User talk:Cplakidas/Archive 25

Your GA nomination of Battle of Saint George
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Saint George 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 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Al-Hasan al-As'am
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Al-Hasan al-As'am 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 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to the 2020 WikiCup
Happy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The 2020 WikiCup began at the start of January and all article creators, expanders and improvers are welcome to take part. If you are interested in joining, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Creative editors like yourself seem to enjoy taking part, and many return year after year. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup are, , and Cwmhiraeth (talk) Hanberke (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Bahram al-Armani
Please give an inline reference, or footnote, to one or more of your sources, to show where the content has come from. If the other sources are not needed to support the content of the article, they should be shown as "Further reading" or "External links". This will save the article from being carelessly tagged as "unreferenced". Thanks. Pam D  00:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fatimid navy
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fatimid navy 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 Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 12:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fatimid navy
The article Fatimid navy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fatimid navy 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 Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 11:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Saint George
The article Battle of Saint George you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Saint George 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

 * Yum, I really like those, thanks Biblib! And thanks for creating the article in the first place! Cheers, Constantine  ✍  15:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Map
Hello Constantine. I'm trying to upload a map on Commons, in fact only a translated version of a old one, to use on pt, but for a unknown reason it's not uploading. Would you mind if I mail you the map and you try to upload it? The file is image:Al-Jazira.svg. I translated it two months ago, but something is wrong. I just changed the text, not the code.--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 12:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Renato, no problem, send it. Constantine  ✍  12:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Fatimid navy
Hello! Your submission of Fatimid navy 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! DeCausa (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Four Award
Thanks Gog the Mild :) Constantine  ✍  21:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well earned. You are amassing quite a collection. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nizar ibn al-Mustansir
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nizar ibn al-Mustansir 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 Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Al-Hasan al-As'am
The article Al-Hasan al-As'am you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Al-Hasan al-As'am 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXV, January 2020
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) 12:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Nizar ibn al-Mustansir
Hello! Your submission of Nizar ibn al-Mustansir 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! HaEr48 (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nizar ibn al-Mustansir
The article Nizar ibn al-Mustansir 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:Nizar ibn al-Mustansir for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Irene Komnene Palaiologina
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nizar ibn al-Mustansir
The article Nizar ibn al-Mustansir you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nizar ibn al-Mustansir 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 Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Abu Tahir al-Jannabi
Hello! I'm translation Abu Tahir al-Jannabi and the first section of this article is giving me headache. Comparing to your article Abu Sa'id al-Jannabi, the information does not match at all. It says in the first article that Abu Sa'id started his missionary mission ca. 890 and it involved basically sacking and plundering Persian hajj caravans. It alto says that Basra was attacked and defended by the caliphal general Abbas ibn Umar, but this person is only mentioned by Akbar Shāh K̲h̲ān Najībābādī, or at least it seems so (I checked using b., ibn and bin). Any clues?--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S.: any progress with the troublesome map?--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Renato, the Abu Tahir al-Jannabi article is garbage, and on my to-do list for a complete overhaul. Najībābādī's work is a horrible mess of zero sources, variant spellings, and jumbled 'facts', heck, just from a spotcheck I did, his description on the origin of the Turks derives from semi-mythological medieval sources that attribute their genealogy to Noah. He is anything but a WP:RS. On the map, I am not sure which map you mean. Constantine  ✍  20:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the considerations. About the map, I'm talking about this file:Al-Jazira.svg that I sent to you by mail. Did you get it?--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Huh, the mail flew under my radar. I'll do it right away. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  20:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * unfortunately I cannot upload it either; I've tweaked around a bit, but no luck, it keeps saying that the file verification fails. Probably something in the svg code is problematic. Perhaps you should contact someone from the Map workshop for help. Constantine  ✍  20:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ridwan ibn al-Walakhshi
Hello! Your submission of Ridwan ibn al-Walakhshi 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) 23:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Dirgham
Hello! Your submission of Dirgham 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! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Abu Abdallah al-Baridi
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Fatimid navy
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Nizar ibn al-Mustansir
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Ridwan ibn Walakhshi
— Wug·a·po·des​ 06:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 12:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 37
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 37, November – December 2019 
 * #1Lib1Ref
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group

Read the full newsletter On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:Tanks of Greece has been nominated for discussion
Category:Tanks of Greece, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Schierbecker (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Dirgham
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Improvments on Al-Ashraf Khalil
Hi Cplakidas. I notice that you are interested in Muslim history, so I Wonder if you could improve this article. He was very important because he conquered the last important City of the crusaders in Outremer, however there is not enough information about his life in that article. I hope that you could solve these problems. Greetings. --190.238.163.5 (talk) 07:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, the Mamluk period is rather beyond my scope right now, and the article does appear at first glance to be relatively complete (at least to someone entirely unfamiliar with the subject like me), but I will take a look at what sources I have available that might help. Constantine  ✍  11:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

First Punic War
Hi Constantine. I hope that everything is well with you. I have been doing some work on First Punic War, with a view to eventually working it up to FAC. As you can see from the history, so far I have mostly been cutting out chaff, and working some better sourced material in. What I would value your opinion on is what to do about the Chronology section. Would you advise leaving it as a way for a reader to get a grip on a confusing conflict; or deleting it, as everything in it is or should be covered in the main article. I feel that I am a bit close to be objective. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Gog the Mild, thanks, a bit busy but fine. I hope you are likewise doing well :). Chronology lists are tricky, they have to be simple and concise, while at the same time providing enough context. I guess their usefulness depends on how you intend to structure the article: if you (can) adopt a chronological narrative, then IMO simply use well-chosen section and subsection headers, and add dates to them, and you have the a chronology list as your article structure either way; if the topic is complicated and dealt with by topic/region with vastly different chronologies for each (or if a chronological structure is not applicable to these sections, for whatever reason), then the chronology section would be valuable to help bring the various sections together. Another way to introduce the reader to a broadly chronological narrative is, of course, the lede, where you can be a bit more creative with summarizing the article. I think that most conflicts can and should be presented in a chronological way, since what happens in one front affects others as well, and generally the ebb and flow of a conflict, no matter how complicated, is evidenced chronologically (I really can't think of a conflict that this does not apply to ATM, even something as 'distributed' as the Seven Years' War has an essentially chronological structure). Constantine   ✍  09:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Constantine. Good thanks. Even hoping to meet up with a fellow Wikipedian in the flesh over the weekend. Thanks for that. I am writing the article chronologically, so I am taking it that you reckon that I can delete the existing Chronology section. I reckon that's the way to go then. Tanks again. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's nice, myself I've only ever met three fellow Wikipedians IRL, and it was always a great pleasure. Indeed, to sum up my rather rambling explanation above, unless there is a compelling reason to include a chronology list (i.e., a historical article is missing a clear-cut chronology), try to make the chronology clear in the writing and naming of your sections, and not through an extra list. If you do that, then IMO the extra list is redundant. Constantine  ✍  12:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm also going to a Wikipedia meets education event next week at Coventry University, so a good chance of meeting more. Thanks for that summary. A follow up: I am happily working through First Punic War. I then intend to do Siege of Carthage and Third Punic War. It would be nice to wrap up the set with Second Punic War and Punic Wars; but my general knowledge of them - not my sources, they are easy enough to come across - may fail me and so I am (very) hesitant. I wonder if, medium term, you might be interested in collaborating on these two? Gog the Mild (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we both have the same sources, more or less, but I'd be happy to help in any way :) Constantine  ✍  07:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it’s a lack of nerve on my part then. Anyway, thanks very much for the offer - when I first got involved, barely two years ago, I wouldn’t have thought that I would be reaching these heady heights.
 * I shall soldier on with First then, and see how it goes down at assessment, then hone my skills on Third. I may well be asking you if you would mind giving them a once over, and/or a GAN or ACR review, once we get there. Then I’ll see how I feel about Second - it gets a lot of page views. Ah, just realised that I can also “practice” on the Mercenaries’ War. OK, I feel better just running it all past a subject expert. But thanks again for the offer of collaboration. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Nizar ibn al-Mustansir
Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Nizar ibn al-Mustansir has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best of luck with the FA process.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the good work, Twofingered Typist, much appreciated :). --Constantine  ✍  11:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020
Hello ,

