User talk:Cplakidas/Archive 13

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 RX (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
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!

 * 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  &#124;  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)

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! &iquest;3fam  ily6  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
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. 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!

 * 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
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:      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

 * 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

 * 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 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
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 Articles for deletion/Vandal Kingdom & 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.  Spinning Spark  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 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 &#124;  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 Translators available. 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 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
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". 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
PanydThe 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
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)

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 - - 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 - - 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 - and here is the link that shows that this sports agency does indeed officially represent him -  - 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. 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
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)

I was not done.. please take a look on it again. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:47, 15 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 [], 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)
 * Seeing the creator's history, it is quite clearly a petty tit-for-tat creation ("you Greeks edit Turkish massacres, now see what I am going to do! Mwahahah!") but the topic is legitimate. I'll fill it up when I have more time. Constantine   ✍  14:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless the pov character is quite clear. [] Another list of destructions, poorly sourced too and possibly needs additions, although this time seems not so pov as the previous one.Alexikoua (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The motive is definitely WP:TEND-ish (not to say childish), but there can really be no objection to his creation of these lists, partial though they may be. Just let him continue, anyone who feels they have to clarify that they are "not a nationalist and every wiki user should avoid bringing his nationalist agenda's to Wikipedia" at the end of their posts on the talkpage of a hugely controversial subject makes his intentions abundantly clear. Such types sooner or later always step out of line and get their deserved block... Constantine  ✍  12:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Please no Wp:PERSONAL attacks. DragonTiger23 (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And exactly who invited you here? Or are you following Alexi or me around? No, don't answer that, because of course you are "not a wiki-stalker and people should avoid following other users with whom they have had disputes around to see with whom and what they talk about" ;-). Cheers, Constantine  ✍  15:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Please no Wp:PERSONAL attacks. Thank you. DragonTiger23 (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please no WP:HOUNDING. Thank you. Constantine  ✍  16:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Konostaulos
Hello Cplakidas! Could you check again the article? I think that I found another problem with it.--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 09:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Romans and Byzantines
Hi Constantine! Thanks for your kind words and suggestions. I will certainly keep them in mind. I too admire your tireless contributions, especially to articles about the Middle Ages. Best. Way 2 veers 18:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you very much! It is a pleasure and an honour to be recognized by someone with a similar interest in Wikipedia's more neglected historical periods and areas. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  14:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Saffarid dynasty
Can you take a look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abbasid_Caliphate&action=history and tell if the Saffarids should be placed as the successors of the Abbasids or not?

According to http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/saffarids the Saffarid dynasty was an Empire and not a tributary of the Abbasid Caliphate, Iranica is the most reliable source, the Saffarids even tried to invade Baghdad. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, the Saffarids were loosely part of the "commonwealth" centred around the Abbasid court after failing to conquer Baghdad in that they did accept titles from the Abbasids and paid lip service to their primacy, but for all intents and purposes they were independent; they pursued their own interests, and the caliphs had really no way to impose their will on them except by military campaigns. They are different than the Tahirids who were firmly aligned with the Abbasid dynasty, and represent the new type of regional dynasty such as the Samanids, Tulunids or Hamdanids. In that respect, they should be grouped together as successor entities in the "Fracture to Autonomous Dynasties" section. That being said, I am not in favour of putting them in the infobox. For simplicity's sake, for entities as extensive and long-lived as the Abbasid Caliphate, where any number of smaller entities branched off during its history, we include only the major or last successor state(s), here the Mongols. By comparison, the Saffarids were to short-lived and, comparatively, of little importance, and if you included them you would have to include the Samanids, Hamdanids etc as well, resulting in a list with some two dozen "successor" entities. That is clearly pointless. Constantine  ✍  14:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright, but you don't think it will be hard for other people to find the other successor states if they have to find it in the article instead of just simply clicking on the infobox? --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree it is less visible, but that is the problem with the infobox: it has a lot of limitations, chief of which is that by design and nature it cannot be used to represent complex cases, and perforce reduces them to an (over-)simplified overview. That is why some people passionately hate them. Constantine  ✍  06:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013
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) 09:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Barony of Akova
The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Barony of Patras
The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Image description
Hello Cplakidas! Could you please translate to English if you have some time? It's a single phrase. Thank you. José Luiz talk 21:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done :). Cheers, --Constantine  ✍  21:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! José Luiz talk 21:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

