User talk:Aldux

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives

Individual archives:

Contents

[edit] Toyota War GA on hold

On Hold — Notes left on talk page. Nehrams2020 07:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll look it over around 3:30-5:00 my time (got some midterms and classes). --Nehrams2020 18:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chad images

I'm starting on the images, I've made the basic outline, could you let me know what changes to make before I do the others? Btw, I'm not sure if the arrowed lines show or not on yours, but if you click the image to full version they show here. Could be something with the browser or with Wikipedia. - Francis Tyers · 10:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a small problem. The position of the towns moves between 1975/6 and 1985. I find this unlikely in reality, but should I move the towns with each map, or standardise on one area? - Francis Tyers · 14:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
They are actually pointed, I'm not sure why the points aren't showing up :| - Francis Tyers · 08:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opération coup de poing

Hello Aldux. I noticed that you started the Opération coup de poing article. I was wondering what your source was for the name of this operation. Despite searching on the internet and in some books, i could find no reference to a "coup de poing" codename. Some reliable sources([1], [2]) decribe those events in some detail, but they don't give any specific codename. The website linked in the external links section describes it in this way:

"La piste de Ouadi-Doum sera le lieu choisit par la France pour lancer son opération « coup de poing », le 16 février 1986."

However this is not necessarily the name of the operation; in the French language « opération coup de poing » is a commonly used expression for any fast, hard-hitting action, similar to a fist blow(coup de poing). Maybe some confusion has arisen from this. Regards.

Raoulduke47 17:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes: Ouadi Doum air raid or Airstrike on Ouadi Doum, any of those seems suitable. The French probably didn't give it a specific name because it was all considered part of "Opération épervier". BTW, cleaning up the Chadian-Lybian conflict article was no problem: it was a great read! Raoulduke47 13:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFA

Thanks for supporting my RFA, it ended successfully. Cheers SGGH 20:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for short Italian translation

Hi Aldux. I have the article Robert Oppenheimer on my watchlist, and I noticed that one of the robots changed the Italian interwiki link. I went over to it.wikipedia.org and saw that someone moved the article to it:Julius Robert Oppenheimer, which is the wrong name, because no one ever called him Julius. I left a message on the talk page of the person who moved it, at Discussioni utente:RobertoITA#Robert Oppenheimer, but I speak no Italian, so I had to write it in English. I see you have an account there, so could you translate it into Italian in case he doesn't read English? Thanks a lot. Picaroon 02:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, with regards to your Subpage 3 (which I updated again), do you consider Irishmen to be Anglophone or not? Picaroon 04:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll do it, if I'm not sure he'll listen me. As for the Irish, I've always considered them Anglophones as the near totality of them use as first language English.--Aldux 16:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems he did. Thanks for translating it. Picaroon 17:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definite article in DRC

Can I ask your help with something? I noticed you are a member of WikiProject Central Africa. Should articles on DRC include the word "The" in their title? I'm thinking of National Assembly of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and others which have recently been moved. Personally I think yes they should, as this is what english speakers normally say (despite the general ban on articles in wikipedia). Could you let me know what you think by commenting at Talk:Democratic Republic of the Congo. Many thanks!! AndrewRT(Talk) 21:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Afrika paprika again

He returned as User:Krpelj. It's 100% his sockpuppet.

He no longer even hides that that's him. :))) If You have doubts, just go and ask him. :)) --PaxEquilibrium 17:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 18:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Greece Newsletter - Issue VII (III) - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the WikiProject Greece 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.--Yannismarou 15:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thank you for your suypport, and for your kind comment, in my recent successful RfA. --Anthony.bradbury 14:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sol Invictus edit

Hi, you asked for refrences. Could I ask that you look at the discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sol_Invictus#Sol_Invictus_or_Christmas_first.3F for further info. Thanks. Mercury543210 21:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another obvious sock-puppet of Afrika paprika

See Special:Contributions/Joker 13. Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium 10:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I ask your help against the last sockpuppet of Afrika_paprika (Joker 13). I beg you to intoduce a permanent sprotectio on Republic of Ragusa: in the history you can see the amount of RV I had to do. That's exahusting. I've asked 3 times the block in the proper page, but nobody has understood. You are familiar with this problem, so, please, do something. Same situation with Giacomo Micaglia, Giovanni Serafino Bona and Marino Ghettaldi. Thank you.--Giovanni Giove 22:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me both for awnsering so late, but real life work has kept me away from internet in the last days. Joker13 has been in the meanwhile dealt with, and I've blocked his successor. I've also placed a series of semiprotections to make life more difficult for our dear AP, lets see if it's enough.--Aldux 15:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks from Akhilleus

Akhilleus gets new weapons.
 Aldux, thanks for your Virulently Firebrand Support in my successful RfA.

As the picture shows, the goddesses have already bestowed my new weapons,
which I hope to use to good effect. If you ever need assistance,
or want to give me feedback on my use of the admin tools,
please leave me a message on my talkpage.
--Akhilleus (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A personal attack and Demosthenes

Hi! And χρόνια πολλά! We did not have the chance to talk before Easter.

Initially, I did not intend to be occupied with this issue and to bother other people, but I want you to have a look here. You can find this user's personal attack against me here, his difiant and equally PA response, and then his effort to delete the AfD. I don't think that an AfD we do not agree to is an excuse for personal attacks of this kind.

Anyway, another issue are some changes User:Haiduc proposed for Demosthenes. I was reluctant to accept them, but then I let him add a new section, which I just modified a bit. You can see the discussion here, and the recent additions in the article's recent history (Haiduc's addition and my modifications). As a classicist, and a person interested in Demosthenes' life, I want to have your input, and your opinion. As the main contributor of this article I cannot be as objective as I would like.

Cheers!--Yannismarou 09:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buona Pasqua!

Auguri! You know, we Greeks celebrate Easter more than we celebrate Christmas! That's mainly because everybody has been born, but only one has risen from the dead! Auguri amico! NikoSilver 11:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block evasion

Hi, this user is blocked for violating the 3RR. He then returns as an anon [3] and even admits to being that user by signing as him on talkpages [4]. What is done?--Domitius 13:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Souliotes

Yes, I think so. Crvst 12:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Afrika_paprika's sockpuppet

See User:Shipak. By the way, there is a Kubura problem, too. Best regards--Giovanni Giove 22:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Dealt with Shipak. As for Kubura, I don't deal with content issues, on anything other than sockpuppetry in Italy-related issues; but if you feel there may be a case of meatpuppetry, ask somebody else, I generally don't deal with this; try asking to Asterion or Khoikhoi, or somebody else.--Aldux 23:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, Kubura is not a sockpuppet. But Shipak for ideas, behaviour, interest, time of apparition, resemble an Afrika's sockpuppet. I think he is an Afrika's sockpuppet ane he should be blocked. Kubura does periodical vandalism on different articles, but wothout edit wars. I will think what to do with him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Giovanni Giove (talk • contribs) 07:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Speed delete

Hi Aldux. Could you kindly speed-delete this article: Second Japanese Embassy to the United States (1867) (mistake of my own, this mission apparently did not exist). Best regards PHG 12:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Postol

Aldux, maybe you have some sources about the notability of the name "Postol" for Pella.  Andreas  (T) 22:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Ante Starčević

Hello. Users BarryMar and GiorgioOrsini have been carrying on an edit war with us at Ante Starčević. That in itself wouldn't be so bad, except that now the two working in tandem have declared it a Good Article and have reverted my attempts to show that it easily fails. I'm at my wit's end. Hopefully, you can show these users that the article is nowhere close to being GA. Thanks. --Thewanderer 14:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Macedonia (terminology)

You are setting the wrong example as an administrator by reverting an article to the version you want without responding to a message on the article's talk page. Maybe you didn't see it?--Methodius 17:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] why do reverting for example this :

From 1745 when Johann Christoph Jordan published De Originibus Slavicis began disscusion about where from Slowian Nationos begin its origin and and how they spread out to today homelands.

