Jump to content

User talk:Codrinb/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

To all concerned RE: Balto-Slavic and Dacian

I would be more than happy to help clarify this situation, I already know the books required to provide vierifiable, non-POV views on this matter. This will take me a few days, so if all parties concerned can take some time out for now, that would be good.

To briefly outline my arguement will be along the following lines

(1) As we all know, the evidence for Dacian is frustratingly poor. Some scholars have seen particular affinity with Baltic, but this does not mean it is, or vice -versa

(2) The evidence for what languages the peoples known as Carpi, Costoboci, Veneti, basternae spoke is non-existent. I know that well-reputed and otherwise uniterested historians (eg Malcolm Todd - not a Slav or Romanian) have postulated various things, include a variety of 'mixture' scenarios. This might well warrant mention, however, it doe not overcome the previous point.

(3) We must also take heed of the fact that lingusitic affilitation does not imply any ethnic homonymy (although it does today). Eg the Carpi were NOT Dacians. Simply, because, when the Romans spoke of "Dacians", they referred to Decebalius (& his ancestors) and his men in what became Roman dacia. The (unsupported) idea that Carpi spoke Dacian has not come from any evidence, but from Romanian scholarship simply assuming that they "must have been" Dacian just because they lived in what is now modern Moldavia, or from following a few fragmentery lines of writing which suggests that some Dacians might have fled there after Roman defeat

(4) Nor, do I suppose that the Carpi were Slavs. Even if they spoke a language (eg a precursor, or relative) like Slavic, the Slavs first appear as a defined ethno-political group in the 6th century, so they could not have been Slavic either ! I think Era's efforts on the Carpi (and Andrei's maps) are commendable, and are not fringe - becuase if one looks at things fairly, all theories about them are FRINGE given the lack of any solid evidence !

(5) The only thing we do know is that they occasionaly raided Rome, and they lived in huts, used pottery and certain fibulae similar to other groups in the Moldavia & Ukraine region in Late Roman times. Hardly surprising

I think we are having difficulties here precisely because modern scholarship has approached the issue poorly. One has to admit, westerners are far better at deconstructing national origin myths and identities than those from SEE. Hxseek (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Hxseek! Very pertinent. If you don't mind, please add your thoughts on the corresponding article talk pages like Talk:Carpi (people), so everyone can pitch in. But what do you recommend for the map at his point? --Codrin.B (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

WRT the map, I'd do away totally with trying to 'categorize' the barbarian groups into ethno-linguistic groups - because they defy such neat definition. Even obviously 'Germanic' groups were only called that by ROmans, and not themselves. The fact that Frisians and Saxons might have spoken related dialects did not mean they saw themselves as the same. (This only became apparent to them much later in history). As another illustrative point, despite the fact that the Goths spoke Germanic, they were never actualy called Germanen by the ROmans, rather either simply Goths or Scythians ! THe situation for our area of interest is even more complicated

I;d do away with the whole colour scheming and label all tribes simply as black or grey Hxseek (talk) 08:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ditto! Daizus (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Codrinb. You have new messages at WVRMad's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WVRMad•Talk•Guestbook 17:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Carpi/Costoboci articles

I want to raise the issue of the multiple-tags that you attached to the articles Carpi (people) and Costoboci. While I don't claim that these articles are perfect and cannot be improved, the tags seem unwarranted. Most of the citation tags were (wrongly) placed in the summary sections, where citations are not necessary if the statements in question are referenced in the main text. The main text itself is fully referenced, with both ancient and modern sources (20 secondary modern sources in Carpi alone). The neutrality is only disputed by those who think that neutrality requires support for the Daco-Roman continuity theory. If you read through the articles again, you will see thatr all theories are given a fair hearing. The summaries are certainly not long in relation to the main text. As for confusion for readers, this has only been caused by arbitrary removals of text by Anonymous editor, damaging the text's coherence. The consequence of sticking all those tags is to make the articles appear really poor-quality, which is a travesty: if you look at the articles on the same subjects in other languages, you will see that the English ones are far and away superior and more comprehensive. I therefore think that you should remove the tags. You should rely on your own reading of the articles, not on the complaints of others. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Codrin, what are you talking about - mafia. I never used that word ? ! Hxseek (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I was talking to our good friend, EraNavigator. I guess, you didn't read his message above mine in your page. Anyway, no worries. --Codrin.B (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Wiki-project Dacia

Dear Codrin, I want to point out a few things regarding the Dacia wikiproject. First of all, if you want people like me to make a contribution you should discourage the monopolization of this project by the Getae and Dacians. I suggest you remove the bust of that Dacian pileati from the project template. You should instead use a map with the location of the geographic region of Dacia. Secondly, we should also cover the period after 271, namely the barbarian tribes which came to inhabit Dacia after the Roman withrawal. I would be more than happy to write about the Gepids, Goths or Taifals. Please understand that the history of Dacia does not cover only the history of the Dacians as an ethno-linguistic group!

Andrei (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Andrei,

If you write about "ethno-linguistic groups", Dacians are probably the most relevant such group (but true, not the only) for Dacia. It's up to how history is understood.
Neither Gepids, nor Goths, nor Taifals lived in Dacia, because by then the province of Dacia was south of Danube. Well, some Gepids, some Goths, some Taifals did, but all of them were on Roman territory, as soldiers, merchants, colonists, and so on. The Gepidic kingdom was no Dacia (perhaps for authors like Jordanes, but he was writing a history of Scythians-Getae-Goths thus he had his agenda). Any history of Dacia is the history of the Dacian kingdom and of the Roman provinces of Dacia. The history of the modern territory of Romania is an entirely different matter, and indeed this history covers Dacians, but also Gepids, Goths and Taifals. Daizus (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Than please change the name of this project to Wiki-project Kingdom of Dacia. And if you say that any history of Dacia is also the history of the Roman provinces of Dacia than why keep that pileati bust on the project template?
Andrei (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
There's no need to rename. I explained here who were Dacians for Romans.
As for the picture, what do you think is the best picture to represent this project? I would say Decebalus (Dacia got its name from Daci, and Decebalus is the most famous and probably important character in their history), but you may have different thoughts about it. Daizus (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
In this case I will make a few suggestions:
1. Replace the bust of the Dacian pileati with something more neutral, perhaps a map showing the geographic region of Dacia during Antiquity.
2. Replace this line from the project template: 'coverage of Dacia and Geto-Dacians on Wikipedia' with 'coverage of the Dacian kingdom and of the Roman provinces of Dacia on Wikipedia'.
Andrei (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Andrei:

Thanks for reaching out. Here are my points and thinking:

  1. I tried using a map, but it is not as visually appealing as a sculpture done by the Romans themselves. Actually, I was just reading this blog about the large number of Dacian statues made by Romans. Leonard Velcescu did a PhD in art on this subject and found over a hundred of them. One wonders why the Romans represented so many Dacians, and didn't do the same for Celts, Iberians, Illyrians, Thracians or Germanic tribes? One puzzling question, why are they not in chains?
  2. I am more interested in the long period before 271 AD. Dacia after 271, as Dazius mentioned, is not really Dacia anymore, not in the known classical sense. But the period post 271 and the faith of Dacians is also of interest to the project, so I want to hear about the Migration Period as well and many such articles would be in scope of course.
  3. To be 100% correct or precise, the project should probably be named "The culture of Dacians, Getae and Moesi", or to achieve a larger scope, Paleo-Balkans, to include Thracians and Illyrians as well. But Dacia is the most preeminent and large territory and space, which most people probably heard of. I think there is plenty of content and articles to justify this scope, although it can certainly be extended.
  4. The project doesn't plan to simply cover linguistics, but the entire culture with religion, art warfare,
  5. I also believe in simplicity when creating something. Calling it simply Dacia is way better than "Dacians, Getae and Moesi" or "Paleo-Balkans", terms with no resonance for most people, even though they are correct in defining the scope.
  6. Using the term Dacia, doesn't imply that others that lived in this space are excluded or that the focus is solely on the Dacians and Getae. There is a section about the relations with foreigners under {{Dacia topics}}. Feel free to contribute to the relations with the Germanic tribes, prior to and post 271, if you are very intrigued by it.
  7. Based on your interest, I think you should also contribute to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies project or start a Migration Period project
  8. You seem to have a passion for the Migration Period and the Germanic and Turkic tribes that invaded, and in order to "make room" for the them, you then insist in minimizing the role of the Dacians in history. I have a passion and interest about the period prior to these migrations. Please respect my passion as I respect yours. Given that these people interacted, I think there is plenty of room for collaboration. I think you should contribute to this project, as well as to the Germanic tribes one and start a Migrations one. Projects often overlap. People from the Archaeology, European History, Greek and Roman Studies often contribute here as well, as there is obvious overlap.

With friendship --Codrin.B (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

1. And if the Romans created so many statues of Dacians prooves what? And you are quoting a Dacomanic blog which has the following intro: 'In what follows I will write about the greatest country, which spanned from Asia Minor to Iberia (the Iberian Peninsula in this case) and from Northern Africa to beyond Scandinavia, the enormous country of the Dacians'. So you're a Dacomanic protochronist afterall!

2. However during Constantine the Great authors spoke of 'Dacia restituta' when referring to the reconquest of a land strip north of the Danube in the early 4th century. Should I also mention that Constantine received the honorary title of Dacicus Maximus? You can't say the history of Dacia ends in 271. The Dacians were still active on the Danubian limes for at least another 50-80 years and we also have the 2 Dacia provinces created south of the Danube by Aurelian.

3. What you are doing is trying to ethnically cleanse Dacia of everything which is not Dacian. But I guess you wrongly believe doing this makes you a Romanian patriot. I feel sorry about you.

4,5,6. I kindly ask you again to remove the bust of the Dacian pileati and change the line about the '(sole) coverage of Geto-Dacians' from the project template. That's inducing people to believe the project is only about Getae and Dacians! The other tribes were not 'foreigners' as you like to think of them but are part of the history of Dacia as much as the Dacians are.

7. Maybe I'll do that. Thanks for the suggestion.

8. I respect your passion, but please accept the fact that the Dacian Kingdom and Dacia post 106 included not only Dacians or Daco-Romans, but Sarmatians, Germans, Celts and other tribes. Otherwise you will be just like a Hungarist trying to deny that Slovaks, Serbs or Romanians also had an important contribution to the history of the medieval Hungarian Kingdom.

Andrei (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


In this case I got it wrong. I thought the Dacia project is, well, about Dacia (which was a kingdom and the name of several Roman provinces). Daizus (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

To Andrei:

1. I was afraid you will pick on the source, but please don't make false accusations or resort again to personal attacks. I tolerated enough of your attacks! Stop NOW! I don't care about the Dacomans and their agendas. I deeply disagree with their phantasmagorical ideas. But I always try to see the glass half full and keep an open mind. I would rather look over the fence at the enemy, listen to their points, see if their is any value, than altogether dismiss, label and ignore it. It is wise that way. From that article, personally, all I cared about are the actual pictures, and the opinion of the guy with the PhD, who is qualified and not a Dacoman. The fact that the Dacomans use his work and the pictures for their propaganda, is their problem. I have the ability to discern information and filter out the bullshit. I would of course rather read an article written by the Academia on this subject, but I fail to find one. And these Academia articles are missing not because there is nothing to say about Dacia, the guy did an PhD on it, but by lack of interest on Dacian history or out of fear of historians to be associated with Dacomans or Protochronism. A lot of kids don't go to study about Dacians anymore, they pick Medieval studies or other eras, precisely out of fear of being accused superficially of Dacomania or unhealthy nationalism, by people like you, quick to judge and put labels. It's a stupid dynamic, that is very detrimental to history and everyone. The Romanian Academia has to get its act together and get rid of Dacomans through research and force of example, showing their science, archaeology, VALUE. But they don't do it enough and effectively, and the Dacomans fill the void. Academia should write articles like this, in a rigorous manner, without the Dacoman bullshit in them. And I would pick them first to read. I hope this clarifies once and for all my position on this stupid Academia - Dacoman hate relationship, that shows immaturity, inability to communicate, resolve conflict and discredits deeply both sides.
2. I agree.
3. I feel deeply offended by these comments and misinterpretations. As I said at point, 6, everyone who lived in this time and space is included!
4,5,6. No matter what picture I will put, someone will always have a problem with it. It is the nature of the entire subject. I will think about other possibilities, but I think that work of art is great and very symbolic. And again, it doesn't exclude others. I would love to put a picture of Getae, Daci, Moesi, Romans, Sarmatians, Goths and Gepids holding hands in circle and smiling but I don't have that picture! :-)
7. You are welcomed. I'm sure you will have good contributions. Passion helps.
8. Please read point 6 again. I already said everyone that lived in this space and time.

