User talk:Cplakidas/Archive 7

Dgarq's back again
Hello.

I noticed you reverted an edit about Petronius Maximus name made by 194.38.128.26 (possibly User:Dgarq). That same IP made also several other strange edits, such as adding an unheard of "Romula Augusta" (according to him wife to Romulus Augustus). How should I deal with him, if he keeps reinserting his edits?

--TakenakaN (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What's "strange" about my edits? Dates, little elements and such? How intellectually arrogant is that? 194.38.128.26 (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --TakenakaN (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not a sockpuppet, I was just providing a simple source for a dispute that was disrupting some pages. This is what we get from trying to help! I simply didn't know this dispute is, after all, a pathological case of deleting sources. I'm being dragged to the same vicious circle the Dgarq was, and being punished just for being faithfull to what I believe is the right version of the pages. 194.38.128.26 (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But the coin book is complementary to PLRE. Is everyone going to be fossilized around its information and reject anything new? 194.38.128.26 (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, the sources didn't change, as the Past doesn't, but new ones might have been found. The book doesn't contradict PLRE, because adding new names isn't the same as presenting different names. Unfortunately I don't know of any other. 194.38.128.26 (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know, it was on-line. 194.38.128.26 (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * http://books.google.com/ Ancient Coin Collecting III: The Roman World-Politics and Propaganda by Wayne G. Sayles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.38.128.26 (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the recent discussion on disambiguation at the project page? --TakenakaN (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is your interpretation. What was decided was to disambiguate consuls by (first) year of consulship, and to use familiar relationships only for people with no other disambiguations. --TakenakaN (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not. He was twice consul! --TakenakaN (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The consuls gave their name to the years, and there are list of consuls; this does not happen for brothers of emperors. --TakenakaN (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * PLRE uses that characteristics as the sources confound him with "Zeno's brother". However it is not true that his two consulships are irrelevant. --TakenakaN (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you got PLRE? How does PLRE identify Longinus (the text at the right of the name), as "cos. 486" or as "brother of Zeno"? --TakenakaN (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Where necessary, PLRE disambiguates with "son of" and all. As regards Anastasius, the fact that he was the brother of the previous emperor is important, in the succession matter, but that's not a disambiguation. --TakenakaN (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Eutharic
Hi Cplakidas. Thank you for taking a look over the Eutharic article I moved into mainspace yesterday.. You made a number of small changes to the article which in general look good. However, User:Wetman on the article's talk page has raised an issue with potential inbalance which I think relates to this diff. Would you mind taking a look at the discussion please?

Also, it would be helpful, especially when you make a number of changes in quick succession, to add in an edit summary for each edit. This makes it easier to see what has changed rather than searching through the diffs. Thanks. Nick Ottery (talk) 09:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"Sebastokrator"
Hi, just out of curiosity, does Kazhdan actually use the term "portmanteau"? It still sounds weird to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for checking. Would you mind if I then applied another tiny ORish terminological correction, just for the sake of linguistic precision: it's not a "compound of sebastos and autokrator", it's a "compound of sebastos and -krator, the same element as in autokrator". Something along those lines? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Mister Cplakidas
Please tell me what is your opinion about the relations between the greek macedonians and vlachs (aromanians). They do not reprezent the same ethnic group? Thank you! Regards! (Victorminulescu (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

Hi
Hi Constantine! Sorry, I did not answer earlier to some of your questions in R-P wars. I always feel Wikipedia as my home, but I face some very serious time constraints. Because of my job and of my frequent journeys, unfortunately I do not enjoy my previous luxury to dedicate as much time as I used to Wikipedia. Additionally, this absence has also helped my psychology and my ease towards the project, because of the fact that I avoided interactions with users, which were particularly unpleasant to me. You know that, while intensely working in Wikipedia, I was involved in various heated and intense cases, during which I felt surrounded by carnivorous. I also felt disgusted by certain standards applied by "official" (judiciary and other) organs of the project.

For all these reasons, this absence had some unexpected positive effects on me, which I intend to keep and capitalize on them. At the same time, however, I cannot deny my bond with the project, and I do feel occasionally the thirst to contribute. Thus I have to balance between two partially contradicting inclinations within me. What I regard as the best solution is to contribute selectively, and focusing mainly (almost strictly) on editing. Within this framework, I am thinking some articles where my efforts for upgrading have remained incomplete. One of them is the "Greek War of Independence" (where the effort was initially collective and extremely ambitious) and another one is the article on Greek Macedonia.

