User talk:Cplakidas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

User:Cplakidas User talk:Cplakidas Special:Emailuser/Cplakidas User:Cplakidas/Articles User:Cplakidas/Sources User:Cplakidas/Sandbox User:Cplakidas/Awards
Userpage Talk page E-mail Articles Sources Sandbox Awards


Happy New Year Cplakidas![edit]

Fireworks in Jaén (cropped).jpg
Happy New Year!
Hello Cplakidas:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Peace sign.svg

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Thank you very much Alessandro! A Happy New Year to you and your loved ones! Constantine 10:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Tawahin[edit]

The article Battle of Tawahin you nominated as a good article has failed Symbol unsupport vote.svg; see Talk:Battle of Tawahin for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 06:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to say that I truly am apologetic. It's very well written and referenced, but I think it needs substantial expansion in focus, due to the significance of the battle and my personal knowledge. However, if you believe I have made an error, you may re-nominate it, to see if other editors have a separate inclination. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 06:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello! As I wrote in the review page, the review process was IMO irregular in that it did not allow any time for me to address the perceived failings of the article. The expansion in focus is debatable, but what has "personal knowledge" to do with any of this? Do you know a source that hasn't been used here and that says more on the battle? If so, kindly point me to it and I will include it. One simply does not just speedily fail an article unless it is a horrible mess, which, judging from your comments, you evidently don't feel this one to be. Constantine 10:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm in on this.[edit]

I just joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece since I did quite a lot from my Summer 2012 visit to the capital, and once again caught another Pumpie suspect: the user in question is Zendilester (talk · contribs). PS: Athens Metro has a new map, please verify if OASA is adhering to the service pattern.--Marianian(talk) 19:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. The map seems accurate at first glance, I suppose you are aware of this map, but I'll get you a few photos of the charts from the trains, if you want, that should be good enough. Happy New Year, BTW. Constantine 19:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Excellent idea, thanks. I've just talked to Mark Arsten (talk · contribs) about Pumpie and he would like to know which articles/titles Pumpie has targeted so he can semi-protect/salt (respectively). I am also going to post a quick note on the WP open tasks page because of the damage from one of Pumpie's socks, Oh Yeaaahh (such as Athenian templates being used for Thessaloniki, and station codes that I found no source for). --Marianian(talk) 20:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Tawahin - expansion[edit]

Hey Constantine, I just saw the recommendations made by DarthBotto for upgrading the Battle of Tawahin to good article status. I'm not sure I agree with all of the suggestions myself, but I do think that there is some room for expanding/lengthening the article. I could do a bit of work on the lead and aftermath sections at least, but I wanted to check first and make sure you weren't planning to yourself - it's your article and I don't want to mess up your edits. Let me know either way, thanks. Ro4444 (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I likewise don't agree with everything he wrote, and have a nasty suspicion that this was a "quick job review", but the lead and aftermath do probably need a bit more work. Feel free to go ahead, you have access to more sources than I do usually. I'll help as I can. BTW, I wanted to ask you, do you know any source that gives a detailed break-down of Abbasid provinces at various times? I'd like to expand the "Abbasid governors" categories, but am still on the search for good sources. Also, Happy New Year, and best of wishes :) Constantine 19:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I can definitely help with that - a while ago I tried to create a "Provinces of the Caliphate" article, but I shelved it because I could never work it into a satisfactory format. I posted a bunch of my sources for that article at this site; it's basically a number of province lists relating to various time periods. Hopefully they should be of assistance for what you need. Obviously the smaller provinces probably don't need their own category, but the bigger ones (Yemen, Sijistan/Sistan, Arminiyah, Mosul, Makkah and Madinah, etc.) could use one. On a related note, if you're looking for a list of provincial governors, Khalifah ibn Khayyat's Tarikh has a section for each of the caliphs from 'Ali to Harun, listing all of the governors during his reign for each major province, although his information sometimes conflicts with other sources. If you need help finding any information or sources, feel free to ask me anytime. Happy New Year to you too! Ro4444 (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Wow, I did not expect that detailed a reply. Thanks a lot, this is great! I agree on the categories, I just wanted some more detailed sources especially on Syria, since modern sources often state that X was placed as governor of/in Syria, without specifying provinces. I quite naturally assumed that this implies control of the ajnad, but I wondered if there ever was a single super-province of Sham during Abbasid times. Anyhow, thanks again! Cheers, Constantine 10:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for your additions to the Mikra cemetery article. The project really falls short in this department. I couldn't find a CWGC list for Greece either, let alone a list of Greek cemeteries. Thanks for all your magnificent work. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Likewise thank you for engaging in this work, for precisely the same reasons. I sympathize, as I too am often thwarted by lack of easily accessible when trying to find information for Greece-related articles. Have a happy new year, and keep editing! --Constantine 18:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Ishaq ibn Kundaj[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Another Pumpie sock?[edit]

