User talk:Caeruleus



Mitro 15:44, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Asia for the Asiatics!!
Ever read ''Sixth Column? ''Sounds a lot like your ATL. BoredMatt 13:24, June 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * I've heard of it, but it will be nothing like that. The Sixth Column involves the conquest of America by a United Asia, and it is told in an extremely racist way. My ATL is more just about Japan winning World War II, in a less brutal way than OTL, and having a independent, democratic Asia in late 1940s that goes on to become the third superpower in the Cold War and a major economic engine for the world.

Caeruleus 13:35, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

Sultanate of Turkey (1983: Doomsday)
Your contribution to 1983: Doomsday is looking pretty good. I have started grounds to graduate it in the next day if no other objections interfere. My only problem is the amount of land it controls. If you could tone it down just a bit, then I think it'll be okay. Arstarpool 03:24, June 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll try to tone down the rapid expansion a bit then. Thank you though. Caeruleus 18:11, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Any final objections to graduation for my article? Caeruleus 22:09, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Did you tone it down? I've seen the map, and it pretty much controls all of Turkey. You should keep it at the southern end, and just slowly add more land in over time, and by time I mean real time. Arstarpool 16:59, July 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * The map is a 2010 map. They expand to control all of Turkey over the course of 25 years and several wars. Caeruleus 17:01, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

That new Med. map is good, though it may be a good idea to not have Egypt have such a flat western border.

Lordganon 09:54, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

That's its OTL border and there's no reason why that would change, unless they've expanded into Libya to which I'm unaware. Caeruleus 20:06, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

It's not written anywhere, but if you look at the map on the Egypt page you'll see the Egyptians have made some lakes inside the OTL Libyan borders. At any rate, as far as I can remember, while the Egyptians have given up rights to Southeast/East Libya, they did control the region at one point.

Lordganon 10:46, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Mitro has now graduated the Sultanate. Kudos!

Lordganon 14:04, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

Assistance
Hey, dude, I need your help, I think Macedonia is about to enter the canon, but Mitro says I need proof that Alexander had access to a bunker, I need you, or sombeody else who you think can, to help me, please and thanks. Ownerzmcown 03:20, August 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Seriously? Just tell him you assume as such because most deposed monarchs have access to substantial funds and a small entourage that tries to ensure their safety. If that doesn't work, just ell him you made it up. It's impossible to account for every detail in history, especially in a non-professional situation like this. Caeruleus 03:39, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Hey
Hey if you can could you vote on the main talk page of the site on the issue at the bottom of the page.

PS:Turkey is looking much better now. Arstarpool 02:29, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

I assume you were talking about the future map section?

So, graduation soon then? Caeruleus 02:59, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

No, the main page of the site, not 1983DD. Please vote on that issue if you may, as it involves me, but vote honestly.

If nobody objects than I assume Turkey will be canon around 1-5 days from now. Arstarpool 03:37, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Great. Caeruleus 04:17, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

A Warning from a friend
I have read on 4 seperate talk pages that you have been, err, kind of not-so-nice to some of our users, one of them being me. As somebody who defended your Sultanate of Turkey I would tread lightly when speaking bad to other users, because I could easily withdraw my support. As a member of the TSPTF, even though I am a mere "constable" it is my duty to watch out for rude behavior and/or mean words.

