User talk:Sholokhov

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Sholokhov, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Waterjuice (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:

Hi, thanks for remembering me :), wish you a successful year! Don't be afraid of grammatical error or whatever, just be yourself (aka. have self-confidence), then you can improve your English by editing articles, of course you'd better open your mind for corrections and suggestions from other Wikipedians. Grenouille vert (talk) 08:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I can see that you guys can easily manage that minor discussion so no need for my inexperienced voice (about history of Roman Empire) right :). Regards. Grenouille vert (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I do not have time anymore for Wikipedia, that's all. Grenouille vert (talk) 07:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Borodino

Hello. I am a senior wikipedian, specialised in the history of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. I often patrol articles on this topic and revert inappropriate edits. The reason why I reverted your edits is:

• they were inappropriately sourced, in most cases to either Tolstoy (who is no historian) or dubious web sites.
• they made almost no sense in English (gramatical errors, wrong topic, etc.)
• the layout is inappropriate for a Good Article on en.wikipedia

As I am writing this I notice that you have reverted my edits again... I must warn you that I will not waste my time with you and will refer you to a disciplinary panel and you risk being banned from wikipedia. Let's not go there. Best,--Alexandru Demian (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I've just received your message that reads: "I understand why the Romanians hate the Russians and I do not have any problem with that. We have someone that we like and we also have someone that we dislike. But I am surprise because you hate Russians THAT MUCH. Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)". I fail to see the connection. Please read the message above.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I am quite fine and "unhurt". In any case, what you think is irrelevant. FYI, some of the best Napoleonic scholars I've had the pleasure to read are Russians and I've included some of their work in my articles. Your edits have been reverted only because they are substandard for the moment. En.wiki has very high standards, so junior editors have a lot to learn, I'm afraid. Do stick around though, it's a good place to be. But just start with the beginning, i.e. the introductory guidelines that are presented in the "Welcome" section of your talk page. Then, please get your Napoleonic history right. Read Chandler, Smith, Esdaile, Tulard, Sokolov (a Russian..), Fierro, Hourtoulle, Rothenberg, Houssaye. Final piece of advice: avoid Soviet authors; they were forced by the regime to write propaganda work and aren't reliable. Then we'll talk about the battle of Borodino. Best wishes,--Alexandru Demian (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

@Alexandru Demian : You are true, these authors writes brilliantly about Napoleon's wars ! I add Owen Connelly for his Blundering to glory and Robert B. Asprey for his The rise of Napoleon Bonaparte ! Anyways, there are many good books about Napoleon in English !Ti2008 (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Unless there is a very very good reason you WILL NOT EVERY remove cited reliable sourced material from an article. This is a GROSS violation. I'm reverting and I am requesting that in the future you discuss and reach consensus before making any such change.

Look, this is a GA Class article. Please for God's sake do not use a website! They are unreliable and often pander! There is much more disinformation than information on the web where history is concerned. The American History channel also has this issue. If you speak Russian however the singular best source available is the Encyclopedia Borodino. I don't speak Russian so it does me little good but if you can that would be an OUTSTANDING source. The history of this page and websites is not at all good. I actually like what you wrote, I reread it but double check your writing please you have your tense mixed up in at least one place. Be careful not to add too much the article is pretty darn long as is. As for your tag on Kutusov, you can find officers that liked him but in the opinions of Clausewitz, Emperor Alexander, and Napoleon, he wasn't much of a battle commander. As for understanding time, space, and logistics, he was far ahead of Napoleon and every french general in the Campaign.

Sholokhov, please read this carefully, as I do not want to have to explain this again. En.wikipedia has very high standards for articles and especially for B-class ones, such as the Battle of Borodino. This article has been read and re-read for weeks and months by as much as a dozen knowledgeable editors, who have made dozens of changes to it so that it may constitute high quality work. Today it is a jewel of an article and it has to stay like that. I understand your desire to contribute to it and my reasons for reverting your edits have nothing to do with things like admiration for Napoleon, nor hatred for the Russian people. Here are the real reasons, again:

• - you are changing text that is already referenced. This is utterly unacceptable here. example
• - your English is pretty poor at times. I am not willing to spend time correcting it; when I am on wikipedia, I have my own articles to write.
• - your formating of names and dates (e.g. M I Kutuzov, 16th of June) do not comply with the formats used by the article.

