User talk:SilverStar54

It is great that someone will pay attention to Chinese Communist Revolution! But you should recognize that the article is very misleading, not least in having contradictory descriptions in the lead and in the body of the article of what the revolution was. The article follows the correct scholarly view that the revolution started with the founding of the CCP in 1921, or even, as Bianco's book has it, 1915. But the lead limits it to the Chinese Civil War 1945-49, which is only the last phase. I will make a quick edit to the lead, but we should work a little more to make this the good article it deserves to be.ch (talk) 06:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CWH - I understand your concerns, and I am flattered by the compliment from an experienced editor such as yourself. I look forward to working together to improve the quality of this (and other) Wikipedia articles about China. As I was writing my additions to the article, I realized that I was adding significantly more detail to the "background" section than was customary. That said, I'm split on whether the article should attempt to encompass the whole history of the Communist movement from 1921 to 1949, or just 1946-1949. On the one hand, it is obvious that the events of those last four years were in many ways a culmination of the past two and a half decades of political developments. On the other hand, most of the sources I consulted, including the reference you removed, used the years 1946-1949. I imagine that this could be viewed analogously to the Russian Revolution, which could also be viewed as a culmination of years of political developments. Regardless, I think that this is definitely a discussion that needs to be had on the Chinese Communist Revolution Talk Page, with the points for and against different dates enumerated for the community to consider and discuss. SilverStar54 (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SilverStar54. When you add short form refs ({{sfn}} or one of the Harv templates) to an article it needs a full cite to link to. If you're copying from another article just make sure to copy the relevant cites to the appropriate section (Sources in this case). If you're writing new text you'll need to create the cites from scratch. An ISBN number or Google books URL can be useful in this case, as it allows the cite to be auto-generated (see WP:REFB).
These errors are hidden by default, but can be enabled by following the instructions at Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. They can be useful if you intend to use short form refs often.
If you have any questions reply here, or feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I was aware of this but I didn't realize errors would be hidden! I really appreciate you going back to clean up my sloppy work and I'll definitely look out for this in the future. SilverStar54 (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, keep up the good writing. There are always wikignomes like me running around fixing problems like these. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jiang Dengxuan, 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Rusalkii (talk) 09:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great article, thank you! If you're interested, I suggest nominating it for a WP:Did You Know, it's always fun to me to see something I've written on the main page. Rusalkii (talk) 09:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! I'll look into that, although I think I'm gonna try to do it for Han Linchun instead, since he has a more interesting fun fact.SilverStar54 (talk) 08:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edits on Great Tea Race of 1866. This is because the article is about a historic event. All the sources use the old names. Any reader wishing to check the content with the sources (WP:V) then finds that all the placenames are different.

I note that you are making large numbers of these changes. The vast majority of these articles are also on historic events. The correct change, if one is needed, would be to link the first occurrence of the old name with the article with the new name. Then the reader can find out what is meant, but still see what was originally written in the source. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that articles on historical events often do (and should) use the historical names in use at the time in question. There are many Chinese cities whose names have changed over the years (e.g., Niuzhuang) and others that have well-accepted alternate names that originate from non-Mandarin Chinese langauges (e.g., Canton and Amoy). In these cases, I agree wholeheartedly with your suggestion. As long as the modern, official name is given alongside the historical/alternate name, Wikipedia articles are free to use whichever one that a consensus of editors feels is more appropriate. If you check my recent edits, I've left most uses of "Canton" and "Amoy" as they are, and changed "Newchwang" to "Niuzhuang", not "Yingkou". I have been changing "Chefoo" to "Yantai" (i.e., the whole city, rather than "Zhifu", the district of Yantai that was romanized into Chefoo), but in most cases when English sources said "Chefoo", they meant the whole city, not just the titular district.

However, obsolete romanizations are not the same thing as historical names. The name of this city obviously isn't actually "Fuzhou", and it was certainly never "Foochow", it was always "福州市". "Fuzhou" and "Foochow" are both just ways of romanizing the same name, the former of which is the only widely-accepted way of doing so in modern writing. A large (and growing) majority of historians use pinyin for historical places, even if their English sources don't/didn't (one example, another, another, another, another, and another). Wikipedia editors share this consensus, and Wade-Giles/postal romanization are only considered acceptable under extraordinary circumstances. These exceptions include things like the official names of ships, if they had an official romanized name, and individuals (like Sun Yat-sen) who are exceptionally famous in the English-speaking world under the obsolete romanization of their names. But they don't include cities and people in articles that happen to be about a time period when English sources used older forms of romanization. If we did that, articles on 19th-century Chinese history would be in chaos, since even Wade-Giles and postal romanization were still evolving. Honestly, the contemporary romanizations don't even need to be referenced unless there's a good reason (for example, to explain why a school in Fuzhou is called the "Foochow Normal School" or help the reader parse a quote from an English primary source).