I am not saying that you are being mega-mean, but I just noticed a couple of sharp comments to people, especially Mr. Xeight. Just make sure this behavior comes to a standstill, okay? I'm just trying to help, thats all. Arstarpool 00:07, August 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * I tell them I think they're wrong, as I said to you. If they choose to take personal offense, that's their own prerogative. People have said the same to me, and I take no offense to that. It's intellectual criticism, that is all. Though, since you seem to be midly bothered by this, I'll attempt to lighten up. Caeruleus 03:05, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not mildly bothered, but I just don't want what happened to me to happen to you. Believe me, its hard to get sleep when I was facing expulsion and it was for a moderately higher version of your remarks. Arstarpool 03:21, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you then. Caeruleus 03:27, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you then. Caeruleus 03:27, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Negotiations
Well, Caeruleus, after contemplation of our interactions, I've come to the reality that it was I who was the bad guy here, not you. You are trying for the best, that's all. Thought it's always hard, I would like to apologize to you. That's why I'd like to propose we "fix" some things.
 * The settlements near Rhodes were meant to be a few villages of less than one thousand citizens each, not a territory the size of Maine (or Texas on some maps), it was only when I saw an expansionistic Turkey on my border that I expanded the borders (or rather kept my mouth silent when they were shown to be much larger than I ever dreamed of or wanted). I'd be willing to peacefully return them to Turkey.
 * While Greece and Turkey were at odds with each other for centuries, if not a millenia. In the Modern Era Turkey and Greece are putting behind their differences for the most part (or at least trying to), and surprisingly, a Turkish citizen told me once that even the citizens of Constantinople are starting to look back at their East Roman heritage and look at the Young Turk Movement as a movement of the last generation. So, things might not be as bad as jingoists make them seem. Now, Doomsday is going to involve a rather give-and-take kind of thing, and perhaps Turkey would be willing to share European Thrace (maybe a small nub of Bythinia, but even I doubt so) with Rhodope, Macedonia, and Greece. Constantinople and Edirne are semi-radioative ruins, and the instability of the area would be incredibly tragic, and not even Turkey would be able to administer it alone (nor would Greece to be honest in the long run). If it shares the burden (and the benefits), then things might not be so bad for everyone involved. While in the modern era Thrace is firmly Turkish, it was at one time Greek-speaking and still the home of the Bishop of Constantinople, as you know the most influential of bishops of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. That would be Turkey's give and take.
 * I can move those approximately 5-12 thousand villagers to the Thracian-Reclamation Zone to get them out of your hair.
 * While the suffering both groups and empires suffered at the other's hands will never be forgotten, perhaps they can be for the most part forgiven. The Delian League (the most liberal of the states) and the Republic of the Holy Mountain (by far the most spiritual) would be willing to push forth an apology letter to attrocities committed on the Turks and Jews of Greece by the Greek people.
 * I'd willing to condominiumize Cyprus as well; although Greek Cypriots might be the majority, they're the only ethnicity in the area.
 * If say Turkey would gain a grudging respect and even friendly relations with Greece, it might perhaps feel inclined to join the Second Sicily War and if and when the ADC wins the Tunisian Territory of Sicily might go under Turkish administration; afterall, who would the Muslim Tunisians prefer? Greeks, ADC'ers (all of which are Europeans), or Turks?

What do you say, care to change history? It might not be encouraged, but it can be done. Mr.Xeight 00:11, August 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well this is certainly an interesting proposal. I'll consider. Though, first the article has to be officially graduated before any true negotiation can begin. Any help you can give in clearing any remaining opposition would be greatly appreciated. Caeruleus 00:34, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Second Empire of Trabzon
I completed a highly-detailed, long, article on the Second Empire of Trabzon, digging through all your sources in the Sultanate of Turkey (1983: Doomsday) article and the Eastern Turkish Wasteland (1983: Doomsday) page to help create the history of the nominal successor state to Greek Trebizond. I hope you are satisfied and if you feel there is anything with the page that needs revising, message me about it. I would like to hear what you think. --Emperor of Trebizond 01:22, August 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * I love it. Good work. See the article's talk page for more. Caeruleus 01:59, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Do you think the Second Empire of Trabzon should have the same flag as the first Empire of Trebizond? It would be an interesting little detail about the empire that connects it to the old Byzantine state. Maybe, we could also change the original Greek flag a little by adding a crescent in the center for the new Trabzon nation.--Emperor of Trebizond 13:43, August 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea. Caeruleus 15:45, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

State of Elazig
After much consideration, I have decided to offer to continue in my project for the Eastern Turkish Wasteland states. I would like to write an article on the State of Elazig as of current. If you approve, I will write it and put as much work into it as I did into the Second Empire of Trabzon.--Emperor of Trebizond 01:38, August 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Go ahead. I look forward to see what you come up with. Caeruleus 01:45, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

I started work on the State of Elazig (1983: Doomsday) article. Tell me how you like it so far. I expect to be finished completely with it before the week is up.--Emperor of Trebizond 02:33, September 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * I like it. However, I imagined the State of Elazig as slightly less brutal and somewhat democratic in the upper classes, but it is your article. You may do with it what you wish. It is good nonetheless. Nice work once again. Caeruleus 04:03, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of the finished 'State of Elazig article? If you see any corrections that need to be made or inconsistent continuity problems, please contact me and I will change them.--Emperor of Trebizond 16:15, September 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * You should remove the references to Georgian, Armenian, and Soviet leaders as part of the state. Elazig is too far away from the front to enable them to reach the area in order to join the government. Other than that, the article is great. Good work once again. Caeruleus 17:06, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand. I already corrected that problem. I wrote out the Soviet references and wrote into the finished article that the Turkish troops agreed to a ceasefire on the front, then spent days retreating back through Turkey to reach a stable zone, Elazig. They didn't take any of the Russian, Georgian, and Armenian commanders with them. --Emperor of Trebizond 17:13, September 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm...I must have read it wrong. You did remove those references, so the article is fine. Caeruleus 17:36, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

