User talk:Rauisuchian

The

Adventure

Hi Rauisuchian!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi Play The Wikipedia Adventure This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frondosa (disambiguation), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Disambig-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

KylieTastic (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leocratides kimuraorum, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 10:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leocratides, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

KylieTastic (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noted your edit to Pelorus Jack in which you said he was named after the Pelorus marine navigation aid, and not Pelorus Sound where he lived.. Seems logical but it's at odds with every attribution I have ever seen. Is it possible you can quote here what the Breverton book source says? Moriori (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2012 edition, "Pelorus Jack" entry [no page number available]. "At that time, when navigation was difficult, a 'pelorus' was a navigational instrument used to complement compass readings. Jack was so competent at guiding the ships that there was no need of the pelorus, and he became known as Pelorus Jack as a consequence". Admittedly, it's a tertiary source. Rauisuchian (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I have amended the page accordingly. Moriori (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Rauisuchian:! I've recently been involved in a small editing war on the Cryptozoology page, and your edit of the cryptozoology in art section for the page (which got deleted in a very similar fashion to the way my edit was deleted) has been brought up. If you're available, please consider giving the latest section in the Cryptzoology talk page a read. Also, I quite enjoyed your now-deleted addition to the article, it was not only relevant to the page but it was also very well sourced, contrary to what the users who deleted it claimed. Please be well. Joe (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I checked it out and left a comment. Though, be careful not to get into editing wars. After the first revert, just go to the talk page. Rauisuchian (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the advice and for the suggestions on the proposal. Joe 02:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rauisuchian. I'm here checking if you're still interested in discussing my edits in Soviet Empire as per WP:BRD as I'd like to reach consensus, be it with you or alone.

Fasscass (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on that talk page. Rauisuchian (talk) 08:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I work for Warner Music Group. I see you have contributed in the past to the Warner Music Group article. There’s a brand new logo for WMG. I uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons as the representative of the company, but I know I’m not supposed to directly edit Wikipedia articles when I have a conflict of interest. Would you be able to take a look at the request to swap out the old logo and logo caption at Talk:Warner Music Group#Help switching to new logo ? Thank you so much for your consideration.Music2022 (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits at Soviet and Communist studies. I found it especially interesting that "traditionalists" are not anti-communist or opposed to the ideal Marxist society — I wish all of this would contextualized and made more clear in most Communist-related articles because many users and readers simply take it as given that they were a form of socialism, rather than "bureaucratic absolutism" almost Prussian in nature, where the "monarch was dependent on his bureaucracy" and that the Soviet Union developed a "propensity for authoritarianism" after Marxian principles had failed to be established [emphasis mine] (Lewin), or a tsarist autocracy, emphasized that the Soviet Union was not guided by socialism or ideology but more by ruling class, to quote your improving additions to the aforementioned article.

As an example, when one links Stalin to Lenin, one then links it to Marx, when I have read that Werth does trace the roots of Stalinist violence in Lenin, but Lenin is seen as a successor not of Marx but of Nechayev (who was criticized by Marx as "barracks communism"), and Werth emphasizes specific features of pre-revolutionary Russian society. I wish Communist-related articles would better contextualize this and make such distinctions rather than generalize like Communism's "real socialism" was indeed the only form of socialism in practice or that Marx was to blame for all its victims. The fact that so many users seem to believe this show that even "anti-Communist" sources and "traditionalists" are misread and given a more extreme picture than they are, and that Communist-related articles must be improved. Davide King (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, glad the edits could be helpful. Interesting mention of Marx's criticism of Nechayev as "barracks communism", which I hadn't read about previously. Later on Karl Kautsky's critical view of the Bolsheviks is also significant. I agree there should be more nuances, references wise, in the coverage of the history of Marxism, communism, socialism, as well as anti-communism. As it is, a lot of these nuances are sometimes stuck only in specific biography articles. The distinction between more absolutist communist regimes and the ideology they claimed should definitely be mentioned when reliable sources mention it. Some of the traditionalists have indeed been anti-communist but often in a liberal form, rooted in anti-authoritarianism. Rauisuchian (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you noted, there is plenty of Marxist criticism that is ignored, as if Marx/Marxism must have supported any policies the Communists did because. I do agree with your analysis, and I also like this user's summary:

"I prefer the interpretation of Michael Harrington and others that Communism was a method to bring about rapid industrialization in backward countries that lacked capital. In that sense it wasn't a step toward socialism but a step toward capitalism. Hence all successful Communist revolutions occurred in feudal or third world countries which by the way had no traditions of democracy, civil rights or private enterprise."