Nasz 18:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Greece Newsletter - Issue VIII (IV) - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Greece 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.--Yannismarou 18:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kanem Bornu Split

Hi, Aldux. Thnx for hitting me up. I figured the split would cause some controversy. I agree the two states are pretty much inseparable. However, the reason why I stronly believe we need a split is for readability. What I mean by that is the Kanem-Borny Article has so much info on it, it was hard to figure out what started where. Since there was a definate (if not EPIC) split in the history of the Sayfawa dynasty, I think it makes since to have two different articles. You have two different capitals and states occupying two different areas. Kanem controlled Chad, much of southern Lybia and a little bit of Niger. Bornu controlled Niger, much of Nigeria, good bit of Cameroon and most of old Kanem. If the mais had re-occupied the old capital, it would make since to keep it as Kanem-Bornu. But since real political authority remained in Niger, we have to admit that the Kanem side of the Kanem-Bornu empire was definately over. When the Kanuri started their decline after the Fulbe jihad, they retreated farther south and west. I think its best to keep the articles separate BUT LINKED. This way, we can work to put more detail in both articles. I apologize for splitting the article so hastily. I don't know what I was thinking. Hit me back ASAP and let me know what you think. You're probably much more of an expert on Kanem, Bornu and everything imbetween than I am. My expertise is in West and West central Africa. Scott Free 20:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You make some good points. I thought it seemed like a big article just off a sight and not so much data (by the way, how do you measure that?). Anywho, you're right that many if not the majority of scholars refer to the state simply as the Kanem-Bornu empire. I think that is a mistake on their part (if I may be so bold) by oversimplifying the history of th Kanuri and Kanembu people. Also, I think you noted well in your response how the story of the empires seems so markedly different. Since the same dynasty ruled throughout most of Kanem and Bornu's history I guess we could live with one article. But please take the following points into consideration. I trust your opinion more than anyone elses right now so I'll leave it up to you instead of a third party.

...different ethno-political makeup

  • The majority population of Kanem was Kanembu
  • The majority population of Bornu was Kanuri

...different geographic influences

  • Kanem more or less controlled Chad and southern Libya
  • Bornu controlled Niger, northeastern Nigeria, Northern Cameroon and Western Chad

...starkly different time periods

  • Kanem belongs to the tail end of Africa's Ancient (8th century) and early Medieval periods
  • Bornu is defined by the events of the Middle Ages (14th century) and Pre-Colonial Africa

The only thing these states seem to have in common is their dynasty. If we didn't know that both states were rulled by the same people, we would DEFINATELY make two different pages. I don't see how having two pages would hurt. I think it would only help so that the reader understands the people, politics and power structure better. We don't have to loose any information just spread it out. I'll bow to your wisdom on the subject. If you really think having two separate pages is gonna hurt, I'll merge my info into your page and put the redirects back to you before sundown tomorrow.

On a last note. I think merging the Kanem and Bornu articles makes about as much sense as merging the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire or the Roman Empire and the Byzantium Empire. Hit me back when you can. PEACE Scott Free 00:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi again

sorry it took so long to get back to you (start of the work week and all). glad I pursuaded you on the article. I will make sure to follow line citations strictly. Hopefully I can get your help during this process as I am knowledgible in Africa and kind of a dunse in Wikipedia. I've got some solutions below. let me know what you think and then we can get the ball rolling.

  • Have a Kanem Empire page focusing on just that period
  • Have a Bornu Empire page focusing on just that period
  • Turn the Kanem-Bornu Empire page into a re-direct toward the Bornu Empire Page since Bornu incorporated both Kanem and Bornu.
  • Use your references and mine on both pages.
  • Expand the people sections (Kanuri/Kanembu) on each page

That's just for starters. Holla back when you can. i look foward to working with you Scott Free 14:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey

Hi,

Could you please take a look at the reverting going on in this article. Some editors believe the section "Kurdish genocide claims" warrants a section of its own. Myself and User:Deniz believe this is a case of undue weight. Thanks, --A.Garnet 21:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You really want to talk about undue weight (what about TRNC)? Text is sourced from independent sources and no counter-sources have been cited. You have a similar number of sources regarding a "scorched earth policy" by the Greeks when withdrawing from Anatolia, yet it is vigorously defended by you in that case!--Ploutarchos 21:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Critika1

The user has continued disruption as an anon after your block:

Special:Contributions/128.195.98.160 --PaxEquilibrium 12:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pax. I've looked at his edits, and while his edits have been of pretty low quality, as they don't respect WP:ATT and WP:NPOV, I can't block him for that, or else I would have to block a good number of editors working on Balkans-related topics, and also he hasn't made new violations of WP:NPA. Maybe you should try to speak with him about providing reliable sources and being more collaborative, or better still, try to convince User:CrnaGora to speak to him about the importance of the rules that govern wikipedia. Spoken to by a compatriot he may be more wishing to listen.--Aldux 13:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
No, no; I don't want you to block him - there's no basis for it. However you should note that he has continued to edit war (so you shouldn't count Sideshow Bob's edits solely).
Here he says that Doclea was a Croatian state... ring a bell?
..an here he even denied the Bosniaks, calling them Muslim Montenegrins. So I think that's outright one-sided (on every basis).
BTW I'm a... "compatriot" myself. And he's not good with CrnaGora, Critika1 keeps adding controversial edits to Montenegrin language and CrnaGora rv him. --PaxEquilibrium 16:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
If you mean he may be Afrika, I have to disagree; I've carefully followed, as you know, all his editing patterns and I don't remember ever showing any interest for Montenegro. I agree, he's pretty disruptive, but for the moment I don't knowwhat exactly can be done. Maybe you should try asking Khoikhoi, he may know better than me what to do. Ciao,--Aldux 16:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
No, no; I mean that he may be User:CroDome a.k.a. User:Greater Croatia.
BTW Doclea is ancient medieval Montenegro. --PaxEquilibrium 21:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rosseta Stone

Hello Aldux Thank you for the quick reply Please check the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rosetta_Stone Regards Seleukosa 21:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hi

Look at the Getica(Jordanes) talk page. Nasz 12:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

The April 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3rd opinion

Hi Aldux. I'm looking for a third opinion concerning a dispute in Talk:Battle of the Persian Gate, the numbers of the forces involved, and by consequence whether or not the conflict accounts as a last stand (dispute continues in Talk:last stand). As you can see all western sources provided so far accept the numbers given by Greco-Roman historians such as Curtius and Arrian, 25,000 and 40,000 respectively. A number of editors keep removing the western consensus and replace it with an extremely small figure suggested by the author of an article of Encyclopaedia Iranica (cited in Talk). The author admits the consensus being at 25,000 and 40,000, yet he claims that Greek estimates on the infantry are not reliable, therefore only the 700 cavalry force can be regarded as the total of the Persian army (yes, it's irrational). A group of editors insist on keeping the 700 figure and removing all other reliable references. This view has no support whatsoever outside the Iranica article and according to WP:NPOV it doesn't even qualify as a minority view. Since you're involved with ancient history, I would like to know your opinion on that matter. Thanks. Miskin 22:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Please do not use vandalism-fighting tools to revert edits that are not vandalism. AlexanderPar 12:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. AlexanderPar 13:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no more point in participating in discussion, this is evidently a case of POV-pushing by a group of partisan editors in an attempt to violate NPOV. I don't know how wikipedia handles such problems. Miskin 15:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed naming conventions for Republic of Macedonia

Hi Aldux,

I'd be grateful if you could have a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Republic of Macedonia-related articles), which is intended to establish a consistent basis for naming RoM-related articles across Wikipedia. I'd appreciate your views on it. -- ChrisO 19:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ptolemaic Egypt

Hi Aldux, I may have been too bold on this one. I just thought it was pretty obvious that "Ptolemaic Egypt" was not an appropriate title for the subject (with such a title, the article should typically deal with life in Egypt under the Ptolemies: agriculture, life of the people etc...). The subject is clearly the Ptolemaic Empire (or, maybe Kingdom), which by the way, did not limit itself to Egypt (the Levant was also a part of Ptolemaic territories). Do you see what I mean? I'll bring the discussion to the Talk Page. Best regards. PHG 16:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppets

Laertes d (talk · contribs · block log) is likely evading the 3RR on these articles with anon sockpuppets. Can something be done?--Ploutarchos 15:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

what sockpuppets are you talking about i merely forgot to sign in thats why my IP is showin up instead of user name..--85.100.197.27 15:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Extending this block might be in order, since the user has been already blocked 4 times for 3RR before you, one time for 3 days. NikoSilver 16:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
If you feel the block is too lenient and he must be dealt more severely, the best place to discuss this would probably be at WP:AN/I.--Aldux 16:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I would never do that without consulting the blocking admin first (and probably I wouldn't either way). What do you say? NikoSilver 12:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand that you feel the block was short, and maybe if I had noted that the violation regarded the same article on which he had just been blocked two days before I would have been more severe, but honestly I feel we should give him a chance to become a constructive editor, even if I must admit five blocks in three months are not very promising for an unproblematic future. But if you feel a stronger message should be sent to Laertes, really, go on, and if in the AN/I a consensus emerges for a longer block, I won't make opposition. Ciao,--Aldux 16:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I will try to assume the same amount of good faith that you do. Not that important to drag myself over to ANI for this, especially in light of the fact that I'm Greek and he is Turkish. We can safely expect people thinking I am biased in bringing it there, and they wouldn't understand why I would be furious if they did (insinuating I would have nationalist motives). So I prefer third parties to enter into such debates, not to mention that I am starting to loose faith in ANI given some recent events. Your explanation (especially the "if I had noted" part) is more than enough for my ego. Arrivederci, NikoSilver 21:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander's Macedonians

How could he possibly leave with more troops than he came with? --AlexanderPar 15:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Our source tell us that Alexander on leaving Susa divided his 17,000 men in two forces, a major one under Alexander and a minor one under Parmenion. The latter took a different road, taking the Thessalian cavalry, the mercenaries, the baggage and the allied troops. These forces regrupped at Persepolis.--Aldux 16:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Female genital mutilation and Male genital mutilation

I've seen that you reverted my edit on Female genital mutilation redirect without writing explanation in edit summary or in talk page. I provided link where User:Avraham says that "Cutting is not mutilation" in edit summary, where (s)he objects that male genital mutilation refers to male genital cutting.

After you reverted my edit, I've changed male genital mutilation so it redirects to male genital cutting. Probably it won't take long before User:Avraham reverts it, so this edit was symbolic. And (s)he seems to be an edit warrior pro-circ POV-pusher accusing people who want to make it more neutral to be POV-pushers or soapboxers. One big difficulty is that this user is an administrator.

What I suggest is that either both Male genital mutilation and Female genital mutilation articles/redirects refer to Male genital cutting and Female genital cutting respectively, or none of them, in order to make whole thing more neutral. Because I was unable to make that Male genital mutilation redirects/referes to Male genital cutting, I tried to make that same would not be for Female genital mutilation. So now you know why I did what I did.

And please explain your arguments for reverting in edit summary or in talk page. And excuse my bad English and flood of wikilinks. Thank you for your patience. --193.198.16.211 20:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 17:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] feel the love!

You have an admirer. That's so sweet! ;) - BanyanTree 23:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

How cute!;-) It's nice to know that socks are appreciationg your work to the point that they want to impersonate you!;-)--Aldux 16:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nasz

User:Nasz's edits contain plenty of original analysis or synthesis that are unsourced or poorly sourced and badly written. He often won't provide citations, and he keeps reverting, no matter how many editors revert him. I'm not certain what can be done about this. --AlexanderPar 10:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why

you obstructing the references ? Nasz 18:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It's time you understood that your disruption will not be any more tolerated. Like it or not, wikipedia is governed by rules, and one of these is WP:OR, that clearly prohibits any form of original research, a rule that you have kept in utter contempt and have violated , as you have also repeatedly violated WP:ATT, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Your behaviour has already caused you being blocked once, if you don't cease being a source of disruption you will only obtain new and possibly longer blocks. It as simple as this: if you blatantly violate wikipolicies concerning WP:ATT, your edits may be very well reverted. Also, stop making absurd requests: I'm not here to say the truth or convince you of anything, but to make sure that the articles comply fully to the rules, which don't involve truth, but reliability, and shun like death any form of original research.--Aldux 22:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
You put as reference a dictionary by W Smith. You constantly reverting the reference I adding while higlighting the one inserted by you pointing to nowhere! (what is the title of the printed book!?) The answer may be simpler to discus if you answer the questions:
  • Do you consider the W smith Dictionary a reliable source?
  • Did you quote it in Getica Jordanes?
  • Did you revert other statements in Getica {Jordanes) referenced by the same source?
Also do you think that the book your reference point to, is an edited in 1515 by Peutinger Historia gentis Langobardorum as you can read (if you click of the wikilink before) In some respects he suggests a comparison with Jordanes but is the chief work by Paul the Deacon.
You just are tossing carelessly books as cards in poker Aldux. In fact 'your' reerenc are correct I didn’t delete single one, but you obstructing all references I cite which are not inline with your POV guidelines!
Nasz 03:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giacomo Micaglia: permanent protection

Request: permanent protection for Giacomo Micaglia. Reason: again, vandalisms and edit war by banned user:Afrika_paprika. Thanx.--Giovanni Giove 17:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments regarding Glagolitic alphabet

You know, it's okay for non-native speakers to contribute to Wikipedia in English. Clean up the content and the grammar, but try not to dish out personal insults at the same time. It doesn't help. Cbdorsett 14:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. Let me know if you think it would help for me to write to him/her. Cbdorsett 15:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Message from the Greek cabal

Hi, can you please check the trilogy Saint Cyril, Saint Methodius, and Saints Cyril and Methodius (now tetralogy)? An sprotection may be in order. Regards from the nationalistic trenches: Your fellow partisan cabalist 13:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/Set Nominations/Wars of Africa

Hi Aldux. Could you please have a look at the link and see if you can help? Some articles are needing more references in order to get released. You can leave your comments at the page as well. Thanks in advance. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nasz

thanks for helping babysit Nasz (talk · contribs). He is pracitally into serial vandalism now. I don't have the time to throw around my weight right now, but if you have a minute, you could try to get some admin attention at WP:AN/I. dab (𒁳) 06:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for haven't brought any contribution to the discussion, but real life occupations have been so intense and heavy this week that I've only known of the discussion when it had just finished. You have all my gratitude for fully bringing to the attention of the community the extent of the disruption caused by Nasz. Thanks again,Aldux 01:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Instantnood's ban

I wonder following what process or which discussion did you decide to ban Instantnood (talk · contribs)? Just feel that the process involved in this case is quite unusual. --Deryck C. 07:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You're calling for quite an effort by asking me to remember the exact modalities of a block that took place no less than six weeks ago; anyways it was following a discussion on the WP:AN/I, involving me, Seraphimblade and Rlevse. Information of the indefinite ban was also given to the last ArbCom dispute involving Instantnood [5]. This ban was fully legitimate, as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3 and per process as "Any three administrators may, for good cause, ban him from the site."--Aldux 00:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Critikal1

...and guess what our frend did immediately after return from 96-hour block [6]? Sorry that I'm leaving it up to you; I declared a wikibreak, real life etc. Ciao. Duja► 08:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Greece Newsletter - Issue IX (V) - May 2007

The May 2007 issue of the WikiProject Greece 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.--Yannismarou 20:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Afrika paprika's sockpuppet

Please have a look here: [7] Tx.--Giovanni Giove 22:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chad FAC?

I figure you must be busy in real life at the moment. But do you plan to eventually submit Chad to WP:FAC? I think it stands a very good chance of passing. Let me know if I can help. — Brian (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

The June 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:PierreLarcin

I noticed you already had a discussion with PierreLarcin on the Rotary International page. I draw your attention to the fact that an arbitrage has been opened concerning this contributor here. Feel free to bring your contribution to the case. Best regards --Bombastus 22:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thank you for your support in my successful RfA. I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me. I am also glad that someone appreciates all the articles from Smith's Dictionary. Carlossuarez46 22:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hooray!

Hooray! Congratulations Aldux! Picaroon (Talk) 00:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thirded! Maybe one of us will get around to tackling Central African Republic next? (hint, hint) ;) — Brian (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need your expert advise

Hello! I hope you are feeling great. I would like to have your comments with regards to these comments made by me. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: ancient macedonia

Please refrain from reverting unheedlessly . I have included quotes from credible historians.