This is a volunteer-based project and you can request help from other editors but you just cannot expect editors to come in and clean up after you've done your edits. I for one take it that it is my duty to help patrol the articles and revert substandard edits. Since I appreciate the fact that you want to contribute, I am not going to revert again just yet. But please address the outstanding issues that I've pointed out quickly. --Alexandru Demian (talk) 09:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problems with this article are there are lots and lots of bad sources on this battle. I thought the American War of 1812 was bad, and it is, but this battle in particular and the campaign in general are simply rife with bad books and false histories. The very best books on the subject are late issue Russian authors. Conversely, much of what was written during the Soviet years is simply history written the way that the party wanted it written. Many of the Western histories are not much better relying far too much on French sources. The newest books are again a step above. Now if you speak Russian get a copy of the Encyclopedia Borodino. That would be a nice addition. Also before writing let Alex and I assist you with what you want to add. Alex is right I would have had to rewrite everything you wrote. Being your personal copy editor isn't what I do here on Wikipedia. That being said I will help to a degree if you want to add something but, it has to be a really good source and let us work with you a bit on getting it in shape. This isn't a B Class article it is a GA class article and the standards are very high.Tirronan (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sholokhov, I've received your message. This is what I was talking about. If you can make edits sourced to mainstream authors and at the standards required, then fine. If not, then maybe you need to focus on other topics, which have yet to be developed on wikipedia. A good place to start for a junior editor would be to write new articles (for example, we have relatively few biographies of the many Russian generals involved in the Napoleonic Wars). This is just a suggestion. Going back to the Battle of Borodino, you also need to consider what Tirronan is saying, which is that the article is long enough already. Most readers would not be interested in getting an avalanche of information, but rather the most relevant information. Do your edits objectively bring relevant elements to an article that is already well-written and quite complete? --Alexandru Demian (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sholokhov, the first book I can't evaluate, I don't read or write in Vietnamese. However it is a broad history which isn't what you are looking for. The second is David Chandler, who is a respected historian, but if you read my historgraphy section of the Battle of Borodino tells you where he made mistakes. The very best of the current crop of books are Russian Authors who write after 1999, and then the book would concentrate on the battle. At the very least you want to make sure it covers the 1812 campaign.Tirronan (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Sholokov, I've read the first book and it isn't bad. Ben Weider was a founding member of the International Napoleonic Society and General Michel Franceschi is a founding member of the same society. They are both reasonable authors but they are aficionados of Napoleonic History, rather than scholars. The book in question seeks to demonstrate that there is little truth behind the opinion that Napoleon was a warmonger. IMHO this is true but Weider and Franceschi take it too far when they try to demonstrate that he sought peace all the time, which is not true. One can say that he did seek peace but he sought a peace in which France would hold almost undisputed hegemony over Europe and so it was a peace that could not be. A nice book but not one that must be taken with a pinch of salt at times and cannot really be used as a significant source in an FA or GA. The second one is from Chandler, who is quite a brilliant author but, just as Tirronan is saying, modern authors note that he made some errors (he wrote in the 1960s). There are some brilliant modern Russian authors (I am particularly appreciative of Oleg Sokolov's work). If you can read French, Jean Tulard and André Palluel-Guillard are brilliant and authoritative scholars. Francois-Guy Hourtoulle is also good and has been translated in English, plus he is a military historian. Going back to your activity, as I said before, I believe that you need to avoid the large articles on wikipedia, as for the moment you are probably not experienced enough to bring true added value. You'd do well to contribute to the articles that really need development (stubs, C-class etc). --Alexandru Demian (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Most of the Russian war articles are need of work but the FA and GA articles are about where they are going to get. The articles on Russian Generals, the Russo-Turkish war and the Russo-Swedish war probably need work. It is very hard to get English sources on them so this is an area wehere you can rally help.Tirronan (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

@Sholokhov and Tirronan : Yes, the biographies of the Russian Generals are relatively few in the English Wikipedia ! For example, we don't have the biography of Likhachev, who fought and was captured by the French in the battle of Borodino ! So, I think that the book of Mikaberidze, "The Russian Officer Corps of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars: 1792-1815", is very useful ! It has more than 600 lives of the Russian Officers ! And, Mikaberidze is an able and new Napoleonic historian ! Ti2008 (talk) 04:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

Ok, after reading WT:MILHIST, I've decided to com over here and help. I'm available on email whenever either of you needs to speak with me. I'm fluent in Russian, but can only say a few things in French (Can you go to the dance? Why not? You're a cretin). I'm available to help translate anything Sholokhov needs, so you can ping me when you want. Anyways.......:

1. Firstly, Sholokhov, please read WP:SIGN, and start signing your name after every post in a talk, Wikipedia talk or user talk namespace
2. Secondly, Sholokhov is an editor on the Vietnamese Wikipedia, which mean he can understand Vietnamese rather well. This, IMHO, satisfies fully WP:NONENG for the book articles. The weblink to the Vietnamese version of Voice of Russia (which for me doesn't work) should be replaced with the original Russia, if available.
3. Thirdly, Sholokhov, you shouldn't state "according to xxx, yyy happened" in the article unless there are many separate points of view on that see this (bottom section)
4. Fourth(ly?), Tirronan, I'm wondering why you came here in the first place. Your contribs seem to rapidly change from New Orleans to Borodino, which couldn't mean you just "stumbled" upon the page, but came here deliberately, probably invited by Alex Demain (may I call you that?). I seriously suggest taking a more WP:NPOV.
5. Fifth(ly?), I'm rather surprised as to why this battle doesn't have an "In Popular culture" section, which, IMO, could include something on W&P and probably the 1812 Overture. This would be a good place for the quote.
6. Sixth(ly?), Everyone, take a calmer attitude. No yelling, like above on this page, or scare quotes, like here.
7. Seventh(ly?), No one owns anything here. The server kitten in Florida can easily shut everything down here and all the articles that we owned would be dust. So, Alex, please stop masquerading under rather poor reasons for revert in order to "keep the article a jewel". No article is ever perfect, which includes this one, so there is no reason to halt further improvement.
8. Eighth(ly?), Reverting cited text is allowed, if the subsequent cite covers it, and what I saw in your above provided link is just rearrangement.
9. Ninth(ly?) Let's not profile websites. while they may be less reliable, they are "allowed", if you guys want to call it that, for GA's. In fact, they are allowed for FA's also.
10. Finally, I'd suggest any non personal comments that require email stay on this page. It's getting kind of confusing with several tabs up, reading each of your guys' talkpages.

All the best, Buggie111 (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Buggie111. Thanks for these clarifications. I think that we can find a way to work together here and get the best out of what everyone can provide. Best,--Alexandru Demian (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Aucun problème. Buggie111 (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming that you went back and understood the fact that I actually wrote most of the current content. No I really don't consider websites very good but if that is all you have to go on sometimes you have to. So that you know I also contribute to the War of 1812, added the Prussian sections to the Battle of Waterloo, Wrote the Blackshark Torpedo arctile, rewrote large sections of the SB2C article. Unfacted tagged the T34 article, ect. I get around a lot.

• No one owns an article, however did you read what was reverted?
• General histories on specific articles are not a great source either in most cases.
• Can you use them, sure, should you? No.
• If you are going to contribute then don't remove or alter sourced material which was done.
• I don't know about you but I prefer not to spend hours rewriting text if I don't have to.
• As to what I think about fighting... the article on the Battle of Borodino was one or two fat sentence because a pair of guys decided it was much more improtant to agruge over the bleeding results box and scared everyone that wanted to contribute off the page.
• Why I a non Russian got interested? It was an awfully important work to be ignored like it was.

Oh and Boggel, don't try and tell me what I can and can't edit ever again.Tirronan (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

First, it's Buggie. I'm not gonna take this as a personal attack, but anything further I will. I can also blurt out my entire edit history on Wikipedia dating back to Bronnitsy, but I don't want too. You seem to be a bit confusing above. First, how do you know it's a "General History" when you say right above that you don't know Vietnamese and thus can't understand the book? I'm not ordering you not to edit this page, I rescinded my comments after I read on WT:MILHIST that you were a major contributor. I also saw something that, to me, resembled a tag-team setup and was concerned. That's it. The info reverted, at least in the version Alex provided above, shows no instance of "deleting referenced text", but merely a movement of referenced text and deletion of unreferenced text. All the ref'd text stays the same, which you can see if you look carefully. There is no need to freak out over some "general histories". It's not as if the addition of one reference that, by your standards, is under-par, will result in a demotation of the article's current status. You can't control someone by saying something like:"Hey, great edits, just I'm too lazy to revert them and since I'm the major contributor to this article, I've reverted them". AS to your last comment :"As to what I think about fighting... the article on the Battle of Borodino was one or two fat sentence because a pair of guys decided it was much more improtant to agruge over the bleeding results box and scared everyone that wanted to contribute off the page.", where did I say any thing about fighting besides the shouting by the three involved parties here? Please explain. Buggie111 (talk) 03:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Buggie111, going back to the incident, let me just say that I think that we've moved beyond it and I don't wish to reopen it. I want to clarify some aspects:

• More books have been written on Napoleon than have been days since his death (NB : 5 May 1821...). Add to those the thousands of volumes written about his era and you get to astronomic numbers. Some of the main sources for these books are memoirs written by various generals and statesmen contemporary to the conflicts (these are often littered with a self-righteous intepretation of events, aiming either to boost or destroy reputation), 19th century nationalistic propaganda (French, German, Russian, British...), 20th century Soviet propaganda... Add to that the various legends, promoted by Napoleon's fans, his mortal enemies, non-historian writers (such as Tolstoy) and you will get an ocean of information, most of which will be either false or just inaccurate. A relative newbie needs to spend some time reading various sources before he can get a sense of what's good and what's rubbish.
• in Sholokov's edits, at times he quoted both Soviet historians, a Vietnamses source that was non-mainstream, websites, Tolstoy. At times he altered referenced text (this is just one example of several). We now know that he means well, but at the time it almost looked like vandalism.
• you cannot expect by default that an editor would be willing to correct the English errors of another. It's not lazyness, it's just that everyone has his own work that he must focus on. We are volunteers here. So what can one possibly do when a new editor contributes with an intermediate (at best) level of English ? Leave the contributions like that, for every reader to see and hoping that some day, someone will come in and correct them? I for one take a pragmatic approach and usually revert.

