User talk:Cplakidas/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

History of the Soviet Union (1964–1982)

Thank you, thank you VERY much for your copyedit. You've fixed my horrible grammar, the article is readable now! :) Seriously, this is good, I've nominated the article for DYK so it's good that someone fixed my awful writing. :p Thanks again, I really appreciate it!. --TIAYN (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

RE: Brezhnev Era

Thanks; I may have created them, but without editors like you my articles would be partially unreadable. So again, thanks! I'll take a look at the policy-section, there still are a lot of issues with the article, seeing that I wrote this article in a very short-time span. If you see any other problems with the article please leave a note on my talk page! :) --TIAYN (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hallo Constantine,

I have a question for you, this time not about the City. Do you know a reliable source about the genocide of the Pontus Greeks? I read some standard works about Greek history (Clogg, Smith), but they write nothing about it. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

hallo Constantine,

Thanks a lot for your exhaustive answer! This confirms what I read during the weekend on the subject. I am expanding/completing the History section of the voice Grecia on wiki:it. When I started, this section was in a miserable shape, also totally secondary figures of Greek history as a certain Venizelos or Metaxas were almost ignored. :-) Moreover, there were 30-40 years wide gaps in the voice. I am using as sources Richard Clogg "A concise History of Greece" and Llewellyn Smith "Ionian vision" for the period 1915-1923 (more focused on the Asia Minor campaign, but a great book). After the first changes my edits reverted by an ip address. I reverted these again and continued to write arriving to Pontic genocide, which at that time occupied a great part of the history section. Now, Clogg denies that there was any genocide in Pontus, and Smith is on the same wavelength. The sources which are used to support this thesis are really weak, so I removed the part on the genocide, wanted to describe it more as ethnic cleansing, but the same guy (with another ip-address) reverted me again and wrote on the discussion page that I am vandalizing the page. I thought that maybe it was right, so during the weekend I read two books, one about genocide "The Oxford handbook of genocide studies" appeared in 2010, which again explicitly denies the existence of this genocide, describing it as ethnic cleansing, and "I kath'imas Anatoli.", a contribution of Clogg written at the end of the nineties and focused on the history of the Anatolian Greeks, where he denies too that there was any genocide. Now after your answer the case is clear for me, but I don't know what I should do... Either I ask help to an administrator, or I give up, and go back to my churches :-) Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 11:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hallo Constantine, you are right! I will talk with an administrator, and let's look what is the best way to go forward. What I like about Smith is his accuracy and his enormous erudition (in good sense). I never had the impression that he is a philellene, finding him quite objective. A last thing about Genocide: in the Italian article about the subject it is pretended that Dido Sotiriou describes the Genocide in her books. Two years ago I read "Farewell Anatolia", and this book is quite the opposite. She doesn't blame the Turks, but from her book emerges this senseless chain of violence and murder on both sides (no wonder that the book was a great success in Turkey). Here is another example about distortion of reality... Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 08:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You are right again! :-) Well, I did not know that your national poet nearly missed being born as a citizen of the Serenissima (and was also a compatriot of one of ours National Poets :-) In the meantime, the anonymous ip-address wrote me on the discussion page, suggesting that I should write that what happened in Pontus constitutes genocide for the Greeks, while is only violence to private persons for the Turks... :-( I wonder whether this is a small step in the right direction or not...Alex2006 (talk) 09:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Momchil

Orlady (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Vilayet

Please respond to this discussion.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

!!! Regarding BYZANTINE Aristocracy and Bureaucracy

Why have you deleted all mention of the atested dignities of Prinkips, Kleisourachis and Akritas? I think their existance should somehow be written into the current article. Omulurimaru (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Cplakidas. You have new messages at Talk:Veli Mahmud Pasha.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

George Petalotis

Wikipedia does not follow transliteration rules, it follows most common usage in English-language literature, no matter how ridiculous it is. There are two government sources for George, and not much else on the web (except for wiki echoes). Thus please have a look for reliable sources, and if not found, move it back. Materialscientist (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the article is sourced to his official bio site (government), whereas none of the two sources you mentioned strikes me as strong. We've got George Papandreou, why not follow the article sources and keep George Petalotis? Materialscientist (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've blocked that IP and am absolutely neutral to this topic. However, I would prefer to have a certain position to avoid warring among other editors (which is quite possible) and thus will move it back for now, because of current sources. That said, feel free to revert me when sourcing becomes more clear. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 11:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

EON/CoA

Hi. You seem to know quite a bit about this, so your help is appreciated. I am a bit confused as to the use of this. Even though it appears on caps of members of EON, it (or something extremely similar?) also appears on the podeum of the parliament, here and here, although in these two versions it appears to be that the laural-and-axe is within the shield and topped with a crown, hunging from the wall here and naturally on the flag of EON. Taking into consideration that Metaxas had disbanded all parties and was not in one himself, I believe it is safe to assume that the symbol of EON had official use within his regime. Any more on this? -- Philly boy92 (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that clears it up a bit. I may also need some help on the National Organization of Youth page, as unfortunately I live abroad and all my books are back in Greece apart from a book on the history of Greece in the last 100 years. -- Philly boy92 (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thomas the Slav

Hi Constantine, I'll be sure to have an in-depth look at the article tonight. From a brief overview, it looks pretty impressive. I'm also torn as to whether you should split the Rebellion section into a separate article, I'll have to read the whole thing thoroughly before I can offer some kind of advice. I'll post back when I've got any comments. Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 11:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I finally had the chance to read the article in its entirety just now. I found it to be soundly structured and engagingly written. I don't think you should split the Rebellion section: I believe it is biographical enough to remain in the article in its entirety. You did an excellent job at listing the differences between narratives and explaining the scholarly viewpoints on these. There's little you can do to improve the article, I think it's a potential FAC, not just a GAN actually :) Just remember to add alts to images and persondata. — Toдor Boжinov — 14:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Newsletter

We can also include information about the ongoing reviews, nominations (ga, fa), specific 'what to do' tasks, that are already mentioned on wp:gr noticeboard. I've though about the creation of a 'Greek history' task force, which can be included as a future idea.Alexikoua (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hellenic Nomarchy

Since you are already aware of the article, is it possible to take a look at the ga nomination, there are some c-e issues to be solved.Alexikoua (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

		The Greek Barnstar of Virtue
		100 Good Articles for WPGR! that's great news! ...and the main contributor of this achievement deserves this award.Alexikoua (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
		this WikiAward was given to Cplakidas by Alexikoua (talk) on 21:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Aristotelous Square

Hey, thanks for reviewing the article. I'm studying architecture and I did my Extended Essay on the redesign of Thessaloniki after the fire of 1917, so I have quite a bit of bibliography on it. I'm used to working with Harvard-style referencing, I'll work on replacing the current referencing on the article with what you have suggested. What else do you think can be added to the article for it to go GA? -- Philly boy92 (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Aegean is moving

Hallo Constantine

Sorry to disturb you again, but your knowledge is required. :-) Since some days the articles about Kastelorizo, Aegean Sea, etc., are under attack. More and more people are moving Kastelorizo from the eastern Mediterranean to the Aegean or, as alternative, is extending the Aegean until Kastelorizo. At the beginning I thought about good faith edits, but now I am becoming increasingly suspicious, that this is only another part of the never ending Greece – Turkey saga. :-) Do you know if lately anything (in politics) happened, which could explain this edits? Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 08:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I am becoming clairvoyant. :-) The same is for me: I like also the Turkish people, but not particularly the Turkish government... :-) I understand the issue on the Greek side, but nevertheless the geography (and the weather too: I sailed from Marmaris to Kekova, and when you starts to head East weather conditions change dramatically) says that the Aegean ends with Rhodes, so I think that trying to change the geographical definitions is the wrong way to cope with the problem :-) By the way, if you read in Italian you should snatch one of the last issues of Limes , the Italian geopolitics revue: among others, there are a couple of instructive articles about the astute Turkish FM... Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. About the "Sultan", unfortunately he feels really so. Do you know that after each electoral victory he goes to pray in Eyüp? Almost worse than my MP.. :-) Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Byzantine staurotheca and lipsanotheca

Email's out. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

for the barnstar. Implementing the Kallikratis changes takes a lot of time, so if you have some spare time... Markussep ^Talk 10:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Adminship

Would you like to be administrator? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you would be a good one. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cplakidas. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
Message added 07:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Battle of Boulgarophygon

Greetings again! Can you look through the article battle of Boulgarophygon? Except for the usual grammatical or style mistakes you might find, my main concern is the following - about the exchange of prisoners and return of 120,000? Byzantines (which some authors place before the battle and some as a result of the ensuing peace treaty) as well as the return of 30 fortresses in Albania which some authors mention, some do not. I have not mentioned any of them because I think you would find their most appropriate place, not me. I expect you don't have too much time for that, so do it whenever you can. And if you find some more time, can you take a look in those two articles - [1] and [2]? As you know, I think your review on medieval Bulgarian articles is needed because of your deep knowledge and interest in Byzantology and therefore you are simply better prepared than a random reviewer... Regards, --Gligan (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I am grateful for your remarks on Peter. I wrote a short background paragraph as you recomended. Look at it and correct or add what is needed. In fact for that article my main concerns were that too little is mentioned about the person himself but unfortunatelly the information about him is inadequate. I am glad that you see no problem in that :)

PS: The same problem is with the battle of Boulgarophygon - little is known about the battle itself, so the article concentrates on the events before and after the battle and if, for instance, an article is written on the War of 894-896 (for which the information is not bad) it would generally be a repetition of the battle of Boulgarophygon, with some additions... Best, --Gligan (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion it would be better to have two separate articles for the war and the battle because it is more tidy that way. I guess it would be better to trim the background section and I would rely on your assessment what exactly should be cut. I will copy the whole section as it is now and will expand (and try to rewrite) it a bit more to be used in the article for the war. BTW I now have Fine thanks to Todor and I can send it to you via e-mail if you want to (I haven't used it for the article).