I repeat that my time is extremely limited, but I can do some serious editing work from time to time. Especially, if there is some prospect for collaborative work. Therefore, if you think that we could at a certain point undertake a joint collaborative work in one of the articles I mentioned above or in another you have in mind, it would be a pleasure for me. I have never worked collaboratively in this project again in such a way, and there is no guarantee about whether I can adapt myself, and I also do not know whether you like such a way of editing or not. Nevertheless, it is a thought that crossed my mind, and I felt I had to communicate it to you. Τα λέμε!--Yannismarou (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an eye on the article about the Balkan Wars. Κι εσύ να περνάς καλά στη χρεωκοπημένη πατρίδα που μας πονάει και την πονάμε!--Yannismarou (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Greek Resistance
Hi. I don't want to edit-warring, so lets discuss. 1)There is an unquestionable link: Soviet Union-->KKE-->EAM-->ELLAS. Soviet Union controlled KKE, KKE controlled EAM, EAM controlled ELLAS(the army). According to this: If ELLAS would succeeded in controlling Greece after the war, Soviet Union would succeeded to control Greece. And consequently Greece would became a part of the S.U. sphere, instead of the British sphere. The very spirit of the Churchill-Stalin agreement is that it had nothing to do with ideologies (as both Stalin and the latter SU leadership proved in the next 50 years in their relations with the countries under their sphere). So I see no reason to continue misleading the readers about the true nature of the confrontation and the agreement giving the false impression of a confrontation the kind: imperialism-versus-ideology (British-versus-Communist), by saying that the British were anxious just because the Greek would became "Communistic". Why to hide the truth behind our finger by saying half the truth? And if "Communism=Soviet Union" you still have to explain why you prefer to mention "Communism". I understand that there are people believing the above mentioned concept (Br.imperialism-versus-ideology) even today but that's a political opinion, not a part of an encyclopedia's article 2)I see no reason to disguise the fact that EAM/ELLAS was in fact a Communist-controlled organization in Greece, which was nowhere in the article. The readers are not Greeks, by omitting that fact they understand nothing about of the complexity of the issues during the Greek resistance. --Factuarius (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 2) I am not speaking for you, it was a general position, but the lack of it in the article, until today, is still let say an impressive fact. 2,5)Common mistake, sorry 1a) I've answered that before: Either we have to give it in a ideological base (capitalism versus communism) or in a national-imperialistic base, not mixed (Britain-Communism/S.U.-Capitalism). Is wrong, ideologically motivated and unfair. 1b) You are mixing the dates: The agreement between Stalin & Churchill happened in October 9, 1944, during the German withdrawal from Greece, not during the occupation (April '41- October '44). Before the agreement every scenario about Greece was playable and thus the Soviets didn't gave any advice, at all, to KKE. As you may know. They had no reason to do it. 2c) Your scenario about the "Great power antagonism that only came on top of the political situation in Greece" is totally irrational. Is like saying the Greek politics pulled the great powers into confrontation over Greece and not the opposite, which is the funniest scenario I ever heard. No, as with the 1st WW the great powers' antagonism over Greece generated another national schism, together with the Greek people's -let say- "blindness" (since we are not alone). As very often happened in history the ideologies are only very nice clothes in dressing interests and that was also the reality over the Soviet-British antagonism in Greece then, and I was hoping that you knew that better than me through your personal experiences. As for the danger to mislead the readers about a possible annexation of Greece from the Soviet Union, although this is an extraordinary possibility to say the less, is fixable by adding the word "sphere of.." Anyway the bottom line is either we have to give an ideological interpretation of the antagonism over Greece (although as I explained is rather narrow & naive) or a Great Powers' interests-based interpretation which is to me the more honest. Every other χιαστη solution is to me οbviously politically motivated and as such unacceptable. --Factuarius (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Kωνσταντινε εχει γινει λιγο κουραστικο το θεμα γιατι αισθανομαι οτι δε μιλάμε ουσιαστικά. Υπάρχει κανένας που να αμφισβητεί ότι κομουνιστική Ελλάδα υπό τους όρους της επόχής σήμαινε Ρωσική Ελλάδα? Γιατί μπλέκεις το Κομουνισμό? Υπήρξε πουθενά κομουνισμός? Έστω στη Ρωσία? Θα υπήρχε στην Ελλάδα? Μου λες ότι γι'αυτό πολεμούσαν τα μέλη του ΔΣ: Πρώτον πάλι μπερδεύεις τις ημερομηνίες, εδω δε μιλάμε για το ΔΣ, μιλάμε για το ΕΑΜ που είναι η νύχτα με την ημέρα όπως θα ξέρεις γιατί αν τους λέγανε ότι πολεμάνε για τον Κομμουνισμό δε ξέρω πόσοι θα τους μένανε, και δεύτερο: και λοιπόν? Και οι Συμμαχικοί στρατιώτες στο 1ο ΠΠ πολεμούσαν "για να τελειώσουν τους πολέμους", και 20 χρόνια αργότερα τους ίδιους τους στείλανε στον επόμενο πόλεμο αυτή τη φορά δήθεν για τη Δημοκρατία. Σήμερα όλοι ξέρουμε ότι πολεμάγαν για τη διάσωση ή την επέκταση των αυτοκρατοριών στις οποίες ανήκανε, απλώς δε το ξέρανε. Από πότε οι στρατιώτες ξέρουν γιατί πραγματικά πολεμάνε? Εγώ δε σου είπα ότι πηγαίνανε να πολεμήσουν για να κάνουν την Ελλαδα προτεκτοράτο των Σοβιετικών, σου είπα ότι ξέρουμε ότι αυτό θα γινότανε εάν τα καταφέρνανε να νικήσουνε και αν ο Σταλιν δεν τους είχε ανταλλάξει στη γνωστή συναλλαγή με το Τσωρτσιλ. Και απ'αυτό προκύπτει και το πραγματικό υπόβαθρο της συμφωνίας. Υπάρχει κανένας σοβαρός άνθρωπος που το αμφισβητεί αυτό σημερα? Περί του πόσο ιδεολογικά ήταν τα κίνητρά τους τα είδαμε το '56 και το '68 από τη μία μεριά και το '67 από την άλλη. Τι σχέση έχουν οι ιδεολογίες σ'αυτά τα πράγματα? Αυτά είναι για μένα και για σένα, και για το κοσμάκι που πρέπει να πάει να σκοτωθεί, δεν το ξέρεις? Εδώ μιλάμε για δυο αυτοκρατορίες, με δυο αυτοκράτορες, που κάθονται γύρω από ένα τραπέζι και μοιράζουνε τα εκατομύρια του κοσμάκι σα να είναι στραγάλια. Και μετά βγαίνουν έξω και βγάζουν πύρινους λόγους ο ένας για τη "δημοκρατία" και ο άλλος για το "σοσιαλισμό".Το ίδιο ακριβώς είχε κάνει λίγο πιό πριν με τον ίδιο το Χιτλερ for God's sake, κάτσαν και μοιράσανε μεταξύ τους τους Πολωνούς και τους Βάλτες. Και 56 χρόνια μετά έρχεσαι και επιμένεις ότι ήταν μια σύγκρουση μεταξύ Βρετανών και κομμουνιστικής ιδεολογίας, τι πρέπει να κάνω εγώ?. Εάν πράγματι το πιστεύεις καλά κάνεις, ο καθένας έχει το δικαίωμα να πιστεύει ότι θέλει, και γω πιστεύω πράγματα για τα οποία δε θα σπαταλούσες λεπτό γιά να ακούσεις, αλλά δε ππροσπαθώ να τα γράψω στη WP, γιατί είναι ακατάλληλο το μέρος. Σε παρακαλώ δέξου τα αυτονόητα και απέφυγε τα δυο μέτρα και δυο σταθμά μήπως μπορέσουμε να συνεχίσουμε σαν Έλληνες εντιτορς και σα λαός πέρα από τις μ* του παρελθόντος που μόνο κακό μας φέρανε και μας κάνανε τα κορόιδα της οικουμένης.


