User talk:Dushnilkin

Welcome!

Hello, Dushnilkin! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages.

Getting Started Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

Hello, Dushnilkin. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Synorem (talk) 09:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Russo Swedish War 1554-1557

If possible, can you give the text from the book "The Livonian War: The Forgotten Victories of Ivan the Terrible 1558–1561" by Penskoy Vitaly describing it as a Russian victory? Thanks. Gvssy (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

After Gustav signed peace with Ivan in 1557 without achieving any of the goals for the war, he took the position of overseeing the conflict in Livonia. In my edition, page 229 Dushnilkin (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Gvssy (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

No problems Dushnilkin (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Italian and Swiss expedition of 1799

Hello, please cite the page in the source you attached. Kolya Muratov (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Page 356 Dushnilkin (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Dushnilkin! Your additions to Draft:List of Russo-Kazakh battles have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

• Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. Read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on ”text”. Additionally, Help:Referencing for beginners offers guidance on how to cite sources.
• Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words and structure it properly, adhering to the principles of paraphrasing. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources to verify the information and demonstrate that it is not original research.
• Image use guidelines: We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. Any other images used on Wikipedia must be available under a free and open copyright license that permits commercial and derivative reuse.
• Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. However, unlike many other sites that allow content licensing for site use while retaining non-free ownership, Wikipedia requires that content release be irrevocable, worldwide, and either into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without proper attribution. If you want to copy or translate content from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps outlined at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation § License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of Russo-Kazakh battles (April 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by ToadetteEdit was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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 Russo-Kazakh battles 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.

Toadette ^{(Let's talk together!)} 16:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Dushnilkin! 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! Toadette (Let's talk together!) 16:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Warning: Edit warring - Russo-Circassian War‎

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I wrote to the discussion page, where I asked for the protection of the article. The person with whom I am in the "edit war" ignores all this and continues to add data that contradicts the previously mentioned sources Dushnilkin (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sinai and Palestine campaign, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British. 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) 05:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Eastern Front (World War I)

Hi. You made a series of edits that changed the result from "Central Powers victory" to "Initial Central Powers Victory... Eventual Entente victory". This does not follow the template documentation (this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"). There is also an improper reference here that simply says page 116. Personally I think the original version should be restored. While the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was annulled, Russia was not a victor of the war nor were they included at Versailles. Mellk (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

According to this point, Russia had the right to demand reparations, this can be considered as a winning country Dushnilkin (talk) 06:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

If this contradicts the template, then you just need to provide a link to the "consequences" section, since the central powers capitulated and all diplomatic acts confirming their victory were annulled Dushnilkin (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding this can be considered as a winning country, do you have citation for this? The reference you provided simply says "Page 116", I do not know which work this is referring to. Mellk (talk) 06:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I specified the page in the contract itself, if you need another source for this, then I can specify it a little later Dushnilkin (talk) 06:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, I have read this part in the treaty, but this falls under the policy of WP:NOR. We would need a reliable secondary source to make such conclusions. Mellk (talk) 06:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll point it out as soon as I get home. Dushnilkin (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

This discussion should take place at Talk:Eastern Front (World War I). I would also note that Eastern Front (World War I) scope has been for many years campaign up to Brest-Litovsk, and in that context result was clearly Central Powers victory, which is perfectly logical, just like we don't have "Eventual allied victory" in Battle of France.--Staberinde (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The Battle for France is a campaign, and the fighting on the eastern front was up to November 11 (the second Romanian campaign), it is also de jure considered a victory for the Entente under the final peace treaty, which is confirmed by the source attached by me Dushnilkin (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Battle of the Neva (1708). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. TylerBurden (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of armed conflicts involving Germany against Russia (May 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chaotic Enby was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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 armed conflicts involving Germany against Russia 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.

Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Crossing the Gulf of Bothnia (June 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Iazyges were: 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:Crossing the Gulf of Bothnia 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.

Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit war

Please read wp:brd and wp:editwar you have been reverted, make a case at talk. Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I have indicated the reason for canceling your edit, if you want to start a discussion page Dushnilkin (talk) 16:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

See WP:ONUS, you are the one who needs to get consensus for inclusion. also read wp:3rr, being right is not one of the justifications. Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I created a discussion page, I don't want to start a war of edits myself, but I have questions about why the data from the source was deleted Dushnilkin (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Except you did. Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Then I apologize. I ask for an answer on the discussion page Dushnilkin (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Slatersteven was right, and here you are again, edit warring on Russo-Circassian War. It doesn't matter if you're right: edit warring is edit warring. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I've only done two rollbacks and have already asked for protection for the page, as the user ignores my requests to go to the discussion page Dushnilkin (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Hmm "only" two, but that's one too many, and you didn't explain the last one. I don't know what it is with so many edit warriors; after your first revert, you could just wait for someone else, or wait for protection, or ask an administrator. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't going to make any more edits so as not to incite a war, if it disturbed the administration - I apologize, because I didn't want to break the rules. Dushnilkin (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent edits

Hello @Dushnilkin,

I would like to say thank you for your recent edits on the Christmas Battles page.

Also, I just checked out your user page and I did not know that we have similar interests. I particularly like to focus on the Eastern Front of World War I as well.

I would like to give a friendly introduction, have fun editing, and (hopefully) I hear back from you.

Much thanks.

Sincerely, Kevin9217 (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your message, I am very pleased that someone appreciated my edits on wikipedia! I hope that there will be more and more people who are interested in this war, and I hope for your cooperation in this area Dushnilkin (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Malplaquet

Hey, you did not understand the preceding text here before making your edit.
PS I have a suggestion, create an article in English Battle of Küçük Kaynarca. I have already created an article about who won there, here. Can you do it?
Kolya Muratov (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I can try to write it tonight/tomorrow Dushnilkin (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I wrote an article, you can add something if you need Dushnilkin (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

That's good.

But still about Malplaquet article, they point to an allied victory or a honourable French defeat in Aftermath, and you stated "however, there are some sources that say allies won". Are you sure you did not confuse allies with French? Kolya Muratov (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I quote a source: «in 1709, both sides, having replenished their armies with fresh reinforcements, met again on the battlefield near the village of Malplaquet near the fortress of Mons. Here Marlborough, together with Eugene of Savoy, led thirty thousand cavalry into battle. Another triumph of the Duke of Marlborough followed, but the loss of almost 20,000 soldiers of the Allied forces angered the society.» Dushnilkin (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I corrected what was slightly misspelled in aftermath. Kolya Muratov (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I also edited Battle of Napue. - 14,000 is in total as you stated. They did not all participate in battle, unfortunately (See also the source I gave (page 95)). Kolya Muratov (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, it's just that my source only lists these data Dushnilkin (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I want to ask you something, could you add sources to my draft, as well as correct mistakes? Dushnilkin (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I will try to correct mistakes later. As for source, you can add Sytin Military Encyclopedia, by the way, bibliography is cited there, at the very bottom: https://ru.m.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%AD/%D0%92%D0%A2/%D0%9A%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B5%D0%BD Kolya Muratov (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I helped what I could. Though it's easier to use Sytin encyclopedia through Wikisource, but you have to use archive-org (probably), cause there can't be vandalism there. This encyclopedia is right handy, it most often takes information from many works and presents it compactly , so you can use it. Kolya Muratov (talk) 11:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Dushnilkin (talk) 11:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Kolya Muratov (talk) 13:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello again, I plan to translate the article "battle of Ican" I would like to ask you to translate the page about Vasily Serov, I would be very grateful Dushnilkin (talk) 11:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I see you have already created a page about this battle, good.

And I think not necessary to translate Serov page from Ru-wiki, firstly 'cause I don't see any authoritative source about him, except for ru:Список генералам по старшинству, but there is not much info for a page in Wiki. Kolya Muratov (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, it just seems to me that I need to fill in the gap on the English Wikipedia about the Kokand Khanate Dushnilkin (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

There's a lot more to fill in, even about Peter the Great era. There's also a suggestion of what to translate: Battle of Bucharest (1771) and Reinhold-Wilhelm Essen (he won there). Also create articles about those battles where Ottomans won. For example, unsuccessful stormings/sieges in the war of 1768. One might get the feeling that Ottomans didn't beat Russians at all back then, but I'm getting sick of wiki, another time, if it's not done for me. Kolya Muratov (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Then let me try to translate the Battle of Bucharest, and you the article about Essen Dushnilkin (talk) 13:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Let me take your contacts for feedback, discord or telegram for example Dushnilkin (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Ican moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Battle of Ican. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has too many problems of language or grammar and it is a poor translation. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @AirshipJungleman29, it has been moved again to mainspace. It remains problematic. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I moved it back to draft myself. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Please open a discussion before unilaterally moving articles