I general, I will try to create several articles on the Byzantine-Bulgarian wars, starting from the First Bulgarian Empire. Probably they will be "Early wars" (I think Constantine V's campaigns deserve a separate one but there is insufficient information on the wars before and after him); "War of 809-815"; "War of 894-896", "War(s) of 912-927" and "Byzantine conquest of Bulgaria"; which was already started by another user who, unfortunately, does not seem that will ever finish it. I think it would take some years to finish them taking into account my laziness and inconsistency... Do you think it is a good idea? Best, --Gligan (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Byzantine diplomacy

Category:Byzantine diplomacy, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

WPGR newsletter

Hi Kosta. How are you? I hope everything is well with you. Good job on the newsletter! Very informative and well done. Thank you for the copy. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the tone

I didn't mean to come off as aggressive and your response clarified everything up for me. However, in regards with common belief that writing in caps on the internet is equivalent to yelling I simply do not agree with this convention and I think whoever came up with it didn't think too much about it. First off, why would I need to yell on the internet? Second, I'm writing not talking if I needed to "sound" aggressive I would know how to express that in writing, with words, because that's what we do here, we write we don't talk. So the whole thing makes no sense to me. Therefore I use caps in lieu of bolding a piece of text. (Think about it if I were actually talking to you, would it have made any sense for me to yell "BYZANTINE" in "Regarding BYZANTINE Aristocracy and Bureaucracy"? Would that occur in any real conversation, unless I were truly mental, which I hope I'm not... But again, you counldn't have known that so again, I'm trully sorry. Besides, the exclamation points were a bit too much I admit. (I was just trying to get your attention, sorry) However the bad news is that I will continue to use caps as bolding because it makes sense to me and I hope you'll learn to deal with it, expecially since I'm very interested in Byzantine topics. If anyone wants to have me banned for such a trivial thing they can go right ahead, either way I'm not going to blindly follow such a stupid convention. Why would anyone wanna yell on the internet since we're writing and not speaking? That's it: i'm an old-fashioned strongheaded bastard.

As for the MATTER AT HAND, I will look kleisourarches up in Treadgold, see what he has to say on it. But I do have a question: the akritai didn't have a special status above other soldiers? I was under the impression that many of them had a stattus akin to that of petty nobility. Omulurimaru (talk) 03:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Learning Byzantine Greek

Hi Cplakidas. How are you doing? I have a question for you considering that you seem to be very knowledgeable on Byzantine and Greek affairs. I want to expand my linguistic capabilities in Ancient/Byzantine Greek but since my means are very simple I would like to know what advice you would give short of me studying abroad in Greece or Cyprus. Are there any teach yourself books that you are familiar with, as well as Greek-English dictionaries, that I can consult so I can learn how to read and then translate into English and other languages? Thanks. Best, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no, that's not a problem. Your answer, does, however, lead me to another question: is learning the reading simple for the newcomer? And how much more different does modern Greek differ from it?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347

Hi, just to let you know that the copyedit you requested on this article is now complete. All feedback welcome. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 02:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I did make some changes, mostly where your edits changed the original meaning or where I felt the original emphasis or causal link was lost, but otherwise it was well done, especially in the lede. I also (re-)added a few more commas, for the life of me I cannot understand why copyeditors tend to weed them out that much... If you could make another check-through, I'd be grateful! Best regards, Constantine ✍ 11:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the article looks OK after your re-edit. I'm not going to take out some of the commas you've reinserted even though I disagree with their placement since it's a (very) minor issue. Most people overuse commas and seem to think that there must always be one after the word "and". The reason I made the change "and --> then" is to avoid repeating the word "and", which by the way makes sentences ungrammatical. Anyway, it's a nice, interesting article and I wish you luck with the FA review. Best, ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 21:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

My comma preference comes mainly from my two native languages, Greek and German, where comma use is rather encouraged. However, I cannot say that the English books, magazines, newspapers or websites I've read over time don't use it, quite the contrary. In general, am rather puzzled after requesting a copyedit, because some changes are nothing like I'm used to seeing (the "then" instead of "and" for instance). Could you point me to some guidelines, so that I can read them to improve my prose (and hopefully lessen GOCE's workload in the process)? Thanks again for the copyedit, and for the wishes. Constantine ✍ 23:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

[[3]] is a good starting point for grammar improvement. Bear in mind that a lot of English grammar is artificial - 300 years ago a bunch of scholars decided to apply Latin grammar to a language that it didn't suit such that there is in reality a lot of unresolvable argument over what is "correct". ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 23:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

"Stable Version" (Thomas the Slav)

As per your request, a "Stable Version" for Thomas the Slav has been created. If you have any further requests, feel free to contact me. And as always, please continue making good faith contributions. Thank you. No. 108 (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Larissa

Haha, I saw you tried to ease the pain and introduced a new number: 190.000. Just curious and asking: what is the Larissa M. Area and where did the number came from. Thanks-Yangula (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

About Saint Hipomoni or Hypomone or Saint Patience or Helena Dragaš or Helena Dragasi - Palaiologos (the same name!)

Dear Mr Cplakidas. I didn't realize that the article Saint Hipomoni already existed as Helena Dragas, as I was trying to create a new one. I let it as it is, however you should tell me from the very first (from yesterday) that it already exist. I did not realize it already exist, because her name in Greek is Heleni Dragasi Paleologos, so I guess that the one who wrote the article is a Slave. As you can see there is a problem on having the name in english.

I saw today that you erased the article Saint Patience (Saint Hipomoni), but I made it again (as saint Hipomoni) because I thought that the only problem was that I translated the name in the text as Saint Patience, however I had it with that name because many on google asked about who is Saint Patience! Please next time be more specific by sending me a message. Sometimes it is difficult to find if someone else has written the same article.688dim (talk) 10:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Timothy E. Gregory

Thought you may have heard of him and be interested in adding a bit.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Latin

In the Latin naming in the lead, what is the reason "i" is used in place of "j" in for example "Traianus"? I understood we were using modern Latin which is why "u" is in place of "v". But in modern Latin "j" would be in place of "i" in this instance. Right?--Tataryn77 (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Theodosius (son of Maurice)/GA1

I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The sources seem to give two different dates for his elevation to co-emperor: 590 and 600...? SJuergen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.83.47.25 (talk) 07:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Lachanodrakon/GA1

I've completed the GA review and I've noted only one issue that needs to be dealt with before the article can be listed. The review is now on hold for seven days. Malleus Fatuorum 14:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

GA review of Thomas the Slav...

...completed, on hold, with one issue outstanding. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Dank helps you see what article writers want from reviewers

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hagia Sophia during the Conquest

Hallo Constantine

How are you? I must disturb you again. :-) Since a couple of months there is a guy who is trying to modify the Hagia Sophia article. He has begun removing the part which I wrote about the Conquest, writing that Runciman (!) is not a reliable source, since he wrote in a time when Turkey and England were at war (the famous Turco-British war of 1965, which always waits its article on Wikipedia :-)). I answered patiently, and then he answered that after careful check he admits that he his reliable. His way to control the reliability is to compare Runciman with another historian (Nicol) who unfortunately happens to use Runciman as his main modern source. :-) Anyway, he removed the statement that Hagia Sophia was converted in Mosque when Mehmed entered the church and an Ulama pronounced the ritual invocation to Allah. He says that this is clearly POV, although this POV comes direct from the Slavic Chronicle (possibly the only eyewitness of the happening) and is reported – among others – by Runciman (who comments it) and Müller-Wiener… He also removed the adjective "immediately" from the sentence about the conversion, since he said that the Ottomans needed obviously time to refurbish everything… I answered again (this time a little bit less patiently), but he insists telling that this is POV, and that he wants to change the sentence writing that Hagia Sophia since 1453 "was used" as a mosque. After this answer it is finally clear at what he is really aiming, and I think that it is time to look for an administrator. Do you know anyone who knows a little bit the subject? Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 09:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Constantine!

how is going in Greece? Is it time to sell my papers denominated in Drachmas? :-) Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

My dream would be a house here:-) Four years ago, they dared to ask me 500'000 € cash for a ruin... :-( But I don't want to speculate on the (hopefully temporary) misfortunes of a brother nation. A friend of mine went to Athens two weeks ago, and told me that she could not see any sign of crisis. and my girlfriend tells me that in Istanbul Greek tourists are always in pole position in great Bazar... mystery of the finance crisis! Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, this means that I have to come back to Athens a.s.a.p., to see the Acropolis Museum . I was there the last time in 1971 as a kid, but it was quite a different Greece. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hallo Constantine, sorry to disturb you again! The guy answered on the discussion page. Two questions:

• Do you understand what he means?
• Do you know any admin, or know the procedure to ask ãn admin's intervention?