 * Και δυο κουβέντες για το άρθρο γενικότερα: Δε ξέρω πόσο καιρό συμετέχεις, εγώ σήμερα πρωτομπήκα και έφριξα. Είναι δυνατόν να πραγματεύετε τον εμφύλιο και να μη σκέφτηκε κανείς τόσο καιρό ότι πρέπει κάπου να αναφερθεί ότι το ΕΑΜ ήταν μετωπική οργάνωση του ΚΚΕ? Να γράφει ότι η λιμός και ο πληθωρισμός οφειλόταν σε ..mismanagement? Ή οι απίστευτες φράσεις που υπήρχαν με τις λογικές ακροβασίες και τους μονόπλευρους και ανεπίτρεπτους χαρακτηρισμούς? Μιά βαρετή απολογία για ότι έκανε ή δεν έκανε το ΕΑΜ, το οποίο έκανε όμως ένα "θανάσιμο σφάλμα". Σφάλμα? αυτός είναι ο καταλληλότερος χαρακτηρισμός πιστεύεις? και στο οποίο όλοι οι υπόλοιποι ή θάβονται ή χλευάζονται? Ο Στάλιν έλεγε 10 σκοτωμένοι είναι έγκλημα, 10,000 ειναι τραγωδία, 10 εκατομύρια είναι στατιστική. Τέλος πάντων δε ξέρω πόσο ελέυθερο χρόνο θα μου αφήσουν οι Βούλγαροι και οι Αλβανοί να ασχοληθώ αλλά εμένα μου είναι αδύνατο να το αφήσω έτσι. Κάνε ότι νομίζεις αλλά εγώ θα συνεχίσω. Εδώ κάποιος ή κάποιοι έχουν πάρει το Μazower (που είναι και οι μοναδικές refs του άρθρου), έχει βάλει ότι του άρεσε και έχει κατεβάσει τα υπόλοιπα από το μυαλό του (ή τη καρδιά του). Και γω το έχω το βιβλίο αλλά δε κάνω κι έτσι. Πέρα από το ότι δε μου φάνηκε και τελείως αντικειμενικός. Εν πάσει περιπτώσει, για να το πω ευγενικά θέλει δουλειά και θα προσπαθήσω να τη ρίξω. Ελπίζω να συνεργαστούμε χωρίς προβλήματα. Άσχετο, αλλά με έκπληξη ανακάλυψα ότι δεν υπάρχει ένα άρθρο για τον λιμό (εκτός κι αν δεν το βρήκα) και σκοπεύω να το φτιάξω και να βάλω μερικά ενδιαφέροντα στοιχεία από τα πρώην απόρρητα Βρεττανικά αρχεία (αν και πρωτογενης πηγή, θα δω) που πιστεύω ότι θα προκαλέσουν σεισμό, (στο λέω για τη περίπτωση που σε ενδιαφέρει) και θα προσπαθήσω να το προτέινω για DYK μήπως και δει κάμποσος κόσμος τι σημαίνει "Βρετανική πολιτική", δε χρειάζεται να είναι μεγάλο. Αυτά. --Factuarius (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

''OK. Επειδή μου ξαναγράφεις ότι δε καταλαβαίνεις που είναι η διαφωνία μας να στο πω για 4η φορά ελπίζοντας ότι αυτή τη φορά θα γίνω κατανοητός: Πιστεύω ότι σήμερα μπορούμε να γράψουμε τη ιστορική πραγματικότητα ότι η σύγκρουση μεταξύ Βρετανίας και ΕΣΣΔ στην Ελλάδα ήταν σύγκρουση σφαιρών επιροής δύο Μεγάλων Δυνάμεων. Το προκάλυμα της σύγκρουσης ήταν "ιδεολογικό" ή ιδεολογικό, αλλά οι προτεραιότητες των δύο πλευρών ήταν η αύξηση ή η διατήρηση των σφαιρών επιροής τους, και όχι η "απελευθέρωση" ή η διατήρηση της "ελευθερίας" του σχετιζόμενου λαού (Όπως αποδείχτηκε και από τα μεταπολεμικά ιστορικά γεγονότα στην Ευρώπη '56, '68, '67). Ως εκ τούτου: οι Βρετανοί ενδιαφέρονταν να συνεχίσει να παραμένει η Ελλάδα στη σφαίρα επιροής τους, και οι Σοβιετικοί να την συμπεριλάβουν. Τα συμφέροντα αυτά τα προωθούσαν τοπικά μέσω των συνδεόμενων και ελεγχόμενων απ'αυτούς ιδεολογικών σχηματισμών που για τη ΕΣΣΔ ήταν το ΚΚΕ και οι ελεχόμενοι απ'αυτό οργανώσεις (ΕΑΜ-ΕΛΑΣ κλπ) και για τους Βρετανούς ήταν ο βασιλιάς και οι αστικοί σχηματισμοί (αστοί πολιτικοί-ΕΔΕΣ κλπ). Η κυριαρχία του ενός ή του άλλου σχηματισμού τοπικά θα διασφάλιζε τη παραμονή της χώρας στη σφαίρα επιροής του ενός ή του άλλου μέσω της διαμόρφωσης του πολιτικού συστήματος της χώρας στην καταληλότερη γι'αυτούς μορφή ώστε οι πολιτικοί αυτοί φορείς να μπορούν να αναπαράγουν την εξουσία τους κατά τον συμφερότερο και αποδοτικότερο δυνατό τρόπο αποκλείοντας τον άλλο (ΚΚΕ/"Κομμουνισμός" - Βασιλιάς/"Αστική δημοκρατία"). Επομένως η φράση στο κείμενο πρέπει να αλλάξει σε κάτι στο περίπου: οι Βρετανοί ενδιαφέρονταν να μην χάσουν την Ελλάδα από τη σφαίρα επιροής τους έναντι των Σοβιετικών που ενδιαφέρονταν να την συμπεριλάβουν. Ή Οι Βρετανοί ενδιαφέρονταν για τη διασφάλιση του αστικού χαρακτήρα του πολιτεύματος στη μεταπολεμική Ελλάδα ενώ οι Σοβιετικοί ενδιαφέρονταν για την ανατροπή του (από αστικό σε κομμουνιστικό). Μπορείς να διαλέξεις τι νομίζεις σωστότερο και ξέρεις καλύτερα αγγλικά από μένα ώστε να μπορείς να βρείς κάποια διατύπωση καλύτερη. Η παρούσα διατύπωση: "Οι Βρετανοί ενδιαφέρονταν να μη χάσουν την Ελλάδα λόγω κομμουνισμού" λέει τη μισή αλήθεια ως προς της πολιτικές προθέσεις των Σοβιετικών και ολόκληρη την αλήθεια ως προς τις πολιτικές προθέσεις των Βρετανών. Και σαν τέτοια είναι αμφιβαρής και πολιτικά επιρεασμένη.''

