User talk:Cplakidas/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions for the period 4/2009 – 8/2009.
Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Help

Hi, I need your help. I see that there is a generally lack of sources for the discussion on Markos Botsaris. Do you have sources about this topic, and can you contribute on the talk page?Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your nomination...

...of the article Morea Revolt (1453) for the "did you know" list. I didn't know how they choose those before... Take care... Dinkytown 05:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Arab invasion of Egypt

Hello Cplakidas. I am curious why you define "conquest" as long-lasting, and "invasion" as a short series of events. I just want to know whether a standard terminology or whether this is your personal opinion, because I never heard that before. In addition, the Arabs did not rule Egypt for that long. They were soon replaced by the Ayyubids, the Mameluks and the Turks. In fact, the Greeks ruled Egypt for a longer period than did the Arabs. Thanks! --Lanternix (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Marko Bochavo

Actually thats the best solution for Macedonian Naming Dispute:-)Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I would not blame them, in Albania we are taught that Pyrros of Epirus was Illyrian (and thus proto-Albanian) and in Greece you learn that Arvanites were Albanized Norther Epirots. Its Balkans my friend:-)Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I know that first hand, but I have seen Arvanites self-identifing as Greeks and Albanians (culturaly speaking). Whatever, I think that the history of the Balkans is quite idiotic, we need UN to make a NPOV history:-)Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, can you take a look on Talk:Arvanites on my question?Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I`d appreciate it. Also, take a look on any POV issue which may still be in place in the article. Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Was it for real called Negush Uprising, or is this a slavomacedonian form of the name?Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I am redirecting the page than to Greek War of Independence, deletion is not needed. ok?Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Italian divisions

No the name is unique there is no other divisions with that name and number so they do not need the national identity same as the British 50th (Northumbrian) Infantry Division as there was only one 50th Northumbrian Infantry Div it does not need (United Kingdom) --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Morea Revolt (1453)

On 11 April, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Morea Revolt (1453), which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

∗ \ / (⁂) 07:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Quinquireme proposal

Yes, it might be a good idea. The earlier triremes were supplanted by polyremes in the Hellenistic navies. Of these the quinquireme became the mainstay, that was to a significant part due to the Roman navy adopting it as their standard warship. Thus we can break the polyremes into two parts the development of exteremely heavy warships in the early Hellenistic era (possibly with the advantage of head on ramming against lighter ships) and the consolidation with the quinquireme as the dominant ship with the rising Roman naval dominance. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

We started with the polyremes as scope of the article. These were part of fleets that did include other types of ships like old triremes, new triremes(part of the polyremes), lemboi(no ram and a new system for the oarsmen) and the like. I have no objections against including to a limited degree the different concepts of warships as part of an article about the polyremes because these operated together with other ship types. But they were considered the effective fighting vehicles until Agrippa won with his lemboi in the Roman civil war following Caesar's death. Thus we can show them together with their predecessors and successors. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't give my OK to moving this all to Hellenistic warships without any changes to the article. Sorry, but you have to completely restructure the article and provide new information. If I don't see progress in that aspect that merits the new title I'll ask an admin for a reversion of your move. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd still opt for polyreme as first suggested simply because Carthage and Rome weren't Hellenistic powers, the Romans copied their ships from the Carthaginians, not the Greek leading to the interpretation that there were fundamental differences between the ships of these cultures. Quinquiremes were mostly employed by the gigantic Roman navy, so currently the whole article is about something not covered by the title and what solution do you suggest to cover the powers of the Western and Central Mediterranean? Wandalstouring (talk) 08:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Take a look

Take a look on Albanian-speakers of Western Thrace. I created it today, and tell me your opinion.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor

Can I have your thoughts on an idiot dispute Talk:Cham_Albanians#40.2C000_out_of_a_population_of...? Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Propably you fall under Atheneans trap:-), I brought the inline of Vickers on Talk:Cham_Albanians#40.2C000_out_of_a_population_of.... Do you still have the same opinion?Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It was Vickers 2002, not 2007 as cited, my foult. Can you read the original again [1] p. 11, paragraph 3. Thanks.Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

335th Squadron

Hi Constantine, according to "Ptisi & Diastyma" (Flight & Space) magazine, vol.280 of January 2009 the Squadron is fully operational, operating 20 F-16 Block 52+ aircraft. However I have no info on the current name of the Squadron and that is why I made no changes to the article's title. My opinion is, we should leave it as it is for now until someone has the exact characterization of the squadron from a valuable source. -->kompikos ✍ 23:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Greek War of Independence – maps

As I had previously stated to another user and member of the mission team, the main question is what maps our sources offer us, in order to turn them into webmaps, which can be used by the project and the article. For instance, as far as the "Macedonia" section is concerned Vacalopoulos provides an excellent map in page 607-608. In page 618 there is another one about the retreat of the Greek forces, but two maps for one section is maybe overdue (unless we put them side by side). These are fine source maps to be turned into svg (or I don't know what other file he might use) maps that we can then upload to the project and use in the article (with proper attribution of the source). So, if you could undertake the task of svging at least the first map, that would be great!

I don't know what the printed sources of yours may also have in terms of maps or what else you many have found in the web, but as far as Internet is concerned I did not manage to find something else except for Vacalopoulos. I keep searching!

By the way, I'll add your name to the mission's team!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Chams

Thanks, my friend. On the dialect, it (tends to) mean that the as a "group" it is formed in Chameria. I.e. Various settlers who came in the region, from different dialectological groups, would latter speak a distinct dialect, the Cham one, creating a distinct branch of Tosk Albanians.Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately that process is unknow, you may get rid of it, if you dont lake it.Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Great edits, make my bad English useful:-)Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Its my translation from a passage of "Aspekte te Islamizimit ne Cameri" of Hajredin Isufi. I dont know why I have cited directly Braudel in there, its Isufi citing Braudel in Albanian.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it neither happened in Northern Albania. Albanians were Orthodox in the south and Catholics in the north during the schism of Christianity. This is seen by historians in here as the main reason why Islam took advantege. Its something alike Bosniam, between Orthodox and Catholics.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright

I would like to know if the photographies of Fred Boissonnas are in public domain. As I saw there are some photos uploaded, but I do not know if they are really in public domain, since I have no idea on when the author died, and if the Swiss copyright law, which is a bit strange in photos copyrights applies on them. Can you help me?Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Albanian education in 19th century

Hallo and happy Eastern. I was look after that topic and sources seem to contradict each other on why Albanian education was not widespread in (what is now) Albania under the Ottoman empire. Some books claim that it was discouraged or prohibited but others like P. Ruche's, Albania's Captives, conclude that this couldn't have been a serious argument, because the local (exclusively) and state (partly) authorities were (muslim) Albanians.

The topic is mention in several articles like Greeks in Albania, Cham Albanians, Education in Albania. Thank you.Alexikoua (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Spearmen?

Hi Constantine,

A question for you. I'm planning to add a section on troop types to the Komnenian army page. The infantry are not well described in contemporary sources, especially those native heavy infantry which would have been called skoutatoi in earlier periods. The translation of Choniates calls some lighter infantry peltasts, which is fine, but the heavy infantry are called simply "spearmen." What do you think is the likely original Greek term - doryphoroi perhaps?

Thanks in anticipation,Urselius (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back so quickly.

I take your point about the guard conotations of doryphoros, perhaps the term kontarioi, or something similar was used?Urselius (talk) 11:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That's great! I wanted to show that this class of troops existed, but that only "literary descriptions" of them were recorded. Choniates uses tagma and phalanx indiscriminately, and uses phalanx to refer to cavalry! Pity there are no military treatises from the period.Urselius (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the improvements you made on the Εugenios Eugenidis article while I was WP:Bitten by Fut.Perf. It's nice to see that there are users willing to help out a rookie. I would also appreciate it if you could take a look on my latest edit to the article.--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 14:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't expect you'd reply so fast. You can find info on HS Eugenios Eugenidis(ex-Sunbeam II) here [2] basically it was recently turned into a museum (however the rumors on the web is that they'll just let it rot, unfortunately)--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Award

		The Royalty and Nobility Barnstar
		I, Kober, hereby award you this Royalty and Nobility Barnstar for your contribution to the Byzantine aristocracy-related articles. Keep it up! Kober^Talk 12:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I second that. Excellent job!-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Another linguistic/technical question.