If after all these further clarifications we are still in disagreement, I invite you to reflect on this American expression which I love: "let's agree to disagree". Most Europeans, especially Balkanic, Mediterranean or Latin-blooded fail to communicate without resorting to verbal (sometimes physical) violence and without trying to impose a point of view by force. If you love the Germanics that much, I assume you are also fond of the modern Anglo-Saxon mentality that promotes calm, wise, effective and respectful communication.

To Daizus:

Of course the core and the meat of the project is Dacia (which was a kingdom and the name of several Roman provinces) in the Classical times, till 271 AD. But as Andrei pointed out, there are other implications: what happened after 271 AD, the relations with Germanics, the invasions, the beginnings of Christianity, the Byzantine emperors born in Balkans etc. But I don't think it makes sense to go post 6th century AD. I think all articles that talk about Goths and their interactions with Dacians, or their presence in the land which they, themselves, called Dacia for a few more centuries, should at least be part of the project and marked with low importance. They are not of zero importance.

I will clarify the scope on the project space as well so no misinterpretations occur again. We had enough debate for the next 2 years. Let's focus on creative work, the reason we are all here, I hope. Thanks for your very useful input. --Codrin.B (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

All right Codrin, I owe you an apology for the (hopefully) hazardous acussations I made on you. But you could at least change the line about the '(sole) coverage of Geto-Dacians' from the project template. Afterall you said you agree that Dacia (both the Kingdom and the post-106 Roman province and vicnity) had a multi-ethnic character.

I'm interested about the Germanics, Sarmatians, Celts and others as their rich history was ignored until quite recently because they didn't fit in the traditional Daco-Roman continuity paradigm. And I believe this has done great damage to Romanian historiography, even as much as the embracement of protochronism prior to 1989.

What about using a picture of Trajan's Column or a detail from it showing a skirmish fought during the Dacian Wars?

Andrei (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies accepted. I put the scope and a big disclaimer in the intro page. Please review and provide input and suggestions. I agree that the value of other cultures has been minimized incorrectly and unfairly. I will think about it, but I would prefer no violence, a symbol of peace, calm and wise thinking, and you may call me again a Dacoman, but when I look at the face of that Dacian, I see it. After all, we had enough conflict, then and now. I am exhausted. I need a coffee.--Codrin.B (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

But you still haven't changed the template which is also present on the dicussion page of my map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Roman_Empire_125.png. I can still see that line '(sole) coverage of Geto-Dacians'. Unless I don't see a change in the next 24 hours I will erase the Dacia wiki-project template from the talk page. And labelling Costoboci and Carpi as probable non-Dacian is ceratinly not original research or lacking neutrality.

Now, regarding the scope clarifications and disclaimers of the wiki-project I entirely disagree with most of what you wrote in the 'balance' section. Namely you say you condemn protochronism but next you state you equally condemn anti-Protochronistic aggressiveness. On which side are you really? You also wrote you are condemning any Anti-Romanian or Anti-Dacian agendas. What have the Romanians or modern Romania got to do with Dacia and the ancient Dacians. We cannot talk of a Romanian identity before at least the Late Middle Ages and modern Romania came into existance only at the end of the 19th century. What are you talking about?

What do you mean by 'we had enough conflict, then and now'? I honestly hope you don't believe you're the reincarnation of a Dacian who fought in Decebalus' army. That 'calm and wise thinking' Dacian might very well have been a bloodthirsty illiterate who didn't even cared about the lives of his own kind.

Kind regards, Andrei (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I will get to that template. Jesus Christs! Stop whining. Anti-protochronists may be 100% right, but I disagree with there methods of showing their superiority. What can't you understand? I am on the side of balance and PEACE, not of conflict. --Codrin.B (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You're on the losing side Codrin. I can't collaborate with someone who thinks he's the reincarnation of a Dacian and who thinks Decebal is the best king Romania ever had. I'm afraid you will never prize Romania and its irreplaceable Eastern Roman and Christian character. Again I feel deeply sorry about you.

Andrei (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Who the hell said that I am in the reincarnation of a Dacian?!?! Those template were not made by me. You can talk to the creator. I personally think it should say the best king Dacia ever had. Stop interpreting my words as you see fit, attacking, and offending me. I gave you more than ENOUGH chances. This page is full of your personal attacks!! One MORE attack and I REPORT you! Take a walk! Have a nice weekend! --Codrin.B (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh brother you are hopeless. Should I remember you were the one talking about conflicts, now and then... long live Decebalus the greatest king of Romania, pardon Dacia! Please report me. Please, I'm begging you! I really want to see how you'll convince the administrators that I actually attacked or offended you.

Andrei (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Codrinb. You have new messages at WVRMad's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WVRMad•Talk•Guestbook 17:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Codrinb. You have new messages at Roninbk's talk page.
Message added 16:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Codrinb. You have new messages at Roninbk's talk page.
Message added 17:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Codrinb. You have new messages at Roninbk's talk page.
Message added 17:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Codrinb. You have new messages at Iadrian yu's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Adrian (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Notice of editing restrictions

Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, "any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines."

Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.