I believe you are familiar with Pumpie and his ways: it might save me some research time if you would have a look at the contributions of Dorodean (talk · contribs) who I have just blocked. Do you agree that this is likely him again? So, in your opinion, should I just undo/delete everything per WP:CSD#G5? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, this account was blocked before it could exhibit the more tell-tale Pumpie-isms (horrible translations, new articles with warning tags carried over from where he copied them, etc), but a new account which appears out of nowhere to write on Spanish subway articles and knows template syntax is almost definitely a sock. Constantine 17:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
On top of that, I noticed that MarshaClo is editing on top of titles that Dorodean created. --Marianian(talk) 09:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


Hello Constantine. Could you check this map? Expanding articles about the Exarchate of Ravenna and translating other maps about it I think that there is something wrong about byzantine boundaries in Italy. I can be wrong but, in 717, the Byzantine still had a inland connection between the Exarchate of Ravenna and the Duchy of Rome and, according other maps (but this I actually don't know exactly), they lost Corsica and the inland connection between the Duchy of Venice and Istria. What do you think?--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


Hi! I just stumbled across the Al-Mu'tadid and thanks to you it seems to be loads better than it was and than any of the other Caliph's articles. Thanks and well done! Furius (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comment, much appreciated. I intend to begin working on some of the other caliphs as well, so stay tuned! Best regards, Constantine 21:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Macedonian king coin images[edit]

Hi Constantinos, I recently underwent the process of receiving copyright permission to upload images of coins from each era of the Macedonian kings from the Classical Numismatic Group. My intention is to upload historical images to the page of each king where there are no images or where the current images are inappropriate. The problem is that I am not sure how to go about tagging the images appropriately when I am uploading them to wiki commons. I saw from the history that appropriate imagery for these pages has held some interest to you and would ask if you would be kind enough to assist me to successfully complete this task. I would be indebted to you. Thank you for your time. --Vergiotisa (talk) 09:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, glad to help. The point with coin images is that although the coin per se may be public domain (no-one is going to claim copyright for an ancient Greek artist), the photographic reproduction itself is considered a separate work potentially falling under copyright. So unless you have taken photos yourself from a coin collection, in which case you can license them in whatever way you see fit, the best way is to use some database like the CNG Coins, which allows us to use their images freely, provided we attribute the source. Here is an example of how a coin from CNG is uploaded and tagged. {{CNG}} is used as a license and attribution, while {{PD-old-100}} is optional, referring to the fact that the work depicted (not the photo itself) is too old for copyright. For any further questions, don't hesitate to ask me. Cheers, Constantine 10:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I will give it a go and let you know how I went. I am new to this so your direction has been invaluable. Thanks again. Regards --Vergiotisa (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Constantine I have uploaded this image. Archelaos Could you please ok that I have done it properly as per your instructions for the tags? If not some further direction would be very much appreciated. Cheers - --Vergiotisa (talk) 11:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is OK, just remember to post the link where you have found the actual image, not simply the page where it is listed otherwise it may well be deleted because the link may be deprecated and the provenance no longer verifiable in the future. Constantine 11:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

If you check now I've made the change that you have suggested. Thank you very much - --Vergiotisa (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Great! Happy uploading ;) Constantine 11:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

A favor[edit]

When you have a moment, would you look over John II of Trebizond? I've greatly rewritten it, & would like to think I've improved it to a "B" class; however, I'd like a fresh set of eyes to verify this, & help with any problems I may have overlooked. Thanks in advance. -- llywrch (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Well done! I'll see if I can dig up Savvides' history of the empire of Trebizond, which is the only modern Greek history on the subject, and references also many of the more recent studies in Russian (most of the recent research on Trebizond has been by Russian scholars). Cheers, Constantine 11:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
That has been the chief difficulty I've encountered: I know neither language at all, & that's where most of the action has been. In order to use Michael Panaretos' Chronicle -- which, terse as it is, contains more information than Finlay or Miller suggests -- I made my own translation, largely based on Fullmerayer's translation into 19th century German. (The one English translation online only covers the first third of that work & I've found has a number of mistakes.) My translation is ... interesting, but with my translation I know what the problems are & I can correct them against the secondary sources. -- llywrch (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

ARBMAC case[edit]

Hi Costantine, wish you a happy new year. By the way since you are experience with the topic, user:Slovenski Volk, is again straight violating his restriction (he has a arbmac restriction since 2012 with an exeption in Prehistory and Roman era Balkans, but unfortunately ignores it and pretents even that the Slavic invasion of Morea belongs to the... Roman era). By now he received a final warning.Alexikoua (talk) 11:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy new year to you too, I hope you are well! I'll keep an eye out, thanks, but ARBMAC violations are for admins to handle. Other than reverting and warning (which you have well in hand as far as I can see), I don't know what else I can do. FWIW, the edits themselves in Peloponnese do not seem to be that contentious (I haven't checked the referencing, though). Constantine 12:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
The specific edits seem ok, although they are still in straight violation (in fact the latest example) of the restriction.Alexikoua (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Text Boxes[edit]