Hi Constantine,

Another rather detailed question. :)

As far as I know the only Byzantine reference to horse armour in the Komnenian period is in Choniates, describing the Battle of Sirmium. There are two queries that I have concerning the original Greek text. Firstly, is the Greek text ambiguous? Does it state the troops with armoured horses are solely the Hungarians, or could it mean that both the Hungarians and Byzantines had horse armour? This is how the English translation reads. Secondly, are the Greek terms for armour for the head and breast of the horse (chanfrons, or frontlets and peytrals) reasonably technical? The argument being that if there were specific technical terms in Greek for these items then the Byzantines must have used them.

Thanks, Urselius (talk) 08:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for the information. Birkenmeier certainly thinks that the Byzantines were similarly equipped to the Hungarians, I wasn't sure to what extent the text upheld this opinion. Efcharisto poli Urselius (talk) 11:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Byzantine Aristocracy

Yiasou Constantine,

Nice work on the Byzantine Aristocracy page. Fair enough undoing my alphabetising the military honours in favour of court precedence, which you note in the edit history "is taken straight from the Kletorologion of Philotheos, and is valid for the 8th-11th centuries." If this is the case, cite it! And TELL the reader this is the source. No where in the article or in the sources does it give this excellent primary source. Since the page has been criticised for not having enough citations, this is a good way to establish its credentials. It is good academic practice.

Cheers,

VARANGIAN.

Spotted, but Still

Constantine,

Okay, I spotted the mention of the Kletorologion, at the top of the overall section--accept my apologies. Still, if this is the direct source is ought to be footnoted. If you have taken instead from a secondary source (either in whole or at certain sections) you should again footnote so that readers can tell which comes from which. If you are mostly citiing the Kletorologion from Bury (which I agree is a good book) then note this is your main source for access to the Kletorologion.

As for reorganisation... yes, that would be the solution, to organise it by the major epochs of Byzantine history, which really for the purposes of the page mean pre- and post- 1204. Not as familiar with the topic (I'm more on the military side) as you I am not totally sure how you would reorganise it... many of the titles still exist post Palaeologan restoration, but have lost importance or are supplanted by other, newer titles (like Kavallarios). I wonder if it needs to be as long of a section... I'll think on it, and if you make any changes I'll be as supportive and helpful as I can on your lead. Varangian (talk) 07:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

GA nomination for Battle of Lalakaon

Hello. I've reviewed the article Battle of Lalakaon for its nomination for Good Article status. I have found a few minor prose and citation issues, so I am placing the article on hold for seven days. My complete review may be found here. If you have any questions about the reviewor individual issues I have raised, please note them on the review page (which is on my watchlist) and I will answer them there.When you have addressed the issues I have mentioned, I will be happy to re-evaluate the nomination. Thanks, and good editing. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Chams

Hi, Constandine, whats up? The Cham Albanians page is being reviewd for GA status. There are some prose problems in it, which are summed up in Talk:Cham Albanians/GA1. As my English is not quite good, can you check those problems? Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, Constantine, Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Alexiad

Hi Konstantinos, do you happen to know what the standard critical edition of the Alexiad is? As far as I can tell it is the edition by August Reifferscheid, but I'm not sure if there is one more recent than that. (By the way, nice work with the Byzantine aristocracy page, and the new articles based on it - I think I started that page many years ago, when I was still interested in being a Byzantinist...) Adam Bishop (talk) 08:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Does your Greek edition say anything about previous editions? (Reiffersheid's is in Greek so maybe it's based on that.) I like Dawes too, and I also have the newer translation by Sewter. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in particular, I was just using Reiffersheid's edition online and I wanted to make sure I was using the best critical edition. (I'm sure I have a book about the crusades somewhere that will list any other editions but I haven't gone through them yet...) Adam Bishop (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Bureau of Barbarians

Thanks for the increased detail on the subject article, Constantine. Overall the article is in much better shape than the fantasy espionage stuff that was on there before. Likewise on the Master of Offices page. How do you find time to do all this stuff? Varangian (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC). PS another user who started that page wrote to me that he thinks I forced my POV by removing the espionage stuff. So be prepared for some reversions on his part. 82.13.137.202 (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

About Feth-i-Bulend

Sorry for my insistence but the operation was indeed an heroic one and there is no need to hide it just to save 4-5 words. Without saying a word for the difficulties of the mission how someone can understand why was a "a major success for Greek morale". As it is in the text, is like giving a party for stealing a church. And I believe this wasn't the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.166.1.64 (talk) 04:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Optimatoi

On May 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Optimatoi, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hellenistic era warships

I left you some comments. Please correct your statements. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "calm down everyone". What I am saying from the start is that the battle was inconclusive. When I stated that our grandfathers were the greatest? Please at least in that matter don't put me in the same corner with Avidius who insist that a never ended battle could be someones win. I am not accepting it. I cannot stand in being accused that I am both Bulgarian agitator and Greek nationalist same day. It's too much as you undestand. --Factuarius (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Japanese double-headed eagle

Dear Mr. Cplakidas,

I made a rare find of a double-headed eagle in Japan. Could you kindly suggest what form should my report take in order to become known to wide audience?

This is the message: A Japanese double-headed eagle item was spotted in Hamamatsu City, Shizuoka Pref., Japan, in 2002 (photo copyright Maxim I. Buyakov).

Thank you in advance.

Kind regards, Maxim I. Buyakov --Askmaxim (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(Your Reply: Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! To be brief, the image you have added does not seem to actually be any historically or currently used insignia, but rather a purely decorative kind. I cannot read Japanese, therefore I cannot know what is written on the plate below it, but the general composition of the whole thing (a Russian-type double-headed eagle with a crown in escutcheon and various assorted arms) is distinctly un-heraldic and more typical of various pseudo-insignia you can find in shops. Unless you can provide me with more context, specifically, what it stands for, it has no place in an encyclopedic article. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 22:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Askmaxim")

Dear Constantine,

Thank you for finding a moment to reply me. The 'Japanese 2-head eagle' plate shown was found in a public elementary school as an award for the school's traffic safety measures issued by Hamamatsu City School Administration in 2001. The Japanese text under the eagle reads the above. Remarkably, this was a purely domestic local Japanese event, not related to Russia. But it is also an official event which would not permit an irrelevant decoration. The school Principal told me that was a symbol of the Japanese statehood. I showed him the eagle in my Russian passport, and that was a revelation for him. He was moving his finger over the elements confirming the similarity. A vice-principal was standing by with the same attitude. Apparently, they knew nothing about the Russian eagle before, and the pictured item was purely 'their' Japanese eagle to them. I agree with you that the item does not stand as a formal insignia, and finding such in Japan would be of historical importance. For that to happen, public awareness would be required. I thought, an encyclopedic article could somehow reflect this striking fact. Apparently, many people interested in the double-headed eagle like you and I would appreciate any hint to its presence in Japan. Would it be possible to put a wording like 'additional research is required into the double-headed eagle use in Japan'? I can imagine the efforts you put in the article to make it as complete and professional as it is, to suddenly leave it open. But that would eventually make it more complete, perhaps? By the way, answers.com mentions a double-headed eagle in India as the Karnataka Emblem, and references the wikipedia as the source of the article, but it is actually missing in the wikipedia article. I wonder, why?

Thank you again for your time.