Jehochman Talk 13:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Some helpful ideas:

  1. Don't import ideological battles into Wikipedia.
  2. Don't forum shop or carry a content dispute beyond its reasonable end.
  3. Use dispute resolution in good faith, not as a club to subdue perceived opponents.
  4. When claiming another user has behaved badly, please cite diffs of their behavior, not diffs of your prior accusations. Jehochman Talk 13:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Would you mind clarifying the reason for giving me this notice? Ever since I created the WikiProject Dacia in good faith, I've been under constant attack by some people who violate blatantly the WP policies, yet they don't seem to get a similar notice. Please advise me on why my many attempts to bring balance, as listed Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Constant_personal_attacks_and_harassment_by_Andrei_nacu here are ignored, yet my attempts to bring neutral reviewers and admins to help stop the personal attacks and harassment are seen as forum shopping? I feel the situation is very unfair and I seek guidance as to the best way out of it and to stop the attacks and harassment, which continue. Thanks... --Codrin.B (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You have to be notified of the restrictions. Please follow the link and read them. Then follow the advice I've given you, and especially be careful not to assume bad faith of other editors, toss around baseless accusations, and TYPE IN ALL CAPS.[1] Thank you. Jehochman Talk 16:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Codrin, as another uninvolved administrator (well, I guess I've been marginally involved in that I commented on two content issues at some point, disagreeing with you on one occasion and agreeing with you on another, so perhaps you can accept me as sort of neutral) – I explicitly endorse Jehochman's assessment. I'm sure you mean well, but you have had an unfortunate tendency of overdramatizing things and escalating conflicts. You need to act more relaxed, and accept the idea that other editors too are here in order to improve the encyclopedia and are acting with good intentions. About the issue you had with Andrei, please just take a deep breath and give it a rest. Things can be worked out, content-wise, but the way you have been spreading multiple complaints all over the place hasn't really been helping. – The thing about the Wikiproject is, it has been perceived, rightly or wrongly, as if you were using the project to further your own position in content disputes. The solution is that you should simply avoid making any edits to the project pages that stand in any relation to content disputes you are currently engaged in. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Fut.Perf., this is exactly the attitude and advice I need and seek. I will follow all your suggestions. Thank you.--Codrin.B (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I applaud the criticism of CodrinB.'s performance. My own assessment (above) can be summed up as saying that he has not displayed any aptitude for presiding over a project of this kind: no impartiality, no ability to encourage and inspire contributors, and no managerial skills. But in any case, it is doubtful that a Romanian, or indeed any Balkanite, can manage Project Dacia successfully. Better to entrust the project to a person of neutral origin, such as an Englishman, who has no axe to grind in the region's poisonous nationalist disputes.

EraNavigator (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you are taking original research issue regarding Dacian and Balto-Slavic out of proportions. I advise you to review WP:PROJGUIDE to see what WikiProjects are. No one creates or executes presidents, as they are none. I am not sure if you created a project before, but I can tell you that it involves a LOT of work, from hooking it up to the bots, to the assessment system, creating templates, inviting people, marking articles etc. And for that, I ask for respect. I only started this in November-December. If you had a previous genuine interest in Dacia, you should have created the project long ago. But it is much easier to stay on the side and throw insults and stones at someone who tries to do something. I think you should take it easy and join the project. Andrei already did it. And I don't think Daizus is so bad as you say. He gives everyone a hard time if he doesn't provide good references and introduces content suspect of original research. I got my share from him and so did others, but while I think he is a bit of a perfectionist, I think he deserves respect and most of his arguments were very valid and substantiated. As for Balto-Slavic, I really want to see your contribution to Dacian-Baltic connection article or in the main Dacian language article. But precisely because of the craziness of Balkans, you have to be sensitive about things. I don't get the feeling that you realize that most Romanians are very sensitive if they get associated with Slavs or if Dacians get associated with Slavs. Regardless if they are nationalistic or not. If you are not aware of these things, you will open a lot of cans of worms. You may naively think that a neutral person, far removed, should manage things related to the Balkans. The idea has merit, but I can tell you, as a Balkanite as you called me, knowing this world, there are better ways to commit suicide :-) Precisely because you are far remote, EVERYONE will hate you in the end, in my case, just some hate me ;-) --Codrin.B (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't my intention to tone down the sentence. I just thought it was grammatically incorrect to use 'plenty' in that context. Please excuse my English. I have to admit I'm not a very talented writer and I make simillar mistakes when writing in Romanian. Thanks for your feed-back! I will also have to stop contributing to Wiki for the coming 2 or 3 weeks as I am entering the semmestrial examination period.
Andrei (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Just another thing I wanted to tell you before I go. I know you like to think the Dacomans have hijacked Dacology. However, I would rather say that Ceausescu, the Dacomans and the Dacologues have hijacked Romanian nationalism. I hope you will agree with me.
Andrei (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree. They completely ruined the image of the Dacians and the interest in the field to this very day. To the point where in 2011, if someone has a genuine interest for Dacian history is automatically viewed with great suspicion by some. Young people interested in history, would rather study medieval times than the Dacians because of the association with communism. That creates a void in the Academia, where very few specialists focus on that period. That creates a void that gets filled by the new Dacomans. I believe many of these Dacomans are young guys with an interest for the history, with a desire for a better Romania than the one that some fatalists present to them (we are 2nd class country and we can't do anything about it). These young guys want to do something and don't accept that they belong to a country of losers. But since the image of the Dacians is ruined and the Academia doesn't do enough to change that or attract these young guys to great programs in ancient history and archaeology, what do you think they do? They gravitate towards a handful of extremists, the real Dacomans, who tell them stories about Atlantis and a super race. Appealing, no? Yeah, they messed it up terribly and the situation is not that clear cut. But if my understanding is correct you are in high school or college now, so I assume you were born in a free Romania. You don't know how Ceausescu and the Communism were, how bad it was and all the implications in the society, including history and nationalism. Is not that simple. You didn't have the first hand experience, so if I were you, I wouldn't spend so much time talking about Ceausescu and Protochronism like you were there and witness them. Although I am sure that you are intrigued by what happened just before you were born, you were lucky to not live in those times. I think your involvement with cartography and history are laudable at your age. And your English is excellent. Don't worry, your maps will be here when you are back. Baftă! --Codrin.B (talk) 02:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Sarcasm or political commentary such as the above is not really helpful in the midst of a dispute. Please try to focus on the narrow issue of how to improve Wikipedia articles. We are unconcerned with anything else. Jehochman Talk 04:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The dispute is over as far as I am concerned. Andrei decided to join the project and we are trying to get in good terms. Thanks for the input and monitoring. --Codrin.B (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Julius Caesar