Iraq Discussions
I wanted to let you know I got back from vacation last week. However, I have been spending some time addressing long overdue areas on my Delmarva article. This though does not preclude us from beginning our discussion on Iraq. I have been reading the Iraq page and noting the discussions of the last several days. Per our earlier conversation, I just wanted to confirm it will only be us writing the article in case any inquiries come your way. Given how long it takes to communicate in here at times, I was wondering if there was any way quicker we could exchange thoughts. If you have any suggestions, let me know. Thanks.--Fxgentleman 00:56, September 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Set a time, and we can try to meet up on the Althist Wiki IRC. Or we can exchange emails? And yes, it will just be us writing this article. Caeruleus 01:59, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

I have an alternate suggestion if you are willing. Are you familiar with Skype and the ability to talk live via webcam? I have an account and it would allow us to talk in real time. All you would have to do is have a webcam, mike, and an account, which is free to download and set-up. We could set a time, you log in, and I contact you. If you are interested, let me know. Thanks.--Fxgentleman 23:02, September 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * My Skype is mcason15. Add me. Just tell me who you are when you do. Caeruleus 23:23, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I am on US east coast time so around 8 or 9 PM is good for me. I will be available tonight, Sept 11, if your schedule is open. Let me know if the time is good for you, I will check back later. If not we can reschedule. Thanks. --Fxgentleman 22:00, September 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * Tonight is fine. Caeruleus 23:38, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Concern Over Turkish Map
I had the opportunity to take a look at the new maps you have posted concerning Turkey and I have some concerns. As I previously mentioned a few times, I have been working on creating a new state in eastern Syria, Al Jazerra, and recently posted some new work in that area. Your latest map will conflict with what I am doing. The borders of the revised Syria (i.e. Al Jezerra) adhere to its pre-war borders with Turkey and Iraq, the exception being its western border. This runs just west of Euphrates River from its pre-war northern border to its pre-war southern border. I have a map I have been working on and will post it to my Syria article this evening. If you want to discuss this, please let me know and we can talk tonight. Thanks.--Fxgentleman 12:56, September 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Make the map of Al Jezerra and I'll edit my map accordingly to account for the existent of your state. Caeruleus 20:20, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

I have posted my map in the Syria article. Anything outside this area in the north, I have no problem with Turkey claiming. Thanks.--Fxgentleman 23:31, September 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * I adjusted my Turkey map. I'll adjust the Kurdistan map too. Caeruleus 00:10, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I know at some point we will need to get back together and discuss Iraq and Kurdistan. I have just been to busy lately to do that much. However, I have not forgotten.--Fxgentleman 00:44, September 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay. Whenever is fine. I've adopted Kurdistan and Assyria, so we can write the Iraq article however we wish. Caeruleus 01:23, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Re:Middle East Geopolitics
Hey Caer, I apologize for not getting back to you sooner, real world problems are always time-consuming. Well, so was New Vegas, but anyhow,... The first option seems to be the most plausible, IMO. Out of curiosity, what are your plans for Iraq in the long run?--Vladivostok 16:00, November 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't worry. New Vegas is a perfectly legitimate real world problem.


 * As of now, the plan for Iraq is to have it divide into less than 6 states with it possibly consolidating into as little as 3 by 2010. There will be a GSU intervention in the south. A remnant of Saddam's government will continue to control Baghdad and most of central Iraq. The rest is a bit fluid, but that's the basics. Feel free to contribute any ideas. We haven't had a lot of time to work on it, so changes can still be made.


 * If you want to go with option 1 that I posted previously, I would assume it would arise over tensions between Turkey and Kurdistan. And how do we want the conflict to evolve? Should it resort to open warfare or stay as just a Cold War? And would there be any cooperation between Turkey and Iran in regards to opposing Siberian expansion or ANZC/ADC interference in regional affairs, since there would be some aligning interests in opposing both? Caeruleus 18:46, November 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * I was gonna say that Black Ops kept me from writting back, but that game is too short for it to be a legitimate excuse. I just didn't see this, sorry once again.


 * If it's still not too late, I was thinking of a few things. Iran definately opposes foreign involvement in the region, as well as Kurdistan. Pakistan's relations with the SAC are troubling and that needs to be looked into, seeing as the original contributor has been gone for a while now. Yes, I do think it would happen over Kurdistan, maybe even over Iraq between the GSU and Iran. The question is, how does Turkey feel about letting Kurdistan go for good? I highly doubt that Kurdistan would give up its new found freedom.

Black Ops is a great game, so I wouldn't fault you there either.

At the moment, Kurdistan is at the bottom of Turkey's priorities. First is probably Greece, which is followed by Trabzon. After the reconquest of Thrace and Trabzon would be when Turkish attention would turn to Kurdistan. So that gives Iran and Turkey 5-10 years where no major conflicts would arise. However, after that grace period, Turkey would want to regain Kurdistan. The only way I see Turkey letting Kurdistan go is if it had regained the rest of its territory, the Turkish population of Kurdistan was very low (less than 25% probably), and any war to regain the territory would be messy and unwinnable. Eventually though, I could see Turkey giving up on it (probably around 2025-2030), especially if it made major territorial gains elsewhere, like Bulgaria or Georgia.