TemplateData is here
Hey Cplakidas

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Sieges of Nauplia
Perhaps you could add them to Battle of Nauplia? If you do so, then we should create a redirect there from Siege of Nauplia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for cleaning up the references on Tang campaigns against Karasahr and fixing the formatting problems.--Taiping Tulip (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your help and experience. There are a few questions I would like to ask. In this article, two chapters of the same volume were cited. The chapter on Taizong was written by Wechsler while the chapter on Gaozong was written by Twitchett and Wechsler. Should I list the chapters separately in the bibliography? Currently, the footnotes for the Taizong chapter do not link to the bibliography. Is there a way to combine multiple chapters into a single Cite Book?--Taiping Tulip (talk) 11:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My pleasure, and thanks likewise for creating these articles, as Tang history is rather under-represented. On the issue at hand, you could cite the work/volume as a whole, but it is always better, in terms of accuracy and scholarly practice, to cite the individual chapters separately. Constantine  ✍  16:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

HistoryofIran
Dear Cplakids, can you please tell me what's wrong here? the source says this: Šāhēn conquered the whole of Asia Minor, entered Chalcedon after a short siege, and encamped within a mile of Constantinople itself, the Persians who in the early seventh century conquered Egypt and Asia Minor lost decisive battles a generation later when nimble, lightly armed Arabs accustomed to skirmishes and desert warfare attacked them. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Which source? And again, for the 3rd or 4th time now, please stop seeking easy answers in one-sentence summarising statements you found on the internet, and open up some sources that discuss the war in detail, or, failing that, read our own well-referenced article on the war. There you will see that the Persians took Chalcedon in 617, left for Egypt, then returned and took Ancyra five years later, and that at that time, the front-lines were at Bithynia and Galatia, i.e. central Anatolia around Ancyra. Only they did not stay there long, because again in the same year Heraclius forced them back east, and not until 626, and the siege of Constantinople, did a Persian army again venture deep into Anatolia. The northern, western and southwestern coastlands, which were and still are the main agricultural and population areas, were raided but never came even under brief occupation, while the central highland of Galatia and Caesarea came under brief occupations that lasted barely a year at most. Please, please stop obsessing with this and turn your attention to more fruitful things. Persian history has a ton of articles where work is urgently needed, whether the Sassanians conquered all of Asia Minor is not one of them, especially as it is well established that they did not. This issue has been discussed to death, both between the two of us and at Talk:Sassanid Empire. The case is clear, and I am tired of explaining things over and over. I am sorry, but I will have to regard any more of this behaviour as WP:IDHT, so consider yourself warned. Constantine  ✍  16:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not obsessed with this, as you can see i am also working on other things, so i am suddenly warned because i thought something was good :/, apologies. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I know you're working on other stuff too, and that is great. Keep it up, and have along and productive editing career here! Personally, I am always happy when I see new people engaged in areas like Persian history, where Wikipedia has many gaps. But you've brought the exact same issue to this page three or four times now, and I really have had enough. I understand the desire to see your "side" victorious, but I don't have patience with unwillingness to do even basic research before you come running every time you see a snippet that conforms to your desired view. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  19:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Barony of Arcadia
The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Ottoman-Persian War (1821-1823)
I would like your opinion for the result of this war. On the talk page you will find my source, "A Global Chronology of Conflict: From the Ancient World to the Modern Middle East", Vol.III, ed. Spencer C. Tucker, (ABC-CLIO, 2010), 1140., which states the Treaty of Erzurum and "status quo antebellum" as the result of this war and User:Someguy1122's opinion that the war was a "Tactical Persian victory". Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Epi tou eidikou
The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Richard Orsini
The DYK project (nominate) 20:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for John I Orsini
The DYK project (nominate) 20:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Metrophanes of Byzantium
See Byzantine Saints talk page. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Barony of Chalandritsa
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you, HistoryofIran. Much appreciated, --Constantine  ✍  09:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Siege of Patras (805 or 807)
Allen3 talk 12:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Opinion about Sasanian banners.
Hello, i need your opinion on something, what banner do you think is best?

