User talk:Cplakidas

Userpage	Talk page	E-mail	Articles	Sources	Sandbox	Awards

Re: Damietta raid articles

Hi,

I'm currently out of town but I'll be back at the library later in the week. I should be able to get you the scans of the Byzantion articles within a week or two.

Happy new year! GabrielF (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you a lot, and a happy new year to you and your family! Constantine ✍ 11:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I've sent the three articles listed on my talk page via email.

Are you also still looking for the first two Byzantion articles listed at Wikipedia:RX#Byzantine stuff (Walker and Guillou) or just the three listed on my talk page (Kubiak, della Vita and Rémondon)?GabrielF (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I've downloaded the Damietta articles, and striken them through at WP:REX. I am indeed still looking for Walker & Gouillou, if you can scan them as well, that'd be great. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 21:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:REX#Byzantine heraldry articles

Dear Konstantinos! Are these 4 unresolved requests still open? I think, I can get it for you. -- Doc Taxon (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed they are. If you can get them, it'd be a perfect New year present ;)! Thanks a lot! Constantine ✍ 17:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Translation request

Hi Konstantinos, happy New Year. :-) Could I ask you a favour? I'm nominating Icelandic Phallological Museum for Today's Featured Article but would like to increase its score. It's only 5 languages off being a "widely covered" topic. Would you mind translating the stub article at User:Prioryman/Icelandic Phallological Museum summary for the Greek wiki? Prioryman (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hah, yes, that's definitely something every WP edition should have ;-). I'm getting at it right away. If I find time, I'll translate the whole article too... Likewise a Happy New Year to you and your loved ones. Constantine ✍ 22:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Constantine ✍ 22:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you! Prioryman (talk) 08:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone is cluttering my watchlist... :-)

Hallo Costantine
I wish you a happy 2013! BTW, I just finished the book that you advised me to read about Byzantium in the iconoclastic age. Great! The only problem now is that I must correct a great part of my articles about the City :-) Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 09:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

A happy new year to you as well! Glad you liked the book, I've not yet managed to read it myself, it is always loaned out at the local university library... Needless to say, when i get my hand on it, I too will have to revise a lot of articles ;-). Constantine ✍ 11:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a good side of Switzerland is that there are not so many people interest in Byzantine history, so I can have all these books for myself. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for your dedication to article writing, and especially for your contributions to Bajkam, which definitely enabled the article to attain GA status. dci | TALK 00:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. I enjoyed our collaboration on Bajkam, and a big "thanks" for getting the article started (left to myself, I probably wouldn't have written it for years to come). I intended to give you a Barnstar for the article myself, but the reviewer got there before me. So I'll wait for the next one ;-). How is Tuzun shaping up? Constantine ✍ 00:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

A bit rougher than expected...finding sources that actually discuss his background or anything other than his tenure as amir al-umara is quite challenging. I've got a list set up, and I think I'll get around to it fairly soon. dci | TALK 00:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I'll have a look if some journals mention him, but don't expect any miracles. Looking forward to the article, however, even if it is short. Constantine ✍ 00:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Domestic of the Schools/GA1

I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Ioannis Adetokoubo

I believe the article should be named by his given name in Greece, since he was born in Greece. The Greek version of his name is Antetokoumpo. Adetokoubo is not his actual Greek name. Since he was born in Greece, and that is the official spelling of his name in Greek, say on his Greek passport, then I believe that is the spelling that should be used.Bluesangrel (talk) 09:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Not quite. His name is Αντετοκούμπο. First, this is his original Nigerian surname (Adetokunbo) approximated in Greek characters, and one common practice is to revert to the original spelling in the Latin alphabet. Second, even if we disregard the former practice, the Greek name can be variously re-transliterated into Latin as Antetokoumpo, Andetokoumbo or Adetokoubo. The first is best not to be used, since it changes the phonology too much, the second would be OK, but the third is IMO to be preferred because it stays closer to a) the original Nigerian version and b) it appears to be the name used in international databases, which is the closest we can have for WP:COMMONNAME in the Latin form. Constantine ✍ 09:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you OK with this? If so, we can move his brother as well.Constantine ✍ 09:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand this, but the problem is that his name is in Greekish, because he has a foreign (as in non-Greek) name. So in this case, the official name will be Antetokoumpo, under Greek citizenship laws. I am fairly certain of that. Even though the real name is Adetokunbo. I won't argue on it though, since I could not find an actual FIBA tournament name, which are official. The FIBA center link isn't official, as in taken from a passport. He is supposed to play with the Greek junior national team this summer, and then they will list his official name from his passport. So I guess until then, it could be put either way. At least until we know for sure. But if we are going to do it this way, then I think Adetokunbo should be used, rather than Adetokoubo.Bluesangrel (talk) 09:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, until he makes his first international appearance, let's use "Adetokunbo" and we can always move to whatever form he uses then. Constantine ✍ 09:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Khuzayma ibn Khazim