I notice you just moved Battle of Peregonovka to Peregonovka offensive with first opening a requested move discussion on the talk page. Per the guidelines on potentially controversial moves, if there is even a reasonable doubt that a move could be contested, you are supposed to open a discussion before moving it yourself. As none of the sources refer to this as the "Peregonovka offensive", that fits very neatly into a potentially controversial move. In any case, I have opened a discussion on moving the article back and you are welcome to participate. But please be more considerate next time you think about carrying out a unilateral move, it might not be as appropriate as you think. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of battles in the Spanish Civil War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberals.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Battle of the Salnitsa river has been accepted

Battle of the Salnitsa river, 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.

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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

BD2412 T 23:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Siege of Turgai (1916) (August 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SeoR was: 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:Siege of Turgai (1916) 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.

SeoR (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Siege of Dorpat (1558) has been accepted

Siege of Dorpat (1558), 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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

~Kvng (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Dushnilkin. Thank you for your work on Surovikino penal colony hostage crisis. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating the article! I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 14:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Battle of Ican has been accepted

Battle of Ican, 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

OhHaiMark (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of wars between Russia and Sweden. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. TylerBurden (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Also noting that this is in direct violation of WP:ONUS, as you are edit warring to restore disputed content you insist on being on the article when the onus is actually on you to achieve consensus for it to be included. WP:AGF might also be worth a read. TylerBurden (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

If you violate WP:ONUS one more time on this article I do not see any alternative other than reporting you, so consider this a final warning. TylerBurden (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, we reached a consensus on the discussion page to which I redirected you, you continue to selectively delete information in the article ignoring it. Dushnilkin (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Whatever "consensus" you have in mind it seems you're the only one enforcing it, so no, you do not have consensus. Again with the selectiveness accusation, is it really so difficult to WP:AGF? TylerBurden (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

And I told you, the option I added was suggested by another user, I understand my mistake, and I'm not going to add such content to the article anymore until we get approval from all users involved in the discussion. Dushnilkin (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Please, do not put words into my mouth (even without directly mentioning my username). I merely agreed to your suggestion, and expressed my opinion on how to present the uncertainty in the identity of the combatants. In my opinion, the discussion is not actually fully concluded since we are looking for secondary sources. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I regarded the consent to my option as an approval, I had to add that the discussion was not completed, I'll clarify next time. Dushnilkin (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Russian commanders

Hello, I hope I'm not disturbing, but seeing as you certainly know more Russian history than me I thought I'd ask. On my draft: Draft:Augdov expedition, I have added two commanders, by the names of I. A. Hovanskij and T. I. Sjtjerbatov. However, I cannot for the life of me find the full names of these commanders, and I was just curious if you could help. Thanks! Gvssy (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I corrected it about Ivan Khovansky, about the second commander, now I'll try to look for something on him, if I find it, I'll fix it Dushnilkin (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Everything is done Dushnilkin (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Gvssy (talk) 05:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Siege of Kazan (1487) has been accepted

Siege of Kazan (1487), 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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Discord?

Do You Use Discord? LGT55 (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Capture of Giurgiu

You reverted the entirety of my copyediting for some reason? I will be restoring that all back. The only issue you raised is the "725" figure.

From the article "by May 29 the garrison had lost 216 soldiers and 130 gunners, mostly from diseases and under arms remained no more than 379 people."

216+130 dead = 346 dead, 379 are still living however

346+379=725, which is the strength of the garrison Lenovya (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. The problem is in several things at once:

1) My mistake with the citation, I may have misunderstood, the source indicates the total of 216, I quote: Nevertheless, everyone doubted the success of the defense because out of the 707 people who make up the garrison, they were killed, wounded or sick: There were 28 gunners and 188 infantry, and there were about 130 maintenance personnel, so there were 379 people under the gun. Your calculations make sense, but they violate WP:OR, Besides, you forget about Davis, who points out the 600 men of the garrison.

