User talk:Dc76

This user may have left Wikipedia. Dc76 has not edited Wikipedia since December 16, 2009. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Archives

1  • 2  • 3  • 4  • 5  • 6  • 7  • 8  • 9  • 10  • 11  • 12

[1]

Deoarece in discutia noastra anterioara ai vorbit despre pacat, mi-ar face placere sa mentionez urmatorul articol (care mie mi s-a parut interesant si dupa parerea mea explica destul de bine diferentele despre pacat intre ortodocsi si occidentali) daca ai timp sa-l citesti (in caz de nu-l cunosti deja) sper sa-ti placa. (Si nici eu nu cred ca a folosi "Soborniceasca" (pe care il folosesc si eu) reprezinta un pacat, deoarece nu cred ca majoritatea celor care-l folosesc o fac cu intenti neortodoxe (iar conform Ortodoxiei, judecata care o vom primi de la Dumnezeu va fi dupa inimile noastre), dar totusi cred ca e cam trist ca ne-a facut sa cam cedam occidentalilor titlul "Catolic" (care inseamna acelasi lucru), si cred ca ar trebui sa incercam sa evitam aceasta. In legatura cu anti-ecumenismul, regretabil sunt si persoane care se comporta cum ai spus, dar eu din cate stiu majoritatea anti-ecumenistilor spun doar ca e o singura Biserica Adevarata a lui Hristos, pe care in prezent o numim mai des Biserica Ortodoxa.) Cody7777777 (talk) 11:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, I must protest that you insist on carving up my arguments into bits that most often don't address the point and make the entire conversation harder to follow (while obliging me to follow the same system in case I want, as I do, to be thorough). It is the most wasteful, most exhaustive and least constructive way of approaching the matter. But here goes nothing (just answering your last post for now, points addressed in the order that you posted them):