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

October to December 2012 Milhist Peer, A-class and FAC reviews

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period Oct–Dec 2012, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Hello Gus

Hey is there any news on Χρήστος Γιανναράς recently there in Athens? I understand he has had much to say about the economic crises there. I hope all is good with you and yours. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I and mine are good for the moment, thanks, and there's a glimmer of hope still left for this country... On Yannaras, I've seen him mentioned in TV and the press, but frankly, it is difficult to bear hearing anything more about the crisis. People are tired of three years' worth of "experts" of all kinds making statements and predictions one contradicting the other, making statements of the obvious or (in the case of foreigners) giving condescending and patronizing advice. What people want is for the politicians to finally get their act together and make sure that those most responsible pay. It is easy to go after the low- and middle-income people and squeeze them dry (which has been practically 99% of government policy so far), but the crisis cannot be overcome unless the country's elite too takes up a share of the price for its "leadership" over the past 20 years. This crisis (which is also the culmination of long-standing institutional and social, not just financial, problems) will not be overcome until a few hundred bigwigs (doctors, lawyers, architects, singers, entrepreneurs, etc) who have never paid tax and have transferred billions of euros to Swiss bank accounts, accompanied by some former cabinet ministers (and prime ministers), provincial governors, senior public servants and mayors who embezzled or squandered public money, or who simply provided cover for the crimes of others, are in jail. Constantine ✍ 15:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Amen I like that little Taleb-ish comment you made there, you know the phrase "in Jail". Because that is where they belong. They took public good faith and money and went on a shopping spree for their buddies. I hope the IMF finally works this out. My prayers are with you. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Marj Rahit (684)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Theodore Synadenos

Hello! Your submission of Theodore Synadenos at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! ¿3family6 _contribs 03:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Siege of Mecca (683)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Emmanouil Pappas

Hello Cplakidas. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Emmanouil Pappas, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not an uncontroversial move, use requested moves instead. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Mongol naval power Op-ed: Crisco 1492 on war films

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) 13:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much

Thank you very much for your DYK reviews. I have a DYK review that has been reviewed and needs a quick approval. The review process is mostly finished. Please if possible can you take a look?http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Hagop_Vahram_Çerçiyan&action=edit Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Spahbed

They are correct, Middle Persian and Parthian are full of historical spellings - they are spelled as spʾhpt and spʾdpty in Middle Persian and Parthian, respectively, but are read as spāhbed. Both words can be seen in Paikuli inscription, see also spāhbed (spʾhpt) in MacKenzie's dictionary. --Z 19:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I probably did not make myself clear enough: I am certain that historical spellings exist, and their inclusion is strongly desirable. But unless something is wrong with my browser (and this would be weird, because I have Pahlavi fonts installed), the names you added were actually "𐭎" signs for non-Unicode characters. Could you please re-check them? I'll do the same on my side with my fonts. Constantine ✍ 22:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure they are correct, and I'm seeing them without problem (Firefox, Linux). I'm seeing that letter as Parthian "s", see also google results for the character.[1] Can you see the Parthian letters in this list correctly? Your font must be ZH Mono I guess, since it is the only font for Parthian as far as I know: do you see 𐭎𐭐𐭀𐭃𐭐𐭕𐭉 correctly? (sometimes it is necessary to specify the font-family, I remember having this problem in Windows, in IE I think) --Z 22:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I tried it with Firefox and I can see them. Apparently Safari has a problem, I should have known... Anyhow, I am reverting my removals... Constantine ✍ 08:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

John Tarchaneiotes

Hello Cplakidas, probably you don't know me. I'm Renato and I contribute to wiki pt. Yesterday I proposed the article John Tarchaneiotes to good article, but some editors think that the subject unfinished. What do you think? If yes do you have some idea about what I could put to upgrade de subject or some biography to me to use? Would you like to discuss in the discussion of the voting? Here it's the link: pt:Wikipédia:Escolha do artigo em destaque/João Tarchaneiotes. There is no problem if you explain your ideas in English.

Thank you for waste your time reading this.--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you very much for the invaluable contributions in English Wikipedia in regard to the history and culture of Caspian territories. sicaspi (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I am fascinated by the complex history of this region, so you can expect more articles to come! Cheers, Constantine ✍ 22:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to hear that! (and it is a bit odd for me). Please See History of Gilan as well, although it is a stub.--sicaspi (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Cham Albanians Genocide listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cham Albanians Genocide. Since you had some involvement with the Cham Albanians Genocide redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Hasan ibn Zayd ibn Muhammad

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Muhammad ibn Zayd

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Theodore Synadenos

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Khurshid of Tabaristan

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 08:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Ταπυροι

	Tapuria's Plate
	Thank you so much for the articles Khurshid of Tabaristan and Hasan ibn Zayd ibn Muhammad. If you have difficulty in completing, I'm ready. (Of course, the stammerer Language) :) --Ταπυροι (گپ) 11:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Σε ευχαριστώ πολύ, much appreciated. As I was saying above, I look forward to more Tabaristan-related articles to come. Constantine ✍ 08:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

