authoritarian as Belarus, Eritrea, or Equatorial Guinea. Secondly, check MOS:LEAD and learn how a lead should be. Thirdly, the lead did not ever have this part since the creation of the article, until a few months ago when it got added. Fourthly, you keep mentioning me on my talk page, which is not going to bring this situation to any conclusion since we both have different opinions on this matter. It's going to be better if you get consensus from the talk page about if this part should be in the lead, before it gets approved to get added back to the lead, it won't be added back. Danloud 12:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, why do you believe it is unnecessary to mention a current longtime leader/government in an article? Can we agree that it is a very important if not notable fact, especially considering how you say that you believe "everybody already knows [how Putin or the Russian government is]"? Secondly, what part of MOS:LEAD makes it unnecessary? It can be interpreted several ways, especially as MOS:LEAD clearly states "[A lead section] should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". How does that exclude Putin? Under your interpretation of MOS:LEAD, is the mentioning of longtime authoritarian leaders in the lead sections of countries like Lukashenko in Belarus, Erdogan in Turkey, or Mugabe in Zimbabwe also inappropriate? Thirdly, the Russia article was created in 2001 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russia&oldid=339926150), and mentions in the first paragraph things like "much of [Russia's] territory has harsh climatic conditions and is almost uninhabited. Russia is well-known for its cold winters, but hot summers are equally common there", which are barely if at all mentioned now. Of course the article eventually updated and expanded. Fourthly, there already was a talk page discussion several months ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russia/Archive_12#Changes_to_lead_section DeathTrain (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have not replied in several days now, I took your advice:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russia#Putin_in_lead_section DeathTrain (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Baltschug Kempinski, Moscow moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Hotel Baltschug Kempinski, Moscow, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. noq (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh

Please don't make such major changes unilaterally like you did at this article, some of the text are only cited in the lead so the references are important. You are also changing text of the lead and introducing some factual errors. Don't do that, discuss first. --Zayeem ^(talk) 15:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Russia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Germanic. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! ─ The Aafī on Mobile (^talk) 11:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Kaliningrad

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kaliningrad you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Buidhe -- Buidhe (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ostankino Tower

Hi Danloud,

sorry about my revert, but the previous photo was better for many reasons. ~~The scale of reference~~ The lack of a good reference to show the scale is only one of them. Regards. 85.193.228.103 (talk) 14:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS. "The scale of reference" is illogical, though very common according to Google ;-) 85.193.228.103 (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Kaliningrad

The article Kaliningrad you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Kaliningrad for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Buidhe -- Buidhe (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Danloud 12:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Trump edit

What's wrong with my edit? 77.137.126.233 (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. It seems i had reverted you by mistake. There is nothing wrong with your edit. Danloud 12:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! AngryHarpy‍^talk 11:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your message was removed from the talk page

Hey, check your message on User:Vyaiskaya talk page. That editor removed it (check revision history of his talk page). I reverted it back, but anyway letting your know.--Renat (talk) 02:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RenatUK: I reported him to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. User has vandalized multiple articles, not only Russia, ignored two warnings, and broke the WP:3RR rule. Danloud 11:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. A.Savin (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greece

Hi. I don't want to enter into an argument, but there really is no reason for you to revert my edit. The "politically considered part of Western Europe" part which you disapprove, dates from the 1950s already, due to Cold War, NATO etc. I can add more sources. I know you might think this is ridiculous, but Greece isn't the only "in-between" case e.g. Germany is variously called Western, Central or Northern. My edit precisely described the geography of Greece. Look at the Italy article, it's rather similar. Ανδρέας Κρυστάλλης (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I replied in Talk:Greece. Danloud 17:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sochi

Hi. I saw you were putting Sochi into the list of the busiest European airports. I also always thought Sochi was in Europe. But some time ago I changed my opinion. The border between Europe and Asia is defined by the Great Caucasus watershed, as you know. But if you look carefully on the map, you will realize that Sochi is located on the other side of the watershed, meaning it is in fact in Asia. Kostja1975 (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kostja1975 Without zooming x100, its impossible to see that. Seems like I learned something new. Well, either way, I believe whole southern Russia is considered to be in Europe. The first map shown in Europe shows Sochi to be in Europe. So, its unclear and mostly whole southern Russia is seen as European.
See this map: the first map of the article of Europe. Danloud 18:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi! Please see for exaмple the geographical map here: Главный Кавказский Хребет Sochi is clearly on the otherside of the Great Caucasian watershed without zooming. Kostja1975 (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Kostja1975 Indeed. But why does the first of Europe include Sochi then? I mean, that is the map that most of the people see when they search Europe. The map of Western Asia also does not include Sochi. Danloud 13:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please address this question to the creator of that map. I cannot comment on it. Kostja1975 (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Population Decline

OK I need an in depth explanation here for Russia's population as of 2021, how did they lose more than 500,000 in one year if the death rate declined in recent years, did the pandemic have something to do with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCPdude629 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SCPdude629 The total population decline has set a 15-year record; half a million less than 2019. It totaled 146.24 million as of January 1, 2021, down from 146.75 million the previous year. While overall deaths in January-November 2020 neared 1.9 million, the highest count since 2010. While Rosstat did not give an explanation—its due to the pandemic, indeed. Such a drastic change could never happen naturally. Danloud 18:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danloud To add to this, Russia remains struggling for years and there seems to be no way to reverse it. I noticed a strange pattern here, When Medvedev was in power, the population recovered, when Putin's in, it's starts declining again naturally. Is it a coincidence or some type of policy issue? Besides how would Russia reverse this nasty effect and will this ever go away?