Since Turkey and Iran both would oppose foreign intervention in the region, what level of cooperation could you see? I think they would cooperate until Kurdistan moved back onto Turkey's radar for sure. The most realistic scenario in my opinion is this: Iran agrees to convince the MLA to end their activities in Turkey, Bosnia, Syria, and Azerbaijan. In exchange, Turkey will give political, and possibly monetary, support to Iran/MLA efforts in Central Asia and give full political support to any effort to keep and ADC or ANZC out of the Middle East. Caeruleus 23:37, November 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hm, well I see an alliance out of convenience then. Would Kurdistan be a part of this alliance then? I doubt that Iran would want to leave them out of it. As for the support to the MLA's cause... Well, the MLA would actually need to continue working in these places, if it were to hurt the ANZC and ADC, as muslim countries would be a good place to look for new recruits and these countries are close to/in Europe. Iran would not attack these alliances directly, of course, the MLA would do all the work. If it were Siberia, I suppose that, when they eventually reach the Iranian border, a direct conflict might occur. Although I'll most likely take Siberia down a northern route first, reaching Soviet Karelia first, and then going after Central Asia much later.--Vladivostok 12:16, November 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think it would be a formal alliance, but more of a tacit understanding. And I suppose MLA operations in the countries I mentioned would be okay as long as they didn't subvert the governments of those nations. Also, expanded MLA operations in Greek Egypt and Libya would be received warmly by Turkey.


 * When Siberia attempts to expand further into Central Asia, I would expect a Iranian-Pakistani military offensive to block their expansion. Iran and Pakistan can compete directly with Siberia, so I could see Iran and Pakistan dividing Afghanistan between them and then expanding into Central Asia. Iran would probably conquer Turkmenistan for example. Not to mention the MLA will be much stronger in the area by the time Siberia arrives. And Turkey would support any anti-Siberian offensives made by Iran in Central Asia probably (even if Kurdistan became an issue). Caeruleus 19:24, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

IMO, I don't think it's wise to piss off nations with nuclear missiles unafraid to use them against pariah states. But, for the time being, the USSR will not forcefully enter Central Asia. As for the MLA, well, if Turkey has supplies, the MLA will blow things up. And since there is no real war on terror outside of Siberia and Central Asia, their first attacks would catch targets totally off-guard.--Vladivostok 21:13, November 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Siberia would use its nukes? Ouch. Although, Turkey has a few pre-Doomsday American nuclear weapons that were salvaged that it could use for its own defense. And I assume Iran would have a nuclear program as in OTL? Except most of the world wouldn't know about it and even less would care. Caeruleus 21:30, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if push came to shove, they'd most likely use at least tactical nukes. Iran would most likely try to keep its program a secret, but I disagree with the notion that no one would care. I think people would care even more TTL.--Vladivostok 23:16, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

Possibly. Nuclear proliferation would pretty much be dead post-Doomsday because of the greater number of nations that would have them though. And only the ADC and ANZC would impose major sanctions since, like OTL, the nations of South America and Africa aren't really into that kind of thing. Caeruleus 23:27, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, now just to recap what we have essentially agreed upon:


 * Bosnia is a close ally of Turkey.
 * Iran and Turkey have a mutual understanding and cooperation, but not a true alliance.
 * Relations between Turkey and Kurdistan are still icy, but at least they have some diplomatic relations
 * The MLA has some support from Turkey and is allowed to operate in friendly countries. Turkey can suggest targets to the organization in return and no subversive activity is to transpire on friendly territory, unless it is against a common enemy.
 * Possible reaction to Siberian movement is to be agreed upon if there is an overt threat. Well, at least greater than now.


 * Can we agree on these points?--Vladivostok 15:53, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Caeruleus 22:13, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

Bosnia
Oh, I forgot. I just recently noticed that Turkey and Bosnia have had a warm political relationship. How strong would you say the level of cooperation is between the two? Bosnia could certainly use some allies.--Vladivostok 22:01, November 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd say relations would be pretty strong. Since they're surrounded by some fairly unfriendly neighbors, I think they'd have a full military alliance with all the perks. There could even be a Turkish military base in the country already or a planned one by 2020. And Bosnia would probably be a top foreign destination for Turkish investors. Caeruleus 23:27, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ok, as far as I'm concerned, they can already have a temporary military/diplomatic base in Sarajevo, with a new one being built in the countryside. Not really sure that Bosnia has anything to offer Turkey, other than a forward base in Europe.--Vladivostok 12:22, November 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Bosnia would be a good place to invest in probably. Though the most important thing to Turkey would probably be the fact that from Bosnia they can directly pressure Serbia and other Balkan nations.


