User talk:Lucius1976

Welcome!
Hi,, Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, you seem to be off to a good start. Hopefully you will soon join the vast army of Wikipediholics! If you need help on how to title new articles see the naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. For general questions goto Help or the FAQ, if you can't find your answer there check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)! There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. If you have any more questions after that, feel free to ask me directly on my user talk page. ---

Additional tips
Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!
 * For Wikipedia policies and guidelines see The Five Pillars of Wikipedia and What Wikipedia is not.
 * Find everything in the Directory.
 * If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
 * Introduce yourself at the new user log.
 * If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.
 * If you have edits from before creating an account try this.
 * To Upload Images with the correct Copyright tags.
 * Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;), this will automatically produce your name and the date.

Be Bold!!
You can find me at my user page or talk page for any questions. Happy editing, and we'll see ya 'round. Joe I 02:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for all your great work. I hope you continue to contribute knowledge regularly! --Dpr 08:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

French People
Hello. Regardless of your opinion as to the appropriateness of official figures for French nationals  in Switzerland, Belgium, &c, appearing in this article, they are figures supported by references and are thus verifiable. Likewise the US and Canadian self-identified ancestry numbers from 2000 and 2001 are verifiable. There are no figures for Belgium or Switzerland which are comparable to those for the US and Canada, leaving a choice between no data and the incommensurable numbers I have given. If you wish to argue that no data should be shown for Belgium and Switzerland, you will have my full support. Angus McLellan 20:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, sorry didn't see that revert. Only saw someone deleted all of them and mistakenly rv to my version.

Hallo Lucius; ich schreibe Dir in bezug auf die englische Seite der "Sprachen in der Europaeischen Union" (Absatz Arbeitssprachen): Ich hab die Schweiz und Liechtenstein von der Liste fuer Deutsch als EU-Amtsprachen genommen; Ausserdem habe ich die 3 Amtsprachen wieder alphabetisch nach E F G geordnet und etwas Salz aus dem Artikel genommen. Die deutsche und franzoesische Regierung haben sich (mit gutem Grund) fuer eine gegenseitige Unterstuezung ihrer beiden Sprachen verstaendigt damit sich die 3 Sprachen in Bruessel gleichwertig entwickeln. Franzoesisch kann Englisch oft wesentlich besser Paroli bieten womit sich Deutsch dann auch besser entwickeln kann. Ich weiss nicht wieviel Einfluss wir - als Interessenvertreter der deutschen Sprachpolitik - haben, jedoch denke ich ein hohes Mass an kooperativen Respekt fuer die franzoesische Sprachpolitik ist eine gute Basis. Es freut mich auch gleichgesinnte hier zu treffen und hoffe von Dir zu lesen. Gruesse 28 Februar 2006

Poles
Hi Lucius, I am glad you are providing important information to our page, but due to a recent wave of bloated population number contributions, a specified section for "estimates" outside of the census reports has been put in the article, here: Poles. Feel free to put your numbers there. The population box is meant for census report figures, so if you have any of those for the sources we're missing, feel free to add it there too. Antidote 23:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

There is greater support for a number around the "200,000" mark than the "2 million" mark - but that is not to say 2 million isnt plausible. It is, but given this it is safe to only do the following:


 * A) Put it here: Poles
 * B) Create a range in the population box, like the ones seen in Romanians.

Antidote 23:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the contribution. I see you know German, if you ever have time and find an article thats on the German wikipedia but not on here, translate it (as roughly as you can) and leave the rump version on my talk page. I will gladly fix up the grammar/look etc. Later. Antidote 23:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, today I have extended the Battle of Kiev page considerably. Believe didń't turn out badly, but the grammar could need some improvement I guess. --Lucius1976 00:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Your information on the source of Germany in Poles is slightly misleading, because the information doesn't seem to specify when Polish ancestry is significant in the German population. It is very plausible that up to 2 million Germans have Polish anacestry, but that in no way makes them Polish. I pruned your message to only include the source stating the 2 million, but nothing more. This way it presents the idea of a larger number but doesn't explain (as there is no way to explain). Take for example that nearly 30% of modern day Poles in Poland have German last names, ofcourse, that does not make them Germans (nor to be on the Germans box). Anyway, thanks for the source. Antidote 05:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Definition of Origin
From a perspective of television production, the Country of Origin is always the country where the production company has its registered offices. In the case of Battlestar Galactica (any version, in fact), the country of origin is therefore the USA, regardless of where it was shot or who was in it. -- Scjessey 19:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Decimal points, commas and other devices
Yeah, I know that using a demical comma an SI-approved method, and I didn't mean anything negative by it when I said "habit". I discuss my motives for the change I made on my talk page. Thanks! —Felix the Cassowary 09:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Operation Barbarossa
They started with 2.6 million but they reinforced thier numbers during the battle that is the STARTER number same goes for the Axis number it is the STARTER number the number they began with (Deng 04:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

