User talk:DonaldDuck: Difference between revisions

cpsu categories

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

Re:

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

AfD nomination of Putinism

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

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

DYK nomination for Mikhail Khilkov

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

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

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

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

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