 * Also, do you think Croatia would have any major relations with Turkey? And how is the whole Croatia-Serbia rivalry working out? Caeruleus 19:26, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

Well, Croatia is always looking for economic partnership, although anything other than that would not happen. the rivalry is being worked out, as the Serbian article is still not canon. I assume relations are like in the OTL, but tensions are slightly more pronounced on a personal level between the nations.--Vladivostok 21:15, November 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay. Since that relationship would kind of define Balkan politics, I was wondering how it was working out. But everything Bosnia looks good. Caeruleus 21:30, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

Graduating 1983DD Articles
Caer there is more to graduating an article than simply removing the proposal template. You also need to archive the article's talk section on the main discussion page. Simply copy and delete the section and add the copied text to the archive. Then you need to update the list of new content on 1983: Doomsday. Please do not expect others to do this for you. Mitro 19:20, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know how to archive stuff. I'll take care of it now. Thanks! Caeruleus 19:25, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Trabzon War
I intend to let the Turkish Sultanate take Trabzon in late 2011-early 2012. We should use the same story and text as before, except we change the year dates. --Emperor of Trebizond 21:16, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Caeruleus 17:34, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Rise of Babel
Hi, I made some changes to the "Rise of Babel" page to reflect the discussion. I hid your paragraphs on "Difference from OTL" because my version words much the same thing in a bit more "neutral" language. I tried to say the same thing, but leave the time line open to God to act as He will in a changed world. I made it clear that mankind would indeed suceed beyond its wildest dreams, but left out the Utopian notion that all problems would be solved in the process.

Knowing human nature, Asimov (an atheist) presented a picture based on 10,000 years (but starting with our world as it is today). Disease, death and dissention did not "go away" as mankind became the master of its domain. Any time line that assumes that is simplistic and unrealistic. Besides, they are boring to develope. :-)

To a successful time line! SouthWriter 20:26, February 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * I like what you've added so far. Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of time to review everything so I'll get back to you on more specifics later. 64.20.198.210 23:54, February 24, 2011 (UTC) <--was me Caeruleus 02:25, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

MDL
He Caelruleus, I know we haven't talked in a while, I just wanted your opinion on an idea I had, what if the MDL sponsored their major military based companies to work in a kind of conglomerate? Ownerzmcown 00:14, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's been a while. That sounds like a good idea to me. So basically it would be joint military development right? It could strengthen the MDL defense industry and make it more advance and competitive internationally. Caeruleus 05:12, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

Iraq
Thought I'd leave you a note here saying that it has now been graduated - but you must get the "fill in the blank" sections filled out soon. Lordganon 08:51, June 7, 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Caeruleus 14:57, June 7, 2011 (UTC)

Buganda
I would like to make any of the Ugandan nations part of your community. LG, however is right; the Ugandan states are in part dictatorships, albeit benevolent ones. Fed (talk) 20:19, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

Probably Buganda (#2 in the map) and Ankole (#1). Busoga (#4) is a tribal federation, so I guess they would also be pretty democratic. However, it's either Buganda or Busoga, since the two can't stand each other. Fed (talk) 03:54, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

I'd guess Ankole then or both in observer status. I think preferably Ankole. Fed (talk) 04:21, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

I'd think ~2003, which is when I plan for Busoga to normalize relationships with Buganda, would be optimal. Fed (talk) 04:33, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

There hasn't been any yet; I'm starting to write them today. Fed (talk) 17:03, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Libya and Japan
Yes feel free to adopt the articles, just please remember Japans new Emperor is due to be crowned at the end of September and Libya's a defuncted nation.

apart from that feel free to add anything to them --Smoggy80 15:30, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

I've had an idea, there is a small city state in southern Algeria called Tamahaq, it's right on the corner border of Niger, Algeria and Libya, if Louis lets me i'm going to expand it from inside Algeria into Northern former Niger. But it could also take over a bit of southern Libya also, maybe up to the border with Egypt? would that be ok?

--Smoggy80 17:40, January 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * Tamahaq would be a Toureg state, so they could expand into Toureg-inhabited areas of western Libya. These are the purple areas on the demographics map on the Libya page. It can't expand up to the Egyptian border because beyond the Toureg lands are the Tebou, who would not submit to the Toureg easily. Any expansion into southwestern Libya would have to be a recent development though that occurred through mutual agreement, not conquest. Caeruleus 18:32, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

I'll do a rough map and get back to you--Smoggy80 18:12, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

Something like this look ok?

--Smoggy80 18:23, February 3, 2012 (UTC)


 * That looks acceptable to me. Keep me updated on your progress and let me know if you need to know anything else.