Kalimera, Alex2006 (talk) 05:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is very odd, and I think that this guy is basically looking for a quarrel. Anyway, these words do not come from me, but from Runciman and Müller-Wiener. They both cite the Slavic Chronicle, that is an eyewitness. How can anyone come and change a sourced statement from the highest authorities of a subject arguing that this is a POV? Second point: how long do you think that it will last until a Muslim user will come, notice this change and start to revert it, arguing that the "hintergedanken" is that Hagia Sophia IS and always WILL BE a church, which was only used for a certain time as a Mosque? Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 07:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

:-) In between, I changed my answer to him. What do you think about it? :-) It's like a chess game... Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hallo Constantine, the guy attacked. :-) He removed the conversion to mosque, and his comment to the change is "Updated mosque section to better match cited sources" . I have not Runciman with me (I never bought that book since makes me sad :-)) , but Müller-Wiener writes: ""Hagia Sophia wurde vom Mehmed durch ein hier abgehaltenen Gebet für dem Islamischen Kult übernommen und zur Hauptmoschee der Stadt umgewandelt" . In other words, he has falsified the sources. Can I at this point refer him to WP:ANI? Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 09:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hallo Constantine,

Thanks! I agree 100% with you. If you thinks that is correct, we can also cite directly the Slavic chronicle, which is the primary source. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 09:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Dimitrios Holevas

I think you should talk to Achilleas1 and explain him the policy. He does not understand NPOV as a new user. I am having the same problem with him on the Greek Wikipedia.

Also in the Greek article I kept three sources. One is the same as here, but the other two are different. I didn't kept any Rizospastis references because they are definitely POV. --Dead3y3 (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cplakidas! I've changed "Priest Holevas" to "Father Holveas", as that's the more usual term, at least in Australian English. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sack_of_Amorium/archive1

Okay, you've got just a few unanswered questions from Lightmouse, RJHall and Kirk. Do what you can, then if there's something left over, we can ask at WT:MIL for help. This is now on the "FAC urgents" list, which means it could be closed at any time. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 15:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

LightofConstantinople

Ok i stop changing the pic of Constantine xi (saint considered by some including me) Keep on editing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by LightofConstantinople (talk • contribs) 18:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Nikephoros (Caesar)/GA1

I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Pumpie

Καλησπερα ειδα δημιουργήθηκε πρόβλημα με αυτον κ εφαγε φραγη. Βασικά δεν κάνει κάτι κακόβουλα , ελληνικα καταλαβαινει δεν ξερει να γραφη ισως να μην τα μιλά και καλα. Απλά μεταφέρει ότι νέο άρθρο μπεί στην ελληνική εδώ . απο το 2003 αυτό κάνει μόνιμα . Αυριο στο πανεπιστήμιο έχει "εργαστηριο" απο 10 έως τις 4-5 αν θέλεις έλα από εκεί θα μοιραστούν φυλάδια και θα δείξουμε κάποια πράγματα για την βικιπαίδεια χρειάζοντε άτομα. tony esopi^λέγε 19:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Δυστηχώς δεν απαντά σε κανέναν ούτε να πει από ποια χώρα είναι να τον βοηθήσουμε κτλ κι εγω εχτες το εμαθα για το εργαστηριο δεν το ηξερα. tony esopi^λέγε 20:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup

Some time ago IIRC I suggested tht probably all are articles written by Zoupan should be checked for OR and SYNTH. I decided to randomly check one of them (Ljutovid), which he has edited. Ljutovid was labeled as a 11th-century Serbian noble that held the titles of Ban of Bosnia, Župan of Rascia and princeps of Zahumlje , but the source the quote that confirmed this was In that year, we are told, the ban of Bosnia, the zupan of Raska, and the Slavic princeps of Zahumlje(Chelmana), Ljutovid, received Byzantine ambassadors.... 3/3 of the articles he's started/sourced and I've checked had the same deliberate misrepresantion of sources. When adding his titles on Zachlumia he again labeled his as a Serbian ruler, but used a source that didn't mention the titles he attributed to him because the source that listed those titles was this[4], which labels him a Slav ruler.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Anypomonos

The article is ready for a DYK nom, so if you want to nominate it, I could review it.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

List of the Ottoman battles in which the sultan participated

Thanks for the correction in the List of the Ottoman battles in which the sultan participated. Adding the first name was an error. But I am only partially responsible for it. The name George is still in the sidebox of the article Battle of Bapheus. Can you please check it ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Greek–Italian relations

Category:Greek–Italian relations, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. LeSnail (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Question about a book

Hallo Constantine

a question NOT about Hagia Sophia: do you know this book? I knew about it since its maps of Istanbul were used in another book about the City which was published last year, and I would like to present it to my best friend, who is 50% Greek (father Italian officer during WWII, mother of Rhodes :-)). Another question: is it possible to buy it through this web site, and why does it cost only 7 €? Is it maybe the eBook version? Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 05:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Perfetto! Then I will buy also a copy for me... :-) I discovered this book on this one, which I advice you to buy, if you know some Italian. It is a really well done anthology of all what has been written about Constantinople, ordered according to the different regions of the city. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 08:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The book is so cheap because it is out of print...too bad! I will try to find it used on abebooks (altough I never saw a greek book there except this one:-))

Thanks anyway, cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of the Echinades (1427)

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

CfD = Category:Palaeologus dynasty

I see that you are proposing a standardisation of the spelling of the categories under the name Palaiologos. I recognise that the translation from the Greek into Latin script is inexact. But having investigated some of their descendants from the last few centuries I note that when they lived in England they referred to themselves as Palaeologus/Palaeolocu or some similar form, and their tombstones carry that spelling when written in Latin script. Several English Koraes professors have referred to them in that form in their books. So to help me understand the rationale behind the choice of 'Palaiologos' in WP, I wonder if you could you direct me towards any relevant pages where that spelling was chosen to be used on the English WP. Many thanks, Ephebi (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for for your response. I wondered if there was a difference opinion about the right approach! The discussion was not helped by referral to 'neutral' 3rd parties (e.g. uninformed). I suspect this reflects the issue between historical study and the contemporary world. (I feel that this example parallels a pretentious genealogist writing a 'Smythe' family tree for a 'Smith' family because of variations in spelling convention, the ignorant use of 'Ye olde tea shoppe' or names like Ffitch. Nonetheless, I do not object too strongly with the academic style in this instance, even if I do feel it to be rather pretentious when the issue was settled by the families when they came to England in the 1600s and 1800s.)

Nicols (the late Koraes professor) actually uses both forms in "The Immortal Emperor" when he talks about the Byzantines (Palaio-) and their later descendants (Palaeo-). And just to make it even more problematic, on their grave markers in England, Princess Eugenie Nicephoru Comnenus Palæologus and her family actually used the character ash ("Æ") - what chance is there of that being picked up correctly? When I get the chance, I will extend the Palaeologus/Palaiologus Dynasty page with information on those descendants (including a few of the more interesting pretenders). Thanks again, Ephebi (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Three Johns under John VI.

Hello Konstantinos,

it would be very kind if you could supply some information on the identity or non-identity of these three individuals:

- John Angelos (pinkernes)

- John Angelos, Sebastokrator under Emperor John VI. (cit. B. Ferjancic, Sevastokratori u Vizantiji, 1968, p. 192, resume)

- Ioannes Asanes, Sebastokrator 1345/55, Despot and Governor of Peritheorion 1355 (cit. http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BYZANTINE%20NOBILITY.htm)

Thanks! SJuergen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.83.52.139 (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Imperial triple crown jewels

Your majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow these Imperial triple crown jewels upon Cplakidas for your contributions in the areas of WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FC. Thank you for your majestic contributions to the project! – SMasters (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This user has a Triple Crown.

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

WPGR

Apologies; thanks for the clarification; I will leave it in from now on; and just add the Classical G&R tag. Best regards,--FeanorStar7 (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Greece

Alexikoua removed the WPSQ tag from the Battle of Greece as he considers it irrelevant, although the lead say The Battle of Greece (also known as Operation Marita, German:Unternehmen Marita)[11] was a World War II battle that occurred on the Greek mainland and in southern Albania. At the same he doesn't consider irrelevant the WikiProject Australia and New Zealand tags.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't really consider wp tags that important but since they are part of wikipedia there should be some kind of consistency regarding their use.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Roman-Persian Frontier in Late Antiquity.svg

Howdy. Your map of the eastern frontier is great but I am pretty sure Dara was returned to the Romans in the peace settlement between Khosrau and Maurice. The border should pass between Dara and Nisibis. Hopefully this can be remedied. Thank you. --Tataryn77 (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Re:Augustów roundup DYK

Thanks. I moved the article. I hope I have also clarified the issues you noted. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Help

Hello, Constantine! It's a pleasure to help with such requests, as long as you find my suggestions useful :) Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 18:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Argyros

Hi. Thanks for your message. Could you please check if I spelled the Greek name of Helena Argyre correctly? Best, --Kober^Talk 13:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Cplakidas. How are you ? What do you think about the infobox of Talk:Occupation of Smyrna ? Takabeg (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Something for you

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Sack of Amorium.

