User talk:No. 108

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, No. 108, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Byzantine Empire. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Just a small note: cld y prhps mk it a hbt t spll out yr edt smrs a bit mre? :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)}}

Thank you for welcoming me and sorry about the abbreviations. No. 108 (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Greece Invitation
Interesting offer. I'll think about it. No. 108 (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

"Illyrian" type helmet
Nice ref management in general, but its better that we keep the 'snippets' somewhere in the inlines, since without them a new wave of revert war might broke out.Alexikoua (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Very well. No. 108 (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Dacia Ripenses
Cool work and cleanup on Dacia Ripensis! Thanks! --Codrinb (talk) 03:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. No. 108 (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Dacia
Hi, I saw that you collaborated on articles related to Dacia and thought this could be of interest: WikiProject Dacia is looking for supporters, editors and collaborators for creating and better organizing information in articles related to Dacia and the history of Daco-Getae. If interested, PLEASE provide your support on the proposal page. Thanks!!--Codrinb (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer, but I'll need to think about it before making a decision. No. 108 (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

A question
Why exactly do your edit summaries look like this? I noticed one edit you made and then discovered that they're all pretty much like that, and it peaked my curiosity. I assume you're using some type of automated editing software, but it doesn't indicate what it is in edit summaries (as most do), so I thought I'd ask. Regards,  Swarm  X 05:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess one could look at "Stable Version" as both a reference point and as a stamp of inspection. Aside from that, there's really nothing special about my edit summaries (software-wise at least). I'm not sure if that answers your question, but it's nice of you to ask anyway. Thanks for the visit and please continue making good faith edits. Have a nice day friend. No. 108 (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh. That's interesting. I've just never seen anyone do that before so I was curious. Thank you for the reply.  Swarm  X 20:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Lalakaon
Thanks for improving the citation format at Battle of Lalakaon (and other articles). However, I'd like to make a request: if you have access to Haldon's Byzantine Wars, I'd prefer if you used only the pages where a specific citation comes from (i.e. not cite the entire pp. 83-89 range), both for ease of verification and for consistency. If it is no problem, perhaps you'd like to go over the citations at Thomas the Slav too... Constantine  ✍  21:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your positive feedback Constantine and would like to apologize for any errors found in the entry's current "Stable Version". The truth is that I currently do not have access to Haldon's "Byzantine Wars", and was forced to utilize Google Books as a temporary substitute where the Battle of Lalakaon is mentioned on both page 83 and page 89. When I do obtain a copy of Haldon's work (English edition), I will attempt to rectify the errors you've noted and establish a more reliable "Stable Version". And as always, please continue making good faith contributions. Thank you.

P.S. Your request for a "Stable Version" on the Thomas the Slav entry is noted. No. 108 (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only '''5 minutes’’’. cooldenny (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for all your efforts with referencing in A.M article. Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome and keep up the good work. :) No. 108 (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. Well done again with your efforts. There are two things I'd question:


 * WRT "restoring deletion of sourced content". The paragraph you re-included was removed already because its content is already present in the 4 recently introduced paragraphs covering history, culture, identity, etc. Content in the 'ancient sources' paragraph you re-included, as well as the 'modern discussions' sections is still there. Essentially the two paragraphs in themselves are redundant, and merely represent a duplicated section. Of course, if there is anything that is left out, or a particular interpretation you wish included, then this can easily be worked into the paragraph.


 * lastly, I suggest that the lede is left as an "ancient people", leaving an specific label out. As Im sure you've you'd agree from the readings, the situation was rather complex, and for the sake of brevity, and staying true to current scholarly opinion, we should just leave it at that


 * What is your opinion ?


 * Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to appreciate the work of a humble inspector. The issues you've raised in regards to Patch 9.00 of the entry's "Stable Version" are explained as follows:

1) The purpose of reintroducing the "Ancient sources" subsection is to provide readers (including myself) a ready short-hand summary of what the primary literature stipulates regarding the identity of the Ancient Macedonians.

2) As far as I can tell, the apparent purpose of the "Dynamics" subsection is to provide readers a detailed analysis of the various historical and socio-political forces influencing the classical authors, as well as Ancient Macedonian identity itself.

3) The purpose of reintroducing the "Modern scholarship" subsection is to provide readers a historical assessment of Ancient Macedonian identity from the perspective of 19th and 20th century scholarship.

In short, the "redundancies" you've noted are in fact necessary components of a structured and comprehensible "Identity" section. However, if I am mistaken and there are in fact useless redundancies, then I'd appreciate any assistance towards further improving the entry's current "Stable Version".

As for the lead paragraph, I have no stake in the scintillating "debates" over whether the ancient Macedonians should be labelled as "Greeks", "non-Greeks", "partial Greeks", or simply an "ancient people". But if you really want my opinion, then I humbly recommend the phrase "ancient Greek people" for the lead paragraph since most classical scholars, however ambiguous in their writings, do regard the ancient Macedonians as Greeks. Also, the "common consensus" (however defined) among most essentialist and non-essentialist scholars is that the ancient Macedonians were Greeks. As for me, I personally could care less about the origins of the ancient Macedonians since my focus is on the historical direction of ancient Macedonian identity, which clearly moves toward some form of "Greekness" (however one wishes to define such a term). Yet, I do think (based on the available evidence at least) that the ancient Macedonians were Greeks originally, but developed a distinct form of "Greekness" that directly coincided with their sense of Macedonian topicalism, a style of regionalism based on ancient Macedon's geographical isolation from the southern Greek city-states, as well as on its complex relations with its neighbors (i.e. Epirotians, Illyrians, Thracians).

I hope that this (loquacious) explanation convinces you to preserve Patch 9.00 of current "Stable Version". And as always, please continue making good faith edit contributions. Thank you and Happy Easter. No. 108 (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC


 * It would be simplifying a complicated matter, and perhaps even wrong, to label them as Greek in the lede. Because from the outset till after Alexander - arguably THE most defining and important period of Macedonian history - they were not, by and large, considered by contemporaries as Greeks. There is nothing ambiguous here, the evidence is as clear as day. So it is most ideal we leave it as "ancient tribe" lest we complicate and needlessly lengthen the lede by stating something like "they formed amidst a peripherally Greek, central Balkan cultural background and were gradually increasingly Hellenized, and were referred to as Greeks by Roman times." And, btw, unless I am mistaken, the previously stable version prior to your amendment was the neutral "ancient tribe".