Kind regards, Maxim Buyakov --Askmaxim (talk) 07:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Byzantine navy/rams

Hi Constantine,

I was doing some reading on the Punic wars, and came across a paragraph which proposed an answer to the gradual decline of the ram in ancient naval warfare. Since this was one of the points of uncertainty in the Byzantine navy article, I thought I would let you know. I reproduce it here:

"Ramming the bow of an enemy ship was dangerous and usually avoided, since this was the strongest part of the vessel and the resultant collision was likely to inflict serious damage to both ships. Instead, captains would manoeuver their ships to ram the enemy's side....Ramming required a far more highly skilled crew to perform successfully, since it relied on speed and manoeuverability. In the 5th century the Athenian navy had been brilliant exponents of ramming tactics, making use of their light, un-decked or aphract triremes, crewed by highly skilled rowers drawn from their poorest citizens. Few other states other than the radical democracy of classical Athens were willing to pay huge numbers of rowers the regular wage needed to keep them in constant training. The Hellenistic kingdoms which emerged after Alexander were in general shorter of available manpower to provide crews than they were of the funds to construct fleets of increasingly large ships. The new emphasis on larger and larger warships diminished the importance of the ram, since such vessels were slower and less manoeuverable and their main advantage was that they could carry greater numbers of marines. In addition to this, the hulls of the bigger ships were more strongly constructed and so perhaps less vulnerable to enemy rams, although a ram delivered by another large and heavy ship was likely to cause great damage. By the third century [BC] the ram had become in effect a secondary weapon, although the well-trained Carthaginian navy were still to prove highly skilled in its use"

The author goes on to note that in the First Punic War:

"The Romans realized that their ships were neither as fast nor as manoeuverable as their Punic counterparts...It was clear that they could anticipate little success if they relied on ramming to defeat the enemy and that therefore they must depend on getting close and boarding [to which extent they invented the corvus]...The sheer number of ships involved in each action added to the confusion and made it far harder for Punic ships to attack and ram a victim and then escape without encountering another Roman ships...The sheer sizes of the fleets may have made them clumsy and been better suited to the boarding tactics preferred by the Romans...The achievements of the Punic navy were...minor, and it was never able to derive an advantage from its greater skill and experience".

Adrian Goldsworthy, The Fall of Carthage, ISBN 0-304-36642-0.

I leave it up to you whether you make use of this! It might not be easy to succinctly add it to the article, and possibly it doesn't need it. But hopefully it may come in useful at some point! (maybe in Dromon?). MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 07:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Kresna

I appreciate your comment. I read your discussion link: impossible. It is also my intention to maintain a calm discussion as you can see from my two initial posts. You know, I know and everyone else who follows posts and edits the last months that is impossible to have a conductive, calm and dispassionate reasoning discussion with this person. He is purposely lying in every possible way and never back off until not being able to do anything else. Initially I really believed to have a nice cooperation with him but this is impossible trust me. He is also lying when saying that he agrees the battle ended in a stalemate. He is the one who put the “Bulgarian Victory” in the infobox. He says that now, because he is just in a difficult position. About the characterizations I just confirm his ironic comment about (he) being a nationalist and ask him if he wanted me to prove that he was (ultra nationalist & lier). He put the characterizations to the table as you can see. Anyway his attitude doesn't honor his country's national efforts but unfortunately for me he cannot understand it.

I will use incident marks and no blank rows in the future. Regards, --Factuarius (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Constantine,

I have not heard back from Avidius about the battle of Kresna. He has failed to produce a reference and a re battle to the battle timeliness from Cassavetti and Price that I have presented. Please advice as to how you would like to proceed. My aim is delete all reference to Hall's idiotic assertions. Also please note that C. Price was the war correspondent from the TIMES of London and even though it is clear to me that his sympathies lies with the Greeks and Serbians, I think his presentation is pretty dispassionate. He was rather upset at J.D. Bourchier’s who at the time became the Bulgarian apologist with his relentless pro-Bulgarian propaganda, and it is that propaganda that Price is trying to counterbalance with his pointed remarks about "Bulgarian Victory" in Kresna. If you would like to discuss further why Price, in my opinion, is far more reliable than Hall or Gibbons I'll be more than happy to oblige. In closing, I would like to ask you that you change the battle outcome from stalemate to "The battle stopped by the armistice." I don't think that the Bulgarians should be allowed the courtesy to save face, especially since they refuse to accept that they lost the war, never mind just that battle. Regards, C.Mellas, for now on with my pseudonym acstamos. Acstamos (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

GA

Hi, I've nominated Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus for 'GA' status, feel free to take a look and make comments for possible improvements.Alexikoua (talk) 08:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the assistance, i'll work on it. I added some pics for the Greco-Italian War, hope they are enough suitable (i prefer the older ones) because the article was in need for pictures.Alexikoua (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Kresna Gorge

Greetings! I know you as a respectful and neutral person and I am sure that you would acknowledge that the Bulgarian army achieved its goal in the battle of Kresna Gorge. I have added Bulgarian victory to your last edit and have left your edit as well. Although many Greeks disagree, that battle was of a great importance for Bulgaria and helped the country to avoid even worse aftermath of the Second Balkan War. Regards, --Gligan (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

In that case we should at least add Bulgarian strategic victory because it was, don't you think? After all it was because of the Greek army's grim situation that Venizelos agreed to the Bulgarian proposal for an armistice. Regards, --Gligan (talk) 10:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A photo story

Hi Constantine. I have a problem with the photo of the painting of the Kresna battle in the 2nd BW article (Greeks in Bulgaria.JPG). A greek administrator of the (greek) wikipedia intercepted a personal discussion between me and a fellow user about the difficulty in finding a sound documentation about the image and send our discussion to the english wikipedia. Thus they mark the photo for deletion. Since the photo is very beautiful (and very old) I wonder if you know the painting and if you can find any good documentation for it. Thanks --Factuarius (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

As you understand the really frustrating issue is not at all the copyright issue but its better not to discuss it. Thanks for the tip I will try to see what now can do with these pictures. Maybe to let them being deleted and reload them according to your suggestions. Thanks again for your help. herc --Factuarius (talk) 06:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful advices, fortunately a good guy saved the four of them from a Cannae-type annihilation. There is an other one "Ethnological.jpg"[[3]] which doesn't allow me to do any editing about its source etc, can you take a look and tell me if it is already dead? Thanks again --Factuarius (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, THANKS. I change it with "yours" which is indeed better. Best, herc.--Factuarius (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, whats up? I think that finally Cham Albanians would be GA, but firstly we have to rewritte the lead, as it should be bigger in order to cover the whole article. Can you help me on this task?Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I answered on GA Cham Albanians. What do you think?Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I added the lead as we agreed with minor changes. Tell me what do you think. Cheers, Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Cham Albanians are finally GA. Thank you very much for your help. Cheers, Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Chams lead

Hiya Constantine,

I made some tweaks to the lead of Cham Albanians. Removed some peacock terms and slightly modified the wording. When you have time, could you go over them and let me know what you think? Regards. --Athenean (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

2nd BW Legacy

Hi. I will appreciate your opinion about the legacy chapter of the article. herc --Factuarius (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Protospatharios

Hello! Your submission of Protospatharios at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Bigger digger (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Protospatharios

On June 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Protospatharios, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Giants27 03:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

hi

Please can you take a look on diffs on Parga, Igoumenitsa, Margariti and Paramythia. There is a user who refuts to talk with me on those issues. Can you help me?Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Finally, a discussion started in Talk:Igoumenitsa, can you take part in it?Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Constantine, what do you think about my proposal on Talk:Igoumenitsa.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I use it?

Hi, there is a page which states on its copyrights

"Όλες οι πληροφορίες που εμπεριέχονται στον κόμβο, διατίθενται στους επισκέπτες του κόμβου για προσωπική χρήση και είναι δυνατόν να αλλάζουν χωρίς καμία προηγούμενη ειδοποίηση.

Επιτρέπεται η χρήση τους και η αναπαραγωγή τους, ολική, μερική ή περιληπτική, με την προϋπόθεση ότι το αναπαραγόμενο προϊόν που θα είναι ελεύθερα διαθέσιμο στη συνέχεια μέσω του Διαδικτύου, να χρησιμοποιείται για εκπαιδευτικούς λόγους, και να υπάρχει ευκρινής και διακριτή αναφορά στην πηγή και οπωσδήποτε στον συγγραφέα των άρθρων ή στον κάτοχο των αρχείων με οπτικοακουστικό υλικό . Οποιαδήποτε άλλη χρήση απαιτεί την γραπτή άδεια του ιδιοκτήτη ή του κατόχου των πνευματικών δικαιωμάτων.