• either you are making sure to dissolve my entire point into semantics or simply haven't been following it to its conclusion. The term is "poetic" in the sense that we have more concrete and specific terms to define that reality, which also carry the advantage of being equally accessible and understandable to both sides (anyone can agree with a "Moldavian SSR" category, whereas only one side of a side will see a purpose for the other one). With a statement like "given the fact that Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina were split while the political events were identical for a period" we're back to the rationale which keeps showing its head: that the category in question was created to address their status as Romanian irredenta. So they were split. So who cares? And: if they were split, must we reunite them in fiction?
• "It was not a different name, it was a different state" - if we're talking about Moldova, it was no kind of state; if we're talking about the Soviet Union itself, it's irrelevant. And, yes, the United Principalities does apply top to bottom (it's not enough to say that it doesn't and expect that then it won't), since, I remind you, the Kingdom itself went through two constitutions, of which one was adopted by the Principality. And, btw, this while advocating a category which groups two regions (three, with the Budjak) which always had different constitutional statuses under the Soviet regime. Let's not waste all our time on special pleading about how a couple of years in Moldovan history make a world of difference. (Incidentally, I couldn't care less right now if it as in 1989 or 1988 or 1990 or 2007 that the area changed status.)
• With that argument, you basically invalidated the need for separate categories on all the occupations. You also confirm duplication, since you admit that, outside nomenclature, the categories address almost exactly the same issues as their (existing or potential) "SSR" counterparts.
• No, Dc, if you read my entire argument and not just carve out the part that you like, you'll see where I tell you exactly why they didn't share the same reality other than being Soviet (which is addressed by the other categories) and Romanian irredenta (which is POV as far as categorizing goes). (Again, I couldn't care less if the SSR was preceded by years of ambiguity, since, yet again, there is absolutely no reason for creating categories on every conceivable nuance - suffices that the topics are directly connected, regardless of chronological or semantic "exactitude".)
• I stand corrected on the Transnistria stuff, but only because I didn't notice or forgot that you finally decided to correct your own Category:History of Transnistria before 1792. It had hitherto been within the purpose of my comment.
• again, as above. But I can't help but notice another side effect of this carving out of sentences thing you do: the purpose of these comments was to say that the two regions were redivided and had three different constitutional statuses. That is what I was commenting on, and that is, again, why it's clear to me that the category is both superfluous and POVed. Yes, you can/could design x number of articles linking the two terms beyond the factual non-constitutional phenomena that they shared with one another beyond being once occupied by the same power and taken out from the same state, but: a) they won't validate the separate ubercategory; b) [intended as word to the wise:] if there's a perception that the same topics are covered in two ways to preserve some POV, you may even have to face AfDs on grounds of WP:COAT and WP:CFORK for at last some of those (no, not because I will propose them, though I assure you I will not hesitate to vote in favor of deleting them if, in good conscience, they seem to me like they violate those policies; I also would assure you that, should it lead to that, mine would be a case-by-case approach).
• man, how many times must I repeat this? The issue, regardless of whether you yourself are a unionist or not (for the second time, I am not commenting on that), is that, post-1940, the two regions are treated together only if you look at things from a POV. It may be a constructive POV in the real world, it may be one you're so used to that you don't notice, it may be one that provides some esoteric insight - I don't care. When there's a choice between not creating a category based on POVs (likewise for "Moldova under Romanian rule" or "Chenivtsi Oblast during the Romanian occupation") and sticking to the factual, informative, style ("Moldavian SSR", which is an identifiable historical concept for all sides of the table), the choice should always be with the latter.
• Again, the exact semantics of it is not grounds for segregating the categories. Pedantry.
• And again, the second half of my point cut out from the rest, like neither I or you know what I meant... Dc, I made that analogy to give you an instantly apparent example. You want to review the absurdity for the same date et al.? Fine: Category:Libya and the Dodecanese Islands during the Italian era, Category:Philippines and Cuba during the American era, Category:Iceland and Greenland during the American era, Category:Luxembourg and Rhineland during the Nazi era etc. And, lo: beyond Category:Palestinian territories and a few other topical meeting points in the tree, there is no category conglomerate of the two, even if they were under more than one single authority (and would still be, were it not for these guys). As for "The Holocaust in Bessarabia and Bukovina" - it too is flawed, though not as much, and stands as overcategorization. But one at a time.
• I did spell it out. Once, twice, three times. I have explained what I mean above. Every time I explained what that POV is, you seem to read my posts like I'm discussing your personal opinions, and, again, I'm not. I'm discussing the issue as it stands, you just have to spend some time reading the paragraphs from top to bottom, instead of rearranging the sentences.
• Yes, it "right now" overlaps in those articles because that's the way you designed it. But there's, again, nothing in the name of the category that would establish a clear distinction between the cat and the subcat, other than what you think it should be done. This, Dc, is the result of your categorizing philosophy (which is rather alien to WP:CAT), and you have to do the exercise of stepping outside the box and looking upon your creation from another perspective. In short: categories are not and simply cannot be limited by the interpretation you give to the ambiguous words in their title, but have to rely on something that, at best, imply the least amount of subjectivity.
• Well, some of those guys on rowiki are rather stiff, and some apparently suffer from delusion of grandeur. The same encounter you mention has happened to me, but I laughed it off: it's my prerogative to use the "dvs." form as I see fit, and I for one will view people addressing me with a "tu" as a sign of non-formalist diligence and freshness, not as a sign of disrespect. I'm not an institution, neither are they. But I will occasionally use it, particularly in my first encounters with editors. (And I'll tell you a secret: I once used the "dvs." one some kid over there, just because I knew it would piss off some Moş Teacă of an admin, who kept pestering me about "dissing" him while stating the inane claim according to which I'm supposed to use diacritics on talk pages. Before you ask: yes, my notions of etiquette and intrigue were shaped at the court of Louis XIV... or is it Revolutionary France? O_o)
• Okay well, we are in agreement about something. And, since we're on the subject: that you feel followed around by one user is indeed a good cause for annoyance, and I can see how I get stuck with the overflow (yes, you're excused on that rationale); on the other side, we all do it once in a while, and his edits are at least in part validated. Either way, I am not my brother's keeper, and neither is he. Or you, for that matter ;). Dahn (talk) 02:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Cucuteni, I've almost finished. A fresh look will be useful, english and phrasing at least. Thank you for your kind support. CristianChirita (talk)

a situation where you gain nothing by offering an apology for whatever misguidance, misunderstanding, alleged or perceived misconduct. It does not matter whether you think you are guilty of something, an apology does not have to be an acceptance of guilt. You would apologize for the whole situation, a situation you and your friends caused by your carelessness or poor judgment or something (you name it). An apology to everyone, an apology everyone would think is sincere because you gain nothing by offering it. You can acknowledge whatever you want to acknowledge, and you apologize and do not try to blame others.