That Was Interesting

Did you know Talk page in fa.wikipedia:[2] KhabarNegar (talk) 06:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Unfortunately, I cannot read Persian (give me a few years though ;-)). I am honoured that my modest efforts are noticed, and promise to keep it up.Constantine ✍ 08:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep up the great work

		The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves
		On behalf of the Military History Wikiproject's coordinators, I am very pleased to present you with the A-class medal with Oak Leaves for your excellent work on the Battle of Lalakaon, Siege of Constantinople (674–678) and Battle of the Defile articles, which were all promoted between December 2012 and January 2013. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Constantine ✍ 09:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Ottoman suffix

The Ottoman suffix is better transliterated as -ili rather than -eli and I think that it's quite obvious from similar namings(Zenebish-ili etc).--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem is this: there is no overwhelming evidence for either form, but "-ili" seems to be favoured by modern Turkish and older European sources, while "-eli" is used by some eminent modern scholars (Nicol and Babinger, whose opinion weighs a lot in my book), and favoured by the rendering of the name in Greek, which certainly reflects actual usage. I am not well versed in the phonological differences between Ottoman and modern Turkish, but I have a hunch they have a role to play here, and I have chosen (what I think to be) the more contemporary form. As always, I am open to correction, though. Constantine ✍ 20:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Efharisto poli

Your support and kind words are truly heart warming. It is always nice to hear such generous support of the articles I've created especially when intense controversy results from them. It is users like you that encourage me to write, create, and expand more and more articles. And yes Miran Pastourma and Arapian were one of the hardest articles I've written because the more I wrote about them...the hungrier I got!! :) Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Byzantine History

	Panhypersebastos award
	I thought we needed a Komnenian period award, and you deserve to be the first recipient. Urselius (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hah, thank you! I appreciate the gesture, although my vanity would be more pleased if I had made the jump directly to despotes ;-). I mean, if a barbarian can do it, so can I! Well, I guess there's still time for that... Let's see what my good friend Andronikos has to say on the matter... Constantine ✍ 21:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Does it entitle you to wear fancy boots? That's the important part. Besides 'despot' has unfortunate connotations, like 'tyrant', and 'Basileus ton Rhomaion' would just go to your head. Urselius (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess you are right. Oh well, I'll go order my new boots now. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 21:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Antioch on the Meander

Hi, are you positive of the coordinates, it puts it very near the modern town of Yamalak. I mentioned this but I didn't want to insert an error.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, this was inserted in the battle article based on the supposed location of Antioch on the Maeander. On the map I can see what looks like an archaeological excavation site just west of the marker, which I suppose is Antioch otM since it corresponds to the city's location, so it's probably correct. Constantine ✍ 21:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

A small favor

Hi Constantine! Wish you the best for the carnival days. If you have some seconds to sparre can you please check (markieren) my 2 edits in de:Griechisches Heer. Suppose you agree with these.Alexikoua (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Ashik Pasha-Zade

Hi,

• I created an article about Ashik Pasha-Zade but I am kind of stuck at it and I feel bad about its current poor status. Any help with it would be highly appreciated.
• While I was at it I got an idea that it might be good to have Ottoman historiography or Historiography of Ottoman Empire article which would summarize all Ottoman historians and present summary about them and their works.

I hate to bother you about this and if you are too busy please forget about this message.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't have much time currently, and will probably have even less in the weeks to come, so the little I have will be dedicated to some of my own articles (sorry), but I can probably help you with sources. If you could send me an e-mail address, I'll send you what material I have. Cheers, and happy writing! Constantine ✍ 21:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply anyway. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Your comment - Please make more discriminating edits

Please stop adding, or rather dumping, irrelevant material from Byzantine articles on early Muslim ones, without bothering to check if it really fits: there is e.g. no reason why Constans' supposed dream from the Battle of the Masts should appear in an article on the Battle of Siffin. Please sift more carefully through the material you want to add and add only what is directly pertinent per WP:SS. Then of course there are a few other edits that are simply incorrect, such as the connection between the 7th-century Muslim conquests and the inter-Muslim rivalries with the Greco-Persian wars of antiquity, or the confusion between the Sassanid dynasty and the much later, and thoroughly Muslim, Safavid dynasty. If you do not have the necessary background knowledge to tell the two apart, I strongly suggest you leave these articles alone until you do. --Constantine ✍ 21:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Answer

Thanks for your feed back. I will go through these again and remove the bits that need to be removed. I agree with you about the Greco-Persian wars comment. I was going to remove that. I will go through the articles and remove it tomorrow. I will also make other changes as requested. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Revenge mission by indef blocked user