Einstein's citizenship
Before getting into a heated argument about this: please go to THE WORLD AS I SEE IT, in that document search for "The Academy's declaration". What should pop up is the correspondence between de Prussian Academy and Albert Einstein, April 1933. In the first paragraph of that document is says the following "Being a Swiss citizen, he also, it seems, intends to resign the Prussian nationality which he acquired in 1913 simply by becoming a full member of the Academy". So if we can trust this document (which I will, unless you come up with the original German document) there clearly was such a thing as "Prussian nationality". While I am not responsible for that "Württemberg citizenship" remark (somebody else put that in), I thought that if there was such a thing as "Prussian nationality" that by analogy there should have been a "Württemberg nationality" as well. Or? JdH 15:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Apparently there was a dual citizenship in the German Empire unitl 1914. But no single prussian citizenship. Every prussian citizen was also a german citizen. Same with württemberg etc. In 1914 that changed that the dual citzenship was dropped in favour of a single one. If the würtemberg or prussian citizenship is mentioned, it must be also the german citizenship. Because the German Empire had many small countries beside the larger ones, it doesn't make sense to me to include this for the time after 1871. Seems to me it is a rare case in some articles. --Lucius1976 20:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that the countries that made up the German Empire were only dissolved by the Nazi regime. The letter from the Prussian Academy was written in 1933, so it appears that at that point in time Prussia still existed as a separate entity. But your point about dual citizenship is well taken; if you scan that correspondence it appears that "Prussian" and "German" citizenship are used interchangebly. So we might keep it that way as well JdH 22:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

http://www.verfassungen.de/de/de67-18/verfassung71-i.htm. But it is in German. Of course the countries of the German Empire had a significant autonomy, but they weren't seperate entities according to international standards. They had neither a independent foreign policy, defense or currency. So, according to that they weren't seperate entities. --Lucius1976 07:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

"Language skills of European citizens"
At "Language skills of European citizens" of Languages of the European Union there seems to be a mistake in the first table: it mentions Russian, not an official language of the EU. What is more, it mentions only 12 out of the 20 official languages of the EU, without explaining why.--Michkalas 14:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Lucius 1976, I need help
Hello, my name is Max. Half-Russian Half-Jewish from Israel You dont know me, but i have done the current 8-people Russian people photo and the article Russians in Ukraine. I have also made a photo for Ashkenazi Jews: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ashfamo2.JPG

But two people there claimed "its sexist" because it has no wimen, but i judged by contribution not by sex. So they tried to get my picture of by saying there's no licence (But there is) and other lies, and had an edit war against me. Those two now bring many friends there to support there. The root of this war has nothing to do with sexism actually, i just once said to Homo Sapiens he's not the boss so he started this war with many people he has driven their against me. I'm new and have no friends here yet, so i cant bring more people to the Edit-War (I tried to stop it), so i started looking for people who i think will be objective there. I found only three people: Kazak, Murenin C, Lucius 1976, Kuban Kazak, and you four i ask for help (Youre the only intelegent wikipedians i found). There bringing people against me and i'm alone. Now the page is prptected but not for long. The argument is down on the page i will give you, in the "Which Collage?". Please help. heres the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ashkenazi_Jews#Which_collage.3F

M.V.E.i. 16:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of German and Austrian composers
An editor has nominated List of German and Austrian composers, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Your map of the western world
Hello. I was studying your map of the Western World, the areas which you marked in blue as opposed to those in grey. I presume that you created the map, if not, then ignore the final lines, I meanwhile apologise that this is long; but such an assuming hypothesis as that map can inspire 20-volume novels, so this is mild!