 * And just so you know, the Libyan Toureg have a less than friendly view of the Greeks and Egyptians since they held such a prominent position in Gadhafi's Libya. I wasn't planning on anything violent or purposely hostile, but just keep that in mind when writing the article. Also, I was planning for the Toureg tribes to have reasonably friendly relations relations with the other tribal confederacies in eastern Libya. I'll get around to writing about those soon, hopefully. Caeruleus 19:33, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the support.
Cae, I just wanted to say thanks for the support. You raised some excellent points as well which have been bugging me in addition to what I spoke about. I am very disappointed at how LG vehemently dismissed my arguments as basically implausible and ridiculous. I did my customary research on the subject, which I am in fact still doing, and would love to know what sources he is referencing since everything I have read lends credence to my thoughts. I honestly believe this was one of those issues which was overlooked or misunderstood early by the creators and needs to be addressed if we want to continue our principle regarding plausibility. Thanks again. --Fxgentleman 01:33, October 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * Your welcome. It's an issue that's been bothering me for sometime as well. It finally looks like we might get a good discussion on this issue too. Caeruleus 13:49, October 13, 2011 (UTC)

Graduating Protocol
You need to follow protocol before graduating things, espcailly when there is still objections. They have been reversed until you do both. Lordganon 01:35, October 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * What objections? Your objections were all satisfied, or so I believed. And no one else said anything. Caeruleus 17:33, October 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * I just reviewed the article and was very impressed. I commented on the main discussion page in support of the article as is. However, you did not specifically deal with the question of how things would go differently with lack of US intervention in the drought and famine in the desert in northwest. It is possible, for example, that the Moi regime would just ignore those on the borders of less prosperous nations. He might only go to war if the profitable resources of the nation were at risk. If you get another supporter, however, LG's objection can be over-ridden. I'd say, though, that graduating this against his objections is not the preferred route. SouthWriter 18:48, October 22, 2011 (UTC)

No, you did not satisfy them. At all. You have entirely failed to do anything about your Kenya article in the regard I noted.

Not only that, but you entirely failed to follow the graduation guidelines and ask for objections again. That is not the first time you have tried/done that, and you need to do it.

Lordganon 02:43, October 23, 2011 (UTC)

AftA
I like your work in Asia for the Asiatics!! :D Imperium Guy 22:53, November 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Caeruleus 01:54, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Libya
I've been following the disscussions on the main talk page about the changes you have done to the Libya page, and the fact that it is now under review because of changes you have made.

As the original author, I must say that all nations, apart from Egypt, Cyrenieca and Tamahaq, must be removed. They are highly implausable and as I told you when you adopted Libya was and is, a defunt nation. This was due to any habitable land already being taken (mainly by Cyrenicea). If you do not remove all reference to these other impossible 'nations' I will un-adopt the page and retake it as mine again.

--Smoggy80 20:29, February 20, 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is only under review because of LG's pettiness, not any actual problem with the article. As of now, the article need not be changed. As I explain elsewhere, the areas outside Egypt, Cyrenaica, and Tamahaq are inhabited. As a result, some form of organization, focused around the various tribes, would emerge. You had previously agreed with such assumptions in our previous discussions. I gave these tribal entities names and rough borders in order to clarify the nature of western Libya. If you require further explaination or wish to bring up more specific points with which you disagree, I am happy to discuss those with you. Caeruleus 20:36, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

Inhabitied yes, if you could possibly count small villages of maybe 100 people, and may be only 10-15 of these in these areas of desert, organisation - seriously unlikely they are more likely to be subsistance farmers or traders. Remember that in the mid 80's there were catastophic droughts in the Sahara, most people would have headed for the coast.

LG brought up a good point about this, he was not being petty he was being realistic, having organised city states or nations in high desert is unlikely at best, but more probably totally impossible, remember just because they are of the same tribe does not automatically mean they like each other, in fact it may be that neighbouring villages will be fighting for the same resources such as water or trade, if anything its more likely that they would be in competition with each other, or even attacking each other rather than organising into trade organisations or city states.

In the same way tribes would be suffering from in fighting, then fighting between the differing tribes would be even worse!

There would be no organisation in inland Libya, most probably it would be sparsely populated (approx 1500 people total) with fighting between tribes, villages or even among families in the villages.

Finally, If you will not remove the references to the impossible 'city states' or 'tribal nations' then i will, and you will be removed as editor. You have one week to do this.

this is the wikipedia page for Sabha in the desert of former Libya, note the rainfall levels, they are for whole year 1cm.

--Smoggy80 13:19, February 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * As I said before, some of your facts are simply wrong and others are focusing on the wrong figures. The population in the western Libyan desert numbers in the thousands. It did before Doomsday and it would continue number in the thousands afterwards. The overall population would initially decline, then stabilize, and increase slight resulting in no population change or a slight population drop since Doomsday. The population of western Libya in 1983 was approximately 230,000. Not the hundreds you're claiming.