 * Perhaps you're right, but this humble inspector finds ancient Macedonian identity to constitute a topical form of "Greekness" much like the topical "Greekness" exhibited in each of the tribes of Epirus. As for the "contemporaries" you mention, they mainly constituted Greek city-states that looked down upon anything and everything that did not adhere to the Pan-Hellenic standard. This explains why Thucydides, for example, deems the tribes of Epirus and the ancient Macedonians as "barbarians". But even if we were to take a number of contemporary accounts at face value and assume that the ancient Macedonians were not Greek, then why would Alexander specifically spread Greek language and culture to usher in the Hellenistic (rather than Macedonian) period? No. 108 (talk) 03:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The 'consensus' you mention is also a falsehood. That is another problem with the "ancient sources" section as it was - it ONLY included statements by ancient authors which did say they were Greek; and entirely excluded (a larger) body who claimed the contrary. Basically, the article was previously very skewed. The case is the same with modern scholars. There appears to exist a consensus supporting a Greek origin. However, articles/scholars which focus/specialize on the specific issue of their ethnicity refrain from equating them with anything else rather than "Macedonian" (and, if anything, suggest they were non-Greeks who became highly Hellenized - again by Roman times, when Macedonia virtually ceased to exist as an independent polity). The plethora of other works referenced in apparent support of their Greekness are general books which rather focus on general Greek history, perhaps mention in passing that the Macedonians spoke Greek, or were so. On some occasions, in fact, the sources were blatantly misrepresented or hedged to support one pov in a particularly chauvinistic way. Either way - the specialist literature paints a rather different picture, and if there were any consensus to be had, it's the opposite to that of the stable version you propose. I hope it does not come to me going through every source to prove this to you.


 * I may just be a humble inspector, but I find that a consensus is only a falsehood if and only if it is conclusively proven to embody a falsehood vis-a-vis historical actuality and not vis-a-vis shifting academic criteria developed by contrarian schools of thought possessing contrarian ideological worldviews. As for the "Ancient sources" subsection, it is true that the overall subsection contains statements that tend to portray the ancient Macedonians as Greeks and should include (in summary form) the body of evidence that you mentioned in the "Dynamics" subsection (i.e. Thrasymachus of Chalcedon, Apollodorus, Herodotus [implicitly], Thucydides, Pseudo–Scymnos, Hecateus, Arrian). But one should keep in mind that the aforementioned authors view the ancient Macedonians as "distinct" based on their strict adherence to the Pan-Hellenic geneaological standard. I'd expect the same trend from these authors if we were discussing the various non-Hellen-based geneaologies developed by Greek tribes such as Chaon for the Chaonians, Polypoetes for the Thesprotians, and Molossus (grandson of Achilles) for the Molossians. It is logically (and historically) erroneous to deem non-Hellen-based geneaologies as less "Greek" than Hellen-based geneaologies in order to simultaneously promote the "Macedonianness" and non-Greekness of the ancient Macedonians. As for the specialists, their "focus" would naturally result in their emphasizing the "Macedonianness" of the ancient Macedonians much in the same manner as their focus on separate Greek tribes would result in their emphasizing the "Chaonianness" of the Chaonians, the "Molossianness" of the Molossians, the "Spartanness" of the Spartans, the "Athenianness" of the Athenians, the "Aetolianness" of the Aetolians, etc. Although the specialist literature does embody an anti-essentialist worldview, it tends to essentialize "the Greeks" in order to validate a de-essentialization (perhaps de-Hellenization?) of the ancient Macedonians. Oddly enough, I fail to see any specialists focus their efforts towards de-essentializing the "Germanicness" of the Teutons in favor of emphasizing their "Teutonness" as distinct from other Germanic tribes. No. 108 (talk) 03:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * For the simple reason that Attic was already an established koine in much of the north Aegean even prior to the Macedonian expansion. As we say in Australia: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". This does not automoatically, nor necessarily infer any inherent value of ethnic belonging. Just like French was the lingua franca of diplomacy in early modern Europe, even amongst regions/ monarch with particular anti-French attitudes.


 * If you prefer to keep the ancient sources subsection, then we will have to include a vast amount of extra, previously excluded, material. Again, all redundant because it is all included in my version. It's effect would only serve to needlessly prolong an already lengthy article, and quite frankly, makes it look ugly, unscholarly and amateurish when content in one paragraph is immediately repeated in the next. If you wish the specific ancient sources to stand out, they can be italicized and linked to online Strabo histories, etc.


 * As I said earlier, if there are any useless redundancies, then I'd appreciate any assistance towards further improving the entry's current "Stable Version". No. 108 (talk) 03:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The historiography in the old "modern discussions" section can be easily worked into my paragraphs. The rest of it is, again, duplicated material, therefore redundant. Specific references need not be lost, but can be tacked on. Please allow me to formulate a suggested format how we can, both, keep what you suggest, whilst compacting/avoiding needless repetition. Give me couple of days. Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no intention of stopping you, but I do recommend streamlining things with my comments in mind (i.e. remember the direction of ancient Macedonian identity). And as always, please continue making good faith edit contributions. Thank you. No. 108 (talk) 03:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * P.S. Perhaps reading "Greek Perceptions of Ethnicity and the Ethnicity of the Macedonians" by historical specialist Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood may prove helpful to you. I wish you the best of luck in your efforts. No. 108 (talk) 03:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * OK. All valid points, and we might leave the discussion on Molossian et al tribes which in itself is just as complex and intriguing. I am not saying that there is a consensus for nay or yay, what appears to be the consensus is that that there is no consensus(!). Nor can we expect a consensus when we are mostly dealing with scholarly interpretations; This is fine, there is nothing wrong with a lack of consensus, or a lack of one answer; as long as we support this accurately and represent this fairly and neutrally. Hall does not essentialize Greekness, but sees it as an emerging pan-identity from the 7th to 4th centuries, and the nature by which "Greekness" itself was defined varied and changed.


 * I have read C S-Is paper, and shall re-read it; and can certainly incorporate some of her interpretations.