Τα λοιπά προϊόντα ή υπηρεσίες που αναφέρονται στις ηλεκτρονικές σελίδες του παρόντος κόμβου και φέρουν τα σήματα των αντίστοιχων οργανισμών, εταιρειών, συνεργατών φορέων, ενώσεων ή εκδόσεων, αποτελούν δική τους πνευματική και βιομηχανική ιδιοκτησία και συνεπώς οι φορείς αυτοί φέρουν τη σχετική ευθύνη."

Can I use material from it?Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder are you involved with the Greek wiki? There has a topic emerged, if you have time, take a look [[4]]Alexikoua (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I upload it on english wiki. Cheers, Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting. According to 'Παγκόσμιο Βιογραφικό Λεξικό' of 'Ekdotike Athenon', vol. 3, pg. 221, about Theodorakis Gryvas (1797-1862): (in Greek)

Η Κυβέρνηση ανέθεσε στον Μπενιζέλο Ρούφο και στον Επαμεινώνδα Δελληγεώργη να συναντήσουν το Γρίβα στο Μεσολόγγι και να του ανακοινώσουν την απόφασή της: να αποδώση εις τον γενναίον αντιστράτηγον τον βαθμό του στρατάρχου, τον ανώτατον στρατιωτικόν βαθμόν των πεπολιτισμένων εθνών. Η κυβερνητική αντιπροσωπεία όμως βρήκε άρρωστο το Γρίβα, πέθανε στις 24 Οκωβρίου 1862.

So, the Government was ready to give him this rank, but Grivas suddenly died.(talk) 15:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Byzantine Levant

Hey, I mentioned on the Byzantine Empire talk page that Ronnie Ellenblum might have some info about the Byzantine Levant, but unfortunately there is nothing as useful as I thought. (It seems that Israeli archaeologists might be working on this, but their results are probably in Hebrew.) Adam Bishop (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Siege of Berat

I believe there should be a disambiguation page on that, I've noticed there were (at least) 3 sieges: i. ca. 1281 ii. 1455 iii. 1914.Alexikoua (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Peter the Patrician

On June 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peter the Patrician, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Mifter (talk) 05:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Komnenian army

I think that we are treading a thin line in the title between incomprehensibility for the average reader, who has hardly heard of the Byzantine Empire or its army never mind the Komnenian dynasty, and redundancy - why not just have the Komnenian section on the "Byzantine army"page? I'm not averse to some suggestions of titles which encompass the unique features of the Komnenian period army and also its "Byzantineness." As it stood the title "Komnenian army" was limitingly obscure.

Of course the Byzantine army page is relatively poor and very patchy and in an ideal world should be overhauled and integrated with its subsidiary pages, and some redundancies weeded out, but I don't really feel up to that task at present.Urselius (talk) 11:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hellenistic era warships

I'll restructure the article. See discussion. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Strategicon

Yes, thank you; I know Strategicon is a Greek word; so, of course, is Tactica. From a linguistic perspective however, the term Tactica is correct as it exists in Latin, whilst Strategicon is merely a pseudo-latinized transliteration. This is nonsense, both are loan-words in Latin. Indeed, in Modern Latin, as here, Mauricii Strategicon is the standard name for this very book.

It is understandable that those with more familiarity with Demotic (should I say Dimotiki?) than with English should join Robert Browning in preferring k for kappa, but Browning is not, in this as elsewhere, a standard authority - nor is he English usage; but there is a Demotic Wikipedia intended precisely for those who are more comfortable with Demotic than English - there is no confusion for what to use for κ there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

ODB 's orthography is an unfortunate, and internally inconsistent, recent piece of crankishness. If it were the only authority on Byzantine affairs, that would be one thing; but it is not, and it has at most succeeded in dividing what was a consistent and long-standing tradition.

There are now four ways, as Warren Treadgold remarks, of transliterating Byzantine Greek; there was one dominant one, to which we should adhere until it is supplanted. It is still the overwhelming majority among the available writing in English, past and present; it is probably still the majority in current writing in English. Our readers will know it; they should not yanked into another method because our editors are too self-indulgent to write English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If I do therefore think we should prefer the more "native" form, in common with most Byzantine articles in WP is not a statement of personal preference, of mere WP:ILIKEIT, please rephrase. I can only respond to what I find on my talk page.

Raw Google is not a reliable test, nor a random sample of English; the results for strategikon begin with Wikipedia itself, as the results for strategicon begin with a California gaming convention. Experience strongly suggests that the results for strategikon are salted with German.

Your opinion about the ODB formulas is noted, and in some aspects I agree, but it is being increasingly used, When (and if) it prevails, then we will shift - one sign that it has prevailed will be that its spelling is uncontroversial. Until then, I oppose precipitate absorption into the Wave of the Future; too many waves have crested, broken, and retreated. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I always though that the predominant spelling of "Strategikon" in English was with a "k", although I had encountered it with a "c" too. If you look up Googlebooks, you will also realize that although "c" is almost as often used in pre-2000 editions, "k" is predominantly being used in later publications. This might be the safest "test" we can come up with, since no one until now thought of writing a treatise concerning the predominant use of "k" or "c" in the title of the said military manual... GK1973 (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Christopher of Mytilene

Your edit left a mess at the top of this article. I'd fix it, but I'm not sure how. LilHelpa (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Lakki / Lakkoi

I saw you moved Lakki, the Cretan village, to Lakkoi. No problem - that is a correct transliteration of Λάκκοι. But the road signs in Crete, maps and tourist books use the phonetic form "Lakki" rather than "Lakkoi". (They also use "Hania" for Χανιά - presumably a tourist is more likely to come close to the correct pronunciation than with "Chania".)

I have changed the entry for Lakki from a redirect to a disambiguation page because there are several places called Lakki, so there is no issue with this name. But in general, I am not sure if Wikipedia should use the "correct" transliteration or the one commonly used in maps, signs and travel books. Is there a guideline somewhere? Aymatth2 (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Alexandrov Ensemble, Boris Alexandrovich Alexandrov, Alexander Vasilyevich Alexandrov

Hi Cplakidas. I see that you've removed a large chunk of material about B.Alexandrov from Alexandrov Ensemble to Boris Alexandrovich Alexandrov, which is fair enough - two months ago I wrote on the Talk:Alexandrov Ensemble page that anyone was welcome to do that, and I provided the requisite links.

What is worrying me is that quite a lot of material has been removed from Alexandrov Ensemble and some important elements appear to have been lost, e.g. his state awards. As you no doubt realise, it took many hours research finding some of that information, especially as it is all on Russian websites - and some of us have to rely on imperfect auto-translate programs, which makes heavy going. Therefore, if this research is lost, then unless it is re-pasted somewhere on Wikipedia (and Alexander Vasilyevich Alexandrov would be an acceptable place) it may not all be re-found elsewhere.

So please would you kindly let me know where you have put all of the deleted material, so that we can reassure ourselves that nothing has been lost?

Thanks. --Storye book (talk) 11:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Constantine. Thank you for your prompt reply. The first problem here is that so much has been deleted and/or moved that it is difficult to spot anything that is missing. Thank you for making a start by putting the awards into Alexander Vasilyevich Alexandrov - that's some of the muddle cleared up.

The second problem is that of course the Ensemble was Alexander and Boris Alexandrov during the era of their leadership. Their biographies are indivisible from the history of the Ensemble, for musical and historical reasons. Take for example the date on which the score for Svyaschennaya Voyna was written, why it was written, who wrote it, who performed that first recording a few days later - and - most importantly, how it was performed, and why. This is a dominant part of the history of both, and as such the two are indivisible historically, from their own point of view, and from the point of view of their country in its worst hour in the 20th century. Regarding Boris, there are similar considerations concerning the 1948 Berlin peace concert, and what the Ensemble was, under Boris and his musical arrangements and stage persona.

The above is the reason why I delayed splitting the biographies from the history of the Ensemble. Of course you are welcome to split it onto different pages for WP style reasons, but please understand that the connection between the Ensemble, Alexander and Boris remains. I guess a fair parallel might be the splitting of John Lennon's page from The Beatles page. His private-life biography and post-Beatles career belong on his biography page, of course. But his musical contributions to The Beatles belong on The Beatles page, which would make little sense without that. In the case of Alexander and Boris, we have very little in the public domain about their private biographies. Almost all that we know of them concerns the musical development of the Ensemble, and the Ensemble's place in Soviet history. They had little or no musical life outside the Ensemble, and the way in which Alexander died while arranging a peace concert in 1946 is one of the reasons why the 1948 peace concert under Boris happened at all.

