User talk:Cplakidas/Archive 15

Happy New Year Cplakidas!

 * Thank you very much Alessandro! A Happy New Year to you and your loved ones! Constantine  ✍  10:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Tawahin
The article Battle of Tawahin you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Battle of Tawahin for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 06:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I wanted to say that I truly am apologetic. It's very well written and referenced, but I think it needs substantial expansion in focus, due to the significance of the battle and my personal knowledge. However, if you believe I have made an error, you may re-nominate it, to see if other editors have a separate inclination. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 06:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello! As I wrote in the review page, the review process was IMO irregular in that it did not allow any time for me to address the perceived failings of the article. The expansion in focus is debatable, but what has "personal knowledge" to do with any of this? Do you know a source that hasn't been used here and that says more on the battle? If so, kindly point me to it and I will include it. One simply does not just speedily fail an article unless it is a horrible mess, which, judging from your comments, you evidently don't feel this one to be. Constantine  ✍  10:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * I likewise don't agree with everything he wrote, and have a nasty suspicion that this was a "quick job review", but the lead and aftermath do probably need a bit more work. Feel free to go ahead, you have access to more sources than I do usually. I'll help as I can. BTW, I wanted to ask you, do you know any source that gives a detailed break-down of Abbasid provinces at various times? I'd like to expand the "Abbasid governors" categories, but am still on the search for good sources. Also, Happy New Year, and best of wishes :) Constantine  ✍  19:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I can definitely help with that - a while ago I tried to create a "Provinces of the Caliphate" article, but I shelved it because I could never work it into a satisfactory format. I posted a bunch of my sources for that article at this site; it's basically a number of province lists relating to various time periods. Hopefully they should be of assistance for what you need. Obviously the smaller provinces probably don't need their own category, but the bigger ones (Yemen, Sijistan/Sistan, Arminiyah, Mosul, Makkah and Madinah, etc.) could use one. On a related note, if you're looking for a list of provincial governors, Khalifah ibn Khayyat's Tarikh has a section for each of the caliphs from 'Ali to Harun, listing all of the governors during his reign for each major province, although his information sometimes conflicts with other sources. If you need help finding any information or sources, feel free to ask me anytime. Happy New Year to you too! Ro4444 (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow, I did not expect that detailed a reply. Thanks a lot, this is great! I agree on the categories, I just wanted some more detailed sources especially on Syria, since modern sources often state that X was placed as governor of/in Syria, without specifying provinces. I quite naturally assumed that this implies control of the ajnad, but I wondered if there ever was a single super-province of Sham during Abbasid times. Anyhow, thanks again! Cheers, Constantine  ✍  10:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

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


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

DYK for Ishaq ibn Kundaj
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

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


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

ByzantineEmpire717+extrainfo+themes.svg
Hello Constantine. Could you check this map? Expanding articles about the Exarchate of Ravenna and translating other maps about it I think that there is something wrong about byzantine boundaries in Italy. I can be wrong but, in 717, the Byzantine still had a inland connection between the Exarchate of Ravenna and the Duchy of Rome and, according other maps (but this I actually don't know exactly), they lost Corsica and the inland connection between the Duchy of Venice and Istria. What do you think?--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


 * Happy new year to you too, I hope you are well! I'll keep an eye out, thanks, but ARBMAC violations are for admins to handle. Other than reverting and warning (which you have well in hand as far as I can see), I don't know what else I can do. FWIW, the edits themselves in Peloponnese do not seem to be that contentious (I haven't checked the referencing, though). Constantine  ✍  12:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The specific edits seem ok, although they are still in straight violation (in fact the latest example) of the restriction.Alexikoua (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

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


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

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

Books & Bytes New Years Double Issue
Books & Bytes Volume 1 Issue 3, December/January 2013 (Sign up for monthly delivery) Happy New Year, and welcome to a special double issue of Books & Bytes. We've included a retrospective on the changes and progress TWL has seen over the last year, the results of the survey TWL participants completed in December, some of our plans for the future, a second interview with a Wiki Love Libraries coordinator, and more. Here's to 2014 being a year of expansion and innovation for TWL!

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

...Read Books & Bytes!

Muslim conquest of Khuzestan issues
Hi Constantine, I noticed that you most recently moved this article to its current title, and thought I'd reach out... I came across it scanning the backlog of articles needing copy-edit, but determined that since it is a single-source article with lengthy direct quotations, a copyedit would be inappropriate. I wonder if in its current state it is in danger of deletion... or how it should be tagged to alert readers... I don't think the article fails notability, but its content is certainly not encyclopedic. Thanks! I had already pinged the projects listed on its talk page, but with no response, I figured I'd try raising a flag here. Paul M. Nguyen (chat&#124;blame) 18:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


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


 * LOL thanks for the response and tip. I don't have time or interest in working on it myself... updated tags on the article to alert readers to single-sourcedness and we'll have to leave it at that. Thanks, again. Paul M. Nguyen (chat&#124;blame) 03:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

"Modern" Greek names?
Hello! I noticed your edit in the title of Alexandra Mavrokordatou. You state that this name should be spelled with a K instead of a C because this is the correct spelling for a modern Greek name. I don't quite understand this; by "modern" I assume you refer to people from after 1900? In any case, if Alexandra should be counted as a modern person, the several of the other articles about the people of the same family should also have their article moved to the modern spelling; for example, this one: Constantine Mavrocordatos is spelled with a c, and as you can see, he lived during the 18th-century and should be counted as more modern than Alexandra, who lived in the 17th-century, that is to say the century before him. --Aciram (talk) 15:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In fact, all the people in this category who has their named spelled with a c, seem to have died after her rather than before: []--Aciram (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello! The reason why some members of the family are spelled with a "c" is because of the latinized and Romanian forms, which were broadly used when they served as hospodars in the Danubian Principalities. Alexandra had no relation with either modern Romania nor with Western Europe, so the rule is transliteration per WP:GREEK, with a "k". Compare for instance the difference between the Kantakouzenos family and the Cantacuzino family. It is a matter of context and usage within that context. Constantine  ✍  22:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh I see, it has to do with place rather than time? In that case I understand better. --Aciram (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Both. Ancient Greek names are traditionally latinized, medieval names are usually transliterated; for modern names, it depends. Transliteration the more common, but in cases where a Greek person interacted mostly with a non-Greek environment and was known already in his lifetime with a half-latinized name like Mavrocordato (and probably used it himself), the tendency is to stick to that following usage in sources. Alexandra on the other hand was scarcely known outside Athens from what I can see, and may not have been related to the Phanariote family at all, so here "standard" rules apply. Constantine  ✍  08:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