"I have come to accept a view of Communist states that Michael Harrington and others have supported. Since Russia had no middle class, capital or international support for their overthrow of the czar, their only path forward was a system that relied on motivation and coercion. Once they had achieved industrialization, they were able to transform into a capitalist state. Although Communism was imposed on Eastern Europe, the only countries that followed the Russian example were less developed, such as China and Cambodia. Stalin told Mao not to copy the USSR, but to support capitalism, Ho Chi Minh wanted to copy the U.S. and Castro was opposed by Cuban Communists. So the 'socialist' system they introduced was really a step to capitalism."

I may add that they may have genuinely thought that was part of building socialism because capitalist industrialization and modernization was necessary but it is certainly more contextualized. This also seems to be supported by the Oxford Handbook of Communism:

"In his introductory essay, S. A. Smith acknowledges the basic contradiction within the conditions needed to propagate Communism, as outlined by Marx, and the reality of those states which actually adopted it practically. With certain notable exceptions, he shows that Communism often took root either as a direct result of war/colonial insurrection and/or within countries with authoritarian systems already in place 'changes of borders, the devastation caused by war, genocide and forced migration as a consequence of the imperial politics' that beleaguered Eastern Europe and that 'played an essential role in the establishment of communist regimes' (p. 204). Thus the basic premise is that Communism took root in countries which were unprepared economically and as a result, the implementation of it at a state level was flawed from the beginning." In Cowe, Jennifer (October 2014). "The Oxford Handbook of the History of Communism". Reviews in History (1664). Retrieved 19 January 2022.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on this? While that can be certainly improved, I am not sure such big removal of sourced content that may well be relevant is warranted. Davide King (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting post and reasonable points, the Oxford review could be a good citation. On the linked revision, I have replied in Talk:Soviet and Communist studies. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept this note as an invitation to participate in the discussion of this latest FAC nomination for the nonmetal article.

The context is that you were involved in the FAC 3 discussion for the article (which was not prompted) or you are an editor who made a recent edit to the nonmetal article.

Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edit to Geoff Young

On Aug 16, 2022, Young tweeted he had been predicting the success of the "Russian operation to demilitarize and de-nazify Ukraine" since March and his predictions had been "proven right". He described the government of Ukraine as "Nazi-dominated".^[1]

The page has been deleted a lot by one editor I notice. Please watch the page! — 46.138.132.150 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:00, 22 August 2022‎ (UTC).[reply]

Edit war at this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1FA0:46C0:C1C4:0:64:6B7F:2A01 (talk) 10:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC) — 2A00:1FA0:46C0:C1C4:0:64:6B7F:2A01 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thank you for your edit to Russian nationalism. The description of the role of the Russian people in the Soviet Union is fantastic.

I'm confused about the next paragraph about forced deportations however. Again, it's brilliantly written, but I don't see that any of the sources link it to Russian nationalism. Could you point me in the right direction? I thought the mainstream view is they're unrelated (for example, see Population transfer in the Soviet Union#Modern views), but I may have a blind spot here. If there are sources that link Russian nationalism and Soviet nationality policies, I think it'd be beneficial to describe this relationship explicitly. PaulT2022 (talk) 10:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can find additional sources to support this connection, which is present in the sources cited and also others in scholarly papers. There is one mention of Russian nationalism in the paragraph already -- the connection seems pretty intuitive, but maybe it could be spelled out more directly. Will get to this when possible. If you want to investigate the subject, I recommend the case study Burnt by the Sun: The Koreans of the Russian Far East by Jon K. Chang, focusing on the Korean deportation, the book also covers the overall tsarism, socialism and nationalism trends in the Soviet Union. Stalin's regime perceived the USSR's border territories as secured by the settlement of the "main" (Russian and Russianized) Soviet nationalities, with others perceived as alien and disloyal. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it needs to be explained more directly, yes.

