User talk:Dc76/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Dc76. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

This page was archived following the instructions at Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page#Cut and paste procedure.

Am incercat cum mi-ai scris, dar...

...desi sunt normal inregistrat, am primit raspunsul urmator:

"You must be logged in and have a valid authenticated e-mail address in your preferences to send e-mail to other users. Return to Main Page."

Imi poti scrie pe mailul care desi nu este recunoscut ca valid de Wiki englez, merge prefect: mernature@wanadoo.fr

Am multe carti despre si din Rep. Moldova si ma gandesc din ce in ce mai serios sa dau o parte din ele (teza este data de mult, le folosesc din ce in ce mai rar, urmasii mei nu sunt interesati de asa ceva).

Functionarea pe Wiki englez este caricatural de scrupuloasa: referintele uneori inlocuiesc gandirea. Daca unul scrie "water is wet" iar altul "water is dry", pe Wiki englez vei citi: "dupa unii, apa se pare ca ar fi uda; altii insa afirma ca este uscata". Astfel, la paragraful "Languages" din articolul "Byzantine Empire" citim:

"Additionally common Latin continued to be a minority language in the Empire which many scholars believe gave birth to the Vlach languages",

... ca si cum ar fi posibil ca limbile romanice din Balcani sa aiba alta origine decat latina populara ! Ma intreb si ce vrea sa sublinieze acel "Additionnally": ca romanicii din Balcani sunt ceva marginal, ne-important (mai marginal decat Albanezii) ?

--Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Dc76/Userbox IndependentChechnya

User:Dc76/Userbox IndependentChechnya, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dc76/Userbox IndependentChechnya and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Dc76/Userbox IndependentChechnya during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 05:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Chechnya userbox

Hi, Dc! Thanks much for an elaborate and detailed comment; I sincerely appreciate you taking time to make it. I do, however, believe that you, as well as many of the folks who voted to support the userbox in question, misunderstood the purpose of my nomination, and I blame only myself, for I was unable to communicate my intent more clearly. At no point of time was I trying to deprive anyone from their right to hold opinions on various matters. I myself am human, I hold opinions on many different things, and some of those opinions are strong to the point where I avoid editing articles on that topic because I know there is no way in hell I'll be able to stay neutral. So, my only concern about this infobox (and by "only" I mean only) was that it goes against WP:USERPAGE, which, as you undoubtedly know, is a guideline dealing with the content the editors can and cannot have on their userpages. My line of thinking is that if the community bothered to develop a guideline such as that, it is the responsibility of the community members to either uphold that guideline or, if it no longer has consensus, to update it so it does not contradict the existing practices. Since I happen to agree with the guideline's intents and purposes, I went ahead with taking a random non-compliant userbox and nominating it for deletion. This one happened to be the userbox supporting the independence of Chechnya. If it were a box supporting the independence of Transnistria, Kosovo, Taiwan, or Tibet, I have no doubts I would now be writing this same response to some other editor who may have submitted a comment not dissimilar from your own comment above.

The bottom line is that we should never forget why we are here and what we are supposed to be doing. This is an encyclopedia, and we are the writers of encyclopedic content. Sure, our personal feelings and opinions affect everything we write, but that should not prevent us from following the core principle of the project—neutral point of view. If one is unable to write in a neutral manner on a given topic, then one should find another topic where neutrality is easier to follow. If one is unwilling to write in a neutral manner, such person would be much better off leaving this project for some other worthy endeavor; one where neutrality is optional. Same principles should guide the communications between the editors—I know full well you have your opinions, and you know full well I have mine, and we know full weel everyone has their own, but in the end it should have no effect whatsoever on our work. The only thing that matters is whether we are able to control our POVs well enough for the content we produce to be written in a neutral manner. There most certainly is no need whatsoever to be flashing your opinions in front of other people or, worse yet, advertise a certain point of view in hopes of swaying other peoples' opinions. For that they invented bumper stickers, and in my experience one is yet to convince another person of anything using only that tool. And if you absolutely need to know what my opinion on such or such topic is, just ask me. In fact, that is your only option, because I am most certainly not going to plaster userboxes all over my userpage advertising my opinions about which no one gives a damn anyway but which could alienate folks holding opposite views, folks who may otherwise have entered a productive collaboration with me.

Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Dc, thank you again for your thoughts. To address your remaining concerns, the nomination was not addressed to remove only one userbox (namely yours); it was a nomination of what was supposed to be a series of nominations of similar userboxes (this point was clarified in small font, so it was easy to miss). However, in my unbridled optimism towards what I felt was a sure-hit outcome, I did not think of a backup plan, so continuing to nominate similar userboxes in pretty much pointless now. There should be another way, and your suggestion seems to be a good alternative (more on that below).

I should also note that item 8 of WP:USERPAGE was not the only reason behind the nomination. I feel that such userboxes also fall under the definitions of "personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia" and "non-encyclopedic related material". I see how the "I support independence of Chechnya" statement being "polemical" can be seen as a subject of interpretation and debate, but I don't see how potential independence of Chechnya can ever amount to anything more than a personal opinion unrelated to Wikipedia. Even if you are a scholar working on a publication researching the potential ways for Chechnya to become independent, it is still not "related to Wikipedia" (because, mainly, of the original research and, to a lesser degree, of the conflict of interest concerns), and if you are not such a scholar, then, well, it is just your personal opinion which does not matter as far as the goals of improving the encyclopedia go.

I understand full well what you mean when you say that you had created the userbox "by analogy"—I myself used to have a fairly polemic userbox "by analogy" with other users who had similar userboxes displayed. With so many bad examples to follow, it may be hard to resist to add a userbox yourself, especially when nothing seems to be wrong with such practices on the surface. The key words here, however, are "on the surface"—I removed my userbox soon after I realized that to the editors holding opposing views such userboxes are, at best, a mild irritation, and at worst a bone of contention and a reason to justify conflicts (sometimes on matters completely unrelated to userbox statements). The positive side of such userboxes? Can't think of any.

You also say that you will remove the Chechen independence box from your userpage if I ask you nicely. I most certainly can do that, but I don't think that is going to be fair either to you or to other editors who will not have their userboxes removed. After all, if, as you say, I was able to half-convince you that controversial userboxes are bad for the project (and, judging by how you worded the rough draft of the proposed recommendation, you may have been even more than half-convinced), you should have no qualms about removing the userbox on your own. If you agree with my arguments as they are, why do you need me to personally ask you? Also, if I do ask you, in order to remain fair I will probably have to ask every other editor who has similar materials displayed to do the same, and, as much as I'd love to see Wikipedia rid of the bumper-sticker-mania, there are plenty of other things I'd rather be doing with my time. I hope you understand.

This, however, brings me to your recommendation suggestion. I think it is a great idea, and I sincerely regret it did not occur to me instead of the serial nomination idea that I started with the userbox is your userspace (but, again, see my note on optimism above). While I think the current wording of WP:USERPAGE is superior to such recommendation, I also realize that WP:USERPAGE is a guideline which, possibly, is being the least complied with, and the reality shows the practices which are a complete opposite. Still, there are good places for that recommendation to go to—Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics comes to mind right away, but there is likely to be a cache of similar destinations which could benefit from having this recommendation prominently displayed. I'll probably just be bold and add this recommendation to /Politics, and if there are any problems, I will continue the discussion there.

Once again, thank you for your time and comments. I welcome your further thoughts on this situation.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, now you can obviously tell that I didn't get more than three hours of sleep last night, because I was sure you wrote "if you asked nicely" while in fact there was no "if" present in the sentence you wrote! I then proceded with writing a lengthy diatribe-like response. Well, duh :( In any case, thanks for the clarification. Also, of course, thank you for this—I think you've just made Wikipedia a tiny bit friendlier place.