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

What do you think of this editor's work?
Tomatooooeeeeesss, pointed out at WikiProject Trains. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Very likely to be our old "friend". France, check. Trains, check. Coming right on the heels of other socks being blocked while working on subway articles, check. You can even throw in the odd username. Constantine  ✍  08:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Reported, confirmed as likely, contributions nuked. Sigh. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sigh indeed. I really would give good money if he would simply stop wasting the time and effort of so many people. Constantine  ✍  19:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I think I found another one: Terriffic_Friendy-o_6. The same obsession with useless redirects and Greek romanization variants, poor grammar and references that are quite obviously about other places. See for instance Paneio. Markussep Talk 13:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "The article is also to be translated into French and German." Oh dear, yes. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Our friend has been blocked, so we can start cleaning up the mess. I see many of his creations have already been deleted (Paneio, Siphae). I made a list with all remaining articles he/she edited, see User:Markussep/Greece. Markussep Talk 14:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Additional thoughts about a map
I've created a map about the Anatolian expedition. If you have some time to spare, I'll be happy to hear any additional suggestions you may have on this.Alexikoua (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice work. As to suggestions, AFAIK the "British zone" was also to a large degree under Greek control after summer 1920, at least between Panormos and Mudanya, so perhaps either a striped shade indicating joint Greco-British control or some other way to indicate this should be used. The Greco-Turkish war included the operations for the capture of E. Thrace, perhaps this too should be included, or the description altered to indicate that this is only about the Anatolian theatre. Also, I think you have an incorrect border in Thrace, I am under the impression the line of the Treaty of Sevres was closer to Constantinople than that. As to details, the dates should be bigger because they are difficult to read, and I would suggest clearly marking out a) the sites of battles (explosion, crossed swords, some icon or other) b) the main railway lines and c) the courses of the Sakarya and Meander rivers, as they played a major role in the campaign. Oh, and in order to avoid the usual disputes about its accuracy, please note your sources in the file description. Constantine  ✍  10:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestions. I'm done.Alexikoua (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Thanks

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


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

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


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

I cannot read Greek, so I beg a small favour ...
Regarding Kastelorizo, an editor says that this census report lists Ro and Strongyli Kastellorizou as uninhabited in 2011. Could you confirm or correct? Thanks! Yngvadottir (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for butting in. I forgot to mention it is entry no. 18430 and 18431. Regards! --T*U (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I see now that that's the same population source we're using for the island itself. So one of you should probably update the articles on the 2 little islands with that ref :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, both Ro and Strongyli are uninhabited, Ro actually quite famously so, ever since the death of the Lady of Ro. I see that Alessandro57 already corrected the census data. Constantine  ✍  09:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Strongly recommended
Why don′t you move Tenedos to its formal/official name? Double standards? Cordial greetings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.196.57.25 (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


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

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


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

Roman Britain
Hi Constantine! Would you please help me with some elusive British provinces? Your map is completely different from this one and they, supposedly, represent a 10 years' gap between them. Valentia is all over the place as is Britannia II. Maxima and Flavia are inverted and Britannia I extends to the east in the second. Your map is much less used than the other one so here I am. PS: It crossed my mind to ask User:Ealdgyth also. What do you think? José Luiz talk 00:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Urf. Roman Britain is well before my normal period of comfort. Sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the exact layout of the late Roman provinces in Britain is a mystery, and the location of Valentia, if it ever was anything more than a short-lived province, doubly so. I cannot remember now what sources I consulted for my map, but I am more than certain that the "410" map is wrong: Valentia was probably briefly in existence in the 360s in territory "recovered" from the barbarians that probably lay in one of the other four provinces. It certainly was not located north of Hadrian's Wall, as Roman authority had withdrawn south of it well before this time. The relevant articles in the English WP are rather misleading, the German WP is much more sober and up-to-date in this regard. Constantine  ✍  08:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Abu'l-Qasim al-Husayn ibn Ali al-Maghribi
The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Mufarrij ibn Daghfal ibn al-Jarrah
The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

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


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

ByzantineEmpire717+extrainfo+themes.svg
Hello Constantine. Could you check this map? Expanding articles about the Exarchate of Ravenna and translating other maps about it I think that there is something wrong about byzantine boundaries in Italy. I can be wrong but, in 717, the Byzantine still had a inland connection between the Exarchate of Ravenna and the Duchy of Rome and, according other maps (but this I actually don't know exactly), they lost Corsica and the inland connection between the Duchy of Venice and Istria. What do you think?--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Featured picture candidates/Greater Armenia

 * Thank you for creating such a magnificent map! -- Ե րևանցի talk  14:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Books & Bytes, Issue 4
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 4, February 2014 News for February from your Wikipedia Library. Donations drive: news on TWL's partnership efforts with publishers Open Access: Feature from Ocaasi on the intersection of the library and the open access movement American Library Association Midwinter Conference: TWL attended this year in Philadelphia Royal Society Opens Access To Journals: The UK's venerable Royal Society will give the public (and Wikipedians) full access to two of their journal titles for two days on March 4th and 5th Going Global: TWL starts work on pilot projects in other language Wikipedias Read the full newsletter MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Wow! That is a mammoth undertaking, and you have my utmost respect for even beginning it! Now, as to its present form, there is little I can comment on, as the "History" sections are mostly blank and the statistics sections are not really my cup of tea. However the article will definitely need a very very good and comprehensive (without going into too much detail) intro section, as the politics of the 2nd Republic were a direct continuation of the 1910-1923 period and you cannot understand the former without the latter. Sources also are a bit less than ideal, I would suggest using the Ιστορία του Ελλ. Έθνους to flesh out the bulk of your article, then there is the Η Ελλάς μεταξύ δυο πολέμων 1923-1940, which I have not read myself but which I have heard good things about. I cannot guarantee that I will have time to engage consistently, but I certainly will try and help with the article. I'd also suggest to post a notice at WP:GREECE for anyone else who might be interested and/or knowledgeable. That's it for now, I hope to be able to add something soon! Constantine  ✍  10:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback! Generally right now I am only using books I have at home in London, there are several books about the subject that I have not brought with me and are back home in Greece. I will look into the two you suggested though. Would you say the statistical yearbooks are not good sources? I would imagine that, being primary sources, they can be used in the cases where they are used. In the economy section, I also use books (primarily the collection of academic essays in Eleftherios Venizelos: The Trials of Statesmanship) to back up the statistical information. The article is still in its infancy in terms of being finished, but I just wanted some feedback so that when I start working in it intensely again in a couple months (after all the uni stuff is out of the way) I have at least some feedback to work with. After I finish the rough outline I plan on making in public and opening the draft up for discussion to eventually replace the (completely unacceptable) current one. Thanks again! :) --Philly boy92 (talk) 11:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * On statistical yearbooks, they are fine as far as using them for making tables, but I would be very hesitant to use them to make an argument of any sort. First, because that would be OR, second, because statistics can be cooked or even presented to say one thing and reality another (witness the present crisis in our country) and third, because IMO numbers quite simply never paint the whole picture in such issues. I'd very much prefer to rely on secondary or tertiary works (like the essays you mention) here. BTW, I'll try to see what sources I have available in electronic form and send them to you. In the meantime, best of luck with the uni stuff! Cheers, Constantine  ✍  12:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: Siege of Trebizond (1222–23)
Hi Constantine! I noticed you upped the level of this article in response to my work but I'm a little puzzled at your rationale. Not that it's not worthy of "B" level yet -- there's a lot of information left to be added, & I think I need to reorganize what I've written -- but that "Referencing and citation" didn't make the grade. Could you take a moment to explain, either here or on the article talk page? TIA, -- llywrch (talk) 07:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


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

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

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

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


 * I see your point and don't doubt your good intentions, but the case is so clear-cut that IMO there was no need for an AfD. Perhaps I erred in doing this, but there are few people involved with Byzantine stuff in WP, and the topic is so obscure no-one would likely be even interested. Anyhow, my point is simply would have saved you trouble to post a question at the RfD before re-creating the article. Not that I blame you, just that your work is wasted on a non-subject like this. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  13:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I make mistakes but I try my best. As it happens, another editor thinks it might be worth keeping, at the AfD. I am not sure and I said so. I didn't refer to Diogenes the Cynic or whatever and was quite aware of the gap in the timescale, it is simply, if someone is searching where would they expect to end up? And I really don't know and said so. You might be right the best thing is it to be deleted and then people can search it out for themselves. I really don't know. Si Trew (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


