User talk:Barosaurus Lentus

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Timesitheus
You're quite right, my mistake, SabinIUS it is. (Just for completion, the correct version is also listed in L.L. Howe's "The Praetorian Prefect from Commodus to Diocletian" p.78). I'll revert the page. Thanks. Catiline63 (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Dacia
 Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in ancient Dacia. Would you like to join the WikiProject Dacia? It is a project aimed to better organize and improve the quality and accuracy of the articles related to these topics. We need help expanding and reviewing many articles, and we also need more images. Your input is welcomed! Thanks and best regards! --Codrin.B (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

great old bulgaria
CHAPTER CXX the oldest documents about Bulgaria and Kubrat are from the chronics of JOhn of Nikiu in early 600 AD:

47. And when the inhabitants of Byzantium heard this news, they said: 'This project is concerned with Kubratos, chief of the Huns, the nephew of Organa, who was baptized in the city of Constantinople, and received into the Christian community in his childhood and had grown up in the imperial palace.'

CHAPTER LXXXIX 74. But immediately on his return to the emperor, the latter removed him from his command, and appointed in his room another general, named Cyril, of the province of Illyria. 75. And he also gave battle to Vitalian, and there was great slaughter on both sides. Cyril the general retired into the city named Odyssus, and stayed there while Vitalian withdrew into the province of Bulgaria.

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/nikiu2_chronicle.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.208.26 (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

great old bulgaria
john of nikiu[edit] CHAPTER CXX the oldest documents about Bulgaria and Kubrat are from the chronics of JOhn of Nikiu in early 600 AD:

47. And when the inhabitants of Byzantium heard this news, they said: 'This project is concerned with Kubratos, chief of the Huns, the nephew of Organa, who was baptized in the city of Constantinople, and received into the Christian community in his childhood and had grown up in the imperial palace.'

CHAPTER LXXXIX 74. But immediately on his return to the emperor, the latter removed him from his command, and appointed in his room another general, named Cyril, of the province of Illyria. 75. And he also gave battle to Vitalian, and there was great slaughter on both sides. Cyril the general retired into the city named Odyssus, and stayed there while Vitalian withdrew into the province of Bulgaria.

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/nikiu2_chronicle.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.251.91 (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

great old bulgaria 165-681 AD[edit] Старая Великая Болгария(165-668гг.).[edytuj kod] На сегодняшний день мировой историографией официально признано, что на территории современной Украины и Северного Кавказа в VII в.н.э. существовало государство Старая Великая Болгария(165-668гг.). http://www.kubrat.in.ua/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=58%3A2012-07-20-13-56-51&catid=4%3A2011-03-04-13-21-14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.250.219 (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.208.26 (talk)

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) 13:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

are you a troll?
You call me a troll. Let's review the facts: All ancient sources (I AM a historian) mention about 30,000 Dacian warriers in the first war (the so called "Scond Battle of Tapae"😉, which was not at all a battle of Tapae, but the battle for Sarmizegetusa, a few miles only further, never conquered by the romans, which fled scared shitless to Adamclisi, 700km further east, where the battle for the Dacian capital Sarmizegetusa also ended! With a shrine inscripted with more than 3,000 fallen roman soldiers, only the limited wall surface of the shrine limiting the names inscriptions.., this also being called by you "a decissive roman victory"😉 for Sarmizegetusa, not conqered at that time by the romans, which started towards it but were stopped at Tapae, and when the Dacians stopped fighting because of the legendary "strange storm", "anger of the Dacian Gods", and they were defenceless, the romans, also a few miles only from Sarmizgetusa and open for taking, ran as crazy 700km in 4 days, to their reserve troops at Adamclisi.. and you call this "decisive roman victory"😉), and 15,000 Dacian soldiers in the second big war, of AD 105, ending in 106AD. This correct troops amount stayed a few decades (anyway many years; I made screenshots at some point for a school documentary), and only recently somebody vandalised the site changing the amount in a couple of hundred thousands, with NO SOURCE REFERENCES what so ever, and he couldn't do it too as all historical info points out the tiny Dacian army at that time. YOU, as administrator, in sted of correcting the vandalism and restore the page, didn't give a damn.. When I came and restored the info, doing YOUR JOB, you acuse me of "vandalism"😉, and that "I am partial to the Dacians", while you are the one partial to the romans and to vandalism. Further more, you acuse me that "being partial to the Dacians"😉, I said that the Dacians won, not the romans, adding that "I did not attach sources ref./proof"😉.

On the page of the First Battle of Tapae, was allways mentioned (with source ref. attached; poorly and only 1 source while there are many.. but OK) that the governer (of the invading roman army in the DACIAN Moesia) was killed together with his army (that is correct). This first battle of Tapae (again BS; it was the battle of the romams for Sarmizegetusa, also stopped at Tapae, Sarmizwgetusa was NOT conquered, that's why was called The battle of "Tapae" which was nothing, just an emlty field, and the roman empire does NOT fight to conquer grass and empty fields) was also lost by the roman army which was totally defeated/anhilated, and even Fuscus died in battle. All these info are correct and o your/that page. Accepted by you as administrator. You call this "a roman victory"😉. If i call it as it is, a Dacian victory, you call me a troll and tell me that "that didn't happened", meaning Dacian victory. Than WHAT do you call it? It's a retorical question. I am a pretty known international history investigator, and my coleagues often make fun of the wikipedia trolls which poses as administrators. I mean.. the facts speak for themselfs. You change Dacian victories in "indecisive battle", and indecisive battles in "roman victory", which makes you automaticaly bias, and history falsifier, obviously in favour of the invading hoodlam romans. You go so far in presenting the invading (into Dacian teritories) romans as "the good guys" and the Dacians as "bad guys", that you even post totally ridiculous texts like "the Dacians invaded Dacia, and the romans (coming beligerantly all the way from Italy) were right to punishe the Dacians for that"😉. How criminal are you? About you history knowlwdge (if any) is pointless to ask. Right? All the so called (also BS because the Dacians never started nor wanted war) "Dacian Wars", which were actually Roman wars, started by the invading roman army, and all took place OUTSIDE Italy, into Dacian/Thracian teritories. Roman wars, and you call them "Dacian wars", to manipulate the readers on subliminal levels.