This one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Derafsh_Kaviani.png

Or this one: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DerafshKavianiHistoryofIran.png --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't know. From a purely artistic point of view, the pinkish purple does not look good alongside red and gold, it is too garish. Otherwise, the main question is, which is closer to the actual historic banner? Everything else is beside the point. Constantine  ✍  19:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Ghisi
Hi. I was in holiday, I will add what i can asap.--Phso2 (talk) 10:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, holiday, a word whose meaning we have started to forget around here... I hope you had a good time, and don't worry, take your time, there's no hurry. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  17:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've put the references but the style is probably sometimes to be improved since i'm no anglophone. For the supposed suzerainty of the dukes of Naxos upon the other latin lords (especially the Ghisi), it seems to be an idea of Hopf which is rejected since the end of the 20th (by Loenertz, Jacoby and perhaps Borsari, followed by BJ Slot p 35-36 and notes and Setton in his later works (p.19). Perhaps it should be mentionned in notes, since the idea is often to be found in more ancient litterature (Miller's books, History of the Crusades etc)?--Phso2 (talk) 07:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, I'll copyedit the passages. Thanks a lot for your edits, as well as for pointing out the issue over the suzerainty of the Dukes of Naxos, I was not aware of it. I'll study your links and see how we can incorporate this in the article. Best regards, --Constantine  ✍  07:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, the passages seem conclusive, at least as far as Tinos-Mykonos are concerned, which from the first were separate. But what about Kea and Serifos? Where they considered parts of the Duchy or were they part of the Ghisi's patrimony? Constantine  ✍  09:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as i know (ie Loenertz's Ghisi and Jacoby's La féodalité en Grèce médiévale) these islands were not the subject of revendications and/or trials by the dukes of Naxos (as it is the case with other islands, like Andros, Santorini, Amorgos). According to Loenertz, Hopf's assertion that the Ghisi held already from 1207 parts of Kea and Serifos is unfounded (Hopf provide sources that don't confirm what he says...), and their domination start only with the (re-)reconquest of these islands around 1302 by Giorgio Ghisi and members of the Giustiniani and Michieli families. Before Licario's reconquest (ie 1207-1270's), Kéa would have been shared between the Michieli and the Giustiniani, as vassal of the Latin Emperor, and in the trial they had afterwards with the Ghisi following the 1302 rereconquest, they declared themselves as vassals of Venice, with no mention of a ducal suzerainty - for Serifos i did't find anything for the period between 1207 and Licario's conquest, but in the mentionned trial there is neither evocation of a ducal suzerainty.--Phso2 (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I see. Thank you for the information, pity I don't have access to these fine sources and have to bother you every time with requests. It seems to me that the articles on the Duchy of Naxos both here and in the French wiki are due for some major rewriting... I made a small start on that yesterday, clarifying some of the vassalage claims, have a look and tell me what you think. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  06:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Strike that, I see you already have. Thanks for correcting my slips of the keyboard ;)Constantine  ✍  07:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem ;-). I agree with you about the articles on the duchy, but the problem is that the most available sources seem more or less outdated because they rely mainly on Hopf and his followers, and that the more recent ones are often very difficult to have access to, and are often written in non english langage, so there is a lack of an available english synthesis book on the subject (this is also the case for the frankish period in general i think). I have a scan of Loenertz's article "Marino Dandolo" which is about the conquest, i will email it to you if you want.