Your draft article, Draft:Peter Knubel

Hello, Danloud. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Peter Knubel".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russia

Hello. There is one mistake about the foreign relations subsection in Russia article. It is said to Russia: "maintaining diplomatic relations with 242 countries, with 144 embassies". That is one mistake. In source it is not 242 countries, it is 144 embassies plus consulates etc(what can be in a same country just in different cities than capital etc) so total number of posts(embassies, consulates etc) not countries. On Russian wiki is said: "дипломатические отношения со 190 государствами — членами ООН, двумя частично признанными и тремя наблюдателями при ООН; имеет диппредставительства в 144 странах." So even with unrecognized countries number cant go more than 195. Thank you, and sorry for interrupting you, I saw you at Russia article edit history so I shared what I noticed. 178.221.123.64 (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

242 countries? Wow, that's a huge mistake. It seems I did not notice that. Thank you for pointing it out; otherwise I probably would have not noticed it. I have corrected the issue. Again, thank you for the reminder. And, rather I should say sorry for the mistake, not you, who pointed it out. The talk page is for communicating, and discussing. If I do any mistakes, then one can sure point it out and ping me on my talk page without any hesitation. Danloud 10:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russia 2

My apologies - I was targeting this one and somehow managed to revert the whole thing. That was clumsy of me. Kuru (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No issues! Minor things like this can happen anytime. Danloud 20:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback granted

Hi Danloud. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback should never be used to edit war.
If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! — Newslinger talk 20:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I will use the rights given to me to defend vandalism only. Danloud 21:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Democratic Party of Russia

There is currently a discussion on Talk:Liberal Democratic Party of Russia#"Fascism" about whether the party should be characterised as "fascist". I would appreciate your opinion on this. Mellk (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Danloud! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 08:57, Wednesday, March 17, 2021 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

A barnstar for you!

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For your work on Russia-related articles, especially the article of Russia itself! Well done, you deserve it, and keep on going. Clipasie (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Danloud 19:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

improvement and translation request for Novgrad

Good morning from Calabria, I am writing to heal you and know how you are I am quite well for now, I am also writing to ask you if you would like to dedicate 3 minutes of your precious time to improve an article, the one I have reported to you. Of course, if I can do something for you, to return the courtesy, don't hesitate to ask. Sure to hear from you again I wish you a happy day.--Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino (talk) 09:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino: Ciao! Thank you for the well wishes. I am quite well, and I hope you are too. I checked the article you sent to me, and I would be very happy to improve it. I will try to expand the article soon, or within this weekend. Currently, I am reading the Bulgarian and the Romanian articles for it. Have a great day! Danloud 10:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from ~~Feluda~~ Science and technology in Russia into Russians. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa: In fact, the material I "copied" was edited and sourced by myself solely, first on Russia, and then I copy-edited it onto Russians. It has nothing to do with Feluda, which has nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing to do with Russians. Go check the edit history of Russia, you will see. I think you misunderstood, because I do not need to attribute anybody here. Danloud 13:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Sorry, that was a copypaste error. I actually found the matching content in Science and technology in Russia.— Diannaa (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: The situation with Science and technology in Russia is more or less the same. If you check the edit-history on the latter article, you can notice how I expanded it. Now the material I copy-edited on both Russians and Science and technology in Russia is in fact, as I said before, edited and sourced by myself. Here is when I added the material we are talking about for the first time on Russia, just scroll a bit down, to 28 and 1 June 2021: [1] Danloud 13:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Sorry for sending you the notice.— Diannaa (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: No issues. Minor inconveniences can happen anytime. Danloud 14:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Russia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Lang.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Horope per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Horope. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Mz7 (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Danloud (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Mz7: To be completely honest, I did indeed create those alternative accounts, few of them simultaneously as this one, I believe. However, I rarely used them, very rarely in fact. Which led to them staying un-blocked until a long amount of time, until this point, a few years. I mainly used them sometimes to defend my argument on some points, mainly on talk pages or rarely an article - which ultimately led to this block. I am going to be honest, I knew sock-puppetry could lead you to get blocked permanently, and should not be done, however, I did use my alternative accounts to sometimes "pose" as a different user, to as I said, defend my argument. Even on my alternative accounts, vandalism was non-existent.