Then what do you think reaction of the community might be? You still think flaming would ensue? (Igny (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

(copied from User Talk:Dahn)

An unrelated remark: Romania entered WWII with the Soviet invasion of Bessarabia and northern Bukovina. Dc76\^talk 23:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's absurd. Dahn (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romania's first declaration of war, as well as the first act of war, came on 22.06.1941. --Illythr (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this is an unrelated remark w.r.t. the scope of the categorification discussion. Soviet Unions's declaration of war was the threat of use of force in the 2 ultimata on 26 and 27 June 1940. Romania's derailment into Axis' camp was a result of the Soviet military invasion. Mind you, some isolated military units put up some resistance. The first acts of war occured on the evening of 27 June 1940, when Soviets laid down pantoon bridges and ferried tanks even before Romania decided it won't put up a military struggle. Ox before the cart. Cause and effect. If this looks absurd to you, why I was wondering then that both of you occasionally support elements of the Soviet politicized ideological historiography. If you want to continue this topic, could you please start it elsewhere, I am lost in the remarks here. Some remarks you posted 3 hours ago, I only got to read a few minutes ago. They came up like mushrooms :) Dc76\^talk 00:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems Western historiography, namely, US Department of State and Britannica, does not support your views once again. --Illythr (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again :) you look at it from the point of view of the foreign power. Of course, in an article about country x, facts about country y might be slightly skewed. That comes generally out of ignorance, nothing more. So it the Department of State repeating what a description that was inherited from the Communist Romania, with slight adjustments after 1989. This is not based on scholarly work. It shouldn't be taken literally, it should one be taken as a first understanding of what is Romania (Note: not Moldova, but Romania) About the second source, I was inclined to trust it, but an number of issues there are simple strange beyond logic:

• July 11, 1940? August 2, 1940! Such mistakes are unacceptable for an encyclopedia
  • ...to form, in August, a Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic - no error there.
• Cetatea Albă and Izmail. - one name in Romanian, one in Russian. Welcome to chaos-land.
  • Welcome to reality - there was a complete chaos in the usage of foreign names in the XX century. Judging by the endless wikiwars, there still is.
• Further land was expropriated and collectivization launched. - First of all, "further" reads like "in addition to Chernivtsi Oblast and Budjak" (btw, Cernăuţi is not even mentioned). Second, collectivization was performed in 1949-1951. I wonder how many books the author read before writing this.
  • "Further" lacks a comma, yes. Collectivization was launched in 1939, so that part is correct.
• Many Moldavians left, some Jews entered. First, this is non-encyclopedic formulation. Second, Jews were there for many generations. Entered from where? from Mars? Sure some 2-3 thousands did come from the rest of Romania, but that's nothing in the mass of 270,000.
  • Yeah, I'd edit this as well, but there's nothing incorrect there. Jews - from the USSR, obviously.
• Soviet deportations and the famine are not even mentioned, as if they were non-existent.
  • That's because the section is called "World war II"
• June 1940 is called "Soviet troops marched in" (avoiding the word occupation), then 1944 it is called "Soviet occupation in 1944". The real drama was in 1940, not 1944.
  • Where's the error? Everything's in order...

Note, also the EB specifically refers to bibliography: I guess they simply compilated from there, hence the result is not such a coherent text, but still a good one. But nevertheless, despite these shortcomings (let's hope EB will improve them in the next edition), I note that the article does not contradict what I said: In June 1940 Romania, being a France's and Britain's ally, was invaded by the Soviet Union, but all-out war was averted. As a result of France's collapse, and Soviet attack, Romania turned to Germany. In July 1941 Romania, having entered the war as Germany’s ally against the Soviet Union, retook Bessarabia. As you can see, EB's sentence flows in naturally. I don't see any contradiction: In June 1940, there was a declaration of war (the ultimatum), but the all out war was averted. All-out war broke only in 1941, on July 2 to be more precise (the rest were just local clashes). Was there an all out war in June 1940? No. Was there an ultimatum about the use of force followed by a military invasion? Yes. I never claimed in June 1940 was an all-out war. Small local clashes. Notable to mention, but not notable in the big picture. I hope this clarifies.