 * Hello! You are quite right in your remarks, and I have long planned to write a separate article on it, but never gotten around to doing it. So yes, if you have time, sources and the will to start, go ahead, it's a great proposal. IMO, there is no need to begin with the section at Umayyad Caliphate, you can easily start writing the article anew right away. I'll help with additions as I can. Constantine  ✍  10:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey bro, I just started it up in User:MezzoMezzo/sandbox. I don't know how comfortable you feel, but for the duration of this work you have my full consent to edit my sandbox as you see fit while this is worked on. I figure we can take it slow and do it right. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have added the sources I intend to use. I'll probably be too busy this week, but will begin adding stuff from then on. Here's to a fruitful collaboration. Constantine  ✍  11:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey, I just had an idea. This is a long term project which I don't mind - I've spent more than a month on some articles in my sandbox - but when it's done I am planning on some other projects you might be interested in. I just noticed that the revolts of Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn al-Ash'ath and Al-Harith ibn Surayj redirect to their bio pages. Do you think in the future, articles could be made of those revolts as well? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I did give a good amount of thought over this on al-Harith (and other similar articles, like Thomas the Slav), and the answer is no, I don't think it would be worthwhile. For medieval rebellions so little is generally known, that there is no point in having separate articles for the revolt and the person who led it, unless we are talking about a revolt which had several leaders and which spread over such a wide area and had such an impact that the revolt itself is actually more important than the people who led it (cf. the Abbasid Revolution). Harith and Ibn al-Ash'ath are cases where they are mostly known through their revolts, and their revolts themselves are roughly coterminous with their "main period of activity", so there is little point in distinguishing one from the other. In other words, the article on Harith already is about 90% focused on his revolt, and when I get around to writing Ibn al-Ash'ath's article, I expect it will be the same. Constantine  ✍  09:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I see what you're saying. Well, there's always the possibility of simply expanding those existing articles in the future, then. Though hopefully we can finish the Abbasid article first, I'm sure it will be great. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

I have problems with an article
Hello, I found a related article to the Zaccaria family:

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


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

Books & Bytes - Issue 5
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 5, March 2014 by ,

 Read the full newsletter MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * New Visiting Scholar positions
 * TWL Branch on Arabic Wikipedia, microgrants program
 * Australian articles get a link to librarians
 * Spotlight: "7 Reasons Librarians Should Edit Wikipedia"

The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014
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) 14:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Proastiakos rebooted?
Hi,

It doesn't look like the current timetables for the Athenian part of the Proastiakos network (from the TrainOSE website) agree with the way Wikipedia currently portrays those routes. According to those timetables the route list would end up looking like this:

A version of this at User:Marianian/sandbox has citations. 15 runs in the day and 25 runs in the night. Routes in grey are part-time services: I'm not sure if they are notable enough.

Thoughts before proceeding, since this could be a major change? --Marianian(talk) 15:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what exactly seems to be the problem? You want to consolidate all the routes in a single table and update their info? If so, go ahead, I am not really the best person to ask about what is pertinent for railway tables... Constantine  ✍  16:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Your Move Log
I would like to draw your attention to the following, before you go around moving other peoples work. Normal consensus is for you to have left message for me on my talk page (as the article creator) or at least the article's talk page to discuss/explain why you think it should be re-named or moved don't just arbitrarily do it that's just plain rude, the reference for calling it that came from Late Antiquity: The Age of New Boundaries, 250-600, by Pearson Education if the book author calls it an AGE then I saw no problem referring to it as Late Antiquity Age--Navops47 (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You do realise that the original title was a pleonasm do you? The age is called "Late Antiquity", not "Late Antiquity Age". It would be analogous to saying "Antiquity Age" or "Middle Ages Age". As to "normal consensus" on moving, when there is so clear a breach of the naming rules of the English language, as well as common sense, I scarcely think a debate is necessary. Constantine  ✍  16:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * In that case you need to take a good long read of the following articles on Rudeness, Incivility and Etiquette because you clearly convey those mannerism's, You are what I would call a know-it-all. --Navops47 (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's not play silly buggers here. I will not apologize for correcting an obvious error, especially as the move, which you considered to have been "just rude", was well within my rights per WP:BOLD. It was certainly not my intention to insult you, but I am short in patience sometimes, and am well aware of that it shows in my answer above, as the issue is to me plain as day and really not something I should find myself suddenly accused of bad faith about. Constantine  ✍  18:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes you are within your right's to use WP:BOLD,and you recognized the "I scarcely think a debate" comment was not helpful. I was only exercising my right as far as WP:Civility goes. That's the end of matter and good evening--Navops47 (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Panagia Episkopi
Thanks! You made some really good edits to the article. --Slashme (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind words. And thank you for creating the article. To my shame I wasn't even aware of its existence, although I;ve been to Santorini three times. Keep it up! Constantine  ✍  08:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hippo Regius
Hi Constantine, I hope you are well. Could you please help me once again? In Numidia, it's clearly stated that Hippo Regius was one of its main cities. But in the well known map that you created, the city is within the boundaries of Africa. Am I missing something? Thank you in advance! José Luiz talk 01:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello! I am well, thanks, hopefully you too. As to your question, it may be an error, but in most cases of maps on the 4th-century provinces I've seen, the provinces of Proconsularis extend to the west into what was Numidia, and include Hippo. Now, it is true that geographically, Hippo Regius was in Numidia, and I am certain that it was so again in the post-533 Justinianic provinces, but given that for most of the imperial period, Numidia was divided between Africa and Mauretania, it seems that when Diocletian re-created the province of Numidia, Hippo was left out (which would also concur with the fact that the capital was at Constantina). You can see the relevant succession of provincial boundaries in these maps from the Großer Altlas zur Weltgeschichte by Westermann Editions, perhaps the most complete historical atlas in the world and a resource that I trust almost implicitly:, , , . Cheers, Constantine  ✍  08:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Very helpful as usual. José Luiz talk 23:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

William II of Villehardouin
Hi Cplakidas, I wonder if this article is expandable, because this character has done more than his predecessors, but its history is very short, I would like to expand, but my English is very poor and not any Greek. A greeting and good luck in your editions Kardam (talk) 07:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Kardam! Yes, the article could easily be several times its current size. There are ample sources for his life, and much to be said about his wars, politics, buildings, etc. It is one of the articles I one day hope to rewrite, but it is an enormous undertaking. Most of the sources listed at Principality of Achaea can be used to expand the article, especially Bon, Miller and Fine, but he is referred to n many histories of the broader Greek world in this period. Constantine  ✍  08:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