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.
 * Source Guide Discussion

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.
 * Redirects


 * Discussions and Resources
 * There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
 * A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
 * A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
 * A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.
 * Refresher

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here 16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Ernest Stein's Bas Empire
Hello Constantine! Do you have access or know anyone else who has access to Stein's books? Prosopography cites it all the time and some rulers has their coins on that books. I'm particularly interest in Ildibad's ones.--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Renato, the second volume (Histoire du Bas-Empire) is on archive.org. Unfortunately I've not yet found its predecessor volume, Geschichte des spätrömischen Reiches. I've also got some scattered articles of his, if you need anything specific, let me know. Constantine  ✍  18:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Halmyros
Wehwalt's initial draft for the March TFAs doesn't list this one. It's on WP:TFAP. I'm guessing we've got enough Milhist already in March. Do you want me to move it to next March on TFAP? - Dank (push to talk) 16:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Dank, no objection from me for next year :). Constantine  ✍  16:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Byzantium and the Arabs Late Antiquity
Hiya Constantine - hope all is well. I was wondering, you don't happen to possess "Byzantium and the Arabs Late Antiquity"? If so, could you send it to me? Would appreciate it very much. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi HistoryofIran, I am fine, thanks, I hope you are likewise well :) Unfortunately I do not have this. Constantine  ✍  16:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: IssueICLXVI, February 2020
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) 13:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Help on Cirta article
Hello Cplakidas, I would like to ask your help regarding the article Cirta, since you are an old wikipedia member and you are more experienced than me. M.Bitton and I have a disagreement whether the name of the city in Greek should be added or not. I believe that we should have it since it is mentioned in the ancient sources, etc, while M.Bitton think that we should not have it (see the talk page of the article Talk:Cirta). The problem is that we are in a dead end now since we can't agree.

Since it is the first time that I have been in a situation like this. How this should be solved? What are the wikipedia's guideline?

Thank you for your help. Gre regiment (talk) 11:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Same applies in other articles too. For example at the Marcus Cornelius Fronto, I have added that his name in Greek was "Φρόντων" and M.Bitton deleted it claiming: "Pronto wasn't Greek and he most definitely didn't have a Greek name. Your transliteration of every word into Greek has to stop". But Marcus write his own name as Φρόντων when he write his Letters in Greek as you can see from the sources which is his writings, From Appian to Fronto, To Appian from Fronto. Gre regiment (talk) 11:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Really thank you for your help. Sorry for putting you in trouble but I didn't know any other experienced member, to tell me how wikipedia handle such cases.Gre regiment (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of De Consularis


The article De Consularis has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No evidence this organization passes WP:NCOMPANY/GNG."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

March Madness 2020
G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

Your GA nomination of Battle of al-Mada'in
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of al-Mada'in 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 Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 11:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of al-Mada'in
The article Battle of al-Mada'in 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:Battle of al-Mada'in for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 11:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Abbasid invasion of Asia Minor (806) scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Abbasid invasion of Asia Minor (806) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 17, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/April 17, 2020, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  14:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the article, "about the largest expedition ever launched by the Caliphate against the Byzantines after the Second Arab Siege of Constantinople. Although not as dramatic, it was a climax in the long history of Arab–Byzantine wars: a long period of peace followed, before warfare resumed in the 830s."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Abu Abdallah al-Baridi
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Abu Abdallah al-Baridi 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 Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Abu Abdallah al-Baridi
The article Abu Abdallah al-Baridi 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:Abu Abdallah al-Baridi for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of De Consularis for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article De Consularis is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/De Consularis until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXVII, March 2020
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) 01:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Late Roman provinces
Template:Late Roman provinces has been nominated for merging with Template:Late Anatolian Roman provinces. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Abu Abdallah al-Baridi
The article Abu Abdallah al-Baridi you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Abu Abdallah al-Baridi 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 Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of al-Mada'in
The article Battle of al-Mada'in you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of al-Mada'in 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 Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ishaq ibn Kundaj
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ishaq ibn Kundaj 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 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Al-Hafiz
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Al-Hafiz 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXVIII, April 2020
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) 05:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:People of the Emirate of Granada
Hello, I created Category:Scholars of the Nasrid period under Category:People of the Emirate of Granada. I noticed that the dynasty categories (e.g. Category:Nasrid dynasty) cover the family itself, so something like "Scholars of the Nasrid dynasty" might be mistaken for those scholars who belonged to the family. Maybe we need additional categories like "Nasrid rule" as parent of "Nasrid dynasty" to have clear separation between the period/rule from family. Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Al-Hafiz
The article Al-Hafiz you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Al-Hafiz 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

German wikipedia
Hi,

I have received notification from german wikipedia regarding article about Hadım Şehabeddin, the article I created at en.wiki. When I went there I saw that I somehow created the same article on de.wiki link. I noticed you on the list of editors of the same article so I am asking you if you know how is it possible that I edited German wiki article without knowing it?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It was probably a history import. I have edits on the German Wikipedia that I never made as well (example). :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Issue 38, January – April 2020
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 38, January – April 2020 
 * New partnership
 * Global roundup

Read the full newsletter On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Map of Constantinople
Hi u|Cplakidas, I want to ask you about your excellent map, Byzantine_Constantinople-en.png, which I want first to thank you for creating! Have you seen the chapter from 2012 by John Matthews on the Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitanae? He suggests that the Prosphorion and Neorion harbours were already inside the wall of Byzantium at the time of the Severan siege, which means that the walls' circuit on the map presently may be too small. Another point he raises is the area of Caenopolis, which he says must be fairly close by the Forum of Theodosius because the Chronicon Paschale says that roof tiles from the basilica there were blown to Caenopolis in a storm, so it can't have been far. The most important thing is the regiones though; Matthews' treatment seems to vary somewhat with your map, which is not surprising given how long Janin and the older sources have been around for and that the map is itself quite old. I wonder if we could update it in light of Matthews's work? There's also a version of your map with just the regiones marked, but the labels are all in Latin (!) for Latin Wikipedia and I'm not sure they're properly marked. It'd also be good to get the aqueduct systems in at some point; there's been a lot of work on those this century! GPinkerton (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi GPinkerton, thanks for the kind words and the comments! Yes, I think an update of the map is in order, there's been some progress since it was published (I can't believe it's been so long!). The map is definitely not meant to be finished, but to evolve based on the best current knowledge. I don't think I have Matthews' work, could you send me the relevant passages? And of course, you are free to suggest, and even carry out, any other corrections you think necessary (just inform me beforehand). Constantine  ✍  17:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Excellent to hear from you! I can get the article to you if necessary but if you can access it here, so much the better. I am presently working on a draft article on Constantinopolitan topography at Draft:14 regions of Constantinople which follows Matthews's conclusions, which I hope I've represented accurately so far. Some of the existing map appears to conflict with the text of the Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitanae anyway. One major change is that the XIVth regio was not at Blachernae as once thought, but much further away, well outside Constantinople proper. Have a look and see what you think, and let me know how and whether you need me to send you some passages from Matthews. GPinkerton (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Do let me know if you can access it or if you need me to send you the chapter somehow. GPinkerton (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi GPinkerton, yes, I have access to it. Will have a look over the next few days :) Constantine  ✍  21:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Awesome! No hurry, just excited and looking forward to collaborating when you can spare time. Thanks and enjoy reading! GPinkerton (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIX, May 2020
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) 15:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ishaq ibn Kundaj
The article Ishaq ibn Kundaj you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Ishaq ibn Kundaj 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. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Long time no speak!
Hi Kostas, long time no speak, hope you and your family are doing well! - LouisAragon (talk) 02:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi LouisAragon, was having some RL issues and generally in a weird space head-wise during the past few months. Thank goodness we haven't had any problems with Corona. I will be again more active from now on. I hope that everything is well with you and yours as well. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  14:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear. Good to have you back. Yeah I'm doing well, can't complain, other than some Uni-related issues due to corona (which forces us to do everything online, ugh). - LouisAragon (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Al Qaid Johar
Ref: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jawhar_(general)#Al_Qaid_Johar