I'm going to copy this discussion to the talk page on the article so that others can see/participate, but hopefully you understand why I'm making these edits. Unless you have a further objection, I'm going to reinstate my edits; Wikipedia's policy on this is pretty clear. SilverStar54 (talk) 03:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. I think that only leaves me with the concern, where an article relies deeply on sources that use only the older romanised form, that some device is used to help the reader relate the name in the article with the name in the source. Therefore, in the Great Tea Race article, the first instance of, for example, Fuzhou should appear as:

"...had sailed from Fuzhou (Foochow) eight days after..."

This gives sufficient clue to the reader that there is a name variant and the link takes them to an explanation of that variant. In other articles where there is no highly accessible variety of sources, that might not be necessary, but the Great Tea Race has a number of books that may well mention the subject – the reader might have those available. And there is also the link in the article to [1] (where we see a slightly different way of dealing with the subject).

Essential to all this seems to be the linking of a place name that differs from sources to an article that mentions the name variants in the first part of its lead (which Fuzhou does). I appreciate that would create extra work for your editing, especially if that linked article does not actually deal with name variants. However, I don't think you would want an editor with my level of knowledge on the subject going and amending Chinese city articles to cover that point.

In a moment of over-enthusiasm, I did raise this at [[WP::WikiProject_History#New_or_old_placenames]]. I am now out of time to work on this further (work) but if you wanted to copy anything here to there, or deal with in any other way, that would be fine with me. Thanks, ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You make an excellent point about sources, and I will go back and add explanatory remarks to The Great Tea Race and the other articles I’ve edited that use quotations. I’ll also drop a link to this discussion in those articles’ talk pages so that other editors can read the rationale for using pinyin if they’re interested. Thanks for hearing me out, and for all your other good editing work. Best, SilverStar54 (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC) SilverStar54 (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Narrow-gauge railways in China

added links pointing to Guandong, Nangang, Toli, Yangming and Nanyuan

Xenocyon

added a link pointing to Fancun

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you will be aware, I've undone one of your changes from a historic name to a modern name. An important tenet on Wikipedia is that we do not rewrite history. I fully appreciate that historic Chinese names are not used in modern parlance, but when writing about historic periods of time, we should use the correct names for the period. This applies to all countries worldwide. Please revert your edits. I will raise this issue at the talk page of the naming convention you mentioned in your edit summaries. Mjroots (talk) 06:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Prefecture-level divisions of China, is not suitable as written to remain published. While it appears to be notable, it needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. There are large sections which are wholly uncited. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. I did this rather than removing the uncited material in the article, which I felt would be more disruptive. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask on my talk page. When you have the required sourcing (and every assertion needs a source), and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Or feel free to ping me to take another look.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SilverStar54,

Due to an RFC that occurred a year or two ago at the Village Pump, it was decided that only newly created articles should be moved to Draft space, not older articles. "Newly created" is generally thought of as articles that are not older than 3-6 months old. So, please do not move long-standing articles to Draft space. You can either work on improving the article yourself, tag it with notices about any existing problems or pursue one of Wikipedia's deletion processes that is appropriate, like speedy deletion/CSD, proposed deletion/PROD or nominate it at AFD. Thank you very much. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Oh, got it! Thanks for the heads up. SilverStar54 (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 April 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Northeastern Army, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Nationalist China's own Northeastern Army captured Chiang Kai-shek to convince him to end the civil war against the Chinese Communist Party? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Northeastern Army. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Northeastern Army), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your amazing work on this topic. —  AjaxSmack  14:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AjaxSmack Thanks, it's good to know that this sort of work is appreciated! SilverStar54 (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Baise Uprising, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Deng Xiaoping called his actions during the Baise Uprising "one of the worst mistakes" of his life? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Baise Uprising. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Baise Uprising), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 18,040 views (751.7 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of May 2023 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear SilverStar54:

Recently you made an edit on the article Luo Wenzao. Specifically, you put all the various spellings of his name into a footnote, and left the first paragraph of the lede to be "Luo Wenzao OP (c. 1610s – 27 February 1691) was the first Chinese Catholic bishop."

I understand that this simplifies the page, but I am curious if you have any other precedents or similar examples, so I can reference their style when writing my next article.