--Ian Rose (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Constantine ✍ 05:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Helena Dragas is actually Helen – Dragasis Palaiologos

In the article she is not refered with her real full name. She was the Queen of Byzantium Augusta Helen – Dragasis Palaiologos, daughter of the emperor of Slavic nation, Constantine Dragasis. She became empress of Byzantium as wife of Emmanuel B’ the Palaiologos and she was mother of the last emperor of Byzantium Costantine Palaiologos.688dim (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I strongly recommend to change Helena Dragas to Helen – Dragasis Palaiologos

Well, actually I mean to change her name from Helena Dragas (which is slavic) to Helen – Dragasis Palaiologos (which is Greek), because she was an empress of Byzantium and firstly I don't find it appropriate to refer to her with her slavic name (she lived in Byzantium in Greece and not in Serbia) and secondly you can find plenty of reference with her name as Helen – Dragasis Palaiologos. Your personal opinion does not mean that is right. Also many texts refer to her as Saint Patience (Saint Hipomoni). 688dim (talk) 09:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Greek military personnel stubs

Greetings! I see you have recently created one or more new stub templates or categories. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, it is recommended that new stub types be proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. This helps to reach consensus about whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it is otherwise correctly formatted, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub type is currently listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries, where comments are welcome as to any rationale for this stub type. Please, in future, consider proposing new stub types first at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals! Grutness...wha? 00:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 07:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

IP is still at it

Most recently coming in from 94.64.43.151, adding undue weight to the Greek origins of the Zeibeks. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

That's why I asked the admins to semi-protect the page, but apparently it got lost somewhere. This guy has been at it for months, coming back every couple of weeks from a different set of IPs and on different articles, but always on the Zeibeks and Zeibekiko. Judging from the idiotic comments and insults he left here earlier, he certainly won't let go now. I'll go and request protection again. Constantine ✍ 20:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors – Contest results, A-class medal recipients Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Editorial: Hawkeye's thoughts on the article writing process

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Al-Abbas ibn al-Ma'mun

Materialscientist (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Colin Imber

What do you think about using this source: The Crusade of Varna, 1443-45 By Colin Imber for information I plan to add to the Battle of Niš article. I could not find much information about the author. At first I was very happy with many details about the battle, but now I am not sure if it is too many details about it? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Category name

Hello Takabeg! On the issue of the Category:Greek military personnel of the Turkish War of Independence, I think we should move it to Category:Greek military personnel of the Greco-Turkish War of 1919–1922, as "Turkish War of Independence" represents rather the Turkish POV on the conflict. Constantine ✍ 09:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

For me it's not serious problem. It's just like Category:British military personnel of the American Revolutionary War. But if you want you can change. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 09:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Bulgarian despots

Hello Constantine and thanks for your work!

The section of the Shishman of Vidin article detailing his style is referenced to Андреев, Йордан; Лазаров, Иван; Павлов, Пламен (1999). Кой кой е в средновековна България (in Bulgarian). Петър Берон. p. 395. ISBN 9789544020477. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help). Here's the quote: “The boyar Shishman is recorded with the most titles in historical sources: “prince/knyaz of the Bulgarian land”, “Bulgarian despot”, as “king”, even as “Bulgarian tsar/emperor”. His official title was “Bulgarian despot” and the rest are evidence of his extraordinary position among the Bulgarian nobility.” I think Fine carefully avoids the matter by not ascribing any title to Shishman, and so does Vásáry. Based on that, Andreev's statement above seems to be but a theory.

As for George Terter, 1284, when he was already crowned emperor, makes little sense and ought to be an error. On page 74, the book cited above places George Terter's bestowal of the title of despot to the time of the Uprising of Ivaylo and the reign of Ivan Asen III (1279–1280). At the same time, George Terter divorced his first wife in order to marry Kira Maria Asenina and exiled his ex-wife and his son from the first marriage Theodore Svetoslav to Byzantium.

Hope that was of some help! Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 17:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey Constantine! Sorry for the belated response, but I was out of Sofia for the weekend and only returned today. Indeed, it may be reasonable to leave Shishman out given the ambiguity surrounding his title.

As for Ivan Asen, I'm assuming you mean Ivan Asen III, the progenitor of the Byzantine branch of the Asens. Both Bozhilov (Божилов, Иван (1994). Фамилията на Асеневци (1186–1460). Генеалогия и просопография (in Bulgarian). София: Издателство на Българската академия на науките. pp. 249–252. ISBN 9544302646. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)) and Andreev (Андреев, Йордан; Лазаров, Иван; Павлов, Пламен (1999). Кой кой е в средновековна България (in Bulgarian). Петър Берон. pp. 144–146. ISBN 9789544020477. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)) maintain that Ivan Asen was promised the title of despot in 1278, in case he failed to establish himself on the Bulgarian throne as a Byzantine puppet. Having ruled briefly and without any success, in early 1280 he fled back to Byzantium and was officially proclaimed despot in 1282–1284.

You may reference that dating to footnote 35 on p. 254 of Bozhilov specifically. Please note that while Ivan Asen was promised the title by Michael VIII, according to Bozhilov and the sources he cites in that same footnote, Ivan Asen was made despot by the succeeding emperor, Andronikos II. — Toдor Boжinov — 19:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Military of the Ottoman Empire

Hi. I know you are interested in military issues, especially one of the Ottoman Empire. I beg you question. Do you understand what I want to explain in this issue ? Can I explain the seasons of dangers that would be resulted from using the term "Ottoman Air Force" in encyclopedia. Takabeg (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

And what do you think of this issue ? Takabeg (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Greek Forces in Asia Minor

Hi Constantine. I have one more question. In Turkish, the Greek forces in Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) is called "Küçük Asya Ordusu" (Mikra Asia Force). What do you call it in Greek ? Do you know common English name of it ? Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ljutovid etc.

Today I reviewed a couple more of Zoupan's edits and the source misrepresentation about Ljutovid seems to persist. I'm patrolling the main article so anyone who wants to attribute any kind of ethnicity to the person has to find sources, but on other articles[5] the now usual misrepresentation can still occur as the source says Ljutovid the Byzantine strategos of Serbia and Zachloumlia.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Greek villages

Thanks for giving those the treatment they needed. I created them as I was deleting disambig files with red links. Thanks for affirming my feeling that they needed expansion rather than deletion. Dlohcierekim 13:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Here are some more, don't know if you can fix them.

• Despotiko, Chania
• Despotiko, Ioannina
• Kato Despotiko

Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Cplakidas. You have new messages at Nedim Ardoğa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Turakhan beg

Thank you very much for your help which is highly appreciated. I am honoured with any kind of your participation in editing of the articles I created or significantly contributed to. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Alexios Palaiologos (despot)

Materialscientist (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Peace Treaty

Hi Cplakidas. I cannot find the term "Peace Treaty" in the book added with this edit. When you have time, could you control it ? Takabeg (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Siege of Shkoder

The book says (p. 71) "The Powers were now faced with the problem of how to dislodge the Montenegrins from Shkoder, as by virtue of a treaty concluded with Essad Pasha Toptani, Montenegro had gained control of the town" and (p. 72) "Durham went on to describe the terms of the agreement made between Essad and the Montenegrins". I can't find anything as formal as "peace treaty" either. BTW, do you have any knowledge on the issue raised at Nedim's talk page on the "t"/"d"? Constantine ✍ 14:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Merci. About the issu of "t"/"d", I think problems can be solved only with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, not with personal preference(s). Scholars, even in Turkey, prefer "d" to "t" for transliterating Ottoman alphabet. Takabeg (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Shall we correct them one by one :) Takabeg (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Cplakidas. You have new messages at Takabeg's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vandalism ?

Hi. What does this IP's action mean ? Takabeg (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Maurice

Howdy Constantine. Have you read Maurice and his historian Theophylact Simocatta...? I recently purchased it and I'm only on page 20 or so but already there is a wealth of information to draw from. The author explicitly says there is little information on his domestic policies but nevertheless there are several pages on the topic! I will add information as soon as I've finished the book but I was wondering if you have read it. If so, is it as great as it seems? It appears to be the only book on Maurice available.

Also, User talk:Rasiel keeps removing aureii I've added from articles. He adds lesser quality coins in their place. This is occuring on the Probus, Carus, and Gratian articles. I've repeatedly told him to stop removing them, even leaving messages on his talk page, but he won't listen or respond. I've told him to add images if he wishes but not replace or remove images of coins. Can you help in any way?--Tataryn77 (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Names of Ottoman people

I'm reading about transliteration of Ottoman names in historical works. The majority prefer is Mehmed, but some researchers prefer Mehmet to Mehmed. I think it's not the problem of transliteration but the problem of the common name (usaeg). Because we don't transliterate by ourself. If we have to transliterate someone's name who we don't know, we have to transliterate manuscripts and it will be the problem of transliteration.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

So I think it's better research one by one and decide which one is common name (use). What is your opinion ? Takabeg (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

But, if we accepted Nedim's claim/belief (he beleive the authors have right to choose the names), related articles would be in chaos. So we need some criteria. For example, we can make dicision by era (Ottoman Empire or Turkey) or as to whether he/she had surname or not..... Takabeg (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Ottoman names