Hi Constantine. Sorry to bother you again but I noticed that you edited the text box I had placed in the article for Aeropus II. Being new I simply copied the format of another text box article and filled in the blanks. While the edit for the caption immediately became obvious to me (it was unnecessarily lengthy)other aspects of your edit weren't so clear. Would you be kind enough to show me what the guidelines are for text boxes as I have seen many various in wikipedia and would prefer to learn correctly. Your help as always is sincerely appreciated - --Vergiotisa (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Its quite simple, the individual fields are explained here. I simply removed the sub-infobox (the one with "royal house") because it really didn't offer anything useful as the Argead dynasty was mentioned, and "Ancient Greece" as a location of birth and death is too generic. If unknown, the fields are best left blank. Constantine 15:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

O.k I see your point and I agree. Thank you again - --Vergiotisa (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes New Years Double Issue[edit]

Books & Bytes

Eurasian Eagle-Owl Maurice van Bruggen.JPG

Volume 1 Issue 3, December/January 2013

(Sign up for monthly delivery)

Happy New Year, and welcome to a special double issue of Books & Bytes. We've included a retrospective on the changes and progress TWL has seen over the last year, the results of the survey TWL participants completed in December, some of our plans for the future, a second interview with a Wiki Love Libraries coordinator, and more. Here's to 2014 being a year of expansion and innovation for TWL!

The Wikipedia Library completed the first 6 months of its Individual Engagement grant last week. Here's where we are and what we've done:
Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of 400-600%
Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC
New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers
Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors
Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration
Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting
...Read Books & Bytes!

Muslim conquest of Khuzestan issues[edit]

Hi Constantine, I noticed that you most recently moved this article to its current title, and thought I'd reach out... I came across it scanning the backlog of articles needing copy-edit, but determined that since it is a single-source article with lengthy direct quotations, a copyedit would be inappropriate. I wonder if in its current state it is in danger of deletion... or how it should be tagged to alert readers... I don't think the article fails notability, but its content is certainly not encyclopedic. Thanks! I had already pinged the projects listed on its talk page, but with no response, I figured I'd try raising a flag here. Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 18:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello! The article's subject is certainly notable, but it is in a horrible state and needs lots of work. I don't think it is likely to be deleted just because of that, but I have a hunch there are some serious copyright violations (the article does not mention where it got Tabari's citations from, but they are most likely lifted straight from the SUNY series). In its present state it is not really salvageable, so there's little you can do. It would need a complete rewrite top to bottom to become a half-decent article, and I for one won't have time with my current schedule to engage with it until about March or so. Try contacting User:HistoryofIran, he might have time and interest in helping out here. Otherwise, if you are up to trying to write about a (presumably) totally unknown subject, I can point you to some good sources. Constantine 21:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
LOL thanks for the response and tip. I don't have time or interest in working on it myself... updated tags on the article to alert readers to single-sourcedness and we'll have to leave it at that. Thanks, again. Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 03:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

"Modern" Greek names?[edit]

Hello! I noticed your edit in the title of Alexandra Mavrokordatou. You state that this name should be spelled with a K instead of a C because this is the correct spelling for a modern Greek name. I don't quite understand this; by "modern" I assume you refer to people from after 1900? In any case, if Alexandra should be counted as a modern person, the several of the other articles about the people of the same family should also have their article moved to the modern spelling; for example, this one: Constantine Mavrocordatos is spelled with a c, and as you can see, he lived during the 18th-century and should be counted as more modern than Alexandra, who lived in the 17th-century, that is to say the century before him. --Aciram (talk) 15:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

In fact, all the people in this category who has their named spelled with a c, seem to have died after her rather than before: [[1]]--Aciram (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello! The reason why some members of the family are spelled with a "c" is because of the latinized and Romanian forms, which were broadly used when they served as hospodars in the Danubian Principalities. Alexandra had no relation with either modern Romania nor with Western Europe, so the rule is transliteration per WP:GREEK, with a "k". Compare for instance the difference between the Kantakouzenos family and the Cantacuzino family. It is a matter of context and usage within that context. Constantine 22:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh I see, it has to do with place rather than time? In that case I understand better. --Aciram (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Both. Ancient Greek names are traditionally latinized, medieval names are usually transliterated; for modern names, it depends. Transliteration the more common, but in cases where a Greek person interacted mostly with a non-Greek environment and was known already in his lifetime with a half-latinized name like Mavrocordato (and probably used it himself), the tendency is to stick to that following usage in sources. Alexandra on the other hand was scarcely known outside Athens from what I can see, and may not have been related to the Phanariote family at all, so here "standard" rules apply. Constantine 08:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

What do you think of this editor's work?[edit]

Tomatooooeeeeesss, pointed out at WikiProject Trains. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Very likely to be our old "friend". France, check. Trains, check. Coming right on the heels of other socks being blocked while working on subway articles, check. You can even throw in the odd username. Constantine 08:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Reported, confirmed as likely, contributions nuked. Sigh. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Sigh indeed. I really would give good money if he would simply stop wasting the time and effort of so many people. Constantine 19:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I think I found another one: Terriffic_Friendy-o_6. The same obsession with useless redirects and Greek romanization variants, poor grammar and references that are quite obviously about other places. See for instance Paneio. Markussep Talk 13:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
"The article is also to be translated into French and German." Oh dear, yes. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Our friend has been blocked, so we can start cleaning up the mess. I see many of his creations have already been deleted (Paneio, Siphae). I made a list with all remaining articles he/she edited, see User:Markussep/Greece#Terriffic Friendy-o 6. Markussep Talk 14:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Additional thoughts about a map[edit]

