User talk:Caspian Karazai

Recent spacing edit
I see where you removed the paragraph break I put into your text. That is okay with me, for it is your text. The reason I split that paragraph in particular is because there was a definite break in the thought since the story has a three century break in it at that point. It is assumed that Tibet fared well for that period and only came under opposition after the rise of modern China. If this is not what you had in mind, then the whole section does not make much sense. SouthWriter 14:26, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

Naming Conventions and Category tags
Recently I attempted a category tag on your Tibetan Empire article, but the fact that you have named your articles with the parenthetical (CivCiv5) - your user name - meant that the article does not qualify for a category tag as such. Consequently, the "Asian Countries" tag was removed by Lordganon.

I would suggest that you remove the "(CivCiv5)" from the name and branch out with articles linked back to the main page. These could be specialized pages of emporers and Dali Lamas, as well as various aspects of the alternate world situation. These articles could then be entitled things like "China (Tibetan Empire)," and so on.

Of course, you could create an article called something like "Alternate Civilization" to which each article could be linked. Then you could have "Tibetan Empire (Alternate Civilization)." Otherwise, the "(CivCiv5)" on your articles just causes confusion. SouthWriter (talk) 02:12, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with SouthWriter, and you still continue to do the same. Doctor261 ''' (Talk to Doctor261) 16:00, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

?
How and where do you get maps like the one of the soviet union in new union.

Care to join the World at War map game? o3oAltHistoryGeek (talk) 22:02, December 28, 2012 (UTC)

Byzantine flag


I am just letting you know that I saw your message on your recent upload. I don't believe you would mind, so I created a quick vector version of the Byzantine flag, which has the crosses not stretched out. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 15:23, June 22, 2013 (UTC)

I reverted an edit by Connor2005 on one of the Great Empires pages, as I don't think it is his timeline, and his edit was not in keeping with the timeline, and had the summary 'haha', please revert my reversion if I was wrong to do so Local (talk) 21:41, June 22, 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate
Greetings. Recently, you have uploaded a file on this site that is a duplicate of another. Please keep in mind that many of the files used on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons have also been uploaded to this site &mdash; with all of them having been uploaded under the same file names used on those sites (making it quite easy to locate any files you may need). In the event that the file you acquire has not already been uploaded onto this site, than we highly recommended that you upload the standard file used on Wikipedia and/or Wikimedia Commons as a courtesy to current and future users.

The following uploads have have been removed from this site, and have been replaced with the following correct files:


 * File:OceaniaCoA.png → File:Royal Coat of Arms of the Kingdom of Hawaii.svg

Please try not to let this happen again. Please do not re-upload this file. Disciplinary actions will be taken if duplications continue. Thank you. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 03:40, June 23, 2013 (UTC)

Answer
...You do realize I left a note agreeing with the guy right under that, right?

Civ, in AH the word "wank" is a term used for timelines that are immensely biased in some way, shape, or form.

Your timeline is biased, though I would not have went as far as "wank." You have many empires from throughout history surviving, which can only happen with ASB. It is very biased in their favor.

And yes, this bars it from any chance of being featured.

Lordganon (talk) 12:38, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

You missed the point.

Moreover, that is not the only meaning of the word "empire."

You have many historical states surviving. Simply put, one of them would be plausible. But all of them? No way. The mere fact that some of them exist means that some of the others could not, and others doing it just defies logic.

Just because something can't be featured is not something to fret about. Doesn't mean it's a bad timeline. Some of the most biased ones out there are still some of the best timelines.

Lordganon (talk) 09:08, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

In what dimension did anyone say that you were a "bad writer?" That's not at all true. Hell, I thought it was a good read, myself. No need to overreact. Lordganon (talk) 10:08, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

Definitely overreacting. Lordganon (talk) 13:28, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

Figured that you would come back after calming down ^^

Nothing to apologize for. You took that far better than a lot of people do, quite honestly.

Civ, you're not really getting what I'm saying.

Many of those states quite literally cannot exist together, and a few more are more or less impossible to have survive to the present. That's why it is ASB.

Lordganon (talk) 09:00, July 21, 2013 (UTC)

For many of the states, the only way that they could exist is if the timeline is biased in their favor. And I've noted that it was biased before, didn't need to mention it again ;)

Timelines that are biased in one direction or another fail to meet the "Plausible" and usually the "Neutral" conditions that need to be met for a timeline to be considered to be featured.

About half of the nations you listed either cannot exist at the same time, or could not survive. Couple more are implausibly large, too.

Lordganon (talk) 11:30, July 21, 2013 (UTC)

And? The situation in "Superpowers" is entirely irrelevant to your timeline. For that matter, both of those states covered massive amounts of land otl. It is not a stretch, at all.

Bhutan is without question implausibly large. Tibet would in some ways qualify here too.

More or less impossible for native states to survive in the Americas. 95% death rate from disease = total collapse. And no, there is no way to change that within more than a couple of percentage points, which makes no difference to the result.

Native Federation and USA could not mutually exist.

Not possible for a Mongol Empire to survive in this context, with Russia and others existing.