The article on Julius Caesar mentions the Dacians in relation to his aspirations: "Militarily, he wanted to conquer the Dacians, Parthians, and avenge the loss at Carrhae." Not relevant enough for addition to the Wikiproject yet. But the matter could use some expansion and sourcing. Dimadick (talk) 07:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, in these situations, I suggest using the template with importance set to low, and to utilize the Todo capabilities of the {{WikiProject Dacia}} tempate to add the notes on expansion and sourcing. I did the change to see what I mean. If you add items to the todo list, the article automatically ends up in the Category:Dacia articles with todo lists. For this particular article, you may wish to look at Decree of Dionysopolis and Burebista for related information, including options for expansion. --Codrin.B (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Dacian words

With regards with List of reconstructed Dacian words, I would be grateful if you could resist the temptation to plaster tags and notices all over it while it is still being written. Give me a chance: I am currently adding in refs. Please wait until the article is complete before adding tags/comments etc. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand and I know. See my note on the talk page about this and drafts. I only put two full citation needed so you know, although many are needed. I won't put any more tags. I know you are working on it, but bots and other more rigorous users (wait and see until Daizus finds it :-) ) will certainly add those tags. I will add the {{In creation}} tag so others will know. You can consider using this tag, but won't lock the article per say. But think about using user/project draft space while creating. You simply can't avoid concurrency on site like Wikipedia. Nice work. --Codrin.B (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
The work is in Bulgarian - but it includes a substantial summary in French.EraNavigator (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Napoca and present day Cluj-Napoca

"There are no references to urban settlement on the site for the better part of a millennium thereafter" (Brubaker et al. 2006, p.89) (Iaaasi (talk) 09:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC))

Napoca disambig

I'm not sure I can understand how you would consider the settlement to be the primary topic when it doesn't even have an article. The genus is a currently valid genus within a group that is undergoing active research (the Harmochireae). I think using a disambiguation page is a good compromise in this situation as I would personally consider the genus to be the primary topic (rather than an obscure settlement that was disbanded 1800 years ago). Kaldari (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, spiders are not insects, which is why I renamed the genus article. Kaldari (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Diacritics

No one disputes that ș and ț are correct, and that ş and ţ were introduced only because in 2003 (or whenever) most systems couldn't handle ș and ț. And the goal for months now has been to move all instances of ş and ţ to ș and ț: not sure why it hasn't happened yet. That said, since ş and ţ are still the standard for Romanian pages on en.wiki (used close to 100% of the time), my thinking is that we should retain a certain uniformity until the big move happens. However, if you'd like to anticipate that move, feel free to revert me. I'd only ask that you keep ș and ț out of article titles, for the time being. - Biruitorul Talk 15:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

How can the move happen, if you stop it? Who will do it? I don't get it --Codrin.B (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

There are some wrong links when someone clicks on several Dacian towns from the List of Dacian towns I do not know how to fix them. i.e. Zeugma It requires Disambiguation pages Do you know someone who knows, or we have to learn this too. There is all I could do about Napoca in History of Cluj-Napoca, for now. Maybe someone else could improve it. Boldwin (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I know, someone named spiders and buterflies after Dacian towns and now we have a collision with Entomologists :-) Take a look here: Talk:Napoca#Napoca disambig for an interesting conversation. I'll open a conversation on the Dacian list page and/or the project talk. We need to get the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC pages for these Dacian towns as they are obviously the primary topic, but once we have decent articles written for them. If you want to write an article about a certain town, and the name is used by a butterfly, please write the article in your user space or WikiProject Dacia drafts space. In other words, you can create User:Boldwin/Drobeta or Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dacia/Drafts/Drobeta. Once is done and is more than a stub, we can take the main article space from the insects, since they are mostly stubs. Let me know if you need help or clarifications. I can help with that and disambiguation. If they collide with with more topics, which seem more important, we need to use names like Zeugma (ancient city), Zeugma (Dacia) and so on. In this case there is already a Zeugma (city) which is ancient, so Zeugma (ancient city) is not a good idea. But Zeugma (city) will probably need to end up in Zeugma (Commagene) if we will create Zeugma (Dacia).--Codrin.B (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Drobeta

Hi Codrinb - you wrote: I saw you removed the stubs from the Drobeta (ancient city) redirect...