I see you've opted to include whole countries rather than sections where there may be variation. Most striking to me is how you have labelled my part of the world, the former Yugoslavia. You placed Slovenia and Croatia in the blue and the rest of the country in the grey. You also marked all surrounding countries blue except for Albania. Looking at that alone, it is clear to see that the map is riddled with inconsistency:

You wisely chose to categorise Greece as a western world country. That is correct, with words such as democracy originating from Greek, it is fitting. However, all of modern-day Republic of Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro and Bosnia were within the Greek sphere of cultural influence, and when they fell to the Ottoman Empire, so did Greek lands. Also loosely connected to Greece are Russia, Belarus and the Ukraine in addition to Georgia, Armenia and Moldova, largely through the Orthodox Chruch. Although the whole concept is imaginary (I do accept that), some citizens from the high profile regions liked to envisage a "western world" which meant Christianity and Judaism as opposed to Islam. As such, the practice of Orthodoxy cannot lie outside of the former, there is nothing that Jews and Protestants have in common which excludes Orthodox believers.

Then there is Communism. The pro-Washington states of post-WWII were long viewed as the economic west, when this was the case, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia were all part of the Soviet Union. Likewise, Croatia and Slovenia were a part of Yugoslavia, and that country was non-allined for that matter, neither west, nor east. Since independence, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia as well as Slovenia have all joined NATO and the EU. This might cause some to think "they've taken a turn for the 'west'"; in so far as that is true, so have the other former Soviet and Yugoslav republics. Since the fall of communism they all took steps to paint their new lands in "western" colour despite widespread critisisms towards the early statesmen such as Franjo Tuđman, Slobodan Milošević, Vladimír Mečiar, Milan Kučan, Boris Yeltsin, Lech Wałęsa etc. Furthermore, Macedonia is alongside Croatia a candidate for the EU, others are expected to announce candidacy. One indication is their participation in organisations such as CEFTA, a sort of preliminary before being condemned to the EU. The point is that no organisation wishing to remain outside of the EU will join that body, just like the former BAFTA.

If you believe NATO signifies the "western world", I'll first remind you that its first two initials pertain not only to the northern hemisphere, but to countries either side of the given ocean. This automaticly removes a number of states from the blue. As for the grey countries, several have applied to join NATO; most are notable as they are signatory to Partnership for Peace. Nine members of this body have joined NATO since 2004. Macedonia has on more than one occasion been rejected (naming dispute being a reason), but since it is continuing to cooperate with the bigger sharks, as well as continuing to apply, it is unjust to rule Romania as a western country simply because its venture has hitherto been more successful. Note also, that Islamic Turkey is also a NATO member, a staunch ally of the USA which has since 1924 used the Roman alphabet (not even a prerequistite looking at Greece), and done everything to realline itself to the rest of the west for the past century (except relinquishing its religion); that said, there are Christian Turks, as well as other Christian ethnic groups living in Turkey, but I still await some scholar to satisfactorally explain to me what Judaism and Christianity have in common which exlcudes Islam. Turkey was a fully established member of NATO long before the arrival of the former Communist republics. To this end, I should also stress that Turkey is alongside Macedonia and Croatia, an EU candidate. Switzerland however, is not.

Question for you: what do the following countries have in common? Switzerland, Finland, Lichtenstein, Austria, Norway, Malta, Iceland, Republic of Ireland, Cyprus and Sweden? The answer: they are all deemed an integral part of the western world yet none of them are members of both NATO and the EU; Switzerland and Lichtenstein are members of neither. It seems funny that Slovenia and Hungary need to "come on board" and cleanse themselves of their "unwestern" past by joining every club associated with the connotation, and yet here you have a list of countries whose population openly choose not to join both VIP clubs. Iceland's governing Independence Party is openly opposed the the EU, whilst Finland's president Tarja Halonen held onto the presidency in 2006 because of opponent Sauli Niinistö's pro-NATO ideology proving unpopular for the "western" Finns.

As for Malta, it even withdrew from Partnership for Peace, but it hasn't been taken off the "western world" list.

When Croatia advocated an independent state during World War II, its frontmen critisised the "eastern" half of the former Kingdom of Yugoslavia as being "poisoned" by years of Ottoman rule whilst to the west, the catholic congregation was involved with the Republic of Venice, and the Austrian and Hungarian kingdoms. In fact, the position of our Slavic nations within these entities was one of subjugation. Though there were times when our people expressed a desire to be ruled by one as an alternative to the other, either by openly supporting it or by fleeing towards it during onslaughts, they never opted for an overlord when independence was an option. Furthermore, if you check the European historical atlases for the middle ages - for instance, jumping forward 30 years with each page - you'll find that borders were radically redrawn. The Ottoman Empire at its zenith conquered territories deep within the "western world" whilst Austria-Hungary, a western ambassador, increasingly moved southward and "eastward". Venice also had its finest hour when it controlled the whole of the eastern Adriatic and the Greek islands, that means Albania's coast too.