--Phso2 (talk) 09:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right. The period is oddly neglected by more recent English-language sources (although I've been trying to find Lock's The Franks in the Aegean for a while now, its price is rather too steep for me to buy it). Just look at how much work I was able to do with the EfA placing Bon's book online, without it, barely stub-level articles would have been possible. On the article, sure, send it and thanks a lot! :) Constantine  ✍  10:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I must say I was very disappointed with Lock's book and I wouldn't recommand it; it is perhaps relevant about the general analysis, but for mere hard facts it is not at all up-to-date : it seems it could have been written 60 years ago, as numerous corrections of older books, by numerous recent authors, are not taken in account. I wonder whether the author is able to read French usefully, since he seems to ignore french-writing authors. It lacks footnotes and historical discussions/debate (facts are misleadingly given as sure or commonly admitted through they were challenged long ago); the genealogical tables are especially confusing : no source is given, and it seems to come directly from Hopf 19th works. It is a pity when you compare with Setton's works from the 60's to the 80's, in which one can follow the evolution of the scholarly consensus (if there is one...) in the second part of the 20th.--Phso2 (talk) 11:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I see. Good thing I have not bought it, then. It is indeed unbelievable that some English-language scholars seem to ignore contributions in other languages altogether, it is an amazing indication of insularity. I've read complaints that the English-language Byzantine studies almost completely ignore the vast modern Russian literature, and often the more recent Greek-language studies as well... It is one of the cases (along with the cases where "scholars" never bother to provide their sources or even mention that there might be alternative interpretations to their own) where the better class of Wikipedia articles does a more thorough job than actual professionals...Constantine   ✍  20:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Question
Hallo Constantine Alessandro writing! I hope that you are enjoying summer in Greece as much as i am doing here in Helvetia. I have a little question for you: in 3 days it will be the 70th anniversary of the Fall of Mussolini. i wrote an article about that, and moreover, I would like to put an entry about the fall on "on this day". Do you know how to do it? I navigated a little bit, but i could not find any guideline... Thanks! Alex2006 (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Alex, long time no see! I hope everything is OK with you! I too am well, although enjoying summer in Greece without much money means I enjoy it in (a rather cloudy at the moment) Athens rather than an island (and since I am shuttling often to Piraeus, I get to envy the hordes of tourists embarking on the ships there ;)). Anyhow, on the anniversary, AFAIK people pick them from the date pages, but I think you can always nominate one at Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries. Perhaps you should consider the WP:DYK process as well, though, in my experience they often get more attention. Nice article BTW, I'll make some copyedits when I have time. Best, Constantine  ✍  10:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hallo Costas, thanks! I don't want to comfort you, but remember that ANY Greek beach, also in Piraeus, is better that the best Swiss lake shore. :-) Your copy edits will be most welcome, my articles suffer always of Italianitis! Here in Helvetia Felix everything is OK, in Italy unfortunately not: the situation there is out of control, but people do not seem to mind about it. We Italians abroad are plundered by the government, so I am seriously considering to escape to another Mediterranean country (yours?) In the next months I will have to take 3 months vacation, so maybe it's the good time to visit Athens again after so many years... :-) Cheers Alex2006 (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to come to Greece whenever you want for tourism, but a word of advice, stay as far away from the Greek state as you possibly can. A robber or burgler takes your money more efficiently, since you don't have to stand in line for hours and fill in forms in a dozen different state services for it to happen... As an Italian, I think you know what I mean ;) Constantine  ✍  13:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't whether in Greece the state pretends from you more than twice the normal house tax, only because you live abroad (4,300 € per year for a normal apartment!) or 1,400 € to give you the permission (only the permission) to get married in Rome, always for the same reason (you are abroad): and all this only to feed a bunch of lazy people doing nothing all the