Stubs are never used on redirects. Stub templates are only used on articles, not on other pages such as redirects or dab pages. The reason for the lack of stub templates and categories on a redirect is that anyone wanting to start an article on the subject will almost certainly start with what's already written in the article that it currently redirects to. If it's extended to the point of being more than a stub, then it doesn't need the templates, and if it's not going to be expanded to that level there's little point in breaking it out of the current article (so it's better to leave it as a redirect). It's actually pretty rare for redirects to have any permanent categories either, but makes sense in some cases such as this one. Grutness...wha? 05:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but {{R with possibilities}} is a reasonable exception. In this case, the redirect (like in cases of ancient cities pointing to history sections of modern cities), could and will eventually expand on full fledged article. It is the only exception I know about to this rule and I think makes sense. This narrow case also coincides with those situations when categories are used, since the ancient city is categorized differently than the modern city. Like every exception, it confirms the rule ;-)--Codrin.B (talk) 05:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's pretty much what I meant when I said there were reasons for it keeping its permanent categories. The comments about stub templates still remain, though - there's no need to leave them on the redirect because it'd only be turned into an article of a size that didn't need stub templates, so there's no point in leaving them. So if you're turning something into a "redirect with possibilities", its makes sense to leave the permanent categories but remove the stub ones. Grutness...wha? 07:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure I follow your logic though. Until the redirect with possibilities turns into a full fledged article, where stubs are not longer needed as you say, isn't the purpose of the stubs to invite people to do just that (expand it) in interim? If you remove the stubs, few will notice the redirect with possibilities. Or are you worried about this evolution: redirect with possibilities -> stub (risks to be merged into main article ancient history section) -> article. I think it will be redirect with possibilities -> article, since if there is a lot of content in the ancient history section of a modern city, that content will be enough to create a full fledged article from the redirect with possibilities. --Codrin.B (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The whole purpose of a stub template is to point out stub articles which are in need of expansion. This is not a stub article, it is a redirect. If the section of the main article needs expanding, then an {{expand-section}} template should be used on it. Once it is big enough to stand on its own as an article, it can be broken out as an article, but no stub template will be needed on it then. if it were broken out of the main article still in stub form, then (a) it would be easy enough to add the correct stub template, and (b) it would likely be re-merged with the main article anyway. The fact that it is currently italicised in the permcat is indication enough that there is not enough yet for a full article and should alert editors. As I said before, stub templates are never used on redirects, not even ones "with possibilities". Grutness...wha? 22:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Then I think you should talk to those who created {{R with possibilities}}, who suggested the use of stubs in redirects when using that specific template. I happen to agree with their suggestions and just followed that guideline. --Codrin.B (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
They may have suggested it, but there's nothing either in the template's documentation or talk page to indicate that this is what is actually supposed to happen. Stubbing redirects is also not mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject Redirect/Style guide. WP:STUB, however, makes it clear that stub templates are never used with redirects - which is the standard way they are dealt with by Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting. Grutness...wha? 22:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I suggest your review this exception with the members of your project and adjust your standard way. There are always non-standard ways. And please stop removing the {{Dacia-stub}} from relevant articles, as it doesn't refer only to the geographical Dacia (which is not even clearly known) but to all matters Dacia, including archaeology, history, culture, language. I update the template to add more info. Please review this scope here, as it is the same as the scope of the stub and people use it as such. I noticed your note that working on Wikipedia introduces you stress. I do not want to contribute to it, but I think you should try to be more flexible and less perfectionist if you want part of this stress to go away. And if you are not sure about something, open a dialog first, out of courtesy and to avoid conflict, not just delete things.--Codrin.B (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I suggest that you follow the guidelines as they are written, rather than ignoring them and going by some vague suggestions others may have made somewhere but not documented. And no, Dacia-stub does not apply the way you are applying it. WikiProject Dacia has nothing to do with Dacia-stub -a stub template is not dependent on the individual whims of a subject-specific WikiProject. Again, if you read WP:STUB - partiularly the section Wikipedia:STUB#Stub types, WikiProjects, and Assessment templates - you will see that that is what WP-specific banner templates are for. And if you are unsure of something, please check the relevant pages in Wikipedia which explain them, or contact someone who has experience in dealing with stub-related issues - don't automatically assume your opinions on a topic are more relevant than long-standing guidelines. Grutness...wha? 07:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I reviewed that link. But that is the view of your WikiProject, not a policy. However, I agree with some of the points there. The intention is not to duplicate the assessment templates, of course. But Dacia-related topics doesn't mean geography only, but culture, language, archaeology related to Dacia and Dacians? Would you agree? What articles do you think should use it then? Give me a list of types of articles or examples that according to you qualify and I'll see if it makes sense.--Codrin.B (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

La Tène culture

Take a look at La Tène culture. I've been trying to add a few relevant projects there and there is a guy who insists on stopping me. See the conversation on the talk page. I can see some of his points but I think is better to have more relevant project than less, since it stirs collaboration. I know you are very judicious about categorizing and adding WikiProjects. What do you think? Thanks and regards! --Codrin.B (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding earlier, but I was preoccupied with the creation of another article and a template. I had attempted to add a further Wikiproject to the La Tène culture in August 2010, at least from what I can see in the talk page's history. It is the Wikiproject of the United Kingdom since the article specifically mentions: "La Tène cultural material appeared over a large area, including parts of Ireland and Great Britain (the lake dwellings at Glastonbury, England, are an example of La Tène culture". May addition was removed by Johnbod, citing "Let's just have wp Switzerland; this could be under 15 or so country projects otherwise". Which doesn't really sound much of a reason to me. The wide scope of this article should ideally help list archaeological sites in each of these countries. But I would like to avoid edit warring about it. Dimadick (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Hi. I want to inform you that there is current voting about name of this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Momcsilló_Tapavicza#Requested_move Perhaps you can say your opinion there if you wish. PANONIAN 10:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Boetius

While searching for Dacian-related articles, last week, I found one on Boetius of Dacia, a 13th-century Danish philosopher. The article mentions: "Dacia was often used as the Latin term for Denmark". Is there any explanation for this? Because no article seems to explain the odd naming. Dimadick (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Denmark was referred as Dacia at some point during Middle (Dark?) Ages, an unfortunate error. People were very confused them ;-) --Codrin.B (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Castra

I replied to your message both in the article discussion and on my talk page. Ciao.Dave (talk) 02:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Replied again.Dave (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Sarmisegetusa

Do you have or does anyone have pictures, images of the reconstructed Dacian fortresses, temples ...? I consider Dacians capital deserves much more.

BTW, Codrin, did I disappoint you? Boldwin (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is what you can find on Commons right now: [2]. I am also working to collect images about Dacia on Flickr. I created this group and hopefully people will contribute pictures, with the proper Commons licenses so they can be imported in Wikimedia Commons.
Disappoint me!? Why would you say that? I am very impressed by your work and glad to have such company on this project.--Codrin.B (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Capidava

Hi Codrinb - over a long period, a consensus has developed that years, decades, centuries etc. should not normally be linked because those articles don't generally contain anything relevant to the article that mentions the year, or likely to deepen the reader's understanding of the topic. (They're generally just a ragbag of unrelated facts.) See WP:LINK#Year linking for chapter and verse on this. Looking at the article again now, I see I missed unlinking some of them - there's no significance in this, it just means my scripts need some improvements to pick up such cases. Sorry for unwittingly creating confusion. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for clarifying! I guess it makes sense in most cases, although it is a bit against the idea of the wiki. I guess is a balancing act. But maybe for an article like this, where the topic is ancient history, some of the other events happening in the same years (usually not that many and most of the time related to the Romans), might be relevant to the article and the interested reader. Would you agree?--Codrin.B (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there's alweys a balancing act between under- and overlinking, and it's somewhat a matter of personal taste. Most year links aren't helpful to the reader, but I generally leave years before 1000AD linked for exactly the reason you suggest. Those earlier year articles are sparser and less likely to be cluttered with irrelevant miscellaneous facts. Colonies Chris (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Dacia