I hope you understand now that this is not just a matter of WP style, although I can see your point of view, as I already said that I accepted that view on the discussion page of Alexandrov Ensemble two months ago.--Storye book (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Constantine. Thanks for your reply on my talk page. Perhaps it would help if I told you that when I originally came in to expand the Alexandrov Ensemble article earlier this year, I was very careful not to alter (for the sake of altering) any of the existing groundwork. People are sensitive, and what I wanted was cooperation at that stage. A fair proportion of the grammatical redundancies that you speak of may well come from that material. I was careful to reassure previous editors on the Alexandrov Ensemble discussion page that I was leaving their input alone at that point. I was aware that there were issues with its syntax etc., but had been hoping that someone else would deal with it, so that I didn't get into any edit wars while I was doing such a huge expansion on the page. So thanks for your tidying.

However, if by redundancies you are talking about excessive information, then that's a different matter. All my own research on the Ensemble is on the Ensemble pages, and nowhere else. Some of the external links which I have added to the page I know to contain valuable new information, but I have not yet had time to write this on the page to link it up with existing information. The existing information on the page (or what is left of it) may look redundant, but is not, in the light of material due to be excavated in the coming months. If that material is lost, the historical connections will be lost. So please kindly do not remove any external links, and if you find information which appears not to be proven or appears isolated, please be patient as it will all be linked in due course. But if it is removed or taken out of context on the page, then further research cannot happen in that area.

Meanwhile I hope people will please kindly check when making huge deletions from pages, that they have not failed to copy it safely elsewhere. I appreciate that this so-called "lost" material can be retrieved from the page history, if anyone spots that it's disappeared, but I for one am very busy right now marking exam scripts, and just haven't got time for long searches and checks. I don't know if anyone else would be sufficiently interested, sadly. --Storye book (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Help needed

Please, User:Factuarius is back (of cours) and does not want to discuss his changes on Cham Albanians article. Can you help me, cause I do not think I can handdle his povish stubborn rude wiki-work.Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look on the show called Talk:Cham Albanians.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Do you know any other Greek non-nationalist to become a mediator, because it is a mess.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Re

Χμ ... I don't think that guidelines provide verbatim something for you case, but I believe that no 5 here covers the deleting of the material in question.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Basileopator

The references you included in Basileopator are unclear. Could you expand them to include at least the book title and author's first and last name?--RadioFan (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello Cplakidas, I wish to thank you for your improvements to the Helena Palaiologina article. It looks much more polished now, especially with your addition of her name in Greek. I have added more citations as you requested. Oh, I notice that you are from Patras. A pity there is not more information available on Marietta de Patras, such as her date of birth, parents' names, etc. Thank you again, Cheers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Church of St. Polyeuctus

On June 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Church of St. Polyeuctus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royal broil 14:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

I tried to clarify the marked sentence in the Evgenidio article could you take a look to see if it makes more sense now.--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Church of St. Polyeuctus

Hi Cplakidas and thanks for your note on my talktage.

Sorry, the purpose of the WP:GAN review is, basically, to see if the article is fit to be awarded GA-status, i.e does it meet the minimum standards for GA (see Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles). A candidate article can be failed (Quick Failed, or Failed after detailed review); put On Hold (if it is close to GA-status), for the article to be improved and a statement provided of what improvements are deemed necessary for the article to gain GA-status; or the article Passed.

I modified/'corrected' the article slightly, as I considered it to be at or about GA-level; and I then passed it.

The appropriate process for obtaining comments for suggested improvements to the article, particularly if it is intended to go for WP:FAC, is WP:PR and this can be done at anytime, including in parallel with WP:GAN.

I would make three suggestions:

The WP:lead is intended to do two things: provide an introduction to the article (which the lead does) and to summarise the main points - I did not consider that it achieved this second aim so I slightly expanded it and suggested further expansion in my summary.
I suspect that there is scope for expanding the Description section. I would suggest that there is some scope for discussing this topic under possibly three or four criteria:

what is deduced from the epigram alone;
what is deduced from the epigram and confirmed by archaeology;
what is deduced from archaeology, alone;
what has not been investigated archaeologically.

You also might like to consider what a visitor would see by visiting the site.

It may not be difficult possible to obtain adequate information and comply with WP:verification. However, if I thought that this was necessary to achieve GA status, I could have put the article On Hold, for improvements, on the basis that the scope was not adequately covered. Pyrotec (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Chams

I dont know if you have much time; but I think that a 3rd opinion is really needed on Talk:Cham Albanians, cause the POVs are totally extreme and WP:IDONTHEARTHAT pai synefo. Can we have your thoughts in there? Eksalou, eisai o monos pou mporeis na valeis taksi ekei, opos exeis apodiksi sto parelthon; milame gia ena paragraph pou to exeis grapsi esy, alla pou theli ligo diorthoma (oxi opos to theloun i Factouarides vevea).Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia request for comment

Since you have in the past taken part in related discussions, this comes as a notification that the Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Stylianos Zaoutzes

On June 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stylianos Zaoutzes, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Basileopator

On June 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Basileopator, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Opinion?

Se parakalo, mporeis na deis ligo ayto: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Cham_Albanians kai na mou peis tin gnomi sou, esto kai me email?Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree with you, except of Fischer (I do not know either the source, but I do not think, that Fischer - as a good historian - would rely on Italian propaganda arguments; although your reasoning is totally correct). Thankfully, Factuarius was topic-banned after his distrubance, so please propose something for that paragraph and add it in there. Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

About Daut Hodja (the apple of discord), it should be noted that he had a heavy criminal record (according to some author), committing crimes in the period 1919-1925 against Albanians and Greeks. Ruches gives his record (7 decision of Greek courts), as well as his involvement in Corfu incident. The record is very detailed especially about the court decisions (numbers, dates etc), in order to be questioned.Alexikoua (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

We should be careful on this point, because Nelson Mandela had a criminal record (way large) too. lol. I think you get my point.Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither would I, thats why there is a "lol" after that sentence.:)Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I can give the full record, according to P. Ruches Albania's Captives p. 143. (here r some of the court decisions in google books: [[5]],[[6]],[[7]],[[8]]). Hope u can see these snaps. Its obvious that he cooperated together with Greeks and Albanians committing crimes (murders, robberies, kidnapings) against Greeks and Albanians. I really find Balks argument about Mandela really ridiculous (Vickers doesnt have an inline about that and Fisher says he might be Italian agent, except of Fascist Italian propaganda we have no sources of that time naming him as resistance leader). Lets see: (Ruches, p.143):

1.By decision no 36 of October 9, 1919, of the Preveza assize court, Hoxha and his accomplices Basil Cotzias (Christian), Malo Osman (moslem) and Takis Nicomanes (christian) were sentenced by default to penal servitude for life for the premeditated murder of Vehip Cimo and Zeqir Rehip (muslims)
2. by dec, no. 14 of Nov. 14, 1919 of the Jannina Assize court, Hohxa was condemned by default to 20 years penal servitude for murdering, with the aid of an accomplice, Zeqir Zeco and Rahip Bey.
3. by dec. no. 30 of June 10, 1921, of the Preveza Assize court, Hohxa and his accomplices Takis Nicomanes, Constantine Souliotes (christians) and Malo Bushi (muslim) were sentenced by default to 17 years penal servitude for robbing Ahmet , Ismail Corci (moslems) and Basil Tourvalis and for illegal carrying of weapons
There are 4 more court decisions.