If you disagree , then simply find a source and included it as an alternative theory. But do not delete my source or you will be blocked. I am NOT POV pushing

As for the map, it is a genuine map from the above source. We can included both maps .

Hxseek 12:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

no it isn't. see Talk:Macedon. dab (𒁳) 12:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hxseek has been temporarily blocked, so there should be plenty of time now to discuss WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and related policies and guidelines that apply to this situation. --Ronz 17:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you please take a look here and here? The same user continues his edits, regards! Kapnisma ? 07:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need your views

Hello! I hope you are feeling great! I need your comments on this page and on this page as well. Your views on these pages will be greatly appreciated. --Siva1979Talk to me 08:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick question

Hi! A quick question: Would you mind stating your opinion on whether 2007 Swazi general strike is notable or not? There's a discussion on the talk page, but with rather limited input from just two users up to now. Thanks! —Nightstallion 14:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 03:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tigranes the Great

Hi I re-added the map since it kind of is important you can find the map on the Armenian Empire documentary and it is also found here, [8] he united with the Parthian Empire to battle the Roman Empire at times and various other states so mentioning it will be helpful, with regards. --Vonones 07:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 02:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military of the DRC

Following your comments, I've improved the article a bit more. Do you think it's ready for A-class review? Buckshot06 16:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that it would be a good idea, because not only this article is great, especially considering the few sources available, but if there are a few flaws that may have escaped during the peer-review they could be caught now. Again, my congratulations for your work. Ciao,--Aldux 23:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I echo that. I intend to read it closely soon. El_C 23:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Wandalstouring 08:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Memoirs of Josip Broz Tito

as reliable and undisputable historical source? I'm really surprised. They are treated most often as Yugoslav postwar mythological propaganda... AFAIK, in Bulgarian literature there aren't mentions of Bulgarian participation in the battle of Sutjeska even on symbolic level. Best wishes! - Jackanapes 19:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I checked the Serbian Wikipedia, which is probably the most detailed about this topic. Two Bulgarian regiments are listed there, 61 and 63, but only as presence. There isn't any information about their actions, which strengthens my suspicions that their sojourn there in that moment is questionable. - Jackanapes 19:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Check this map of the Bulgarian occupation zone. It seems that such information exists only in Yugoslav sources. - Jackanapes 20:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

To awnser your concerns, I've found a non-Yugoslav source, Tomasevich's The Chetniks. As for the border, remember that German, Italy and Bulgaria were allies, and as such were ready to provide reciprocal help to crush common enemies.--Aldux 21:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alexiuscommenus

Hı Aldux, Alexius is using multiple IP adresses and make the same edits again and again, please just check these:

With the IP 74.134.238.58 [9]

76.199.1.114 [10]

70.225.166.166 [11]

80.15.132.42 [12]

With his own user name [13]

A specific example of his sockpuppetry: thats an edit by IP 74 [14] and thats from alexius with his user name :[15]

The IP adress 74 has its own talk page and has even been blocked once separately of alexius hımself..And i actaully think that he has more IPs than i listed above for instance i think that this is also another Alexius edit:[16] which says "The ghosts of Christian Anatolia, of those who were massacred in cold blood, will forever haunt those who occupy the land." One of the few areas alexius made some contributions is the article Economic history of Greece and the Greek world[17] and thats also the place this anonymous user has made edits:[18]

The most important thing ımho here is, he delibaretly acts like a different user, and he not only uses these accounts for edits to articles but also uses talk pages of articles by his different accounts to push for a certain POV, please look at his one, all of these comments were made in the same talk page, in the same days:

edit by 80.15.132.42 dating June 10 [19] edit by 74.134.238.58 dating June 11 [20] edit by 70.225.166.166 dating June 13 [21] edit by Alexius with his user name dating June 13 [22]..

What can be done about it? --laertes d 11:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The editor who vandalized your page isn't Alexius: I immediately noted in that so magnifically trollish and sub-intelligent editing a user long banned to all's satisfaction, User:GreekWarrior. To what I did with him, ignore him, unless he continues vandalizing your page, as I'll temporarily sp your user page then. Regarding the other issues, Alexius isn't blocked so even if it's him, I don't see what should be done. If you feel it's an important thing with a pattern of disruption I'd advice you to ask User:Akhilleus, who's best regarding socks. Also, I must admit I'm a bit exhausted with Balkan-Turkish disputes, and I tend to avoid them lately.--Aldux 16:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An old friend of yours

Hi Aldux, just a heads-up, there's a new case on WP:RFAR about our old friend Iasson. Thought you might be interested in commenting there. -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh s... I can't really believe that somebody would even think of discussing readmitting the worst troll I've ever met, compared to whom Bonaparte is the best of editors. I only hope that the ArbCom will refuse to receive the case, cutting the comedy short. But if it is unfortunately accepted, I'll leave a note.--Aldux 15:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patron of England

Pretty complicated, indeed. As I understand it, Edward III elevated St George in the 14th century, officialy replacing St Edmund, who already had largely been superceded by St Dunstan first and then later by St Edward the King. Was that what you found? -- SECisek 17:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

More or less. While it does appear that 14th century is the correct century for St. George, most sources say he repaced St. Edward, canonized in 1163 due to considerable royal promotion in his favour, as patron. And I've found Newman saying that also "For many ages, St. Alban was accounted the Patron of England". It is also added in a biography that Thomas Becket became a sort of national patron, as Edund cult is aid to have been of only local interest and Edward's never counted much out of Westiminister. Haven't found anything on Dunstan, thought. This is what A Manual of the Writings in Middle English says: "until he was replaced by Thomas à Becket, Edmund was the national saint of England." --Aldux 21:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have seen the St Alban & Thomas Becket claims as well. Thanks for your info. We have an anon. English nationalist disrupting the Edmund article as we are preparing to send it for GA. PLEASE, do you have a cite for this:

"It is also added in a biography that Thomas Becket became a sort of national patron, as Edmund's cult is said to have been of only local interest and Edward's never counted much out of Westiminister."

We asserted this, but we need a cite.

Thank you. -- SECisek 18:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Actually, I made an error of memory: Edmund's cult was limited, not local, and on a better reading actually its not so much of himself but of his shrine. Anyways, I'll give the exact quote from Frank Barlow's Thomas Becket, University of California Press, 1990, page 268: "England lacked a really popular national shrine, like St. Denis in France. St. Edmund was only of limited interest, the cult of St. Edward at Westminister always precarious. Neither had contributions to make like the water of St. Thomas."--Aldux 21:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I've also found this one, from The Anglo-Saxon World: An Anthology, edited by Kevin Crossley-Holland, page 212: "[Aelfric's hagiography] helped to secure the basis of the cult whereby, before Edward the Confessor and St. George, Edmund became the first patron of England."--Aldux 21:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well done! -- SECisek 21:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Afrika paprika again

He has returned as User:No.13. They share completely identical interests and this user has just continued the fights with Italian wikipedians on Dalmatian-related articles, especially the Republic of Ragusa. They write pretty much the same, and No.13 has joined wikipedia right after the last of Afrika paprika's socks was indef-blocked. Checkuser confirmed that they're likely the same user.

I thought that there is a high chance that they are the same user - but after I've seen this edit, I have absolutely no doubt. For it is one of the many Pagania-like articles in which Afrika paprika and all his socks pushed their POV.

And as for further evidence, he has completely identical interests (of the countless articles) that Afrika paprika edited like Vladimir Prelog and Bunjevci. --PaxEquilibrium 20:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I've controlled his edits, and even discounting what Mackensen said regarding the checkuser, the evidence is crushing: they have exactly the same editing pattern, to a point that can't be a coincidence. Thus I've blocked the account.--Aldux 20:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out that that which Afrika paprika was saying all this time about all users from Croatia having the same IP address is wrong. ;) This further narrows down. --PaxEquilibrium 15:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

He's back again, after you blocked his previous account; as User:DalmatinoA (see his contributions). He has returned to his old battleground at Pietro Tradonico (refer to the editing history of that article), where he characterized his edit as just info.