 * These people did not depend on rainfall for their survival. The fact that there was a drought is irrelevant because the amount of rainfall they received was inconsequential anyway. Most of the water in Libya is actually in southern Libyan aquifers, which is where most of towns receive their water. Some of these towns depended on easily accessible oases, which have been dependable for centuries and would enable them to maintain their water supply. The larger towns depended on more sophisticated aquifers extraction systems. However, these systems were well built and Libya is the world's leader in hydrological technology so they would have had the necessary know-how to maintain these systems. Some desert farming is possible thanks to these water supplies and additional supplies can be traded for the natural resources present in the Libyan Desert.


 * The Libyan ethnic groups, and the tribes within them, have a long history of internal cooperation. As soon as the Gadhafi regime collapses, these tribes would immediately look to their ethnic brothers for security. As both of us have agreed, there would be conflict between the various ethnic groups. However, simply because of the limited warfighting resources in the desert, this fighting would be limited and would not devestate the population. Initially, this led to informal arrangements between tribes and shifting alliances during the Civil War. The states I have identified did not form until the mid-2000s. This was largely in reaction to the end of the Civil War and the encroaching Greek and Egyptian presence. At this point, infighting within the tribes or even fighting between the ethnic groups would become a secondary issue. The primary issue, the encroachment of foreigners, is what drove these states to form and accept peace with their neighbors.

These states are essentially tribal coalitions, with the exception of the Berber state which is sort of attempting to establish a Berber nation. There is little-to-no bureaucratic infrastructure and most of the authority is decentralized. Only Fezzan attempts to claim the mantle of a nation-state and this is largely only because of nostalgic Arab nationalism. For the most part, these "states" are just pseudo-formalizations of previous tribal alliances, not the rise of an organized state like Egypt or Greece. Caeruleus 18:35, February 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * I checked back and there had not been an official "Up for Adoption" procedure on this article. It was just handed over by agreement between the two of you. In order for you to have officially adopted it, it would have had to have been abandoned.


 * However, the review process has not been properly followed either. Rather than the article being turned over to the original editor, the article needs to be approved as changed or marked "obsolete." That part needs to be changed, I suppose, but that is what is the established procedure right now.


 * But then, "Libya" does not exist as a nation, so this would be a "gateway article" to other articles that are carved out of it (much like some of the gateway articles for former US states). Each of the states that you have referenced need to be re-introduced as proposals, and then, if they suceed in being graduated, the article can reflect them as it does the the Greek state and Egypt's occupation (expansion) into the southeast of the former nation.


 * I am sorry I did not jump back into the "fight" on the review page. I stated my case as best as I could, and I was determined not to get into an argument with LG. It appears that though he objected to Smoggy's action with the block, he is going to go ahead with her request to manage the page. Since there was no official abandonment, I'd say there is not much we can do. Smoggy "took back" her "child" that had been in "foster" care, so to speak.

Smoggy publicly announced that she was abandoning the page on the Talk:1983: Doomsday page. The process was different but was accepted by the community and the result is the same. The article still falls under my caretakership.

And I don't blame you South for not jumping back into the discussion. Caeruleus 23:18, February 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I forgot to sign that last post. Checking the history is easy, though it shouldn't be necessary. An oversite which I always 'fix' for others.


 * I have posted on the main page. This cannot be treated this way. My measured opinion has been completely dismissed, making it two to one. That will not stand. The article, a gateway article anyway, need not even exist. It will be either returned to you or marked obsolete. I put out a "call" for a fifth voice (hoping someone will pick up on it without being asked). Whatever LG thinks, my voice does count, so there is no majority opinion. SouthWriter 02:00, March 2, 2012 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: Well, I am not sure what to say. LG is "playing games" with the process, placing the "obsolete banner up and then taking it down (yeah, I know you responded in the string). I refuse to play his game. I did not return to the argument because you made a good case for the multitudes living in the desert -- the part I left out in my remarks.


 * That being said, a couple of things need to be done. First, you made changes that were challenged. The process sets 30 days for the conflict to be resolved. The review went up on February 9th, meaning the review is not over until March 10th -- 8 days away. Second, your changes should remain on the article at least until then -- by the rules. I can revert the article after explaining it, but I can't stop LG from removing them. If he does, though, disciplinary action can be made for his breaking of the rules. And finally, I can put up a compromise short of removing the offending additions (the "demanded" fix).


