![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
...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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hey, check out the new info I put on the article. -- LORDoliver † ( talk) 23:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 is here. 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)
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)
-- Molobo ( talk) 13:25, 19 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)
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)
BTW, there was no need to d/l it - it's available on Youtube, for instance. -- Illythr ( talk) 01:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
You have a check-spelling function? How do you do it? Dc76\ talk 21:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
It didn't :-) `' Míkka >t 03:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
You forgot someone. Dahn ( talk) 08:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
Perhaps you might be interested in this [3]. Biophys ( talk) 14:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Medium term is right; I'll be much too busy till after the new year. I will, however, make a few quick points.
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:
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)
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)
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)
You are right that the category of Opponents of the communist regime is incorrect. I have corrected it to "Category: Romanian anti-communists" which is similar to the categories for other nations, for instance Russian anti-communists, etc. However There is a difference between Romanian anti-communists which are people which opposed the communist party or regime and dissidents who were in many cases involved with the communist party but disagreed on the party line. These are two separate categories, even if some articles might be included in both. Just to give you an example. Look at the article of Nicodim Munteanu. He was an anti-communist, but cannot be called a dissident however far you want to stretch the category. Afil ( talk) 21:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Regarding the descent of Albanian from Illyrian, I have done some preliminary research:
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)
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)
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)
You've reached the same conclusion, but your figures are definitely wrong. First, the army figures (from my article auxilia):
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. But I'm lazy :). Dahn ( talk) 23:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
What just happened here? Is it OK? - Biruitorul Talk 19:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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)
![]() |
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. |
What exactly is wrong with this map?-- Olahus ( talk) 19:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
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
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)
FYI. Care to add anything? Cheers,— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 13:03, April 8, 2009 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
...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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hey, check out the new info I put on the article. -- LORDoliver † ( talk) 23:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 is here. 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)
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)
-- Molobo ( talk) 13:25, 19 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)
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)
BTW, there was no need to d/l it - it's available on Youtube, for instance. -- Illythr ( talk) 01:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
You have a check-spelling function? How do you do it? Dc76\ talk 21:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
It didn't :-) `' Míkka >t 03:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
You forgot someone. Dahn ( talk) 08:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
Perhaps you might be interested in this [3]. Biophys ( talk) 14:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Medium term is right; I'll be much too busy till after the new year. I will, however, make a few quick points.
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:
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)
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)
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)
You are right that the category of Opponents of the communist regime is incorrect. I have corrected it to "Category: Romanian anti-communists" which is similar to the categories for other nations, for instance Russian anti-communists, etc. However There is a difference between Romanian anti-communists which are people which opposed the communist party or regime and dissidents who were in many cases involved with the communist party but disagreed on the party line. These are two separate categories, even if some articles might be included in both. Just to give you an example. Look at the article of Nicodim Munteanu. He was an anti-communist, but cannot be called a dissident however far you want to stretch the category. Afil ( talk) 21:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Regarding the descent of Albanian from Illyrian, I have done some preliminary research:
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)
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)
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)
You've reached the same conclusion, but your figures are definitely wrong. First, the army figures (from my article auxilia):
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. But I'm lazy :). Dahn ( talk) 23:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
What just happened here? Is it OK? - Biruitorul Talk 19:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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)
![]() |
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. |
What exactly is wrong with this map?-- Olahus ( talk) 19:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
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
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)
FYI. Care to add anything? Cheers,— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 13:03, April 8, 2009 (UTC)
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)