Thank you for the offer, and I wish I could be of some help, but regrettably I'm not really specialized in Dacian history, so probably I won't be able to help this project too much. And I'm also not a too active editor, since I often took large wikibreaks. However, when I have more time, I'll try to see if I can improve these articles. I'm sorry if my response, disappoints you. Cody7777777 (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back. No worries! I understand. But we need also people that can clean up articles, fix the English, etc., not just folks specialized in history. Any help will be appreciated. Regards! --Codrin.B (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Overcategorization

May I suggest you use categories a little more sparingly? I noticed that on a typical dava article, you add ten categories:

Of these, 1-3 are clearly appropriate. 4 could probably be folded somewhere else — looking at Category:Ancient Roman geography, a telltale sign is that 90% of the entries have to do with Dacia, which was only a small part of the Roman Empire; presumably, similar articles about other parts of the empire are in subcategories. But 5-10 are definitely duplicate categories. There's no need for Category:Dacia, since it links directly to Category:Dacian towns. Category:Ancient cities also has Category:Dacian towns as a subcategory, as does Category:Archaeological sites in Romania. Category:Ancient history of Romania contains Category:Dacia, which, as we've established, contains Category:Dacian towns. There's certainly no need for Category:History of Romania, of which Category:Dacian towns is a subcategory; the idea is for top-level national history categories to have only subcategories, as far as practicable. For instance, note that no individual articles are included in Category:History of the United States; everything from American Revolution to American Civil War to Panic of 1907 to Attack on Pearl Harbor to Inauguration of Barack Obama is accessible through subcategories. Finally, no need for Category:History of Eastern Romance people either; Category:Dacian towns is, ultimately, a subcategory of that too.

I hope you'll consider my advice. Also, if I may start removing, say, Category:History of Romania from some dava articles, I'd appreciate that too. - Biruitorul Talk 23:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Well that's a great way to say hi after a long time ;-) Makes sense, I can certainly use less, but... I find Wikipedia category trees very confusing though. Sometimes recursive and plain wrong. Sometimes even hijacked and abused. If you don't like a category, say "Roman towns in Moesia", you can simply add a subcategory called "Ancient cities in Bulgaria", which makes a subtle point, if you know what I mean. I've seen it done for Ratiaria and Aedava I think, with categories created just with that purpose. That's why I chose to overcategorize, rather than undercategorize. I think it is a balancing act and helps people find articles better, even if they are more redundant. Besides, Wikipedia is not paper. I think trees or graphs will never work with categorization properly. I hope Wikipedia will migrate to a tagging system one day, which is far more powerful and a better way to categorize and find information. When you have 5-6 levels or more of categories and you only use the one at level 6 (say "Ancient towns in Bulgaria"), I think you lose a lot of information and the ability to categorize and find an article in multiple ways. Most people don't traverse 6-level deep categories trees when looking for articles. They simply search and if the names of the level 1 to level 5 categories are used as search keywords (which is often), say "History of Romania", the articles categorized only with "Dacian towns" will never show up. Please change one of the davas per your suggestions, and let me take a look. We will continue the conversation after that.--Codrin.B (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Heh, I guess I jumped right in. Anyway, I find two logical flaws in your argument. First: just because some Bulgarian editors may be misinterpreting or abusing the category system, why should we? Second: what if every article were subjected to your line of thinking? For instance, what if someone decided that Category:Communes in Cluj County was too inaccessible a place for Apahida, and decided to add in Category:Geography of Romania, and then someone did the same for Iclod, and pretty soon, that category ended up with ~3000 entries? Well, for one, it would become pretty useless, don't you think? Which is why we have Category:Populated places in Cluj County, Category:Cluj County, Category:Geography of Transylvania (but not, incidentally, Category:Geography of Moldavia and Category:Geography of Wallachia). Everything in its proper place.
Plus, there's an actual guideline meant to be followed: WP:CAT, which speaks of "the general rule that pages are not placed in both a category and its subcategory". I understand your problems with the system, but it is what we have for now.
OK, I've tried it on Ziridava. - Biruitorul Talk 01:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I know the counter arguments and they are valid until a tagging system gets hopefully used here.. Any page to suggest new Wikipedia features?! I think Ziridava changes look good. BTW, I never did a DYK and I am thinking to do it with Ziridava. Could you help me? I still have to add some content to the article, but I am planning ahead. Thanks. --Codrin.B (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I think WP:VPR is the page you want.
Go to WP:TDYK. (You'll see a yellow notice at the top, but you can ignore it until after you have 5 DYKs.) Under March 6 (the date you created the article), at the top of the section, add in {{subst:NewDYKnom | article=Ziridava | hook=... that HOOK? | status=new | author= Codrinb| nominator= Codrinb}}. Where I wrote HOOK, you need to select a hook -- a short, cited, interesting fact about the subject. Then wait for it to be reviewed by someone else, and it'll appear on the Main Page in the next week or so. - Biruitorul Talk 17:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Misunderstanding?

Greetings! I see that there are articles related to the Thracians but not at all to the Dacians (1, 2, 3 and others) placed under the banner of WikiProject Dacia which is rather confusing. I think that either it should be renamed to WikiProject Dacia and Thrace or be more precise with the usage of the template on articles. I am writing to you, as a creator of the project, although you are not the one who has put the templates. I don't know whether it is practical the project to be renamed as I suggested (although if in the future there is project for Thrace, the Moesi would go in both, which is confusing too) and in that case the irrelevant articles should be removed.