 * I will probably defend myself on the review string before any of this, but I hope that a fifth voice steps in first. Also, I hope that you will be willing to settle for separate articles going through the proposal process if the challenge stands with a true majority. LG has some good points that cannot be denied easily. Let us see, then, what maybe some other voice can add to the discussion. SouthWriter 01:43, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I will make changes if something conclusive is decided. Your portal page compromise is fine with me. Do what you need to do to rectify the situation. Caeruleus 10:59, March 3, 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, the weekend has not been good to your cause. The spirit of pessimism reigns even where no nuclear bombs fell! Would-be supporters are swayed by the pessimism to assume that civil war in Lybia would result in 90% decimation of the interior. I suggest that the "Union of Libya" in Fezzah be abandoned as totally impossible. The other two political entities may be possible in a very reduced fashion, so I suggest that you revert back to the requested action and leave links to the articles for the Berber and Murzuq articles. I will remove the Fezzah article from circulation and continue the fight for recognition of the other two. SouthWriter 22:14, March 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * Very well. The pessimism is unfortunate. Caeruleus 23:23, March 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * It's beginning to look like nothing short of full compliance to the demanded "fix" is going to satisfy LG. In order to keep control of the article, reversion to the article to the point before you started working the tribes into the article needs to be considered. However, since his refusals to accept compromise of any sort is persistent, that may work against him. [Hi, LG. Yes, I know you are probably reading this even before Coer sees it!] I will make this point in the review discussion page and then, hopefully, leave it to you and the community. SouthWriter 15:29, March 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * That's always been his goal. Thanks for your assistance. Caeruleus 18:53, March 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * Message me. I accidently came across something that might help. SouthWriter 21:38, March 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Message you where? Caeruleus 21:48, March 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * My facebook account. There's a link on my wikia profile page. I'll be leaving in a few minutes, so I'll get back to you later this evening. Be sure to identify yourself when you contact me. If you don't have a facebook account, I highly recommend it. If you like, though, there's also a link to my blog. And then, there's always email: jhenrymartin AT gmail DOT com. SouthWriter 22:38, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

AftA
If you don't mind me saying, if your background on your portal template is dark, then the writing should be bright. Just saying! :D Imperium Guy 19:53, March 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right. I'm trying to find some decent looking colors. Caeruleus 20:09, March 19, 2012 (UTC)

I could help with that... Oh, btw red or green for Japan in the ortho map? Plus, the area of China Japan had was properly Manchuko. I got it off wikipedia where it showed its areas. :D Imperium Guy 20:12, March 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * The northwest corner of Manchuria is uncolored. Southern Manchuria extends too far south. Your map has it reaching Beijing. For the purposes of this timeline, the southern border of Manchuria is the border of Heibei province extended to Mongolia. Caeruleus 20:56, March 19, 2012 (UTC)

Some Words of Friendly Encouragement
Caeruleus, I have noticed that you have not been working on your proposals for Kenya, Zimbabwe, Tanganyika, and the East African Community since March. I guess you got tired of auguring with Lordganon about whether your proposals were ready for graduation. I hope you haven’t decided to give up on them. I like your Zimbabwe proposals and Southwriter said some good things about your Kenya and Tanganyika proposal. Also, Lordganon said that you only need to make small changes to your East African Community proposal. Goldwind1 01:09, June 24, 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I honestly kind of forgot about it. I'll get back to it. I do need to finish them. Hopefully, I'll find time to get around in the next week or two. Caeruleus 08:09, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

Trade Organization
I have updated my Malawi proposal, so that it mentions that Malawi has joined a trade organization with Zambia and North Zimbabwe. I will remove all mention of the trade organization, if it conflicts with your plans for North Zimbabwe. If you are ok with my trade organization idea, would you like to collaborate with me on making a page for this currently unnamed trade organization? I like the name South Central African Trade Alliance, but I am open to your suggestions. Also, I could use some help with getting my Zambia page ready for graduation, and I feel that you would give me some good advice.Goldwind1 (talk) 17:35, July 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * That's fine with me. Ironically, your plans for Malawi and Zambia coincide with what I was planning. I would suggest a different name for it. Maybe something more concise or just an agreement, like the Southern Africa Free Trade Agreement or Free Trade Zone. I'll leave that up to you though. Also, let's focus on getting our articles graduated first before we move on to new articles. Caeruleus (talk) 18:34, July 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that my Malawi proposal is ready to be graduated as a stud, but Lordganon didn’t like that I mention the trade organization before I made a page for it. So, I may have to make a proposal for the trade organization, before I can get my Malawi page graduated. Or, I could rid of all mention of the trade organization, and add it back later. Which course of action do think I should I take? Also, if I make the trade organization page now, would you still be willing to collaborate with me on it?Goldwind1 (talk) 18:14, July 8, 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you remove all mentioning of the trade organization for now. After a separate article about the trade organization is created and graduated you can read those references. I will collaborate with you on the article. Caeruleus (talk) 21:31, July 8, 2012 (UTC)