ΥΓ1.Σχετικά με την ερώτησή σου τι καταλαβαίνω από το σύνθημα "ΕΑΜ-Λαοκρατία": Καταλαβαίνω ότι αποφεύγαν τη λέξη "Κομμουνισμός" όπως ο διάβολος το λιβάνι, και ότι προς αυτή τη κατεύθυνση προτιμήσαν για πολιτικό τους σύνθημα ένα γελοία γενικόλογο νεολογισμό, όσο γελοία γενικόλογος ήταν ο όρος που προτάσανε οι αντίπαλοί τους: "Δημοκρατία" και επίσης πιστεύω ότι κανένας από τους δύο δεν πέρνανε στα σοβαρά τέτοια συνθήματα όπως πάλι απέδειξαν τα μεταπολεμικά (Ευρωπαικά και όχι μόνο) γεγονότα.

ΥΓ2.Άσχετο αλλά μιας και αναφέρθηκες σε παππούδες και για την αποφυγή παρεξηγήσεων (όχι ότι θεωρώ ότι υπονοείς κάτι): Όλοι ανεξαιρέτως οι συγγενείς μου και από τις δυο πλευρές (μητέρα-πατέρας) συμμετείχαν στα τότε γεγονότα από τους παρακάτω σχηματισμούς ΕΑΜ, ΕΛΑΣ, εφ. ΕΛΑΣ, ΚΚΕ, ένας ήταν λ/γός στην ΟΠΛΑ (που με κάνει από του ελάχιστους που μπορεί να ξέρει τι πραγματικά ήταν η ΟΠΛΑ), η μια θεία ήταν μια περίφημη "δασκάλα" (πολιτική καθοδηγήτρια) για την οποία τραγουδούσαν τραγούδια στο "βουνό"(και η οποία καταδικάστηκε "τετράκεις εις θάνατον" το '49 αλλά τη γλίτωσε), ο μεγαλύτερος θείος μου ήταν κάποια εποχή γραμματέας στη ΚΟΒ(α) Καισαριανής (τότε τη λέγαν και "μικρή Μόσχα"), και ένας ήταν πρόεδρος σε λαικό δικαστήριο στο οποίο μεταξύ άλλων προσήγαγε και τον αδελφό του πατέρα του (και ο οποίος αντί απολογίας τον πλάκωσε στο ξύλο μέσα στο δικαστήριο-σχολείο:-). Και όλοι τους το πληρώσαν πολύ ακριβά αργότερα. Αυτά στα λέω οικιοθελώς για να σου εξηγήσω ότι δεν έχω παππού ταγματασφαλίτη, χίτη ή έστω εδεσίτη. Για τον έλεγχο των ισχυρισμών μου μπορώ να σου στείλω το επίθετό και το σταθ. τηλ. μου σε μειλ ώστε να διασταυρώσεις τους ισχυρισμούς μου και το όνομά μου. Δεν έχω κανένα πρόβλημα, σε εμπιστεύομαι. Αλλά θα σε παρακαλούσα να ξαναδείς τη φράση, ποτέ δεν έχω ξοδέψει περισσότερο χρόνο για μια φράση ή για να ακριβολογώ για μια λέξη. --Factuarius (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Eπειδή ο Yannismarou παρενέβει στο διάλογό μας αφήνοντας το μήνυμά του στη talk page μου προτίμησα να γράψω την απάντησή μου και προς τους δύο εκεί. --Factuarius (talk) 12:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Greek Civil War
Sperxios (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC): (Γεια χαρά, δεν ξέρω αν θα το δεις εδώ...αν αργήσεις πολύ πάντως θα το επαναφέρω στο αρχικό άρθρο) Στο άρθρο του Ελ. Εμφυλίου Πολέμου, αφαίρεσες τους σκοπούς της ΠΕΕΑ και τους αντικατέστησες με την απόφανση πως η ΠΕΕΑ επεδίωκε απλώς την κομμουνιστικοποίηση της μεταπολεμικής Ελλάδος? Το έκανες αυτό επειδή τπ προηγούμενο κείμενο δεν περιλάμβανε πηγή? Δεν θα ήταν καλύτερα να αντικατασταθεί με πχ τον όρκο της ΠΕΕΑ? ή να βρίσκαμε την πηγη του αρχικού κειμένου? ή απλώς να ζητηθεί τεκμηρίωση (Citation needed)? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?»title=Greek_Civil_War&action=historysubmit&diff=375524922&oldid=375524785

Noemvriana
Thank you very much for the link to Noemvriana on Jurien de la Gravière. I had "operations against Greek royalists" mentioned my sources for a number of French cruisers of the First World War and had been looking for something to link to. Cheers! Rama (talk) 11:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Roman–Sassanid War (421–422)
Why did you not ask to move the page instead of moving around its content? What you did hides the history of the article, which is against both GFDL and CC. --TakenakaN (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete the Byzantine Heraldry pictures?
I have made a protest on the actual page, the page looks awefull, I am very disapointed that these images were removed. I was especialy disapointed to read that you deleted them. Can you explain what was your patern of thinking or logic behind this action? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.19.201.184 (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Turkish invasion of Cyprus‎
Can you explain why you deleted all those categories on the page please

thanks

Chaosdruid (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the speedy response
 * Does it not seem more sense to leave some of them in and simply add the category you created - for example if someone is researching the conflicts of the 1970s they would benefit from that cat being on the page, same with anyone looking at wars involving cyprus.
 * I can see that the other categories are probably not needed but I really think those two should have been left there
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your understanding
 * I have put back in Category:Conflicts in 1974 and Category:Wars involving Cyprus
 * I also put back Category:1974 in Cyprus as it aids when researching the events at that time
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:EOKA struggle
Empty categories can be speedy deleted. Mind if I close your CFD nomination so they can be tagged for speedy? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Suliotes
Great argumentation! Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Need help
Hi kosta, whats up? I need your help on Cham Albanians page, there is a clear tag team between Athenean and Aleksikoua, who keep reverting sourced material with different argumentation, just to put me in edit war. Please contribute Talk:Cham Albanians. Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Milhist
Hello! I'm here to ask if you would consider standing to be a WP:MILHIST coordinator for this term. It's really not a lot of work; mainly you would be needed to give opinions on random topics at WT:MHCOORD. Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  06:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Incidentally, thank you for the articles you are writing; I've found many of them to be engaging, interesting, and informative. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  16:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Theophobos