 * Once again, Happy Easter. Slovenski Volk (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm puzzled. If what you say is true and there is currently no consensus, then why are there hundreds of expert scholars from different fields of study openly declaring that Alexander and the ancient Macedonians were Greeks? Do we assume that these scholars are persona non grata for establishing an actual "yay" consensus on the issue of the ancient Macedonians' "Greekness" despite their possessing the same specialist knowledge exhibited in Roisman and Worthington's Companion? Happy Easter to you too by the way. No. 108 (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Mr 108. I am aware of that widely circulated piece of propaganda depicting the 'widespread outrage' of scholars throughout the world protesting against the 'usurpation' of a country's. People might be less aware of the counter-response to this. A large number of other scholars condemned the actions of the scholars involved, criticizing their involvement in what was clearly a modern political issue which had absolutely nothing to do with ancient Macedonians. Moreover, many of those scholars who sent in these letters subsequently withdrew their letters. (I can reference this for you if you wish). As I have already stated, what consensus you speak of, at least on the surface, does not exist in depth. If you look at the most prolific, widely renowned, non-Balkan authors who have devoted entire chapters or books to the issue of Macedonian (Hall, Malkin, Engels, Anson, Green, Borza, Badian, etc), and Greek ethnicity in general; it will quickly become apparent that the version of "identity" I created mirrors this. And you seem to be a knowledgeable chap - surely you yourself are aware of what the earliest ancient scholars had to say on the matter; just follow the progression from denial of Hellenicity to acceptance. Obviously, for them to be accepted as Greeks eventually means they must have been similar in the first place, for no Persian, or even Roman, was ever considered a Hellene despite their propensity for cultural development which arguably surpassed the great Ancient Greeks. I do not think my version is untrue to any of this. If you have any quality, detailed & recent piece of work which directly argues against what the above have written (Christine noted), then please forward it to me; I would be only happy to include it. Otherwise, passing references in books dealing with general political history of classical/hellenistic Greece which might mention, in a passing and simplistic manner that the Macedonians might have spoken Greek (or something to that effect), do not constitute a clear consensus in anyway, shape or form; especially given that a large body of high quality literature already exists which clearly demonstrates that ethnicity was a very complex and formative process; and that of the Macedonians slowly evolved to share a commonness with central/ southern Greeks. No offense, but i would have thought that an obviously intelligent chap like yourself would not take too much heed from some of the info in Macedonia.org (although I admit it does have its uses - eg the works of Hatzopoulos, who I respect highly) Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Propaganda or not, the fact that there are specialist scholars that acknowledge the "Greekness" of the ancient Macedonians should not be ignored. Even if the "yay consensus" scholars withdrew their signatures, why would they even care to sign the letter in the first place if they didn't have any say on the overall matter? But in any case, the "Hellenicity" of the ancient Macedonians was "denied" (technically semi-denied), because the classical authors viewed the ancient Macedonians as Greeks who were not "Greek enough" in accordance with Greek city-state standards. Yet, if I am not mistaken, the theoroi/theorodokoi would visit Macedon despite the politicized vitriol exchanged between the ancient Macedonians and the Greek city-states. (The same can be said for Epirus where the theoroi/theorodokoi visited Greek tribes despite the fact that they were not "Greek enough" in accordance with Greek city-state standards. I humbly recommend reviewing the expert analysis of the inscriptional evidence provided on p. 231 of N.G.L. Hammond's Collected Studies.) Had Macedon been populated by non-Greeks (or simply "Macedonians" with very limited connections to Greek cultural elements), then why would the theoroi/theorodokoi care to consistently visit Macedon prior to the political choices made by the ancient Macedonians to support the Greek city-states against Persia? The "no consensus" specialists you emphasize choose to focus on the regional identity of the ancient Macedonians as a means of avoiding/ending the issue as to whether or not the ancient Macedonians were Greeks. But what do the "no consensus" specialists you emphasize ignore or at least downplay? For starters, they ignore or downplay the pre-Archaic (technically Mycenaean and Dark Age) forces that contributed to the formation of ancient Macedonian (regional) identity prior to the inclusion of Central Balkan cultural influences. Second, they ignore or downplay evidence that does confirm a "Greek" direction of ancient Macedonian identity (i.e. Pella curse tablet). Of course, Jonathan Hall makes a logical argument by stating that no conclusions should be made based on one tablet. But had the katadesmos been written in a "Macedonian" language that was not Greek or even related to Greek (like Phrygian), I guarantee you that the "no consensus" specialists would use the evidence as direct proof of the (linguistic) non-Greekness of the ancient Macedonians and would henceforth promote the "Macedonianness" of the ancient Macedonians. Rather than allow the evidence to guide their worldview, the "no consensus" specialists are utilizing neutrality as a guise towards promoting an academic ideology oriented on emphasizing identity formation (social constructionism) without at least acknowledging the "brute facts" that contributed to the identity process. Could I be wrong in my assessment? Perhaps. But as I've inquired earlier, if the ancient Macedonians were so "Macedonian" during a time when Macedon was a rising and near-unchallenged power, why would the ancient Macedonians specifically spread Greek language and culture throughout the known world instead of "Macedonian culture"? Why did all the foreign nations that Alexander defeated and subjugated referred to the ancient Macedonians as Greeks (Yunani)? Why didn't Alexander demand from the civilizations he conquered to be named and recorded in history as a "Macedonian" and not as a "Greek"? (And don't tell me he didn't have any opportunities to do so.) Although I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, I'm smart enough to know that a specialist, by nature, tends to stare at an individual tree and assumes that what applies to the tree is applicable to an entire forest. And another thing, if the "no consensus" specialists assume that the the ancient Macedonians were just ancient Macedonians, then why are they basing a significant portion of their overall consensus on the classical "denial of Macedonian Hellenicity" formulated based on the politicized biases of the ancient Greeks towards the non-city-state Greek ethne? Wouldn't this necessarily render the "no consensus" argument as subjective and somewhat dubious? Think about it. And since we are speaking on formal terms, I'd like to request that you refer to me as "Inspector" No. 108 given that my humble purpose on this project is quality management. In any case, I still look forward to reading and inspecting your good faith edit contributions to the entry's current "Stable Version". Have a nice day friend. :) No. 108 (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Inspector No. 108, with respect to the ‘stable version’ – the previous editorial consensus version left out any direct ethnic appelatives in the lede; my recent edits did not change that; and so I would call into question you ‘restoring’ a previously stable version as far as the lede goes.


 * Good point Sir Slovenski. No. 108 (talk) 05:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Secondly, your interpretation of what the ancient literary sources said is obviously inspired by S-Inwood’s analysis; certainly valid – and worthy of inclusion. Essentially, you don’t agree with the constructionist approach to ethnicity, which is certainly your entitlement, but it is the dominant dogma today amongst expert anthropologists and ethnologists. The earliest ancient sources are clear in what they say, though how this is interpreted might differ. Whether one takes Inwood’s interpretation (and yours) that this was merely a cultural snobbery, or as Hall and others highlight that this represented a bona fide ethnic exclusion, the fact is that the criteria for Hellenicity was largely cultural by the 5th century; so Inwood’s interpretation is somewhat circular and self-contradictory. Either way, there nevertheless was something ‘essential’ in the southern Greek’s observation of Macedonian customs which was not quite "Greek".