I will work on wording the recommendation next week, and will definitely let you know when I'm done. It was nice talking to you too, and I'm sure we'll bump into each other again; hopefully in regards to a less contentious issue. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it may have taken me over two hours to write a response to you, but it was definitely not the reason why I got so little sleep last night :) Nor did I have any problems with your English or reasoning flow. In any case, I'll certainly keep you in mind in case I have a question that lies in your area of expertise. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Poland-Lithuanian issues

I've tried a form of RfC years ago (Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania/Conflict resolution). Perhaps it failed because it was not an official RfC and did not attract neutral editors. I'd love to "bury the hatchet", but I see two problems with launching an RfC now: 1) as my ArbCOm shows, there is a high chance that various anti-Piotrus/Polish tag teams would join, with no knowledge of the Lithuanian side, but simply to paint the Piotrus/Polish side as bad ("enemy of my enemy...") 2) I cannot think of a single Lithuanian editor that edits P-L history topics and is not radicalized. In other words, I doubt there is much good faith on the "other side" - my interactions with them for years (up to and including in this arbcom) make me believe that this mindset is too common. Perhaps after this ArbCom, if some of what I believe are most disruptive editors are curbed, a P-L RfC would be feasible. Currently... the situation is bad, and has been getting worse since I first tried to solve it. Of course, my experience here is biased, and any critique of my argument and other advice would be appreciated. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Rules of ArbCom evidence

Unfortunately, comments are not allowed in other editors section. You can answer in your own evidence, or copy your posts to talk. Biophys had to remove your comment, and I am afraid he will have to do it to your new one (otherwise a clerk would do it).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Footnote

I added a Footnote to the Uniforms of the Confederate Military like you asked. If it is incorrect please explain it to me on my talk page.--LORDoliver † (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. it isn't that the source is problematic; I think the article might be. Perhaps you could compare the text on that page with the article. — BillC ^talk 21:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have uploaded the cover of my book onto wikipedia type in Image:Historic Times Illustrated.jpg on the Wikipedia Search Bar.--LORDoliver † (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much, so you think the article is ready for DYK. --LORDoliver † (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, how do you like the new belt buckle picture I have added to the Article.--LORDoliver † (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

What else do you think I could do to improve the Article. --LORDoliver † (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the help! --LORDoliver † (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

M-am uitat în catalog dar nu o au. Însă, dacă e vorba de o carte care nu se găseşte pe Internet (eg Google Books), atunci ai voie să scrii {{subst:DYKtickAGF}} - "Article is ready for DYK, with a foreign-language or offline hook reference accepted in good faith" (presupunând că poţi într-adevăr să ai încredere în cel care a scris articolul). Biruitorul ^Talk 01:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Mai e ceva la mijloc. Da, clar că articolul poate fi îmbunătăţit. Dar pentru DYK standardele sunt mai slabe - nu trebuie să fie perfect. Cât timp ce faptul din "hook" poate fi verificat (şi poate - a dat link la Google Books) şi proza e cât de cât OK, atunci poate fi aprobat. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, check out the new info I put on the article. --LORDoliver † (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: What I understood...

I was not really following the discussion between Biophys and Alex in all detail. But your point is quite interesting, if next to impossible to prove. Ockham razor would argue that we should discard it, but yes, it may be a valuable new POV for ArbCom. Feel free to post it (perhaps as an outside comment on the main Piotrus 2 arbcom discussion page?).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You may want to refactor the second sentence ("It is well-known that...) - I find it somewhat unclear (I am not even sure if its a praise, criticism of a neutral description of my person, and what is the relation between me and those two camps?) :) PS. Outside statements belong at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2 (yes, arbcom can be bureaucratically frustrating with technicalities of what belongs where, my apologies for that). PSS. Talking about puzzling real-world/conspiracy theories: [1], [2]... bizarre, isn't it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you know

Where is Busza/Jaruga? See Peace of Busza.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating material. Some lighter stuff from me: Nice song (I mean the melody!); very interesting (and arresting) map - much of that is in this book, if you have 600,000 lei to spare. Although I photographed a lot of pages from it, so if you'd like to write about Sighet, Aiud or some other prisons, let me know (I'm still working on Gherla myself). Biruitorul ^Talk 05:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a copy of the text that article was worked from initialy ishere. Jaruga in Polish, Yaruga in Russian, Iaruga in Romanian is the other locality mentioned. It is either a small city or a large village. Apparently, located on a creck with the same name. Possibly in 1616 or 1617 (this also has to be cleard out) Iaruga was a bigger place, while Buşa was where they actually signed the treaty, perhaps a smaller one. Also, thank you very much for the links.Dc76\^talk 06:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

"No comment" is right. And by the way, do check your e-mail! Biruitorul ^Talk 16:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

A comment

Sorry, I did not mean you should remove your evidence. To the contrary, some of your points are valid. I have never talked about that before, but perhaps this is time to explain. Let me place myself in the shoes of a person in Moscow who is responsible for creating good image of Russia or Putin. What would I do? Of course I would never ignore wikipedia as the best available information source at the internet. Russian state security services were very instrumental in using internet, from hacker attacks to participating in political blogs. For example, people are placing information from newspapers about Putin stealing $40 billions. No, such things can not be tolerated! So, the following would be expected.

Plan A. Use this place to promote professional disinformation and suppress undesirable information. This is easy. One can use disinformation published by the KGB earlier (such as the numbers of prisoners in Gulag). One can find as much disinformation as he wants in Russian newspapers, thanks to de facto censorship and "historians" who are paid to cook and publish propaganda. Just dispatch a few people with good knowledge of English and some knowledge of history/politics, and they will do the job. If someone places undesirable information in WP, it can be easily removed by asking a couple more people to join the game on your side. These people should simply follow a few textbook strategies that were always used by Russian services.
- Rule 1. Make social connections with people and create a good reputation about yourself ("good spy is everyone's best friend", said Stanislav Lunev); achieve a position of power. This means in WP setting: create some good content, make friends and became an administrator.
- Rule 2. Do not do all job yourself, enroll some "useful idiots" instead. In WP context: find good allies to promote disinformation and suppress undesirable information, people with certain biases, appropriate for each specific case. The allies can be "left wing", anti user A, anti nation X, or pro nation Y, - this does not matter. They joint the battle and finally get blocked, damage their reputation, etc.
- Rule 3. Stay focussed. Protect from undesirable information the most important articles first - those directly related to your employer and the wars and abuses committed by your employer.
- Rule 4. Disable your foes. In WP setting: block your opponents or meticulously collect all evidence on your opponents and start RfCs and arbitration cases against them. Blame them precisely of the same misdeeds you are doing yourself. Use Big lie technique. It works.
- Rule 5. The discipline. Everyone is authorized only to do certain things.
Plan B. This place should be destroyed if plan A does not work. Attack best contributors, fuel conflicts between users, discredit the authority of Arbcom to achieve anarchy, try to promote troublemakers like user G. to ArbCom, etc. This is all standard.

Note that I do not make any personal accusations here. I am only telling that such strategies are standard and therefore would be likely implemented. I know all of that in part from the literature, and in part because I was used myself as a "useful idiot" in one of elections campaigns in Russia.Biophys (talk) 04:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

One personal reflection. The main manipulators wouldn't be administrators as that position is too visible. Remember that in communist puppet states, the main ministers weren't the decisive ones but their Soviet 'advisors'. So I would guess in such situation that manipulators who are made into admins would stay in background, only to come in decisive situations, when the main manipulators need help or desire destruction of potential obstacle.PS:Btw this isn't conspiracy theory-we already have examples of political groups like CAMERA or business lobby manipulating Wiki.

--Molobo (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Today, Russian intelligence can no longer recruit people on the basis of Communist ideals, which was the "first pillar" of KGB recruitment, said analyst Konstantin Preobrazhenskiy. "The second pillar of recruitment is a love for Russia. In the West, only Russian immigrants have feelings of filial obedience toward Russia. That’s precisely why [the SVR] works with them so often. A special division was created just for this purpose. It regularly holds Russian immigrant conferences, which Putin is fond of attending." (Interview with Konstantin Preobrazhensky ). Biophys (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh, I guess a world full of spies out to get you is much more interesting then dreary reality... --Illythr (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Why me? I am talking about them getting wikipedia. This is something more important than me.Biophys (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, to get you on Wikipedia, then. And by you I don't mean you personally, but the general mindset. Sure, Wikipedians to tend to form groups based on shared interests, and, consequentially, POV. Sure, they sometimes band together to work on articles or try and ban people they don't like. But seeing the hand of KGB, CIA, ZOG or NOD behind all this is a bit, mmm, too much. After all, the unreliability of Wikipedia's (especially English) articles on politics and history is well known. Why bother the pros with something like that? --Illythr (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Illythr, I think they meen something else than what you understood. People who are editting WP out of curriousity, personal interest (have nowhere better to spend the time), encyclo-phils and other people would do what they do regardless of some political, security or media body. Such a body has nothing substancial to gain by contacting such users to work for them or by creating such account. In fact, it is quite risky to contact such users, for even someone who shares your mindset might have second thoughts when learning it is a state- or powerful body-organized campain. The risk of leaking is way too high, for all it takes is one small leak. On the other hand, creating an account with a broad interest is way too time consuming, and very expensive to keep. You can make occasional small edits on 20-30 other articles, but to make regular, qualitative and contentwise substantial edits on topics your are not paid for is a waste of your employer's money, big waste; with that kind of money you can do much better with a different stategy. So, to devote 50+ % of your time only for the "cover story" is out of question.