 * Nice work! This reminds me of the Emperor (whose name I don't remember) who was a tax collector in a district where troops revolted against Constantinople; they picked up the tax collector against his will and decided to proclaim him basileos, and he eventually became the emperor unwillingly.  Can you remember this man's name?  Nyttend (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I found him — Theodosios III. Nyttend (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Great job
Just wanted to thank you personally for doing a great job on the Evangelis Zappas (and associated pages). Thank you. :-) If I could award you a Barnstar I would but I have no idea how. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Constantine Doukas (usurper)
Hello! Your submission of Constantine Doukas (usurper) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! cmadler (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Eustathios Maleinos
Dimadick (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)== DYK for Constantine Doukas (usurper) ==

Germanus
I created an article on Germanus (patricius). I still can't find enough information on the similarly-named Germanus (Caesar). But I notice that the latter has an article in the German Wikipedia. Could you provide a translation? Dimadick (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Olympic Games
Actually, that's not the case since without the preceding word "Modern" the consensus is that "Olympic Games" refers to the Ancient Olympic Games. The IOC Olympic Games comes within the series of "Modern Olympic Games" which also includes the Olympic Games sponsored by Zappas which were called Olympics when they took place and have been called "Zappas Olympics" by some historians (a name that was not used at the time of the modern revival and is not Consensus). Now I know that we have had this discussion before. And I know what your position is on this issue. So you don't have to respond. Just wanted to make the point clear that the Olympic Games did not start in 1896. They were begun in Ancient Greece. They were revived in modern Greece before Baron Pierre de Coubertin hopped on the Olympic bandwagon. Claiming that the IOC has exclusivity to "Olympic Games" is nonsense. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Taking Eutharic to GA status
Hello there. I noticed looking through the history that you gave the article on Eutharic a B-class rating. I was just looking for a bit more feedback on that rating as I am interested in developing the article as a Good Article candidate. Could you suggest any specific or general areas for improvement so that I can begin moving the article forward? Thanks. Nick Ottery (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Greek & Byzantine requests
Got your request, and put them in the to do list, got to warn you thought that it might take a while. The Byzantine eagles look simple enough, the phoenix seal is a little bit more of a challenge (because it is so small), the Junta emblem is simple but please be sure that it is not gonna get deleted if I uploaded it under Fair Use (why is it still under copyright?). Finally the medals should really be photographs, I don't think any artistic rendering will be as good as the real thing, so I would rather not do them, hope this is okay. Best Regards. Sodacan (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Stavraton
Hello! Your submission of Stavraton at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!  Jujutacular  T · C 21:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

byzantine flag

 * hi you have removed the flag of byzantine empire from the info box of battle of yarmouk, whts the reason ? was that flag incorrect ? or u did it by mistake ?

الله أكبر Mohammad Adil  16:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Notification
Hi. Email's out. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

User Big Axe
Hi Kostas. How are you? Long time no see. Anyway I hope everything is well. Sorry for the trouble but no one seems willing to answer my question about this user. So can you investigate and let me know if their edits as reported to AN/I (without response) diff are vandalism? Thank you. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 02:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Marcellus (6th century AD)
Hello Cplakidas, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Marcellus (6th century AD) has been removed. It was removed by Nyttend with the following edit summary ' (Redirects shouldn't be prodded) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with Nyttend before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 14:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Tetarteron and Histamenon
Hello! Your submission of Tetarteron and Histamenon at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Storye book (talk) 13:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Page for Byzantine-related new articles
Hello Dinkytown! I have created a list for new or recently de-stubbed articles that relate to the Byzantine Empire. I hope that everyone contributing on the subject will add his/her articles there, so that other interested users will be able to find it easily. BTW, I have tried to find all such articles for 2010, but some may have escaped my notice. If you find any missing, please add them yourself. Best regards, Constantine  ✍  13:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Constantine for the above message and info. I do have a few additions that I will put in, but for now I am still on a hiatus from Wiki.  Been very busy here and occupied, but will return in a few weeks.  Thanks for letting me know - take care... Dinkytown (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Very nice page. I aim to expand the existing articles I have contributed to, especially regarding Byzantium's warfare, so I don't suppose I'll be around that page; but thanks for the heads up.  Gabr-  el  06:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Macedonian phalanx
Please see Talk:Macedonian phalanx --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Sviatoslav's invasion of Bulgaria
Hi Constantine, that does look like a great collaboration topic and indeed, a very interesting period of Bulgarian history. There should be some good books available in Bulgarian about it, naturally with a Bulgarian perspective. I even remember reading some relatively detailed stuff. So far you've done a great job with what's available and I'm certainly interested in contributing. With some good teamwork we can even go for a joint FAC in the future! :)

I suspect I won't be able to work actively on the topic until the end of the week, but I'll gather some sources in the meantime and I'll contribute some material as soon as possible. By all means looking forward to working together!

Best, Todor→Bozhinov 16:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Greetings! I will gladly help as much as I can. I wonder how we should stay in touch because I don't want to ruin the article and your general layout plan with my English, so probably it would be better to state my points in your talk page or the talk page of the article itself.


 * Things I can add now are: There was a battle between Rus' and Bulgaria during the first invasion. You can rename the article to battle of Dorostolon if you think it would be better. According to many books I have read, Sviatoslav had 60,000 men and the Bulgarians twice as few. Those numbers are stated in the book of Andreev and Lalkov The Bulgarian Khans and Tsars, page 111; as well as in Zlatarski, p. 553. He then seized 80 castles before he had to return to Kiev. The Pecheneg attack of Kiev is inevitably classified in (almost?) all Bulgarian books as an attack caused by the Bulgarian diplomacy (including according to both Andreev and Zlatarski.