Thanks again for the question, we identified the mistake in time. Dushnilkin (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and for fixing the issue. By the way, I provided a citation for the 2,000 figure at Storming of Giurgiu (1771). Essen's detachment was 6,000 and he lost a third of it (meaning 2,000 killed) according to Petrov 1893, p. 265.

However, the 1874 source you gave for the 500 killed is also Petrov. You should check that source once more in case you read it wrong. Or maybe Petrov's 1893 book is more accurate since it came later and he would've fixed past mistakes, I can only guess. Lenovya (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, for the second time I notice that you put all losses in the character of irretrievable, in his second work Petrov does not specify the characteristics of losses, but simply names their total number. In this case, it would be better to cite a work where the coverage of the figures is more accurate.

I also slightly changed the article about Silistra, I ask you to pay attention to the regular (I'm sure it's not a special) violation WP:OR, do not delete information from Devis according to Petrov's description, and also do not classify losses when there is no exact indication of their type. Dushnilkin (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The text from the source translates to: "They lost a third of the entire detachment and retreated." Lost and as you say, irretrievable, are synonyms. It doesn't say that out of this 1/3 that there are wounded.

As for Silistra, we can come to a sensible agreement. Firstly, the source (Davies) says:

Silistra’s garrison probably now exceeded 30,000 troops, reinforced by soldiers fleeing from Gurobaly, Galaţi, and Cherkes Pasha’s force. There was intelligence that Numan Pasha was marching from Shumla with 20,000 Turks to strike them in the rear, and counting the grand vizier’s field army at Shumla and the enemy garrisons at Rusçuk and Nikopol’ there may have been as many as 70,000 Turks in the Silistra sector

So in total (including the garrison), there were 70,000 soldiers in the proximity of Silistra, not 100,000 (though I understand why you put 100,000 since you assumed the 70,000 was talking only about the land army).

Since from this total 70,000, only 37,000 were engaged in combat (per the article), I would propose adding a note after the 70,000 strength saying that only 37,000 of these soldiers were active during the siege (including highlighting that the garrison was 30,000 and Çerkes Pasha's force was 7,000). Do you agree to this change? Lenovya (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, it is clearly impossible to put the lost and irrevocable in one parameter, Russian sources of that time often mention this in the form: "our loss reached, conditionally, 16 killed and 67 wounded". Here is an example from Petrov, Vol. 3 cap. 2 p. 69: Our loss consisted of 6 killed and 96 wounded different ranks (means ordinary soldiers and officers)

As for Davis, a good point, indeed, most likely 70,000 means the entire number of troops, specify it like this. I have already added a similar note, it is as necessary as specifying the total number of troops. Dushnilkin (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

By the way, can you also quote a source according to which the Russian losses at Silistria are 8,000 dead and 1,000 wounded? Preferably take the author's words verbatim and use machine translation to show them to me so that there are no problems with verifiability. Dushnilkin (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Translated (albeit a poor translation) from Yandex directly from the source (von Hammer, Vol. 16, p. 223);

Silistre, which the Byzantines and Crusaders called "Dristra", is a high fortified position surrounded by deep ditches. Bağlan, the gardens and groves are very beautiful. Romanzov had been eyeing this place for a long time. The Russian army advanced slowly towards the Turkish trenches. They had filled the bushes they had collected to fill the ditches around the castle into five hundred cars and were dragging them after them. They began firing incessantly at the city with seventy large cannons and numerous mortars, causing fires that never went out. The Osmanli were able to stay in their trenches for six hours in the face of this fierce fire, and then they began to withdraw towards the suburbs of the city. The Russians have also come as far as the suburbs. Here the collision began again very violently. In the end, the Russians were forced to withdraw, giving eight thousand dead. There were also about a thousand wounded. Lenovya (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I see, it makes sense I guess if that is the author's writing style.

As for the note, I've changed it slightly so that it gives more context and is more accurate.