And another thing - I don't think that the Byzantine Empire portal is related but Bulgaria portal is and it is missing. You should put it. Regards, --Gligan (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi there! I can certainly see your points and I agree there is much confusion around these topics. The main confusion starts with the debated whether Dacian and Thracians are closely related, related or not quite related. I personally share the opinion that they are related, but don't know how strongly. To clarify parts of the confusion as to what is the scope of WikiProject Dacia, we created this scope clarification. As noted there, While closely related, Thrace is considered relatively distinct, at least linguistically. The related articles about Thrace, especially around the common culture, religion, warfare, are usually marked with low importance but not zero importance, and without implying that Dacians are Thracians or the other way around. So those tags, added to those articles, I would keep them with low importance. As for the project name, I was thinking a lot about how it should be called, but I think no matter how we call it, there will be controversy until more clarity comes from modern research. Besides, there is so much work on the Dacia side (many missing, incomplete or incorrect articles) and so few people participate, that I didn't even want to open the Thrace topic. Moesi are at least linguistically more close to the Dacians than Thracians so we choose to give them a higher priority, at least initially. I think this project could evolve naturally to cover Thrace in time, and them maybe split again in Dacia and Thrace later on. Or maybe you might wish to start a Thrace project now. If you are interested in the topic and wish to join forces, that would be great. --Codrin.B (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I am indeed interested but I simply don't know whether I will have time because I mainly concentrate on medieval Bulgaria. There are also really a lot of ancient Thrace articles desperately needing expansion, clarification and creation. That topic is poorly covered even in the Bulgarian Wikipedia, which is strange to me because there a lot of people here that are interested in Thrace. Of course, I did pay attention to the notes in the project but those articles are all about sites which are located to the south of the Balkan mountains... Anyway, I have nothing against the banner being on those articles, I wrote you to avoid confusion. After all, those sites were constructed by the Thracian tribes that lived to the south and (some of them) by the Ancient Greeks. The only thing I will be able to do soon is probably a template on Thrace, similar to your Dacian one. Regards, --Gligan (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
If they were south of Balkans, the connection is indeed weaker. However, there are speculation whether Zalmoxis is depicted in Aleksandrovo kurgan, in which case, that is very significant to the Dacia topic as well, and makes the connection between the two people even stronger. Regarding interest, same thing on the Romanian wiki (and here two). People care about history, but just don't bother writing articles. And if they do, they end up in many conflicts unfortunately, which are very unproductive. The Thracians are the most powerful people in the world, except, of course, the Indians; and if they had one head, or were agreed among themselves, it is my belief that their match could not be found anywhere, and that they would very far surpass all other nations. But such union is impossible for them, and there are no means of ever bringing it about. Herein therefore consists their weakness., Herodotus ;-) --Codrin.B (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
BTW, the drawings in the Kazanlak tomb are INCREDIBLE! I don't know if the ancient world had a similar "Disney"-like artist. Those horses have funny, expressive faces. I hope I'll have the chance to visit that place one day. Cheers! --Codrin.B (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, it is a pity that now both Bulgaria and Romania cannot match the description of Herodotus :):) The Tomb of Kazanlak is really impressive, I myself haven't been there yet. However, you probably know that only a replika is opened to visitors and the original is closed. If you come, you should visit the National Museum of History and the Archeological Museum (both in Sofia) and if you are lucky the Thracian treasures will not be on a tour abroad (I think we have more than 60 Thracian treasures, many of them are in regional museums, not in Sofia) One of them (the most famous) was found in my home town :) I would like to expand the stubs of our treasures (which I have created years ago) but I cannot find enough sources and I am constantly lacking time... BTW, I am impressed by your Pietroasele Treasure, not a Dacian but still spectacular. I learned for it from Wikipedia and I was surprised that you have such a treasure; you are lucky that the Russians gave it back :) Best, --Gligan (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
But it does match to this day, especially this one But such union is impossible for them, and there are no means of ever bringing it about. Herein therefore consists their weakness. :-) Yes, I've seem amazing treasures from Thrace. And I think Bulgarians do a much better job in archaeology there days. In Romania there are lots of kurgans, tombs, settlements and no one even bothers to even open or dig them up. It's ridiculous. Others in the world would wish to have so much archaeology. So much stuff still in the ground... Russians still have most of the Romanian treasure though, and the bad part, they melted a lot of ancient gold artifacts long time ago... I just started these two articles about helmets, there are about 5 found in Romania so far: Helmet of Coţofeneşti, Helmet of Iron Gates. This kind of art connects even more the Dacians/Getae and the Thracians.--Codrin.B (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, if your mounds stay untouched by both archaeologists and treasure-hunters, you are doing a better job; because here, for each mound explored by the scientists, there are 100 (literary), robbed by the treasure-hunters. They illegally export from the country our heritage. For example, in the recent years a whole silver treasure from my region (Pazardzhik Province), with weight 25 kg was exported and partly sold and the Greek museum which now has the larger part refuses to return it. And that is only a drop in the sea... There are no money for archaeology here :(
PS: I have already read your articles around a week ago :) It is great to get to know artefacts from other countries. The first one is very famous, I have heard of it previously and I am surprised that it didn't have an article in Wikipedia for so long. I hope you will continue with that great work :) Best, --Gligan (talk) 17:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
So what you're saying, Gligan, is that there's money to be made in Pazardzhik. Let me get my shovel :). Dahn (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, though I'm sure you'll find that rereading Biruitorul's message will clarify that for you. What you need to do is post the submission not in the articles (!), but on T:TDYK, at its proper, chronological, place in the queue. Please make sure you also read the instructions there carefully, before posting the DYK proposal(s). Dahn (talk) 13:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll consider being your reviewer for both, if you don't mind, but for now my attention is caught up elsewhere. In any case, as a fellow DYK guy, I can tell you that the reviewing process can take up to a few days - nobody there is usually in a hurry, quite the contrary. Also, the info that will appear on the first page is checked and over-checked, so it's expected that reviewers are critical and uncompromising in checking the article(s) against the criteria. Once you post there, it's implied that you have read that criteria and you yourself have checked the article against them, before anybody else. Regards, Dahn (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
To answer your question: indeed, the creation/expansion counts as the original edit, not as subsequent ones, and you can't actually move content back to your user page (I mean, you can, but it doesn't count as a "re-expansion"). You can however edit articles for a while after the original expansion, while they're on T:TDYK, in case the text is not long enough, and, if you get it past the characters mark (I forget now how many characters), it does count as one expansion. I know, it's complicated for me as well - which is why I prefer to edit in userspace or on some doc on my computer, and only after I feel I'm done do I submit to DYK. Dahn (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Codrinb/Archive_2&oldid=1204749464"