So, what you do is simple. You make 2-3-4 accounts and edit 3-4 articles only, the ones you are paid for. Does not have to be that you are paid as you go. On the contrary. You might have a regular job and this month it happens that you are given the assignment to clean a little bit the WP in regard to 2-3 issues. Something that 3-4, or even 1-2 persons can do. That body never helds any meeting regarding to WP, it is an issue way to small to come to their radar. It is something that a field office chief can handle with much ease, giving assignments to 2-3 agents that are less busy on a given moment.

The result of such "operation" is that a user like me and you can easily spot this kind of "something fishy". 1) normal editors' edits summaries are primitive, or at least short. Normal editors do not go around in sofisticated sentances to explain an obvious edit on a non-litigous topic. But these people do, because their boss told them to build "good reputation" for the acocunt. 2) normal users do not right away address any outside edits or comment on an article they are woking on. Normal users delay for days and weeks with answer, and when not asked directly never answer. Especially, normal users do not make to you comments that only complicate matters. Normal users do not try to "teach" you that the issue is too complicated, normal users never suggest to newbes that the newbes are underqualified. Only people who feel qualified do. A qualified person on article "Body X" is for example a long-time employee of body X, because such a person does really know a lot of internal information. To such a person the content of the WP article is less than he knew on day 1 on his job. 3) people who are paid, use outside-world technics to push their POV, for example they try to recruit their real-world accquientances to make WP accounts. So, when you get out pof the blue 3 times more users interested in some 2-3 articles only, all brand new users... Also they use email from minute one. As opposite to normal users who after a year that they know you, they ask you in the open whether they can email you. And even then, they keep occasionally replying to the email in the WP talk. 4) key issue is, what articles are being editted. If you are paid, you sure edit the article of you employer, or the article on an ongoing issue that seriously bothers your employer. KGB/FSB won't pay you to edit History of Moldova or MSSR, but it might ask you to edit a Litvinenko-type article during the 2-3 hotest weeks.

And such instances on WP did indeed happen in the past. One example is CAMERA. It was done so-so primitive that I think the person who did it is probably only an intern at CAMERA. If you and me banded together we would have done a 10 times better job, and noone would ever catch us. I am 90% sure that I personally met one other such case. This time, not from over the ocean. I made once a couple edits, or even only comments on some issues that just came out of being hot. I got such "attention" from a user that I never got before. With typical friendly contra-arguments to my every question, with sourses that on the sight seem ok, but if you take 20 minutes to understand the issue you realize it is hoax, I mean the user made use of the sourse in a very twisted way. And other such things. I wasn't really interested in the issue, so I simply gave up. Myself, I might be interested to get back to that article in 6-12 months. Or maybe I won't, depends if I will be still currious or not anymore. But that user was there at the right time, with the right info, rich info, and totally not interested if non-related issues. And I am sure that user won't be there in 6 months, because the issue would not be just-out-of-hot anymore.

As for the reliability of WP articles, including on politics and history, I for one read a lot in English and French language press, in very reputable press, even in non-media press. Everybody praises WP for the richness of information. And everybody points to two problems: 1) lack of proper sourses (even when the issues are described very well) 2) non-reliability of scientific details, b/c for non-specialists in a narrow field it is very easy to misunderstand some subtlities. On history and politics, WP invented tags, and they are widely applied whenever one has a doubt.Dc76\^talk 21:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I qualify by most of those criteria (sometimes trying to teach people to not see things black and white, using sophisticated edit summaries, using wikimail from the outset, sometimes replying within minutes, focusing too much on certain topics... etc). Anyhow, I am aware of a number of political lobbies active here on Wikipedia, but I'm not inclined to see the Invisible Hand behind every POV group. Or behind the groups I don't like. --Illythr (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I always have problem explaining thoughts, so pobviously I did a poor job above. But anyway, one like you is exactly what does NOT qualify. You don't give "that" king of attention. You do not preserve an article. And by preserve I mean that for them really counts every single minute the article stays "wrong". In your case, articleS (there are 20-30 of them to name before the first blink of an eye) stay "wrong" for months. Your edit summaries are just reasonable and whenever you "teach" there is substance behind. Not to mention 100 other reasons, a minor of which is you are interested in things the agency would never give a dime for. :) What I mean is an account less than 1 month old, from edit no 3 the account "owns" the article in question, from that moment nothing falls under the acocunt's radar, edits occur only in that article, in the talk page of the article, or rarely in talk pages of users that edit the aricles. There are exactly 8 other edits in exactly 2 other articles. Both articles directly linked to the article in question. Not to mentions an elaborate knowledge of what argument and when to through to one's eyes to make them blink longer or get blind altogether. And I don't think it's the agency. There is a couple other bodies capable, and more directly concerned with the article's theme. That article is too small a fish for the agency, but it is 100% clear that whoever holds the account knows how to work in media/propaganda and has editted WP before (does not make any of those 100 things that the new users do). But perhaps, I should keep more quiet. I am just a private person after all, and it is very easy to get to me if one really wants. As I said, I console myself with the thought that once the topic is off-hot, anyone could just go and edit. As for you, if I would have created the agency 1/100 of the problems I have "created" you, I would be dead by now. So, I am sure that not only the ackwaintances of your ackwaintances do not work for it, but at least 2-3 levels of distance further. At that distance, I think I already qualify for relationship to the agency. (Remeber the claim that any two persons in the world know each other through a maximum of 5 other intermediaries? :):) So far I was able to trace both Stalin and Queen Elizabeth to me. And even Mao Zedong!) Dc76\^talk 00:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Another comment

I intended to write a longer one, but my comp has crashed and I can't be bothered to do it again. So, on this: (b) has nothing to do with vandals - it asks people to not gang up on and ban someone they disagree with just because they disagree with them. (c) asks to avoid filling Wikipedia with more crap than it already holds. Additionally, your rationale for (c) is factually incorrect: Marius has been using checkuser requests en masse against his opposition for quite a while. The one on Mauco turned out to be "live" on 1.4.2007. Marius then proceeded to compile that lovely list of his two days later. --Illythr (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, whatever the details of Mauco case, it is clear that the article and the whole topic got a HUGE plus when Mauco was banned. Just compare Alexis and Mauco: like sky and earth. And it is also clear that the only reason that the Transnistria topic is no longer a problem on WP is MariusM, who had the patience to go through all that. To my shame I did not.

To the issue, the question is never that Kiril would misuse (b), (c). Nor any normal user, admin, etc. The problem is the maliciously intended users, who do not edit articles but only use wikilawyering to get to someone.Dc76\^talk 21:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

On the "only reason" we'll have to agree to disagree once again. On (b) and (c) - it's impossible to misuse them because they're non-enforceable (well, except (c) - on-wiki) - just a polite request to be nice. It is only of interest (to me) to see how many people would openly reply "No, we think it's ok to do all that!" It's just kinda odd that you did. --Illythr (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact for "only" we can even agree to agree :) The only thing I really want to stand by is that that MariusM's efforts helped put an end to it. To what extent that helped is less important, imho. But it would be wrong to forbid creating lists of differences on EE issues. That's my whole point. On (b) and (c) the issue is not "it's ok to do all that". The problem is that all tag teams need is to constantly repeat that X is Y, and after a while everybody thinks X is Y. Try to prove you are innocent. Therefore, I am opposed to explicitly forbidding X to be Y. Although I would never do "X is Y", I want to be safe noone puts me in a situation to prove innocent. Recommendations are of course ok, but ArbCom does not issue recommendations, it issues policy guidance, enforcible ones. Videsh' gde sobaka zaryta? Dc76\^talk 00:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Um. (b) says "Let's not gang up and try to ban people we don't like" (c) says "Let's not use Wikipedia to hold lists of grudges we hold against other people". That's pretty much it.