I was curious to read also above that point. Here is what EB says: "Disorders caused by the revolutionary Russian soldiery led the Sfat to appeal to the Allies’ representatives and to the Romanian government at Iaşi for military help, whereupon the Bolsheviks occupied Chişinău in January 1918. They were driven out by Romanian forces within two weeks; and on February 6 the Sfat, again following Kiev, proclaimed Bessarabia an independent Moldavian republic, renouncing all ties with Russia. Recognizing the economic impossibility of isolation and alarmed by the pretensions of the German-sponsored Ukrainian government, the Sfat voted for conditional union with Romania in April 1918. Reservations about the union were abandoned with the defeat of the Central Powers and the creation of Greater Romania, and unconditional union was voted at the final session of the Sfat in December 1918. The union of Bessarabia with Romania was recognized by a treaty (part of the Paris Peace Conference) signed on Oct. 28, 1920, by Romania, Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan; the treaty eventually was ratified by all signatories but Japan."

BTW, thank you very much for reminding me of Britannica. Some parts about Moldova in WP remain unsourced, and I see now Britannica covering a few of those aspects. But I won't be able to do this soon, b/c I am busy in real life.

But I have to mention this crass incorrectness: "Nevertheless, Moldovan pride in the Moldovan language is reflected in the country’s national anthem, Limba Noastra (“Our Language”), and the national motto, Limba Noastra-i o Comoara (“Our Language is a Treasure”)." Never in Alexei Mateevici's poem is the language named. Mateevici was a staunch supporter of the term "Romanian" (for both language and ethnicity), which can be evidenced for example in his discourse at the teacher's congress in April 1917, when the question fueled a debate. With all due respect, EB should know better than to copy-paste Voronin/Stepaniuc's misrepresentation of historical data. Dc76\^talk 17:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's your words agains the US Department of State, which is not particularly known for pushing Soviet propaganda... ;-) You also may consult books of you wish - the fact that Romania had entered the war in June 1941 is common knowledge, so there are plenty of Western sources citing it. In June 1940, there was a declaration of war (the ultimatum), - please review the ultimatum and the Romanian responses and witness the lack of declaration of war by either side. Quite the contrary: ...pentru a evita gravele urmări pe care le-ar avea recurgerea la forţă şi deschiderea ostilităţilor în această parte a Europei, se vede silit să accepte...--Illythr (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that I was not being contradicted by the Department of State. For starters, it is not the Department of State's official opinion. The information on their page has the same value as driving directions: it's assumed correct until found wrong, or in our case imprecise. Please, read carefully what I said above: the ultimatum threatened with the use of force, small clashes occurred before Romanian government decided what to do, all-out war averted for the time being only to be postponed for a year. The aggressor is obviously the Soviet Union. The 22 June-26 July 1941 portion was a war of liberation, while 27 July 1941 - 1944 was a war of aggression by Romania. Dc76\^talk 11:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Entered World War II on the side of the Axis Powers in June 1941" contradicts "Romania entered WWII with the Soviet invasion of Bessarabia and northern Bukovina" pretty clearly, just as the text of the ultimatum and the response to it contradict the claim of a declaration of war by the USSR or Romania in July 1940. Also feel free to peruse any of the books listed here. In particular, this is an official Romanian source. Why, check out page 584 of the Tismaneanu Report: "La 22 iunie 1941, armata germană atacă URSS, iar România intră în război de partea Germaniei..." I'm curious what were you reading to acquire such a strange point of view as to dismiss a fact stated by Presidential Commission for the Study of the Communist Dictatorship in Romania as "support [of] elements of the Soviet politicized ideological historiography". --Illythr (talk) 06:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the same source!! La 22 iunie 1941, armata germană atacă URSS, iar România intră în război de partea Germaniei. This doesn't mean it wasn't on another side before, that USSR and Romania weren't engaged in a military conflict before. Exactly the same formulation is used for August 23, 1944, without suggesting that Romania entered WWII on that date.

I believe the best way around this problem of perception is to state exactly the facts: USSR attacked Romania in June 1940, then the latter was an ally of Britain and France. Romania decided against an all-out war for the time being (that is what the crown council decided, not to open hostilities at this time). At this point USSR and Germany were allies. In July 1940, Romania withdraws from the Allied camp, and in August joins the Axis camp. Then in June 1941, Germany, Romania, Finland, Italy and Hungary attack USSR. At first Romania liberates only its territory, but later the Romanian military dictator decides, against the advise of the politicians and the general staff, to continue fighting alongside Germany. From 27 July 1941, Romania was an agressor against the Soviet union, just as USSR was an aggressor against Romania in 28 June 1940-26 July 1941. Later in 1941, Britain and USSR became allies (note they were allies of the same type as USSR and Nazi Germany before: not ideological, USSR did not join the Axis camp). In August 1944, Romania switched sides, and fought alongside Britain, USA, and USSR against Germany.