 * Technically, my "interpretation" of the ancient literary was based mainly on the structure of cultural and political logic exhibited in the classical literature itself. As for the constructionist approach to ethnicity, you are correct in that it is the current "dogma" in academia, which ironically renders it as problematic as the essentialist approach during its "dogma heyday" in academic circles. If anything, both paradigms are individually problematic in that the former approach focuses on "social facts" whereby the latter approach focuses on "brute facts". I personally prefer adhering to historical actuality, which in this case would involve an assessment of both social and brute facts. Though I disagree with the constructionist approach to ethnicity, it doesn't mean that it doesn't have its uses. The same can be said for the essentialist approach to ethnicity. As for Sourvinou-Inwood's "interpretation" of the evidence, I highly doubt she utilizes circular logic given that she follows a more balanced approach (social and brute) towards understanding and potentially resolving the issue of the ancient Macedonians' "Greekness". I could be incorrect in my assessment of course, but I do appreciate you taking my comments seriously and including her analysis in the overall "Stable Version". For that I thank you. No. 108 (talk) 05:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It might be well and good that the theorodokoi frequented Macedon – but when did this begin? Surely, not in the 6th century, or even 5th.


 * I think you are going to like my answer given that its derived verbatim from Miltiades Hatzopoulos's Perception of the Self and the Other: The Case of Macedon (like you, I highly respect the man and the work he's done):


 * "A piece of evidence which until very recently had gone unnoticed is the actual presence of Macedonians and Epirotes in the panhellenic sanctuaries, which is first attested in the Archaic period, but increases dramatically in the second half of the fourth century. Alexander I was neither the first nor the only Macedonian active at a panhellenic sanctuary in the fifth century. He had been preceded at Delphi by Macedonians from Pieria, and both his fifth century successors Perdikkas II and Archelaos participated in panhellenic festivals at Olympia, Delphi or Argos."


 * The aforementioned quote also has some valuable information in footnote #35:


 * "See the new monograph by Manuela Mari, (Olimpo 29-66). Imaginative scenarios about Archelaos’ and the other Macedonian kings’ exclusion from the panhellenic shrines and the creation of counter-Olympics at Dion (cf. Badian “Greeks” 35; Borza, “Archelaos” 129) not only are explicitly contradicted by the unique available literary source (Solinus 9.16), but are also implicitly refuted by epigraphic evidence such as the Epidauros list and the inscribed tripod from the great tomb of Vergina (M. Andronikos, Vergina: The Royal Tombs, Athens 1984, 165-66; see now Mari, Olimpo 35-36). From Epirus too, in the first half of the sixth century, the Molossian Alkon had been present at the Olympic Games along with other young Greek nobles (Herod. 6.127.4; cf. Cabanes, Les Illyriens 24; Malkin, "Ambiguities" 201." No. 108 (talk) 05:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As far the archaeological front, with all due respect to your otherwise well-informed opinion, you are way off the beaten track. The Bronze and Iron Age background to Macedon had little to do with central and southern Greece. Macedon was well outside Mycenaean civilization, the northern limits of which was Thessaly. This is certainly clear from the archaeological evidence. Yes, odd bits of Mycenean pottery (eg at Aini), accounting to less than 10% of total assemblages, are seen (hardly surprising), showing some evidence of trade with Mycenaean centres. Petrologic analysis shows that these in any case were locally made. And apart from few other traded items, eg Mycenaean swords, Macedonia shows nothing of the Mycenaean world – totally different burial, settlement and pottery forms. If anything, Macedonia displays more cultural affinities with the west Balkans and lower Danube regions. It is only from the 6th century that a pervasive presence of characteristically “Greek” items appear (eg Corinthian, Attric, etc), although, indeed small amounts of Proto-Geometric and Euboean Geometric items are seen throughout “Dark Ages”. So the archaeological/ material cultural background of Macedon was separate and independent from Greece proper, and if anything, more aligned with the north.


 * Perhaps you're right. But then again, there is evidence that the Mycenaeans did establish themselves in Macedon even though most of the settlements were concentrated in the south and were developed mainly during the Late Bronze Age. Of course, it's clearly up to you if you want to incorporate this valuable data, as well as the assessments made by archaeological specialists Curtis Runnels and Priscilla Murray (I humbly recommend reviewing page 115 of Greece before History: An Archaeological Companion and Guide). In any case, it would technically be more reasonable to argue that there was no pervasive Mycenaean presence in Macedon rather than state that there were absolutely no Mycenaeans in Macedon. And if I'm not mistaken, Carol J. King (Macedonian Kingship and Other Political Institutions, pp. 375-376) stated: "How much the Macedonians were influenced by Mycenaean civilization is questionable, yet early Macedonian kingship does evoke Homeric aristocratic structures." So, even if you could argue that there was absolutely no Mycenaean presence in Macedon, the Mycenaeans did have some influence on early Macedonian identity (at least in aristocratic spheres). Food for thought. No. 108 (talk) 05:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hall disregards this in his talk because it is somewhat peripheral to the issue of identity – because as far as he is concerned: this is an issue of how Greeks saw themselves viz-a-viz Macedonians, and no analysis of pottery, or what have you, will better elucidate this.


 * It's peripheral to him, because he focuses on social facts. But I'm just a humble inspector so what do I know? No. 108 (talk) 05:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The evidence of PCT, and other scripts, are certainly very pertinent. Whilst the PCT tablet need not necessarily represent true Macedonian (if such a thing as "standard Macedonian" existed), it nevertheless represents a local, nativized form of Greek spoken in Macedonia from at least the 5th century.


 * Nativized? Frankly, I've actually never thought of it that way. But then again, the expert linguists seem pretty straightforward on the linguistic "Greekness" of ancient Macedonian (even though the language constitutes a uniquely formulated form of Doric Greek with influences from Thracian, Phrygian, and Illyrian linguistic elements). But let's play devil's advocate and argue that ancient Macedonian embodied some form of non-Greek that was Hellenized in the 5th century BC. Have archaeologists uncovered any pre-5th century inscriptional evidence that can prove this? I know I haven't seen anything. Have you? (Non-Greek loanwords in the Pella curse tablet don't count.) No. 108 (talk) 05:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * However, this evidence does not prove that this had always been the case (i.e. in the Dark Ages you speak of). What the linguistic situation was in the Dark Ages can only be hypothesized given the lack of direct evidence, but as Wyatt et al have pointed out, the earliest evidence for Greek is from the south/east, and all the linguistic innovations which contributed to the ongoing synthesis/formation of Greek dialects came from there too, and subsequently radiated outward to the north and west who accommodated/converged with such changes.