Tough call... In the end, it is a choice between common usage and consistency. The traditional transliteration - and also, the way I understand it, the one closer to Arabic-influenced Ottoman phonology - is the rendering with "d". The problem is that from my experience, lesser-known individuals are more likely to have been published under their modern Turkish forms, while more well-known ones (who appear in general historical literature and not just Ottoman history books) will be with "d". If we use the "d" forms for the sultans, grand viziers and pashas, then it would be odd to use other forms for other Ottoman people - unless a particular name is so well entrenched in usage that it becomes unavoidable. What I am trying to say is, in most cases we will have a case where a specific "Mehmed Pasha" gets say 100 hits and "Mehmet Pasha" gets 150. I would prefer, for consistency's sake, to use the "d" form. Anyhow, I trust your judgement on this, so here's a proposal: why don't we start checking names (let's start with the Grand Viziers) and see with what frequency each name form occurs. Thus we can gauge a rough baseline on usage and make a better-educated guess. Constantine ✍ 20:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW, as a complete aside, I have wondered for years why Enver Bey/Pasha is at İsmail Enver. What do you think? Constantine ✍ 20:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes let's start with the Grand Viziers. As to the artilces Ismail Enver, Ahmed Djemal and Mehmed Talat, I couldn't find any reason to be preferred names without "Pasha" in English Wikipedia. I know the reason why İsmail Enver in Turkish Wikipedia. In Turkish Wikipedia, there is a rule about titles. According to this rule, we mustn't use Paşa, Bey, Efendi. But in most case, this rule doesn't be applied. For exampla Cemal Paşa and Mehmed Talat Paşa have title of Paşa. Unfortunately this rule was/is made bad/wrong use with some political reason. For example, Ziya Hurşit who was one of the　suspects of İzmir Suikastı, then after he was sentenced to death and hanged. To sum up, that rule is invoked for person whom some uses dislike. In English Wikipedia, I think we must change Ismail Enver, Ahmed Djemal and Mehmed Talat to Enver Pasha, Ahmed Djemal Pasha (Ahmed is indispensable　because there were some Djemal Pasha in Ottoman Army) and Talat Pasha. Takabeg (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

On your second question, I am not quite sure I understand what you mean. On Nedim's comment, few people outside Turkey and Turkic-speaking countries now the difference between "C" and "Ç" in Turkish, let alone that "C" is "Dj" and not "K", but probably everyone who doesn't live in a cave knows of Texas, and most half-educated people would recognize it even if their mother language doesn't use the Latin alphabet. That's the reality of the 21st century, making comparisons like these doesn't really prove anything, it's apples and oranges. Constantine ✍ 21:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

To be clear in this case it is about a historical article, and historical naming overrides other concerns. If we had a battle article on this, it would be called "Battle of Chataldja", so it makes sense to have the "Chataldja Army" too. Constantine ✍ 21:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

With second question, I wanted to explain not specific disputes but this problem. Takabeg (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Havoc IP

I had to switch off before, logging now I see that he's gotten care off. Thank you for noticing and acting on that. Regards Aigest (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Cyprus invasion

Hi Constantine. Are you busy ? I provided some sources. When you have a time, could you control them and if possible improve article. After controls, we can remove links to google books. And do you have any information about this issue ? Albanian ? Thanks to　wikipedia, I heard it for the first time :) See you. Takabeg (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

What's your opinion about this issue and this issue ? Takabeg (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the content and spirit of your edits. I won't go near the Cyprus thing, for any change means becoming embroiled for days and I am currently rather busy in RL (and that's also why I keep from any greater projects lately). I welcome any input to the 1897 war article, I've been meaning for years to bring it up to scratch... On Barbarossa, his mother was probably Greek, but the ethnicity of his father is unknown. I've seen authors speculate that his father was "possibly" of Albanian origin ([6]), but Greek has also a great many supporters ([7]). The problem is that "Greek" hee can be used to mean simply "Christian". In the same vein, he was certainly not an ethnic Turk as implied by the article, but rather a "Turk" in the sense that he was born a Muslim and was not a convert. Constantine ✍ 06:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Merci. I'll try to improve it. Now I want to ask other question: was the Greek military operation at First Battle of İnönü, offensive or Reconnaissance in force or movement to contact etc.... ? Even in Turkey, some scholars dout its importance. In Greece what do they estimate this battle (maybe we can use the term meeting engagement:)) ? Takabeg (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Cplakidas. You have new messages at Talk:List of battles involving the Ottoman Empire.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Now I understand why you won't go near the Cyprus thing :) Takabeg (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Re:Greek Macedonia portal

Hello, Cplakidas. You have new messages at Philly boy92's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

2010-2011 Greek protests

Hey, I am having a discussion at the talk page of the 2010-2011 Greek protests article, and a user persists on reverting my edit on the infobox. Initially it said '2010-2011 Greek protests', and the user replaced it with 'Greek Revolution'. I have reverted it twice already, and he continues to change it back, claiming that it is 'more relevant' than 2010-2011 Greek protests. Your input on this would be very much appreciated. --Philly boy92 (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Turgut Reis

IIRC, it was meant as a reconnaissance in force and a show of force: the Greek high command (many of whom were recently re-installed royalists and not the more experienced Venizelists) severely underestimated Turkish strength and ability and intended to deliver a blow to Kemalist forces, advance to Eskisehir and improve Greece's military and diplomatic position prior to the upcoming London Conference. BTW, if you want a good English-language account of the war from a Greek and Allied perspective, I heartily recommend Ionian Vision by Michael Llewellyn Smith. Constantine ✍ 16:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Haha. I'll read it too. What do you think of these editions. He claimed According to the Ottoman archive with showing a novelized work written by Halikarnas Balıkçısı (Cevat Şakir Kabaağaçlı) as a source. And I don't think the Ana Britanica (Turkish version of Encyclopedia Britannica) is neutral source... Takabeg (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Co-Emperor?

Hello Konstantinos, what do you think about this:

ANDRONIKOS Doukas, son of IOANNES Doukas, cæsar & his wife Eirene Pegonitissa (-14 Oct 1077). The Alexeiad names
"Andronikos, the Cæsar's eldest son" as the father of Empress Eirene[421]. Mikhael Glykas refers to "Iohanni
Cæsari…filiis…Constantinus…filius alter…Andronicus"[422]. Co-emperor 1067-1070." 

(http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BYZANTIUM%2010571204.htm)

Obviously a confusion with the homonymous brother of Michael VII. (who co-reigned from 1068 to ca. 1077)??

P.S.: Have you any further information about a Leo Melissenos, Sebastokrator in the late 14th century? (also cited on http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BYZANTIUM%2010571204.htm -- see Chapter 7.B. MELISSENOS, 1078) --SJuergen (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Re:Help with new article

Greetings Constantine! I found some info on google books about Abd al-Malik, but not much about his early life. Ibn Khalikan provides info about Abd al-Malik's genealogy and says some people suspected he was the son of Marwan the last Syrian Umayyad caliph, since his mother (Marwan's concubine) was pregnant when she was bought by Salih ibn Ali.(Khalikan p.316.) There's also an interesting story about Abd al-Malik successfully lobbying ar-Rashid's vizier Ja'far to alleviate ar-Rashid's ill feelings towards him.(Khalikan pp.303-305.) This source (p.50) says al-Ma'mun desecrated Abd al-Malik's grave a few years after he died of illness. Al-Tabari provides a lot of info (much of it is already mentioned in the article though), but not so much about Abd al-Malik before ar-Rashid's reign.Tabari. A different Tabari source says Abd al-Malik was put in charge of prayers in 775-76, but that's all I could get from that source since it won't let me read the prior pages. Maybe you'll be lucky and gain access to them.([8] page 177 is available to me, but not page 176.) I'll try to find more sources, but won't be editing much anytime soon since I'll be on a break for the rest of this month. I'll try to pop in here and there though. Thanks for starting this article in the first place, I'm glad there's users editing in this area. I've been meaning to get more involved on the early Arab caliphates. Maybe when I'm back. Regards, --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Help

Hi Constantine. Can you help me (& us) Category talk:Turkish people & Category talk:Azerbaijani people etc. Do you have any good idea ? I hope you will come up with a new and good idea to solve these serious contradictions. I'm going to buy two Filet-O-Fish and back home :) Tomorrow I'll create the article Rahmi Arslan. Good night. Takabeg (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Patriarch Callinicus III or IV ?

