User talk:Stroganoff

First Barons' War
Hey, thanks for your edits; I've reverted them to the previous version for now just until I can establish the reason behind them. I've never heard the Pro-Capetian forces referred to as the "Army of God" before; is that a commonly used term for them and, if so, can you reference it? On the subject of referencing, sentences like "The barons saw Prince Louis as a possible guarantor of their rights rather than a foreign invader- All English Kings since 1066 had been in some sense French. " really need referencing to support them. The english kings were french, yes, but not of the same bloodline as Prince Louis; they were the descendants of William the Conqueror rather than Hugh Capet (He's an ancestor, so I know rather a lot about this sort of thing). The Capetian invasion and capture of the duchy of Normandy had firmly put the Capetians and Angevins on opposing sides; the fact that the English king's ancestors were once subjects of the Angevins doesn't really lend credibility to that sentence; regardless of John's ancestry, Louis was still a foreign invader. Ironholds 02:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I will have to get references then. I am surprised you have never read the term Army of God, assuming you have read aroung the subject.


 * You would need a reference to claim that Louis was a foreign "invader"- I would say this was not the case, since he was intervening in support of a faction in a civil war. I will therefore leave that part more open until you have a reference. Perhaps the final version will offer the possibility of either interpretation. Stroganoff (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

World War II
Hello, rather than edit war, can you please discuss your proposed change on the article's talk page? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Stroganoff, I realize that you are probably new to Wikipedia but it's considered bad form to repeatedly make the same edit more than once if other editors object. If someone disagrees with your edit, you should start a discussion on the article talk page and attempt to reach concensus for your change.  Thanks!  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

January 2015
Your recent editing history at England shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. See BRD for 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 your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NebY (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited East London, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hackney and Redbridge. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

American Civil War
You need to discuss your ideas on Talk:American Civil War and try to garner consensus from editors there. You have been reverted twice and for you to continue reverting would place you in edit warring territory for which you could be blocked. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  17:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment. However I have given reliable sources, and the wikipedia consensus is already that reliable sources are the basis for an article. The editors on the American Civil War cannot overrule this. You may, of course, wish to challenge the reliability of my several sources, in which case please do go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and discuss your problem with the sources Stroganoff (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If your problem is with my use of the sources, do feel free to delete what you think is my work while leaving the quotes from the sources intact. Stroganoff (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  18:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the way that has edited it down to due weight as seen here. However, your descriptions of the above which seem to try to circumvent BRD won't work so do not revert and please carry out the proscribed discussion on Talk:American Civil War so that it may include other editors if you are unhappy with the status quo. At the present, consensus has now been established since Rjensen and I agree. If you would like to try to establish a different consensus, it will need to begin on the article talk page.
 * the rule is not " reliable sources are the basis for an article" but " reliable SECONDARY sources are the basis for an article." Primary sources are very easy to misinterpret without expert guidance.  In this case the quotes were made decades too early--the authors of the quotes did not know the future. Rjensen (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited East London, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Redbridge. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Dirk Moses
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Dirk Moses, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.dirkmoses.com/.

It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dirk Moses


The article Dirk Moses has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. KSF T C 22:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Occitania Region, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conseil d'État. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

February 2017
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Lake Baikal into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. /wiae 🎄 01:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand how to use the template. Stroganoff (talk) 08:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Militia principle moved to Draft:Militia principle
Hi Stronganoff, Greetings. Pls note that your creation of Militia principle has been moved to Draft:Militia principle. Content added/edited in Wikipedia needs inline citation from independent/third party r reliable source (in any language) for verification to gauge nobility criteria is met. Pls see reliable source - WP:RS, verification - WP:V, and notability WP:N. For webcite - see here WP:CITEWEB and its template Template: cite web. Thank you.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Militia principle
Hello, Stroganoff. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Militia principle, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Militia principle


Hello, Stroganoff. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Militia principle".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. 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. Sam Sailor 10:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

"Hell legion" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hell_legion&redirect=no Hell legion] 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  until a consensus is reached. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 22:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)