Greco Turkish War 1919-1922.svg

I've created a map about the Anatolian expedition. If you have some time to spare, I'll be happy to hear any additional suggestions you may have on this.Alexikoua (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice work. As to suggestions, AFAIK the "British zone" was also to a large degree under Greek control after summer 1920, at least between Panormos and Mudanya, so perhaps either a striped shade indicating joint Greco-British control or some other way to indicate this should be used. The Greco-Turkish war included the operations for the capture of E. Thrace, perhaps this too should be included, or the description altered to indicate that this is only about the Anatolian theatre. Also, I think you have an incorrect border in Thrace, I am under the impression the line of the Treaty of Sevres was closer to Constantinople than that. As to details, the dates should be bigger because they are difficult to read, and I would suggest clearly marking out a) the sites of battles (explosion, crossed swords, some icon or other) b) the main railway lines and c) the courses of the Sakarya and Meander rivers, as they played a major role in the campaign. Oh, and in order to avoid the usual disputes about its accuracy, please note your sources in the file description. Constantine 10:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestions. I'm done.Alexikoua (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for your message re changing the focus of the Doukas page and unsourced material. There have been very few advances in the history of the Doukai since Polemis's pioneering work from 1968, and almost nothing on Greeks from the Ottoman period who continued to use or adopted the name, whether or not they claimed actual lineage with the Byzantine Doukai.

My refs to socially mobile families adopting the name of Doukas/Dukas is not based on pure speculation but is a logical inference from the backgrounds/professions and social standing of the many Greeks who used the name in the late Byzantine and Ottoman period, some of whom are actually briefly mentioned towards the end of Polemis's work. This is not to suggest that many of peasant stock did not also adopt the name, but only implies that those who were more likely to claim (usually with little or no actual historical basis) even a tenuous genealogical link to the Byzantine Doukai generally were what we would now call socially mobile middle class people who may have sought to conceal their more humble origins. I actually know and work with a Greek man right here in London who has Dukas as a middle name and who says he has upper-middle class relatives from Epirus who sometimes jokingly claim they are genealogically linked to the founders of the Despotate of Epirus! He himself acknowledges that such a link is completely unverifiable and highly unlikely, except maybe in the sense that many people from there and other parts of Greece with which the Doukai had links will have at least some genealogical link to them and other Byzantines (peasants as well as nobility) simply through the natural spreading of the gene pool over hundreds of years.


regards Alexis A Gounaris (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I am glad you chose to use your account instead of an IP, so first off, welcome and happy editing! As to the issue at hand, I don't really object to your comments, they are rather plausible. Where I do object is interposing new statements among the extant referenced material, because that distorts WP:Verifiability. I could even tolerate unreferenced information, provided that it is not contentious and that it is made clear that it is unreferenced; on the other hand, assumptions, even if "plausible", "self-evident", or "logical", are simply another form of WP:OR if we get down to it. The assumption about social mobility is indeed self-evident, but the added emphasis implies that this was the chief motivator, which not in the sources: the name was adopted not only by aspiring middle-class families, but also by perfectly blue-blooded nobles who wanted to appear more prestigious, as well as by serfs and other commoners whose motives are unknown. Indeed, the point the sources make is that the name became so widespread that a) any link to the original Doukas lineage post the 12th century is spurious at best and b) that it also became debased because it was adopted by all and sundry. Likewise, your linking the name specifically with northern Greece, or at least trying to give the impression that it was particularly preponderant there due to the Komnenodoukai, is a plausible hypothesis, but not supported anywhere in the sources AFAIK. I think it a shame to litter a well-referenced article with "citation needed" tags if there is no real reason for it, which is why I undertook the rather unusual step of a wholesale revert. Again, you are most cordially invited to add any information you may have from reliable sources, here and elsewhere. There are too few people working on Greek-related subjects, so any help is doubly appreciated! Constantine 19:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


About the "of Tabaristan" thing, do you think it could be spelled as "of Mazandaran" then? since that was what they normally ruled. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 10:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, you have a point in that the title they used was "King of Mazandaran", but how much did this translate into actual control of all of Mazandaran? I might be mistaken, but the image I have of the family is that they were at best first among equals with the other local families like the Qarinids and the Paduspanids rather than occupying the same position of acknowledged overlordship as the Dabuyids had. And if such a move were to made, it would have to encompass all the members of the dynasty from the second branch of the family on per WP:NCROY. I'll have a look to see what I can find on this, and will keep you posted. Constantine 11:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I cannot read Greek, so I beg a small favour ...[edit]

Regarding Kastelorizo, an editor says that this census report lists Ro and Strongyli Kastellorizou as uninhabited in 2011. Could you confirm or correct? Thanks! Yngvadottir (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in. I forgot to mention it is entry no. 18430 and 18431. Regards! --T*U (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I see now that that's the same population source we're using for the island itself. So one of you should probably update the articles on the 2 little islands with that ref :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, both Ro and Strongyli are uninhabited, Ro actually quite famously so, ever since the death of the Lady of Ro. I see that Alessandro57 already corrected the census data. Constantine 09:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Strongly recommended[edit]