Cheers! --TheLonelyPather (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! The best way to deal with Chinese names in the leading sentence is a topic of discussion, especially in cases like Luo Wenzao when there's a bunch of different names/romanizations to mention. Someday hopefully we'll come to a consensus, but for the moment people seem to just be doing what works for each article on a case-by-case basis. I've seen the use of notes a couple times before, but I don't remember any specific articles off the top of my head. There's apparently a general policy on this that I recently discovered (MOS:FULLNAME), so hopefully that's useful. SilverStar54 (talk) 05:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I run into any other examples, I will drop them here. SilverStar54 (talk) 05:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, for consistency with the move of "Tung Ying-chieh" to "Dong Yingjie", do you agree the article on his son can be moved from "Tung Hu Ling" to "Dong Huling"? The number of book results seems to support this, and trends stronger over time. I do not know how to propose such changes, but after a move I will edit as appropriate based on research I've done for that page. Jōkepedia (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would support that move. Do you use Wikipedia:Twinkle? It adds some great tools to your top bar that make editing a lot easier, including one that (XFD) that lets you start a discussion for deleting or moving the page. It then automatically shares it in the right places. I'll go ahead and start a move discussion for Tung Hu Ling now, though. SilverStar54 (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help with that. However, this has become controversial because this person lived quite a long time in the United States under the name Tung Hu Ling, and that is the name on his headstone in Honolulu as you can see in this photo. His son Tung Kai Ying moved to the USA with him; he and his descendants also spell their surname Tung. Would you support undoing the move, and if so do you have a preference as to how we initiate it? Jōkepedia (talk) 04:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... this is quite an interesting case. I actually ran into a similar situation recently with Zhang Xueliang. The main difference is that in that case, there was a large number of recent sources that could be consulted, whereas few reliable sources seem to mention Dong. I think we should be cautious about deferring to the name someone used in the personal life, since that might not be the name they're known by to the general public. But in this case, given the lack of recent reliable sources, I don't have a strong opinion either way. SilverStar54 (talk) 04:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts. During his life he was known to the general public as Tung Hu Ling through articles in the reliable sources Black Belt magazine and T'ai Chi magazine from the 1960s through the early 1990s, and taught classes and workshops in Los Angeles, Hawaii, and around the world under that name. As you say, given the lack of more recent reliable sources that is all we have to go on, and as we are the only editors ever to discuss this, it seems non-controversial to revert to that name while noting the Hanyu Pinyin spelling where appropriate. Jōkepedia (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's fair, although you should copy this conversation to the article's talk page for others' reference. SilverStar54 (talk) 05:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Discussion copied and move request initiated. Jōkepedia (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a Move review of Operation Gideon (2020). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. WMrapids (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Tao Chi has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 11 § Tao Chi until a consensus is reached. Jōkepedia (talk) 02:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Civil rights movement in Orangeburg, South Carolina, from its old location at User:SilverStar54/Civil rights movement in Orangeburg, South Carolina. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. 64andtim (chat) 07:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Orangeburg massacre, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Summary justice and Burn Baby Burn.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Orangeburg massacre you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Orangeburg massacre you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Orangeburg massacre and Talk:Orangeburg massacre/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Orangeburg massacre you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Orangeburg massacre for comments about the article, and Talk:Orangeburg massacre/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Campaign to Defend Siping, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shuangmiao.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Orangeburg Massacre, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Orangeburg Massacre was the first time police shot and killed students on an American university campus? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Orangeburg massacre. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Orangeburg Massacre), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 22,469 views (936.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of September 2023 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is essential history that was left out of the history I was taught, and desperately needed to be documented. Thank you so much for your incredible work on this article. I think it's work like yours helps make the world a better place.

"Wasn't taught the world was so goddamn unjust, but it's on us to make it right." — Adeem the Artist.

Neuroxic (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for our kind words! They mean a lot to me and help give me the motivation to keep working. The Orangeburg Massacre was left out of my education too, even though it happened only a few hundred miles from where I grew up. When I finally learned about it years later, I wanted to make information on it more easily accessible. Hopefully a good Wikipedia article will help with that. SilverStar54 (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in the discussion at Template talk:Chinese Communist Revolution sidebar. Please note that when linking to a category, a colon is needed before the word "Category":

[[:Category:History and events sidebar templates]] 