Thus, "No" to (b) means "No, it's perfectly fine to remove someone who disagrees with me by banning them through allying myself with other people he also disagrees with". "No" to (c) means "There's absolutely no problem in showing other users how bad a guy I hate is, so they can hate him too. Politicians do it all the time, why should Wikipedia be any different?" They are also about as enforcible as a certain cat's official policy of "Ребята, давайте жить дружно!" but it's curious to see people actually declare that they don't wanna. --Illythr (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

:) The way you put it is very correct, if one assumes that it will be used only by good-faith people. (which can not be assumed here, as the present ArbCom case was filed in worse faith possible, without bringing a single content issue, the case itslef is just an attempted personal attack) I indeed "voted" against "Ребята, vy obyazany жить дружно". Why should ArbCom issue things which are not enforcible? If ArbCom issues something, that would be enforcible and will be enforced. Because ArbCom does not add in the end "And by the way, remember that you can not enforce what we just told you". IMHO, "No" to (b) means "No, please do not blame me of ganging up and trying to ban people I "don't like", unless you have evidence I ganged up. Don't put me in a situation that I have to prove you I did not gang up. Just take my word for it, and I will take yours, WP:AGF." "No" to (c) means, IMHO, "No, do not forbid me to create lists of differences. As long as I do not use the entries in the list against somebody, assume I use them for myself. Maybe after compiling the list I would realize there is no case and I got heated artificially. Maybe I only ever use 10% of those entries. How can you know what I will do, when I myself don't know that yet?" You see, Illythr, it all depends who asks and how asks, as proven by this example. If all means to get, say to me, using ArbCom decision would be filtered by you or Ezhiki, I would have no problem saying right away "Yes" to (b) and (c). Problem is, you and Ezhiki can obtain from me what you want by other means and in ways I would be simply oblidged (morally, not formally) to give up. So, if the good faith editors don't need this, who needs, to whom it can be useful? See? Dc76\^talk 01:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(b) is completely un-enforcible, because it's impossible to prove that the group is attacking its victim because of "ideological incompatibility" rather then conduct issues. And the burden of evidence always lies on the accuser (you seem to have assumed that (b) somehow would remove that burden...?). To (c): Wikipedia is a project that's supposed to promote collaboration between editors. Compiling evidence of other people's misbehavior, whether perceived or real, "just in case" is promoting antagonism, not collaboration. I think the Ёziki has explained it quite well, there. To adapt to his statement on userboxes, the process of hoarding evidence is equivalent to a userbox stating "This user thinks Wikipedia will be a better place without user X and is willing to spend a considerable amount of wikitime to bring about the glorious day when Wikipedia will be finally X-free." So much for friendly collaboration. --Illythr (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

you seem to have assumed that (b) somehow would remove that burden...?). Indeed, that is exactly what I was doing. If to (b) would be EXPLICITELY added "The burden of evidence always lies on the accuser." I would no doubt change my oppinion to support. You carried the day here. I must admit I was super-protective in thinking (b) can be misused.

Unfortunately, on (c) we will have to agree to disagree. I follow perfectly your reasoning, and I find a single fault in it: you jump from the assumption compiling evidence of other people's misbehavior to the conclusion is equivalent to a userbox stating "This user thinks Wikipedia will be a better place without user X (...) Wikipedia will be finally X-free." IMHO, this does not follow, and precisely because of this I had to oppose. Anyway, to what extent my oppinion counts? I doubt others rely on it that much, if at all; I am not a very active user, especially in technical areas of WP I am almost profane. Dc76\^talk 20:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Amerika

Wenn getanzt wird, will ich führen,

auch wenn ihr euch alleine dreht,

lasst euch ein wenig kontrollieren,

Ich zeige euch wie's richtig geht.

Wir bilden einen lieben Reigen,

die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen,

Musik kommt aus dem Weißen Haus,

Und vor Paris steht Mickey Maus.

Translated

When you dance I want to lead

Even when you dance alone

Let yourself be controlled a little

I'll show you the right moves.

We'll build a nice circle

Freedom plays on all violins

Music comes from the White House

And in Paris stands Mickey Mouse.

BTW, there was no need to d/l it - it's available on Youtube, for instance. --Illythr (talk) 01:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Dc76\^talk 01:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIV warning on incessant personal attacks and fraudulent claims

Since you seem to be committed to serially posting fraudulent and malicious claims about me in public forums of this encyclopedia, I am going to have to warn you now to cease and desist immediately. First you fraudulently accuse me of implying or outright saying that "all Poles are anti-semites," and that I made charges against "entire nations." You cannot produce a single diff to back that fraudulent claim up. Now you claim, again in a public space , and as an example of why I should be issued "punishment", that I somehow because of me "your words are twisted to parade you as anti-Semite" and that I "link you with antisemitism." These are absolute and complete lies. I insist that you remove these fraudulent, malicous claims immeditely, or back them with solid evidence (which you will not find). Please be advised that there are penalties that you can and likely will incur if you continue to maliciously lie about another editor, and I will pursue that avenue if you do not desist immediately. Thank you. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 19:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I replied in his talk. Dc76\^talk 20:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to refactor your posts for you. You posted the fraudulent claims, and you should remove them. I've indicated to you which ones are fraudulent already. I am sorry that Piotrus has given you and other editors the false impression that they have license to say whatever they like about his opponents, including posting uncivil personal attacks and outright lies, without penalty. Please be advised that it is recommended that you do not follow his example on this. Personal attacks and fraudulent claims that you make--even simply by following his lead--are your own responsibility, and will be treated as such. Once again, I would appreciate it if you remove the false claims you made, as indicated above. Thank you. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I repeat, I did not and do not accuse you of anything. If you got the impression that I did, I want to state here and now: except for being confrontational with me, I do not accuse you of absolutely anything. And to be confrontational is your right, as well. It is only a matter of taste. Are you satisfied now? Dc76\^talk 20:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Your claim that you did not accuse me of anything is transparently false, and documented. On the contrary--in this post you make accusations that because of me "your words are twisted to parade you as anti-Semite" and that I "link you with antisemitism." I NEVER even vaguely accused or linked you with any such thing or "paraded you" in any such manner. Over here we clearly see where you imply that I "use allegations of anti-Semitism, and accusations of "troll", "bigot", "sleaze" directed at other users, and especially at entire nations". This is another complete lie--you cannot and will not produce a single diff even remotely indicating that I have made any allegations against "entire nations." And you imply in the same post that I "call all Poles anti-Semitic." So for the 5th or 6th time, I strongly recommend that you retract these documented, false accusations on your part. False accusations are considered a violation of WP:CIVIL. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Spellchecking

You have a check-spelling function? How do you do it? Dc76\^talk 21:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I use Firefox as my primary browser. Spell-checking of entered English text is one of its core features. You can install vocabularies for a large number of other languages and dialects, including five variations of English. Go Firefox! ^^ I do believe I suggested it to you before. :-)

PS: To be fair, I think you can install a spellchecker addon on Opera and IE7 too. --Illythr (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The Firefox at you workplace is probably set to a different default language (Romanian?). You can select the language you need by right clicking in the text edit field and then choosing "Languages" menu item (last one). The English vocabulary should come in the default install package.

As for onwiki tools, it looks like there are no spell checkers among them. But take a look here, maybe you'll find something that suits you. I would also recommend installing the wp:popups gadget, if you didn't do so already. Very nice. --Illythr (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It's that time of year again

I've created Soviet repressions. Currently, it is just a stub, but it's an important and well-documented topic, so it should have no trouble at all.

You've been working on related topics before — perhaps you'd like to help? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

iadrian_yu

Hello, can you please check the articles i`we made some changes, if it`s ok. And take a look at Vrsac discussion page please, at the new section "photos".

article:

Jovan Sterija Popovic

Monastery of Mesic

You can all find them from Vrsac page.

Thank you iadrian (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Am organizat pagina de la Jovan Sterija Popovic. iadrian (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Operation North

It didn't :-) `'Míkka >t 03:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Old business

I know I took my sweet time, but here's the first bird. I'd appreciate if you could keep an eye on it. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And they say everybody loves him...

