ĠHey, Andrei, sorry I haven't responded to your messages until now. I haven't checked my talk page in a while.
I thought our collaboration was already over, since the Empire 125 map is complete. I must admit that I was annoyed that you caved in to Daizus' pressure and changed the linguistic affiliation of the Costoboci and Daci rubrics: since the map was a collaboration, you should not have done that without my agreement. Anyway, it's not a big issue. Also, please don't call me Era. You know my real name, so use it.
How are your studies going? Are you planning to visit England any time soon?
PS: I have been doing some work on Romanian place-names. The placename evidence leads to an inevitable conclusion: that Dacia was a Slavic-speaking country in the medieval era (500-1500). The Romanian language was introduced by a Vlach warrior-class that conquered Wallachia and Moldavia in the period 900-1100. Since this conquest was accompanied by large-scale immigration of Vlachs from South of the Danube, the Slavic-speaking indigenes of Dacia gradually converted to speaking Romanian (unlike in Norman England, where Norman immigration was far too small-scale for Norman French to prevail over the indigenous English language - although English absorbed an enormous amount of French vocabulary - just as Romanian absorbed a great deal of Slavic vocabulary). What do you think of this scenario? EraNavigator (talk) 06:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- Your project with the Romanian historian (who?) sounds really exciting. I will look forward to seeing the end-product (what period will it cover?). As for the Dacia map for Wikipedia, I assumed you had dropped the idea. A long time ago, you produced a template physical map, but you never followed it further. Anyway, I don't think we should waste our talents on producing further work for Wikipedia, only to have it messed about by nationalist bigots. As for me, I am limiting my Wiki input to improving/completing my existing articles. I don't intend to write any new ones.
-
- I still think we should have stuck to our guns with the Costoboci and Daci. The Carpi I agree are a genuine mystery. I don't like showing all three in the same colour, as it appears to imply that they all belong to the same group, which is exactly what Daizus and co want to show. So I propose this remedy: we reinstate "Dacian" as one of the linguistic groups, but we show only the DACI in this colour: this is uncontroversial, and I agree that the Baltic connection is far from proven (although personally I believe that Dacian was a Baltic language). The CARPI we continue to show as "Uncertain", the COSTOBOCI we restore to red as "Iranic" as we have the authority of Pliny the Elder that they were Sarmatians. But you could show COSTOBOCI as Uncertain also if you prefer.
-
- The placename evidence is overwhelming that Dacia was Slavic-speaking before it became Romanian-speaking. There are 2 salient facts about Romanian placenames: (1) there is no continuity between Roman-era names and modern names: Daco-Roman names disappeared from use in the Dark Ages and those in existence today (eg Capidava) are modern-era restorations. This is bizarre if Dacia continued to be occupied throughout the Dark Ages by a Latin-speaking majority population. This situation is totally different from other Latin-speaking countries, where Roman-era names continued in use uninterruptedly. (2) the majority of Romanian placenames are of Slavic origin: this is incontrovertible evidence that the inhabitants used to be Slavic-speakers. The reason placenames are regarded as critically important evidence in historical linguistics is that they are very conservative: they often preserve elements of previous prevailing languages long after the latter have disappeared (eg the river Thames in England, which is believed to derive from a pre-Celtic, non Indo-European, word *tam meaning "river", which has survived for millennia through successive changes in prevailing language: Celtic, Latin, Anglo-Saxon. Again, the position in Romania is quite different from other Latin countries, where the vast majority of placenames are the same as in the Roman era.
-
-
- I hope you didn't get in touch again just to tell me what a wonderful person Daizus is. Check out the hatchet-job he's done on my Costoboci article: compare his "improved" version with my last original version. Still, I agree that at least he has credibility as a researcher, unlike CodrinB. Unfortunately, he uses his skills in a largely negative, destructive way. He also abuses Wiki conventions like OR or POV: it's OR or POV if he doesn't agree with it. He's tagged even direct quotes from published works as OR. Also, in the case of the Costoboci at least, he has shown just as much bias as anyone.