User:Skipetari is currently launching a revenge mission. As soon as he received his indef block in en:wiki, he is accusing you for vandalism in de:wiki, by making a blind rv in Epirus. He is also vandalizing the very same articles he was unable to do in en:wiki.Alexikoua (talk) 10:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I was going to keep an eye on him either way, due to his POV-ish edits in the Epirus article (particularly his very telling cherrypicking of the map), but thanks for pointing out he's indef blocked here as well. If he keeps it up the same way, I suspect it'll soon be the same over at dewiki. --Constantine ✍ 14:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Capture of Farurriyah

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Geographical confusion

It must have been some confusion about the geographical definition of the Epirus periphery. Kokolakis is ok for the Vilayet which included also vast areas and reached Shumbin, i.e. almost half modern Albania. It's obvious that the percentages of the modern Periphery were completely different and this is described in detail by Kololakis too. So, I see no reason why this can be considered representative for the specific article.Alexikoua (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

No, there is no confusion. Unless I am mistaken, Kokolakis does not provide differentiated numbers based on the modern boundary; he alludes to it, but the numbers he gives are for the entire Epirus region, i.e., as stated in the article, including half of Albania. If you think I've made a mistake, feel free to correct it. Constantine ✍ 08:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Epirus region? I don't thing so, you mean the Vilayet of Ioannina, that's not the same region. Just make a brief check at Kokolakis statistics (Arta pref. is out, while large areas north of Acroceraunians, i.e. traditionally the northern boundary of Epirus, are included).Alexikoua (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, the problem is that Kokolakis equates Epirus with the vilayet. His statistics refer to "ηπειρωτική επικράτεια" and mean the vilayet. You are right, however, in that this is a rather unusual demarkation of Epirus. I'll correct that.Constantine ✍ 07:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems that as soon as we settled things up in the specific article, Skip. inserted his 'beloved' map in another article (de:Cham Albanians), pretenting that nothing happens.Alexikoua (talk) 08:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at US Army leadership since World War II

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) 08:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Vandal Kingdom for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vandal Kingdom is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vandal Kingdom (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SpinningSpark 21:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Sorry if i was to rough with Hellenistic Greece. Since many of the articles on Hellenistic period in other languages (for example Hellenismus) link to Hellestic Greece rather than Hellenistic period, i hoped merging the two would prevent this confusion. As i'm sadly not Greek, you're definately more of an authority on this issue than me. Thanks your reasonable comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vandal Kingdom (2nd nomination) however. Krakkos (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and name change request

Hey Constantine,

Thanks for giving the Capture of Farurriyah article a better name, and for submitting it for DYK. It's been great having all your contributions on my new articles, and more generally on the subject of early Islamic history. I do think the new article name is more accurate, but I just noticed that there may have been a minor typo in the change. The rendering of the name is given as Faruriyyah in the translation; currently the article name is Farurriyah. I checked and I couldn't find any sources that used the latter rendering. If this is a typo, could you please change the article name to Capture of Faruriyyah?

Thanks, Ro4444 (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments, it is likewise always good to see your meticulously researched articles! You are right on the name, it is indeed a typo, I cannot understand how I made the mistake... I am fixing this right away.Constantine ✍ 23:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The Umayyads and the Chach Nama

Hello, Cplakidas! It's been a while since I've interacted with you (about Tuzun, I believe, which I've been a bit sidetracked from), but I thought you might have some interest in this. I've been trying to start up a sort of improvement drive for articles pertaining to 7th-century Sindhi history, immediately preceding and during the Islamic conquest. The conquest was led by Muhammad bin Qasim, whose article will probably be a focus of improvement. If you have any time, your help here would be greatly appreciated, as you seem quite knowledgeable about this era. Also, a growing list of "needy" articles can be found here. dci | TALK 00:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Vandalic War Map and huge appreciation

Hi CPlakids, I'm a huge fan of your work. Your maps are fantastic. I have been linking to them repeatedly as part of my podcast "The History of Byzantium." I hate to begin a correspondence in this way because we are all so grateful to you for your hard work. However a listener pointed out two small mistakes on your Vandalic War map. Just little typos on points 6 and 7. Point 6 presumably should be "Vandal outpost" and 7 "Vandal Royal Treasure." Again thank you so much. Robin Pierson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.123.111.195 (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, it is always nice to know that one's work is appreciated, and your comment is all the more appreciated as coming from a fellow Byzantinophile. I thank you (and your commentator) even more for spotting the mistakes, and I will correct them ASAP! If you spot anything amiss or have any suggestions for improvement on absolutely anything, don't hesitate to contact me. Cheers and best regards, Constantine ✍ 20:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Help with translation from Greek to English