BTW I just noticed that he's (slightly) losing his creativity. User:No.13 was his thirteenth sockpuppet. :))) --PaxEquilibrium 16:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. even more obvious than I thought. I guess that "A" after "Dalmatino" he took from the first character of his original username. :X This is getting hilarious. --PaxEquilibrium 16:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL. You really think you are clever. 1. No.13 account was not my 13th acount but rather a simple number, I consider the #13 to be my lucky number. 2. DalmatinoA, my newest account is named that way because I wanted to create tan account named Dalmatino but since it was taken I just added the first letter up there. On the other hand why don't you people give me a chance for once? Take a look at my last few accounts you blocked for no other reason but for my past sins. Where do you see there any vandalisim or similar disruption in my edits? Yes I broke the rules when I first came here, and yes it was big time disruption after you blocked me for 3RR which I thought was punishment and favoring the other guy but I was not the first nor the last to make that same mistake. Will I never get the second chance? --DalmatinoA 16:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, that was just a joke, attempting to lighten up the situation after your return (which is, sadly, a worrying matter).
"A chance for once"? Well, because you wasted your all chances as User:Afrika paprika. Let me quote WP:BAN: The Wikipedia ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. You have actually managed to climb into Wikipedia:List of banned users, which is restricted to the very few excessively abusive minority. Do you actually have an idea how hard it is get banned? And what's more, you have received a community ban (which is even more "rare" and "difficult to achieve"). And do you realized that you passed greatly that criteria? Further sock-puppetry and deceits how it is not you, blatantly lying to the entire Wikipedian Community (and all of its millions of users), only is an act of further violation of Wikipedia's policy - guess what, in this whole year you've never faced your ban, but just kept creating new sockpuppets and tried to fool the Wikipedian Community. You've had plenty of chances, you just didn't use them - and ergo, I'm not really inclined on giving you an nth one, but of course I cannot speak in Aldux's name.
You are not banned just for your past sins (which're enough to earn a ban - which means that you must stay off Wikipedia's editorial world, and that you have never obeyed). I just checked the block log of your "other faces", such as Factanista - and you were disruptive there as well, and the same with your next clone of Tar-Elenion. Not to mention that in that period you (especially as Factanista) constantly told people to f##k themselves, and especially naughty was the 19 times vandalizing of my user page by adding that I suck Vojislav Seselj's d**k. If you were blocked/banned just for 3RR, it would've presented no major issue - but you weren't. Your violations exceeded greatly beyond that; and according to your uncivil edit-warring as User:DalmatinoA (your current username), you haven't really changed. I'm always in support of giving guys second chances, but the problem is with giving third chances... and although I have no idea what User:Aldux's opinion is, I certainly oppose giving you a forth chance. Everything has its measure (even in violation of rules), and enough is simply enough. --PaxEquilibrium 11:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I know Pax that you would not give me one chance. Besides I was never given one anyway. I was blocked for my own stupidity, no one EVER explained to me anything about 3RR and things like that when I first came here. The things I did with your userpage and userpages of few other memebers (admins) is not something I am proud of, quite the opposite. That was done in the heath of the moement and as an act of desparation. And you are very unfair. Where was I disruptive in Factanista and Tar-Elenion? You are again talking about few 3RR minor incidents, with Tar-Elenion I was blocked because I was trying to mediate but was characterized as participant as the mod blocked EVERYONE INVOLVED THERE. I was unblocked shortly. So what are you talking about? With my last account No.13 I didn't had one incident. I ask myself why did I get community ban? I would like to know more about that to, I am sure you know far more about then me since you were one of those people advocating it. Anway what was I supposed to do? Do you really think one can just stop editing after block like that? Would you leave? I sincerly doubt it. I was community banned almost immediately after my block like I was some hardcore vandal, I never vandalized one article here neither I did any major disruption. And if I was edit-warring so were you, I don't see you getting banned or blocked. Instead while we were debating you were reverting with the help of your friends and stabbed me in the back posing as my "friend". But that was in the past now, in fact I did leave at one moment I wasn't here for couple of months then I later came back hoping for a fresh start. Obviously I am so terrible that I don't deserve one, only if you could name just one article which I vandalized. --DalmatinoA 14:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • sigh*. Just countless warnings about 3RR at your talk pages (even your original and many of your socks) and the fact that you've been blocked for 3RR numerous times show that you were perfectly aware of 3RR. If you just decided to ignore and not read those (and truly didn't know), all those blocks & warnings then you have been acting highly irresponsibly and we have very full reasons to treat you the same way. Frankly, I think it's impossible that you didn't read them, because you actually replied to quite a few of them. If you want to present that it was bad to have you community banned by saying that after a year and a half of disruption you've "rehabilitated" (which your most recent edits under DalmatinoA show you didn't really change), you're doing a no-no. Yes, I do think that one can just stop editing, because it's an exclusively limited minority of disruptive editors (less than 1%) to which you belong. I'm simply not going to get banned, and I'm sure of it. Do you actually have any idea how difficult it actually is to get banned? And you crossed that line, even deep further. Why can't you accept that? And since you were practically never banned because of constant sock-puppets, does it really show that you've accepted Wikipedia's policies? It doesn't seem to me... You didn't even try to contest your block. And in this post you just self-contradicted first admitting and then denying vandalism and disruption (!). And I wasn't edit-warring. Let me refresh your memory how it went: :
1. I post on talk page
2. I wait for a very long time
3. I notify you on your personal talk page to get back to the discussion
4. seeing absolutely no progress and ignoring from you, I rv back Pagania
5. you revert to your version and post very uncivil messages at the talk page accusing me for many, many things
And as for at least one article, how about the one you just yourself mentioned in the very same post: my talk page? I never stab anyone in their back, I just report them if they violate a rule, or at least warn them. And I am "friend" to everyone, because it's the basis of Wikipedia. And frankly, if you ask my personal question - I don't think that you've changed at all (your contributions say so)... --PaxEquilibrium 23:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frightner

Please. Give talking a chance. Before we started talking, we needed to block several IPs a day, and revert dozens of edits. If he gets nasty, we can certainly go back to that; but don't you think it's better that we talk to him? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Will my beneficial edits to any article be reverted? Regards. 203.59.118.146 14:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Lets put it this way: if your edits fully respect wikipedia policies, are carefully backed with reliable sources (please, please read with care WP:ATT), I will have no reason to take them away, for the same reason I would not remove the correction of a typo error.--Aldux 16:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for allowing my edits as long as they abide by Wikipedia's policies. On another hand, Mr. Neutron reverts most of my edits which benefit certain articles because he has a personal grudge against me. 203.59.172.94 10:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hı again

I know aldux that you dont want to be much involved in these Greco-Turkish disputes but this case requires some attention ı think..Obviously one single user with several IP's keep pushing POV in several articles for a couple of days: Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922)‎[23], Fall of Tripolitsa‎[24], , Navarino Massacre‎[25], Occupation of İzmir..

IP involved are:85.75.172.58 [26]

87.203.216.92 [27]
85.74.124.113 [28]

It might be alexıus or not i dont know, these are Alexius' favorite articles, but in any case one single user blatantly push a nationalist POV..Just to inform you...Regards --laertes d 23:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I note they're also your favourite articles, and you've violated WP:3RR several times in recent days. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 00:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

And ı also noted that they are also your favourite articles Kekrops and interestingly you violated WP:3RR several times in recent days.. [29] starting from August 8 you made 5 reversions within 24 hours while reverting Kudret abi's reversions ..