 * I think that Zlatarski is very detailed and his book is available in the Internet (but only in Bulgarian) so later we can make more additions. And I am sure Todor will perform quite well, as always :) Best, --Gligan (talk) 10:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Happy Easter!!! You have made the article very professionally and I didn't have too much to add... You can review my tiny edit for mistakes. Probably I could have added a little more but that would create problems with the article's structure and general logic because the chapter of Zlatarski about these events has some slight differences with the way your text is presented. Regards, --Gligan (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I don't know what exactly you want me to clarify. In 965 Peter I had to sign a treaty with the Magyars because he was unable to stop them from looting the country. According to that treaty the Bulgarians had to allow the Magyars to pass through Bulgaria when they want to raid in Byzantium, while the Magyars agreed not to pillage Bulgarian territory. Those actions of Peter were, of course, seen by Nikephoros Phokas as a violation of the Byzantine-Bulgarian alliance by the Bulgarians. --Gligan (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review for Michael Bourtzes
I reviewed the Michael Bourtzes article you submitted for GA and left my comments at Talk:Michael Bourtzes/GA1. It looks like a good article but I left a couple requests/suggestions before I pass or fail it. --Kumioko (talk) 04:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wanted to let you know that I promoted the article today but I also left a couple more comments on the review page. Good job. --Kumioko (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

About Cretan diet
Dear Mr Plakidas,

Cretan diet is the translation of Κρητική Διατροφή in Greek Wikipedia and we have already send an e-mail to Greek Wikipedia, and there is no problem with our article.

I have to send an e-mail again to English Wikipedia about the same subject?

Thank you in advance for your help.

For the Cretan Quality Agreement

Stavrakaki Iro —Preceding unsigned comment added by Symfono gram (talk • contribs) 07:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Λατινική αυτοκρατορία
Η el:Αυτοκρατορία της Νίκαιας είναι «ένα από τα διάδοχα κράτη της Βυζαντινής Αυτοκρατορίας». Η el:Λατινική Αυτοκρατορία ήταν το άλλο και το μεγαλύτερο. Δε συμφωνώ με τις αλλαγές σου, νομίζω ότι θα έπρεπε να συζητηθούν. Η επικοινωνία μου θα γίνει και στο ελληνικό σου username, ώστε να την βλέπουν και άλλοι και καλύτερα να προχωρήσει σε κάποια συζήτηση άρθρου, π.χ. el:Συζήτηση προτύπου:Ρωμαίοι Αυτοκράτορες. --FocalPoint (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Reviews of Battle of Anzen and Battle of Bathys Ryax
I shall be undertaking the review of this article against the Good Article criteria, per its nomination for Good Article status. If you have any questions or queries don'y hesitate to contact me. ✽ Juniper§ Liege  (TALK)  15:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Priscus GAN
I've left some notes at User talk:Tagmatarchos regarding your GA nomination of Priscus. Just thought that you might want to know! Canadian  Paul  02:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, I'll do it tonight! I'll not bother to delist it and waste everyone's time though, we can treat it like an informal Good Article Review. Canadian   Paul  15:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've left some comments on the GA review page that I think will help solidify the article's status as a Good Article and placed it "on hold". Let me know if you have any questions. Canadian   Paul  01:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Cretan diet vol2
Κύριε Πλακίδα καλημέρα σας και χρόνια πολλά. Έχουμε ήδη στείλει στην Ελληνική Βικιπαίδεια mail για τα copyright. Το άρθρο αυτό είναι ουσιαστικά η μετάφραση του άρθρου Κρητική Διατροφή που βρίσκεται στην Ελληνική Βικιπαίδεια. Επειδή εμείς διατηρούμε όλα τα δικαιώματα και το παραχωρούμε ελεύθερα, θα πρέπει να στείλω ανάλογο e-mail και στην αγγλική για να ανέβει ξανά το άρθρο? Σας ευχαριστώ εκ των προτέρων για τη βοήθεια σας.

user: symfono_gram —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.71.85.43 (talk) 09:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Rus'-Byzantine War (968–971)
Hi, I removed your PROD on this article because redirects aren't subject to the PROD process. You should send it to Redirects for discussion instead. Thanks, sorry for the hassle—  Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 05:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

List of Byzantine inventions
Hi Constantine. I hardly dare to ask but since you have created large parts of the Greek fire article: Do you think you can add small entries for the Byzantine flame-thrower, both the ship siphon and the hand-operated one, to the list? Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

which flag
can you please tell me which type of flag was under byzantine use in 7th century A.D ? regards الله أكبر Mohammad Adil  13:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Belthandros and Chrysantza
Hi Constantine! Hope you have a nice time there. Is it possible to give me a hand with this Byz. romance?Alexikoua (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I recently read Vasiliev's work and I was surprised when he wrote 2 entire pages for this work. Thanks for the advice and the help improving the article. I've proposed a dyk hook, but feel free to propose any alternative.Alexikoua (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's a good idea to add a box with a few lines from the work (Chrysantza's lament for example). What do you think?Alexikoua (talk)

Hallo again, I'm searching the historical background of the Song of Armouris, all I can find was this: []. Alexikoua (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again, the historical background you just added is really catchy. I thought that some kind of template with the title 'Byzantine Literature', summarizing these topics, is a good idea, what do you believe?Alexikoua (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Greek-Italian War (1940–1941)
Heya Constantine,

This one fellow keeps trying to slap a POV tag on that article because it makes use of Greek and Italian military sources, which I find really odd since the article is about a war between Greece and Italy. Any help would be appreciated. Athenean (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sviatoslav's invasion of Bulgaria
Hi, I have reviewed Sviatoslav's invasion of Bulgaria and placed it on hold for seven days with several concerns. You can see my review here: Talk:Sviatoslav's invasion of Bulgaria/GA1. Canadian  Paul  01:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You might want to check this.
Left a response here to your comment. Thanks! -- Sulmues talk   16:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Award
Greetings! You deserve this for your enormous contributions to Wikipedia with numerous well-written, balanced and detailed articles on Byzantine history. I have decided to give you a Bulgarian award to encourage you to further create, expand and improve Byzantine-Bulgarian related topics. I hope you will continue with your fruitful work. Успех! (Success!) Regards, --Gligan (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You definitely deserve it :) On the Sviatoslav's Invasion, yes I have seen yesterday in the evening that you nominated it but I am currently terribly busy - several paper works to, two-week probation and two state exams approaching... But if I think of something, I will write you :) Best, --Gligan (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