you are not correct. turkic haganat is derived from great old bulgaria. its post factum. try to study some law and some greek language too. then get your terminology straight. Old Great Bulgaria or Great Bulgaria (Byzantine Greek: Παλαιά Μεγάλη Βουλγαρία, Palaiá Megálē Boulgaría) was а term used by Byzantine historians to refer to the Maeotian Bulgar Khanate during the reign of Kubrat in the 7th century centred on Phanagoria north of the Caucasus mountains between the Dniester and Lower Volga.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.211.25 (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Try to start forming coherent arguments or explaining why the changes you have introduced are actually sensible or even factual first, as your edits ruin links, introduce unverified claims and make alterations to referenced information like changing Avars to Alans, without apparent cause or justification. Your talk page is literally littered with warning tags, so this should be a strong clue that you are doing something wrong. If you keep up your present mode of operation, you will be blocked. Constantine  ✍  20:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi, sorry but did not know it was the same. Thank you for correcting. By the way who is Leo Chamaretos, I tried to edit it, but can not find information about it. Greetings Kardam (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, as I said, the Greek WP is unfortunately a place where not much control is exercised over OR issues or the reliance on outdated sources. As for Chamaretos, he was a local magnate in Laconia, who IIRC made a pact with William Villehardouin and ruled the area as a virtually independent ruler righte after the Fourth Crusade. I have material on him, just not the time to fill it out. Constantine  ✍  07:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Heraldry
Hi...i noticed at your userpage that you're interested in heraldry...so i'd like to ask you if you could give some information on what to read to learn about heraldry and how to make coats of arms digitally....i would be very grateful to you if you could help me...thanks in advance... PS: I didn't know if you understand Greek well, so i wrote in English....you can answer me in greek if you want to! StefSom (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Γειά σου! Δεν σε έχω δει εδώ τριγύρω, είσαι φαντάζομαι πιο ενεργός στην ελληνική ΒΠ? Από βιβλία υπάρχουν πολλά, προσωπικά εγώ ξεκίνησα με γερμανικά βιβλία όταν έπεσαν στα χέρια μου κάτι έργα του Ottfried Neubecker, αλλά μια καλή ιδέα για την αγγλόφωνη βιβλιογραφία θα βρεις στο heraldry. Ως εισαγωγικό/συνοπτικό έργο θα συνιστούσα το The Oxford Guide to Heraldry. Επίσης ξεκίνα να ψάχνεις στα διάφορα sites, είναι πολλές φορές πιο διαφωτιστικά από βιβλία. Τώρα, όσο για τη ζωγραφική, δεν είμαι ο πλέον ειδικός. Καταρχάς κάποιο vector πρόγραμμα σαν το Inkscape είναι στάνταρ για οτιδήποτε θες να κάνεις από πλευράς εικόνων. Μπορείς όμως να απευθυνθείς σε projects σαν το WikiProject Heraldry ή χρήστες σαν τον Sodacan που κάνουν απίστευτη δουλειά να σου δώσουν συμβουλές. Constantine  ✍  08:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Ευχαριστώ πάρα πολύ για τις πληροφορίες...είναι πολύ κατατοπιστικές ως αρχάριος που είμαι...Να 'σαι καλά και ευχαριστώ και πάλι!!!! StefSom (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

very interesting how a greek national doesn't allow a bulgarian national to write about the bulgarian history.