Why don′t you move Tenedos to its formal/official name? Double standards? Cordial greetings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

a) why is that supposed to be my responsibility, especially in an article where I have the grand total of one (1) edit? Perhaps all the other users, like Churn and change (talk · contribs), who has written most of it, are also guilty of "double standards"? Or do only Greeks have "double standards"? b) you obviously refer to my move of Strongyli Kastellorizou to Strongyli Megistis, then you should know that Megisti is simply the formal name of Kastellorizo. "Kastellorizou" and "Megistis" are there merely for disambiguation, and nothing like the situation you have in mind. c) as to your specific complaint, did you read the relevant discussions in the Tenedos article talk page? You'll find out why the name is at its Greek, or rather, international, form rather than the Turkish one. Finally, d) you obviously know me somehow and have watchlisted some articles, so why don't you use an account so that we can discuss properly, instead of sniping about double standards to random people behind the anonymity of an IP address? Cheers, Constantine 10:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Apion (family)[edit]

This came to my attention when you edited the papyrus article just now. That's a nice piece of work, there.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. I hope to find more sources to expand the article further, if you know of or come accross any, don't hesitate to drop me a note. Constantine 09:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Roman Britain[edit]

Hi Constantine! Would you please help me with some elusive British provinces? Your map is completely different from this one and they, supposedly, represent a 10 years' gap between them. Valentia is all over the place as is Britannia II. Maxima and Flavia are inverted and Britannia I extends to the east in the second. Your map is much less used than the other one so here I am. PS: It crossed my mind to ask User:Ealdgyth also. What do you think? José Luiz talk 00:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Urf. Roman Britain is well before my normal period of comfort. Sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, the exact layout of the late Roman provinces in Britain is a mystery, and the location of Valentia, if it ever was anything more than a short-lived province, doubly so. I cannot remember now what sources I consulted for my map, but I am more than certain that the "410" map is wrong: Valentia was probably briefly in existence in the 360s in territory "recovered" from the barbarians that probably lay in one of the other four provinces. It certainly was not located north of Hadrian's Wall, as Roman authority had withdrawn south of it well before this time. The relevant articles in the English WP are rather misleading, the German WP is much more sober and up-to-date in this regard. Constantine 08:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Abu'l-Qasim al-Husayn ibn Ali al-Maghribi[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Mufarrij ibn Daghfal ibn al-Jarrah[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. You have provoked me to research Doukai and Dukas/Doukas name more thoroughly[edit]

Thanks Constantinos. You are definitely right about the scope of the article. So I will now stop contributing to the Doukas page in this way, but research the topic more thoroughly and hopefully start a separate page on prominent late Byzantine and early Ottoman families/figures who bore the name Dukas/Doukai, whether or not they claimed any links to the actual Doukai. I myself am particularly interested in people like Demetrios Dukas Kavasilas, because the historical context to his own period as governor dovetails into some other research I want to do - somewhat tenuously related to the PhD I am doing - on the introduction of Islam and Turks into Macedonia in the century before the Ottoman conquest. I believe there is also a good and fairly recent prosopographical work on Dukas Kavasilas in Greek! Thanks A Gounaris (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Best of luck with your research and your PhD, and as before, you are welcome to add to any Byzantine-related or other article you want. But, to save both myself and yourself acrimony and time, please take care to include only information that is referenced to reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary work that compiles information from scholars, it is not the place for our own opinions or assumptions, no matter how plausible. Else it can and will get reverted. Best regards, Constantine 13:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


Hello Constantine. Could you check this map? Expanding articles about the Exarchate of Ravenna and translating other maps about it I think that there is something wrong about byzantine boundaries in Italy. I can be wrong but, in 717, the Byzantine still had a inland connection between the Exarchate of Ravenna and the Duchy of Rome and, according other maps (but this I actually don't know exactly), they lost Corsica and the inland connection between the Duchy of Venice and Istria. What do you think?--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Armenian Barnstar of National Merit[edit]

Armenian barn.png Armenian Barnstar of National Merit
You are hereby awarded the Armenian Barnstar of National Merit for all the work he has done to improve the coverage of Armenian related articles. Most noteworthy is your map on the Kingdom of Armenia. Keep up the great work! P.S. It's Proudbolsahye. This is my new username.
this WikiAward was given to WikiProject Armenia by --Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated! (Although I am not sure I know which map you refer to, if it is the series on the Roman-Parthian War of 58-63, it in turn was based on other maps I found on Commons, so the credit is due there as well). Cheers, Constantine 18:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Greater Armenia[edit]

Roman East 50-en.svg
An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status
Your image, File:Roman East 50-en.svg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 22:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for creating such a magnificent map! --Երևանցի talk 14:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Tawahin[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Tawahin you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 4[edit]

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 4, February 2014

Eurasian Eagle-Owl Maurice van Bruggen.JPG

News for February from your Wikipedia Library.