Who was the first aggressor? USSR, June 1940. Since when was Romania aggressor? Since 27 July 1941, when open war was already going on for a month. On June 22, 1940, Romania did not attack proper Soviet territory, but only the Soviet troops that occupied its own. Was there an all-out war in June 1940? No. Was there an all-out war after July 2, 1941. Yes. Facts and no interpretation. Dc76\^talk 13:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No sources say that Romania entered the war in June 1940. All present sources say that it did so in June 1941. Period. --Illythr (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends what you mean by war: all out war or small scale clashes. And definitively not Romania entered, Soviet Union did. Dc76\^talk 20:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the first post in this section. --Illythr (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Soviet Union's ultimatum to Romania in June 1940 was in fact a declaration of war. If Romania did not accept to withdraw, Red Army was ready to invade Bucovina and Basarabia and start war against Romanian Army.--Deguef (talk) 09:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  A declaration of war starts a war. No ifs. --Illythr (talk) 12:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  a number of wars in XX century were not declared, but started anyway.--Deguef (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  You said that the ultimatum was such a declaration. --Illythr (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey please leave the personal remarks for yourself and don't banter like you did here. Mario1987 16:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunatelly i don't have Excel installed :( but i'll do the maths again just to be sure. Mario1987 16:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found out why your calculations didn't add up. The nord-vest region has imports worth 6,999.1 not 4,499.1. Mario1987 17:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Finally fixed the tables. Figures add up. Mario1987 17:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had to ask. Dahn (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. This seems to me a "general audience" book. It worries me it doesn't cite any sources (I hope this is because it says it's "volume 1"). If I had a professional historical work instead, I'd have used that one. But, the material seemed to me uncontroversial to bother more, and the info totally absent in the WP article. Dc76\^talk 19:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are interested in the Cucuteni-Trypillian Culture page. I stumbled upon it, and being the crazy nut that I am, I couldn't walk away from it without trying to improve on it. I have great admiration for what Christa and others have done to it, but I want to make it very readable and smooth out some of the kinks. So - if you have any suggestions, or if you'd like to make some points, please let me know. Thanks Saukkomies 04:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Alexandru Nicolschi.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dc76, I just noticed that you have uploaded all your images uder {{PD-self}} tags, most of which seem to be wrong. Some of the old photographs may in fact be PD for reason of age, but in those cases you need to provide full sources with documentation of their original provenance. Then you had a number of uploads of (probably) self-taken photographs of posters and other items on public display; in these cases the displayed item itself may be copyrighted, so you may not be able to release a photo of it into the public domain either. In at least one case I found a blatant copyright violation, File:Maramures 1918 lines.gif, which I speedied. What you need to do now, urgently, is to go through all your uploads and fix the descriptions with proper sources, full documentation of age and provenance in the case of items you want to argue are PD-old, and to nominate for deletion any where you are unsure. Feel free to ask if you have technical questions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The October 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) 18:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Traian Băsescu. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Pcap ping 03:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now, I can't argue the PNŢ-CD thingy, but... I suppose you know the Weight of the PNŢ-CD in the current political establishment. Furthermore, the other half (fraction) of the party supported Crin Antonescu (with the same weight). I cannot disagree with the current information in the infobox regarding the incumbent, but I find that a bit to large with respect to the other five candidates in the infobox. So, I propose the following compromise: leave the PD-L acronym in the infobox, as the main support for Basescu came from this party and his independence is required (by the Constitution) and not a personal option of the candidate nor is it extremely obvious in the political actions. Furthermore, to emphasis the support of the PNŢ-CD halves to two candidates, I added that mention in the candidates section of the page. Regarding the Basescu campaign page, I find it somehow welcome, in order to ease the presidential election page with the referendum(s) campaign ballast, but that would imply, in my view, at least a stub pace for each of the main candidates. How about a Romanian 2009 presidential elections campaign, to include everybody's campaign in both rounds there? --ES Vic (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ETHNIC CLEANSING AGAINST ITALIANS

Please, see my answer to your kind question in the page my talk Regards. Deguef.--Deguef (talk) 09:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...I've never made a secret that I supported Băsescu, but, indeed, nor did I want to spend much editing time discussing this and then risk being tailed and labeled by a crowd of "anti" editors. I'm not blinded by my political beliefs, and consider discussing them a private affair - even if, unlike so many other editors here (none of whom have been discussed as much as I have), I don't and did not ever belong to any political party. I admit that I have been "radicalized" these past years, but this only because the attacks on Băsescu's policies were more and more obvious, and more and more obviously manipulative. The Final Report controversy sealed it for me - even if, as said, I have been voting TB ever since the first round of 2004, I too believed that he was not the best choice, just the best choice in that context. I know voted for him, not just against the other guy.