I kindly ask you an advice. I'm going to start a short article on Patriarch Callinicus of Constantinople who reigned in 1757. Because Callinicus III (died 1726) is not always recognized as Patriarch, I dont know which ordinal number use for the name of Article about Callinicus (1757). Most scholars such as Gedeon (Πατριαρχικοί Πίνακες, 1890), Kiminas (2009), Janin (1914), Encycl of the Hel. World use IV, but the Ecumenical Patriarchate uses III. Sometime I found "Callinicus III (IV)". Your advice? A ntv (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer on my Talk Page. A ntv (talk) 08:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the Barnstar. Thanks indeed. A ntv (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Moving the names

You insist changing Turkish names ending in –t to names ending in –d. Although I explained that –d ending is impossible in Turkish, you still revert names on the ground that search engine yields more –d endings than –t endings. (You've even moved the names of many articles created by me) The important thing is the truth, not the search engine counts. But just out of curiosity I searched the names Mehmet and Mehmed (in yahoo English language counts) There are 13 100 000 Mehmet and 858 000 Mehmed, ie., even in English Mehmet is 15 times more common. Do you consider to revert your edits on –t endings. Happy editting Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Previously I had given the example of Henri Becquerel. Nobody tries to move the name to Henry just because it is more common in English. Another example may be your name. You sign your messages as Constantine. Very well. How about Konstantinos Karamanlis ? Are you going to move his name to Constantine ? Ahmad, Esad, Ferhad may be common among in Islamic countries. But when they are used in Turkish the final d is converted to t. This is not a rule I've invented, this is the way the language is constructed. As for the name Mehmet, although it refers to the prophet, it is not a borrowed name. Calling common folk by the name of the prophet is considered impudence and Mehmet was used instead of Muhammad. But it seems during the middle ages, the few Italians living in İstanbul, wrote the name as Muhammad in Latin alphabeth, because they were already familiar that name. (I have a set of Britannica '70. There is neither Mehmet nor Mehmed. Only Mohammad.) That may be source of confusion. By the way, following your suggestion, I looked up Turkish Wikipedia. Out of six sultans using the same name Mehmet appears five times and Mehmed only once. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

General Frankos

Hi Constantine. Do you know him ? I want to know especially his first name. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 07:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Athanasios Frangos or Frangou (you can transliterate "ng" with "nk", but the former is more correct for modern Greek), Major General and commander of 1st Division. Born 1864, died 1923. I'll try to find material and write something on him. Constantine ✍ 07:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Merci. In Turkish books, We cannot find first names of most divisional commanders. For example, Georgios Hatzanestis (Yorgo Hacıanesti :)))'s chief of staff Colonel Valetas, Nikolas Trikupis (com. of I Corps), Colonel Francos (com. of 1st Div.), Colonel Dimaas (com. of 4th Div.), Colonel Kallidopulos (com. of 12th Div.), Golonel Rokas (com. of 5th Div.), General Dijenis (com. of II Corps), Colonel Kabalis (com. of 13th Div.), Colonel Kardikas (com. of 9th Div.), Colonel Krusopulos (com. of 7th Div.), General Sumalis (com. of III Corps), Colonel Papanikolao (com. of 10th Div), Colonel Gerças ??? (com. of 3rd Div.), General Kladas (com. of 11th Div.), Colonel Teotakis (com. of Independent Div.), General Gonatas (com. of 2nd Div.), General Kalinski (com. of Cav. Div.) etc....... Takabeg (talk) 07:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Here we go, in the order you gave above, except for the ones already linked: Georgios Valettas, Dimitrios Dimaras, Periklis Kallidopoulos, Nikolaos Rokas, Kimon Digenis, Militiadis Kaibalis, Panagiotis Gardikas, Vasileios Kourousopoulos, Petros Soumilas, Dimitrios Papanikolaou, Georgios Gortzas, Nikolaos Kladas, Dimitrios Theotokis, Stylianos Gonatas, Andreas Kallinskis. Constantine ✍ 08:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Çok merci. Did you forget Djemal Pasha and Talat (Talaat) Pasha ? Takabeg (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Imbros

Hi. When you have a time, could you control these edits. It's true that historically the island was dwelled by Greek population, but I felt propaganda in some edits. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

OB

For now. Takabeg (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Constantine. Merci for your edit. Do you know this problem ? I've explained for him.... Takabeg (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Abd al-Malik ibn Salih

The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Süper

Süper ! Constnatien do you have any info. about the sudden retreat of the 5/42 Evzone Regiment ? I've read an article (now I don't forget its title etc...) that claimed some Greek forces didn't engage in combat actions positively with a secret agreement between Venizelos and Mustafa Kemal and this made for the Turkish forces to enable to advance approx. 400 kilometre within 10 days (40 kilometre per day). I think it was too fast for the situation of 1922 (But the LVI Panzer Corps reached Dvinsk (aprox. 330 kilometre from their border) within four days in 1941.) Takabeg (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Rotaremis vehiculum

But the sources, inside the "De Rebus Bellicis", mention even the observed high performance of the ship. Remember, that they are stating that this ship reached a good speed and also a good ramming impact. This indicates that this ship was actually built and tested. Did you read the "De Rebus Bellicis" or any translation of it? For now, I will undo the removal, please let me know, what you think. Thanks, still, for giving attention to this interesting subject. SvenLittkowski (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SvenLittkowski (talk • contribs) 00:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC) 

List of Serbian monarchs

Theophilos Erotikos was added in the List of Serbian monarchs along with many others that in some cases weren't even Serbs and in most of them were local nobles, whose highest title was that of the despot.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 00:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The Byzantine generals are mentioned in the "notes" section, giving a description of the status during Byzantine rule, the rulers have their titles in the description clearly stating them being Byzantine and not Serbian rulers. --Zoupan (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Turahanoğlu Ömer Bey

Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Constantine. Naber ? Do you have any idea to solve discrepancy in this matter ? Have a nice vacationTakabeg (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The Roman eastern frontier and the fortress of Mindon/Minduas

Howdy Constantine, I don't have my books in front of me at the moment but I was wondering something. In Emperor Maurice and his historian...' it mentions the fortress of Mindon (referred to once as Minduas in Greatrex's Persian frontier but not on any maps). Mindon is on a map in the Whitby book though. It is north east of Nisibis. However, that map does not show the Roman-Persian border. The reason I'm asking about a relatively obscure fortress is because it seems to be a crucial one. Whitby mentions a letter from a Sassanid king where he says Mindon was a key fort. This is obviously because it is further east than Nisibis, and commands the easternmost section of the heights north of Nisibis. The fort would allow the Romans to cut Nisibis' supply lines and make besieging it much easier. The book says the Persians spoiled Roman plans to enhance Mindon's defenses but I'm not sure if it says they actually captured it. When I align Mindon from Whitby's map to your map of the eastern frontier, it appears Mindon would be north of the border so therefore Roman. I believe it would be a little west of Bezabde, perhaps very slightly southwest. Am I correct?

So yea I was wondering if you could get back to me on that and if you could possibly add Mindon/Minduas to your map.

PS. I always wondered why Maurice didn't demand the return of Nisibis. I now feel it was because Khosrau's dignity (mentioned heavily in Whitby) would be too greatly ruined. Thus, if Maurice secured Mindon and the entire heights north Nisibis, etc. etc. he could let the Sassanids keep Nisibis. Khosrau could keep his dignity and the Romans could easily surround Nisibis in the case of war, and easily launch raids towards the lower Tigris at the onset of a war. What do you think?--Tataryn77 (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hediye

		Ottoman Empire Barnstar
		Awarded for valuable contributions to WikiProject Ottoman Empire, in particular for your excellent work in creating and expanding a multitude of articles on Ottoman military history. Geç kaldık ama Takabeg (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Teşekkür ederim! Constantine ✍ 13:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I always wondered how that was spelled...thx! I don't suppose you know how "bir shaydeel" is spelled? Chaosdruid (talk) 01:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You mean "Bir sey değil" I suppose? Constantine ✍ 10:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

ARBMAC retracted

I have retracted the ARBMAC warning that I issued earlier today. Upon further investigation, the warning was not appropriate. I apologize for any inconvenience. Toddst1 (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

User:83.71.98.198

Thanks for the compliment. I'll think about it. 83.71.98.198 (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Quality Management Inspection Medal

I, [Inspector] No. 108, am honored to award you this medal for your positive and intelligent contributions to the quality management inspection process. Your assistance in improving the "Stable Version" of each Byzantine-related entry (including the Byzantine themes) is much appreciated. Always know that you have this humble inspector's gratitude and respect. Thank you. No. 108 (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thomas the Slav

Cplakidas- I'm very sorry for changing the meaning of the text. I was wondering if you could help me with some of the following, and correct me where I'm wrong (which is likely in many places ;) :

• You seem to find it very important to put the dates of rulers' reigns alongside their appearance in the article. Is this stylistic? I couldn't find it mandated anywhere in WP:MOS, or related pages. On the other hand, other articles don't seem to have problems leaving out when rulers ruled (e.g George III of the United Kingdom). In terms of style, I personally find that adding the dates only hurts the article's prose, and distracts from the article's real points, especially when context is provided by the interactions we already know are happening between people. For example, does the reader need to know when Constantine VI lived (context is provided by his death in 797)? Does the reader even need to know when Michael's reign ended for that matter? The article is not about Michael.
• On that note, what benefit does the reader receive from having been informed that the revolt was the "central domestic event" of Michael's reign? We already know that the revolt is important, because it's the biggest in the Empire's history. Why do we need anything about Michael, let alone the qualification that we're only rating the revolt in terms of domestic activity during his reign? I feel like this is the kind of redundancy that could have been mentioned on the FAC page.
• Can you explain why the second is better in a Lead?

"[the revolt's] precise circumstances are unclear due to conflicting historical narratives, some propagated by Michael

"precise circumstances are unclear due to conflicting historical narratives and the distorting influence of later hostile propaganda disseminated by Michael II."

The first seems like a clear introductory statement, while the second feels to me like something belonging in the body paragraph.