Moesia, which was also Dacian teritory (by the way, you can find this info also on wikipedia if you have no official sources), invaded, masacred and robbed by the roman army coming from Italy, when saved from the romans by the Dacians (as it was part of Dacia), is called by you on your page "murdering dacians"😉, "the dacians swarmed into Moesia to rob and pilleage"😉.. and other bullshit. So the dacians were the robbers or the romans?? And WHAT did the Dacians had to rob from their own dacian teritory?? Didn't they have more GOLD than they knew what to do with it, gold stolen by the ROBBER Trajan in AD 106 from Dacia in such huge quantities that the roman empire florished as never before? This info is also on this site to be found. In short, you are the kind of man which in the year 3000 discovers a manuscript, written in french, about a battle in Japan, between the french and the japanese army, in which it is written that the japanese were the "bad guys", and the french were the "good guys" which came all the way to japan "to punnish the japanese because they invaded Tokyo", and you taking it as real information. Everybody who tries to wake you up to reality, you attack him right away calling him a "troll", just because your wife is french and you have a thing for France. Everybody who tries to tell the truth, you acusing him of being bias and on the japanese's side for some reasons. And THIS tells everyting about you! Not only your brutal removal of the real info with ref sources attached, and replacing with BS info with no ref sources what so ever. As history investigator I know very well why the troups amount bothered you, as romans fan, and you changed it recently, namely because from that number comes the whole truth to light (which is in detail described in antic manuscripts, which I gave access to and you don't) about the Roman Wars, renamed by you "Dacian Wars", in order to blame the Dacians for them. If the first great battle (101/102 AD) was "won"😉 by the romans when the romans had 2.5 times the troups amount the dacian had (only 30,000 dacian troups), than later, in a time of financial difficulties in Rome to pay the army, in the second war (105/106 AD), when the dacians had only 15,000 soldiers, in sted of taking half of the army used before (which according to you and other history falsifiers, was a "roman victory"😉) and repeat the "victory", he tool more than 200,000 trouos against only 15,000 dacian soldiers??? (and even so, after 1 year the romans stil did not conquer squat, untill they found and destroyed the underground water pipes of Sarmizegetusa) Only the amount of roman troups in this second war (105AD) proves who won the previous war. Besides other detailed written historical facts about it. You are NOT the only troll on wikipedia which hears these facts from me. After a short while after one of you roman empire fans heard this from me last year, the number of dacian troups grew on wikipedia from 15,000/30,000 to 200,000 troups, in order to support your other kakameny info spread by you on this site. Fortunatelly, only kids comes on wikipedia to read some stuff from time to time, and for them I corrcted your vandalism about the troups and who won. Real historians to not give a shit on wikipedia, as 10% of it is real true info. We have only original manuscripts to take our info from. Here the info is worth if being taken only when little kids with unfounded trust in wikipedia, beside real info from real manuscripts, wants childislhly also a "second opinion" from wikipedia. (This to see how ignorant little children are). Muntele (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

i forgot
I forgot to tell you many things in my other, long, discussion subject, here is one of them (because you say directly and indirectly that you have no interest in the historical truth, but in favouring the roman empire because you are a fan of it, as you explain here on your page):

Besides, never ever no way no how in the whole history of the roman empire, the romans (esspecially in the catastrofal financial situation in Rome, when the empire was on the virge of colaps because of it's lack of money!) never waged costly and long battles against other nations in order to force those nations to accept huge gold tribute from Rome, so those nations can "built and strenghten their fortresses for future attacks", like you, history falsifiers, argumented the roman tribute payed to the Dacians in 88 AD as well as in 102 AD, when the common sense men asked you "how come those wars were won by romans if at the end of them the romand had to pay anual tribute to the dacians?".

And you started to buulshit that that money was "for building and strenghten the fortresses/defences", going so far in your bullshit that for the following war (AD 105) you, as roman empire fan and as such automatically history falsifier), as reason for this roman attack/war on Dacia, you mentioned again the invading romans as "the good guys"😉, and the dacians as "the bad, cut trouths, robbers, dacians"😉, which were "justfull punished by the romans" in this "punitive" war against the dacians IN DACIA, because "the dacians used the money received from the romans after the last war and used ut for.. building and strenghten the fortresses/defences"(!), so for exactly what they were suppose to use it, according to your own afirmations!! Duuh!

So the roman empire did not invade other countries to demand "protection money" (tribute) from them to not invade them again(tipical italian culture/maffia), but they invaded the world TO PAY anual tribute to those countries??

I do not know what medication do you use, but you obviously forgot to take it for a long time.

Well, you are a roman or a roman fan, so it's understanable that you have no clue what so ever what are you talking about. You are focussing on 1 thing only: Praising the cut throuts romans and presenting them as "the best and most civilised people in the World", which invaded, masacred, robbed and enslaved countless nations and civilisations, because... "they were the good guys, period"😉.

Also enjoying throwing women and children (plus everybody actually) alive to wilde beasts to eat them alive in the arena (Damnatio Ad Bestias), was another obvious sign of the "roman civilisation"😉 which you admire so much, and which thus also says much about you, who and what you are.

Have a nice day. Muntele (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Nice story. Now you read this: Neutral_point_of_view. Neutrality is important in historical research. A real historian would know that. --Barosaurus Lentus (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)