This user may have left Wikipedia. Alexandru.demian has not edited Wikipedia since 1 March 2015. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.
A few features that you might find helpful:
Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The project has a stress hotline available for your use.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Eurocopter (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to wikipedia! I have noticed your interested in Romanian Military history - related areas. As a coordinator of the Military history WikiProject and creator of the Romanian Military history task force I hereby invite you to join both our task force. Thanks and best regards, --Eurocopter (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September! Many thanks, Roger Daviestalk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)[edit]
The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Military history coordinator elections: voting has started![edit]
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators, Roger Daviestalk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)[edit]
The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.
If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)[edit]
The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)[edit]
The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)[edit]
The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)[edit]
The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Alexandru.demian. I've nominated a few articles written by you to appear in the Did you know...? section on MainPage. You can see the nomination and the reviewers' comment here. Please consider putting in more footnotes and references to the articles, and/or join the discussion there. Thank you for your wikicontributions. Happy editing. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, Alexandru.demian. Glad that I could help. Thank you for starting the biographies of these famous people in history.
DYK is meant to showcase new contents of Wikipedia. Articles must be nominated within 5 days of the article's creation or 5-fold expansion in prose. I'm afraid Nansouty's wikibio is too old for DYK (unless you can expand it 5 times in length very quickly). Please be encouraged to self-nominate your next wikicontributions. Happy editing. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for fixing my mistranslation in Gudin's bio so quickly. --PFHLai (talk) 09:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Raymond-Gaspard de Bonardi de Saint-Sulpice[edit]
Thanks for scolding ChristiaandeWet: "please do not alter referenced text". Unfortunately, it was the previous contributor (93.149.236.75) who first altered the cited text. Since there was a huge argument going on over whether this was a French victory or not, I added "Anglo-Allied victory" and cited two authors who concurred with this assessment. I also added "Indecisive by some accounts". I was hoping someone would find and cite a source that claimed it was a French victory, but alas, it didn't work that way. Thanks for the three DYK articles; articles about Napoleon's generals are needed. My area is Napoleonic era Austrian generals, though I drop a Frenchman in now and again (e.g. Claude Dallemagne, Antoine-Guillaume Rampon). Djmaschek (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open![edit]
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)[edit]
The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)[edit]
The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)[edit]
The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)[edit]
The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)[edit]
The June 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for assessing the Battle of Sacile. (I just added some more stuff.) Roger Davies made the same observation about the French general ranks. I experimented with various ways to do this and settled on MG and BG, but with two people expressing doubt about my solution, maybe I need to think about using General of Division, etc. While we are on the subject of Italy, I added a picture to your Battle of Caldiero (1805) article. I also added a Commentary section listing the authors who believed it was a French victory/Austrian victory/Draw. (Tactically, there is room for debate. Of course, the case for a French strategic victory is overwhelming.) I hope this is an acceptable and neutral way to avoid personal disagreements and Battle of Toulouse (1814)-type arguments. Djmaschek (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)[edit]
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.