• The story about the prophetic monk, no matter how well known, seems absolutely irrelevant. Aside from using the word "hagiographic" again, which is a (maybe unimportant) stylistic repetition (its used four? times in five? paragraphs), I don't see why we need to know anything about the monk. I can see that the story is a transition of sorts that introduces Bardanes's rebellion, but why not just say what you mean, and say that the commander rebelled? It seems redundant to recite a hagiographic tale describing something, and then describe it.
• In explaining the propaganda that Thomas was the one who started rebelling, and Michael followed, you wrote that "Lemerle dismisses this claim as a later attempt by Michael to exonerate himself for the initial defeats suffered by the imperial forces, and to justify his usurpation as a response to Leo's failure to suppress the rebellion." Aside from some serious wordiness, I don't understand what the first part of this sentence is referring to, which makes me feel first that I'm incompetent, and second that other readers of average intelligence might be similarly confused. Does this mean that Michael says that Thomas rebelled first to explain why he lost battles at first? Because he was unprepared? I'd love an explanation.
• There are many minor edits that I'm not sure were reverted intentionally, or as part of a general revert to an earlier version. When I compare my last edit with the latest, I notice this especially in line 42, but elsewhere also. Were these reverts all intentional?
• Constantine VI. The article spends a lot of time dwelling on a rumor. How important is the iconophile/inconoclast piece of the Thomas rebellion? If it's important, do we even need to talk about Constantine? Can we just state that Thomas was intentionally ambiguous regarding the issue? Again, I don't know if Constantine is a necessary focus of the article at all.
• Can you explain the difference?

"Others, notably Lemerle, acknowledge its existence but dismiss rural discontent as a primary factor during the revolt."

"Others, notably Lemerle, dismiss rural discontent as a primary factor during the revolt."

I assume you don't want to to make "others" seem to totally dismiss rural discontent, but I don't think the second crisper version does that. Even if something is not a "primary" factor, that does not mean it never existed, or even was very important.

Sorry for such a terribly long, boring, and probably mistake filled list. I hope you can set me at ease here, and again, I'm very sorry for some of the edits, especially the one that made the Constantine appropriation seem real. I hope you're not totally distraught ;) Qizix (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I want to say right from the start that I am grateful to you for who undertaking this, especially since it is an often thankless job. I don't blame you for the mistakes, it is easy to get things wrong in such a complicated subject. Now, as to the points you raised:

• In my view and experience, regnal dates are important in providing a chronological context. Most readers won't know in which century Nikephoros I, Leo the Armenian, Michael the Syrian and Thomas the Slav lived, let alone the exact sequence in which one succeeded the other. Including the regnal dates is also a standard practice in many books and articles.
• On the "central domestic event", you are right it may seem a bit redundant, but it is IMO useful to have an assessment of its importance somewhere. Ostrogorsky was one of the most influential Byzantinists, and his opinion in this is echoed in several other works. Since the lede is there to summarize the article, I think that this succinct assessment belongs there. Alternatively, perhaps it should be moved to the impact section. I am open to suggestions.
• On the phrasing, the first is not really accurate: there are two narratives, one of which was fabricated by Michael, but which may contain elements of truth. Michael's propaganda however has also influenced wider perceptions that have shaped later historical opinion even where the latter does not explicitly follow the "Michael version" of the Thomas' live. I am open to suggestions, but I feel that the words "hostile propaganda" and some statement that both medieval and modern views of Thomas have been warped by it should be there.
• On the monk's story, it is included in almost every retelling of Bardanes's (and Thomas's) revolt. Yes, the story is probably apocryphal highlighting the intertwined fates of Leo, Michael and Thomas, but that is no reason to leave it out. And BTW, you have misunderstood something (or I didn't make it clear): there are several hagiographic sources on Thomas, not one. One, the Life of Saints David, Symeon, and George of Lesbos, recounts the entire revolt, but there are others that include only details or passing references, which are however important. As to the repetition of "hagiographic", it can't be helped, unless you want me to start using the more obscure vitae instead.
• On who started it: yes, that is pretty much it. Lemerle suggests that Michael started the tale to try and legitimize his own usurpation, on the logic that Thomas rebelled, Leo's armies were defeated, i.e. Leo was not competent to deal with the situation so I overthrew him. At the same time, it was a convenient way to shift the blame for failing to suppress the revolt early on to Leo.
• On the minor edits: I'll go through them again, I sort of panic-reverted your changes there and then. I've restored some, but haven't had got the time to look at them carefully.
• On Constantine VI: the article tries to represent not only the course of the revolt, but also to explain the various problems surrounding Thomas as represented in the primary sources and as explored by scholarship. In the context of a full-blown revolt aimed at seizing the throne, the assumption or not of Constantine VI's identity is important. The iconoclasm issue is complicated: most modern sources reject it as a major factor, but every study devotes a section to examining whether Thomas was pro- or anti-iconophile. Given that Byzantine history of the 8th and early 9th centuries very much hinges around the issue of Iconoclasm, Thomas's position (or lack thereof) must be treated.
• On rural discontent: the thing I'm trying to say is that yes, rural discontent existed and was widespread, but was not the primary motivating factor (or among the primary factors) for the revolt. I agree with your comments, but I have a preference for spelling things out to avoid confusion. Anyhow, it is a minor issue, feel free to tweak around.

Go ahead and make whatever changes you see fit, I'll revert only if necessary. For anything else, feel free to ask! Cheers, Constantine ✍ 11:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Constantine- Thanks for the response. I'm still not entirely convinced that the article needs some of these.

• On regnal dates: So which one is it, chronological context or a stylistic necessity? If it's stylistic, then fine, though I see no wiki precedent for it. But if you want to provide chronological context, then you still don't need the dates. e.g: "Thomas rose to prominence, along with the future emperors Michael II and Leo V the Armenian (r. 813–820), under the protection of general Bardanes Tourkos. After Bardanes's failed rebellion in 803, Thomas falls into obscurity for a decade until Leo V's rise to the throne." As you can see, the chronological context makes the need to provide dates for Leo completely irrelevant (and makes a clause, "for a decade," redundant), as we know that he rose to the throne a decade after Bardanes's revolt in 803. Again, with Constantine, we need not provide the dates of his rule, as we learn that his death at the hands of his mother occurred in 797. If you're committed, though, I'll let it rest, even though I disagree. It's your article, after all.
• I think the central domestic thing absolutely must be moved to the impact section. When you say that it was the biggest rebellion in the Empire's history, then you've totally summarized its importance. Then going on to talk about its place in Michael's reign is redundant, doesn't belong in the lead, and weakens the statement's enormity and forcefulness.
• I totally misunderstood the sentence, I suppose that's why I edited it incorrectly. How about:

"but its precise circumstances are unclear due to competing historical narratives, including one fabricated by Michael that has distorted accounts of the revolt." Or something like that? I really don't want to leave the sentence as it stands, it's quite the wordy mouthful. Also, I really think your details here should go in the body, not the Lead.

• On the monk: I understand that the tale of the monk may be extremely popular, but you admit that it is first and foremost about Bardane, not Thomas. Whatever. Maybe I'll think of a clever way to integrate it into the article and get rid of the huge redundancy in telling the story and recounting its predictions.
• I'll try restoring the minor edits, hopefully won't take too long. Please don't do a total revert of the edits if you can help it, because it makes it hard to restore the right ones.
• On Constantine: You say that the possible appropriation of Constantine's identity by Thomas is important because Thomas was launching a full blown revolt. That seems like two facts, but I don't see how they together form an argument. Your point on iconoclasm is well taken, but that's the real importance behind Constantine, then why talk about iconoclasm/iconolatry in the context of an unimportant subject (Constantine)? Why not just talk about them, saying what you mean? "Thomas was purposely ambiguous regarding his stance on icons, which is reflected in the way Byzantine sources describe him..."
• On rural discontent: Yes, this is a minor issue, but I think the need to "spell things out" has led to many places in the article where these kinds of redundancies exist, as was pointed out on the FAC. I'm going to go make some edits, and feel free to revert, though selectively, not as a group please ;) Thanks a lot

Qizix (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Finland and Spitfires Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Τ== Moved category ==

Hi. What do you think about this?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do refer to the Ottoman Macedonia thing and I agree with you. The difference between the region Macedonia and the nation-state Macedonia is of course not artificial. You are right that we should first clear up what Macedonia under the Ottoman Empire is about.