I've read some of the articles you've written and it looks like you've been doing a lot of research on the Fatimid Caliphate. Thanks, as it definitely is one of the areas of my interest, though I do not have as much academic knowledge, but these articles you have written help people like me tremendously.

Furthering that thought, I'd like your first hand opinion about alternative name for Jawhar_(general), Al-Mu'izz's military general.

1. Romanization of Jawhar's name: I personally, and almost exclusively, know him as 'Al Qaid Jawhar' / 'Qaid Jawhar' but usually use the spelling 'Al Qaid Johar' (some use 'Jauhar'), instead. Since Jawhar himself never used English, it is, I guess, hard to know which one he might have prefered. But... I see the name Muhammad is something the community has reached consensus on, despite the many different romanizations (Mohammed, Mohammad, Muhammed, Mahomet). Similarly, for 'Al Mu'izz' (Moiz or Moez is common from where I'm from). What are your thoughts; is Johar a valid alternative spelling (that has come in-use in recent times among the Ismailis who are predominantly from the Indian Subcontinent) that deserves a mention in the article?

2. better known as: Like above, 'Al Qaid Jawhar' (romanization of the word 'Jawhar' notwithstanding) is how he's better known, is what I thought. I found references in English books where he's called that, but along with al-Siqilli (his nisab) viz. 'Al-Qaid Jawhar al-Sqilli'. However, I do find a lot of Ismailis who are named after him, are simply named 'Al Qaid Jawhar' (see: Al Qaid Johar Izz al-Din, for instance), there's no 'al-Siqilli' at the end. There are opinion pieces (may quality as unreliable source?) that refer to him as simply 'Al Qaid Jawhar', like in the text here (but not in the title): http://www.ismaili.net/hero/hero10.html And most certainly, as mentioned above, many Ismaili people named 'Al Qaid Jawhar', as well, after him.

I feel, since Jawhar isn't as well known as Muhammad, people might find it hard to locate his article esp if they were simply looking/searching for Al Qaid Jawhar (or, Johar), like I was.

I'd really like you to chime in on this.

Thanks again. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Stratopedarches
The article Stratopedarches you created has just been chosen as good article ; see Talk:Stratopedarches for comments about the article. Well done! congratulations, Marco M (messages)  20:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 39, May – June 2020
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 39, May – June 2020 
 * Library Card Platform
 * New partnerships
 * ProQuest
 * Springer Nature
 * BioOne
 * CEEOL
 * IWA Publishing
 * ICE Publishing
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXX, June 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020
Hello ,

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference. In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.
 * Your help can make a difference
 * Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate
 * Discussions and Resources
 * A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
 * Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
 * A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
 * Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back
We have missed you. I hope that all is well with you. Take care. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gog the Mild, the feeling is mutual. Glad to be back :). I hope that you and your loved ones are also doing well in this crazy year. Constantine  ✍  17:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Ditto, with everything going on in the world right now, I feared you absence might be permanent, it's great to have you back. Harrias  talk 19:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks Harrias, happy to say my absence was not (directly) related to Covid-19. Nevertheless, I am glad to find no-one missing on my return (at least I think/fervently hope so). Constantine   ✍  19:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

As above, I'm glad to see you coming back. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Welcome back indeed.. glad to see your username popping up doing some editing in my watchlist :) HaEr48 (talk) 05:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot TheseusHeLl and HaEr48, good to see you again as well :) Constantine  ✍  07:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Good to see you editing again old friend. Excited to see your forthcoming work! --Al Ameer (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot Al Ameer, likewise! :) Constantine  ✍  18:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. It is good to see your name showing up on my article watchlist. Stay safe and healthy. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me add my voice to those above; you've been missed. While you were away I had to fail your Ishaq wotzisname nom. Let me know if you want to renominate it and I'll re-review it for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Sturmvogel 66, it's indeed good to be back, thanks :). I think you mean Ishaq ibn Kundaj, I will start a new nomination right away. I've already fixed the points from the previous review, but if a fresh look should reveal further troublespots, all the better. Constantine  ✍  18:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ping me whenever you nominate it again and I'll start the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Just saw that you're posting again; welcome back! Hope all's well and I'm quite happy to see your new contributions. Ro4444 (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot Ro4444, happy to see you are still here as well :) Constantine  ✍  19:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Saseno
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Saseno 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 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Saseno
The article Battle of Saseno you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Saseno for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Fakhkh
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Fakhkh 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 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

CNG coins
Are images from CNG coins (such as File:Gold dinar of al-Hafiz li-Din Allah, AH 544.jpg) allowed by default, or do we need to ask the CNG coins people to send email to OTRS for each image? HaEr48 (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi HaEr48, AFAIK it is a blanket license to use their material. The email reply suggests this, as does the fact that there is a specific template for that at Commons. This wouldn't make sense if you had to get permission on a case-by-case basis. Constantine  ✍  05:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ibn Hawshab
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ibn Hawshab 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 Karaeng Matoaya -- Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Chasnud
Hello Constantine! How are you? I hope everything goes well with you. Would you mind do me a favor? I'm putting sources on some Portuguese articles based on English ones and I saw a problem that can only be solved by moving and deleting articles here and I'm not used how to do it here. The articles are: Chasnud-e `Olya and Chasnud-e Sofla. The first one, as far as I know, does not exist. I tried so hard to find its existence but I found nothing at all. The source mentioned is broken and there is no valid archive to it. The second one exists, but not with that name. If you check the index of Afghanistan's places (here), exists a Chasnud in Badakhshan, that could only be the one from the article. In fact, could be any of them, considering they have the same first name. The Chasnud-e Sofla's articles mentions the Historical and Political Gazetteer of Afghanistan (here) and the source also mentions only Charnud, nothing else.--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Renato, nice to see you. I am fine, thanks. Hopefully everything is well with you and yours as well. Chasnud-e 'Olya exists, it is likely a transcription error for Chasnud-i Bolo (which you can see here and in the old Soviet maps here). On the second site, the Soviet map indeed mentions only Chasnud, and Wikimedia suggests its name is Chasnud Payan. Since the construct [name]-i in Persian and Persian-influenced languages denotes a genitive, the name of both places is Chasnud (Chasnood), and the second part is simply there to distinguish them. BTW, for future reference, if you want to delete an article, you can click on the xfd tab on the top of your user menu to initiate a deletion discussion. THe manual process is explained here. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  11:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all support. So, on this case, the articles should be moved to the names we possess sources for and the others should be abandoned.--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 05:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Investigating more, on the other hand, it still causes trouble. Both names appear on some map site (for instance here and here for "-e-Sofla"), but when you see the maps, you only have the location without a name, which of them. And I really don't know how much we can rely on Google to that naming task. Once I used Google to create the articles of cities and villages from Crete. It was a total hell. The names, in many occasions, did not match with census' ones.--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 06:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel you, Renato, I've had similar issues with open-source information, and I am not saying that Google is a RS in itself. The Soviet maps, however, are, because they do not rely on third-party information but are the actual product of a geographic survey. Likewise if there are any sources from the US military or the Afghan government. Constantine  ✍  11:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Barozzi
Yes, medieval greco-latin prosopography is always a bit disheartening with all these Hopfian issues, and I was also intrigued by this Borsari vs Borsari thing before checking the dates. Too bad B. wrote the DBI entry just before his book As Jürgen Schultz writes, "It is unfortunate, therefore, that Hopf ’s account serves as the basis for the entries on the Barozzi of Crete in DBI". I have patched together some google snippets to reconstruct the relevant pages in Borsari's unreachable book (where he cites primary sources and explains his reasoning), in case you want to have a look--Phso2 (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks, that would be great! I won't get to it today either way, but in the next few days. Unless you want to do the honours; feel free to edit away. Constantine  ✍  17:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Alucard 16. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Greek Independence Day Parade (USA), and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

  Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    15:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020
Hello, I'm CommanderWaterford. I noticed that you recently removed content from Vukan, Grand Prince of Serbia without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.   CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Tocco's map
Hi Constantine! Wish you a nice summertime. I've noticed that the map you've created about Tocco's possessions File:Conquests of Carlo I Tocco.svg does not include the region around Preveza as noted by Osswald's map here (p. 263) [].Alexikoua (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Alexikoua, you are right, it should be marked. Preveza, or rather Riniasa, was however not steadily under Carlo's control. Thanks for the tip, and likewise a nice, pleasant, and above all healthy summer! Constantine  ✍  17:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ibn Hawshab
Hello! Your submission of Ibn Hawshab 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! CMD (talk) 11:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Chameria Map
Hello Cplakidas. Recently the map at the Chameria article was. It again represents the larger version of the region, since it is based on the map. Could you make one with the smaller version as well, and include it next or below the larger version, so the people can have a more complete comprehension of the region's historical borders, and not just one that amplifies a certain ethnic agenda? It is a pretty rational idea i believe. Who would be against it? I am not saying to delete the current one, just to add an additional with the smaller version. I tried to contact Alexikoua as well for a similar request (Cham Albanian distribution map), but hasn't yet replied back. Demetrios1993 (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello Demetrios1993. First, this is not a topic I know much about, so I cannot really say what the "smaller" version would be (I assume you mean Thesprotia, which Elsie for example defines as "The core or central region of Chameria, known in Greek as Thesprotia,  could be said to be  the  basins  of  the  Kalamas  and  Acheron  Rivers") or make a judgment as to the accuracy of the competing definitions. Second, IMO the best way to go about it is not to have competing maps, because this leads to POV-based edit-warring, but to find WP:RS (including Elsie) and use them to request changes to the map by adding the "core" and any other definition to it. There is ample precedent, e.g. Borders of Macedonia according authors (1843-1927).png, and it is the most objective and responsible way to go about presenting such contentious issues. For this, I would recommend contacting the map author directly, with the proper sources, and request the necessary changes in a constructive fashion. This will hopefully avoid much drama down the road, and improve Wikipedia in the process. Constantine   ✍  10:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your respond Cplakidas. Yes, there has been a big discussion in the talk page of the Talk:Chameria concerning the smaller version of the historical geographical region of Chameria. Here is also a map that relates and was shared there, http://terkepek.adatbank.transindex.ro/kepek/netre/226.gif. Unfortunately, i have zero skills on making maps, and judging by the huge discussion that has already taken place in the aforementioned talk page, i don't see what i else i could do to change the situation. I believe the best way to approach this would be to have a similar map in-hand as the one you advised above on the borders of Macedonia, then replace the current one, and move from there. Again, i am not the expert on this. Meaning i can't provide any more sources or create the map myself. Nonetheless, plenty of sources have already been shared in the talk page to justify such an edit. After so many years i don't know why we still have this version instead of a more neutral one. This discussion has been going on since 2008, and Alexikoua seems to be the right person for the job, considering the fact that he has already provided plenty of sources and is himself concerned about the subject. Unfortunately he isn't replying back to me. Demetrios1993 (talk) 11:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It may be he is busy. He is probably aware of this discussion since you linked him, so let's wait a bit. I'd be happy to assist in making a map, but probably this won't be necessary if the new map's author agrees to amend it. It should be pretty clear why having a maximalist definition of an ethnic territory in the Balkans, and one tied to irredentist claims at that, is not a good practice. Constantine  ✍  11:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice catch Demetrios & Constantine any help will be much appreciated. I'm going present both versions based on the available bibliography.Alexikoua (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the respond Alexikoua. Didn't receive an alert for it. I also left a new reply on your Commons talk page three days ago. Demetrios1993 (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the dealy, I've added all historical views about the geography of Tsamouria. I'm waiting for any additional proposals .Alexikoua (talk) 10:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sharing Alexikoua. I did leave a respond in the message you left me on my Commons talk page. Namely, i asked whether it is possible to include the demographics that are mentioned in the "Historical" section of the Chameria article. Furthermore, i believe that the names of the major settlements should also be included, like shown in the following current map that is published in the article. What do you think? Cplakidas, feel free to share your opinion as well. Demetrios1993 (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC) Chameria Map.png
 * What's important here is that the Ottoman kaza is in agreement with the boundaries of Chameria given by several authors (Manta etc.). Preveza was out of this definition per Baltsiotis. Thanks Constantine, I'll make the necessary details and add it to the article.Alexikoua (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree Alexikoua. By the way, even demographically Preveza is excluded from the Albanian-speaking boundaries, and that is also visible in all ethnographic maps of the 19th-20th centuries (with the notable exception of 1-2 that are in blunt terms ridiculous, such as Lejean's and Rizoff's). Demetrios1993 (talk) 04:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Map of Constantinople
Hi Constantine, I'm wondering if you have had a chance to look at the Matthews paper on the Notitia and if you have any thoughts about the map of Constantinople. No hurry, but I'm keen to publish the draft I'm working on for the 14 regions but there is of course no suitable map, and it's just text otherwise - I can hardly add in a map illustrating a different interpretation of the city's topography to that discussed in the article. I hope this finds you well, GPinkerton (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi GPinkerton, no, unfortunately not yet. I've had a long list of todos piled up in my absence, and am just now getting to the last of them. But I will definitely have a look at revising the entire map (and some articles tied to it) in the second half of July. Keep safe, Constantine  ✍  08:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks in advance! GPinkerton (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ibn Hawshab
The article Ibn Hawshab you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ibn Hawshab for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Karaeng Matoaya -- Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 02:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXI, July 2020
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) 11:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Yusuf ibn Tashfin
Hey Cplakidas, Can you take a look at this edit. The editor is misrepresenting the source and claiming that Ibn Tashfin claimed a Himyari origin while the author (Helena de Felipe) is just discussing all the medieval claims about the Himyari myth of origin of Berbers. Regards -TheseusHeLl (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello TheseusHeLl, well, this is a bit complicated. If the claim was made (whether by Yusuf or other medieval writers), was common enough to be repeated, and merits mention and examination in modern scholarship, then it is notable and should be included in the article. The question is how: you cannot simply drop the nisba in the article like that, you need to give it in the proper context, e.g. "In the Middle Ages, it was common for Berber tribes to seek a link to Arab tribes as a legitimizing device. In this tradition, several authors such as X and Y add the nisba of al-Himyari to Yusuf's name and support his descent from the ancient Himyarites of Yemen" or analogous. Right now this is lacking and should be rectified. And since it is a myth, it definitely should not appear in the lede, as if it were really part of his name (unless there exists evidence that he himself claimed that genealogy). Constantine  ✍  06:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the detailed reply, Cplakidas! There is no evidence that he himself claimed the genealogy. Could you take a look at the new changes? -TheseusHeLl (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello TheseusHeLl, looks OK, just IMO add that this claim is not random, but part of a deliberate attempt to link the Berbers to an Arab past for prestige/legitimization reasons. Constantine  ✍  06:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ridwan ibn Walakhshi
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ridwan ibn Walakhshi 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 HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 03:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ridwan ibn Walakhshi
The article Ridwan ibn Walakhshi 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:Ridwan ibn Walakhshi for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ridwan ibn Walakhshi
The article Ridwan ibn Walakhshi you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ridwan ibn Walakhshi for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Abbasid Banner