However, as it turned out, Sholokov is a willing editor and he is now eager to contribute using more mainstream sources and improve his English. I think that we can work with him. We all got a bit heated about this (myself included, of course) so let's tone down. Best to all, --Alexandru Demian (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

New section : Battle of Austerlitz

For the role of the Pratzen Heights, it was already represented in Soult's reply to Napoleon : "Less than twenty minutes, Sire, for my troops are hidden at the foot of the valley, hidden by fog and campfire smoke" ! Sholokhov can see David Chandler, The campaigns of Napoleon, p. 425 to know ! So that I think it isn't difficult to demonstrate the importance of the Pratzen Heights in hiding the troops of Soult !Ti2008 (talk) 11:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Georgy Zhukov, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ash, Division and Passed away (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) 11:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Zhukov

Ok, thanks. I have removed the unnecessary warning template. ISTB351 (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Georgy Zhukov, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Southwestern Front and Katyusha (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) 11:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Battle of Prokhorovka (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to IL-2 and Vasilyevka

Georgy Zhukov (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Axis

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Oops :)

> Sholokhov (talk | contribs)‎ . . (153,272 bytes) (-41)‎ . . (→‎Census - Finer definition of scale for diacritics view: Михаил Александрович Шолохов is Sholokhov :">) (undo)....

duh. not a brilliant moment! Sorry :) In ictu oculi (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Nice to meet you too - thanks for your sensible posts. Maybe we can salvage some of the mess that has been made of Vietnamese titles. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, question for you - does bụi đời have the same meaning in Vietnam as it has been given in the west by Miss Saigon? I thought it just referred to any street people? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
...> Everybody, please keep calm. With respects. Михаил Александрович Шолохов <

Михаил Well said. And I admit I am not enjoying the personal attacks from LittleBenW, but it is fairly typical of what one gets when trying to support Spanish or Czech names as well. Also there is actually little point wasting your time on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese) anyway. No one reads those sort of pages, and 2 or 3 against Vietnamese names will prevent 8 or 10 editors for Vietnamese names from changing anything. That's in contrast with WP:RM which is a far more useful and democratic process. No matter how intelligent your comments I'm afraid that you're wasting bytes on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese) which would be better spent on WP:RM. No one can convince a British/American/Australian/Canadian who is against foreign names - whether Spanish, Vietnamese or Czech - to be for them by convincing no matter how logically, this has all been done 100x times before at WP:TENNISNAMES RfC for example. These views will not move one inch, and there will always be those with this view. In contrast WP:RM attracts a broader base of more mainstream editors. And besides apart from Vietnamese there are lots of Spanish, Russian you name it, all sorts of interesting subjects ... you should randonly dip in ;) Cheers!! In ictu oculi (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Umm. Fortunately the community generally works on real pages not Talkshops - plus as I said WP:RM, and there's 100x more than just Vietnam articles there. Enjoy the ice-tea. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hi there, just a note you may wish to give an opinion on caps for xxx Province and xxx Dynasty at WT:CAPS, thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your message on kings/emperors. Appreciated. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Lenino, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Katyusha (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) 12:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Georgy Zhukov, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moskva (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) 12:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation Ostra Brama, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page M16 (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) 09:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited King Michael's Coup, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Romanian and Battle of Vilnus (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) 17:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at King Michael's Coup shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --RJFF (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Budapest Offensive, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Axis (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) 11:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation Mars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FSB (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) 12:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Trường ca Sông Lô, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vietnamese (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) 11:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC relating to Vietnamese geo article titles

Since you participated in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese)/Archive 2 you may wish to be informed of Talk:Gia Bình District#RfC: Should non-exonym Vietnam geo article titles have Vietnamese alphabet spellings?. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Please add ref name="Grossman H. Rzhew 1980" see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battles_of_Rzhev&diff=prev&oldid=535413763

thanks --Frze > talk 10:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Sholokhov. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Sholokhov~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

02:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Assault rifle shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --RAF910 (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Talk:Mikheil Saakashvili, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Iryna Harpy. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to Mikheil Saakashvili. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sholokhov. You have new messages at Iryna Harpy's talk page.
Message added 10:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice

Please respond at this thread at AN/I which is about you. Thank you,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24h for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

--Ymblanter (talk) 11:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Sholokhov. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Sholokhov. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

September 2018

Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, German Shepherd, 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Sholokhov. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)