Donations drive: news on TWL's partnership efforts with publishers

Open Access: Feature from Ocaasi on the intersection of the library and the open access movement

American Library Association Midwinter Conference: TWL attended this year in Philadelphia

Royal Society Opens Access To Journals: The UK's venerable Royal Society will give the public (and Wikipedians) full access to two of their journal titles for two days on March 4th and 5th

Going Global: TWL starts work on pilot projects in other language Wikipedias

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Second Hellenic Republic[edit]

Hello. Given your extensive experience as a contributor to historical articles on Wikipedia, and in particular ones to do with Greece, I was wondering whether it would be possible for you to take a look at my current re-write of the Second Hellenic Republic article (original here, mine to be found here) which is I believe in its current form, unacceptably neglected. I have been working on it for a very very long time, and had abandoned it for a good two years before I started working on it again a few weeks ago. Right now it is about 1/4 finished, but I would really appreciate any feedback you could give, provided that you have time of course. I will likely be neglecting it a bit for the next couple of months until my university final submission in June. Thanks a lot, and don't worry if you do not have time to do it. (Also I noticed you like Firefly. Kudos.) Regards--Philly boy92 (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow! That is a mammoth undertaking, and you have my utmost respect for even beginning it! Now, as to its present form, there is little I can comment on, as the "History" sections are mostly blank and the statistics sections are not really my cup of tea. However the article will definitely need a very very good and comprehensive (without going into too much detail) intro section, as the politics of the 2nd Republic were a direct continuation of the 1910-1923 period and you cannot understand the former without the latter. Sources also are a bit less than ideal, I would suggest using the Ιστορία του Ελλ. Έθνους to flesh out the bulk of your article, then there is the Η Ελλάς μεταξύ δυο πολέμων 1923-1940, which I have not read myself but which I have heard good things about. I cannot guarantee that I will have time to engage consistently, but I certainly will try and help with the article. I'd also suggest to post a notice at WP:GREECE for anyone else who might be interested and/or knowledgeable. That's it for now, I hope to be able to add something soon! Constantine 10:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! Generally right now I am only using books I have at home in London, there are several books about the subject that I have not brought with me and are back home in Greece. I will look into the two you suggested though. Would you say the statistical yearbooks are not good sources? I would imagine that, being primary sources, they can be used in the cases where they are used. In the economy section, I also use books (primarily the collection of academic essays in Eleftherios Venizelos: The Trials of Statesmanship) to back up the statistical information. The article is still in its infancy in terms of being finished, but I just wanted some feedback so that when I start working in it intensely again in a couple months (after all the uni stuff is out of the way) I have at least some feedback to work with. After I finish the rough outline I plan on making in public and opening the draft up for discussion to eventually replace the (completely unacceptable) current one. Thanks again! :) --Philly boy92 (talk) 11:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
On statistical yearbooks, they are fine as far as using them for making tables, but I would be very hesitant to use them to make an argument of any sort. First, because that would be OR, second, because statistics can be cooked or even presented to say one thing and reality another (witness the present crisis in our country) and third, because IMO numbers quite simply never paint the whole picture in such issues. I'd very much prefer to rely on secondary or tertiary works (like the essays you mention) here. BTW, I'll try to see what sources I have available in electronic form and send them to you. In the meantime, best of luck with the uni stuff! Cheers, Constantine 12:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: Siege of Trebizond (1222–23)[edit]

Hi Constantine! I noticed you upped the level of this article in response to my work but I'm a little puzzled at your rationale. Not that it's not worthy of "B" level yet -- there's a lot of information left to be added, & I think I need to reorganize what I've written -- but that "Referencing and citation" didn't make the grade. Could you take a moment to explain, either here or on the article talk page? TIA, -- llywrch (talk) 07:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! First, thanks for improving the article! On the references, I meant to give you a notice. It is quite simple, there should be inline references at the end of every paragraph at least. For instance, after refs #8 and #9 comes a sentence which seems to be unreferenced, and there are several paragraphs in "Assaults and sorties" that likewise slack references. Now I know that you used the same sources as you cited further below, but for verifiability's sake it is better to repeat them, where and when necessary. Once that is done, then I think the article is ready for a GA nomination, it is about time Trebizond got one. Again, nice work! Constantine 10:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Aha. Part of the reason that I left a number of the paragraphs unsourced is that, as a rule, unless otherwise indicated everything in this article comes from Lazaropoulos' account in his Synopsis -- which I intend to make clear in a later rewrite. The other reason is that this article is very much a "work-in-progress", even moreso than the average Wikipedia article. (For example, I re-read an article last night by A.C.S. Peacock from the Journal of the Royal Asian Society which offers an important insight into this battle, placing it in context of other Seljuk military activities at this time that I need to work into this article. And need to expand on the section on the identity of Melik.) But I'll keep this all in mind as I continue to work on this article. Thanks. -- llywrch (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
No worries, go on until you feel the article is ready. There is no time constraint, after all. Constantine 09:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bardas[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bardas you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Andrea Ghisi[edit]

Hi I edited this article and would like you to see it to know if you have failures. Greetings Kardam (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