By the way, the claims shouldn't be by ethnicity (e.g. Russian & Turkish) but by historians (e.g. von Hammer and Petrov, including page numbers), do you agree? Lenovya (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'm obviously not trying to start from a Genetic fallacy, it's stupid, I'm just looking at how such differences are most often framed. You can arrange it as you like. Dushnilkin (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I understand that your intention isn't bad, I just thought it would be more appropriate to talk of the historian rather than the country of origin. I've made the necessary changes now. Lenovya (talk) 23:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

By the way, Davies writes in note 14 in p. 284 about Essen's storming of Giurgiu:

"Seventeen officers killed or fatally wounded, fifty-eight officers heavily wounded, twenty seven officers lightly wounded; 497 soldiers killed, 1,393 heavily wounded, and 321 lightly wounded." Here he cited: Petrov, Voina, III, 120–127; Solov’ev, XIV, kn. 28, 449.

I'll add this to the article, or you can if you want to. Lenovya (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, the same thing is written by Petrov, I just grouped the losses into "killed" and "wounded" because this is too much load on the infobox, if you are going to indicate this in the article, then write below. Dushnilkin (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Also can I ask where you got the total 60,000 Ottoman soldiers from in the Battle of Tataritsa, as well as the claim that 39,000–40,000 engaged in the battle (and what were the remaining 20,000 doing? Were they just in the proximity of Tataritsa?).

Another point you make is that Kör Yusuf Ziyaüddin Pasha didn't engage in the battle but was nevertheless the reason Bagration lifted the siege. Could you expand on this, as I don't see any other information relating to this in the article. Thanks. Lenovya (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

In the text, I wrote that in addition to these 40,000, 20,000 more came to the rescue (directly to the position in Tataritsa according to the source) and after learning about this, Bagration retreated, considered it necessary to indicate this in the infobox. Dushnilkin (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah okay, if you source these claims in the article it would be great. Also, was this 20,000 men led by the Grand Vizier? You didn't touch upon this. If they were, please talk about and source this in the article since it is valuable context. Lenovya (talk) 09:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I have already indicated as a source Shcherbatov 1888 Dushnilkin (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Did the Grand Vizier lead the 20,000-strong relief force? Lenovya (talk) 09:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

If you are talking about the army that came after the main battle, then yes, the ground forces during the battle were c. 30,000. Dushnilkin (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah okay, does Velichko et al say that the force was led by the Grand Vizier? I'm just curious because you didn't highlight that Kör Yusuf Pasha commanded this 20,000-strong relief force. Lenovya (talk) 09:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean, quote from article: The Turkish positions were not eliminated, and another 20,000-strong army came to the Ottomans for help. This forced Bagration on 14 October to lift the siege of Silistraand begin a retreat to Bucharest. If you mean that you need to specify the Ottoman commander here, then fine. Dushnilkin (talk) 09:46, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Well you did write in the second paragraph of the article that the siege was lifted because of the Grand Vizier, but you don't really elaborate on that. This source doesn't talk about the Grand Vizier leading the 20,000-strong army either, maybe you saw it from a different source? Lenovya (talk) 09:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Shcherbatov definitely has it. Look at page 89, I have indicated everything correctly. Dushnilkin (talk) 10:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Also you state that "The ground forces of the Turks initially amounted to 20,000", in addition to the 11–12,000 garrison. Where did these 20,000 soldiers come from according to the source you used? It's important to include this information tbh, because the readers will ask themselves 'where did these 20,000 soldiers suddenly come from?' in addition to the garrison. Lenovya (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The first figures refer to the battle on October 10, and the second to October 14-15 (according to different sources, different days), it's all in the article. Dushnilkin (talk) 10:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The thing is none of this is in the article. There's no mention of 14-15 October, or that there were two separate battles.

By the way other sources I'm looking at are giving the date 21 October 1809, are you sure this was in 1810? Lenovya (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

In general, all the sources I have mentioned are called the date 1810, in 1809 the Russians could not besiege Silistra because of the flood of water in the river. (see Petrov) Dushnilkin (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Wars, 2005, p. 990:

"which endured until October 21, 1809, when a force of 30,000 Turks defeated 15,000 Russians at the Battle of Tataritza in Bulgaria. Despite the victory, the Turks lost 2,000 men versus 1,000 casualties among the Russians"

Warfare and Armed Conflicts: A Statistical Encyclopedia of Casualty and Other Figures, 1492-2015, Clodfelter, 2007, p. 190:

"Seraskier Pechlivan Khan with 30,000 Turks defeated Prince Peter Bagration with 15,000 Russians on October 21, 1809, at Tataritza in Bulgaria. The Turks lost 2,000 killed, wounded or missing, while inflicting 1,000 casualties on the Russians"

I would say they are maybe two separate battles but no source indicates this, and the information given essentially matches with the battle Russian sources say occurred in 1810. The commanders are the same and the number of soldiers are similar. Lenovya (talk) 11:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Velichko are also called 1809, apparently this is a mistake in the Brockhausen encyclopedia. The date in your sources is most likely named in a new style. The collection of Bagration's documents also calls the date 1809. Dushnilkin (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah I see, so it was in 1809. What exact dates do your sources give, as the ones I gave say 21 October.