you can censorship all you want,this only proves your real "democracy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.211.25 (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * What is interesting is that you can't be bothered to quote sources, or even explain why you make your changes, let alone adhere to the commonly accepted version of history. Democracy does not enter into it, history is not written by vote. There are guidelines about sourcing and editing, you should read them. Even more interesting is that the same edits you make here are reverted also by your fellow "bulgarian nationals" in the Bulgarian Wikipedia, by "german nationals" in the German Wikipedia, by "french nationals" in the French one etc., but you only think to complain about one user who happened to be a "greek national". Therefore, I have nothing more to say to you. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  18:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Constantine  ✍  06:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Question
Hallo Constantine Alessandro writing! I have a wiki question for you: some months ago there has been on the Fascism article a discussion about the insertion in the article of a citation from the authorised english translation of "La dottrina del Fascismo", a seminal article written by Mussolini and Gentile on the Enciclopedia Italiana about their movement. The translator boldy :-) translated the sentence "Fascismo, secolo della destra" in "Fascim, century of the left". It has to be noticed that the meaning of inistra and left, destra and right are respectively identical in italian and english, that the italian original remained the same (with "destra"), also in later editions, and that in the last eighty years none in the academia ever noticed this incongruency, using it to start a debate about the position of fascism in the political spectrum. This addition, brought to show that fascism is a left movement, has been discussed in the talk page and considered OR. Now, the guys that pushed this addition, after having being reverted on the main article, put it in other articles, and also created more of them, inserting everywhere this sentence, and describing a "controversy", not among members of the academia, but among users of wikipedia: one example for all is this one. I am of the advice that OR is transitive :-), that is if something has been discussed and considered OR in article A, it is OR also in article B. Now comes the question: there is an expression in Wikipedia guideline to define this "smart" behaviour of cluttering the encyclopedia with something which has been not accepted in the past? Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 05:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Alessandro! Interesting case, but I don't think there is a specific guideline for this. This is a mixture of WP:OR, WP:TENDENTIOUS (if it is the same user(s)), and WP:SOAPBOX. The most suitable English term would be "misconstruing evidence", if it had not been pointed out quite conclusively that this is a mistranslation, and if this were not deliberately used to promote a point. In this case, it is plain old lying. 06:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Constantine  ✍
 * Thanks Constantine! Now I have something to study... :-) Alex2006 (talk) 07:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hallo Constantine, nachtrag :-) After being reverted again by IPs, I asked page semi-protection, but this has been refused, on the incredible ground that there has been no IP revert... Now I reverted again with invitation to go to talk page, and tagging of the ip talk page with WP:OR, but clearly this is not the solution. What do you advice: should I open an incident against these ips? And if someone reverts to reestablish consensus, and his invitation to go to the talk page are ignored, is it considered edit warring or not? I think I need a course of wikipedia behavior... :-) Alex2006 (talk) 05:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're in the clear against edit warring here, there is a clear consensus, you follow the rules by explaining yourself, while the opposing side hides behind anonymous IPs, so if they continue in the same vein without discussion, just stick to your guns. For semi-protection, there has to be a spate of IP warring in the article, just one case of reverting is not enough. If that fails, you can always bring it to WP:ANI. Good luck! (PS, we might soon be quasi-neighbours, there is a good chance I'll move to Vienna). Constantine  ✍  06:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Constantine! Vienna? Then, why not directly here in Zürich, in Helvetia Felix? For the next three years the frontiers for EU national will still remain open, and you would have no problem in finding a good job here... From southern Europe is coming a lot of people lately. Anyway, let me know when you move! Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 07:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Charles of Taranto
Thanks for creating the article! I've had some content sitting in my sandbox for awhile on him, which I've added to the article. Occasionally one finds him called "Despot of Epirus and Vicar of Romania", dated from 1313, but I haven't found a source that reliably supports this. It seems reasonable to suppose that his father might have ceded him some rights as part of the marital pacts of 1313; do you know if the text of those agreements has ever been published? Choess (talk) 13:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow, thanks for the additions! As for your question, I think so, but am not sure. I'll have a look in some of my offline sources, if I find anything I'll let you know. Ditto for the titles. Constantine  ✍  14:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Euthymius of Sardis
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Glarentza
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Glarentza 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 Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Cplakidas, I've completed the GAR at Talk:Glarentza/GA1. I've left my comments and suggestions here for you to address. Once you've responded to and/or addressed each of my comments, and I've re-reviewed the article, this should be good to go for passage to Good Article status! It's truly a great article, and it's been a pleasure reviewing it! Good job! -- Caponer (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Urgent
Please review Sockpuppet investigations/Pumpie. The latest suspect is causing greater damage than I expected, including an attempt to create the Airport article. After the user is blocked it is likely that some of the articles may have to be reduced to barebones. --Marianian(talk) 15:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Not again, for heaven's sake... Thanks for the prompt action in both detecting and cleaning up after him. I was away from my PC for a few days and missed all the "fun". Cheers, Constantine  ✍  07:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Glarentza
The article Glarentza you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Glarentza for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Patriarch Euthymius I of Constantinople
Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Suspect sock of a certain user
Hi, can you offer your opinion on this user before deciding if one of us should file a sockpuppet report? It seems to start with Malina metro articles before spreading to (yes) Greek articles. --Marianian(talk) 12:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed. This is a very loudly quacking WP:DUCK. Constantine  ✍  12:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In response to your reply, the relevant report is now available at Sockpuppet investigations/Pumpie for you to comment. This message should not breach WP:CANVAS given that you are familiar with the user, certainly longer than when I first picked it up and quickly learned its modus operandi. --Marianian(talk) 13:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Roman provinces of Armenia
Would you please clarify further the articles on Lesser and Greater Armenia and the Late Roman Provinces template? In particular, "Armenia III (536)". The article on Lesser Armenia, says: "In 536, the emperor Justinian I reorganized the provincial administration, and First and Second Armenia were renamed Second and Third respectively." So Armenia III (536) was the pre-536 Armenia II, which was, it seems, in the western Lesser Armenia, not in the eastern Armenia Maior. Yet the Late Roman Provinces template links Armenia III (536) with Armenia Maior. And what was Armenia I (536), which was neither of the pre-536 provinces Armenia I and II? Was it perhaps Armenia Maior? I find this difficult to understand. Esoglou (talk) 08:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Before 536, there were four Armenian provinces: Armenia I & II, in Armenia Minor, and beyond the Euphrates the western portion of Greater Armenia, acquired by the Peace of Acilisene, in two semi-autonomous provinces: Armenia Maior and Satrapiae. This is the situation as shown in the first four "Armenian" entries in the template. In order to simplify the rather convoluted changes of Justinian, I simply chose to mention the new names (Armenia III and IV) after that, even if, as you correctly point out, Armenia III is roughly the same as pre-536 Armenia II. That is also the reason I had them all pointing to "Roman Armenia", as the situation is explained there. If you have a better idea of representing the change in the template, I'll be happy to hear it. BTW, there are also Maurice's short-lived Armenian provinces missing, but I haven't yet found an authoritative source as to their names. Constantine  ✍  08:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your patient response. Of "the first four 'Armenian' entries in the template", the first two point, not directly to "Roman Armenia" like most of the others (the fourth points directly instead to "Sophene"), but to "Lesser Armenia", which, even if this did not seem clear, I now understand is in turn included in "Roman Armenia", although, like "Sophene", it is given a distinct Wikipedia article.  What you say might seem to mean that Armenia III and Armenia IV (the last two "Armenian" entries) were the new (536) names of Armenia Maior and Satrapiae; but I don't think this is what you mean, since it was the former Armenia II, a part of Lesser Armenia, that became (with adjustments) Armenia III (536), while Armenia I became the new Armenia II (536).  I suppose it was Armenia Maior that then became Armenia I (536); the article Sophene says the Satrapiae were included in Armenia IV.  As you can see from my confused ideas, I can make no useful contribution.  I can only thank you again.  Esoglou (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Not quite: the provinces were not simply renamed in 536, the boundaries were largely redrawn. No worries about being confused, I too have trouble remembering what went where exactly. As to the template, I am beginning to think the best thing would be to start some articles on the separate provinces, even if they are start-level for now. BTW, I think you'll appreciate a big "thanks" for your patient work on the ecclesiastical subdivisions. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  20:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Son of Michael III ??
Hello Constantine, for Michael III, certain emperor lists on the web mention a son and co-emperor Konstantinos (856-866). Do you have any serious information about that? In PmbZ nothing is found about this figure. Thanks --SJuergen (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello! Can you point me to the lists? As far as I know, there were two cases of Constantines as co-emperors, who died while children, in the 9th century, i.e. the sons of Theophilos and Basil I. I am rather certain that Michael III had no children, other than his reputed sons in Leo VI and Stephen. Constantine  ✍  20:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * www.geschichte-online.info: "Ehe mit Eudokia Dekapolitana (Trennung um 860). Sohn: Constantin VIII., Mitkaiser (856-866)."
 * mittelalter-genealogie: "Zusammen mit seinem Sohn und Mit-Kaiser Konstantin wurde er von Basileios ermordet.", "Kinder: Konstantin † 23.9.867 ermordet"
 * FMG mention a possible illegitimate son by his mistress: "KONSTANTINOS (Sep 866-). Symeon Magister records the birth in Sep (in 866 from the context) of "Constantinus ex Michaele imperatore et Eudocia Ingerina"[969].  As explained below, it is more likely that Konstantinos was the same person as the son of the future Emperor Basileios I of the same name.  His birth is recorded after his mother's marriage to Basileios, and no other reference has been found to the birth of Basileios's son Konstantinos.  It is assumed that Basileios acknowledged him as his own son after he succeeded to the throne in 867."
 * --SJuergen (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I think we can safely discount this as a confusion of some sort. A legitimate son of Michael's is simply not attested in the sources, and even Leo and Stephen were rumoured or regarded as Michael's sons, there is no certainty over this. In addition, any co-emperor over a period of ten years would hardly fail to be included in the coinage, of which there is no sign. As for the Eudocia Ingerina's son Constantine, Basil himself certainly believed him to be his own son, and even if he were not, he was not raised to co-emperor until after Basil murdered Michael. Constantine  ✍  21:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mufarrij ibn Daghfal ibn al-Jarrah
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mufarrij ibn Daghfal ibn al-Jarrah 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 Legobot, on behalf of Dudley Miles -- Dudley Miles (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mufarrij ibn Daghfal ibn al-Jarrah
The article Mufarrij ibn Daghfal ibn al-Jarrah 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 needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Mufarrij ibn Daghfal ibn al-Jarrah for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dudley Miles -- Dudley Miles (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 2014
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) 22:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Athens-Thessaloniki line
Hi, in order to reduce future opportunities for Pumpie's sockpuppets, I am working on creating a solid version of the "Athens-Thessaloniki line" at User:Marianian/Sandbox B. So far I've only got the timetable for the intercity line. Since you may know more about Greece outside Attica than I do, may I enquire as to what reliable sources I can use to create a solid starter? Thanks. --Marianian(talk) 04:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * FYI, there is already an article Piraeus–Platy railway, which covers the hardware aspects of (most of) the Athens-Thessaloniki rail connection (incl. all stations). There is also a short chapter "Services", it might be better to expand/update that instead. Markussep Talk 08:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, as I've said before, I am not really knowledgeable about the Greek railway system, but it seems logical to me to have the topics pertaining to the Athens-Thessaloniki connection in a single article, so yes, relying on the Piraeus-Platy line would be a good idea. I can help if you need any translations from Greek, but otherwise I am afraid I can't contribute anything of substance. Constantine  ✍  09:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Glarentza
Materialscientist (talk) 00:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Elizabeth A.Zachariadou
Hi, Cplakidas, please check your mailbox for the translation you've asked for. Cheers. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Received. Çok teşekkürler! Constantine  ✍  13:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mufarrij ibn Daghfal ibn al-Jarrah
The article Mufarrij ibn Daghfal ibn al-Jarrah you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mufarrij ibn Daghfal ibn al-Jarrah for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dudley Miles -- Dudley Miles (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Opinion
Hi, i would like to have your opinion about a discussion which i started here, thank.Kingroyos (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Zhuangzi (book)
Please see note on your DYK review. BTW, if the hook source is offline or foreign-language, you should use a gray AGF (assume good faith) tick, not a green tick. Yoninah (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: Alexios I of Trebizond
Hi Constantine -- Thanks for your edits to this article; they have been helpful. However, I thought I should let you know that I plan on replacing the text in the two sections "Campaigns in Paphlagonia" & "Territory and economy" -- the first section currently duplicates content I've added to the article, & since the latter is not relevant to the subject I'm thinking about deleting it completely -- so proof reading those right now really is not necessary. (If you're curious about what I'm thinking of changing the first section to, you can have a peek at my sandbox where I have a rough draft covering the points I want to make. There are one or two more items that should be included in this article, but I'll cover those in a new section.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Aromanians?
Hello Mister Ancient Dacian. As i see you are from Greece. Your country is my homeland too. Do you consider the Macedonians (Greeks Latins) as AROMANIANS? They are not autochtonous in Greece (Macedonia)? They are a part of the romanian people? I didn't hear this in Greece. You really live there? (Makedonovlah (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC))