For example, Chang's paper about tsarist continuities tells how primordial views on nations and ethnicities, present in the tsarist era Russian nationalism, remained in the communist policies. This makes complete sense to me. Soviets did declare entire ethnicities as less trusted and mistreated them, there's no question about it. But the paragraph in the article makes a different impression, that the policy of forced resettlement was an expression of Russian nationalism. If that's indeed what it's supposed to say (rather than my flawed reading), it'd be better if it can be done more directly.

I'm also concerned that the source about deportation of Koreans is used to generalise it on other nations and claim that Russified ethnicities weren't targeted by ethnicity. I don't even mean this in the sense of the formalistic WP:OR requirements ("published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article"), but just from a common sense, the claim it makes that Jews were except from xenophobic treatment contradicts what's known about anti-cosmopolitan campaign. Policies behind Soviet famine of 1930–1933 targeted primarily Ukrainians, Russians and other peoples in the Volga region and are considered to be genocide by some historians etc.

Thank you for your suggestion about Chang's book, I'll try to find it and also will look into other sources to see if I could find more details to expand the paragraph. PaulT2022 (talk) 11:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your caveats. On the first part, yeah the direct connection could be carried over better from the sources. On the second part, phrasing could be adjusted to emphasize Stalin's antisemitism as well, as that is often mentioned in sources with the cultural nationalism part. Certainly, Russified nationalities, Ukrainians or Soviet Jews or Volga peoples, were not exempt from nationality-based oppression, so the text should reflect this better. I am glad you are well-researched on the topic, looks like the article's editing is in good hands, while I will also peruse the sources more here and there to add to it. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Brandenberger, I'm not cherry-picking a minor point: he does make that distinction and some reviewers seem to focus on same as if it is a primary highlight of his work: https://socialhistoryportal.org/news/articles/109936

I think you're making a bit of a jump from "National Bolshevism" to nationalism when reading him; here's another review for example, that doesn't interpret his point of view to be about nationalism: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/425488 PaulT2022 (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying as far as interpreting Brandenberger specifically. Also interesting review finds.

What the first review and second review do, is directly link his writing as relevant to nationalism and thus WP:NOTABLE, even if he's cautioning a specific interpretation.

I think the passage already on the Wiki article, shows the full nuance of Brandenberger's argument as possible for that length of text, unless there is an inconsistency you can find.

The first and second review note that most of the scholars studying the Soviet archives at the time were making distinct connections between the Soviet leadership and Russian nationalism. The first review notes that even his nuancing/caveat is basically making the case for how the Soviet leadership expressed Russian nationalism and then stopping short, describing that aspect of the book as "peculiar" twice. Nonetheless, even though Brandenberger's label of National Bolshevism is strong wording with a very narrow definition, it still has aspects that are useful to understanding "Russian nationalism during the Soviet epoch" I wouldn't remove the passage until a level of equivalent detail by a scholar with broader definition of nationalism was included, while it still shows a big aspect pointed out by other scholars, the partial abandonment of Marxism towards nation and/or empire. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 04:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I'm not suggesting removing it. Your contributions are of an excellent quality and well sourced. Although, I think having an article about Nationality policy in the Soviet Union would've allowed to discuss this in much greater detail, but in lieu of such it's unquestionably relevant enough.