Hello, the banner is based on historian David Nicolle's Armies of the Muslim Conquest p.46. descriptions of the banner, Angus McBride is the illustrator not the editor i don't know where you got this from. Waiting for your reply. --MWahaiibii (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, I actually have the book, and it was you who wrote of McBride as the editor (|editor1=Angus McBride). Anyhow, this illustration is a modern conjecture by McBride, albeit probably inspired by contemporary art (McBride quotes wall-paintings from a Samarra palace). This does not mean that it is historical, however, and even more it does not imply that this banner is a sort of "dynastic" or "caliphal" banner. McBride simply describes this as an Abbasid banner, period. The rest is your interpretation, hence WP:OR, just as you did with the red-and-yellow Fatimid flags. If you find sources outlining the design as well as the colors, then I'll be happy to have them, but please do not engage in conjectures. Constantine  ✍  07:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Mind i ask how a wall-painting from Samarra palace is not considered historical? The book is mainly written by David Nicolle and not McBride, who only focused on illustrating Nicolle's description. Though I agree that it cannot be described as dynastic or caliphal. but merely one of the Abbasid banners. Unlike the red-and-yellow Fatimid which has no real depiction by any historian, this banner does. --MWahaiibii (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * A) there is no description of the banner by Nicolle in the text IIRC. B) McBride (not Nicolle) references the Samarra wall-paintings, but for the designs of the warriors in general, and not the banner specifically, so whether the banner is indeed from the murals, is unknown. In this case, it behooves one to err on the side of caution. C) The murals McBride mentions are in all likelihood those of Ernst Herzfeld, who did the first excavations at Samarra and published quite a few of his findings. You can find much of his work, both published and unpublished, online nowadays (e.g. here). I've had a look yesterday, and couldn't find anything resembling a banner.
 * Again, I am perfectly willing to accept the historicity of McBride's illustration, if there are explicit sources. I love his work, and I know it is in most cases quite accurate and gives a good impression of how historical warriors may have looked like. But it is a different thing to accept a figure that is explicitly presented as a reconstruction aimed to give a general impression to the viewer, to accepting a specific design of a flag or coat of arms, when it is mere conjecture, and presenting it in an encyclopedia article as the dynastic or otherwise banner of the Abbasids. I know this design has been floating around the internet, but this is all the more reason to be vigilant in Wikipedia. I've been fighting a similar whac-a-mole battle with ahistorical Byzantine heraldry designs for years. Constantine  ✍  19:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Usually, David Nicolle's publications are generally considered as reliable and cited in many articles, that's why it seemed strange to not see it in the article. But, i get where the issue lies. Not to bother you more, but, what do you think of Arab Social Life in the Middle Ages: An Illustrated Study By Shirley Guthrie describing al-Wasiti military band illustration. He refers to the banners as Abbasid, the left-side furled banners specifically look quite identical to the Angus McBride depiction of the banner. --MWahaiibii (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Usually being the operative word. Osprey books are of varying quality, and especially the older work needs to be used carefully (more recent publications use inline footnotes etc., a far cry from the first Osprey Men-at-Arms books I read as a boy). Even then, I would recommend to avoid using them as a source, if you can help it, or at least to double-check them with other sources, especially on issues of detail.
 * On the issue of Abbasid banners, we know that they were of various colours with Quranic inscriptions. That is amply attested in sources; the problem is the exact design, which makes all the difference between a historical example and a modern, conjectural reconstruction based on textual references. Now, the illustrations shown in the book you linked are quite well-known. The problem is a) we don't know what sort of banners they are (military, festive, religious, or all three at once) and b) the illustrations date, IIRC, from the 13th century, hence are much, much later than the heyday of the Abbasid empire.
 * Finally, there is a more general problem: as citizens of modern nation-states, we are conditioned to think in terms of clear, well-defined and recognizable national flags. This was not the case in pre-modern entities, though, who used all kinds of different designs and symbols at the same time, so it is unlikely that there ever was any one flag design that was truly representative of the Abbasid state. The only such symbol is indeed the most generic and simplest, i.e., the black banner, which is why it is in the article (likewise a white flag for the Fatimids, etc. and notice that for the Fatimids I took care to write that white was the dynastic color, not that this was the Fatimid national/dynastic/etc. flag). In these cases, we should simply abstain from adding a specific design, lest we inadvertently declare any such design as "official" or representative. Constantine  ✍  20:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Ibn Hawshab
— Wug·a·po·des​ 19:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC) 12:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Fatimids
Hey Cplakidas, I just want to ask you about the western borders of the Fatimids, as I don't have access to most of the reliable Fatimid sources (Brett, Halm, etc). Did the Fatimids ever conquered the Barghawata, like the Almoravids/Almohads did? And Is this map an accurate interpretation of the sources. Regards -TheseusHeLl (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi TheseusHeLl. Halm mentions nothing of the sort, and the EI2 article on the Barghawata suggests the same (the only time the Fatimids are mentioned is in the context of Zirid attacks in 978–982/3). I am working on a far more detailed map of the Fatimid state, but the one linked is sufficient for now IMO. Constantine  ✍  06:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey Cplakidas, the maps in the article are getting ridiculous. Is your map ready for use? -TheseusHeLl (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi TheseusHeLl, gradually, yes. I am working on a series of maps to cover the entire history of the Fatimid state, so this will take some time. But I am making steady progress, I hope to start uploading the first maps by next week. Constantine  ✍  21:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Great news! Can I take a peek at the map? -TheseusHeLl (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * a first one has been uploaded, at Fall of the Aghlabid Emirate.svg. I intend to work on this level of detail so that I can register the possession or not of individual towns or regions (especially during the volatile Ifriqiyan period or in Syria), and then, for overview maps, simply abstract from it. The next map will be one of the caliphate under al-Mahdi Billah, and in parallel I've begun making an overview map of the Fatimid caliphate's territorial evolution. It won't be perfect, and will be gradually updated/corrected as I go on with the reign-by-reign maps, but it will be grounded on sources (chiefly Halm). Once I have a draft, I'll email it to you (should be a couple of days). Any suggestions for improvements or corrections, now and in the future, are welcome :) Constantine  ✍  10:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your good work! The map looks comprehensive and well-researched. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK
Your article Battle of Saseno is now in Queue 6 and due to appear on the main page on July 29th. It occurred to me that it could instead be delayed to appear on August 14th, the anniversary of the battle. Do you have any thoughts on this? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello Cwmhiraeth, that is an excellent suggestion, I fully support it. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  06:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * For the time being, I have moved it to the special holding area for August 14. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Azaz (1030) scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that Battle of Azaz (1030) has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 10 August 2020. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/August 10, 2020. Thanks! Ealdgyth (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the article "about a battle between the Byzantines and the Arabs of the Mirdasid emirate of Aleppo. Coming shortly after a period when Byzantine military might was at its highest under Basil II, the Byzantine army, under a vainglorious emperor, suffered a humiliating, although in the end not decisive, defeat."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Byzantine–Venetian treaty of 1277
— Maile (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Constantine Angelos Doukas
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Constantine Angelos Doukas 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 Ichthyovenator -- Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Constantine Angelos Doukas
The article Constantine Angelos Doukas you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Constantine Angelos Doukas for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ichthyovenator -- Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Manuel Kamytzes
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Manuel Kamytzes 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 Ichthyovenator -- Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Fakhkh
The article Battle of Fakhkh you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Fakhkh for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Venice Republic
Dear Cplakidas,