 * Perhaps. But until further evidence and archaeological breakthroughs emerge, we're just stuck with Dark Age hypotheses. No. 108 (talk) 05:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * So, even if you want to look at the 'brute facts' all the hallmarks again point toward a Hellenization/Aegeanization of a regional population which had never previously been part of such a koine to any substantive degree.


 * Perhaps you're right Sir Slovenski. But then again, the data I've submitted seems to indicate that the 'brute facts' point specifically to an Atticization of Macedon rather than a generic Hellenization of a supposedly non-Greek territory. In other words, Macedon's regional Greek identity was replaced (more or less) by a specifically Athenian variant of Greek identity. This assessment may appear incorrect to you, but it does make sense given the fact that you don't see too many Pella curse tablets after the middle of the 4th century BC in Macedon. No. 108 (talk) 05:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Notwithstanding, I shall keep you informed with developments, and will seek to further streamline the identity, and certainly include some more of your suggestions. Slovenski Volk (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see that you are working hard and am happy to have you contribute to the entry's current "Stable Version". Please keep me posted on any new developments even if I don't respond immediately to your messages. And as always Sir Slovenski, please continue making good faith edit contributions. Thank you. :) No. 108 (talk) 05:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know - I streamed the 'ancient sources' into a general discussion, highlighting individual authors to stand out, and (hopefully) integrating external links. I added the interpretations offered by Inwood and Hatsopoulos. The modern discussion section for the most part was included in a historiography section preceding it. Certain parts of it were already included in the "culture" section, things which were not, eg the stuff on Aiani, were added. Slovenski Volk (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for notifying me Sir Slovenski. No. 108 (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you please comment here Slovenski Volk (talk) 02:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

What?
What on earth are you trying to accomplish by reverting my edit with no explanation? Especially before I'm even able to fully explain my reversion, as I said I was going to in my edit summary? I'm going to refrain from reverting you, but I would very much appreciate an explanation of why your edit is anything less than blatant disruption.  Swarm  X 17:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, pleasure to meet your acquaintance. Second, my actions (as a humble inspector) fail to meet your standards of "blatant disruption". If you carefully read my edit summary, I specifically stated that I restored the sourced content (i.e. Millar and James citations) that you deleted (out of good faith of course) while incorporating some of the more useful edits that you have made to the lead paragraph. These actions were simply meant to preserve and improve the quality of the entry's "Stable Version". I have no incentive (let alone reason) to bear any animus towards you (or anyone), because my sole purpose on this project is quality management. In any case, I'd like to personally thank you for discussing your grievances with me and hope that you continue making good faith edit contributions. Have a splendid day friend. :-) No. 108 (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you restoring some of the content that was removed. I was getting extremely frustrated by the repeated removal of my entire edit due to one small aspect of that edit. Regards,  Swarm  X 04:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. Your edits by far have generally improved the quality of the entry's "Stable Version". Thank you for your efforts and I hope that you continue submitting more good faith edit contributions. Have a glorious day. :-) No. 108 (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
I am honoured for your gratitude and look forward to continue working together Slovenski Volk (talk) 12:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Macedonians

 * Then, given that his edits are entirely unsourced, and contrary to that which is, may I beseech this humble quality inspector to revert the anonymous editor who appears to merely be pushing his POV Slovenski Volk (talk) 11:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Beaten to the punch by Jingiby. :-) No. 108 (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey bud, I removed the addition of "specifically NW Greek stock" because (a) this is elaborated in the "Early History" section, (b) it is somewhat redundant given that that NW Greeks were considered, in general, ancient Greeks anyway, and (c) the concept of a distinctly identifiable "biological stock" of people is rather tenuous. In fact, Borza abandons that cited idea in his subsequent works 9 Before Alexander. I hope you do not mind this suggestion, if you disagree, feel free to add it back in. Slovenski Volk (talk) 06:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for notifying me about the changes you've made Sir Slovenski (I knew from the beginning that your actions were done in good faith). The addition I submitted to the entry's "Stable Version" ("derived specifically from north-west Greek stock") was merely an attempt to assist you in your efforts to build a slightly more nuanced lead paragraph. Moreover, I thought that by adding the phrase I would provide both a rudimentary clarification of the phrase "Generally described as an ancient Greek people" and a basic summary of the detailed "Early History" section (killing two birds with one stone).


 * As for Borza, I think he was quite consistent with regarding the ancient Macedonians as of (north-west) Greek stock (see page 114 of Makedonika [1995] and page 78 of In the Shadow of Olympus [1990]). In his more recent work, Before Alexander, he states on page 39 that he does not know who the ancient Macedonians were or what language they spoke, which is clearly an argument of explicit uncertainty rather than negation of earlier statements made in his previous publications. Unless Borza explicitly states that the ancient Macedonians were not of Greek stock or were specifically derived from a semi-Greek or non-Greek stock, then his earlier statements are not entirely wrong or entirely useless. As far as I and historical actuality are concerned, the Makednoi were in fact "Greek highlanders" that were outside of the cultural and political mainstream of central and southern Greece. Borza was not the only scholar who knew this already. As for the tenuousness of "biological stock", I see no element of actual tenuousness exhibited in the phrase that would ultimately bring harm (quality-wise) to the entry's "Stable Version". If the Makednoi were in fact derived from "Greek stock" (however one wishes to define the term), then that is a fact that should be shown in the entry.


 * I regret vexing you with this loquacious response my friend and hope that my reinserting the phrase in question ("derived specifically from north-west Greek stock") does not ultimately sever our collaborative efforts. Thank you very much for taking this humble inspector's two cents into consideration. I wish you all the best and please continue making good faith edit contributions. No. 108 (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * P.S. Expect to see improvements to the lead paragraph. No. 108 (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Settepozzi
Hallo, concerning the article "Battle of Settepozzi". You removed 2 sources, on the base they are unverified. I re-added them in your format and because a direct link wasnt possible in Cat.Literature, due to a very long address, i will show you the verification here: http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=CrJBAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=geschichte+der+italienischen+staaten:+vom+jahre+1268+-+1492&hl=en&ei=bch4Tu3HD6fi4QTyj72KDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false On Page 34, it reads in german: " Bei Settepozzi (den sieben Brunnen) kam es, unter dem Befehl Gilbert Dandolos, zu einer Schlacht, in welcher der genuesische Admiral Pietro de' Grimaldi blieb, vier genuesische Galeeren genommen wurden, und die übrigen sich nach Malvasia - 1263 flüchteten " Stating that Dandolo was admiral of the venetians and Grimaldi admiral of the genoese and killed in battle with loss of 4 galleys. the second source, Camillo Manfroni: http://www.google.com.sg/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4IRFA_enSG228SG228&q=manfroni+400+ferirti#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&rlz=1T4IRFA_enSG228SG228&tbm=bks&source=hp&q=manfroni+400+feriti&pbx=1&oq=manfroni+400+feriti&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=2850l2850l1l3040l1l1l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=63df6b87b0e2bf77&biw=1024&bih=545 and for verification page 10 http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=T2EOAAAAIAAJ&q=Da+Canale,+soltanto+20+morti,+ma+ben+400+feriti+,+ei+Genovesi+ebbero+600+fra+morti+e+feriti+e+400+prigionieri.&dq=Da+Canale,+soltanto+20+morti,+ma+ben+400+feriti+,+ei+Genovesi+ebbero+600+fra+morti+e+feriti+e+400+prigionieri.&hl=en&ei=Kcp4TqfwH-jZ4QSk16yJDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA reads in Italian: " cifre del Da Canale, soltanto 20 morti, ma ben 400 feriti, ei Genovesi ebbero 600 fra morti e feriti e 400 prigionieri " Stating that the casualties on venetian side were 20 killed and a good 400 wounded. Daufer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC).

