User talk:Matrose-von-Kronstadt

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (September 29)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Aydoh8 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
I've done a Google search and feel that this might meet WP:NMUSIC, but at the moment with the current sources provided it does not appear to do so. If you would be able to provide more sources to satisfy NMUSIC, that would be appreciated.
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.
Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 15:11, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean it has been declined? It says it is still under review. Matrose-von-Kronstadt (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aydoh8 can I please know what you found that would make it meet NMUSIC? It's a lot of YouTube and if I remember right, YouTube shouldnt be used as a source. Matrose-von-Kronstadt (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I said it might, not that it does. The burden is on you to find the sources. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 15:29, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok. Thank you. Matrose-von-Kronstadt (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Matrose-von-Kronstadt! 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! Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 15:11, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Song of the United Armies (September 29)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Aydoh8 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
You haven't added any more sources since the last time around. Please add more before resubmitting.
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.
Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 15:15, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok sorry. I will fix this page and resubmit it when it meets NMUSIC Matrose-von-Kronstadt (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

very nice article on "song of the United Armies"

[edit]

Hope it gets through Kommandant-Brot (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Matrose-von-Kronstadt (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 2025

[edit]

Copyright problem icon Your edit to Western influence in the Baltic states has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 20:26, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mb. Think Klaus had a similar thing. I’ll be more careful next time, my bad. Matrose-von-Kronstadt (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

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

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.

45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 20:30, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha Matrose-von-Kronstadt (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on content, nor am I an expert on the Baltics. However, currently Western influence in the Baltic states doesn't seem particularly neutral, and there are major issues with non encyclopedic language in the article. I've tagged it for the issues I see on it; the links on those tags, at the top of the page, will provide more information. On the undue weight part; the majority of the article seems dedicated to criticism towards the West, with no mention of any good that there might be. Western influence in the Baltic states#Political: The EU seems especially prone to these, being almost entirely criticism, while also being filled with WP:WEASEL words. Its entirely possible the EU has caused nothing but harm to the Baltics, but the level of sourcing the article currently has doesn't seem to indicate that only harm has happened. As with other areas the EU has expanded to, there is generally good and bad with it, but the articles appears to fail to mention any good the EU has done, leading it to not be particularly neutral.
If you would like to continue expanding the article, those would be recommendations. Also, the times this article appears to draw to a conclusion need to be reworked, otherwise its original research. Please refrain from things like Yet, in typical western hypocritical fashion, the west refuses to acknowledge that they themselves have now occupied these states and are responsible for their modern decline unless such a statement is backed up with reliable sources (and such an exceptional statement would require exceptional sources). Best, 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 00:59, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
so more positive aspects of the EU and stuff? got it
sorry I'm still pretty new to Wikipedia so I'm trying to figure my way around haha. hope I haven't caused any trouble Matrose-von-Kronstadt (talk) 11:12, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination for Western influence in the Baltic states

[edit]

Hi, I have responded to your DYK nomination for Western influence in the Baltic states, please can you respond there?

I have now read 45dogs comments above and think that the article is unlikely to be suitable for DYK. It would need major work to be made neutral and even then the topic probably doesn't need a separate article from the main Baltic states article. I can see that you are a new editor so I would recommend trying again with a shorter and less controversial article. You could also read the Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines to see what is expected. TSventon (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to this. There is a major disconnect between other articles involving post 1991 Baltics and this article; for an article about 'Western influence' in the Baltics, it only focuses on negatives, while other articles on the Baltics post 1991 aren't purely negative. And things like this are not WP:NPOV at best, WP:OR at worse. Best, 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 14:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@45dogs@TSventon thanks both, I'll look at the links and try to figure stuff out. Matrose-von-Kronstadt (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, combining your first (or second article) with contentious topics and Did you know does make for a lot of reading. TSventon (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Sorry for wasting people's time! Matrose-von-Kronstadt (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, (almost?) every editor was a new editor needing help at one time. Contentious topics are hard work so I generally try to stay clear of them. I would suggest moving the article to draft as it is not neutral at the moment. Also you can attribute everything that happens in the Baltics to a combination of external (Western) and internal factors, so I don't think that a separate Western influence article is needed. A neutrally worded section on demography might be a useful addition to the Baltic states article, while the section of criticism of the the EU is cited to a single American source and would need to be rebalanced. TSventon (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the demographics part to my sandbox so I can expand on it. Any idea why it won't let me make it paragraph style instead of header style? A weird yellow-black slanted bars appear whenever I try to click on it. Matrose-von-Kronstadt (talk) 12:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disregard.. i'm being dumb Matrose-von-Kronstadt (talk) 12:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They're stealing our rights

[edit]

Some one changed south vietnam's status but I had a citation so I went to go change it and they'd protected the page XD . I left an edit request so it should be good Kommandant-Brot (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concensus on South Vietnam

[edit]

Hi hope you're alright,

Are you willing to be a supporter of changing the status on South Vietnam's article to "Satellite state of the United States[1][2]"? I have two sources, one's the BBC and the other's the US Government so they are reliable.

Kommandant-Brot (talk) 12:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ofc Matrose-von-Kronstadt (talk) 12:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
^.^ Kommandant-Brot (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave that here for both of you to read thoroughly if you havent' done so already. Asking people directly to chime in to build consensus in could easily be seen as canvassing. And: no one is "stealing your rights"...consensus-building might actually take a long time; the first port of call when your edits get reverted or don't stand as intended should always be the talk-page of the affected article. Lectonar (talk) 12:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see, very sorry :( Kommandant-Brot (talk) 13:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dieter isn't online now but i'll tell him about this when I see him next. Kommandant-Brot (talk) 13:49, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually his talk-page, so he will see it. Lectonar (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ah ok Kommandant-Brot (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lectonar I've read the canvassing page - I believe my actions ahve been called innaprporpaite and I will stop. Very sorry for any trouble I've caused. Matrose-von-Kronstadt (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "The Vietnam War - CCEA". BBC. Retrieved 2 November 2025.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  2. ^ "209. Paper Prepared by the Ambassador to India (Galbraith)". Office of the Historian. Retrieved 5 November 2025.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)