But thats not much the problem with me, however a persistent POV imposition is coming from this user with several IP adresses..--laertes d 09:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I did nothing of the sort; you're confusing reversions with mere edits. Take another look at WP:3RR. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 09:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont want a dispute over this but you have made 5 reversions within 24 hours, reverting Kudret abi and Jakew..check it better..--laertes d 10:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military history/Coordinators

Hello Aldux. Thanks for your support at the Military history taskforce elections. I am now a coordinator. Please feel free to approach me if you need any help. - FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maps

Aldux - do you mean do blowup maps of the districts of Chad by region? Rarelibra 20:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 08:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hello Aldux. Thanks for your support at the Military history elections. With your aid I was able to commision this ship to help plunder the coast of Military history. Na, just kidding. If you ever require any astance all you have to do is ask and you will see my ship on the horizon. Kyriakos 03:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misquoted source

Hi Aldux, I was wondering if you could pop in to Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Misquoted source to help clear something up? It appears that the information that you provided, may not have been an accurate interpretation of the meaning of the source. Could you please stop by, to let us know if you actually read the entire book and are offering your opinion based on that, or were you just quoting a fragment of a footnote that you got via a Google search? Thanks, Elonka 18:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging proposals

Please see Talk:Borota raid. It counts also for Amdjereme raid. After trying to cleanup them, some issues still persist --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

For Borota, I'm opposed; but after some consideration, I think that it's OK if we merge Amdjereme raid.--Aldux 01:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Responsibilities

Aldux,

As an admin, you have a responsibility to either fairly deal with all editors or recuse yourself. You are siding with phg claiming a universal consensus that does not exist. There are four editors who believe that 3 separate maps (rather than one map combining all three to show aggrandize greek territory) would be fair. Phg can push his view, and other more modern objective views can also be displayed. This is a fair compromise. Yet you insist on phg's map because it will confuse other readers into thinking that greek territory extended that far (i have shown the map to 4 different people, and no one thinks that phg's version consists of 3 separate maps). This is unfair. Answer the question: Why not have 3 different maps to make this a "comprehensive encyclopedia article" as PHG loves to claim?

If you proceed to inject yourself in this fashion without fairness, you will only betray your biases. Shame on you for abusing your role as an admin.

Devanampriya 02:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

Chad is on the main page, so congratulations! It's really nice to see an African country featured like this. Good job on the rewrite, and I'll try to do my part to fight the inevitable vandalism. — Brian (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Brian: this is also thanks to you, as you helped me detecting the problems with the article, especially, in the "culture" section, and gave it a thorough rewrite, a thing I could hardly have been able to do on my own, assuring the article would have a decent prose. For all this, thanks! :-)--Aldux 01:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chad

You've done an excellent job on this article, well done! It's well written, presented and very readable. I enjoyed it, and it's very informative. I've learnt lots. Wikidea 00:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your nice words: I've always had a particular interest in expanding the covering and thus the knowledge of Chad in wikipedia, and this is especially dear to me as it's a sort of crowning of my efforts on Chad-related topics :-)--Aldux 00:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I now noticed that you managed to bring Chad to FA status. Congratulations from me as well! It is my intention to do the same thing for Greece one day, but I'm a bit bored lately!--Yannismarou 14:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Yannis, and soory for awnsering so late :-) I'm really going to wait for your Greece article, with your knowledge of the country in its various aspects and your editorial skills and ability in making FA no other editor could hope to do such a work as well as you. Obviously, there's no rush. And as for being bored, nobody understands you better: I've myself reduced my editing, partly due to my work, but also due to a certain frustration with the unpoliteness and confrontational attitude often present in history and politics articles in wikipedia.--Aldux 23:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Franco-Mongol alliance

Hi Aldux, please do not hesitate to drop by on the Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance page, as there is still some dispute as the extent and nature of the alliance. I would appreciate your knowledge and comments on these matters. Best regards. PHG 07:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chadian parties

We could limit it to parliamentary parties. Electionworld Talk? 22:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You could add a section with major boycotting parties. Electionworld Talk? 16:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Porus

Yes anon user was probably correct with the removal of that text, I didn't read it in context but no reason was provided so it felt like one of Devanampriya typical edits. Speaking of whom, have you seen his recent activity? I need help in reporting him but I do not know the correct procedures to be taken. ([[User:Giani g|Giani g]] 13:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Hey Aldux

I was in Florence two weeks ago, the homnetown of my maternal grandmother. Great city you've got there. I really liked San Miniato al Monte. I didn't get to see the Etruscan Chimaera unfortunately because everytime I went to the archeological museum it was closed. Anyhow, just wanted to say hi. Will probably upload some pictures soon.- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 14:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Eupator, sorry for awnsering so late, but I don't edit as much as once did and so saw it just know. It's great to hear you're in Florence, even if I must tell you I don't live anymore in Florence, as I moved upstream (upstream the Arno river, that is). It's nice to hear from you, and I'm happy you like it: September is a good month to be in Florence, not too many turists, and it's generally still quite hot. Ciao,--Aldux 20:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Italiotis

Hi Aldux could you please justify your latest edit into Macedon as it doesn t make any sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Italiotis (talk • contribs) 16:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It's the infobox that utterly doesn't make any sense. Even if it seems to have simply used what was contained in the article, from this it deduces wild conclusions, that are certainly not there (and this I know quite well, as I worked considerably on this article).--Aldux 16:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I mean Aldux surely you agree that the Alexandrine empire did reach India. The people then did spoken ancient greek , the religion was the dodecatheon syncretic with local eastern elements , the currency was called drachma and indeed the story of macedon is linked with argead dynasty and greece before the conquest and with the four hellenistic kingdoms and roman empire after the death of Alexander. So i think it is a really helpful schimatic infobox and by removing it or altering it you simply make poorer the article. So I don t believe you should remove it and i think it should stay there unless there is a specific point you wanna makeItaliotis 16:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elonka+Devanampriya

Hi Aldux, could you kindly consider giving your comments on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, where I am being attacked by Elonka and …. Devanampriya, of all associates? Best regards PHG 16:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indo-Greek kingdom

For your information, the article on the Indo-Greek kingdom is under FA review following a request by User:Devanampriya to User:Blnguyen. You may leave comment at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Indo-Greek Kingdom. Best regards PHG 19:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

FARC coming soon. I believe the article has improved a lot! Regards. PHG 11:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
It's good to know that the articles is making progresses. Don't worry if the article loses its FA status: many articles have lost their FA status but early reaquired it.--Aldux 13:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
You're right, but loosing it because of Devanampriya, of all users, would be quite a shame for Wikipedia. Don't we have to make a stand against ignorance, partisan POV-pushing and constant incivility? PHG 14:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The point is that to you this seems an exceptional case, as the area in which you edit is after all quite peaceful. But I've seen all the worst that wikipedia can give, where trolling, personal attacks and bad-faith pov-pushing are so massive and common that the idea of "making a stand" seems simply futile. Wikipedia is something at the moment deeply unperfect and unreliable; but luckily it's also a work in progress, and especially where disputes are not so hot in the last 2 years lots of good work has been done, especially in the less controversial areas. So we can only hope that in time uncivility and pov-pushing will be dealt with more severity. And again, those stars don't really say much of the value of an article, so you really shouldn't think all that much about it.--Aldux 15:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Still, a simple one-line comment by someone of your standing would be highly usefull. Regards. PHG 15:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 08:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chadian Arabic

Hello

I agree with you now. But it would have been a lot nicer of you, if you had addressed your point without the attitude and rude remarks. I don't think I was making provocative edits.

Regards. Parishan 02:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Constitution of Chad

Hi Aldux, I was reading this article in hope of adding some comments to the long-ignored request for Peer Review when I encountered this sentence in the "Constitutional process" section:

In December 1991, with considerable retard and due to both serious armed challenges to Déby rule anf French pressure[7], a 79-member commission was instituted to prepare the ground for the conference that, originally scheduled to be convened in May 1992, was on the occasion postponed.