If you want to contact any historian or any archeologist or manager of Cultural Goods you will know that the title "La serenissima" can't be actually translated. It's not an adjective, it's a Noble title. Please do not start a flame. There is no "mystical" power, or desire to make Venice Republic look like something it's not, that 's actually you are doing by undoing the change. That's an error, I explained why and took the time to change it. That status of the entry "Venice Republic" (which was on previously) is actually showing how weak is Wikipedia.

You cannot translate an adjective that has become proper noun since it's a noble title, mostly probably coming from Doge, even if it's not known. You cannot translate a proper noun unless you are back to colonial level of culture, nationalized, bigot and retrograde. We are not at those time of "nationalization" anymore.

This is Cultural Goods, I see so many admins editing stuff without having a proper knowledge of what they are doing. If you have studies, and I guess you do, you know that Serenissima is not an adjective. You cannot simply translate it /you can to explain what it means but it cannot be the main title, it simply won't work. Serenissima is international name since that's not a simple adjective.

if you don't understand this it's impossible to actually have a discussion. It's ABC.

Please avoid offending me with strange calls "Mysthical value" of what? It's just an explanation of what it is.

If this is the way these things are managed today how is actually possible to talk, if the first thing you go with is an offense? Admins behave like this all over the internet, you are not admins if you behave like this.

I am changing sutff not for MY PERSONAL PLEASURE, it's because it's incorrect. La serenissima is a title it's not an adjective! It's a noble title, you cannot translate it. It can be translated in the explanation (it meant "the most calm, the most serene" but you cannot go "colloquial" over a title.

It's like saying Charles Martellus can also be called for the friends Charlie .. because we call all the Charles, Charlie nowadays. I suggest to watch out for these mistakes because it trivializes history and also MAKES heritage be lost in translation. Especially if something has not been yet found out why it was called like this, what it means and so on, YOU ACTUALLY ARE EVEN MORE REQUESTED NOT TO TRANSLATE IT because you are loading obstacles by trhowing your own interpretation to the meaning of it, when we still DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE what it means.

Do you have a bachelor degree or a master degree in these topics, if you do I will accept the conversation, if you don't I will accept the conversation anyway, I just want to know, because this is really basic sensibility you have if you got these studies in your experience.

I agree it can be translated but it's way too informal and dangerous to do that in the title. This is an encyclopedia for adults, not a kids book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albero1 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Venice Republic - La Serenissima Of Venice
Dear Cplakidas,

If you want to contact any historian or any archeologist or manager of Cultural Goods you will know that the title "La Serenissima" can't be actually translated. It's not an adjective, it's a Noble title. Please do not start a flame. There is no "mystical" power, or desire to make Venice Republic look like something it's not, that 's actually you are doing by undoing the change. That's an error, I explained why and took the time to change it. That status of the entry "Venice Republic" (which was on previously) is actually showing how weak is Wikipedia.

You cannot translate an adjective that has become proper noun since it's a noble title, mostly probably coming from Doge, even if it's not known. You cannot translate a proper noun unless you are back to colonial level of culture, nationalized, bigot and retrograde. We are not at those time of "nationalization" anymore.

This is Cultural Goods, I see so many admins editing stuff without having a proper knowledge of what they are doing. If you have studies, and I guess you do, you know that Serenissima is not an adjective. You cannot simply translate it /you can to explain what it means but it cannot be the main title, it simply won't work. Serenissima is international name since that's not a simple adjective.

if you don't understand this it's impossible to actually have a discussion. It's ABC.

Please avoid offending me with strange calls "Mysthical value" of what? It's just an explanation of what it is.

If this is the way these things are managed today how is actually possible to talk, if the first thing you go with is an offense? Admins behave like this all over the internet, you are not admins if you behave like this.

I am changing sutff not for MY PERSONAL PLEASURE, it's because it's incorrect. La serenissima is a title it's not an adjective! It's a noble title, you cannot translate it. It can be translated in the explanation (it meant "the most calm, the most serene" but you cannot go "colloquial" over a title.

It's like saying Charles Martellus can also be called for the friends Charlie .. because we call all the Charles, Charlie nowadays. I suggest to watch out for these mistakes because it trivializes history and also MAKES heritage be lost in translation. Especially if something has not been yet found out why it was called like this, what it means and so on, YOU ACTUALLY ARE EVEN MORE REQUESTED NOT TO TRANSLATE IT because you are loading obstacles by trhowing your own interpretation to the meaning of it, when we still DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE what it means.

Do you have a bachelor degree or a master degree in these topics, if you do I will accept the conversation, if you don't I will accept the conversation anyway, I just want to know, because this is really basic sensibility you have if you got these studies in your experience.

I agree it can be translated but it's way too informal and dangerous to do that in the title. This is an encyclopedia for adults, not a kids book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albero1 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Dear Albero1, please consult Wikipedia's policies on WP:RS, WP:VERIFY, WP:COMMONNAME, and the very pertinent essay WP:TRUTH. In short, we follow the convention of common naming as found in English-language sources, and such sources do display extensive use of the translated form. So if you think it is incorrect, please take it up with them. Best regards, Constantine  ✍  16:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Dear Cplakidas, ah and Wikipedia uses Google as source? I would use an italian source or multiple international sources. Translation on a main title is not a proper choice for translating an italian heritage good for the sake of universal cultural goods enhacement, it's a bad choice. La Serenissima does not mean "The Most Serene", it's a comfort zone short cut that reduces the value instead to improve its meaning to an english speaking individual.

Then let's translate in the same way in Russian in all the languages of the world "The most Serene" because english stated that it means the most serene. You are falsifying the meaning. Do you understand that? That's an incorrect bureaucratic invite: one uses this in a video game and says you used it, then you say u took it from google and then I have to lose myself into a sea of texts and contacting all the British text that used this acception to solve this and then come back to you to explain that BRITISH APPROPRIATION Of Universal heritage is an error? This is exactly how things work in Italy, nobody takes responsibility and we all lose. Wikipedia must be NOT A BOT and understand what is using on its pages, because it is managed by HUMANS not by bots.