If you turn a redirect into an article, other editors can then see what the problem is and make their minds up. I don't see why you have a problem with that. I did so the other day with a French-language article from WP:PNT which I myself then after translating nominated at WP:AFD and it seems to me the best way to let other editors decide. Si Trew (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I see your point and don't doubt your good intentions, but the case is so clear-cut that IMO there was no need for an AfD. Perhaps I erred in doing this, but there are few people involved with Byzantine stuff in WP, and the topic is so obscure no-one would likely be even interested. Anyhow, my point is simply would have saved you trouble to post a question at the RfD before re-creating the article. Not that I blame you, just that your work is wasted on a non-subject like this. Cheers, Constantine 13:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I make mistakes but I try my best. As it happens, another editor thinks it might be worth keeping, at the AfD. I am not sure and I said so. I didn't refer to Diogenes the Cynic or whatever and was quite aware of the gap in the timescale, it is simply, if someone is searching where would they expect to end up? And I really don't know and said so. You might be right the best thing is it to be deleted and then people can search it out for themselves. I really don't know. Si Trew (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


Hola Cplakidas gracias por las revisiones de mis articulos en este idioma, disculpa por el articulo Despotate of Sinope, si es necesario borrarlo lo entiendo. He editado dos articulos para ver si puedes darles una revision, es Hugh IV of Saint Pol y Thierry de Termonde. Un saludo Kardam (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hola, no te preocupes con los algunos artículos que son erróneos, la falta no es tuya, y es una oportunidad para corregirlos en la WP hispanofona también. Más que esto, muchas gracias por comenzar con estas traducciones, de otra manera creo que nadie las habría hecho. Constantine 10:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


Bästa nyskrivna.svg 100000 Edits
Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