And as you can see from the test results: the surviving ethnic groups all choose self-determination, and they all face "westward". Even if you take the Ukraine which looks to many split between a pro-European western half and a pro-Moscow eastern half. Post Cold-War Moscow may have its differences with the bulk of European governments, but it too has never-the-less introduced measures which have redirected Russia towards the "west", and is in any case, a country with close ties to the USA. My point here is that it is folly to use minor political differences regarding Moscow to state that Russia is "outside" of the western world, particularly if its non-Orthodox European former partners are within it.

But just for a moment, I'd like to go back to the Ottoman Empire; presumably a phenomenon giving some to believe that areas formerly controlled by it are "outside of western culture". I'd like to draw your attention to the other imporant historical factor, Ancient Rome and its trademark Latin language and script. Do you know that the southern parts of present-day Italy, Spain and Portugal all have an Islamic past? Did you know that the Moorish people controlled much of Spain and Portugal for 800 years? Did you know that this lasted well into the 15th century? Have you ever seen the Arabesque look to Malaga and Granada, how even the churches bare Arabian patterns? Have you counted the number of Arabic and Arabian-inspired loanwords in Spanish and Portuguese? Have you eaten food in Siciliy or explored the culture of Southern Italy? Have you listened to traditional music from these regions and heard the marvelous Arabian overtones? Do you know that there are countless preserved mosques in these regions? And do you know that only repressive regimes in the respective countries down the years are responsible for why today the territories seem to be "Muslim free among locals". Interesting stories if you ever wish to explore them. Do you also know that the Turkish peoples were forcefully Islamised by Arab invaders, and that the "easternisation" of the Balkans (which includes Cyprus and Greece) is by definition, second-hand, unlike Moorish Spain.

And what about the Roman alphabet? Copied from the Etruscans who copied their from the Greeks. Was it not Greek from which Cyrillic was derived? Either way, hold the "western fantasy" because even the Greek alphabet derived from "eastern" Phonecian, a Semitic script; hence the irrelevant Greek names for the letters (eg Sigma, Delta) are nothing more than Hellenisisations of the original Semitic where by the originals Shimek and Dalet bore actual meanings and were used for objects whose initial sound was represented by the letter. The "West" has never produced a writing system of its own from scratch.

To that end, the only thing that the grey areas of Bosnia, Albania, Montenegro, Serbia and Macedonia have in common is that they are all involuntary non-EU and non-NATO members whose ancestors were ruled by the Ottomans for a time and later hosted Communist systems...but are not Catholic (Croatia escapes). Silly sounding enough?

Now not to mention the Balkans any more, I wish to draw your attention to one more feature of the map and its highlighted areas: Australia, New Zealand and South Africa are marked as being "west". Is that just because English is a first language and they have significant white populations? If not, and the purpose is more "economical" then I should also advise you that Japan, South Korea and Singapore are all self-sufficient and economically successful lands.

I see South America is also marked in blue. That continent thrives with hundreds of indigenous races; there is a somewhat European element based on earlier conquest by the Spanish, Portuguese, British, Dutch etc. One ensuing result is that these have become official languages in Latin America. However, this was the case for much of the world: English remains an official language of India, and the official language of one of its states, Nagaland. But what can be said of South America can also be said of the whole of Africa. Only Ethiopia survived the Scramble for Africa, and the Europeans did to Africa as they did to Latin America, and today, all Sub-Saharan African countries use a colonial language as an official language. As indigenous languages such as Bantu and Swahili have gained importance with their population's independence, this has also been reflected in South America, such as in Paraguay with the Guaraní language. As for political persuasion, it should be borne in mind that Africa's leaders are split as to whether they are pro- or anti-Washington, and the same is of Latin America. First there were the evil presidentés with their right-wing regimes, then they fell from favour with the Whitehouse, then they were replaced, and now, this "western" chunk of the world is slowly annoying the Whitehouse again with its recent installation of socialist governments. The most recent is the election victory of Fernando Lugo in Paraguay, to add to Evo Morales and Hugo Chavez.

The map as it stands is blatantly misleading, and it panders to the prejudice of many political heavyweights. I would suggest revising it, giving it more detail perhaps, adding more colours to reflect more features, because the concept is rigidly defined. You cannot possibly paint the globe in two tones and say "this is west, that isn't". As you can see, there is nothing that the blue countries have in common with each other which excludes all grey countries. In fact that there is nothing the blue countries all share in common anyway, nor the grey. Apologies for the long-winded note. Evlekis (talk) 10:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)