Let's not change the topic please, it helps lose the point and carries on the errors of forced translation. La Serenissima is not la serenissima. Human error is the best thing, it can't be solved but with time, enjoy your biased translation, will contact Venice directly to change this if you don't want to change it, you are just offering a disservice to the whole community of wikipedia and to people coming here reading on it.

THis is also why I will never support wikipedia anymore, it's just a comic book, it's not an encyclopedia.


 * Dear Albero1, no, we do not rely on Google. Google is merely a means to show to you that the term is in common and established usage in English. Why is this relevant? Because the English Wikipedia, quite sensibly, relies on English-language published sources to determine the naming of its articles and the terms used therein. The Russian Wikipedia will be well advised to rely on Russian-language sources for Russian-language usage. An Italian term which has been commonly translated for centuries into English will hence be used in the English WP in its English translation, just as we use Rome and not "Roma", or Venice and not "Venezia", and just as the Italian WP uses Regno Unito and not "United Kingdom". Yes, "La Serenissima" is a common shorthand for Venice, but as a title, this is not unique, and we have an article about the most serene republics to show that. All the rest about "heritage" and "appropriation" is completely beside the point. You are working yourself up on a non-issue. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  17:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Dear Cplakidas I thought held you on a smarter level than this. Proper noun is taken out of context from you on purpose.

We are talking of a SPECIFIC and very special element of a proper noun, an adjective that has become almost a proper noun. But it's nor proper noun none an adjective. Rome of course can be translated from Roma, but La Serenissima is not an adjective nor a city name, it's a title and the title has also unknown origins this is why I state that it sits in a limbo. The only one that has personal issues with criticism and people using brain is you and you are making context and things up to write your own rules over something you clearly and stubbornly, ignore. I prefer to be awarded an asinine hat from you than actually have it on. I tried to help, all the excuses have been put ahead, a suggestion is not welcome on wikipedia, but I stop to talk with bots, for me discussion is another thing. It's actually a thing (a meeting if you check ethimology but I doubt you'll do), not a farse. Wikipedia is just on a bad spin. We are supposed to work together not start bickering at each other. Thanks for your patience. Sure... we have an article in Poland that shows that but then we have an italian title that uses that ssame title, I am not saying that Italy or Venice is unique despite this is missed just in your brain, but I am saying that the title as it is unique, and trying to make all the "Most Serene" sounding title all be meaning the same IS A HUGE SECOND ERROR BIG LIKE THE WORLD. All titles do not mean the same thing, this is another distortion suggestion wishful thinking that flattens the entire system and Cultural Goods which are based on WONDER (THAUMAZEIN) not on DEJAVU. You are definitely a bot. Wikipedia is really a ridicolous "place".


 * Dear Albero1, you are, of course, entitled to your opinions about what is correct and what is wrong, but you are not entitled to making personal attacks against me. The core of your argument, as far as I can tell, is "it's a title and the title has also unknown origins this is why I state that it sits in a limbo." This, and the conclusion that therefore the name must not be translated, appears to be your own opinion. No matter how vehemently you cling to this view, I have already pointed you to the relevant policies of Wikipedia above regarding sources and verifiable facts. I can only recommend that you look at them again, dispassionately, instead of engaging in polemics with me. I don't get to decide what terms the English language uses, but neither do you. Cheers, Constantine   ✍  18:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

You started all this making it rotten with a call I was suggesting something Mysthical while you rely on "data". Ok then the data is all we need. I am also an original speaker of this language, and one cannot translate a local name when it's not a translatable name, removes the meaning from the word. How can't people see the damage they are doing? La Serenissima is not "LA most serene", it's a huge difference. Sure, just bend your head to "the policies" like everything was the same in every case. This is ridicolous. How can wikipedia be a consultable and serious Encyclopedia when it butchers culture in this way?! I really hope somebody will come here and make it clear and no, we don't need to consult Google, check all the books and then tell the english authors they are doing an error. The most serene is a wrong choice, and Wikipedia acts like the tower of knowledge in The name of the rose, Eco was right on digital crowds, I won't tell you these as offences, but mere data, you can consult on Google what Eco has said and written, maybe some understanding will start to echo in this closed chamber we are in... Your call starting the querelle was really out of place and unprofessional: if person makes a change and describes the change is just in good faith. I really doubt that you are in good faith also as you presented yourself to me in first place: REVERT and COMMENT: you mysthical explanation doesn't stand.

Enjoy your hiding behind rules, rules are there because they are a limit, but not as a wall between discussion, actually a limit to discussion. This is what people in bad faith do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albero1 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Nikolaos Christodoulou or Soliotis
Hello Cplakidas. Can you please accept my request to rename the following file, File:Nikolaos Souliotis - Greek Fighter.JPG? Thanks in advance for your time. Demetrios1993 (talk) 05:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Demetrios1993, sure thing, done! Cheers, Constantine  ✍  05:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot Constantine! Demetrios1993 (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Manuel Kamytzes
The article Manuel Kamytzes you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Manuel Kamytzes for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ichthyovenator -- Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Greek Volunteer Legion
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Greek Volunteer Legion 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 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You may not have noticed, but I've made my comments on this nom.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Theotokos Kosmosoteira
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire
I concede that there was, of course, only one Eastern Roman Empire. The redirect of Eastern Roman Empires, the deletion tag of which I removed and you reinstated is, I concede, technically incorrect in that the final "s" should not be there. But the redirect, which another editor has replaced, is functionally correct. Anthony Bradbury "talk" 21:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXII, August 2020
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) 14:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Muhammad ibn Sulayman ibn Ali
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Manuel Kamytzes
Hello! Your submission of Manuel Kamytzes 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Saseno
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Fakhkh
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Manuel Kamytzes
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Deleted pages
I noticed that you have reverted edits related to deleted articles such as Siege of Aleppo (962) in article John I Tzimiskes and others. I would like to ask if you can recreate that page and another one Siege of Aleppo (1400), which were both deleted recently. Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.175.210.234 (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not an admin, so I don't have access to the previous content. I will try to write at least Sack of Aleppo (962) anew, since this is an area where I am somewhat knowledgeable. Constantine  ✍  06:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Official History of the Greek Civil War
Is the Official History of the Greek Civil War book series published by the Greek Army considered neutral and reliable? Since it was published before the 80s, it calls the communists, communist-bandits.--Catlemur (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Catlemur. Well, for better or worse, it is the main military history of events available. It is definitely not neutral as far as language and the politics of the conflict are concerned. I would use it only for the details of military operations and the background to decisions of the Army, force evolution, etc. For the communist side, as well as a more general and balanced view of the conflict overall, take Margaritis' two-volume history of the civil war (published in 2001 if memory serves). Constantine  ✍  16:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. Might work on some articles on this topic towards the end of the year.--Catlemur (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to them, this is an area that needs a lot of improvement. I have access to Margaritis if you want help. Constantine  ✍  16:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The map again
Sorry to keep revisiting this, but have you made any progress on the map of Constantinople? It'd be nice if a new generation of students could plagarize it without fear of unknowingly using out-dated information this autumn. GPinkerton (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi GPinkerton, I've indeed started working on it, but I am doing a general overhaul while I am at it, plus of course in the midst of a dozen other WP projects. But work is progressing. I'll probably devote some of the next week to it, so it should be done by the time the new semester gets going ;) Constantine  ✍  18:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, that's marvellous to hear! A new Ptolemy! If a general overhaul is in progress, can I suggest adding in the water supply lines? There were three major aqueducts and if your feeling creative I can recommend the Crow, J. G., Bardill, J. and Bayliss, R. (2008). The Water Supply of Byzantine Constantinople which has an excellent map(s) of the routes in. Perhaps the Forum of Leo could also be added in; the K. Dark paper on that forum suggest it was where the 2nd courtyard of the Topkapi is now (and where the Column of Leo's fragments are). GPinkerton (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestions, they will definitely be taken into account. :) Constantine  ✍  18:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Greek Volunteer Legion
The article Greek Volunteer Legion 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:Greek Volunteer Legion for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Jawdhar
Hello! Your submission of Jawdhar 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, the review was done a week ago. Are you planning on supplying a QPQ, or should this be closed as unsuccessful? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Yoninah, thanks for the reminder, I am of course planning to do a QPQ. Constantine  ✍  06:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Greek Volunteer Legion
The article Greek Volunteer Legion you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Greek Volunteer Legion for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project
Thanks, especially since you helped in all three of them. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  08:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You did the heavy lifting. It was interesting to look in on them; three completely different topics. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Asking a favour
Hi Constantine. I have Punic Wars up at GAN. All 118 years of them. Boiled down to under 7,000 words. I am hoping to move it on to FAC in short order, but would feel much happier if someone competent gave it a good kicking first. Your name sprang irresistibly to mind. Obviously if time or motivation don't permit I entirely understand. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Gog the Mild, sure, I'd be very happy to do so. It might be about 7-10 days before I can get to it though, I am a bit overwhelmed with a few other things. Constantine  ✍  21:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As and when Constantine. Let's leave it up; perhaps someone else will pick it up first and I can then review how thorough a job I think they have done. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