 * And you, being also a Greek as you claim, have heard the Aromanians being called, or calling themselves, "Macedonians" or "Greeks Latins"? Seriously? I have only ever heard them call themselves Βλάχοι in Greek, what they call themselves in Aromanian I couldn't follow. I do know however how they are called in English and international bibliography, and it is certainly neither "Macedonians" nor "Greeks Latins", and per WP:NOR, WP:ENG and WP:VERIFY, only that counts. Wikipedia is here to record usage, no create it. You have every right to have your own views on what they should be called, but that is as irrelevant to Wikipedia as in real life. Constantine  ✍  21:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Α, και μια συμβουλή: κινήσεις σαν αυτή δείχνουν επίπεδο ωριμότητας Α' Δημοτικού, καλύτερα να τις αποφεύγεις αν θες να σε πάρουν στα σοβαρά οπουδήποτε. Constantine  ✍  21:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Paul Palaiologos Tagaris
Materialscientist (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Kizlar Agha
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Macedonians (Greeks Latins)
Καλημερα φιλε μου. Τι κανις? Απο που εισαι? Οι "Βλαχοι" δεν ειναι εληνες? Δεν ειναι μακεδονες? Δεν ειναι ρομανες? Ευχαριστω πολι! (Makedonovlah (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC))


 * Είχα τις αμφιβολίες μου για το αν είσαι πραγματικά Έλληνας, το εντελώς ανορθόγραφο μήνυμά σου σίγουρα δεν βοηθά στο να με πείσεις ότι είσαι. Δεν ξέρω τί είσαι και γιατί έχεις πάρει το ζήτημα αυτό τόσο ζεστά, αλλά: η καταγωγή των λατινόφωνων της Βαλκανικής (συλλήβδην καλούμενων "Αρωμούνων" ή "Βλάχων") απο τους εκλατινισμένους πληθυσμούς της ύστερης ρωμαϊκής περιόδου είναι σαφώς τεκμηριωμένη και αποδεκτή από την πλειοψηφία των ουδέτερων (δηλ. ούτε Ελλήνων, ούτε Ρουμάνων, ούτε άλλων Βαλκάνιων) επιστημόνων. Γλωσσολογικά, που είναι και από τα βασικά κριτήρια εθνικότητας, είναι σαφώς πλησιέστερα στους καθ' εαυτό "Ρουμάνους" παρά στους Έλληνες ή σε άλλη ομάδα, και το να μιλάει κανείς για "εκλατινισθέντες Έλληνες" είναι μάλλον αστήριχτο, αφού εκτεταμένες έρευνες περί εθνοσχηματισμού τις τελευταίες δεκαετίες δείχνουν ότι κατά κανόνα ένας πληθυσμός υιοθετεί μιαν άλλη γλώσσα μόνον όταν ομιλείται από μια άρχουσα τάξη, πράγμα που για τους νομάδες παστοραλιστές Βλάχους σίγουρα αποκλείεται. Το τί εθνικότητα έχουν υιοθετήσει τα τελευταία 200-300 χρόνια φυσικά είναι άλλο πράγμα. Οι Βλάχοι που ξέρω κατά ποσοστό 100% θεωρούν τους εαυτούς τους Έλληνες. Το ίδιο και οι Αρβανίτες. Το ίδιο και αρκετοί Αφρικανοί, Αλβανοί, Φιλιππινέζοι και Κινέζοι που έχουν γεννηθεί και μεγαλώσει εδώ τις τελευταίες δεκαετίες. Αυτό δεν σημαίνει ότι η καταγωγή τους ανάγεται στον Θεμιστοκλή και τους Σπαρτιάτες, ούτε ότι πρέπει να εφεύρουμε νέες ονομασίες στο άρθρο μας για τους Κινέζους, ούτε όμως σημαίνει και ότι είναι λιγότερο Έλληνες από κάποιον σαν εμένα. Το δε "Μακεδόνες" είναι μια ονομασία που ως γνωστόν διεκδικούν πέραν της μίας ομάδας, και δεν θα μπω στη συζήτηση αυτή εδώ αλλιώς θα το συζητάμε για μήνες. Το "Ελληνο-Λατίνοι" που προτείνεις δεν υπάρχει ως όρος πουθενά, ειδικά δε στη διεθνή βιβλιογραφία. Η Βικιπαίδεια οφείλει από τη φύση της να ακολουθεί τη χρήση των επιστημονικών πηγών, όχι να εφευρίσκει νέους όρους για να καλύπτει τις ευχές/προοπτικές/εμμονές/επιθυμίες των μελών της. Constantine   ✍  19:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Makedonovlah
What a scum this user, he also posted a Hungarian source. Simply a vandal, trying to modify the origin of the Aromanians not to be confuse at all with the Romanians. Only with Latinized people from this area. He did this before editing the page of Simona Halep, Hagi, Iorga, etc. Thanks for your help. Tenneesfan (talk) 09:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The odd thing is, he is probably not even Greek, judging from his atrocious use of the language (I've come across plenty loons of the Greek far-right who cannot spell properly and avoid large and complicated words, but they certainly can spell the word "Greek" correctly), so I cannot figure out why he persists in this agenda. Anyhow, the remedy for persistent edit-warring and POV-pushing is known, tried and tested. Constantine  ✍  09:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Update on the Abbasid article
Hey man, just an update on User:MezzoMezzo/sandbox. I've exhausted what I could find on Google Books - or at least, my patience for Google Book searching - without even delving into the sources you provided yet. You might notice that the section on the actual military events themselves is scant so I am hoping those books will change that. I also put in a request at Graphics Lab/Map workshop, as the current image is a bit amateur. Once we get a decent image, do you think we can just go live with it and add to the events section in article space? Or should it incubate in the sandbox until we can finish that part? I'm not in a rush but I thought I would check with you. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello! Nice work. I'll probably have lots of time towards the end of the month, and will be able to contribute to the article. I'll throw a look in the meantime for copyedits etc. Constantine  ✍  16:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Cool man. I've just about exhausted Hawting's book to the best of my ability. While there is still more to be done, I know I'll be itching to move it into article space soon. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 6
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 6, April-May 2014 by ,

 Read the full newsletter MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * New donations from Oxford University Press and Royal Society (UK)
 * TWL does Vegas: American Library Association Annual plans
 * TWL welcomes a new coordinator, resources for library students and interns
 * New portal on Meta, resources for starting TWL branches, donor call blitzes, Wikipedia Visiting Scholar news, and more