Hello. i noticed your name in Wikipedia:Translators available#Greek-to-English. Έχω μεταφράσει δύο λήμματα από την ελληνική Βικιπαίδεια στην αγγλική. Δυστυχώς, υπάρχουν κάποια λάθη, κυρίως συνταχτικά. Δεν έχω μεγάλη ευφράδεια στην αγγλική. Θα ήθελα να τα διαβάσεις και να κάνεις τις απαραίτητες διορθώσεις, αν μπορείς. Τα λήμμα είναι Nea Salamis Famagusta FC και Nea Salamis Famagusta, τα οποία μεταφράστηκαν από el:Νέα Σαλαμίνα Αμμοχώστου (ποδόσφαιρο) και el:Νέα Σαλαμίνα Αμμοχώστου αντίστοιχα. Αν δεν ενδιαφέρεσαι, απολογούμαι για την ενόχληση. Xaris333 (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Emirzeli

Hi Cplakidas, I hate edit wars and I am not going to revert anything. But please know that region is not a parent category. While the province is a administrative unit, region is a geographical unit and they are independent of each other. For example, Fethiye in Muğla Province is in the Mediterranean and Bodrum in the same province is in the Aegean. Please try to collaborate before rushing to edit. Cheers. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Point taken as far as the provinces/regions overlap is concerned. However, the second part of my comment still stands: the region is way too wide a category to include an isolated ruined site.In other words, when one thinks of a site like Emirzeli, one thinks of "Hellenistic architecture", "archaeological site", "Mersin", "basilica churches" and what not, but I doubt very much one would readily think of the Mediterranean Region... It is simply too large and wide a term to associate a tiny site with it in any meaningful manner. It would be like including the Acropolis of Athens under "Central Greece", the Hagia Sophia under "Thrace", or Nuremberg Castle under "Franconia". While technically correct, the categories bear no immediate relation to these articles, as there are several intermediate groups and sub-groups of entities between them. That is why the parent category - subcategory distinction is important, otherwise you will end up having all the articles possibly contained within a single circumscription "dumped" into the category, which would become unusable.

BTW, it is because I am trying to collaborate that I explained my second reversal. If I didn't try, I certainly wouldn't bother with it, because IMO this stuff is (or should be) self-evident to any long-time Wikipedia user. Nevertheless, I get the impression (also from your readiness to assume bad faith in the merge request the other day and some other comments over time) that you've pegged me somewhere as "hostile" or something similar, but I can't see why (probably because I am Greek and prefer Constantinople to Istanbul for pre-1920 articles?). However, I certainly don't perceive myself as your enemy nor do I see you as mine. To be clear, I can hardly avoid editing your articles since we both work on roughly the same area, and if you catch me inserting a factual error I am always 100% ready to admit a mistake. For differences in text style or such secondary issues like categories, I simply ask for your forbearance, such things simply exist between different people. I wouldn't expect you to do anything different with my articles, either, other than what you deem to be best. Again and always, if I make a mistake, simply point it out. Constantine ✍ 22:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sad to see that you use the words hostile and enemy. I never saw you as a Wiki enemy. Just the reverse, I think you are an efficient contributor. This matter of region cat is a very trivial one. Lets forget it. As for İstanbul, please note that the name İstanbul is based on a Greek word. I prefer to use it in articles about the last years of The Ottoman Empire, because the legend that the name came into use as late as in 1930s is purely fictious. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 04:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Good, then I'll chalk this up to a misunderstanding on my part. I am happy we are both on the same page on these issues. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 08:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice map!

Nice map of the Sui-Tang transition... --Nlu (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, although I basically combined the two maps referenced. If you notice any errors or have suggestions for improvement, just tell me. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 08:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

re: Old Map issue

Hello, I believe you are the user who went by the previous handle "Constantine". If you are not, I apologize for the mixup. If you are, I just wanted to draw your attention to the sassanid empire page. If you recall, back in 2011, there was a long debate over the accuracy of the sassanid empire map. We both objected to it (me for the eastern border, and you for the western border), though you were the lead on the issue. I just wanted to draw your attention to the page since a new (or old user) decided to restore the old over-extensive version showing sassanid rule right up to the gates of Constantinople. I believe the map you uploaded was therefore replaced. Please see here: Old Discussion. Thanks. Devanampriya (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I'll take care of it. --Constantine ✍ 10:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Αντιτορπιλικό ΒΑΣΙΛΙΣΣΑ ΟΛΓΑ

Μιας και είσαι ο βασικός συντάκτης του λήμματος για το αντιτορπιλικό ΒΑΣΙΛΙΣΣΑ ΟΛΓΑ στην αγγλική Βίκι, θα ήθελα την γνώμη σου για το αντίστοιχο λήμμα που έγραψα στην ελληνική Βίκι. --Ellinikosemfilios (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Με μια πρώτη ανάγνωση, φαίνεται εξαιρετικό, μόλις βρω χρόνο θα το μεταφράσω στα αγγλικά. Τότε θα σου κάνω και πιο λεπτομερή σχόλια. Πάντως εύγε! Constantine ✍ 16:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Slav-Byzantine Wars