I must say, Dc, that, if you are to look over our past discussions at random, you'll see clues and extended arguments trying to pinpoint the exact and essential nuances of my position. You chose to misrepresent my position, and my real regret is that it took so long and so much for me to make myself clear on the issues we discussed. For instance, as a liberal (generic term at least), I support individual rights over anything else, which is why I'm quick to react against the nationalist framework of collective rights and collective representations. It is a cornerstone of both this approach and common sense that, if a person declares himself or herself Moldovan, this is the reality we're left to work with, particularly since there's no real "yardstick" with which to contradict it. It also works vice-versa, but that is not the issue. Trying to modify that reality one way or another is an artificial attempt to invert an artificial process, and only creates fairy tales. Now, again, if the future census creates a new reality, that becomes the working reality. Similarly, while the Communist Party of Moldova was given legitimacy (a veneer of legitimacy, if it pleases you) by the popular vote, it does not mean the regime was irreproachable, in fact far from it: it was corrupt and repressive. But that doesn't mean that every accusation aimed their way was justifiable or credible or quotable, nor did it prevent me from noting that a large section of their voters also saw Moldovenism as a legitimate positioning not with Russia, not against Romania, but between Russia and Romania. Maybe the result of a collective trauma, but still a valid option.

I also must say that I have a reasonable suspicion toward some sections of the unionist camp, who have shady political connection, who are easily manipulated by what seems to me to be a Russian diversion, and who have aimed at confiscating a movement that was not necessarily pro-Romanian as much as it was anti-communist (or, even more accurately, anti-isolationist). While I have a natural dislike for the tendency to identify Moldovenism with Russia and the Russians (it's clear that it's morte nuanced than that), while I am alarmed by the frequent associations between unionism and xenophobia (which, I assure you, will only serve to alienate the Russians in Moldova), and while I do find the perception Romanians have of Putin's regime's generally distorted and casually uninformed, I do not have much sympathy for the manner in which Russia deals with the world at the moment. Russia is not turning back to Stalinism, and it's not becoming fascist - but it is turning itself into a mob state, and spills over into bordering countries by co-interesting the most corrupt elements. Like the US, it is now exporting capitalism, only it's capitalism in defiance of all other liberal values. That is what I believe about Russia, and we never got around to discussing it.

I do find people like Chirtoacă, who abandon Romantic nationalism for a pragmatic, legitimate and utilitarian approach, entirely laudable. These guys at least have a backup plan: union is not likely to happen, but reform is. Their beliefs on nationality do not interest me, but their stance on Europeanizing Moldova leads me to believe that there is a better future for all of Moldova's citizens. I personally don't believe in union, would vote against in the utopian event that it's ever up for some referendum, but not will I form a guerilla unit and head for the mountains in case the "yes" vote would carry it. I simply don't think it's a viable or desirable option to present either people with, and that we'd better get used to the fact that there's going to be two states ("two Romanian states", in your interpretation) from here to eternity. I don't want to import Transnistran problems into Bucharest, for one. Pus, I'd like to think that some form of control is possible when it comes to letting in O-Zone and the "Jaga Jaga" people :). Dahn (talk) 04:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For a problem-free Bucharest, try these borders! (And have Bucharest studiously ignore whatever happens on the other side of the Carpathians, unless it's to deport troublemakers back there.) There is something to be said for bringing back the Old Kingdom. And there should be a law saying all senior politicians need to come from Muntenia and Oltenia. Not that the reality is much different (putting aside this man, who seems thoroughly Bucharest-ized anyway). Although we'd be giving up on him (of Satu Mare, no less), fine relic of the halcyon days of Năstase that he is. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear there is another editor working on adding data and improving them. If you could try to add infoboxes and pin locators and reference the opulation data and area etc and place district templates at the bottom of each article this will be a development... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The November 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) 08:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.