There is not a single edit on this account that could be classified as disruption or vandalism, and over the last few years, I have made over 6,000 edits alone with this account. Nor, any one of my alternative accounts have disruptive edits, if we are talking about that matter. I mainly edited Wikipedia to improve articles, it is evident on my edit history. Slowly, it became a hobby of mine to edit articles, and I could not stop. The usage of my alternative accounts on the English Wikipedia were minimal. I tried to avoid engaging into arguments and edit-wars throughout my time as an editor, and stayed neutral. My main goal was the improve of articles, absolutely nothing else. Is it possible for me to at least gain this account back? I accept the fact that I made a mistake, that too knowingly. But if this indefinite block stays, I would be extremely disappointed, because a long-time hobby of mine would come to an end.

Decline reason:

The "posing" itself is disruptive. This community is based on trust. You abused it, grossly. Thank you for your honesty, though calling it "a mistake" is disingenuous. Typing "teh" when you mean "the" is a mistake. Deliberately using alternate accounts to fabricate consensus is not a mistake, it's choosing to behave badly. Your best approach here is the standard offer. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Concern regarding Draft:Hotel Baltschug Kempinski, Moscow

Hello, Danloud. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Hotel Baltschug Kempinski, Moscow, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occurred, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Hotel Baltschug Kempinski, Moscow

Hello, Danloud. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Hotel Baltschug Kempinski".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Danloud (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It has been about 3 months since my last request, and although the standard offer requires one to wait for at least 6 months, I have recently had the urge to start contributing again. As I have mentioned before, contributing to Wikipedia had become a hobby of mine. I have gravely regretted the decisions which led to my block, and I have already said everything that had to be said on the previous request. As a contributor, I can proudly say I never disrupted a single article on the website. I have made over 6,500 edits; and tried my best to fight vandalism, be a useful contributor, and build an encyclopedia. The latter is evident on my edit history. However, while knowing the harsh outcome, I made a large mistake. Although, I do not know if it can be called a "mistake", since I did it knowingly. I am extremely regretful for what I have done, and pledge to never do such, ever again. I can only request to be given one more chance. If given, I will not misuse it. Danloud ^(talk) 12:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No. I concur with comments from others, your violation was a gross violation of the community's trust. WP:SO is your best bet. So, six months from now, zero edits. 2022-05-08. Yamla (talk) 13:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Danloud (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I wanted to post an unblock request for this account. Last time I did so was almost two years ago. I had over 6,500 well-intended constructive edits from this account. I also had several user privileges. I never vandalised any article with this account, nor had any intention to do so. I used this account solely to build an encyclopedia. I know my previous misdeeds from the account LastBreath64 (talk · contribs), created in 2018, and many others that followed it during that period are not compatible with Wikipedia's rules and are a gross violation of this website's guidelines. I had posted several copyrighted images from the internet as "own work" with the aforementioned account, which led to my banning, and the habit of me creating various accounts to circumvent a ban.

Post-2020, I changed editing interests and became a constructive editor with well intentions, evident from this account's edit history. After one and a half years of using this account to expand/improve various articles, I got this account banned myself by trying to manipulate a talk page with by creating another alternative account; which is a major breach of Wikipedia rules. After the banning of this account in mid-2021, I also admit that I have tried to circumvent the ban many times by trying to create many alternative accounts. The last account I created and edited with violating my ban was Stuntneare (talk · contribs), which was banned in October of 2022. I stopped visiting Wikipedia afterwards. Post-2019, I used every single one of my accounts to improve articles. It is evident through every single edit history of my various "sockpuppet" accounts expect those older than 2020. It has been over 8 months since I have edited with or created any account on this website. My IP ban has also been lifted. I know that by constantly violating bans and creating newer accounts ruined my chance of redemption, and added more salt to the wound. I will never create another account on Wikipedia trying to circumvent this ban. All I have tried on this website was to be a helpful and contributing editor.

I am not requesting from the first account I ever used on this website, or my "main" account LastBreath64 (talk · contribs). I do not want that account back, I am making a request to get this account's editing privileges back. I want to make an humble request to administrations to give me another chance, despite all of my wrongdoings. I once again, want to make clear, that after 2019, I had only one intention, and that was to improve Wikipedia. If another chance is given, I will remain grateful. I do not want to break anybody's trust again. I only want to contribute freely again from this account without my past haunting me, and without any fear of getting banned and without breaking any rules. Even if not given another chance, I will never create another account. Its pointless and an endless circle, since somebody will once again will notice similar edit-patterns and try to get that account banned. I have breached Wikipedia's rules many times, and my bans exceed the WP:3X rule. But I think I deserve at least one last chance due to my contributions to this website. I can guarantee that I will pledge myself to the betterment of Wikipedia. Danloud ^(talk) 21:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed sock puppetry via another account active at the same time. I don't know why your accounts even have talk page access. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.