Hi, Cplakidas. What about this article above created by User:William H. Nault. I think, it needs also to be deleted. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 06:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Well, although it is a horribly written article by a known POV-pusher who makes a habit of simply inventing history, the topic itself is actually noteworthy, so I am not certain whether deletion is even feasible. Perhaps a redirect to South Slavs#Relationship with Byzantium would be better. Constantine ✍ 09:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Karli-Eli

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello there

Hello Cplakidas,

I've recently created the Monastery of the Transfiguration, Kinaliada article and I though it may be of interest for you. I am looking for sources regarding the Monastery. I am particularly looking for Greek sources and see what they say about the origins of the Monastery, who built it, its current state and etc etc. I nominated it for DYK. Let me know if you like the hook. Anyways, happy editing! Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at refugees during the Battle of France Interview: Editors discuss writing articles about the former Yugoslavia Op-ed: Prioryman on German V-weapon sites and the historian's responsibility

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) 04:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

About war of independance

Hi. ex-blocked user Pyraechmes is currently following some kind of North Greek agenda by adding a bunch of more or less secondary Macedonian chieftain in the article box and template, and removing figure like D.Ypsilantis or G. Koundouriotis as "minor people" ([3], [4]). It is not worth losing time to discuss why the President of the Executive for several years or people like Mavrokordatos have more historical importance than Tolias Lazos, because this user is either of bad faith or ignorant. What can we do about it?--Phso2 (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted him as well, this is simply ludicrous. If he persists, warnings are in order and if he continues, then a block will definitely follow. Constantine ✍ 10:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I forgot his replacing the non-notable petty secondary naval officer Miaoulis in favor to great Arch-Generalissimo and decisive leader Adamantios Nikolaou...Could you also cast an eye on Greek war of Indp? Now we have Mani as co-belligerant with Greece, and twice Petrobey as a leader in the box (because he is more leading than ordinary non-Maniot Greeks?)--Phso2 (talk) 11:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Typical, every crackpot come out at anniversaries to push their pet POV, but when there's work to be done on actually adding some facts on an article, they're nowhere to be found. Thanks for the heads up. Constantine ✍ 11:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You're right, I wasn't aware of the circumstance of being the 25th today.--Phso2 (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Renaming the template

You have added (after 1071) to the name of the template Medieval states of Anatolia. I wonder if there were any other medieval states before 1071 ? If so, wouldn't it be better if we add those names instead of limiting the range ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, before 1071 for the medieval period (i.e. post ca. 640) there was pretty much only Byzantium. One might consider the border provinces of the Caliphate (the Thughur in Cilicia and Mesopotamia) also, but the traditional definition of "Anatolia" would leave them out (I am not 100% sure about Cilicia, but geographically and historically, the Taurus-Antitaurus line pretty much marks the eastern border of the Anatolian peninsula). Anyhow it is irrelevant, because the point is this, you have two periods in Anatolia's history: before 1071, where the political situation was relatively stable, and after, where a multitude of states and statelets contended with each other for control of Anatolia. You cannot have the same template cover both periods, because the parameters are wholly different: in the first, you have a clash of empires with the border running along the peninsula's eastern fringes, in the second, a veritable Kleinstaaterei mix of Christian and Muslim states, i.e. these are two very very different and distinct historical periods. Hence it would be an error to simply throw the Abbasids into it because a) they belong to a completely different set of circumstances and b) they would be completely swamped by the other entries in the navbox. It would be very odd (and unscientific) to see the mighty Caliphate be placed on equal footing with, say, the Beylik of Tanrıbermiş, as if they both operated in the same context... Constantine ✍ 18:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

BTW, the Ahlatshahs for instance were certainly not in Anatolia. I don't know if indeed the Turkish historians include them in the "Anatolian beyliks" category, but a more correct definition would be "post-Manzikert Turkish beylik". This map has a good approximation of the boundaries of Anatolia proper (as I said, I am not too certain about Cilicia, but it can pass), and Ahlat is nowhere near being in it. Similar issues arise with other entries as well, e.g. the Ak Koyunlu or possibly the Saltukids. I know the modern Turkish definition of Anatolia=Asiatic Turkey, but historically, this is nonsense and only serves to complicate things for us. Even with the most extensive definition of its boundaries, Kurdistan and the territories beyond the Euphrates are simply not in Anatolia. Constantine ✍ 19:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