Question
Hi Inspector. In the Donzelot article I removed the body of the references and replaced them with abbreviations while moving them at the end in the refence section, to improve readability during the edit mode as shown here. I would like to do the same for the article of the Artenis Temple in Corfu. But since you used a citation mechanism with which I am not completely familiar I don't want to do it this on my own. Since I don't want to impose, is it possible you could do this easily? Otherwise I can try on my own. Thank you again. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 00:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I regret not having answered your question sooner Dr. K and would like to personally thank you for initially requesting my assistance in further improving the "Stable Version" of the Temple of Artemis (Corfu) entry. As a token of my sincerest appreciation, I shall write a "Stable Version" of the François-Xavier Donzelot entry. Thank you for acknowledging the hard work of this humble inspector and please continue submitting good faith edit contributions. Have a splendid day my friend. :-) No. 108 (talk) 03:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your kind words Inspector. But don't worry. I self-reverted so that I didn't have to bother you since I was able to make the conversion. But you are right on the point that I really value your excellent work. Therefore I am grateful for your kind offer of improving the Donzelot article, even though I do not want to impose. I am also glad to have made such a great friend. :) Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

In recognition of your excellent work

 * Thank you very much Dr. K. Please note that if you'd like to make a special request for a "Stable Version" (or to just simply have a friendly chat), feel free to drop a line anytime. And as always, please continue making good faith edit contributions. Take care my friend. :-) No. 108 (talk) 06:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much Inspector for your kind offer of assistance with article improvement. I would not want to impose on you with any request but I will certainly keep it in mind for some special occasion. Needless to say you are always most welcome on my talkpage at anytime and thank you for your great hospitality on your talkpage. Best wishes to you  my friend. :) Dr.K. λogosπraxis   12:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, re Basil I
Many thanks for your appreciation of my work on this article.Urselius (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome Urselius (apologies for failing to respond sooner). And as always, please continue submitting good faith edit contributions. Thank you (and Happy Holidays). No. 108 (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Byzantine Greeks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link to Estate


 * Priscus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link to Panium

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No, Thank you
Hi No. 108, I think its me who should be thanking you. I've received far less thanks for much more difficult effort elsewhere in Wikipedia. So I really appreciate the recognition you just afforded me. Sincerely, thank you. Also, I'm impressed with how quick and effortlessly you were able to make those changes (I was also editing while you implemented your changes etc). My attempts to contribute are intermittent so I don't yet know all the tools available and that makes my editing slower and clunkier. Sincerely, Romaioi (talk) 06:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome Romaioi. And as always, please continue making good faith edit contributions. Thank you (and Happy Holidays). No. 108 (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Deleted Cited Material from Byzantine Empire
Hi No. 108, I hope this post finds you well. Sorry to trouble you, but could you please review my comments on | the Byzantine Empire talk page? It would seam that the the meaning of the 'romantic fluff' ascribed to Byron by Norwich is academic fact, and would merit some comment. Perhaps rewritten more formally, with Norwich and perhaps several other authors used as separate citations? Sincerely, Romaioi (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I regret not having responded to your inquiry sooner Romaioi and would like to personally thank you for consulting this humble quality management inspector.


 * As you well know, I had a discussion with Dr.K. (on his talk page) regarding his removal of Robert Byron's "Triple Fusion" theory from the Byzantine Empire entry. During the discussion, I largely approved of Dr. K.'s removal of Byron since his actions, as I saw them, were executed to safeguard the quality of the entry's "Stable Version".


 * Now, it appears that Dr.K. is more receptive to sourced content that contains, in his own words, more "precise language" (a logical and quite intelligent request on his part). What I humbly recommend, if you choose to follow my suggestion, is to use sourced content that provides a more academic rendition of the elements constituting Byzantine Greek civilization. If you consult the Byzantine Greeks article (see "Terminology" section), you will find sourced information relevant to the nature of Byzantium itself. And as much as I would like to directly participate in the Byzantine Empire discussion page, I currently have more pressing matters that need my attention.


 * In any case, I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors and please continue making good faith edit contributions. Thank you and Happy Holidays. :-) No. 108 (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much "Inspector" (just caught on to your nickname). No problems on response time. I just saw the response on the talk page and will reply. I had just logged on to put up a subheading with a couple of suggestions before editing further but the response has saved me the trouble.


 * I believe your goal of a stable version that is accurate, reliable and, importantly, "above the belt", is very much aligned with my goals. I don't have the time to contribute a great deal, but do so if I have information or citations that could add to or support whats already there, time permitting. Almost all of my content contributions are accompanied by citations as a matter of principle. I then trust that the article's regular contributors can help tailor it to fit better if need be (like you did). {But it doesn't also go that smoothly. My very first set of contributions in Wikipedia pertained to some content that had merit but no structure, inconsistent/incorrect information, was not cited, and seamed to be more appropriate in another section. Turns out the original author was a sockpuppet master or something (a very persistent one), and I was immediately dragged into a mess that lasted months as a result of my attempts to help improve it. We sort of got 'there' in the end.}


 * Thanks also for pointing our the terminology section. I will use sources there if I can track down the page numbers. If our paths don't cross before the year is out, please have a happy and safe holiday season. Sincerely, Romaioi (talk) 10:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Chi Rho, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Capricorn and Sagittarius (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Vacation
As I failed to mention in my edit summary, all "Stable Versions" are on hold until I return. Happy New Year. :-) No. 108 (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Best wishes for a Happy New Year Inspector. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Papias (Byzantine office) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Keys, Staff and Baths