You forgot someone. Dahn (talk) 08:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, not an actor. Whereas cheese... Dahn (talk) 08:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course! Why didn't I see it before? Dahn (talk) 09:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Dc76. You have new messages at Gutza's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bălţi Steppe moving

Hello, I've reverted your cut-and-paste move of Bălţi Steppe to Bălţi steppe. No objection against the renaming as such, just please never attempt to move an article by just copying its contents, as it destroys the edit history. Moves over an existing page location can only be done by an administrator. I'd do it right away for you, except that the page has seen so much controversy in the past I'd like to see some discussion on the talk page first to be on the safe side and check if there are no objections. Thanks, -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

A follow up

Perhaps you might be interested in this [3].Biophys (talk) 14:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Free Zone

Hi! Thanks for your confidence in me, but I am not familiar enough with the West Sahara situation to know these things by heart. I got the number of inhabitants from the Free Zone article, which gives as a source this report. In addition to these people, there are of course the refugees in Algeria, that probably fall under the SADR government. sephia karta | di mi 20:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Elections

Well, the electorate had tried to go with all parties of the political spectrum by now. The nationalists (1989-1994) came to power in one of the most prosperous Soviet republics and left it a war-torn poorest country in Europe. Massive disillusionment there. The centrists (1994-2001) didn't seem to do anything at all but drift - what was bad became only worse (except maybe that the nationalist rhetoric had died down - too late). The communists promised a return to the USSR, which was what the majority wanted by 2001. But comrade Voronin turned out to be Domnul Voronin. Radish is what such "communists" were called in the '20-'30s (red on the outside, white on the inside ;-) ). More disillusionment. And they bought Roska, who used to say that Voronin's gonna be second term president over his (Roska's) dead body.

On the positive side, under the communists, the economy did turn for the better (not much choice, after hitting rock bottom) and crime levels dropped dramatically (at least in the cities), so they've got some bargaining chips. The nationalists' best bet is the European integration card, as they seem to be the best fit for the role (support from Romania and all). As I don't see any alternatives, my guess is that it's going to be a battle between these two. --Illythr (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking ahead

Medium term is right; I'll be much too busy till after the new year. I will, however, make a few quick points.

Prehistoric Balkans already exists, so once I get to the talk page, I'll probably suggest working within that article. Also check out relevant categories like Category:Prehistoric Europe.
One of the least-covered aspects of Moldova's brief history is the 1994-2001 period of "drift" alluded to by Illythr above. We don't even have an article on the PDAM! So that will definitely be a focus next year, as well as the Moldova article itself, which needs some restructuring (though great work so far). (Much of the Romanian history of the 1990s - and, for that matter, this decade - is also poorly covered. Just look at History of Romania since 1989: except for a little about elections, it basically says nothing from the Mineriads until 2004 - Năstase's four years get just one sentence; no mention of Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, of Vadim getting to round two, of the major crises near the end of Constantinescu, of Romania during the Yugoslav wars (I'm sure there was some impact!), of privatization and land reform... No article for the PUNR either. So, a lot of work to do.)
This is funny! If it's legal, allow me to suggest you participate there as well.
You may have seen this - it's great, and better still, we can upload these to Wikimedia Commons. Here is a sample if you want to use something. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- PS In general, I agree it's not really useful to talk about Prehistoric Romania like one would of Prehistoric Japan or Prehistoric Iberia even (because the Pyrenees form such a sharp barrier). Still, this seems quite interesting, and see also this for a slightly later time period. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Frist of all, I owe you a ton of thanks for these links and making me aware of them! Allow me to add a few remarks in a different order:

The book about Prehistory in Romania is excellent. I am very glad it exists. Also, Enciclopedia României seems quite seriously under way. I am very glad it also exists. Good sources.
I think I would like to pin-point what I mean by "narrow-mindness" of the article Prehistoric Romania. You see, for example in Encyclopedia României they have categories Cetăţi Dacice and Aşezări Romane în Dacia. But these things existed not only within the boundaries of modern Romania. They also existed in what is today Moldova, in parts of what is today Ukraine, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Hungary. How do we deal with this on WP? Where do we put ancient Durustorum for example? If we put it under Romania, it might mean something political (afterwards the city actually belonged to Romania between 1913 and 1940) even if we do not realize it at first. The way I see a solution is to put all the content of Category:Prehistoric Romania and Category:Prehistoric Serbia in Category:Prehistory of Southeastern Europe and in the future to do the same for all other Balkan countries, that is when new article/categories would appear. (By the way, thank you very much for making me aware that it is not only a problem of articles, but also one of categories.) I will make several merge proposals, and will leave them open, for let's say 2 months. (Hopefully this is enough for the interested people to notice and reply.) We can, thus, come to this issue again, say in February. Again, I am proposing, but I am not stubbornly shutting my ears: if one wishes to persuade me of X, a good way is to explain why/how he/she is/became persuaded of X, and I can be persuaded (if an argument persuaded another logical person, chances are that argument could persuade me as well).
Thank you very much for telling me about http://fototeca.iiccr.ro . I will help putting some of those pictures on Wikipedia Commons. BTW, I found an interesting one: [4]. It's 1965, 4 years before 1969 (brink of war) and 5 years after 1960 (Soviet advisors leaving China). So the two guys are not really friends there. By the way, in 1960 there was a worldwide congress of communist parties in Bucharest, the last one when Soviets and Chinese attempted to solve there divergencies. We should one day write about it on WP.
As for History of Romania since 1989, I agree with all the comments and critics you made, but I disagree with the title. Everything that is to close to the current day should not be under history, but rather under politics. For Romania, I think December 1989 (22, or 25 December, perhaps) is the cutting point. For Moldova, a possible cutting point is 2 March 1992, the day on which Moldova was admitted to the UN and the day the War of Transnistria started. For Moldova, I did/will continue gather(ing) everything in the article Politics of Moldova. Given that Moldova is not such a large country, I think for another 4-8 years we can just go along with everything in that article (and more detailed but timely more narrower "sub"-articles). After 5-10 years, the users who will be around can decide whether it is time to move several years from "politics" to "history". About Romania, I would still prefer removing "History of" from the title. I would not advocate merging it with Politics of Romania, though. Simply because Romania is larger and more complex. Also Romania evolved politically, unlike Moldova who walks in circles, or in pendulum motions. I would like to help about a better coverage of Romania after 1989, but I would not like to play a "lead violin" simply because I know there are many users more knowledgeble about that. As for Moldova, I have no choice, but to play one of the two "lead violins" (along Illythr) simply because other Moldovans are either not interested in politics (like Serhio), or there are no others around (I would not count Xasha, for he certainly likes confrontation and edit wars on Moldova-related topics more than informative presentation of Moldova: For example, if I and Illythr have totally divergent oppinions about a subject, we very well can work a decent informative article. But if I have 10% divergence with Xasha, it's out of the question to agree on the first sentence, even. Also, his temperament would lead him in confrontation with others, and he would eventually be blocked, and I do not want to invest time in somebody who would be eventually blocked. Not that I my time is more percious than anybody else's, but because I can invest that time in other much better people.)

Good luck with whatever you are doing now. You can read this comment later, if you are busy.Dc76\^talk 00:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry XMAS

Sorry,

I come rarely in the English Wikipedia, I see your message from November only today. Congrtulations for your works, --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC) (sunt mai adesea pe adresa franceza sau româna)

Rayas

Unlike the rest of Moldavia, which became a vassal of the Ottoman Empire, these fortresses (Hotin, Akkerman, etc) were annexed by the Turks and came under direct Ottoman authority. But that last edit is fine anyhow. --Illythr (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy both New Years and Cristmasses to you too, hehe. ;-) --Illythr (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nistor

Welcome back to editing; thank you, I'll certainly keep the passage in mind. By the way, this is once again active. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I will have a close look at the categories and the possible Transylvania edit wars; sorry for the delay. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Having two identical articles is always a sign one should be redirected, which I've done. I'll also weigh in on the CfD when I have a chance. By the way, here is a link for you. It does need to be updated every so often, but it's interesting: it shows the very latest articles linking to Romania. A few are interesting; a lot are junk (like Ireland–Moldova relations (?), by someone with nothing better to do). This is the equivalent link for Moldova, which has a lot fewer articles specifically about it -- and many of the recent ones seem of dubious quality (Tohatin, Dumbrava, Chişinău, Unimedia.md, Masal Bugduv (!)), and although Greeks in Moldova is a little more interesting, I wonder (since the Moldovan state is so new and those Greeks share the same history as those in Romania, and since there are so few Greeks in Moldova nowadays) if we might not even merge with Greeks in Romania. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Dc76. You have new messages at Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for trying for compromise...