After my message I noticed that you have also changed the title of the article . The duration in the original title was Medieval Age . (476-1453, there are other definitions. But all definitions are similar) There is absolutely no reason to clear the first 6 centuries of Medieval Age. You may notice that a similar article for the Ancient Age also exists. As for Abbasids ( Umayyads, Parthians ,Sassanids ot the Italian Mercantile cities for that matter), yes they captured a part of Anatolia. But their center of power lied out of Anatolia, so they were not included in the list. As for the map you refer, it is a not-so-accurate map of the second era in beyliks . You are probably aware of the fact that there were two series of beyliks the first following 1071 and the second following 1243. The list naturally includes both. As for your doubts about whether or not Cilicia is in Anatolia, I am sure you are kidding. In any map, you can see that Cilicia (togethet with Pamphylia) is the southern coast of Anatolia.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Ehm, first, there are different definitions for the "Middle Ages" depending on the area you are dealing with. 476 as a date has a (albeit conventional) meaning for W. Europe, but is pointless for Byzantium, Iran, or China, where other chronological limits exist. For Byzantium (and by extension Anatolia), the Middle Ages began with the Muslim conquests, i.e. after 640 AD. So, no Sassanians, let alone Parthians, please. "Antiquity" in this regard is a much more fluid time period, extending from 640 AD back to the Lydian Kingdom of Croesus and beyond. As to why I changed the template and the relevant article, I explained it above: there are two distinct periods in medieval Anatolian history, and the salad of statelets represents only the second part. On Cilicia, yes, it is often included, but geographically speaking, it is more an intermediate region between Anatolia and N. Syria. Anyhow, you'll see I've left Armenian Cilicia and the Ramadanids in. My comments on the other principalities, which were centred in the Armenian highlands, still apply. Constantine ✍ 07:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Too much discussion for the title. But the main question is still unanswered. Had there been another state between 476-1071 which was omitted in the original list ? If there was one, I suggested to add it to the list. Apparently there was none, then what is the rationale to move the shorter and more comprehensible title to a pointless one (Assuming that you are not preparing another list for 476-1071) ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it is a discussion on some points which either the list, or you (e.g. 476, Parthians), got wrong, and need correcting. As to whether the new title is "pointless", I have answered above. It is ridiculous and against all historical methodology to equate, or even imply an equation, of the situation after 1071 with that which existed before the mid-10th century (Byzantine-Arab contest). A list which mixes these two periods without discrimination is worthless as a historical navigation tool and potentially misleading, since it implies that the situation extant during the later Middle Ages also applied during the earlier period as well. An uninformed reader could jump to the conclusion that Byzantium shared, throughout the Middle Ages, control of Anatolia with a host of other statelets, which is simply not true. Since 99% of the list's entries either way reflected the post-1071 situation, it only makes sense to label it as such. This way te list gains in clarity as its scope is better defined, and we avoid any potential misunderstandings. Period. Constantine ✍ 19:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe self-proclaimed naming and advocacy?

Help please! We're in a bit of a pickle here and here. Thank uou for your brief attention. --Septimus Wilkinson (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

London Protocol (1828)

The article you wrote ought to be mentioned in London Protocol.- Gilliam (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

True enough, I forgot to add it there. Thanks for the reminder! Constantine ✍ 12:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Kingdom of the Morea

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Muslim conquest of Sicily

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

My God man, you're a factory of great articles. As always, keep up the good work! --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I definitely intend to ;) Constantine ✍ 19:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel 66 and Hawkeye7 look at aspects of the Pacific War Op-ed: ErrantX considers the rabbit hole of research

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) 16:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews January–March 2013

		Military history service award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period January–March 2013, I am delighted to award you the Military history WikiProject award. Anotherclown (talk) 23:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Sassanid talk page.

Please take a look here Talk:Sassanid Empire, i think i found a source that shows that they controlled whole Asia minor. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Khalid al-Qasri

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Giannis and Thanasis Antetokoumpo

As I believed was the correct legal spelling, Antetokoumpo, has been confirmed - [5] - but now I am unable to move the pages to the correct name spelling. I requested a change, but I am not sure how to fix this.Bluesangrel (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It's easy, I'll gladly help you with it, but the link you showed doesn't make anything clear as it is in Greek (how a Greek news-site spells it in the url address is hardly evidence of official or legal spelling, in case you were referring to this). I don't want to be pedantic, but do you have an English-language source just so we can be 100% certain? Constantine ✍ 20:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

They have to use the name that is officially on their passport. Here is an English link, but they spelled it wrong in the link - [6] - They spelled it wrong. It was probably just a typo. It should be spelled Antetokoumpo.Bluesangrel (talk) 09:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, OK, I'll get the ball rolling. Constantine ✍ 11:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The pronunciation I listed is the actual correct pronunciation they use in Greece for them in game broadcasts. That's how the name is pronounced in Greece during the games. Bluesangrel (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Huh? You mean that the announcer actually reads Αντετοκούμπο as Αντεϊτοουκούμπο; Then he is probably a pretentious idiot mimicking NBA sportscasters. Feel free to re-add it if you think it absolutely necessary, but it is confusing at best to have an anglicized pronunciation for what is an African name of naturalized Greeks...Constantine ✍ 07:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The sports agency that officially represents Antetokounmpo made the announcement and confirmed the official legal spelling on his passport and FIBA player registration. The name was spelled in the Greek version of the Nigerian name Adetokunbo, and not in the alternate spelled form of Adetokoubo. So it is to be spelled officially on Greek passports and FIBA documents as Antetokounmpo, and that it is the official legal name. I fixed it. I just wanted to give you the heads up that we finally got verification on what it is. Here is the link from the sports agency that officially represents Antetokounmpo for verification - [7] and here is the link that shows that this sports agency does indeed officially represent him - [8] - So we finally got that squared away.Bluesangrel (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Clan Cangelari

