User talk:Mcpaul1998

Welcome!

Hello, Mcpaul1998, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

If you are interested in Russia-related themes, you may want to check out the Russia Portal, particularly the Portal:Russia/New article announcements and Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board. You may even want to add these boards to your watchlist.

Again, welcome! --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference systems

Hi, thanks for your good contributions to the Russian related articles. Could you study the usage of Wikipedia reference systems a bit? It looks a bit messy when there are multiple reference systems in place in the same articles. A good example is Finnish Civil War. Thanks! --Drieakko 11:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Princes of Novgorod

Hi, I was just thinking if you could invest time to make a complete timeline for the princes of Novgorod. For some reason, information on them is very fragmented in Wikipedia, many princes even without a stub. Article could be headed like Princes of Novgorod. Thanks! --Drieakko 09:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Даругачи и даруга

Привет! Я чесно говоря не историк но некоторые представления о тюрксих языках позволяют мне предположить, что всё-таки даруга - провинция, а даругачи - это человек, который её возглавляет (-чы/чи это тюрский суффикс схожий с руссиким -щик, -чик, образующий профессию от названия предмета). Честно говоря, трудно поверить, что и должность и провинция называлось одним словом. И точно ли даруга не тюрское слово, а баскак, напротив, монгольское? --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 07:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Western mercenaries in Muscovy

Hi, could you take a look at this query? Thanks, Ghirla^-трёп- 22:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Lipitsa

On 5 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Lipitsa, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 11:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vasily Kalika

On 5 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vasily Kalika, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gennady (Archbishop of Novgorod)

On 6 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gennady (Archbishop of Novgorod), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Another short and solid article on an obscure (well, to my rather philistine eyes anyay) subject that would doubtless go uncreated if not for your efforts. Thanks and congratulations, and please keep up the good work :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know...

On 9 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of the Alta River, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 10:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me

		The Barnstar of National Merit
		I, Alex Bakharev (talk), award you this Barnstar of National Merit for your fine contributions to the articles on medieval Rus Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cut and paste moves

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently copied the contents of a page and pasted it into another with a different name. Specifically, you copied the contents of Church of the Transfiguration on Ilyina Street and pasted it into Church of the Transfiguration on Ilin Street. This is what we call a "cut and paste move," and it is very undesirable because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. The mechanism we use for renaming articles is to move it to a new name which both preserves the page's history and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves to request the move by another. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Russ (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trasimene

There are no reenforcements for Hannibal after leaving Gaul since he was in enemy territory and there is a consensus that the same army fought both battles. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get to the point. You quote the sources stating he has in between 50,000 to 100,000 men, but that is not the number after crossing the Alps, for this scholarship has accepted Polybius figure that is much lower. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Let me get to the point. You’ve made two arguments that are mutually supporting. 1) Hannibal crossed with about 50,000 troops and 2) he had not reinforcements in Italy he had no reinforcements after leaving Gaul until fighting Cannae, Italy is no clear term here and therefore the army at Trasimene had to have been about 50,000 because that was the size of his army at Cannae (you haven’t given exact figures, but that’s the gist of your argument. I question both those claims.

If you look at Billau and Gracyzk, “Hannibal: Father of Strategy,” they address both points. they give the usually accepted figure of 50,000 troops that crossed the Alps not crossed the Alps, but started to cross the Alps. (Appian and others give much larger figures, but we can go with the figure of 50,000.) Billau and Gracyzk also say that Hannibal lost half that number in the crossing and then recruited 5,000 Gauls in Cisalpine Gaul (essentially the Po River Valley he wasn't anywhere near the Po Valley when he arrived, but had to fight battle with the Romans to get there) (p. 36) and thus had a force of 30,000 foot after receiving reinforcements in Italy. Livy, however, gives a figure of 14,000 Gauls who volunteered to fight with Hannibal around Turin, so while the figures are uncertain, it is clear Hannibal was getting reinforcements in Italy reinforcements in Gaul, according to the Roman defintion this wasn't part of Italy, but today it is. Furthermore, The Lacinian inscription that Polybius cites and which was allegedly erected by Hannibal in southern Italy in 205 BC gives a figure for Hannibal’s army as low as 20,000: 12,000 Africans and 8,000 Spanish foot (Polybius 3.56.4). I believe that's for Cannae, but in Polybius 2.24.17, he claims Hannibal crossed the Alps with only 20,000 men. 20,000 infantry does Polybius claim. Additionally there are 6,000 cavalry (2,000 Iberian, 4,000 Numidian). Polybius is a Greek source, so he doesn't mention light infantry, but we do know that there were 8,000 light infantry at Cannae and since these were neither Iberians nor Africans, but Balearics, Numidians and Ligurians and of other nationality Polybius simply didn't count them.' That's The view of Gregory Daly in Cannae. The experience of battle in the Second Punic War.(page 29-32) and reflects modern scholars. Furthermore he thinks that among the 50,000 at Cannae, 10,000 cavalry and 40,000 infantry the light troops are neither included(supported by Delbrück), so one can argue from this point that more than 50,000 were also at Cannae. And to make things complete (page 25-29) the 80,000 Romans consisted of light infantry and heavy infantry. with additional 6,000 cavalry.

Livy says at one point that Hannibal had 80,000 infantry in Italy and that this included figures of Celts who joined Hannibal after he entered Italy (Livy 21.38.3-4.) Livy needs to be more precise to make this number useful. Most certainly Hannibal had more than at Lake Trasimene and Cannae when he was in the Gaulish territory since we do know that there was left behind an army able to oppose the Romans and he did receive reinforcements after Cannae, but these operated as several armies in the Italian theatre.