Greetings Dc76 - thanks for going for compromise over at the Spanish Civil War article. Not quite sure, though, that the result is correct. The Falange were extremely active before, during and after the war and their activity was critical to both the origin and the outcome of the War. I'll leave your edit and let's see what develops out of it... Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 08:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. It was just a try. I am not saying that my edit is better than any of the two versions, since I can not judge what potential extra problems it can raise. I have no presonal knowledge about Spanish Civil War, so it is very possble for me to be wrong, and while trying to do better, in fact do worse. The way I understood the objection to that portion in the intro is like this: Falange was not the only force on one Franco's side.

As far as I understand, the causes of the war were much deeper than a trivial Fascist-Communist conflict, but as always during prolonged conflicts, it is the extremists that win the day. So, just by blind logical supposition, without knowing anything, I guess the Falange became more and more powerful with time. It simply would make sense. Dc76\^talk 09:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Greetings Dc76 - Thanks for your reply. As you say, things are never black or white, especially in armed conflict, etc. Re. the case in point, Franco was never actually a Falangist and in fact did everything he could to reduce their power - once he was in power, which, by the way, was the result of a series of accidents to his military superiors.

But the current "debate" at the article is the result of a particular editor imposing a particular view and trying to re-write history - literally his story :) - from that particular viewpoint. I actually selected that particular reference as it comes from a historian (Payne), who writes from the Francoist perspective, but who does not deny the importance of the Falange in the whole "contendienda". Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I see. I am glad I can also learn something: I was confused about the relationship between Franco and the Falange. Now I get it. Thank you! Dc76\^talk 12:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

History of Transnistria before 1792

A tag has been placed on History of Transnistria before 1792, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Kingpin13 (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, please. I will try to expand it in the following days/weeks. Dc76\^talk 12:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Templates abot Transnistria

I remade all the templates linked in Template:Transnistria using the standard navbox template as a basis. I'm not entirely satisfied with the results though. I think we should merge the two templates about the war, leaving only links to pages related to the conflict (if you see Template:Geography of Transnistrian conflict you'll find that most of the pages linked are not much related to the war, most of them are city pages and such) and following a timeline of the events. For the other template, once I've made the list of topics I think should be in the general template I'll let you know, so we can discuss.--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Transnistrian topics--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Moldavia

History of Moldavia (1242-1457)
History of Moldavia (1457-1504)
History of Moldavia (1504-1711)
History of Moldavia (1711-1822)
History of Moldavia (1822-1859)

What's the point in having all these categories, each with one article? Splitting categories has a point if there were hundreds of articles, but since we have just a few, there's no point in doing that. bogdan (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Categories

Correct. And when you add the {{hangon}} tag, the page gets added to the Speedy Deletion category. Simply comment and follow the discussion on that Categories for Deletion page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Dc76. You have new messages at Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Carpi/ Bastarnae

Thank you for your kind words. Actually, I am writing about any subject that catches my interest, although I am focussing on Roman/barbarian history. Maybe next I'll look at the Costoboci, to round off the Dacians. Salute EraNavigator (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Balkan languages

I'm greatly interested in the pre-Roman languages of the Balkans and their relationships with each other and with modern languages in the Balkans. So far, I've only looked at this in a superficial way, but, for what they are worth (not much), these are my preliminary views:

Albanian is a direct descendant of Illyrian
Dacian was maybe similar to Illyrian, but not Thracian
There was no Thraco-Latin. The Latin spoken in all the Balkans (except Greece) under Roman rule was Illyro-Latin, which evolved in the Balkan Roman army and was adopted by the Thracians and Dacians. Modern Romanian and related Balkan Romance dialects are descended from Illyro-Latin

Regarding the descent of Albanian from Illyrian, I have done some preliminary research:

**ALBANIAN COGNATES WITH ILLYRIAN**
Illyrian word	Proto-Albanian cognate**	Old Albanian cognate	Modern Albanian cognate
BAGAR/ON (warm)			BEHAR (summer)
BRISA (husks of grapes)	*BRIS (husks of grapes)		BËRSI (lees, dregs)
DERVANOI (Hellenised placename meaning "woods")	*DRUWANI (woods)		DRUNJ (woods)
LUGO (pool)	*LAUGA (wet, waterlogged)		LAG (wet), LIQEN (lake)
MAG (great)			MADHË (great)
MALUNTUM (Latinised placename meaning "mountain")	*MALA (mountain)		MAL (mountain)
MANDOS (small horse)	*MANDJA (pony)		MËZ, MAZ (pony)
MANTIA (bramblebush)	*MANTA (mulberry bush)	MANDA	MAN (mulberry bush)
lacus PELSO (Latinised lake name meaning "lake" = L. Balaton)			PELLG (pool)
METU (between)			MIDIS (between)
RHIZON (Hellenised placename - Dubrovnik - believed to mean "grapes")	*RAGUSA (grapes)		RRUSH (grapes)
RHINOS (mist)	*RINA (cloud)	REN	RE (cloud)
TERGITIO (merchant)	*TRAG? (trade)		TREGËTAR (merchant)
Mons ULCISUS (Latinised mountain name meaning "wolf")	*ULKA (wolf)		UJK (wolf)
fl. VOLCOS (Hellenised river name meaning "wet")	*LAUGA (wet)		LAG, LAK (wet, waterlogged)
ZIZIO (Illyrian placename meaning "black")		ZEZË (black)	ZI (black)

What do you think? Regards EraNavigator (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue of finding cognates on ancient toponyms is very difficult and always debatable. I can add to this discussion that:

a few of those words have Romanian cognates, for instance Romanian mânz (colt) ~ Albanian mëz (pony), Romanian mal (river bank) - Albanian mala (mountain)
the Albanian word tregëtar could be a derivation of Old Slavic trъgъ (market).
there are about as many cognates Albanian-Dacian cognates as there are in your list Albanian-Illyrian.
"mantia" (blackberry) is a known Dacian word from ancient sources. see List of Dacian plant names. bogdan (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesing! Please, also check my replies on his page. They are not so "scientific". I think we have about 10 articles now in this whirlpool. Hah! It might be a chance to make them more uniform (I have a feeling when I read them that they sometimes slightly contradict each other.) And please do continue, I am very honored to host an International Conference on Antient Balkan Languages on my talk page. Dc76\^talk 00:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Bogdan, your points above are consistent with my 3 working hypotheses, which I listed above, but you don't seem to have noticed:

Albanian is a direct descendant of Illyrian
Dacian was maybe similar to Illyrian, but not Thracian
There was no Thraco-Latin or Daco-Latin. The Latin spoken in all the Balkans (except Greece) under Roman rule was Illyro-Latin, which evolved in the Balkan Roman army and was adopted by the Thracians and Dacians. Modern Romanian and related Balkan Romance dialects are descended from Illyro-Latin

If Illyrian and Dacian were closely related, that would explain any lexical similarities between the two. Also, if Romanian is descended from Illyro-Latin, that would explain the lexical and grammatical affinities between Albanian and Romanian: they both derived from a similar ultimate source, Illyrian, with the difference that Romanian is from Latinised Illyrian whereas Albanian is direct from "pure" Illyrian. (As for the Old Slavic word, that is most likely derived from the Illyrian word also - the Illyrians were in the Balkans far earlier than the Slavs. Also Romanian mala derives from Slavic mala (bank), and is not related to Albanian mal, which has a completely different meaning). But I do stress that the ideas above are very tentative. I agree fully that you cannot draw firm conclusions from a few lexical similarities. Unfortunately, the Illyrian words whose meaning is known definitely are very few, so we can only compare those - and given that the sample above contains a significant proportion of all known Illyrian words, it's a high "hit-rate" (NB the data comes from a reputable dictionary of Albanian etymology). But the idea that Albanian is descended from Illyrian is not just my own invention, but represents the scholarly consensus among experts on the Albanian language. Prof. of Linguistics Xhevat LLOSHI in the Handbuch der SudostEuropa Linguistik (Band 10 , 1999, pp 277-99) states: "Among Albanian language scholars there is virtually no dispute... [that] Albanian is a direct descendant of a southwestern group of Illyrian dialects."