With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team, Roger Daviestalk 21:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)[edit]
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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) 21:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Alexandru, I looked through the pages and contributions of a few dozen members of Category:Romanian Wikipedians, and it seems you're the only one who's active at all--so let me ask you a question. When you have a moment, can you have a look at Maria Baciu and see about improving it a bit? The article needs more text, of course, as well as sources--I did the best I could with the help of Google Translate, but that's time consuming and I found only a few online sources (newspaper articles). I can't even verify her date of birth. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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) 21:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is a great picture of Louis Michel Antoine Sahuc. Thanks for discovering and uploading it. Since your earlier comment, I use General of Division and General of Brigade for French general ranks, and avoid abbreviations. One of the James Arnold books has some material critical of Sahuc (annoying habit of giving speeches before battle, etc.), but it's at the library right now. When I can check out the book, I will add it. I saw your edits for Siege of Hameln and Siege of Magdeburg (1806). I hope you don't mind if I expand those in the near future. Djmaschek (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice article on Songis des Courbons. As for Wagram, good luck. I generally avoid the big battles and prefer the lesser-known actions. I wrote the Nordmann and d'Aspré articles, also the Vincent and Rosenberg ones, but the last two are only stubs. Djmaschek (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK credits for Paul-Jean-Baptiste Poret de Morvan[edit]
Hi, my source says only that he entered the army as an Ensign (rank) but rose through the ranks. In my opinion as a Baronet and military officer he is noble enough to go in the battle box. Thanks. QuintusPetillius (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bravo! Splendid Nansouty article and huge (+90,000 bytes). I'll look at it when I get a chance. Have you considered submitting it for class B review? It looks like a class A but first things first. I'm doing a major expansion of the Battle of Lubeck. Thanks for cleaning up the Battle of Orthez article. I saw it but was busy with something else. Beresford or Hill in the infobox, maybe. Anyone else would not be appropriate. I made mistakes like that when I started writing articles. Djmaschek (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned up the Intro, Early Life and Revolutionary Wars sections. Review the second sentence under Early Life. Typical of minor nobility? Typical of military families? It's not clear. Otherwise, the article is very well written. A tip: All titles of people and units are capitalized; if not, the same word is in lower case. Example: "General of Brigade Nansouty was promoted to general of division after he led the 9th Cavalry Regiment in chasing off the Latour Dragoons and an enemy hussar regiment." (I made that up.) Other comments: I believe Luckner was made a marshal in 1791, so I changed it. I also changed Poncet's rank and gave his full noble surname. In general, one "9th Cavalry Regiment" is enough for a paragraph. After that, "9th Cavalry" or even "9th" are OK. It's hussar not hussard. You use surnames instead of full names, but please note that there are exceptions to the rule (Moreau, Pichegru). I made no changes to your naming convention. Please do a page compare to see what I've done so far. You can always change stuff back if you disagree. The pictures are really awesome. How do you do that? Djmaschek (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alexandru,
Just read the article & did some extremely minor editing - also left a hidden note asking for a change of word. There is really nothing to add. A beautiful article. Are we supposed to leave something somewhere in order to get it to grade "A"?
Thank you for the suggestion. I will try to get to it when I'm done with my dissertation. If you would kindly remind me....in a couple of months. Feel free to create a stub, if you'd like. :) auntieruth(talk) 20:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
thanks. and feel free to email me if anything comes up. I don't check this very often. too distracting. lol. auntieruth(talk) 00:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding French casualties to the Battle of Lübeck article. This was a good addition. I looked up the IV Corps artillery chief and I could only find a naval officer named de Peites Moncabrié on French wikipedia. Maybe the poor fellow was only a colonel when he was killed (a brother of the naval officer?), so he does not appear on general officer lists. The next mystery is whether the French captured all 1,800 Swedes. Petre states that Bernadotte caught 600 of them, but no one says if the others got away (I think not). Chandler mentioned that Count Moerner was a prisoner. Djmaschek (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the invitation but I am busy on a few other things at the moment and as my French is far from fluent I could not check the large number facts based on French sources, so I am going to decline your kind offer. -- PBS (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the middle of the CCNP route course right now I will look at it in a week if that is ok?Tirronan (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'm supposed to be reviewing anything for class GA. I tried once to get an article approved for GA but it went nowhere, though I tried to follow the process. I'm completely in the dark about this. Sorry about that. Djmaschek (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OD: Alexander, I've continued the "review" on the article talk page. Sorry I've been so inconsistent. Let's keep working on it. auntieruth(talk) 23:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may not have noticed, but I've started a review of your GAN at the above link.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I don't get a response or an edit of the article by the 19th, I'll fail the article for lack of communication.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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) 21:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, we don't have as many reviewers available at our A-class review as we used to, and it takes 3 supports to pass. I'd recommend getting some help with the prose in the second half of the article, then re-submitting it, we should have more reviewers available soon. - Dank (push to talk) 12:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I just posted above. I'll not give up on this. Let's keep at it, and resurrect the review again in a few weeks. auntieruth(talk) 23:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Alexandru, thank you for your message. I had read somewhere that the Grenadiers-à-cheval were meant to receive cuirasses and maybe helmets. I found some fragments of information on [1] and [2]. I can't find where I read it in the first place. As I don't find top quality sources, I give up to add this information to the article. I also appreciate a lot your contributions. Sincerely, UltimaRatio (talk) 11:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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) 01:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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) 21:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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) 22:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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) 22:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I was wondering if you could help me out with a French quote that I put in the Pierre François Joseph Durutte article. Here is the passage from Charles Mullié, "Le bruit ayant couru à cette époque que Metz s'était rendu, Napoléon demanda vivement à l'un de ses aides-de-camp : « Qui commande dans cette ville? — C'est Durutte, lui fut-il répondu. — Je n'ai jamais fait de bien à cet homme-là : Metz est toujours à nous. » En effet, les troupes étrangères n'y pénétrèrent pas."