 * Palace of Blachernae (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Terraces

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Constantine Lips (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Conspiracy, Envoy and Sojourn


 * Athanasius (praetorian prefect) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Envoy


 * Gubazes II of Lazica (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Byzantines


 * Hermogenes (magister officiorum) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Envoy


 * John the Cappadocian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Church


 * Marcellus (comes excubitorum) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Church


 * Marcellus (general under Justinian I) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Church


 * Peter the Patrician (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Crown

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Arsaces (conspirator) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Conspiracy


 * Count of the Stable (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Mules


 * Ostiarios (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Usher

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

On emperors
Hello (and a belated "Happy New Year!")! I'd like to make a small comment on your edits: please be more judicious in replacing "emperor" with "Byzantine emperor" and adding "Emperor/Empress" before each and every occurrence of a ruler's name. The first is completely unnecessary in the main text (as opposed to the lede, where some context may be necessary) as long as there is no emperor of another nation mentioned, and the second is bad use of the language, since the name alone suffices after the first occasion. For instance, changing "returning to the emperor's favour" to "returning to the Byzantine emperor's favour" is redundant and frankly, bad use of language, as there is ever only one emperor mentioned in the article. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  20:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Constantine for bringing this issue to my attention and I would like to personally apologize (again) for my "mechanical" behavior. You're more than welcome to make any necessary improvements to the "Stable Versions" and I hope that the errors you discovered do not ultimately diminish our collaborative efforts. And as always, please continue submitting more good faith edit contributions. :-) No. 108 (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * P.S. Thank you for taking the time to appreciate the hard work of this humble quality management inspector. :-) No. 108 (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Philippicus (general) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Church


 * Priscus (general) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Plague

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Byzantine mints, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Syracuse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Byzantine Greels
I've noticed that you've been labeling several Byzantine people as Byzantine Greeks (without sources) including even well-known Byzantine Armenians like Nikon the Metanoeite.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * With all due respect ZjarriRrethues, but I humbly recommend that you re-evaluate your assessment of the quality management inspection process. If you pay attention to my contributions, you'll find that it is in fact the sources that label certain Byzantine individuals as "Byzantine Greeks". Moreover, your argument is falsified by your (perhaps accidental) omission of the many "Stable Versions" I've written on Byzantines of attested Slavic (example: Neboulos), Armenian (example: Basil I), and Italian (example: Licario) descent, as well as on Byzantines with no attested descent (example: John Cottistis). As for the Saint Nikon the Metanoeite entry, I have no personal stake in whether or not he was an Armenian or a Greek. If there is a reliable source(s), providing a relevant treatment of the subject, that states Nikon's origins to be "XYZ", then "XYZ" shall be added to the "Stable Version" of the entry. And despite our (minor) differences, I would like to thank you for taking the time to express your (minor) grievances with me and please continue submitting more good faith edit contributions. :-) No. 108 (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Appreciation
Just a note of thanks here for your prompt, precise attentions at Gladiator - and also an acknowledgment of your kind note at my talk-page, posted yonks ago, and only just discovered. Best, Haploidavey (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome Haploidavey and please continue submitting more good faith edit contributions. :-) No. 108 (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you Athenean for taking the time to appreciate the work of this humble quality management inspector. And as always, please continue submitting more good faith edit contributions. Have a blessed day. :-) No. 108 (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6
Hi. When you recently edited Alexios Axouch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sorcery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Settepozzi
I (Daufer) have added all the 9 sources into the info box, and correctly presented them as such. Your edits have greatly distorted them and even wrongly assigned them. For example The Samuel Ersch source I use is not from Vol 22 its from Section I A-G Vol 85, the geanakoplos source i use is from 1973 not 1959, and you have distorded the Wiel sources and link them to "Cessi". You have also removed several well referenced sources. "Historia Venetia" "Heinrich Leo". Please stop from Distorting or Removing sources AS GIVEN. There is NO RULE, as to how, to present the sources one gives and if i choose to give my 9 researched sources concerning the info box in that manner, than you have not to tinker with them; distorting and removing them. Daufer (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * With all due respect Daufer, but I humbly disagree with your assessment. The edits you submitted to the Battle of Settepozzi entry appear to have diminished the overall quality of the entry's "Stable Version" (especially your removal of the upgraded citations I installed). Now if you insist on making any additions to the article, then I humbly recommend that you do so without downgrading the quality of the "Stable Version". And despite our differences, I would like to thank you for taking the time to express your (minor) grievances with me. Have a splendid day. :-) No. 108 (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not going to explain to you how wikipedia works, but if i add a source to an article and reference it according to wikipedia, than YOU are NOT ALLOWED to Deform, Distored (by wrongly assigning them to different books) or Remove them. Your changes have little to do with a "Stable Version", your format is that of Footnotes, and i use a refernce based source. READ ALL ABOUT IT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources distorting sources is not a criteria, if you wont stop i will bring in a third party. Daufer (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * With all due respect Daufer, but your critique of the quality management inspection process is simplistic and therefore flawed. Composing a "Stable Version" involves verifying and upgrading citations, verifying and upgrading sources, checking for spelling and grammatical errors, and implementing minor additions such as internal links (or anything that further improves the quality of the entry). The sources/citations you've submitted are more or less the same as the ones already present in the "Stable Version". Furthermore, the inline citations that you insist are better lack pages numbers, which diminish the verifiability of your additions as clearly explained in the very "rules" that you've mentioned. Also, making "threats" about bringing in a third party in order to continue making additions that downgrade the quality of the "Stable Version" is both uncivil and disrespectful. And if you'd like to bring in a third party, I humbly recommend contacting User:Cplakidas since he is both impartial and an expert in Byzantine studies. Have a blessed day. :-) No. 108 (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * P.S. Occasionally, composing a "Stable Version" includes adding new sourced content relevant to the entry that is being inspected. :-) No. 108 (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? FIRST: I have only edited the Info-Box, i never edited anything within the text. SECOND: No, the content of the Info-Box is EXACTLY the same as before, only that i corrected your Mistakes. We OBVIOUSLY agree on the content and info (because its exactly the same) and i also have no problem with your system of citing. But the PROBLEM is that you have cited my given sources WRONG. For Example: the source i used to verify that G. Dandolo was the commander was from Samuel Ersch Vol. 85 Section 1; A-G. from 1867 / NOT from 1832 Vol 22. I never referred to Cessi but to Wiel. and the Geanakoplos book i used was from 1973 / NOT 1959. Thats the problem, you wrongly assigned the sources i added (and correctly cited) to different books, and you removed sources. If its so overly important that the page number is present, than ask me to formate my Cited Sources CORRECTLY to your given format. And do not remove them and assign them wrongly. I will do that now. and later give you all the verification sources for you to double check. Daufer (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's get a few things straight Daufer, it was you who first added the source-citations that you now claim are wrong. After I painstakingly verified and organized the data you submitted, you added more sources that Constantine ultimately removed stating that "we don't need a dozen refs to verify what is alre[a]dy well sourced in the article". Constantine's inspectional assessment of the entry on 20 September 2011 appears to be very applicable in the current case where you are adding more (mostly outdated) source-citations to the entry than necessary. And in your dubious insistence on adding the 1973 version of Geanakoplos's book, you fail to acknowledge the fact that the information cited from the 1973 version of Geanakoplos's book is the same as in the 1959 version and located on the same exact page. In any case, I will attempt later to make further improvements to the entry's "Stable Version". And next time, I humbly recommend showing a little civility by "speaking" without "shouting". Good day. No. 108 (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, the problem was not the sources or the content not even the citation form, it was that several sources were deleted etc. this mix up would not have happened if Ref. Citation Author-Date-Title-Place would have been used. But I agree, and will use your citation form in that article. Now for the sources i used in the info box.<BR> Deno John Geanakoplos - Emperor Michael Palaeologus and the West: 1258-1282 (1973) -" Between May and July of 1263 [66] a Genoese fleet moving southward along the eastern Peloponnesian coastline towards the Greek-held port of Monemvasia encountered, near the little island of Settepozzi (Spetsai), a Venetian fleet sailing north to Negropont.[67] The allied fleet of thirty-eight galleys and ten saettie (cutters), commanded by three Genoese and a Greek admiral,[68] opposed a numerically inferior Venetian fleet of thirty-two galleys under a single admiral,"-<BR> Camillo Manfroni (1863-1935) - Storia della Marina Italiana: Vol II (1970) -" Egli ebbe, stando aìle cifre del Da Canale, soltanto 20 morti, ma ben 400 feriti, ei Genovesi ebbero 600 fra morti e feriti e 400 prigionieri. Non era però quella vittoria tale, che potesse risolvere la guerra:"-<BR> Alethea Wiel - The Navy of Venice (1910) -" The wrong done to the Venetians in Constantinople was well avenged in that battle, for therein were slain and wounded 600 Genoese, besides 400 taken prisoners ; whereas only twenty Venetians were killed and some 400 wounded,"-<BR> For more info on these sources, either buy the books or research on google books.<BR> Samuel Ersch - p.262<BR> http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=-A5JAAAAcAAJ&pg <BR> Hattendorf & Unger - p.122<BR> http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=YVbAwbQrJtAC&pg <BR> Heinrich Leo - p.34<BR> http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=63sKAAAAIAAJ&pg <BR> Historia Venetiana 1598 - p.172<BR> http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=iDE8AAAAcAAJ&pg <BR> William Carew Hazlitt - p.220-222<BR> http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=Oq4LAAAAYAAJ&pg <BR> Frederic Chapin Lane - p.76<BR> http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=PQpU2JGJCMwC&pg <BR> As for "Too Many Sources", there are no Too many sources regarding the info-box because its seperate from the article. And the more sources are given to verify the data, the more reliable it is.<BR> PS. when i use capslock i dont intead to "shout" i try to highlight the meaning to get the point across. The new "sources" section (former literature) in the article, needs editing as well, and whats the point of featuring books that are inaccessible? how is that of any help to the reader? Daufer (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15
Hi. When you recently edited Philistines, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aegean (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27
Hi. When you recently edited Theophylact (son of Michael I), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Church (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Mauropotamos
Regarding your edits to that article; I'd caution you to take great care in changing the style of citations in articles to which you are not the primary contributor. Essential reading is WP:CITEVAR. The bottom line is that arguments over which citation style is "best" or "simplest" tend to be heated and ultimately pointless - so the current policy is that if one consistent citation style exists, stick with that. I'm just letting you know about this policy because several people have run afoul of it in the past doing clean up work :) (also; I am not sure what "Stable Version" refers to in your edit summary - are you using an automated tool? If so you really should be explaining exactly what it is somewhere - the use of automated tools without proper explanation/permission is also frowned on) --Errant (chat!) 21:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13
Hi. When you recently edited John Axouch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Venetians (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Aλυτρωτική συμπεριφορά - No needed analysis of a name into another Greek article