I believe, someone has to bring strong arguments in order to question a number a court decision (if the (muslim) victims for example were fictional and not real persons).Alexikoua (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to inform you I've created this article [[9]] most part of it it's based on H.F. Meyer's last book [[10]]. When you have time, take a look.Alexikoua (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification

Hi Constantine,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Byzantine Constantinople-en.png is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on June 29, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-06-29. howcheng {chat} 23:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Greek War of Ind

Καλημέρα Κωνσταντίνε. I wanted to ask you if you had, by any chance, the time to work on these GWoI map(s) we had talked about in the past. Best!--Yannismarou (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Byzantine Civil War and the 1340s

I remember seeing your article on Alexios Apokaukos when it appeared as a DYK some time ago, and I am excited to see that so much work is being done on the new Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347. I don't know how aware of this you have been, but WikiProject Years has been experimenting with narrative prose articles for years, instead of the current unreferenced and unhelpful lists of events that currently pass for year articles. 1345 was the first of these (I notice from the article history that you made an edit to it), and in January this year, the newly redrafted 1346 qualified as a Good Article. I myself have spent the last year redrafting the article on the 1340s, which is to represent the project's first redraft of a decade article (you can find the new draft here). It is my hope that, some day, it could potentially qualify as a Featured Article.

Anyway, I have been able to cover the main areas of Europe, Africa and the Americas in the 1340s that need to be covered, but so far I have not managed to gather material on Central Europe or Eastern Europe. It is in the latter section that I hope you can help. I could just use parts of the Byzantine Civil War article myself, but I would just be copying from your own work and you seem to have more expertise in that period of Byzantine history than I do (my main area of interest is the Byzantine-Arab Wars). It would only have to be a paragraph or two summarising the main trends of the decade in the Byzantine Empire. I wonder if you might also have any material on the other areas in Eastern Europe: Trebizond, Armenia, Antioch, Thessalonica, etc.

Sorry for the unusual request, but I would be grateful if you could help. Regards. --Grimhelm (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

MILHIST A-Class is not a bad idea. As far as I remember it goes fast, and it would be a nice test before FAC. The reason I do not like GAC is because it has become too slow and too subjective. You may come up with a reviewer after months. I think it is a real waste of time!--Yannismarou (talk) 07:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Irving v. Lipstadt

Hey,

I'm replying to your message congratulating me on my new page. I was wondering if you might like to review it, either as a peer review, or a Good Article review. Both are currently active. I guess if you have feedback, that would belong in the peer review, and if you think its already pretty good and want to support it, that would belong in the GA review. Direct edits are obviously welcome as well.

Some links to save you time:

Wikipedia:Peer review/Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt/archive1 (the peer review)
Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt (the article)
Talk:Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt (you can find the GA nomination here)

TachyonJack (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Leo Sgouros

On July 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Leo Sgouros, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 08:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Byzantine Civil Wars

Hi Constatine - I caught your message on my talk page and read your editing of Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347. You did a good job on it (I even learned a few things). However, there is an accidental problem coming up though, you separated Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347 from the Civil war of 1352-1354. Although most of the protagonists are still around in both wars, we have them in two separate civil wars rather than a Byzantine civil war of 1341–1354. Consider the First Palaiologan Civil War (1321, 1322, and 1327–1328) which had three separate peace agreements, yet they are all bunched into one civil war. In contrast, there is the Byzantine–Seljuk Wars 1048 to 1308 which has it as a continuous war, which I don't think it should be. I don't think we should deal with this problem right now and I'm not offering any solutions as of yet, but just to let you know that we might need some type of standard to go by in the future. Long live Constantine XI! Dinkytown (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Again - Yes, it is problematic. Ostrogorsky's History of the Byzantine State (old source I know...) describes them as separate wars with 'peace'(?) agreements separating each, which was the standard I went on. Whenever there was an issue, I always went to the Roman Empire pages since they were very well developed and have already a good developed standard that the Byzantine pages has yet to evolve into.

Since I am not Greek but could pass as a Sami Varangian (what?), I would have (still) have unquestioning loyality to my (last) Emperor (Thomas and Demetrias excluded thank you). However the anarchist in me (Zealots of Thessalonica?) says let the Palaeologi and Kantacusuni kill each other off (-opps, too late - they already did...). The Sami in me however would love to make Hagia Sophia into a reindeer holding pen. Probably the only thing that hasn't happened to the structure in all its history... :) Dinkytown (talk) 06:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

PS - the Lascaris got a raw deal...

Orthodox Catholic Church

Regardless, how that article is named, I would like to suggest you to check the following more carefully. The title "Catholic Church" is used in the Canons of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils (you can find their text [11]), the canons use the term "Orthodox" when referring to the "Orthodox Faith", or to the the "Orthodox" believers, but very rarely when referring to the Church (the term "orthodox Church" appears only a few times in the canons of the seventh ecumenical council). Many of the Holy Fathers have referred many times to the Orthodox Church as the Catholic Church (you can check some of their statements in the following articles [12],[13],[14]). Another important document the "Confession of the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheus" (which was made after the important Synod of Jerusalem in 1672), also refers to the Orthdoox Church as the Catholic Church (the title "Orthodox Church" does not appear in the confession, instead it is used when referring to the "Orthodox Religion", the "Orthodox Faith" or the "Orthodox worshipers"). The ["The Longer Catechism of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church" of Saint Philaret of Moscow also uses the title "Catholic Church" for the Orthodox Church more times than the title "Orthodox Church". Saint Raphael of Brooklyn also stated around the year 1914"The Church of the East has never from the first been known by any other name than Catholic, nor has she set aside this title in any official document.". An article on the website of an Orthodox Research Institute states "According to Archbishop Basil, “until quite a recent period, the (Orthodox) Church was never characterized by the attribute ‘orthodox’, but always as ‘catholic’". The orthodox theologian John Meyendorff stated that the "Orthodox Church" claims to be "the one and only Catholic Church". A compilation of Orthodox Holy Canons is also called as the "Rudder of the Orthodox Catholic Church". You can of course, support whatever option you wish, but I don't think you can claim that the title "Catholic" is obscure, since it is used to refer to the (Orthodox) Church in canonical texts and by many Saints (they obviously knew what they were talking about). From an orthodox point of view, "Orthodox Catholic Church" distinguishes the True (Orthodox) Catholic Church, from other false "Catholic Churches". Cody7777777 (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Costantine! I've created this article , [[15]] I believe it's an interesting topic about Greece's early military history.Alexikoua (talk) 07:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347

On July 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 07:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC) 08:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Byzantine Barnstar

		The Byzantine Empire Barnstar of Excellence
		To Cplakidas, an outstanding contributor to Byzantine related articles on wikipedia. Wikipedia is a much better place with you around improving articles on history. Keep up the great work and I expect to see many more featured and good articles!! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Keep up the great work and borrow many more books from the library!! Have a great day! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Awesome Barnstar
		To you Cplakidas you have effectively turned the hodgepodge rantings of a lunatic into a splendidly written polemic on the negative effects of civil wars on the Byzantine Empire . Without you my utilitarian yet sketchy work just wouldn’t sound and look right. I personally have not mastered all of the features of Wikipedia; your copy editing is fantastic. Without you we would have horrible concrete unclassical articles. --Zaharous (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is. I think I might begin working on it a little bit in a week or two, but we will see what happens. Nevertheless you surely brought up the articles standing significantly. --Zaharous (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Hetaireia

On July 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hetaireia, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Just want to thank you for your help in Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus (just reached 'ga').Alexikoua (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Myrivilis

Thanks for the help with the Myrivilis article. Much appreciated. I've started two new ones on Vasilis Arvanitis, and Pyx Lux. --Pavlos Andronikos (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC) --Pavlos Andronikos (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources

For the maps. I;m sure you're familiar with Paul Stephenson's works, such as Byzantium in the year 1000. If you need direct referral, just drop me a message when you're editing your map. I'd be happy to help Hxseek (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, how do you make your maps on Inskcape. Do you create the topography de novo ? Or do you scan an existing map in ? Hxseek (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi C.P.! I've created an article about Ancient Epirus. I see there is already a small article named Epirote League. However, I believe that the term 'League' (Koinon), isn't a representative one about this state, since Epirus, with an exeption of ca. 50 years, was a monarchy. What's your opinion about? Merging both into Epirus (ancient state), or Ancient Epirus woulb be better to me...Alexikoua (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, organization section needs to be improved. I was just wondering because the Epirote League was the only 'Monarchic League', contrary to the others in ancient Greece (Aetolian, Achaean, Boetian). Usually the term 'League' is somewhat contradicting with that of 'Monarchy', but I've to check some books on that.Alexikoua (talk) 11:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Naval Base Place vs Place Naval Base