Sometimes I am not sure what to think about history of certain administrative units and states before they existed. If we introduce article about "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia under Ottoman Empire" it may look absurd and ridiculous and serve as precedent for articles like Republic of Srpska under Ottoman Empire. I am not sure what is the best way to proceed in such cases. Never mind. Sorry for disturbing you, I just wanted to know your opinion about it and thought that you could be interested in this topic. Best regards.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Kalispera, rixe mia matia sto ar8ro tis Lefkosias kai boi8a ligo, enas diaxeiristis ekei den me afini, tourkalas sigoura, na miliso kai otan to kano me apili me BAN , prospa8o na tou exigiso ki arnite na mou milisi o an8ropos einai aparadektos, isos na ton pigename sta META i kai kamia minisi na tou kaname pou ipotirizi tourkoukika symferonta tou psebdokratous. tony esopi^λέγε 12:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Το αν φαω εδω ΒΑΝ η οχι αδιαφορω, σπανια μπαινω ετσι κι αλλιως , το θεμα ειναι οτι προσπαθησα να μιλησω, και με αυτον τον αμερικανο και συνεχως μου τα εσβηνε ολα και τα αποκαλουσε βανδαλισμο! δεν μου εξηγησε καν τι επρεπε να κανω, κατι που το θεωρω απαραδεκτο. Επισης τα λογια του ειναι προβλητικα . Ο κυριος αυτος απο οσα ειδα θελει νγινει διαχειριστης και αναρωτιεμε ποσοι χρηστες εχουν φραγη και διωχτει για εχει βραβεια βανδαλισμου αυτος? δεν νομιζω να υπηρχε προβλημα αν με αφηναν να μιλησω ? δεν ξερω αγγλικα τοο καλα πρεπει να χρησιμοποιησω μεταφραστη, αυτο ειναι το προβλημα μπυ εμενα , και αυτος με εμποδιζει χωρις να μου πει τον λογο και να μου υποδειξει την αναλογη πολιτικη που το λεει αυτο που κανει. αν θες μετεφρασετο και πεστο τους αυτο που ειπα εδω . tony esopi^λέγε 14:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Paidia diavasa ti syzitisi sas. Symfwnw me Constantino prepi na syzitithei me epixeirimata an kai de kserw posi oreksi exoun na syzitoun afou oloi oi admins akolouthoun tin idia grammi - ban se opion thelei na syzitisei. Exw apntisei se afton to Peter alla xreiazomai voitheia sta epixeirimata an mporeite. Toulaxisto as kataferoume na theorithei oti den einai NPOV to na deixnontai kai oi dyo dimoi, afou to debate gia ti nomimotita einai ousiastika oloi enantiwn tis tourkias. Einai krima kai adiko pragmatika na meinei toso xalia h selida. H proti entypwsi pou kanei ston episkepti einai arnitiki. Sto metaksi yparxei idi selida gia North Nicosia pou ena peripou leei ta idia. Den tous ftanei mono afti theloun na lene ta idia kai gia tin eleftheri lefkosia. De lew oti den prepi na anaferetai o tourkikos dimos afou ontws yparxei (an kai einai paranomos) alla to proto pragma pou diavazei kapios molis mpei einai oti yparxei diaxwrismos vasi syntagmatos, pou den einai ortho. To ortho einai oti yparxei eisvoli kai katoxi edafous tou nomimou dimou lefkosias kai to opoio einai gegonos adiamfisvitito kai prepi na mpei me lekseis opws occupation kai illegal pou einai h koini thesi olis tis diefthnous koinotitas. Otan diavazeis to summary ligo poly nomizeis oti den ta vriskane ellines kai tourkoi kai ta xwrisane. Episeis tha eprepe na provaletai perisotero h omorfi plevra tis lefkosias para o diaxwrismos kai ta syrmatoplegmata. Mporw na vrw wraies fotografies alla apoti fenetai de mas afinoun na allaksoume tipota. Koitakste ligo to istoriko twn edits sto Discussion kai sto Page na deite ti fasismos epikratei. Masri145 (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Constantinos. I myself i'm very busy with real life as well but I try my best. On the Nicosia page, even though the existence of separate municipalities is mentioned in the Republic of Cyprus constitution and the reference provided is correct there was never any territorial separation agreed between the two municipalities as the Nicosia article suggests. It doesn't provide any references. As far as I know in 1963 there were para-military enclaves created in Cyprus (one of them being in Nicosia) which were controlled by the para-military group TMT (a turkish-cypriot nationalistic group that wanted to break away from the Republic of Cyprus). These sectors had nothing to do with the turkish municipality of nicosia. The territorial seggration was only imposed after the Turkish Invasion of 1974. All these should be mentioned. After the invasion the turkish nicosia municipality in the form that it's being described in the constitution essentially ceased to exist as it's now under the control of TRNC. So they can't have both the legitimacy of the constitution and at the same time being controlled by an illegal state. I have made some suggestions in the discussion page, please feel free to chime in with your thoughts. Thanks. Masri145 (talk) 10:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Good Article promotion

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making Battle of Akroinon a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated. In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk)

Constantinople

I know that you must have a good reason because you wouldn't do it otherwise. But why are you listing people who were born in Constantinople when it was called Constantinople and who died when it was still called Constantinople as "People from Istanbul"? It is not historically accurate to say that they were born in Istanbul when the whole world called it Constantinople at the time. Is this another one of those Wikipedia "you must do it this way because we all voted and agreed it should be done this way, even though it does not reflect what actually happened in history"? Wikipedia is erasing the name Constantinople all the way back to when the Ottomans first took Constantinople when the name was still used officially and predominantly up till the late 1920s. How is that right?  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 23:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was right. Wikipedia has reinvented history. You had to be born in Byzantine times to have been born in Constantinople. What a joke. It really cuts to the bone when you say that Ypsilantis was from Istanbul. He wasn't. It was still officially called Constantinople. What about Occupation_of_Constantinople? Shouldn't it be Occupation of Istanbul? Even though it was still called Constantinople and it was the exact opposite of an occupation.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 23:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Census help

Hi, could you, please, check User:Lunch for Two's edits on articles of Greek villages. He is saying there are no Greeks living in those places. I am not familiar with Greek censuses but I am positive this is not what they actually show. --Laveol ^T 08:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

John the Armenian

Hi, as you are interested in Byzantine history and know a lot about it, then maybe you could comment this article in its talk page? Talk:John the Armenian#Reliability. Thank you! :) --Barosaurus Lentus (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Quick Thomas Questions

Hey Constantine, I wasn't sure whether to post this in the previous Thomas the Slav section, but it's just a quick question:

When Michael addressed Thomas's troops, exhorting them to defect, did Thomas's army take this as "a sign of distress" meaning that they thought Michael was showing how weak he was, or were they distressed by Michael's speech? I assumed the former, but I wanted to be sure.

Also: "Even Gregory Pterotos, whose family was in Michael's hands, resolved to desert Thomas, followed by a small band of men loyal to him" Should this read: "whose family was in Thomas's hands"?

Thanks, Qizix (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

On the first question, the former. The troops regarded it as a last-ditch effort to win them over. On the second, no, Pterotos' family was indeed in Michael's hands, and that was a factor in his decision to defect. I didn't make that clear enough. Constantine ✍ 22:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Greek Generals

Huh, you may have misunderstood. I do not have access to ALL ΔΙΣ works, I have access to the series (some 10-12 volumes) about the Asia Minor Campaign, which is a historical narrative, with no particular biographical information. I would be glad to help if you need something I can help with, but I honestly have never cared to look after the biographies of Greek generals, and I cannot think of which book I could look up such thing. Have you tried the site of ΔΙΣ? Although not very well made, it does have a free-access digitalized library with (part of) its archives. Perhaps there is something there.--Xristar (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Check Finished Thomas copyedit?

Hey Constantine-

Do you think you could check the Thomas the Slav copyedit, make sure everything is O.K? Thanks, Qizix (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I'll check it out later today. Constantine ✍ 17:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Opinion

Hi Constantine. Do you have any opinion on Talk:Battle of Sakarya#Preciceness, sourced information & Talk:Baltacı Mehmet Pasha, Talk:Cenani Mehmed Kadri Pasha, Talk:Ibrahim Hakkı Pasha, Talk:Hafız Hakkı, Talk:Mahmud Mukhtar Pasha etc.................... ? Have a nice weekends. Takabeg (talk) 00:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Costa, I would also like you pay a visit to the Battle of Sakarya's article (and Talk Page), which I wrote with your assistance. I have nothing against other contributions and/or improvements but I think that consensus and good understanding should be reached with good faith.Periptero (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Guys, I am totally swamped by real life currently, and any time I have for Wikipedia will go to the Thomas the Slav FAC and a few other obligations. When I have more time I'll have a look. Cheers, and best to both. Constantine ✍ 11:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Domestic of the Schools

The DYK project (nominate) 04:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Desert Squadrons

Seems we have an article for every squadron now. Since you were the main contributor of the two other articles, it would be of great help to check the 13th MEB article and maybe think about a good hook.Alexikoua (talk) 09:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ottoman family tree template

is similar to the following http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Pharaohs

Hence the following is more informative

The Egyptian template is not an apt comparison for two reasons: first, it follows a universal and well-established scheme by adhering to division by dynasties, and second, it covers three millennia, so some division and grouping of rulers by periods is absolutely necessary. The Ottoman template on the other hand is too detailed, with divisions that sometimes cover less than 15 years and that are shorter than the reigns of the contemporary sultan. The old five period division was OK in this regard, but the scheme you are proposing is not. To speak plainly: when you use groups in a navbox, you use encompassing categories, not specific single-item terms. A group of one entry is no group. Have a look on how other ruler navboxes are structured. What is more important however, is that there is no indication that your proposed division of the sultans is used in any source. In conclusion, with navboxes, simplicity is the best. Constantine ✍ 19:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, but there is another issue: The dates and the names of the periods in Ottoman History in English Wiki are not consistent with those dates and the names of the periods of the same Ottoman History in Turkish Viki. For example, growth period ends in Turkish Viki in 1579, but it continues until 1683 in English Wiki. Similarly, the foundation and the rise periods in English Wiki are written on the very same page, but these are different periods in Turkish viki. Decline and dissolution periods don't match as well, therefore we had generated those explicit template distinguishing these unmatched periods. Now, how will you handle with those mistakes?193.255.108.20 (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of the problem, and that is the main reason I reverted to the "simple" version without periods. I am quite willing to reinstate the period division if we can find some good and reliable information about the dates. I am away from most of my Ottoman history books currently, so if you have access to some good sources and can point me to them, it would be nice. BTW, this discussion should probably take place in the template talk page s that other users can participate as well, and so that there is a record of the relevant decision-making process there. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 07:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Patriarch Joasaph I of Constantinople

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 03:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC) 23:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)