γκ
Hi, about our moves of Lagkadas/Langadas: transliterating γκ as "gk" instead of "ng" is recommended by the United Nations, see http://www.eki.ee/wgrs/rom1_el.pdf. Wikipedia has adopted this system, see WP:GREEK. "ng" is used by the older BGN/PCGN system. So I think it should be moved back to Lagkadas. Pronunciation is something else, if you know how to pronounce the name correctly, and if you are familiar with IPA, you can add the pronunciation. As far as I know the γκ combination is pronounced like the hard (German/French/English) Voiced velar plosive g, unlike the "normal" γ, which is pronounced as a Voiced velar fricative before a, o and ou. Markussep Talk 12:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

What's the difference?
The boxes mean they're the heirs, not that they're saying they are the heirs!... 194.38.128.26 (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 194.38.128.26 you really need to start citing your sources and stop with your Original research. - dwc lr (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

User:194.38.128.26
User: 194.38.128.26 seems to have a massive problem understanding they need a source for these claims that they are inserting. Do you believe a post at WP:ANI is needed as I have tried explaining to them that they need sources but they refuse to listen I’m not sure what else could be done. - dwc lr (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want a source, check the page of Otto of Greece and other PRETENDERS, the versions immediately before my first ones. 194.38.128.26 (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Battles of the Greco-Italian War
Thanks. Actually I didn't know that there was a major battle there. I've to check some books these days. Maybe a campaign box of the major battles is needed here.Alexikoua (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

In my defense.
First, just because you don't trust my memory, that's a stupid argument. If you said that to a College Law student like the ones I know they too would think you're stupid, since they read enormous books about issue, know what's there and can even quote it sometimes, and they don't know the page where it is, but they know it's there, they're the books they know that exist and / or read or read about them elsewhere, and it's uncomprehensible how can anyone say it's not possible to do that with their memories. How does a Lawyer know so much? Everything he knows is from the books he read!... It's like you ask him: you do you know that? I've read it in the book of Professor Something, one of the main few about the issue I've learned from, he's the specialist on it. What page? I don't recall that!... Oh, in that case, I can't trust your memory!... (Although he knows stuff!...) If someone can memorize so much, why not the notion that all the Greco-Roman genealogies are on the books by that author? Not only my memory is good, though you don't know it, Christian Settipani is the only author of his kind with a work about Greek and Roman genealogies. Any work of this kind is his, period. I don't have to read the books, though I've read more or less one. You've become convinced that I am User:G.-M. Cupertino despite you never interacted or argued with him or anything. Some of the source references were made by him, but just because I decided to finish his work it doesn't mean I'm him. Why do you accuse me then? And just because some of the references are his', and on some of the pages I've worked too, when I complainted about all the work I did and you destroyed and then you answered saying that the other user has done it, you were talking about different things, since I have my own share of addings myself. Why to mix both things? Beside, what kind of bitter wikilaws fanatic without anything better to do wants to investigate me or anyone for being an "incarnation"? Do you have any pleasure in depriving people from their right to edit just because of what they complaint about, or because of the arguments they have against work destroyers? Dgarq (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The books are bullet proof, except physically, because they only have less than 200 pages and not thousands each. Mentioning a book and mentioning a page is the same, only the book is a little bigger. Don't whine about it!... Dgarq (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Iliad of Konstantinos Hermoniakos
Hallo again Constantine! I see you are in full Byzantine motion these days. I've created this article, however I'm not sure if this is the most appropriate title (maybe 'Iliad of Hermoniakos' sounds better). If you can find some additional hot material I would be greatfull (for example in the original text he doesn't mention Gods at all, but I can't support it with a secondary source). Cheers!Alexikoua (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems this guy, Kazhdan Alexander, is an invaluable source of Byzantine studies, too bad he isn't available online. Thanks for the additions and the c-e job. I believe that this is worthy a dyk.Alexikoua (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Church of the Acheiropoietos
The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Cretan diet
The editor has started a discussion on my talk page which I've moved to Talk:Cretan diet, could you join in? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Piraiki Patraiki
Hello, the fact is that in latin languages, such as English and French, words rarely start with a K. The fact that the Greek government stipulates that names ought to be translated with a 'K' is just wrong. Now, I am Christophoros Catsambas' great grandson, and I know that he spelt his name with a 'C'. This is also how I spell my name, and that's the way it is printed in my passport. Thus, please accept my view, and change the spelling to 'Catsambas'.

Thank you for your help.

Best regards, A. C. Catsambas —Preceding unsigned comment added by CUS1815 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The matter may be trivial, but I still think that the name should be spelled correctly. After all, you spell your name with a 'C'... I cannot provide you with any evidence that he spelt his name with a 'C', except for the fact that everyone in my family has the name spelt 'Catsambas' in our passports. Now, this is satisfactory evidence, as passports are documents authenticated by the Greek government. Besides, I don't think that convention has a higher say in this than someone who has this particular name! It is rather pedantic to argue that it should be spelled with a 'K', and in all honesty, I cannot see why you insist on this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CUS1815 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Bardanes Tourkos
The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

sock puppet of user:G.-M. Cupertino
Blocked 2 IPs and Dgarq. I've reverted some of their edits, but I don't have the energy to do all of them. If you see any other editors in the future you think may be socks, let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 17:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Aetios (eunuch)
Thanks for this article Victuallers (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for John Komnenos the Fat
Materialscientist (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Your message to Draganparis
Dear Mr. Plakidas,

I see that you are not anonymous and I appreciate this.