A favor?
I just finished my revisions to Alexios I of Trebizond, & was wondering if you'd do me the favor of rating the article. I don't think it can be considered Start class any more, but I think that it'd be presumptuous of me to change the rating. Thanks. -- llywrch (talk) 05:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * With pleasure :) Constantine  ✍  16:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Paul Palaiologos Tagaris
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Paul Palaiologos Tagaris 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 Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , I've completed my final GAR and my comments and suggestions are available for you to address at Talk:Paul Palaiologos Tagaris/GA1. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. I commend you on a job well done in writing this article! -- Caponer (talk) 04:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Paul Palaiologos Tagaris
The article Paul Palaiologos Tagaris you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Paul Palaiologos Tagaris for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Imperial titles of Basil I. and Basiliskianos
Hi Constantine, do you have access to the greek originals of the sources dealing with the elevation of Basil I. and Basiliskianos to co-regents of Michael III. in May respectively September 866? Do they use the term kaisar or basileus? If Basil I. had been merely promoted to kaisar in 866: Is there proof in the sources of a subsequent elevation to symbasileus later, but before the murder of Michael III.? (for Basiliskianos: Skylitzes 113; Pseudo-Symeon 682–685; Theophanes Cont. 4, 44; 5; Zonaras 16, 7) Thanks for help! --SJuergen (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The sources are clear (Skylitzes, Theoph. Cont.) that Basil was raised to magistros immediately after Bardas' murder, then adopted and raised to co-emperor, not Caesar. As for Basiliskianos, he was not actually named co-emperor, even if Michael threatened to do so and put the tzangia on him. To become emperor, it required a proclamation/coronation ceremony, and this never took place. Constantine  ✍  08:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! But the problem remains that Basil obviously doesn't appear as co-emperor on coins issued during his joint reign with Michael. What plausibility can be given to theories that Theophanes cont. and Skylitzes subsequently "emended" the lesser rank of kaisar (the post was vacant after the murder of Bardas) to co-emperor, due to a bias towards the Macedonian rulers and against the "drunkard" Michael? --217.83.3.179 (talk) 10:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, there is something to be said for this view, after all, if Basil essentially supplanted Bardas, the title of Caesar would be more appropriate. However, if Basil was also adopted, it is likely that Michael would have raised him directly to symbasileus. You are correct in your observation on coinage, though. In the end, we cannot know what the chroniclers are or are not telling us, so we cannot but rely on them. Do you have some good secondary/tertiary sources that discuss the issue? Because most of the sources I've come across, including Vogt's biography of Basil, follow the chroniclers almost to the letter. Constantine  ✍  10:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately not, I'm just getting into the problem right now. Do you already have PmbZ 2. Abteilung, "Basileios I.", at hand? I just ordered and haven't received it yet. --SJuergen (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I am reliant on the versions on GBooks. However, from September I'll probably have university access (in all likelihood I'll be in Vienna for the next few years) so that won't be a problem. Constantine  ✍  11:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Grierson puts some light in the coinage issue, and in fact Basil does appear together with Michael III., the coins using the latin titles imperator for the latter and rex (!) for the former. Grierson, p. 456, argues that Michael didn't want to elevate Basil to the same rank as himself, whereas kaisar had already become too inferior for a junior emperor.--SJuergen (talk) 11:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Boniface of Verone
Hi. There are several pages about him in the article by David Jacoby that is given as a source in the Luttrel article on Dizionario Biografico. There are sometimes different interpretations that the ones in Miller, whose work is in some extent flawed by its reliance on Hopf (cf the notes at the end of Luttrel). I will email it to you.--Phso2 (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that will be very useful. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  15:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: New Account Coordinators Needed
Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitz@undefinedgmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 2014
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) 15:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Al-Risalah al-Dhahabiah
Salam, Thanks for your attention to Al-Risalah al-Dhahabiah. I'd like to mention that, every single words said by Shia imams are hadith and hence are shia belief.Mhhossein (talk) 03:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello. I was not aware that this extended to such non-religious works as well. Thank you for the clarification. Constantine  ✍  06:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Frankish Tower (Acropolis of Athens)
Hello! Your submission of Frankish Tower (Acropolis of Athens) 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! Yoninah (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Muslim conquests
Hey, Constantine, I was wondering whether you could possibly offer your input on the recent changes - and reverts of those changes - on the Muslim conquests article. If possible, I would also much appreciate it if you might also offer some advice concerning an escalating dispute involving myself and another editor. Again, thank you very much for your time. Torontas (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Boniface of Verona
Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Frankish Tower (Acropolis of Athens)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Constantinople (1147)
Hi Constantine,

I was thinking of writing an article - about half is already in my sandbox - on the Byzantine/Crusader clash outside the walls of Constantinople in 1147. However, I am now uncertain about it. Its main importance is that it is one of the few instances in the period when a Byzantine order of battle is described in detail, and the array of troops is unusual, being almost an exact reverse of the array at Sirmium a few decades later. The downside is that it is only described by Kinnamos and in a Byzantine panegyric poem (which is at least near-contemporary). Choniates only says "...he [Conrad III] was forthwith compelled to ferry his troops across the straits, although at first he was overbearing and stupidly refused to cross over..." Choniates implies that Conrad was forced to cross, but doesn't describe the form of this compulsion. The Western sources do not record the event at all. This could be because it did not directly involve Conrad or that part of the German army he was with, and did not reflect much credit on them. I'm at a loss as to whether it is useful to proceed with it, though Birkenmeier covers it in some detail. Any thoughts? Urselius (talk) 10:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, if you have both primary and secondary sources for this, I'd say go ahead. We have articles on minor skirmishes involving a few dozen people on the site, so this is clearly within the notability parameters, especially if it has been the subject of scholarly analysis. I am looking forward to it, I did not even know about it till now ;) Constantine  ✍  10:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I have just looked at Angold (1025-1204) and he also mentions it as a deliberate ploy by Manuel to get the Germans across the straits, so I'm more sanguine about finishing it. Urselius (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The Battle of Constantinople (1147) now exists, no doubt it needs some polishing. Urselius (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Aristeidis Metallinos English spelling of Αριστείδης
Dear Konstantinos. Thanks for your interest in this article. You have edited the English version of the first name of the sculptor Αριστείδης Μεταλληνός to 'Aristeidis'. I have been regularly confused about the sculptor's first name in English. spelling it - at different times - as 'Aristides', 'Arestides and 'Aristedes', and now, I guess, 'Aristeidis'. My Greek tutor told me a while ago that in demotic Greek orthography 'ei' is one of the consonant combinations in the language that is pronounced and usually written as the Latin 'i'. Thus 'i' can be spelled η, ι, υ, ει, οι, or υι (I quote from one of my language textbooks, and apologise for trying to talk to you about your language and mine when you clearly write both impeccably). To add to my confusion, the English version of the sculptor's name outside the museum in Ano Korakiana has been spelled 'Arestides' by the sculptor's son Andrea Metallinos, who has carved it on a marble plaque there! On the advice of a Greek friend I altered the name I had been using ('Aristides') to 'Aristedes', having been following my understanding of Greek consonant combinations. Does the τόνος on the 'ι' determines that 'i.e.' is the best Latin/English version of the Greek 'εί' in the sculptor's name? Can you assure me that the most correct English/Latin spelling of the name is the one you have written, i.e. 'Aristeidis' and that this definitely is the same as 'Αριστείδης'? If this is assured then I will alter my previous references where they are on my blog - Democracy Street - and in future correspondence and writing about the artist. I am further confused because the English Wiki entry on Aristides - not Aristidis - allows the following 'Aristides (/ˌærəˈstaɪdiːz/; Greek: Ἀριστείδης, Aristeides'. Are you more or less confident that no-one will in future challenge the spelling 'Aristeidis'? I hope very much that we may remain in touch as I may have other advice I need.