Panayotis D. Cangelaris has written a history of his family for us: Cangelari family. There may be something there, but he does seem overly exuberant about the family's merits. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Drive proposal for June

FYI I've started a proposal for a drive in Jun here [9]. Was hoping to get some more co-ord opinions before I look to implement this. If you are able to have a look I would be interested in your opinion. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Konostaulos

Hello Cplakidas! Could you check the discussion of the page Konstaulos. I found an error about Leonardo II Tocco and I'm not sure if the problem is in the source used (Guilland) or, during the making of the page, something wrong happen. Graciously.--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 08:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Dumelow on the French Foreign Legion and Nick-D on New Zealand military history Op-ed: Nick-D on military history tourism

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) 14:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Euboean labyrinth

Hi Kosta. Could you have a look here and tell me what you think about my proposal? To summarize, that is that the apparent contradictions between sources on Triarchy of Negroponte come from the fact that the pre-70's authors are ultimately based on K. Hopf's works, and that there was a turning point with the works of Loenertz, who made considerable corrections about what was considered a consensus, and who was generally followed (as far as I know) by specialized authors (Setton, Jacoby, Koder...). I propose therefore to made corrections in the articles involved (for example Guglielmo II da Verona) according to Loenertz and post-Loenertz sources, and to reject earlier versions in note (as they are present in lots of older or non-specialized works). What do you think?--Phso2 (talk) 09:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Phso2! In trying to write the English-language articles, I relied on Bury since he was the only source with a full overview of the issue that I had ready access to. Needless to say, even so I had a headache trying to make head or tail of the situation. I don't really have an adequate overview of the recent scholarship on this, and unfortunately not the time to go through it either, but I'll gladly make any necessary corrections if you and FocalPoint (whom I esteem very much) can sift through this muddled affair. Constantine ✍ 10:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, thank you. I will soon have a few more recent sources and I will try to improve these articles then (if my head doesn't explode in the process).--Phso2 (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The vilayet law of 1864

You can read about the vilayet law of 1864, which preceded the one in 1871, in the following sources: Turkish Public Administration: From Tradition to the Modern Age, Haifa in the Late Ottoman Period 1864-1914, Governing Property, Making the Modern State (the latter is perhaps the most detailed). So I think it makes sense to choose 1864 as the starting point of the transition from traditional to province-based administration, especially as it was never concluded in some parts of the Empire.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen these sources. Now can you please read again precisely what I have written in my edit summaries? The first Vilayet Law was issued in 1864, but this was limited at first to the Danube Vilayet, which was set up precisely in order to test the reform and demonstrate its effectiveness (which is why arch-reformer Midhat Pasha was put in charge), and it was only officially generalized in 1867, by another Vilayet Law (or rather a re-issue of the first). You can find the actual 1864 Law in French in George Young's Corps de droit ottoman, Vol. 1 pp. 36-45, and the re-issued Vilayet Law in a French translation in Vol. 2, p. 273 of Gregory Aristarchis' collection of Ottoman Law, clearly marked "1867". Given that Aristarchis himself was a senior Ottoman official, and drew from the Porte's archives only a few years after the law was published, for me this is pretty much a definitive source. The authors that you have linked seem to ignore the 1867 re-issue altogether, and reading them one might be forgiven for understanding that the reform began to be implemented Empire-wide from 1864 on. My point is that the vilayet reform began in 1864, but it was not sanctioned for implementation across the Empire (even if that was not fully carried out) until three years later. Anyhow, I will not revert this any more, it is rather trivial and depends on one's interpretation. Constantine ✍ 13:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

From your edit summaries it wasn't immediately evident that you were aware of the existence of the 1864 law (as opposed to the establishment of the first vilayet in that year), so even reading a billion times wouldn't have helped much. :P In any case, I accept that you were right, as the notes to the translation of the 1864 law support your reading that the first law was only meant to be experimental. Those official translations to French are a great find by the way, I'm adding them to the Vilayet article!--eh bien mon prince (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Sassanian Empire.

Yeah sorry if i am sounding a bit annoying, but this time i found something that exactly says that they conquered it, take a look on the talk page. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

One sided massacres and nothing more

Since you are mostly focused in the Byzantine Empire, just wanna inform you that a specific user leads an extreme pov national campaign which now extents from medieval to modern era historical articles. A latest childish example is this one [[10]], where, no wonder, it perfectly fits the tastes of an extreme national background (not even the 1453 sacking is mentioned, probably because of that reason).Alexikoua (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)