-
-
- Just one example: the Zia inscription: he has given this enormous prominence (even its own section, repeating what was already said). But he has removed all the caveats to its validity as evidence that the Costoboci were Dacians, most of all that the name of one king is not a reliable guide to the ethnicity of his subjects (if indeed that name is Dacian at all: it is actually Thracian! And the two are NOT the same ethnic group, despite desperate attempts by paradigmers to equate them: they probably had different languages, and certainly distinct culture. Their onomastics, Georgiev reports, were "completely different"). Daizus has also suppressed refs to modern authorities who accept Pliny's identification of the Costoboci as Sarmatians: Mommsen and Kahrstedt, among others. EraNavigator (talk) 10:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- I enjoyed reading the dogfight over Capidava. What's really hilarious is CodrinB's shameless hypocrisy in accusing Daidus of behaving badly towards contributors and driving them away from ProjectDacia (which should be renamed ProjectTitanic with that joker in charge). Just to give you an example of CodrinB's own "gratitude" towards contributors: my Carpi (people) article (which I have just upgraded, check it out). If you compare it to the Carpi articles in the other languages, you will see that it is astronomically the best: the most comprehensive, detailed, best-referenced and written. In fact, I challenge anyone to find a better article on the subject in any encyclopedia, online or off. In any other project, this would easily get A-grade, if I submitted it. If you look at the Discussion page, you will see that it has been awarded B-grade by 2 other projects, unsolicited. And now look at CodrinB's rating: a C! If you show the criteria, you will see that he has failed the article on every single B citerion! Now, I don't claim that the article is perfect: I myself have been steadily improving it over time. But a C-grade is just a travesty. EraNavigator (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
|
Contents
- 1 The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011
- 2 Romanian legislative election 2004
- 3 Maps
- 4 The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011
- 5 The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
- 6 The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
- 7 Hărți electorale (viitor)
- 8 Geography
- 9 The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
- 10 The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
- 11 Germania 70.svg
- 12 File:NV.svg missing description details
- 13 The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011
- 14 The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
- 15 The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
- 16 Military Historian of the Year
- 17 The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012
- 18 The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012
|
[edit] The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011
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) 01:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Romanian legislative election 2004
Hi, I have got a question about electoral map. I´m just finishing my paper about Romanian electoral geography, but I can´t find out what do the blank spots on the electoral map of Romanian legislative election 2004 mean. I know about fact, that in this election has been elected 18 representatives of ethnic minorities (according to the Romanian Constitution), but why they are not marked properly in the map if these spots really represent ethnic minorities? And other problem - there were 18 representatives, but there are much more grey spots than 18. So, could you please tell me what these spots really mean? Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hnat.jakub (talk • contribs) 15:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey Andrei
Have you created any topographic maps of the central-northern Balkans, similar to that of Slovenia in format ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
[edit] The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011
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) 21:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
[edit] The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
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) 22:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
[edit] The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
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) 22:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Hărți electorale (viitor)
Salut! Ne-am mai conversat noi despre hărțile cu rezultatele alegerilor parlamentare din 2008. Recitind articolul, m-am gândit ca poate, dacă ți-ar fi ușor și tot tu le vei face pentru 2012 :), dacă n-ar fi mai bine ca Circumscripția Electorala nr. 43 - Diaspora sa fie inclusa mai mica, asemeni Circumscripției Electorale nr 42 - București, într-un colt al imaginii. Nu cred ca e nevoie de un mapamond atât de mare ca sa se vadă câte mandate cui s-au atribuit. Ce zici? --ES Vic (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Geography
Hi Andrei as a (presumably) Romanian and geographer-cartographer, I ask you: would it be valid to call Moldavia and other regions in eastern Romania a part of transcarpathia (coz they lie beyond the Carpathians), or does the latter have a strict territorial definition) ? Regards Slovenski Volk (talk) 06:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
[edit] The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
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) 21:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
[edit] The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
[edit] Germania 70.svg
Hi. I think the Cugerni should be between the Ubii and the Batavians.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
[edit] File:NV.svg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as
File:NV.svg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions please see
Help:Image page. Thank you.
Sfan00 IMG (
talk) 00:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
[edit] The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011
[edit] The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
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 remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 07:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
[edit] The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
 |
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
[edit] Military Historian of the Year
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] 22:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.
[edit] The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
[edit] The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