On another matter I am hoping that someone can create a version of this article in Greek Βικιπαίδεια. What do you think? Τους θερμούς μου χαιρετισμούς Simon Simon Baddeley (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello and thanks for creating the article in the first place! The issue of transliterating Greek names is complex, and there is no single method of doing it. Modern Greek names are usually transliterated letter-by-letter, so you get "Aristeidis" or "Aristeides". Then there is the old Latinized form, familiar since antiquity, "Aristides", but for some reason latinized forms seem to be avoided for modern Greeks in English. A purely phonetic rendering of the modern pronunciation would give you "Aristidis" or even "Aristidhis". Any of these forms are fine, really, they are not mutually exclusive. What was wrong was the form "Aristedes", which, while phonetically close, was not an accurate transcription of the name. The rule of thumb with transliterating is that one should be able, going backwards, to arrive at the original form, and for "Aristedes" this would be something like Αριστήδης. Anyhow, given that the artist is rather unknown outside Greece, and there is no preferred form (i.e. he himself had no preferred way of spelling it in the Latin alphabet or an established usage in the press/literature/etc.), I thought the best way was to simply use a straight-up transliteration. Constantine  ✍  15:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Μου αρέσει αυτό! As a student - in my old age - of a language I long to learn to speak and write far better, your reply is a tutorial in itself on those troublesome - for me - same-sounding Greek vowels iota, eta and upsilon and the vowel digraph ιε. There seems no clear set of rules that I can understand. Yes yes! I know English spelling is a nightmare compared to modern Greek. I will now observe the spelling Aristeidis for Αριστείδης. Regards Simon Simon Baddeley (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Ευχαρίστησή μου. Happy to help if you have any other questions. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  11:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Greek Βικιπαίδεια entry for Αριστείδης Μεταλληνός;
Dear C. My friend in Kerkyra, Aleko Damaskinos, has sent me this translation of the Wiki article I have had accepted about Aristeidis Metallinos. I wonder if you might be able to turn it into an entry on Greek wikipedia or suggest someone else who might author this and rightly take credit for meeting the requirements of the editors. I would be happy to supply images already available on Wikimedia with the English article I would have thought it would be fairly straightforward to transfer the references, especially as they are in Greek with Greek titles by Greek authors. I feel that this man is so quintessentially a Greek citizen, from an ancient Greek village community, that it is absurd that he should not have an entry in Greek Wikipedia. Such an entry would also add to the quality of my article based on my Philhellenic fascination with this almost unknown laic artist. Simon

Ο Αριστείδης Μεταλληνός ήταν ένας Έλληνας γλύπτης. Γεννήθηκε το 1908, αλλά δεν υπάρχει επίσημη εγγραφή της ημερομηνίας.

Ήταν ένας από τους τρις υιούς του Ζαχαρία και της Ελένης Μεταλληνού και απεβίωσε τις 19 Μαϊου 187 σε ηλικία 79 ετών.

Τον περισσότερο καιρό της ζωής του εργαζόταν ως τσαγκάρης και γενικός τεχνίτης στο χωριό Άνω Κορακιάνα, Κέρκυρα. Είχε μεγάλο ταλέντο στη γλυπτική τέχνη αλλά δυστυχώς λόγω φτώχειας δεν μπόρεσε να αξιοποιήσει το ταλέντο του. Άρχισε να εργάζεται ως αυτοδίδακτος γλύπτης το 1973 όταν ήταν 67 ετών μέχρι τον θάνατό του το 1987. Εκπλήρωσε την επιθυμία που είχε για πολλά χρόνια να χρησιμοποιεί σφυρί και καλέμι ώστε να είναι μάρτυρας «του ανθρώπου με τα ελαττώματά του» οπότε σκάλιζε σε πέτρα και μάρμαρο. Ένας μοναδικός τρόπος να παρουσιάσει μια αγροτική οικονομία που άλλαζε με πολύ γρήγορους ρυθμούς, με έμφαση στην οικογένεια, θεσμούς τους χωριού και παραδόσεις που αναμιγνύονται με Ελληνικές λαογραφίες με έργα ερωτικά, κοροϊδευτικά και ανατρεπτικά της κυβέρνησης.

Τα έργα του, περισσότερα από 250 κομμάτια είναι σχεδόν όλα τελειωμένα τα τελευταία 12 χρόνια της ζωής του και φυλάγονται στο οικογενειακό μουσείο στην Άνω Κορακιάνα- Ένα μουσείο που κατασκεύασε ο ίδιος που το προόριζε ως δωρεά για το χωριό.

Η πρώτη γυναίκα του Μεταλληνου, Ελένη απεβίωσε άτεκνη. Ξαναπαντρεύτηκε σε προχωρημένη ηλικία την Αγγελική με την οποία απέκτησε δύο παιδιά, τον Ανδρέα και την Μαρία. Ο Ανδρέας με την γυναίκα του Άννα, σήμερα διαμένουν στην Άνω Κορακιάνα μέσα στο μουσείο το οποίο περιέχει μια μοναδική συλλογή έργων του τα οποία γενικά δεν είναι γνωστά έξω από το χωριό όπου δημιουργήθηκαν.

Αναφορές

- Γιάννη Μ Μαρή (1978) Βιογραφικό - Αριστείδης Ζαχ. Μεταλληνός, Απάνθισμα Γραμμάτων και Τεχνών, Επιμέλεια Εκδόσεως, Αθήναι, σελ. 611-617

- Ευρυδίκης Αντζουλάτου-Ρετσίλα (1985) ‘Θέματα Κέρκυραἲκής λαογραφίας στο έργο του λαἲκού λιθογλύπτη Αριστείδη Μεταλληνού’, Δημοσιεύφθηκε στο Περιοδικό Μυριόβιβλος, τεύχος 7, σελ. 37-47 2. E

- Ευρυδίκη Αντζουλάτου-Ρετσίλα (2005) ‘Θέματα Κέρκυρα ι κής λαογραφίας στο έργο του λαἲκού λιθογλύπτη Αριστείδη Μεταλληνού’ στο Πολιτιστικά και Μουσειολογικά Σύμμεικτα, Εκδόσεις Παπαζήση, Αθήναι, σελ.47-70 [ISBN: 960-02-1860-9]

Εξωτερικές συνδέσεις


 * Extract from the blog 'Democracy Street' showing further images of the sculptor's work


 * Hello! The translation is a bit off at places, but I'll fix it and create the article myself. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  19:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

That's fabulous. Simon Baddeley (talk) 08:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Images for Aristeidis Metallinos on Βικιπαίδεια
Dear C. Would it be possible to add the images on the English article about Aristeidis Metallinos to the Greek entry and re-title them in Greek? i.e:



Γυναικείο παπούτσι. Το πρώτο έργο του Μεταλληνού 20 1928 σκαλισμένο σε τοπική πέτρα όταν ήταν 20 ετών

Ευρωπαϊκή Οικονομική Κοινότης, 1980  Μελαγχολική Χίμαιρα

Λουτρουβιό του χωριού 1982

Best wishes Simon Baddeley (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)