I translated it as follows, "In 1814 he was given command of the fortress of Metz which resisted a blockade until the end of the war. At one point, Napoleon heard a rumor that Metz had fallen. He asked an aide-de-camp who commanded the garrison. When told it was Durutte, he replied, "I have never been let down by this man. Metz is always ours."
I'm not sure about this part: "I have never been let down by this man." Please fix if necessary. Thanks.
Thank you for your help with the translation and the explanation. I fixed the Durutte article according to your information. Djmaschek (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
For all-around great work in military history and your assistance and advice, I award you the WikiChevrons. Djmaschek (talk) 02:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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. EdwardsBot (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why the Romanians hate the Russians and I do not have any problem with that. We have someone that we like and we also have someone that we dislike. But I am surprise because you hate Russians THAT MUCH. Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know that you do not like the source I used. About the speech of Kutuzov (which is taken from the website of "Voice of Russia"), I will not use it as you requested. If my English writing is terrible, please show me the mistakes and the way to correct them, thank you.
I completely do not understand about your standards, BUT, the information I add also have source, and I strongly affirm that it is not an idiotic source. This book was published by the Vietnamese Education Pulisher (Nha Xuat Ban Giao Duc) which is under the management of the Ministry of Education. So the book cannot be an idiotic source written by some brainless scholars, the prestige of the Ministry will be ruined if such terrible works are puiblished. And if you suspect that if this book is created for propaganda or not, I will say that the author writes several books about Russian, American, German, French,... celebrities, and these celebrities are praised equally. And the information I add, at the most, may only praise Kutuzov, that information does not dishonor Napoleon. If there is information does say bad thing about Napoleon's talent, please show me, and I will fix it. Thank you.
p/s: I wonder the word "brainless" can be considered vandalism or not. And, feel free to contact the sypsops. I strongly believe that I did not do any wrong. Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 08:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make sure that I correctly understand your statement: you said that I made some unacceptable changes about the citated materials, and you show me this link as a proof, right ? Well, in this case, I think I should make some explainations about that problem.
In here, the paragraph "The French Grande Armée began..." orginially did not have any citation, so I think there was no problem when I changed it.
In here, the sentence "Prince Kutozov was nearing the end of his life, he died seven months later on April 28, 1813 and moved about the battlefield on a carriage." do not have any citation, so I think it is OK to delete. The content of that sentence is also somewhat irrelevant. Then I created a new paragraph "After taking over..." with the content taken from my source, and I transfered the part "The new Russian commander remained unable...ad shrunk from 3:1 to 5:4." of the last paragraph to the new paragraph. "The new Russian commander remained unable to..." became "Kutuzov still not managed to..." but I don't think there are any problem with it. Finally, I add "The Borodino field was too... location could be found" (3) between the "A defensive line..." (1) and "Starting on September..." (2). Both (1) and (2) have their own seperated citations, and (3) is a citated information; so again I do not see any problems when I put (3) between (1) and (2). In short, I believe that I did not delete or distort any citated information here, I just added my information and rearrange the content.
In here, all I did is revised the information taken from my source ("lvq"). I made some mistakes at in first time I added the "lvq" information, so this time I deleted the wrong information and added the right one.
In here, I added the lvq information inside the paragraph, so the new paragraph is a combination of the Mikaberidze and the lvq source. However, I have to admit that the Mikaberidze information was altered too much during this mixing, so I will delete the lvq information and restore the orginial Mikaberidze one in order to avoid dangerous changes which may lead to distortion of the original information.