You can read more about it at Help:Colon trick. Thanks. —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @SilverStar54. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. I have just noticed your mass edits to the Wushu at the Asian Games series, renaming the "taijiquan" articles to "tai chi." I understand the viewpoint that this aligns with WP:CONSISTENT, but I heavily disagree. "Taijiquan" is the official term used by the International Wushu Federation to describe the empty hand routine based on taiji (or tai chi) styles used in competition. The IWUF similarly uses taijijian to refer to the competitive event using a straight sword with taiji/tai chi techniques. Such terms have applied to various wushu competitions (including those as part of multi-sport events) for over 30 years. Nevertheless, the IWUF does provide that the English translations for these terms are "tai chi chuan" and "tai chi straight sword" respectively, but then it wouldn't make sense to use these terms because all other wushu routines are known on Wikipedia by their Chinese names. I joined Wikipedia back in late 2020 explicitly because of wushu and I've always used the word "taijiquan" to describe the discipline. I think a majority of the competitive wushu community I know would agree with the usage of taijiquan over tai chi to describe the discipline in competition. Just let me know what you think. Thanks and hi again. Yinglong999 (talk) 00:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Yinglong999! I also care a lot about Wushu; I grew up practicing Wing Chun (and I'm also a big believer in using pinyin). So let me explain myself:

There was recently a large discussion over at Talk:Tai chi about what name Wikipedia should use for the sport. I supported using taijiquan, but the overwhelming majority wanted to use "tai chi". Their reasoning was that, in English, "tai chi" has become a common noun, not just a translation of the Chinese word. It's like karate, yoga, kung fu, etc. Whatever the International Wushu Federation gives as the official translation, Wikipedia uses the WP:COMMONNAME. So that's why I've been making these mass changes. Although I would prefer taijiquan, the most important thing is that Wikipedia is consistent. It's really confusing for non-experts when different pages use (seemingly) totally different names for the same thing.

If you really think that pages about Wushu competitions specifically should be an exception (e.g., "the taijiquan competition at the 1998 Asian Games, where competitors performed tai chi"), that's a bit trickier. You might have a point there, I'd have to think about it. If you want to continue down that road I recommend you bring it up to a wider audience, perhaps on WT:SPORTS? SilverStar54 (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Megalian movement screenshot of post.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 17:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iruka13: I'm not sure what a free equivalent of this file would look like. This is a screenshot of a DC Inside post. Wouldn't any screenshot of this post (or any other post) be non-free and fall under DC Inside's copyright? That's my understanding of how Wikimedia Commons explains it. If there is a way to get a freely-licensed screenshot of this or an equivalent post, I would be happy to do that.

The post is the subject of sourced commentary (on my sandbox page atm) that would be difficult or impossible to explain without reference to the visual, since the humor/message of the post relies on the visual gag of clicking on the title and seeing unexpected content. SilverStar54 (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Megalia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Korean.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 27 October 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Eyuwan Soviet, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in the 1950s, 70 percent of senior officers in the People's Liberation Army came from the Eyuwan Soviet area? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eyuwan Soviet. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Eyuwan Soviet), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Aoidh (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great article! -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! SilverStar54 (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I created the County-level divisions of China article, if you like, please feel free to edit the page for improvements. Thank you. Silence of Lambs (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chun-Li, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sanda.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 8 November 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) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SilverStar54. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Civil rights movement in Orangeburg, South Carolina, 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) 07:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited List of socialist songs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alfred Hayes.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Yu Liang, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zhuangzi.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SilverStar54. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Civil rights movement in Orangeburg".

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!} 06:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you suggested you could withdraw this AfD as deletion isn't likely, and the required rewrite / retitling won't happen through AfD, it's not for "editing". It'd be easiest if you'd favour the "editing" side by pulling the AfD now or we run the risk of having the current state of the article fossilized into place for ever. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that a "keep" decision would necessarily fossilize the page in it's current form, but I'm withdrawing my nomination regardless. It turns out there are more sources that discuss this topic than I realized. SilverStar54 (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've moved all the definitions of Kuhn 1990 out of the text, which is now down to 30 k from 40 k; the references list looks a WHOLE lot better. I've tweaked the lead and the article title to indicate plurality of events. The right thing to do now would be

a) to cut down the 1768 detail (i.e. cribbing from Kuhn)

b) to add detail on the other events, from new sources.

I doubt if I'm the right person for that job; I'm available to lend a hand if you need it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Red Napoleon. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. 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. Boleyn (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, this was meant as a disambig page, I just forgot to tag it as such. All of the information on the page is there to help readers to disambiguate the links, and comes from the linked pages. SilverStar54 (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red Napoleon, 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 B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 3% of accepted submissions — major 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Toadspike [Talk] 13:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]