• User:Piotrus resigned the administrator tools during the case proceedings and may only seek to regain adminship by a new request for adminship or by request to the Arbitration Committee.
• User:Piotrus is banned for three months. At the conclusion of his ban, a one year topic ban on articles about Eastern Europe, their talk pages, and any related process discussion, widely construed, shall take effect.
• User:Digwuren is banned for one year. He is directed to edit Wikipedia from only a single user account, and advise the Arbitration Committee of the name of the account that he will use. Should he not advise the committee by the end of the one year ban, he will remain indefinitely banned until a single account is chosen.
• User:Digwuren is placed on a one year topic ban on articles about Eastern Europe, their talk pages, and any related process discussion, widely construed. This shall take effect following the expiration of both above mentioned bans.
• The following users are topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year:

• User:Biruitorul, User:Dc76, User:Martintg, User:Miacek, User:Radeksz, User:Vecrumba, User:Tymek

• User:Jacurek is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for six months.
• User:Tymek is strongly admonished for having shared his account password. He is directed to keep his account for his own exclusive use, and not to allow any other person to use it under any circumstance.
• The editors sanctioned above (Piotrus, Digwuren, Martintg, Tymek, Jacurek, Radeksz, Dc76, Vecrumba, Biruitorul, Miacek) are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia on any page of Wikipedia, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.
• All the participants to the mailing list are strongly admonished against coordinating on-wiki behavior off-wiki and directed to keep discussion of editing and dispute resolution strictly on wiki and in public. All editors are reminded that the editorial process and dispute resolution must take place on Wikipedia itself, using the article talk pages and project space for this purpose. No discussion held off-wiki can lead to a valid consensus, the basis of our editorial process. Off-wiki coordination is likely to lead to echo chambers where there is a false appearance of neutrality and consensus.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 17:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC) - Discuss this[reply]

I'm sorry for the resolution above, and don't personally endorse it (much like I do not endorse the idea behind the mailing list, and the mailing list itself). I hope it does not turn you away from editing before and after the one-year deadline, even though I suppose it must be difficult not to edit in your area of interest. In fact, I was planning to ask you a direct question about that just before the decision. It was going to be: why is it that, whenever I write something that has to do with present-day Moldovan culture, I most often turn up with nothing but redlinks? In other words, why are so many Moldovan citizens/Moldovan phenomena who/that are clearly notable still not the subject of articles? It would have intended to encourage you or anyone else to also contribute this type of articles at some point. I guess we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.

Your posts on my page have raised several interesting issues, but I frankly can't comment on all of them at once - some I already did, some I will when I'm less fatigued than this (I keep bouncing on that wikiwall when it comes to discussions, for which I must apologize). In general, I would want to introduce a piece of advice, one which I hope you won't interpret as a lecture: the truth is always in the middle. You still tend to be very passionate when you relate to certain issues, and, even if we get to agree on what interpretation we prefer, we would still disagree on the "totality" of that interpretation (in both reach and consequences). For instance, I've said more or less the same things for years now, but you chose to follow the buzzwords and label them this and that - the main problem in that was not that it was hostile, but that it was counterproductive; it could have taken us two months instead of two years to reach this modus vivendi and notice that there are things we actually agree on. What's more, I don't like the notion that we should personalize things here: as I have stated before, neither I or any of us should be setting as his goal to form friendships on wikipedia; that is not to say that we don't or should not make friends on wikipedia, and we have both formed such friendships. And, in general, I don't even have to agree with someone on everything (or even most things) for that person to be my friend, here or in real life. That said, you and me can become friends, and in some definition we probably already are, but that's a matter of respect and appreciation, not a matter of sharing a worldview. We will probably continue to agree and disagree on the same things, and those agreements and disagreements will not have to impact on article content - which is either way subject to wikipedia norms, not to our whims.

There's also another tiny issue I want to get out of the way, because it was already misinterpreted by a third user. My argument about political memberships among wikipedians needs to be read in context: for one, it was not based on some occult knowledge, but followed the info in certain userboxes and statements made in the past; secondly, it was not a reproach, but a statement of facts, and was my way of illustrating a paradox - while such users, who gloat in their affiliations, are never judged by them, a couple of statements I have recently made, all of which are moderate partisan assessments and none of which impacts on my editing style, have led to me being branded a suspect, a victim of brainwashing etc. I had not even insisted there on the slanderous and demagogic nature of such reactions, but was merely noting that, whatever their motivation, they introduce a double standard. All in all, I generally don't care what affiliations other users have in their private lives, and, unlike my detractors, I don't assume that such affiliations, formal or informal, are a necessary proof of bias.

