User talk:Aldux/Archive 10

Toyota War GA on hold

 GA on hold — Notes left on talk page. Nehrams2020 07:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chad images

File:Chad Libya Conflict-1975 1976.svg

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
They are actually pointed, I'm not sure why the points aren't showing up :| - Francis Tyers · 08:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

RFA

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It seems he did. Thanks for translating it. Picaroon 17:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Another obvious sock-puppet of Afrika paprika

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

RfA thanks from Akhilleus

Akhilleus gets new weapons.
Akhilleus gets new weapons.
 Archive_10, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Souliotes

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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).[reply]

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)[reply]

Postol

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


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

hi

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

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

Warning

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Alexander's Macedonians

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

feel the love!

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Why

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]