The opposition to this thesis is mainly from experts in other languages, such as Romanian, who have proposed 3 main alternative hypotheses, that Albanian is:

Daco-Thracian (Weigand, Russu): scholars of Romanian generally support this view, which assumes that Thracian and Dacian were essentially the same language. According to this view, the original Albanians moved westwards into Albania in substantial numbers in the Middle Ages from the Danube basin and then borrowed Illyrian words from the indigenes.
1b Daco-Moesian (V. Georgiev), the same theory as Daco-Thracian, except that Georgiev doesn't accept that Thracian was related to Dacian.
A mixture of Thracian and Illyrian (Jokl), who sees the Albanians as the descendants of the Dardani tribe, who were described by ancient authors as half-Illyrian, half-Thracian; and
an Indo-European language isolate (Krahe), unrelated to any other known IE language.

But I really see no reason why we need to resort to these exotic explanations, when the simplest solution is that modern Albanians are ethnically and linguistically the descendants of the Illyrian tribes that inhabited that part of the world.

You may ask, why did the Thracians and Dacians adopt Illyro-Latin and not develop their own forms of Latin? The answer is the Roman army. This was the main engine of Latinisation, especially in the Balkans, where more than half the army was recruited (I have calculated that an amazing 20-25% of all males reaching military age in the Balkans were drafted for 25-year terms in the army - for 400 years!) The simple fact is that the Illyrians were ahead of the game. Illyrians on the coast came under Roman domination as far back as ca. 150 BC. By the start of Augustus' sole rule (30 BC), the Illyrians were the backbone of his auxiliary forces. So the army Latin that evolved in the Balkans was Illyro-Latin. The Thracians were not annexed to the empire, and recruited regularly into the army, until 47 AD and the Dacians not before 106. By the time they joined, Illyro-Latin was established army-speak and they adopted it. EraNavigator (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, Dc, but this is really not my favorite topic, nor one to which I could contribute much. But here's a cookie. Dahn (talk) 05:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This is why an article that I created last year should not have been deleted. The title was Illyrian words with Albanian cognates. User:Megistias for some reason I can't understand pushed to have the article deleted. However it was not deleted according to a vote. I want to have that article restored by an administrator, it's a good idea to have the article. A from L.A. (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

See here [5]. Megistias managed to get the article deleted because at the time I didn't really care enough. Now I want that article back. A from L.A. (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted because of "expired PROD": 23:15, 2 March 2008 Jmlk17 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Illyrian words with Albanian cognates" ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: We already have Illyrian language articles and Albanian language articles.This material is unsourced and any such be included(if they were sourced) in the above and not in a separate article), a PROd placed by User:Megistias. A from L.A. (talk) 06:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It was not unsourced, I had references on the talk page and in the article. I was in the process of sourcing evrything. A from L.A. (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Check it out, I had it restored, but it wasn't as sourced as I hoped it would be. I will be working on developing that article here. A from L.A. (talk) 07:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Alex, the information in your proposed article is definitevely very interesting. But I would advise not to rush into creating that article now. First, it is not sificiently developed yet. Second, the title suggests too much narrowness. It would be a prime targer for deletion. Rather than spending your time arguing why it should not be deleted, tkae time to improve the info. At worse, you can add that info into Illyrian language or Albanian language as a separate section, but even in that case, it would be invaluable and welcome info. Dc76\^talk 12:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Era navigator, do you have a sourse for the claim that 20-25% of apt Illyro-Romans were solders? I can understand that, it indeed would explain a lot.

And here is a technical suggestion. Let us move all three names Daco-Roman, Thraco-Roman and Illyro-Roman to something like Romanized Balkans, and develop it into a really good article, keeping at least a section for each. If that article grows, we can split it again into 3 parts. The advantage is we would be able to analyze the phenomenon in one place. Dc76\^talk 12:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I just happened upon this discussion and I remembered my deleted article--that was deleted by one user mind you all, I didn't bother to challenge or remove the PROD template that he placed. I did kind of rush into it---actually I did rush into it---last time. I'm not going to rush again. Which means it will take awhile before I have a body of information ready for an article. But there will be enough to justify a specific article. I may also change the title as you suggested, maybe to make it more like an article dealing with the Albanian-developed-from-an-Illyrian language theory. Excuzy-me for going into all that "how and why it was deleted" stuff on your talk page, but it did explain the situation to an Admin, Future Perfect at Sunrise, who restored the article (in user space). I'll be working on that, and I'm going to go over this discussion & see how else I can improve the situation, since I used to edit a lot on these topics and one can say that I'm familiar with a lot of it. A from L.A. (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Then, please do particiapte in editing of other articles mentioned above. You might at some point start your article as a section of Albanian language - you attract more attention and potential collaboration when you edit a real article than when you edit in your user space. Once that section is large enough, you simply propose turning it into a separate article. I know Fut. Perf. He is a nice, decent guy. Sometimes, he is demanding and scrutinizing of one's work, but nothing beyond the limit of what is necessary to keep a clean healthy WP. He listens and tries to help even when utter non-sense or even empty accusations are thrown into his face, and is very pacient. From my experience, whenever he told me I might be wrong, it was always the case that I had misjudged some aspect. So, I advise you to listen to him and be receptive of what he tells you. 90% of admins won't even bother reading and would be very expeditive in cases when Fut. Perf. takes time to understand and respond to you. Dc76\^talk 12:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

About the soldier recruitment. No I don't have a source, it's my own rough estimate, but based on sourced data. Here is the calculation: Assume a Romano-Balkan population (Pannonians, Illyrians, Thracians, Moesians and Dacians) of 8 million, i.e. 4 million males. Assume an average life expectancy of 40 years. Thus, 4,000,000/40 = 100,000 Balkan males reaching military age every year. The Roman army had total regular effectives (ca. 125 AD) of some 450,000 (including legions, auxilia, Praetorians and fleets). The standard term of service was 25 years. Thus, the army as a whole needed to recruit 450,000/25 = 18,000 men each year. But this requirement must be doubled to cover losses in service (death, incapacitation, expulsion, desertion etc), so total annual recruitment requirement = 36,000. About half the army's effectives were deployed in the middle/lower Danube, the vast majority recruited locally. So 18,000 of the 100,000 Balkan males recruited each year (18%). This is somewhat lower than the 20-25% range I gave you, but the latter is justified because the evidence is that Illyrians/Thracians were a significant element in units all over the empire, not just the Balkans. In other words, Illyrians/Thracians/Dacians provided well over half the total recruits, despite representing only about 13% of the total imperial population. EraNavigator (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you should present the soursed facts on which you base this (i.e. population estimates, troops size, stationment, etc) together in some article. Please, let us know which article. How about Romanized Balkans or some similar title? Is there already an article? About the estimates themselves, I do not question historians' oppinions, but here is my 10 cent: I believe 8 milion population is an overestimate. 5-6 milion is more like it. I believe 450,000 army is an overestimate. 250,000-300,000 including all auxiliaries is more like it. Life expectancy you better put at 55, if you don't count death and incapacitation in service. 40 is ok if you count it, but then don't double 18 thousand to 36 thousand. If I were to adjust like this, I get: 20,000 new recruits needed each year vs. 45-60,000 Balkan males per year. Given you have a sourse that 1/2 of the Roman army was from the Balkans (I also heard something like this, but I don't have a sourse), we get 17-22%. Ok, what you said makes sense. Dc76\^talk 20:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You've reached the same conclusion, but your figures are definitely wrong. First, the army figures (from my article auxilia):

**ROMAN ARMY NUMBERS 24–305 AD**
Army corps	Tiberius 24 AD	Hadrian ca. 130 AD	S. Severus 211 AD	3rd c. crisis ca. 270 AD	Diocletian 284–305
LEGIONS	125,000^[1]	155,000^[2]	182,000^[3]
AUXILIA	125,000^[4]	218,000^[5]	250,000^[6]
PRAETORIAN GUARD	~~5,000^[7]	~10,000^[8]	~10,000
Total Roman Army	255,000^[9]	383,000^[10]	442,000^[11]	350,000?^[12]	390,000^[13]

NOTE: Figures are based on official (not actual) unit strengths and exclude Roman Navy effectives and barbarian foederati.