The only thing I'd like the article not to be confusing about is that Soviet Union nationality policy being a manifestation of the Russian nationalism is not the only point of view on the subject, and I doubt it's a prevailing one, but I don't have a strong opinion on its weight. Thus was my addition of the sentence about Brandenberger and extending comments about scope National Bolshevism when used by authors (as the linked WP article about National Bolshevism uses a different definition of it relevant to the 1990-2000s). PaulT2022 (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The extending comments you added were good, as well as your rephrase of my rephrase in the article's edit history. I think we're pretty much on the same page just with particular preferences on scope of scholars should be expanded more. We can move some of this to the Talk:Russian nationalism if further stuff comes up. (Potentially a Nationality policy in the Soviet Union would be good to have like you said -- lengthy topic to tackle so probably would need a lot of WP:COPYWITHIN wiki.) -- Rauisuchian (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. on that, Brandenberger also says that the almost-nationalism came closer to be being a mass affair than ever, more than the pre-1917 empire, which first and second reviewers both note as a main point -- Rauisuchian (talk) 04:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested to expand Soviet patriotism, which is how this "almost-nationalism" usually referred to in the literature. PaulT2022 (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I mean some of these key points can go there as well as missing citations. Definitely some to expand there. The terms themselves used by the literature in Soviet studies can be sometimes misleading, since the scholars in both main sides of that debate (traditionalists and revisionists, both very philosophically diverse within them) would take Soviet propaganda terms as technical terms with which to debate the other scholars. But lots of other implications were added on from those internal historiographical debates. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are reasons why the apparently misleading term is used by scholars (who should know better, you'd think), and influence of propaganda isn't the primary one.

"Soviet nationalism" would make little sense as people in the Soviet Union didn't normally self-identify as "Soviet nationals" in a way that an English person might identify as British national. So, when nationalism was expressed, it usually took an ethnic form - Russian, Tatar etc. Thus, even the negative expressions of pro-Soviet feelings that look like nationalism are called patriotism. It's quite distinct and not directly related to nationality (yet borrows heavily from traditional Russian nationalism).

By the way, "patriotism" isn't a universally neutral-positive term in Russian as it is in English. It's a partisan term that can easily have negative connotations, even be used as a pejorative, depending how and when it's used. There's a lasting legacy of Soviet "patriotism" after all. See this article by Boris Berezovsky for an example of a typical discussion: https://www-ng-ru.translate.goog/politics/2002-10-08/1_liberal.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp

I'm certain everyone who uses "Soviet patriotism" is aware of this and isn't just blindly repeating propaganda to whitewash it. I'd be very careful about doubting the scientific consensus and trying to WP:RGW in this area. PaulT2022 (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know about that connotation, as well as the extra connotations of “chauvinism” in Russian for example. It appears that essay by Boris Berezovsky is in support of patriotism, as long as it is combined with liberalism to avoid authoritarianism.

I mainly bring this all up because of the history of communism articles on Wikipedia over many years – not really the Soviet patriotism article specifically. Communism articles on Wiki are often bogged down in internal Marxist terminology rather than scholarly consensus, while also ignoring many Marxist historians that critiqued communist (or “communist”) states.

The caveat I have about internal Soviet terminology being repeated as "definitional" is something reflected by scholars. It features in Haynes and Klehr’s In Denial: Historians, Communism and Espionage and Chang’s Burnt by the Sun for example.

These “traditionalist” scholars give a great view of how Soviet propaganda terms have been magnified sometimes by some “revisionist” scholars. (Although many other revisionist scholars, not really mentioned in the books, are the ones focusing most heavily on contradictions in the Soviet system. Brandenberger is one revisionist scholar who shows there is a lot of overlap between the traditionalists and revisionists.)

Making matters complicated, the definition of “revisionist” in Soviet studies historiography is both different from the regular “revisionism” in historiography, and different from the “Marxist revisionist” concept in historical disputes inside Marxism.

That field of historiography is complex and potentially misleading to make generalizations about without an entire chronology. I would just recommend reading Haynes and Klehr’s In Denial: Historians, Communism and Espionage while remembering even that is only a slice of the picture. – Rauisuchian (talk) 00:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rauisuchian. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of ships named after James Madison, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese-Lenin School of Vladivostok, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect KUTK and it has been listed for discussion. Anyone, including you, is welcome to participate at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 11 § KUTK until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 04:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at USS James Madison. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of ships named after James Madison and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dan arndt (talk) 05:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rauisuchian! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Dan arndt (talk) 05:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rauisuchian. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of ships named after James Madison".

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. When 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!} 05:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord into Napoleonic Wars. 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. — Diannaa (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that and added another comment edit. Usually remember to include that in the summary, but will pay close attention further. Appreciate the tips. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 23:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]