John (nephew of Vitalian)
Hi Constantine,

I see that you’re busy. At your leisure, I pulled the Italian version of John (nephew of Vitalian) over to English. I think you created the stub for this years ago. I would love to get your assistance in cleaning up what I pulled over from Italian Wiki. HiberniantearsII (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Jawdhar
— Maile (talk) 12:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Alexios Komnenos (protosebastos)
Hello:

The copy edit you requested of the article Alexios Komnenos (protosebastos) has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

I believe that protosebastos in the title should be italicised, but I cannot see a way to do this. If you agree, perhaps you know how this is done.

All the best with article moving forward.

Regards,

20:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your time and skillful work, . Best, Constantine  ✍  20:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire Justinían Dynasty
Hello, I would just like to ask why the maps on the Byzantine Empire Justinian, Heraclian, and Palaiologos dynasties were changed, when they were clearly better than the current ones. 1982fredbear (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello 1982fredbear . The maps I removed are technically better, true, but they also claimed to be more 'detailed', which is the problem: the details (e.g. the shape of the borders) very often ranged from guesswork to outright errors. The previous maps were definitely not perfect, but it is far better to have a sketch of a map that in effect tells the reader 'this is the approximate situation' rather than a map which is 'detailed' and thus falsely gives the impression that we know the exact delineation of a border, e.g. in Spain during Justinian's reign.
 * The 'new' maps are obviously an attempt to make the old ones more 'detailed' (by and large they show the same territory under Byzantine control, after all), and in this they fail, because they do not rely on WP:RS, but appear to be a fanciful interpretation by the map author without any basis in fact. And don't get me started on some utterly ludicrous errors, such as the eastern border in 4KMACEDONIAN.png. Or just compare the shape of the eastern border in 4KJUSTINIAN.png with the actual border in Roman-Persian Frontier, 565 AD.png. Constantine  ✍  19:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 40
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 40, July – August 2020 
 * New partnerships
 * Al Manhal
 * Ancestry
 * RILM
 * #1Lib1Ref May 2020 report
 * AfLIA hires a Wikipedian-in-Residence

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Map
Hi Cplakidas, hope you are doing well. I'm struggling a bit with Inkscape atm - seeing some of your splendid maps on Wikipedia, I was wondering, you don't happen to know of a place to learn to make maps like these? --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi HistoryofIran, I don't know of a specific tutorial to recommend. I learned by doing, plus occasionally by getting inspiration by other, better mapmakers and watching some Youtube videos. Constantine  ✍  18:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi again Cplakidas. I'm trying to upload a svg file, but when I choose the file, it's heavily zoomed in for some reason, just like this one I uploaded earlier . Any idea what's causing the problem? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi HistoryofIran, the problem was that the page boundaries were too small. You can set custom boundaries for your file, focusing only on the area you want to be visible. You can adjust this (File->Document properties->Resize page to content) and a good tip is to always have the page border on top of your drawing (click the box in the Document Properties menu). What is in that area is what others will see, unless they open the file for editing. I've fixed it for you now. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  15:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Thank you very much! --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi again Cplakidas, you don't happen to have any experience with the following error when uploading a file?: 'The XML in the uploaded file could not be parsed.' I'm trying to upload the svg I created of this, but for some reason it doesn't work. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * there's an error in the XML code that underlies the svg file. I can't say what it is from your description. You could send me the file, and I'll try to find out what the problem is. Constantine  ✍  12:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue Issue CLXXIII, September 2020
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) 12:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Greek Volunteer Legion
Hello! Your submission of Greek Volunteer Legion 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Flibirigit (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Maria, daughter of Manuel
Hello! Konstantinos, do you maybe have a photograph of the coin of Maria?—Miha (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of 3rd Gymnasium of Agia Paraskevi for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 3rd Gymnasium of Agia Paraskevi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/3rd Gymnasium of Agia Paraskevi until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Place Clichy (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Boniface of Verona
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Boniface of Verona 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 Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Bahram II/GA1
Cplakidas, you opened this GA nomination for review over a month ago, and have yet to return. I thought you might have forgotten about it. Will you be starting it soon, or should I arrange to have the review reverted and the nomination returned to the pool of those nominations awaiting a reviewer? While things aren't very busy now now, a GAN backlog drive will be starting on October 1, and if the last two are any indication, reviewers will be thick on the ground then. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi BlueMoonset, I am definitely still on it. I have been unable to dedicate much time to WP lately due to RL concerns, but I will start this soon enough. Constantine  ✍  06:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Vagenetia
You've done some great work on Vagenetia. The hyperboles about the "Serbian Empire" and its "nobility" are ridiculous in many of these articles.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you Maleschreiber. Unfortunately, hyperbole, shoddy research, and outright POV-driven distortions of facts are all too often in Balkan history articles, from all possible POVs. The previous incarnation of the Vagenetia article is a textbook example of this, being a horrible hodgepodge of half-correct facts pulled out of context and cobbled together from a loony pro-Bulgarian/Fallmerayerian POV, which is what moved me to rewrite it from scratch. If you know of anything I missed, please add it or notify me. Constantine  ✍  19:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that many editors approach subjects on the basis of their preconceived notions but they don't necessarily possess an overview of contemporary bibliography. Many articles about Slavic tribes in the Balkans are based on outdated bibliography. For example, the consensus that has emerged about Slavic settlement in Macedonia is that historiographical references in primary sources don't match the archaeological record, so a timeline of Slavic settlement since the 7th century in Macedonia has been abandoned (Curta (2012), Were there any Slavs in 7th century Macedonia?)--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Boniface of Verona
The article Boniface of Verona 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:Boniface of Verona for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Boniface of Verona
The article Boniface of Verona you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Boniface of Verona for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)