Bästa nyskrivna.svg This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

```Buster Seven Talk 13:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow, thanks. I never expected I'd get that far when I began ;). Constantine 13:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bardas[edit]

The article Bardas you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Bardas for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Formations of the Hellenic Army[edit]

Hello, I saw that you are also working on the units and Formations of the Hellenic Army. I did an update today for the I Infantry Division, the II Mechanised Infantry Division and ASDEN - data, layout and graphics. I also worked on the III Army Corps, but could not finish it as I do not know what units belong to 8th Infantry Brigade, 9th Infantry Brigade and 10th Infantry Brigade. Typically they should consist of HQ company, 3x infantry battalions, engineer company, signal company and support battalion (like the disbanded 15th Infantry Brigade), but I did not find any information to confirm this and therefore I did not finish the graphic and update of the three brigades. I also began to work on an update of IV Army Corps but stopped it when I saw that the mechanized brigades have now from two to four battalions... usually they have two, but now they have from 2 to 4 depending on which article I look at... Also I could not find any information about the 50th Mechanized Brigade. In case you can find any information about these units (the 3x infantry brigades of the III Army Corps and the mechanized brigades of the IV Army Corps) please let me know, so that we can update all units of the Hellenic Army. Thanks, noclador (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Again, thanks for your work. I myself do not have a too clear picture of the changes going on, but will keep an eye out to see what and where I can add stuff. Cheers, Constantine 10:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Abbasid revolution[edit]

Hey man, about the merge of Abbasid revolution to Umayyad Caliphate. While the "Abbasid revolution" section within the Umayyad Caliphate article does deal with the topic well enough, I'm sure there is room for expansion with more sources. Do you think there is a chance that, if I and/or some others can find more sources and expand that section, it can simply removed and put back into its own separate article? MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! You are quite right in your remarks, and I have long planned to write a separate article on it, but never gotten around to doing it. So yes, if you have time, sources and the will to start, go ahead, it's a great proposal. IMO, there is no need to begin with the section at Umayyad Caliphate, you can easily start writing the article anew right away. I'll help with additions as I can. Constantine 10:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey bro, I just started it up in User:MezzoMezzo/sandbox. I don't know how comfortable you feel, but for the duration of this work you have my full consent to edit my sandbox as you see fit while this is worked on. I figure we can take it slow and do it right. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I have added the sources I intend to use. I'll probably be too busy this week, but will begin adding stuff from then on. Here's to a fruitful collaboration. Constantine 11:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey, I just had an idea. This is a long term project which I don't mind - I've spent more than a month on some articles in my sandbox - but when it's done I am planning on some other projects you might be interested in. I just noticed that the revolts of Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn al-Ash'ath and Al-Harith ibn Surayj redirect to their bio pages. Do you think in the future, articles could be made of those revolts as well? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I did give a good amount of thought over this on al-Harith (and other similar articles, like Thomas the Slav), and the answer is no, I don't think it would be worthwhile. For medieval rebellions so little is generally known, that there is no point in having separate articles for the revolt and the person who led it, unless we are talking about a revolt which had several leaders and which spread over such a wide area and had such an impact that the revolt itself is actually more important than the people who led it (cf. the Abbasid Revolution). Harith and Ibn al-Ash'ath are cases where they are mostly known through their revolts, and their revolts themselves are roughly coterminous with their "main period of activity", so there is little point in distinguishing one from the other. In other words, the article on Harith already is about 90% focused on his revolt, and when I get around to writing Ibn al-Ash'ath's article, I expect it will be the same. Constantine 09:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I see what you're saying. Well, there's always the possibility of simply expanding those existing articles in the future, then. Though hopefully we can finish the Abbasid article first, I'm sure it will be great. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Cimmerians and Roxolani[edit]

Hi. I saw you edit history-related articles and you're familiar with ancient civilizations and peoples. Are you interested in these two articles: Cimmerians and Roxolani. I think both articles need some additional content and sources. Cimmerians article needs more info about their origin (if reliable sources are available) and Roxolani is a short article. Your contribute will be helpful. Thanks. --Zyma (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I'd like to help, but unfortunately, my knowledge and field of interest does not really encompass these two peoples. Best regards, Constantine 09:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Categories of historical administrative units[edit]

I've noticed a recent initiative where categories of historical administrative units of past states are massively added into articles about modern settlements. Since you are an expert in se European history, my opinion about this is that they are encyclopedically useless. Imagine a modern town for example with categories about the Ottoman (Vilayet, Sanjack) Byzantine (Thema), Roman (province) administration or even with additional categories of that kind. If the specific town played some role in the administration in history this can be added in the text.

According to me adding Themata/Vilayet etc categories for each settlement offeres nothing.Alexikoua (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree with your point(s). Historical entity categories are about historical articles, not about modern ones, unless they are notable in this context. It would be ludicrous to end up having dozens of categories on articles based on past administrative units. Constantine 22:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Arap Mosque[edit]

Hallo Constantine
Alessandro writing! I hope that you are well, especially now that Greece got again access to the international financial market. :-) I am writing for a Byzantine history question: last year in Istanbul the directorate for religious affairs completed the restoration of the Arap Mosque, and cluttered the complex with tables (including a marble plate) telling that the mosque was originally built by Maslamah ibn Abd al-Malik during the siege of Constantinople in 717-718, when he occupied today's Karaköy. Now, almost all my sources successive to 1955 (Eyice, Müller-Wiener, etc.) say that this is for sure a legend, and I already pointed out this in the article some time ago. Can you confirm that? The question arose because friend CeeGee put in the article the picture of the marble plate. If this info is wrong, what would you suggest: simply removing the picture, or leaving it with a caption explaining that the info reported is false? Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 05:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Long time no see! I am well, I hope you are likewise; in this world we live in, one cannot hope for more. On the Arap Mosque, it is an old and widespread legend and notable because of that (I even included it in the Siege of Constantinople (717–18) article), so I'd say to keep the picture and explain the situation. IMO though, it is a worrisome indication of the path Turkey is taking that a government agency would present a legend as fact, apparently because it serves to create earlier Muslim "credentials" for the city. As to our exit to the international market, the whole country is jumping up and down with enthusiasm, all our worries are forgotten, even cancer patients who cannot afford their drugs due to budget cuts were miraculously cured by the mere announcement and sing praises to our glorious leader Samaras. So great is our relief that Merkel finds it necessary to come to Athens today to convince us of it, and for the government to shut down the entire city centre lest the people show their appreciation for their saviours. The country that "invented" democracy certainly has long experience with suppressing it, too... (BTW, I recently read that the Athens police was the first to use water cannon against protesters, way back in the 19th century. Another Greek first!). Constantine 08:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Hallo Constantine,
yes, but Italy with Renzi is not doing much better than Greece...One announcement after the other, but the substance remains the same: more and more taxes. Regarding Turkey, I strongly agree with you: on the other side, the real agenda behind each governemnt move there is so transparent, that only really dumb or ignorant people aren't able to see it. Thanks and cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 11:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC) P.S. I reinserted the picture with a new caption. Please have a look and change it if you think that could be done better. Alex2006 (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Done, I've added the refs from the siege article as well. On Renzi, here in Greece we read all about his media blitz, but the way things are going, soon we will have a Renzi of our own in Tsipras, and ought to be able to fully commiserate with our dear Italian cousins on yet another issue... Constantine 12:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Tsipras? I know quite a few left oriented Italian friends who, disgusted by Renzi, are going to vote for him. In Italy his list for the European elections is going to get about 4% of the votes, according to the last polls. But if you say that he is really another Renzi, there is no hope anymore... Alex2006 (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I have problems with an article[edit]

Hello, I found a related article to the Zaccaria family:

It is thus (Κύριοι Παλαιάς και Νέας Φώκαιας), but not as it is named in English, I think it would Lordship of Old and New Phocaea but I'm not sure. I begin to edit so I want to know how to name it. A greeting Kardam (talk) 04:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "Lordship of Old and New Phocaea" would be an accurate translation, but I doubt whether it is accurate. The two towns essentially formed a twin town, and are almost always referred to collectively as "Phocaea" plain and simple. So if any title was applied to the lords, I think it would be simply "Lord of Phocaea". In general, it is better to be somewhat suspicious of the content and terminology of the medieval articles in the Greek WP. They are often inaccurate or outdated, and too much use has been made of primary sources, often without any modern, scholarly secondary works to check their facts. Constantine 11:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)