About my English errors, I will try my best to find the errors and fix them. I will fix the formating of names and dates, too. Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The real issue here is that new users get attracted to major articles that are already at GA or FA standards. So instead of being able to contribute they get reactions not understanding the amount of study and library required to actually help. They don't see that we'll study a subject months before making a contribution. I did a fairly major rewrite of the Battle of Waterloo when I understood that the Prussian sections were woefully underwritten. What no one saw was three months of preparation before I did start to contribute. The major issues with Waterloo, and Borodino, is that everyone lies. Clausewitz says a lot about the battle having been there as a staff officer in the Russian army. However using Clausewitz too much is going to offend a lot of Russians, having a German shoved up their nose again. The reason I'd have liked to have used him more is every single major officer on both sides of the conflict were fully capable and willing to lie. But, I don't get to say that either. Anyway for a new editor to try to cut his teeth on an article like that is just very very tough. Over at the War of 1812 we get much of the same thing and the Battle of Waterloo, though that is slowing down. I honestly see this as more of a structural issue with Wikipedia than a problem with the new editors. I too was dismayed and took an eight hour break before putting anything down after I talked with Sokolov the 1st time. I didn't trust myself to type until I cooled down, which isn't how I want to approach this. Let him approach with what he wants to change and we can work with him. It grates my nerves and not my forte but we are not going to get new editors until we teach them.Tirronan (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the biographies of the Russian generals in the Napoleonic wars, can we use "The Russian Officer Corps of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars: 1792-1815" by Alexander Mikaberidze ? It author is an expert about Russia in the early nineteenth century ! Ti2008 (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Alexandru.demian. You have new messages at EyeSerene's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Alexandru.demian. You have new messages at Sholokhov's talk page. Message added 13:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Sorry I could not respond to you sooner because I was a bit busy. Actually, I asked you about these two books not because of the Borodino article, but the Austerlitz one. You may suggest that the Austerlitz article is already too long (just as the Borodino one), but I think I should write a bit more detail about three points: 1)Kutuzov's plan to retreat to Olmutz, 2)Napoleon's plan to lure the Allied Army out, and 3)the role of the Pratzen Heights in Napoleon's plan. If these things are written clearer and in more detail, the readers may be able to understand more about the plan and the planning process of the military leaders in the battle of Austerlitz; and I think this elementy is very important in this article. Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
About the LVQ source, I have said that this source is not a work of propaganda. The meaning of this statement is not only about hate of Russian or France or something like that. What I mainly mean is, the neutrality and unbiasness of the source is acceptable. I can see that you and Tirronan are really concerned about the sources' unbiasness and neutrality; that is the reason why I said LVQ source is not a work of propaganda, and I believe its quality is acceptable. Of course at the moment I am trying to find better ones to replace it. Your and Tirronan's sugesstion about the source is really invaluable, thank you very much. Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the role of the Pratzen Heights, it was already represented in Soult's reply to Napoleon : "Less than twenty minutes, Sire, for my troops are hidden at the foot of the valley, hidden by fog and campfire smoke" ! Sholokhov can see David Chandler, The campaigns of Napoleon, p. 425 to know !Ti2008 (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jul-Sep 2011[edit]
I've published a short article, Le souper de Beaucaire, which I'm sure you're more than familiar with. During the peer review we've been discussing the reprints of his pamphlet, in 1798 and 1821. We know the 1821 second edition was probably printed to commemorate his death, but are curious as to why the 1798 was printed. I suggest it was possibly part of a collection of important documents to highlight important events from the great revolution over the past 10 years. It seems that most biographers.. Chandler, Cronin, Dwyer, etc don't give the document much coverage, Barnett skips it altogether, and they care more about how it gained him favour rather than the work itself.
I wondered if you could take a brief look at the article and possibly provide include a reliably sourced reason, even a good French one, as to why there was need for a 1798 edition? We're also trying to answer the question of how many of the original pamphlet were printed, how many survived, where they were issued, etc. As you live in Paris, do you know of any museums/exhibitions there which have copies of the original 1793 pamphlet, and 1798/1821 books, for example? I've found the Bibliothèque nationale de France only has a 1821 copy.