day long... Alex2006 (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sssshhh, you'll give our bloodsuckers in the Finance Ministry ideas... The problem is, over here the way the "system" (if complete chaos can be called a system) takes your money is not only grossly unfair (hitting practically only the low- and middle-income classes), but also completely bonkers, arbitrary and subject to changes all the time. One day they announce "X", the next "Y", and when something gets into law, it reads "A3D2". And after three months, it is revised to "Ωabλ". Ten trained monkeys could do a better, or at any rate far more honest, job at running this country. Constantine  ✍  14:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am observing more and more similarities between our countries...and also with the late byzantine tax system! Let's only hope that we won't finish with the Turks at home once again! Due to the present economic success on the Bosporus, this cannot be excluded... :-) Alex2006 (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Constantine, thanks a lot for the great review! now looks like a Wikipedia article. :-) About the book about "non intervention": this was a book describing the italian action in the non intervention committee established in 1936, with diplomats from UK, France, Italy and Germany (I would have seen one of those meetings :-)). I think that Grandi (at that time ambassador in the UK) was the italian representative. What do you think about the article? Do you think that it is informative for people ignorant about the subject? For me it is difficult to judge, since I bought my first book about fascism when I was 10...Alex2006 (talk) 05:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks :). A very thorough article, it certainly explains the viewpoints, mentalities and general atmosphere very well. The one thing that is missing is a bit more in the "aftermath" section, since the average reader probably won't have any idea what Italy's travails after 25 July where. I am not done yet, I intend to go over it one more time to check out details, and will ask you to clarify specific points where I have trouble understanding what is meant. Impressive work, nevertheless. Constantine   ✍  07:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with you. The end of 25th of July coincides with the begin of 8 September, another feral date for Italy(which, BTW, could become another interesting article .-))). I should mention and explain that at the end. About DYK, the article has been approved and lies now in the special occasion area, but I am afraid that the people building the queues did not notice it, since the 25th of July queues now are full... :-( I wrote a remark on the DYK talk page, but if none notice it I hope it will be published for the 2014 anniversary. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Greek help needed
Hello Cplakidas, I'm contacting you because we need some Greek translators to help with the deployment of the new VisualEditor on el.wikipedia. There are help pages, user guides, and description pages that need translating, as well as the interface itself. The translating work is going on over on MediaWiki: Translation Central. I also need help with a personal message for the Greek Wikipedians. If you are able to help in any way, either reply here, or head over to TranslationCentral. Thanks for your time, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi! I don't known how much time I can commit, but I will certainly help! Cheers, --Constantine  ✍  21:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Any amount helps, Constantine. I can see you've already done some good work - keep it up! PEarley (WMF) (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Hulao
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013
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) 16:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Third Perso-Turkic War
Can you please take a look on this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Hulao
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Battle of Hulao you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- 18:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Hulao
The article Battle of Hulao you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Battle of Hulao for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- 19:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Greek railway stations
There are many stations now being nominated for deletion. See Articles for deletion/Nea Peramos railway station. I bring this to you attention because you may not be aware of these recently created articles. Sw2nd (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