These figures exclude fleets, which were ca. 30,000 men. The point is that by the 2nd century, the auxilia outnumbereed legionaries substantially (in the time of Augustus, they were roughly equal). See my article auxilia for the sources.

(2) Population. The total imperial population in the 2nd century was 60-70 million. Dacia alone had 1 million. If you add in the provinces of Moesia Inferior and Superior, Thracia, Macedonia, Dalmatia and the two Pannonias, 8 million is conservative: if they each had 1 million, it would add up to 8 million.

(3) Life expectancy: life expectancy in pre-industrial societies was far lower than today's. 40 is actually at the top end of the range, 35 may be more accurate.

Anyway, we agree that about 1 in 5 Balkan males were recruited: that is a huge number, and implies that virtually every Balkan family had one or members in the military for 400 years. Latinisation would have been very extensive, leaving out only remote mountain areas such as Bosnia and Montenegro/Albania. EraNavigator (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah

Well,yeah. But I'm lazy :). Dahn (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Maramureş

What just happened here? Is it OK? - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, good to hear that. We're back to the old problem: Maramureş is "too Romanian", Maramuresh is "too Ukrainian", and Maramures doesn't exist. I suppose for the time being we should just keep it at Maramureş, provided no one complains. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there will be some things to fix, as usual when big moves are made. (And I agree the Romanian name should probably be used: it's much more important for Romanians, as far as I can tell, and English prefers our version, albeit usually without the diacritic, but only because English is diacritic-averse.) Speaking of Maramureş, I just uploaded some photos: it's sad how some of our historic monuments (nice architecture, and Iorga slept there while writing Neamul românesc în Ardeal şi Ţara Ungurească) are treated (and this one isn't even as historic as, say, this one). - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Great idea. I added a couple of books: is that the sort of thing we're looking for? - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Ah, misread the number of edits thing (I blame the hour, after midnight here local time). My apologies, and feel free to disregard. Best, umrguy 42 07:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Imagination

Actually, there is a science to history, a social science; not to say that all history is science (it most definitely isn't, I am the first one to agree), but the subject is relevant to that category (to that category as well, I mean). Granted, it looks like that "science and technology in" series was structured around natural science, but this should either be reconsidered or redesigned at a global level. Peace out, Dahn (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right on principle, and I will add that, while history (like political science etc., and even sociology) has and should keep a methodology, the parallels drawn beyond that methodology and the one used by natural science end and should end very abruptly. As you noted, it is the road that leads us to Marx (and Rousseau, and Comte, and Gobineau...). That said, I don't think it's an issue of higher standards per se, just one of validity in applying scientific standards: truth be told, one can't make these areas of human knowledge replicate maths, but that doesn't necessarily mean they can't be structured around some scientific principles.

Well, "dixlesic" was my intentional misspelling of the word "dyslexic". You see, I like "poetic justice"-based jokes, and sometimes I substitute myself in for the divine ;). Dahn (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Coordinator Elections

Thanks,

What you ask of me is what I have already decided to do, I know If elected I will not no all of the ropes and I will need to ask of the opinion of my peers. (that is something I believe even an experienced coordinator should do.) On the C-Class I have already expressed that I am prepared to bow to the consensus of the WikiProject if they decide with C-Class. Since all of the opinions of other users have been expressed my opinion on C-Class has become more of a Neutral opinion so I can assure you that it will not cloud my judgement. Thanks for bringing these subjects up! Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 12:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

		Milhist Coordinator elections
		I wish to thank you for your gracious support during my bid for a position as Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject in the recent March 2009 elections. I was initially apprehensive to stand for election as I was unsure on how well I would be received, but I am pleasantly surprised and delighted to have been deemed worthy to represent my peers within the project. I assure and promise you, I will strive to do my upmost to justify your trust in myself with this esteemed position. Thank you, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Soldiers of the 4th Australian Division crossing a duckboard track through Chateau Wood, Ypres on 29 October 1917.

Thank you very much for your kind and gracious comments; you have made me feel tremendously honoured and humbled. I will remember your comments and advice; I do understand that quite a large number of editors do work on a more occasional basis. I hope to see you around more often. ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

	I seem to have drawn a crowd of support!
	I'm honored to have been elected as a coordinator of the WikiProject Military history and most sincerely thank you for your vote of support. I will endeavor to fulfill the obligations in a manner worthy of your trust. Many thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
	A World War I U-boat draws a crowd after grounding on the Falmouth coast in 1921.

Map

What exactly is wrong with this map?--Olahus (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Now I see what you mean and you have right. I only wanted to suggest that in the northern regiosn of Moldova the forrest-steppe (silvostepa) is the predominant natural vegetation, as in the so-called "Campia Moldovei" from Romania (in the counties Botosani and Iasi). In central Moldova the forrests are the predominant natural vegetation (mostly oaks, but partially also beeches) - as in the "Podisul Barladului" from Romania. Southern Moldova is actually a part of Bugeac - the steppe is predominant. --Olahus (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Transnistria-map.png

Hi, please don't take it as a personal matter, but I requested a RfC for the map above and would like to invite you to also participate and explain your reasons for the recurrent reverts. Thank you. --Capmo (talk) 06:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Boxen

FYI. Care to add anything? Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:03, April 8, 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

^ 25 legions of 5,000 men each
^ 28 legions of 5,500 each (double-strength 1st cohorts introduced under Domitian (r. 81–96)
^ Goldsworthy (2000) 152 (map): 33 legions of 5,500 each
^ Tacitus Annales IV.5
^ Holder (2003) 120
^ J. C. Spaul ALA (1996) 257–60 and COHORS 2 (2000) 523–7 identify 4 alae and 20–30 cohortes raised in the late 2nd/early 3rd centuries
^ Goldsworthy (2003) 58: 9 cohorts of 480 men each plus German bodyguards
^ Goldsworthy (2003) 58: 9 double-cohorts of 800 men each plus 2,000 equites singulares
^ Implied by Tacitus Annales
^ Hassall (2000) 320 estimates 380,000
^ MacMullen How Big was the Roman Army? in KLIO (1979) 454 estimates 438,000
^ MacMullen (1979) 455
^ John Lydus De Mensibus I.47

[1] 25 legions of 5,000 men each

[2] 28 legions of 5,500 each (double-strength 1st cohorts introduced under Domitian (r. 81–96)

[3] Goldsworthy (2000) 152 (map): 33 legions of 5,500 each

[4] Tacitus Annales IV.5

[5] Holder (2003) 120

[6] J. C. Spaul ALA (1996) 257–60 and COHORS 2 (2000) 523–7 identify 4 alae and 20–30 cohortes raised in the late 2nd/early 3rd centuries

[7] Goldsworthy (2003) 58: 9 cohorts of 480 men each plus German bodyguards

[8] Goldsworthy (2003) 58: 9 double-cohorts of 800 men each plus 2,000 equites singulares

[9] Implied by Tacitus Annales

[10] Hassall (2000) 320 estimates 380,000

[11] MacMullen How Big was the Roman Army? in KLIO (1979) 454 estimates 438,000

[12] MacMullen (1979) 455

[13] John Lydus De Mensibus I.47

[1]

Am incercat cum mi-ai scris, dar...

MfD nomination of User:Dc76/Userbox IndependentChechnya

Chechnya userbox

Poland-Lithuanian issues

Rules of ArbCom evidence

Footnote

Re: What I understood...

Perhaps you know

A comment

Another comment

Amerika

Translated

WP:CIV warning on incessant personal attacks and fraudulent claims

Spellchecking

It's that time of year again

iadrian_yu

Operation North

Old business

And they say everybody loves him...

Bălţi Steppe moving

A follow up

Free Zone

Elections

Looking ahead

Merry XMAS

Sorry,

Rayas

Category

Nistor

Thanks for trying for compromise...

History of Transnistria before 1792

Templates abot Transnistria

Moldavia

RE: Categories

Carpi/ Bastarnae

Balkan languages

Well, yeah

Maramureş

ANI

Imagination

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

Coordinator Elections

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

Thank you

Thank you

Map

Transnistria-map.png

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

Boxen

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)