If I could wager a guess, I'd say the Battle of the Pyramids was a huge propaganda sucess. But that's just me. Buggie111 (talk) 01:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Marcus, Hi Buggie, sorry for taking so long to answer. I've had a look in my books yesterday and today and unfortunately I could find only brief mentions of the pamphlet. Most books I have are actually on the Empire and less on the Republic. If I were to speculate a bit (and this if of course no source for wikipedia :-) ), I'd say that the young Bonaparte used it as a way to further his career, in a time when rapid promotions were frequent. In 1798 he was already a famous, politically connected and popular general. Some political elites were growing tired of the unstable governments that the Republic had known so far. They were increasingly looking at the possibility of appointing a popular general at the head of the state. Bonaparte was well-placed, but did have a few rivals, such as Moreau or Hoche, so any means of boosting his prestige could do. Literary or ideological eloquence has always been a way of gaining reputation in France. I'll keep looking and maybe I can dig up some more. Best, Alex --Alexandru Demian (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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. EdwardsBot (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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) 07:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Your submission of Samuel-François Lhéritier at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! 19:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Mikenorton (talk)
Hello Alexandru. As for your recent edit [3], it is Bessières, on the ground with white hair, on the painting of Horace Vernet [4], as you can see here [5]. Bessières is clearly visible on Vernet's painting, so I don't know why you prefer the low quality picture of Gros' painting. Is there a reason I'm missing ? DITWIN GRIM (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in contributing to WikiProject Romania. It is a project aimed at organizing and improving the quality and accuracy of articles related to Romania. Thanks and best regards!
Hi, I got your note. Thanks for your kind words. I recently acquired several of Charles Oman's volumes on the Peninsular War so I have plenty of source material for writing Napoleonic Wars articles. The wonderful thing is that there are so many interesting personalities and minor battles that have stubs or no article. Djmaschek (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for August 19[edit]
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 08:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Alexandru. I see you are new to reviewing so might not realise, but when you pass an article you then have to list it. The instructions for doing that are here:
Replace {{GA nominee}} on the article's talk page with {{GA}}. Use the topic given in the nomination and the page number of the review. The "page=" parameter should be a number only - no letters. Please include "GA" in your edit summary
List the article on Wikipedia:Good articles under the appropriate section.[2] Encourage the successful nominator(s) to review an article themselves.
If you have any questions let me know. AIRcorn(talk) 05:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just now I took another look at the Talk:Josef Philipp Vukassovich/GA1 and I was wondering is there anything else left of Gregor or me to do out there or not. I got the impression that all required interventions have been performed, but now I'm wondering if I got the wrong idea. Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Alexandru, I have noticed edits of a part of the Historical Assessment part of the French Invasion of Russia article, namely that of a Parronax's. I do not question your intelligence on your judgement that posting without references may be counted as vandalism, so I have added one for a part of his paragraph that I found interesting. The main thing I had in mind, if I may say so, is that his adding of that part strengthens (from my point of view) the image of wartime Russia. But of course, you, having earned WikiChevrons, and the Military History Reviewers' Award, should have the last say in this.
Thank you for your time, --Arusmanov (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill[talk] 18:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Battlefield of Wagram. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Battle of Wagram. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Battle of Wagram – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Jinkinsontalk to me 14:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
thanks. I'm not a newbie here. Please have a careful look at the two articles: one is about a battle and the other about a battlefield. I've replied on the article talk page.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I moved the article to User:Alexandru.demian/Battlefield of Wagram. My biggest concern is that many will see this as a content fork of the battle itself and that the hill isn't independently notable enough outside of the battle to warrant its own entry. I can see where, in its current state, someone might argue at an AfD that this should just be merged into the main article. It seems to be the norm that battlefields that are known only for battles aren't really independently notable. You've clearly worked hard on this, so I don't want this information to be deleted. I think that if you can find more RS that cover the field itself, that should take care of that. I know that finding sources that don't mention the battle will be nearly impossible, but we do need something that focuses on the battlefield itself a little more. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IE, just find something that shows it's a historical landmark (shouldn't be too hard) and add it, then move it back into the mainspace. I figured that I'd move it into your userspace so it doesn't get re-tagged or deleted in the interim. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed[talk][majestic titan] 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open![edit]
Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open![edit]
On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon![edit]
Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.
Hello Alexandru.demian, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2017.
Happy editing, auntieruth(talk) 21:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:
tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.
2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election[edit]
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.
Hello! Your submission of Samuel-François Lhéritier at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! 19:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Mikenorton (talk)
![[4]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Napoleon_Wagram.jpg){kind=link}