My Grand Proposals!
Dear Constantine, I know that we have had a lot of arguments on a certain talk page, BUT hear me out! I am not hear to talk to you about that topic. I am here to talk to you about a possible moving/merging the Roman and Byzantine Empire Articles into one article, given that the Byzantine Empire was referred to as the Roman Empire by other nations when it existed. Since you have the Roman Empire as one of you main interests, I wanted to know your thoughts on this proposal before I propose this on the talk page of both articles.

My second proposal was to have an article about the Early Roman-Sasanian Wars, given that it only has a section on the Roman-Persian Wars conflict called "Early Roman–Sassanid conflicts" whereas the Byzantine-Sassanian Wars has it's own article as well as a section on the Roman-Persian Wars article. IMHO, I believe that the Roman-Sassanid Wars deserve a lot more attention and should have it's own article just like how the Byzantine-Sassanian Wars has it's own article.

What do you think? From, Keeby101. 107.213.82.133 (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I do not wish for us to be enemies, if we already are. Peace ☮ 107.213.82.133 (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * To begin with your last point, we are not enemies. From the moment where our goal is the same, i.e. to further the aims of Wikipedia, there can be no division between "enemies" and "allies", even if we disagree. Indeed, disagreement is expected and necessary, because it leads to improvement. The reason I disagree with your map efforts are not because I don't like you or consider you an "enemy", but because they are factually inaccurate. On your first proposal, per WP:COMMONNAME and a host of related discussions on Talk:Byzantine Empire, my answer is "don't attempt it". Your argument about Byzantium being essentially the medieval Roman Empire is correct, and it has been made several times by several users, but to no avail, because we are forced by our guidelines to bow to common and academic usage, and they distinguish the two entities more often than not. On your second proposal, you are free and indeed welcome to create any article on any topic or sub-topic you want. However, a word of caution: please please please make serious research before writing anything, and I don't mean outdated sources like Rawlinson or website extracts. A junk article is worse than worthless, so please take the time to read (cover-to-cover, not Google Books snippets) and reference the extensive bibliography cited at relevant articles. If I may suggest, before taking on such a "prominent" and complex topic, it would be better for you to hone your skills at article-writing and gather more insight and knowledge about the period with something easier, e.g. minor biographies or battle articles like HistoryofIran is writing, although I do hope you will flesh them out to resemble proper articles. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  21:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I will only say this, yes we both have our disagreements (especially on the Sasanian Empire Map), but users will always either agree or disagree with each other. Oh well; still, I would like to point out that those books that I read were not google books snippets. I have read those books and more at local libraries, but I do not know how to cite them at all. But again, that is not what I wanted to talk you about. I thank you for your advice on the first proposal, I feared the worst when it came to that one and from what you just said my fears are true... :( But on the second proposal I am extremely glad that you agree with me on there and I will do my best to cite and reference as much as I can on that one. Now, when it comes to sources, I recently put up a topic on my talk page literally titled "URGENT NEED OF HELP!!! Citing my sources and how to cite them properly as well as how and where to find the right ones!!!!" and I was wondering if you could visit my talk page just this once and comment on that. Reason being is because I have gotten into argument about the Giant Ground Sloth's extinction date and they told me to cite my sources and find proper and accurate sources, much like how you have told me in the past. That is my 3rd proposal.''' Peace ☮. Keeby101 (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Drungary of the Watch
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I wonder whether he may be back
I just saw this section at ANI. The one article I clicked on the history of had more edits to it than Pumpie used to do, and better English, but it had the "It has two platforms", and the articles have apparently been created by copying a template example. What do you think? Perhaps he has improved his English to the point where that part of the problem has at least been removed, or perhaps I'm reading too much into the resemblance. Also dropping this note to Markussep. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Yngvadottir! Yes, I had seen these new stubs as well, and wondered the same. This new user's English is somewhat better than Pumpie's, but not by much, as becomes apparent whenever he tries to write more than a couple of sentences. However, there's really too little text to form a conclusive opinion. His settlement articles are certainly not as rambling and filled with stuff like "electricity arrived in the 1950s and television in the 1960s", and the tell-tale creation of redirects with every conceivable transliteration and spelling is absent. I'll keep an eye on him, but for the moment, it could simply be another train-station-obsessed user. --Constantine  ✍  08:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry
I'm sorry about erasing your comments at User talk:Oh Yeaaahh. I was trying to restore my own comments that someone else removed. - MrX 12:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It's all right, we all make inadvertent mistakes. Cheers, --Constantine  ✍  12:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Would appreciate input
We definitely need an accurate vector image of the Byz eagle. I posted a request on Commons. Would appreciate your seconding the motion, and adding pointers and/or more accurate primary images for the team. -- Director  ( talk )  17:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I fixed my map! I think you will like this one!
If you go to the Sasanian Empire talk page, you will see that I fixed my map and made it accurate. Keep in mind that I tried REALLY HARD to make the Oxus River boundary. The core territory of the Empire is shown in brown and all areas that were under ephemeral control and/or overrun by the Sasanian Army during the course of the war is shown in orange. Keeby101 (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Hulao
The article Battle of Hulao you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Hulao for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- 20:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

ISAP doesn't technically exist anymore.
Hi, I noticed that you recently reverted one of my category-related edit with the reason "ISAP stations" already covers this, ISAP is part of the Metro network". However, ISAP doesn't technically exist anymore, or at least since 17 June 2011. Since that date, STASY S.A has been running all three Metro lines (according to Law 3920/2011). I think we should rename "ISAP Stations" to "Stations of the former ISAP" or something similar. Thoughts? --Marianian(talk) 22:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, not quite. It is true that technically it has been merged with the Metro, but it remains very much a distinct branch within the STASY, due to its far longer history and distinct identity, e.g. it has it sown union and retirement fund, etc. In common usage too, ISAP (or "Ilektrikos") is distinguished from the other two Metro lines in the news, websites, etc. I myself ride the ISAP almost every day to Athens centre or Piraeus, not the Metro ;) Constantine  ✍  07:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)