Hi! I see that you moved "Naval Base Aksaz" to "Aksaz Naval Base" along with some other Turkish naval bases links for some reason I don't know. I named these bases in English just like other naval bases in Wikipedia, e.g. Naval Base San Diego, NB Kitsap, NB Guantanomo Bay ... (check many others). Would you please explain to me why it was wrong with my naming. Thanks.CeeGee (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Γεια σου Κωνσταντίνε. Σχετικά με τη μάχη της κρέσνας: Ο λόγος γιά τον οποίο εξέφρασα τη γνώμη να μείνει το κείμενο ως είχε δεν αφορούσε το κονσένσους σχετικά με το αποτέλεσμα της μάχης (όπως μου γράφεις) γιά το οποίο θυμάμαι πολύ έντονα τη καθοριστική σου συνεισφορά στο θερμό διάλογο πού είχε προκύψει τότε καί το οποίο θεωρώ χαρακτηριστική προσωπική σου επιτυχία. Όντως είχε επιτευχθεί συμφωνία καί είχες αλλάξει με κοινή συναίνεση το αποτέλεσμα στο ινφομποξ (μου φαίνεται και στο κείμενο). Αλλά όπως θα θυμάσαι κανένας από όσους είχαν λάβει μέρος στη συζήτηση δεν φαινόταν μετά να θέλει να επαναδιατυπώσει συνολικά καί το κείμενο, ίσως φοβούμενος ότι έτσι θα ξεκινούσε ένας καινούριος κύκλος αντιπαραθέσεων, τον οποίο όλοι βαριόμασταν να ξανακάνουμε. Μετά από καμιά βδομάδα δοκιμών καί επαναδιατυπώσεων (τότε) είχα αναρτήσει τις απαραίτητες αλλαγές στο κυρίως κείμενο καί είχα εισάγει το κεφάλαιο “κληροδότημα” (πού τώρα διόρθωσες) καί με ευχαρίστηση είχα δεί ότι δεν είχαν υπάρξει αντιδράσεις. Έτσι θεωρώντας το, ένα ντεφάκτο κονσένσους κείμενο απέφυγα έκτοτε να το ξανακουμπίσω γιατί πίστευα (καί πιστεύω) ότι ήταν (και είναι) σε κατάσταση εύθραυστης ισορροπίας καί ότι η παραμικρή αλλαγή θα μπορούσε να χρησιμεύσει σαν δικαιολογία γιά αναθεώρηση του πού πιθανόν να οδηγούσε σε νέες αντιπαραθέσεις. Η μόνη αλλαγή πού είχα κάνει από τότε ήταν τις μέρες πριν την αναθεώρησή σου αναφορικά με τις απώλειες τού ελληνικού στρατού κι αυτή μετά από κοινή (καί όντως ευγενική) συναίνεση κατόπιν διαλόγου του αβίδιους μέχρι να βρεθούνε καί οι αντίστοιχες βουλγαρικές, γιατί όντας με μόνες τις ελληνικές φαινόταν μάλλον σαν μιά ελληνική συντριβή, πού φυσικά δεν ήταν η πραγματικότητα. Καί τη διόρθωση της απόστασης στην οποία έφτασε ο ρουμανικός στρατός από τη σόφια πού δεν μπορουσε να αμφισβητηθεί. Όπως σου έγραψα, το κείμενό σου ήταν σαφώς καλύτερο (έχω πάντα πρόβλημα στη διατύπωση σε μικρότερες προτάσεις καί σωστά με έχεις διορθώσει πολλές φορές -π.χ. στους βαλκανικούς-), αλλά εκτός του ότι όπως σου είπα φοβόμουν ότι θα μπορούσε να προσελκύσει ουσιώδεις αναθεωρήσεις καί συνακόλουθα συγκρούσεις, είχε καί δύο διαφοροποιήσεις πού αύξαναν ένα τέτοιο ενδεχόμενο πού ίσως δεν πρόσεξες: Είχα γράψει ότι η μάχη δεν θα μπορούσε να είχε τελειώσει λόγω της ρουμανικής προέλασης, εσύ γράφεις ότι δεν θα μπορούσε να κρίνει τον πόλεμο, με το οποίο δεν μπορούσα να προεξοφλήσω ότι όλοι συμφωνούν. Εγώ συμφωνώ ότι ούτως ή άλλως η υπόθεση ήταν τελειωμένη λόγω ρουμάνων αλλά αν εμφανιστεί κάποιος με αργοκίνητο ρολόι καί πεί π.χ. “όχι, εάν δε μας σταματούσε η κυβέρνηση την επόμενη μέρα θα τους συντρίβαμε καί θα στρεφόμασταν κατά των ρουμάνων”, δεν θα ξεκινούσε η συζήτηση φτού κι από την αρχή? Θεωρείς αδιανόητη μιά τέτοια θέση? Ξαναδιάβασε τον χαλ. Τι θα γινόταν σε μιά τέτοια περίπτωση θα ξαναρχίζαμε τη χαλομαχία? Τέλος απάλειφες τελείως τη πρόταση στην οποία δικαιώνεται κατά κάποιον τρόπο ιστορικά η παραδοσιακή θέση των βουλγάρων περί επιτυχίας της επιχείρησης (αλλά όχι ο ισχυρισμός τους της νίκης πού φυσικά είναι παράλογος), η οποία υπήρχε εκεί σαν μία αναγκαία παραχώρηση έναντι της μαξιμαλιστικής θέσης ότι “νικήσανε οι βούλγαροι” ώστε να διευκολύνει την κοινή αποδοχή του κειμένου (όντως λάθος το σιμς). Αυτοί είναι όσο γίνεται πιό συνοπτικά οι τρείς κύριοι λόγοι τού ρβ μου καί όχι λόγοι αίσθησης ιδιοκτησίας ή αλάνθαστου καί αυτό ενοούσα με το "ντεφάκτο κονσένσους κείμενο". Εξάλου απ' ότι θυμάμαι αν και έχουμε "συναντηθεί" αναρίθμητες φορές τους τελευταίους 8? μήνες ποτέ δεν έχω αναιρέσει κάποια αλλαγή σου σε ότι έχει τύχει να μου διορθώσεις. Αναφορικά με το παρόν άρθρο η προσωπική μου γνώμη πάντως είναι ότι γιά λόγους λεπτών ισορροπιών (τώρα καί στο μέλλον) αυτά τα δύο σημεία πρέπει να αλλαχθούν αλλά δεν πρόκειται να τα ξαναλλάξω γιά λόγους πού μπορείς να καταλάβεις. Εξάλου ο αύγουστος είναι περισσότερο μήνας σουιμιπίντιας παρά γουικιπίντιας. Οπότε, καλές βουτιές, ηρακλής. --Factuarius (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: συγνώμη γιά τα ελληνικά αλλά βαριόμουνα (λόγω.. καλοκαιριού)

what have you done to the artical

Checkhead you have completly destoryed my artical with your work you silly person reply on MY TALK PAGE Secthayrabe (talk)

Yes ok you made the artical better but why didnt you start it earlier than me then saving me time Secthayrabe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.36.66 (talk) 10:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Constantine. About the Kresna, everything in order. Some months before you had rv me in the battle of Sorovich article when I edited the name of Vevi as the greek name for the battle. Nothing wrong about it, you had right, but since a discussion started there and in the article of the battle of Monaster/Bitola about the appropriated names of the battles I remembered you and thought to inform you about. Also I would like to inform you that I have completely rewritten the Balkan League article[16] since it was very poor. And as always every edit or suggestion is welcomed. Τέλος & γιά μένα, οπότε καλό (& παραγωγικό) Φθινόπωρο, Ηρακλής. --Factuarius (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Really skillful work. --Factuarius (talk) 06:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice work (2). Καλησπέρα Constantine. Ι think an article about the Noemvriana is needed. It was the high point of the politics of that period, had enormous and enduring consequencies, both inside and outside Greece both in the politics and the military (by eventually putting Greece to the war), also to my knowledge was the end of the 19th century "Battleship Diplomacy". I lack the experience to start it but I will participate extendedly in the writing and photos. Can you spare some time to help? You can find a nucleus I put in the Eleftherios Venizelos / The Noemvriana - Greece enters World War I section. Regards, Ηρακλής --Factuarius (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi.My answer is in in my talk page.--Factuarius (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi.My answer is again in my talk page. This is only for your information no answer is needed. Going to nana, see you. --Factuarius (talk) 03:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Venizelos