The use of "retard" there is very jarring, & I was wondering if this is either a bit of vandalism that has snuck in under the radar, or just an artifact of a bad translation into English. (It's obvious that "anf" is a typo.) Can you shed some light on this? Thanks, llywrch 16:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's even simpler than that: it's a result of my bad knowledge of English, which makes me use eccentric terms. Even if, looking better, since the original source was French and not English, this also probably played a role. I'll correct immediately "retard" with "delay". And thanks a lot for noting the peer review; I had lost any hope somebody would care to leave me a note there! Thanks again, and ciao.--Aldux 17:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 12:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Franco-Mongol alliance

Thank you very much for your assistance at this article's talkpage over the last couple months. We are still having a bit of a stalemate at the article though, so if you have time, I was wondering if you could offer another opinion? I have created a subpage in my userspace where I have rewritten the article from top to bottom, shrinking it down from 167K to a little less than 70K, removing some of the unreliable sources and less relevant information, splitting other sections out to more appropriate articles, and most importantly, trying to smooth out the writing so as not to give undue weight to certain POVs. My rewritten version of the article is currently at User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance. I've announced it at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Article rewrite, but because this is such an obscure subject, it's really been very difficult to prove that there is consensus for the new version. If you have a few minutes, could you please look over the rewrite, and offer an opinion on it? I am very open to making changes, but I'm in a situation where I basically have one editor (PHG) who keeps saying "no," and no one else seems to want to comment and help break the stalemate. We've been trying mediation for the last month, but without success, and even our mediator appears to have gone AWOL, with no posts for over a week now. I would very much like to find a way to move forward through this dispute without having to further escalate it towards ArbCom, and it's my genuine hope that if we could just get some more editors actually commenting there to prove a consensus, it could help a great deal. Any assistance appreciated, Elonka 17:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indo-Greek Kingdom

[edit] Merge possibility

Any reason to keep Prime Minister of Chad and (the outdated) Heads of government of Chad separate? I suggest the first be redirected to the second, and the contents merged. Biruitorul (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Biruitorul, nice to hear from you :-) I think your idea is perfectly OK, don't be afraid to proceed: I gave a look at the current constitution, just to be sure, and it's stated clearly that the prime minister is the head of government (the praxis is a bit different, as often happens). Ciao,--Aldux (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll do so in the near future. Cheers, Biruitorul (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I've merged the two at Heads of government of Chad. Note there's now an inconsistency: the history section says the post was created in 1975, while the list would indicate 1959, so perhaps we could smooth over that discrepancy. Biruitorul (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA - thanks

Thank you for your support in my request for adminship, which succeeded with a final tally of 38/1/0! I hope I can live up to the standards of adminship, and I will try my best to make Wikipedia a better place. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Classification of admins

Hi Aldux. Please consider adding your admin username to the growing list at Classification of admins. Best! -- Jreferee t/c 22:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic Legion in Ugandan-Tanzanian War?

Hi Aldux, Buckshot06 recently expanded Ugandan-Tanzanian War (1978-1979) to list the combatant "regular Libyan Army units, People's Militia, and sub-Saharan Africans of the Islamic Pan-African Militia, a further force created by Libya for this type of expeditionary mission." This "Islamic Pan-African Militia" sounds really similar to Gaddafi's Islamic Legion and I was wondering if you have any info that can shed some light on the subject? Cheers, BanyanTree 01:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes you're absolutely correct: the Islamic Legion is also often called "Islamic Pan-African Legion", and it was certainly present in the conflict you speak of: Kenneth Pollack in his Arabs at War dedicates seven pages to the Libyan intervention in Uganda, and clearly states (p. 369) that to confront the Tanzanian offensive the Libyans airlifted in February 1979 2,500 troops, of various corps among whom was the Legion. But now that I look the sources of the articles, I see that has used exactly this book, which mentions precisely the "Islamic Pan-African Legion" (369) and the "Islamic Legionnaires" (371).--Aldux 02:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Great. I'll change the article. It's always a pleasure doing business with you. ;) - BanyanTree 03:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your participation in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate that landed on WP:100, but ultimately was deemed a successful declaration of consensus, and I am now an administrator. I paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better admin. I am going to take things slowly for now -- I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, though I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. --Elonka 02:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imo State

Hi Aldux. Does Bill edmond (talk · contribs) remind you of anyone? Strikes me as Igbigbo (talk · contribs), who we were having trouble with on Imo State months ago. This edit is reminiscent of the name of his sock, Academicigbo (talk · contribs), and his comment to me here. Here, meanwhile, we have Bill edmond readding the non-notable people I removed from the list of natives. I eventually deleted the article as a copyvio, so Igbigbo and his earlier socks' edits can be found at Special:Undelete/Imo State. Any thoughts on Bill edmond? Picaroon (t) 00:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Pomaks

Hi, why was my adition to the article removed? We know that the army of the Caliphate reached to Thesaloniki and there were Muslim presence on the Balkans even before the arrival of the Ottomans, though not very significant. I had provided a reference. I don't understand why was my contribution rejected??? --Soft needed (talk) 09:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue XXII (December 2007)
Project news
Articles of note

New featured articles:

  1. Battle of Albuera
  2. Battle of Dyrrhachium (1081)
  3. Battle of the Gebora
  4. Constantine II of Scotland
  5. Francis Harvey
  6. Vasa (ship)
  7. Wulfhere of Mercia

New A-Class articles:

  1. 1962 South Vietnamese Presidential Palace bombing
  2. Evacuation of East Prussia
Current proposals and discussions
Awards and honors
  • Blnguyen has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his efforts in improving the quality of articles related to Vietnamese military history, including the creation of numerous A-Class articles.
  • Woodym555 has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his outstanding work on topics related to the Victoria Cross, notably including the creation of featured articles, featured lists, and a featured topic.
  • For their outstanding efforts as part of Tag & Assess 2007, Bedford, TomStar81, and Parsival74 have been awarded the gold, silver, and bronze Wikis, respectively.
Tag & Assess 2007

Tag & Assess 2007 is now officially over, with slightly under 68,000 articles processed. The top twenty scores are as follows:

1. Bedford — 7,600
2. TomStar81 — 5,500
3. Parsival74 — 5,200
4. FayssalF — 3,500
5. Roger Davies — 3,000
6. Ouro — 2600
7. Kateshortforbob — 2250
8. Cromdog — 2,200
9. BrokenSphere — 2000
9. Jacksinterweb — 2,000
9. Maralia — 2,000
12. MBK004 — 1,340
13. JKBrooks85 — 1,250
14. Sniperz11 — 1100
15. Burzmali — 1000
15. Cplakidas — 1000
15. Gimme danger — 1000
15. Raoulduke471000
15. TicketMan — 1000
15. Welsh — 1000
15. Blnguyen — 1000

Although the drive is officially closed, existing participants can continue tagging until January 31 if they wish, with the extra tags counting towards their tally for barnstar purposes.

We'd like to see what lessons can be learned from this drive, so we've set up a feedback workshop. Comments and feedback from participants and non-particpants alike are very welcome and appreciated.

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.


This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Turkish people

Hello! I was wondering what would it be "more" corect to have on the Turkish people article, in the table on the right side of the screan(distribution) :

1) Turkish Republic of Northen Cyprus and Cyprus
2) Cyprus(north) and Cyprsu(south)(the one I modified but was reverted)
3) Both be merged into Cyprus AdrianCo (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)AdrianCo
Well Help! AdrianCo (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)AdrianCo

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 01:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Email for you

FT2 (Talk | email) 14:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Working Group login

Hi Aldux, just letting you know I've sent an email (via the English Wikipedia email function) to you with details about your Working Group wiki login details. Be sure to change your password once you log in, for security reasons! If there's any problems with the login (passwords, username not working, or anything), fire me an email and I'll try and sort them out for you. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Daniel, done. I confirm that "User:Aldux" on the WG wiki is me and I have sole control of the account.--Aldux (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Chad

Hi there, yes maybe we should avoid recentism, but perhaps a new article should be created on the Chad 2008 fighting or something like that ? Please advise, I think the info I had inserted was very relevant and part of history too.--Songhonite (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HI

Hi Aldux. I am again being attacked by Elonka and some of her supporters at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Workshop. Could you kindly give your opinion? Thank you. PHG (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Afrikapaprika

You're the one that fought Afrika paprika? Hes back as User:Zenanarh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpotterPlopper (talk • contribs) 15:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Poor Arika, whoever it was (must be some kind of rare octopussy when so desperately ghost hunted), before he became me, since Hes back as me, according to this ProperFlopper, whoever it is... maybe it's me again. SplutterSomething are you me too?
Aldux, can we introduce a new template - "Template:Afrika paprika" - for such cases? I'm accused for the 3rd time to be this guy. It would make much easier for Droppers to accuse me next time. Zenanarh (talk) 00:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Milhist coordinators election has started

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vote Request

Hi Aldux, I saw your comment in talk saint cyril and wanted to ask if you could vote on the subject of merging the three poor articles into one that can be tidied up, this would also make it easier to contain drive-by edits. Thanks for your reply.