Not possible for the HRE to remain. Or the P-L Commonwealth.

Roman Empire surviving like that would not happen. Same goes for the Caliphates.

Songhai really could not survive. Same goes for the other African states. There's a very good reason why Ethiopia was the only one to survive otl.

Civ, any possible PoD to get any of these to survive like this means that other states cannot possibly exist. Yet in many cases, you have them existing anyway. Any timeline in which you need to go on a list of semi-random states from history at the start, saying they exist, has this problem.

Sorry, but there is no way it's plausible. Quite literally the only way it could happen is with ASB intervention. And I'm not the only one to say that about it, either.

Remember: Just because it is ASB - and unquestionably so - does not mean that it is bad.

Lordganon (talk) 06:47, July 24, 2013 (UTC)

It is ASB because it is biased. Hence, one and the same.

Actually, Bhutan has never been anywhere remotely that large. That map was drawn based on "word of mouth" by Italians a decade before anyone from Europe arrived in the area, and several decades before anyone in Europe would have heard of that trip. It's a map that they pulled most of the details out of their rear ends. You need to read the article, and look at the map more next time.

Tibet may have been larger in the past, but not remotely that big. Add to that that most of its territory was actually vassal-states, or occupied Chinese territory. There is no way they can maintain either - there is a reason why that large size lasted a decade before China put down a large rebellion and kicked their behinds back to Tibet. It's not getting that big.

That timeline you reference is ASB. And as soon as I have both time, and things cool down somewhat, it will be removed from the list for that reason. It's already marked as such.

The Spanish getting let it has nothing to do with it. 95%+ death rate from disease. Sorry, but there is quite literally no way, whatsoever, that they survive.

20 million? Try one million, who fight among each other, have just survived a disease that killed almost everyone, are concentrated in areas far from the European settlements, and have a technological disadvantage. Add to that things like the number of Europeans going up, and constantly moving west. There is quite literally no way that such a state is possible.

P-L Commonwealth falling had absolutely nothing to do with Napoleon. The last vestiges had been gone for more than a decade by the time he came around. Its government means it falls. And you have strong states on all sides of it, the same ones that split it otl, or near enough. It quite literally cannot survive so long as they exist.

HRE was a dead letter long before Napoleon. It surviving to the present, let alone as anything approaching a unified unit - which, despite common belief, it never was - is impossible.

The only way for China and Russia to exist is to have beaten off the Mongols. Same goes for the Abbasids, and a Tibet Empire. They won't stop such fighting, for revenge if nothing else. The Mongols are also one of the most dysfunctional groups on the face of the earth - after Genghis and Kublai, both of whom had to conquer the other clans to hold power, it was never unified again until he Soviets forced communism on them. Heck, Mongolia is still like that today. Impossible for something to still exist when there is a near-constant civil war going on. Sorry, but it's not going to survive.

Rome and the Abbasids fighting each other, and then the Mongols move in? Especially with all the ethnic groups in both, and tribes in the Arab state? No way those stay intact.

Kenopia has seven neighbors on your map alone. Nor are those groups you have in it going to live in the same state. Heck, they hate each other.

Not going to stop Europeans for a second. Heck, that makes it even easier to conquer.

Impossible for the Songhai to win that. Guns versus spears - do the math. Especially when they have never even seen guns before. The Songhai were massacred by Morocco, with few losses. No chance in Hades. And, to top it all off, that area has/had never been stable - no state lasted long. The modern ones have only lasted with European support.

No, they could not have modernized. Ethiopia sure as heck didn't. They got lucky, and got special treatment for being Christian, and that's it. Had it been anyone other than Italy that moved on them during the Scramble for Africa, they would have been screwed.

Fact of the matter is, in most timelines, Africa is boring.

And, to top it all off, you missed the point entirely: Even worse than the individual cases of bias, you have them all happening at once.

There is no question whatsoever that it is ASB because of bias. I've told you that. Others have told you that. Civ, you need to recognize that it is.

I do believe that I'm done talking about it now, Civ.

Lordganon (talk) 11:50, July 27, 2013 (UTC)

Fact of the matter is, Civ, that history is a bit Eurocentric. Really though, that's not the problem with that timeline.

Keep writing it. Still worth reading, remember.

Lordganon (talk) 06:41, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

You're seriously taking this way overboard. Allow me to explain. For Vegetarian World, Superpowers,  Ætas ab Brian,  and Chaos, the POD is way before the discovery of the Americas or the Spanish conquests. For the most part, they don't even have Spains. These timelines are all very fleshed out, well written, and have lots and lots of detail. Hell, one of our best timelines is ASB.

Also, even if you don't get featured, hard work can land you a spot in the Stirlings.

19:30, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

What SS said, plus those ones do not, in fact, have the content you claimed. Lordganon (talk) 09:57, July 31, 2013 (UTC)

Sigh...

Way to not read any of what SS said. Or what I've been saying, quite frankly.

Or those articles/timelines, for that matter. One of those outright says that it was conquered.

I did not once say that it was "meaningless."

Have now had enough of this - don't want to hear of it again.

Lordganon (talk) 07:16, August 1, 2013 (UTC)