It would be grateful if you could check/comment/improve my recent copyedits on Factuarius recent additions. I know that you are busy in your life (I am as well) but since you have confessed your admiration to Venizelos and probably agree that Venizelos' article should have FA status (not there yet) then any input from your side is most welcomed. Thanks in advance. Enjoy Life!A.Cython (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm..Admitting defeat. --Factuarius (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you asked my opinion about your resent edits: I was surprised in finding out that you too agree that the expression "humiliated defeat" implemented to the Allied defeat during their operation to capture Athens in 1916 is not (although fully & highly qualified referenced) compatible with WP, thus you removed it, evidently agreeing with Cython's objections (see his edit waring activity yesterday). Especially because you together with Cython as you where among the main contributors of the article, did not had such objections in the usage of that expression to describe the 1897 Greek defeat. Leaving that expression inside the article for months until 17 of May, when I finally decided to remove it. As for the rest as you have seen Cython's Allied-apologizing censorship eventually did not left unaffected your text also. My message in the article's talk page doesn't concerning you. --Factuarius (talk) 09:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There are no humiliated defeats in a war scale event. Because at any war always are happening a variety of events from heroic to coward. Or every defeated war is humiliated thus no need to mention the adjective. The 1897 defeat unlike what you are thinking was a very very normal defeat as was (almost) the Bulgarian defeat in '13, the Serbian defeat in '15 or the Austrian defeat of '66 and unlike the France's defeat of 1870 which was what you call disaster. But in smaller scaled events there can be a humiliated defeat or withdraw when you are fleeing the battleground with undignified way e.g. overnight or on the running, as was the Italo-Franco-English case in Athens at '16. Thus the Clogg's “ignominious”, which is a very deserved adjective not only for battles but also for behaviors. That is my opinion, anyhow. Regards, --Factuarius (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I told you nothing about superior enemy. I told you that there are no humiliated defeats in a war scale event and I told you why. My positions about the Schism is well known to you having to do more with characters, interests, power, ego, and people's stupidity, than 1897. --Factuarius (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Your definition for a humiliated war (“when the defeated country managed absolutely nothing noteworthy”) is very weak almost non acceptable. Also the discussion has only theoretical value since under the current situation, if you will retry to put back the "humiliating war" expression for the '97 war the Allied Gendarme will be obliged to revert you “due to strong wording”. --Factuarius (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Still I do believe that there are no humiliated defeats in a war scale event, because as I told you at any war always are happening a variety of events from heroic (Smolenski) to coward (Constantine). In such events as single battle's, there can be a humiliated defeat or withdrawal when a part are fleeing from the battleground with undignified way e.g. overnight or running, as was the Italo-Franco-English case in Athens at '16. But If you really believe in your definition why don't you try to impose such an expression as the result of the 2nd BW? According to your definition that war covers fully these conditions. I also disagree with you about the article. It's a very narrow, very rounded, almost useless, almost boring article, dried from anything interesting fact, and most of all almost having nothing to do with Venizelos. More of a general history of the period. Most of it it would it had another title without big a problem (it says almost as much for Venizelos as much a general history of the period would said). Has the totally wrong orientation in following the events (and these with very dried way) instead to follow the person.To me is the definition of what an article about an historical personality must not be. The fact that has nothing to say about the very reach and importand backstage of the era and his life, although 100 years have past, make them available to any editor, is the proof of what Allied Gendarme can do to history even today. Thanks for Kitromilides I also have it, still wonder if the Allied Gendarme has it or has read it. Cheers, --Factuarius (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear that you agree. About the section, when I started to edit it I had the intention (as I had told) to leave totally outside the Royalist-Venizelist events. But as the situation came, I believe it is necessary to say a word also about the Venizelist interference in the incident on which I trust you are aware. Generally, the section looks evidently exactly to the place that it was born: a battleground. Never seen in WP a paragraph with exactly 20 refs. I don't know if there is such a WP term: ref waring.--Factuarius (talk) 02:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. After extensive communication with Cython [17] came to the decision to give the full and uncompromising dimension of the historical events called the noemvriana. One of my sources about is the J.F.Abbot's "Greece and the Allies 1914-1922". I prefer it because the author is an eye witnessed Englishman and has a very detailed narration of what really happened there and then. Also what he is saying seems to have the full agreement of a well known in Greece English Admiral the M.Kerr (see preface). I thought you would be interested to take a look to the book, you can find the full text in the Open Library[18]. I hope to find it helpfull in your research. Regards, --Factuarius (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for John Kourkouas

On August 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Kourkouas, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 23:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hallo there! 'Happy winter' by the way. I was wondering if there is some way to keep this image: File:Mitralexis2.jpg. It's a work used by government (military) authorities in books and posters. Any help would be vital. Thank youAlexikoua (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the painting with the pilot's image. Thanks for the advice.Alexikoua (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Dacia-Thrace

Dacians/Getae are considered North Thracians and Dacia Northern Thrace.The popular region we name "Thrace" is in effect considered Thrace proper.Linguistically ,culturaly and in the writings of several writers its one thing.Megistias (talk) 10:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Also i am still working on them , so you please my inadequacies.Megistias (talk) 10:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Than we should change the title or titles to make things more understandable.I believe that including thrace/thracians and dacia/dacians in thrace/dacia articles that are lists and have similar structures gives a more spherical view to the reader regarding the interactions and the culturo-geographical elements that shaped that region in general.Megistias (talk) 11:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

We could simply add, "and Dacia" in the titles and modify the first paragraph a bit.I know what you mean but i believe we can use a simple format that will in the end create a greater understanding by combining the two.Megistias (talk) 11:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I suck!Megistias (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: Byzantine Civil War

I'll see what I can do. My apologies for not being more responsive. RL has been rather busy as of late. Cam ^(Chat) 04:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Spartan Army page.

The shield was the heaviest you're right. The fact stands though that it was dishonorable for a spartan to drop his shield or not come back with. The sentence, before the one that I have changed twice, contradicts the sentence after it. The mothers of Spartan Soldiers said "With it, or on it." The "Spartan Hoplite" page also contradicts the Spartan Army page. Throwing a Spartan's shield away was not acceptable. In the end, a Spartan would not get rid of his shield until he had dropped everything else; which includes his Breastplate and other self-protection objects. The reason I say this is because a Spartans shield not only protected that individual Spartan, but all the Spartans around him. I am going to change it back to being the "last" thing that would be dropped.

173.25.110.158 (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Taylor Brown

Greek museums

Well thankyou sir. ~~Well I did start them after all....~~. Only too glad to clean up the mess created by the good Doctor.... very surprised few of them have since been expanded, they are very interesting topics! The late Dr. Blofeld though was appreciate of your efforts similarly and donated you a barnstar form his evil organization..Any help you can give to convert the stubs would be much appreciated, over the next weeks weeks I'll aim at fleshing out every one of the Greek museums... Himalayan 17:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Uprising of Ivaylo

Greetings! I wanted to ask you to rewrite the article for the Uprising of Ivaylo because my English is really not that good and I saw that you had found it after all ;-). I would like to ask you to make new sub-section in the "Course" section because I don't know whether they are appropriate. Unfortunately, I have only one book for the uprising at home so the inline citations come only from it. If you have time, it will be nice to find Byzantine sources and even expand the article further. I hope you can do those things when (if) you have time. Best, --Gligan (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The burning of Kilkis

Hi Constantine I would appreciate if you could check your sources about the burning of the town of Kilkis during or after the named battle of the 2nd BW in order to clear the matter in the related article. I couldn't find anything about for months now. Thanks in advance, --Factuarius (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)