And you mentioned two battles (one on 10 October, another on 14-15 October; these aren't mentioned in the article, are you sure this is the case?) Lenovya (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

21 October is date according to the Gregorian calendar, October 14 is the retreat of the Russian army without a fight. The situation is similar to the siege of 1773, when the Russians are successful in a field battle, but withdraw when they learn about the Ottoman reinforcements. In any case, I will now make out the date in the article. Dushnilkin (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll add in the other no. of forces/casualties estimates after your edit. Lenovya (talk) 12:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I will also update the losses, Bagration in his report estimated the total Russian losses at 333 people. (82 killed, 251 wounded) Dushnilkin (talk) 12:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

You should talk about Petrov's estimate of 500 in the main body of the article, but you can remove it from the infobox since the highest estimate we have is 1,000 from the two sources I found (no need to give lots of different stats in the infobox) Lenovya (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I will indicate the losses as here. Dushnilkin (talk) 12:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I have slightly corrected your edits, according to the text of the sources, most likely it means the number of troops during the battle, excluding the garrison, similar figures (30,000) give Egorshina & Petrova. In general, the indication of this data is not required in the infobox, is WP:ONUS. Dushnilkin (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

"30,000 is the number of the first unblocking army, excluding the garrison and troops that came later (according to Egorshina & Petrova)". Which page number? No other source mentions this, but if that is what your source says then sure. Nevertheless, 3 other historians are saying there were 30,000 troops in total.

Also, how is including the 30,000 figure a violation of WP:ONUS? You include ranges of strength and casualties in pretty much all your articles, that would somehow be WP:ONUS too then? Lenovya (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I indicated the page in the text of the article, in this case it is WP:ONUS since it only applies to the Pehlivan army, kolfider writes the same thing, attributing the number of troops to him Dushnilkin (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Could you give me the exact quote from Egorshina & Petrova 2023, p. 201? I can't download the source online. And do any of the sources you provide clearly state that Pehlivan Pasha's 30,000-strong army was separate to the 11-12,000 garrison? Lenovya (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

You've also written a figure of 4,500 Russians taking on Pehlivan Pasha's 30,000 army. How is this possible? Where are the remaining 15-20,000 Russian soldiers? Could you provide an exact quotation from Petrov regarding this too. Lenovya (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Of course, I quote now.

Petrov, pp. 385-386: If Prince Karl of Macklenburg's detachment had arrived to help Bagration, his forces would have numbered 40,000. He could have allocated more than 30,000 men for the battle with Pehlivan and completely defeated him, but he brought into battle no more than 4,500 against 30,If Prince Karl of Macklenburg's detachment had arrived to help Bagration, his forces would have numbered 40,000. He could have allocated more than 30,000 men for the battle with Pehlivan and completely defeated him, but he brought into battle no more than 4,500 against 30,000 Vizirs army. [1]

Egorshina & Petrova, p. 201: Prince Bagration was performing a difficult task: with his army, he had to block the garrison of the fortress numbering 12,000 and confront the vizier's army, which consisted of 30,000 soldiers. Dushnilkin (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, this was helpful. Does Petrov state why he thought that Bagration's army during the clash numbered 4,500? Where were the remaining 15–20,000 soldiers, for example. Lenovya (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

They covered the rear and supported the siege of Silistra. According to Petrov, it was necessary to leave a minimum number of troops against the fortress and bring them into the field. Dushnilkin (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Do you have an idea as to what battle/siege you will make into an article now? Lenovya (talk) 10:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Bucharest (1771) Dushnilkin (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, that had happened shortly after the Capture of Giurgiu (1771) Lenovya (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)