 * αναστροφή και άσχετη ανάλυση υπέρ της τουρκίας
 * Καλησπέρα φίλε μπορείς να επέμβεις και να διορθώσεις μια κατάφορη παραβίαση των κανόνων της εγκυκλοπαίδειας παρακαλώ Ο συγκεκριμένος χρήστης έχοντας την ανοχή του παλαιού χρήστη συνεχίζει να αναλύει το όνομα του επταπυργίου σε ένα άσχετο άρθρο παραβαίνοντας το w.p., προφανώς είναι αλυτρωτική τουρκολαγνική συμπεριφορά. Περιμένω κάποια αντινμετώπισή σου. Ευχαριστώ --Πασχαλινό (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

August 2012
Your recent editing history at Pelasgians shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dougweller (talk) 05:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sock
Let's cut to the chase, Deucalionite, shall we? You know that I know that this is you. If you continue trying to make edits on contentious articles, that SPI report against you will come – the only reason I've not yet filed it is it's been some work collecting the links – and then you will be blocked again; you know that as well as I do. So, it's your choice: continue making those editing attempts, and it will all be over with another indef block in a few days. Or stay out of my way and hope that I might be too lazy to file it after all, as long as you don't cross my path. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * With all due respect Future Perfect at Sunrise, but I'm not "Deucalionite". But at this point, I'm assuming your false accusations probably have something to do with your trying to create an unencyclopaedic rivalry with me or perhaps trying to "game" the system by manipulating the perceptions of your fellow editors towards marginalizing this humble quality management inspector. It could even be that you don't like any actual improvements made to entries. Either way, I'm not interested in whatever agenda your pushing as I'm only focused on improving the quality of Wikipedia articles. As for your "SPI report" (whatever that is), I respectfully think that filing such a report would neither benefit the project (waste of resources) nor you in particular given your recent uncivil and unencyclopaedic behavior. So I humbly recommend that you cut the "banned sock" lingo and make further improvements to your behavior for the betterment of the project. No. 108 (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Ancient Macedonians shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. and other articles. Dougweller (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Report filed: Sockpuppet investigations/Deucalionite. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)