So, in summation, to say that there “had to be more than 50,000 for the Carthaginians since they did fight Cannae without receiving additional troops” is not necessarily supported by the evidence – you say Polybius' figures are the most accepted, and he gives figures ranging from 20,000 to 50,000; if the figure is 20,000 than he didn't have to have 50,000, but he could have received reinforcements as some of the ancient sources claim. So while we can't be certain, but the sources suggest that Hannibal crossed the Alps with about 50,000 and did, in fact, receive reinforcements in Italy. That is the crux of my argument and my evidence to support it. If, however, you have much better sources than I do, please do let me know. Thank you again for your well-reasoned arguments.

Get to the point, where are 40,000 troops sourced for Lake Trasimene and where are more than 50,000 troops sourced for Lake Trasimene. As you can see 50,000+ is the best summary of the differing opinions. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

I've been recently going through Rus' articles as part of my attempt to bring Prince lists onto English wiki. This will increase significantly the likelihood of article creation in this area and encourage the formation of Rus-specific naming conventions. It's a bit of a nightmare. I feel on occasion like one of those medieval compilers trying to synchronize loads of unreliable sources (and I don't atm have the resources to verify most of it), but I left this off for a long time hoping someone with better resources would do it. Anyways, going through these I've come across some articles that stand out in quality and your name consistently seems to be behind these. I hope you keep it up. It's a big gap in wiki coverage atm. If you have the inclination, you can inspect Category:Princes in Rus' and supervise any glaring errors (factual or typo-related) in the articles there (which will gradually increase in number). All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Improve the list all you like ... I'll just continue transferring existing internet information into wikipedia to form a base. I'm seasoned enough from my own areas of expertise to know this kind of info is usually problematic. Having said that, I'll need to recheck and see if this confusion was introduced by me ... coz that's a possibility too! I'm hoping the authors on the Russian wiki and the Foundation of Medieval Genealogy get it right enough for writing these lists to be worthwhile ... and as far as the few resources I have (most of the survey textbooks and articles i have access to aren't very interested in this thing) go, they usually do roughly corroborate this information. My biggest suspicion is the certainty of some of the dates. I really really doubt the consistent start and end dates on those lists are reliable. Happy editing! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Lubieszów and WP:DYK

Thank you for creating a good article on Battle of Lubieszów. We could WP:DYK it, but we would need inline references for the hook. Could you provide them and write a hook for T:TDYK? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Battle of the Kalka River

HIstorians can still make estimates to the size of an army by reading primary sources. A good example, in my opinion is the Persian Wars, where although primary sources state figures historians still make estimates to the size of the Persian army. The historians writing about the Battle of the Kalka River are credible and obviously know what they are writing about. It is not as if they pulled the figures from a hat, they must have got they from reasearch they have done. I think that the article should be kept in the state that I had it. Also thanks for the Chronicle I'll incorporate it into the article. I've noticed in several areasm it agrees with the secondary sources; that the Cumans fled and broke the lines of the Rus' armies arriving as well as the bit about Mstislav of Kiev retreating to a stockade. Kyriakos (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a good place to add all this info would be in a foot note. It would make the article much less chunky especially in the initial moves section. What do you think? Kyriakos (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Russian projects into one project - your input requested

Hi, you are receiving this message as you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Russian history. I have made a proposal to merge several Russian related projects into WP:RUSSIA. You can view the proposal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Russian_history#Proposal_for_overhaul_and_creation_of_a_single_WP:RUSSIA_project. As a member of the Russian history project, your input is requested; so that all editors are reading off the same page please limit discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia/Proposal. We all look forward to your input. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 10:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs and WP:RS

Hi! I removed the citation of the Saudi women's blog at Norah al-Faiz because most blogs are not considered to be reliable sources. See Wikipedia:RS. However if the blog is made by a staff member of a newspaper or another publication while being made with the publication's editorial approval, then the blog would count as a reliable source. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Mcpaul1998! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 14 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Ignazio Bedini - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 07:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Military bios: good work

Thank you for your efforts creating Vladimir Chirkin as well as other U.S. military biographies. It's really good that they're all well referenced. Would you please however insert a heading ==References== over the reflist? Cheers and thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Mcpaul1998. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Đỗ Hữu Phương moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Đỗ Hữu Phương, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indiction

I have effectively reverted your edit to Indiction and supplied citations to reliable sources. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Đỗ Hữu Phương

Hello, Mcpaul1998. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Đỗ Hữu Phương, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Đỗ Hữu Phương

Hello, Mcpaul1998. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Đỗ Hữu Phương".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Eternal Shadow Talk 17:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity's WikiJournal of the Humanities needs you!

Hi Mcpaul1998

I'm the editor-in-chief of the WikiJournal of the Humanities.

Given your experience with Wikipedia and understanding of academia, I'm emailing to ask whether you might be interested in getting involved as an editor for the WikiJournal of Humanities. It's modelled on the successful Wikipedia-integrated journals, the WikiJournal of Medicine, and the WikiJournal of Science. Our editorial board covers a range of fields and expertise, aiming to cover disciplines across the humanities, arts, and social sciences.

Our approach combines the rigour of academic peer review with the extensive reach of an encyclopedia. Consequently, it is an excellent way to achieve public engagement and outreach while impacting public understanding of complex scholarly topics. Articles undergo peer review and are subsequently published in both standard academic PDF format and directly onto Wikipedia, often getting over 100,000 views annually. This enhances the encyclopedia's scientific and factual accuracy and offers academics citable, indexed publications. Moreover, it enables significantly broader dissemination compared to traditional scholarly publishing methods.

The time commitment is flexible. An editor would generally dedicate 2-10 hours per month to a range of activities.

Please let me know if this aligns with your interests, or if you'd like to know more.

Your experience and expertise would be highly appreciated. Fransplace... Let's talk 23:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]