But the main purpose of this post is to wish you a Merry Christmas, and all the best for the holidays. Hope you find it in you to get over this bump in your activity, and that we have all grown wiser from these incidents. Best, Dahn (talk) 16:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and a Happy New Year. Dahn (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a request for clarification about whether Mass killings under Communist regimes and similar articles are included under the EEML topic ban. If you would like to reply, my query is posted at [2]. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The December 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) 02:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 2 (January 2010) Previous issue | Next issue

Content

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 2 (January 2010) Previous issue | Next issue

Content

[3]

Good night! I saw on peer review volunteers page that you have no "expertise, just interest. I, too, like to learn about topics I don't edit". Would be interested then in taking a look at the article Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná and share your thoughts to what it needs to be nominated for featured article? It is about a leading Brazilian politician when Brazil was an Empire in the 19th century. Thank you for your time! Regards, --Lecen (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I inform regarding: wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive587#User:DIREKTOR; DIREKTOR is a notorious communist who makes only propaganda on communist Romania related articles too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.206.126.34 (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The January 2010 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) 03:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are being notified because you participated in a previous Afd regarding this article, either at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Argentina–Singapore_relations or at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippines–Romania relations, and you deserve a chance to weigh in on this article once again. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-Transnistria localities under de facto Tiraspol control, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The February 2010 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) 22:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The March 2010 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) 21:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The April 2010 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) 19:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The May 2010 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) 20:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Remedy 20 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Miacek topic banned") is lifted.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 00:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Informing you of my request here. Best regards, PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Teohari Georgescu.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armageddon theology WritersCramp (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 21:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Bessarabian children in Gulag.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 22:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw that you collaborated on articles related to Dacia and thought this could be of interest: WikiProject Dacia is looking for supporters, editors and collaborators for creating and better organizing information in articles related to Dacia and the history of Daco-Getae. If interested, PLEASE provide your support on the proposal page. Thanks!!--Codrinb (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I noticed that you are a fellow active member of WikiProject Moldova. Some time ago I created a new userbox for the project and proposed that it become official. Since no responses have been made as of yet, I am hoping to spark a discussion at Template talk:WikiProject Moldova User on the matter.

Mulțumesc,

Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms" To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Foundation of Moldavia has received a Good Article Review. It is proposed the article be failed due to the poor readability of its prose throughout the article. It also has significant (fixable) problems with the copyright status of its images. Please visit the review page to join the discussion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene discusses "Writing neutrally for Wikipedia"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Dank helps you see what article writers want from reviewers

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bessarabian Romanians in Siberia 1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Acather96 (talk) 07:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bessarabia various fates.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Acather96 (talk) 07:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bessarabia Molotov-Ribbentrop.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Acather96 (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bessarabia Anticommunist Resistance.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Acather96 (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dumitru Crihan.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Acather96 (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors – Contest results, A-class medal recipients Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Editorial: Hawkeye's thoughts on the article writing process

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Finland and Spitfires Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Zeebrugee and Afghanistan Op-ed: WereSpielChequers examines RfA

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Carthage and Australia in Palestine Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

An image or media file you uploaded, Victor Zambrea pictures 2.jpg, has been listed atCommons Deletion requests.

You can read and participate in the deletion discussion if you are interested or do not wish the file to be deleted. You may have to search for the title of the file to find its entry. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Moldovan linguistic and ethnic controversy, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D and Ian Rose look at Australian air power Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D analyzes three books from Osprey Publishing Review essay: Nick-D reviews the new Bundeswehr Military History Museum

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors – MHotY coming; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the Congolese Wars Review essay: Ian Rose goes to El Alamein Op-ed: DCI's call to revitalize WikiProject History

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.[reply]

Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in contributing to WikiProject Romania. It is a project aimed at organizing and improving the quality and accuracy of articles related to Romania. Thanks and best regards!

--Codrin.B (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Review essay: Kirill Lokshin, the first coordinator Op-ed: Hchc's English Castles

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Ian Rose discusses article assessments

Hi, I've just nominated an article for peer review, and I see you're a PR volunteer, so could you spare some time and have a look at Wikipedia:Peer review/Nexus 7/archive1 during the next several days? Cheers. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 10:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 08:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:People in the history of Romania, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 12:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Molotov-Ribbentrop-Russian.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help please! We're in a bit of a pickle here and here. Thank uou for your brief attention. --Septimus Wilkinson (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill ^[talk] 16:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like ice cream Grilworld99 (talk) 06:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eastern Romance people has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Eastern Romance people has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ion Coscodan.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 15:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The