Thank you for the warning for which you believe to be appropriate. I am afraid: it is not. I had long disputes with GK1973 about the adjective “Greek” which he and many of Greek editors like very much to add to number of concepts that variably could and could not be called “Greek”. I would personally like to label everything “Greek” since I believe that we owe to the ancient Greeks for almost everything that we now call culture. Our dispute is also just what remained (correctly or wrongly) from the Greek persuasive polemics, for which the ancient Greeks knew long before Socrates. In the current example, the dispute is over the ethnic origins of the Missionaries of the Slavs, could they be called “Greek” or not. That they were of Greek culture – there is no doubt. What they had as their mental, intellectual, moral qualities, was certainly Greek in great part. The dispute is absurd, since it concerns only what we think the national origins of their parents were. I think their Greekness was such that the national origins really do not matter. Indeed, the national origins has never been told explicitly and there is absolutely no evidence about this. The great time when they lived was Byzantine time, Greek in number of aspects, Byzantine in one universal, imperial aspect. The leading historians refrain from saying what were their ethnic origins, as I said, with good reason. I cited the references long time ago on these pages. My opponents maintained that to say “Greek” is correct. I admit, I was stubborn, but I pursued more the methods and much less the facts. I insisted on coherent proofs, evaluation of references, friendly discourse, and civility. This was obviously wrong. WP is not the plaice of civility, coherence, friendly discussions, at least not on these pages. Science discussions are much better. History is politics, and politics is amoral, painful and not objective. I insisted too much, the other side insulted me permanently, and this went as it could, until I decided to “retire”. Then the administrator SGGH spotted one occasion of my edits where my opponent, GK1973, removed friendly sentence obviously to mask my good intentions (See the talk page of GK1973). Then I found number of other occasions where he did the same thing previously, something I was absolutely not aware of. This is amoral and for you who will remain on Wikipedia, must be important that such thing do not happen. I am certainly RETIRED, but just wanted to drive the attention of you and of the other editors to one of bad sides of Wikipedia. I do not object now to saying that the missionaries were “Greek”. If majority (I think this is virtual majority, but anyway) decides to state this, this is fine. I object to the method how this has been decided, propaganda dumping, no reference verification, aggressive tone, direct insults. What is the most important, I object to incivility, direct insults and such malicious actions which GK1973 has done. This can not be tolerated. I hope that you will understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.89.18.134 (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Staurakios (eunuch)
The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Hermogenes (magister officiorum)
The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Staurakios (eunuch)/GA1
Hi, I have reviewed your GA nomination and left a few comments at Talk:Staurakios (eunuch)/GA1. Thanks, Xtzou ( Talk ) 18:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Pictures
It seems your uploads are of much better quality than mine, especially this File:Battle_of_Sangarios_1921.png. I've recently uploaded several historical pictures in commons, in case you have time to check them. Just noticed your email, thank you very much. This stuff burns.Alexikoua (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I couldn't find this part about Venizelos... The following days I'll add some additional guys, that were ready to conquer the skies. Thanks for your invaluable assistance on the subject.Alexikoua (talk) 07:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

John Kourkouas
I've completed your request to the guild of copy editors for a review of the article John Kourkouas. There were two dabs, one of which I de-dabbed. The other palatine chapel led to two possible chapels, and I didn't think either of them were correct. Cappella Palatina (Constantinople) is the proper one, right? Not the one in Aachen or Palermo (which also has Byzantine art, btw). You might want to stub it. Or not. Please read through, as well, to make sure I didn't change meaning. I tried to be clear(er). Very informative article. I'd done some brief work with you on it before. I'd say ready for ACR now. I'd support it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Achelous (1359)
Since you made some edits in this & I was immediately reverted with an obvious wrong edit summary. Can you please take a look too, as a Byz. expert?Alexikoua (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Despotate
You may be true, but why is that so? I mean, do we know that for sure?Balkanian`s word (talk) 10:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Pindus
If you have some seconds available, I've expanded this article but since it is without a picture I thought if this [] (p. 22) could be used under 'fair use'.Alexikoua (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Athenais (great granddaughter of Herodes Atticus)
I've removed the db template from this article. This woman from the antiquity is notable enough as to be mentioned in several references and having her statue in a museum. (The title of the article, however, does look a bit strange). I hope you can agree with my findings; JoJan (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Neopatras
Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Move
Can you please move back Pandeli Çale to Pandeli Cale. It was a mistake of a fellow editor, which is now explained. Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry i thought you were admin. You merit to be either way. Cheers, Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Kretsi is not snippet and she says it clearly. Maybe it is wrong, but I tried to find the term "Thesprotia" as an official one before 1936 and I couldn`t. On the other hand, the fact that Chameria was a name for the region is clear on sources before 1936, as well as the creation of Party of the Chameria, I do not guess that Greece would have allowed an irredentist name in a name of the party, unless it was the official name of the region. What do you think? Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sorry it was a wrong link for Kretsi, it is in here page 172. Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I see, ok, but if Thesprotia as e term was not in use in any manner (I mean neither by sources) before 1936 when it became an administrative division, wouldn`t that imply the "rename" verb? Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Idea
Please, if you are an Orthodox, give me a help in the religion matters in here.Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

ευχαριστω! Ανυπομωνω να συνδραμω στο projectMetsobon34 (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Donald Nicol
ευχαριστώ σας για την μετάφραση του άρθρου Donald Nicol στα αγγλικά. υπάρχει άλλα άρθρα από 'δώ. Uoeia (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC) και γιατί δεν τα μεταφράζεις στα ελληνικά; Uoeia (talk) 08:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Hi, i saw you edited Thanasis Vagias. I think he was an albanian from Lekli (Thanas Vaja). Stupidus Maximus (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:Italian Mare Nostrum
Hi Constantine, thanks for the note. It is indeed Bruno playing games again. I've redirected the article. Best, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Greetings from Greece
Hey my friend.Nice to meet a compatriot, thanks for your help. I'm just learning the basics.Cheers CrazyMartini (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyMartini (talk • contribs) 20:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for John Palaiologos (Despot)
The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

GA nomination of George Mouzalon
Hi, just dropping you a note that I've put this nomination on hold for seven days to give you time to work out a couple of minor little problems. You can see the nomination here. Thanks! Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC).


 * Just a follow-up to let you know that I have passed the article as a GA as a result of your changes. Congratulations!  Please consider passing this forward and reviewing a GA yourself to keep the backlogs manageable.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC).

Berat
Hey, nice article going up. Good work. You might want to change the link for the Angevin commander to just Hugh of Sully or Hugh de Sully; "le Rousseau" was his nickname, given for his hair. Choess (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Nicholas X. Notias
Mr.Cplakidas,

The "X." in this persons full name,wasn't there by mistake.Nicholas X. Notias uses this specific signature and every document of the Lloyd's Register reports his full name written that way.If you want to verify the source, here is the link of the official Society of Maritime Arbitrators: http://www.smany.org/sma/memberRoster.html

The name of this person was written that way on purpous and I would like you to re-modify the title of the article.

Thank you for your attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohbanebane (talk • contribs) 11:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)