Xenovatis (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pomaks

What's wrong with the source that I provided? This is an originally published book and more over the author points out sources as well. Plus it is known for certain that the Caliphate had contacts with the Balkans and that it even reached Thessaloníki in the 8th century. What reference do you want - a Harvard text book or a CIA published document? Why everything about Pomaks that comes from Muslim authors is considered a lie or not reliable and everything that comes from Bulgarian and Greek authors is directly considered a truth? You want proofs - here is one: the mosque Sultan Bayazid in the village of Kochan was built in the 8th century and it is inscripted in ancient stone on the mosque. If you are suspicios about it go and check it yourselv. Actually I posted the image on Wikipedia, but it was deleted. I don't know what's wrong with you here - you simply deny to even think about Muslims on the Balkans before the Ottomans asif we are talking about Muslims on Mars. If you don't accept it at least don't deprive the people of the information that it is possible that Muslims lived in the Balkans before the Turks. Even when research is available. Nobody here says that all Pomaks converted to Islam at that time and actualy I noted that maybe no Pomaks converted to Islam at that time. Whe must provide all possible theories and all facts and the users have to draw their conclusions by themselves. This is the idea of Wikipedia. If it is possible that some Pomaks might have been Muslims before the Turks, we have to have it on the Wikipedia, especially when we have a source, citing other sources. I really don't understand what is wrong with you. --Soft needed (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's simply not good enough for wikipedia, that's it, for WP:RS. Also, for such extraordinary claims, you need to pass WP:REDFLAG. Consider also WP:FRINGE. Read these links, please.--Aldux (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually in that article there is too much stuff that is not good enough for Wikipedia and is even unsourced at all. --Soft needed (talk) 08:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] boycotts map

Hi, I have added the countries you have mentioned, and also took the opportunity to remake it using a better map that was available. Is this correct now? --Astrokey44 02:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for finding the information. Cheers --Astrokey44 12:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you



Milhist Coordinator elections
Thank you very much for your support in the recent Military history Wikiproject elections. I went into it expecting to just keep my seat and was astonished to end up with the lead role. I anticipate a rather busy six months :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Haut-Koeningsbourg castle, Alsace.

[edit] Thanks

Hello Aldux. Thanks for your support at the Military history elections. With your aid I was able to commision this ship to help plunder the coast of Military history for the third time. Na, just kidding. If you ever require any astance all you have to do is ask and you will see my ship on the horizon. Kyriakos (talk) 14:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] My RfA

Image:David,larry.JPG My RFA
Thank you muchly for your support in my recent request for adminship, which was successfully closed on 76%, finishing at 73 supports, 23 opposes and 1 neutral. The supports were wonderful, and I will keep in mind the points made in the useful opposes and try to suppress the Larry David in me! Now I'm off to issue some cool down blocks, just to get my money's worth!

Kidding btw. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yassy-Kishinev Strategic Offensive Operation

Just so you don't think I am advocating this from sheer stubbornness, my position is that good article research should discriminate between good and bad original research, even when it is the source for the article. I don't think reference work editors should compromise on article quality in any way as a proof of our integrity expected by users--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category edits

Glad I gave you something to do in your spare time. You would have just used it to play video games ;) (Taivo (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Future projects

Thank you, and thank you for the RfA support! Tombalbaye sounds quite intriguing and would make for a great project. All in due time... Best, Biruitorul (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] African pope

I have revised the article extensively since you voted in the AFD, and invite you to reconsider. --Dhartung | Talk 09:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Template:Sep entry

It seems to me that date of consultation is only relevant if information from the SEP article has been used in the article. It is optional in the template and should be omitted in the case of an external link to the SEP article. For that matter, I can't imagine any circumstance in which it would make sense to add today's date to an existing SEP link, because, obviously, if it was used in actually researching and writing an article, that would have been on a different date. Surely the template only allows for the date because of the desirability of dating online material when cited as a source consulted. "A tidying editor found the link not to be dead & made a formatting change on X date" is neither useful information that should be in the text of the encyclopedia nor what the result of these edits implies. Wareh (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Wareh (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yo, template creator here. Wareh is correct in thinking the date is only to be used when citing the SEP and not when linking to it at the foot of the article. You are labouring under a misconception regarding the function of the date parameter, however; it is not the date of consultation but the date the entry was written/last updated. This information can be gleaned from the top of SEP entries. It is important to include this when adding references to articles on rapidly developing fields in contemporary philosophical scholarship so as not to mislead the reader. Please feel free to ask if you have any questions about or suggestions for improvement of the template. Regards, Skomorokh 21:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said to Wareh, I had actually came to suspect that this was the case. For this I've dropped the date parameter in the last articles I've controlled, and removed it from the ones to which I had already added it.--Aldux (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Franciscus Patricius

Franciscus Patricius was born in Cherso (today Cres, Croatia), then the territory of the Republic of Venice. His family was of noble (patrician) origin from Kingdom of Bosnia, his family was forced to flee from crumbling Bosnian kingdom after the Ottoman invasion. Venetian government in 1563 refers to the Patricius family as Croats. -this is from the article. What's the problem? What are the most sources according to you? Maybe the most of Italian sources? Isn't this Italian appropriation of Dalmatian coast and people gone a little bit too far? Do you know that we, the natives of Dalmatia percieve it as extreme Italian nationalism? Or I should use another term? Zenanarh (talk) 14:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. It seems that reasoning with you is just a loss of time, as it only brings wanton accusations of nationalism. I'll awnser the only way a wikipedian should: with the best source available, that is the entry to the philosopher in the ten volumes Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, written not by an Italian but by Earline Jennifer Ashworth, a British scholar. I didn't want to start another Balkan dispute, but you left me no choice.--Aldux (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Your football level comment about footballer and philosophist is very nice. As the matter of fact it's brilliant. See you in the article talk page soon. Zenanarh (talk) 08:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Philosopher, not philosophist. I'll be always happy to speak about bettering an article, especially a philosophy-related one: but please avoid transforming it in an Italia-Croatia match, as ethnicity questions are always of rare futility, especially when it comes to philosophy.--Aldux (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Philosopher, right. I hope to see Italia-Croatia match in Austria. Ethnicity is ethnicity, philosophy is philosophy. What you're afraid of? That all Italian philosophers come from Croatia? Don't make such irrelevant relations. :) Why don't you simply examine what is written on this philosopher's funeral monument placed in the church St. Onofrio in Rome, so we can avoid any discussion from the beginning? Zenanarh (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, that match would be quite a nice one to see ;-) As for the grave, unfortunately, doing so would be a form of OR, as we can't make research ourselves (Obviously if a RS quotes his funeral inscription, there wouldn't be anything bad repeating it; but really, what this article needs in a desperate way, is a minimally decent presentation of Patrizi/Patricius/Petric/Petrisevic's philosophy. As for to the ethnicity, it's just that I find it desperately marginal; afterall, the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the other great reference after the Routledge, doesn't even feel any need to go in such an issue, and it's the same for the best encyclopedia online, the Stanford.--Aldux (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually you don't find it desperately marginal; afterall; otherwise we wouldn't have this discussion at all. I agree, in a philosopher's life, his work is of the best importance. Whatever, his ethnicity is just a data about him, but still it's data. The same as his birthplace, grave location or important dates in his life. Sources mentioned by you are simply out of date, obviously based on notes from Italian historiography (I'll rather avoid discussion about its relevance concerning this subject) or unsecure after recent occassions. The point is that Italians officially acknowledged his appurtenance to Croatian scientific and cultural corpus after scientific campaign of HAZU (Croatian Academy of Science and Arts). You said you'll be always happy to speak about bettering an article, but you act contrary. Like erasing data from the article. Don't be a little indoctrinated thief hidden behind humanistic slogans, try to be a humanist, a guy we're discussing of was the one. Zenanarh (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
That's enough: we've got a series of policies here and one of these is WP:CIV, that you have violated shamelessly. If you can't be polite, then keep quiet: I certainly won't loose my time awnsering rudeness. And unsourced assertions are not data, just crap, especially if you can't find reliable third-party sources to back it up.--Aldux (talk) 01:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Libya

Libya has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.