Archives

Archive 1 (through June 2007) Archive 2 (July 2007-February 2008) Archive 3 (March-September 2008) Archive 4 (October 2008-March 2009) Archive 5 (April-June 2009)

Καλημέρα Κωνσταντίνε. I wanted to ask you if you had, by any chance, the time to work on these GWoI map(s) we had talked about in the past. Best!--Yannismarou (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember seeing your article on Alexios Apokaukos when it appeared as a DYK some time ago, and I am excited to see that so much work is being done on the new Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347. I don't know how aware of this you have been, but WikiProject Years has been experimenting with narrative prose articles for years, instead of the current unreferenced and unhelpful lists of events that currently pass for year articles. 1345 was the first of these (I notice from the article history that you made an edit to it), and in January this year, the newly redrafted 1346 qualified as a Good Article. I myself have spent the last year redrafting the article on the 1340s, which is to represent the project's first redraft of a decade article (you can find the new draft here). It is my hope that, some day, it could potentially qualify as a Featured Article.

Anyway, I have been able to cover the main areas of Europe, Africa and the Americas in the 1340s that need to be covered, but so far I have not managed to gather material on Central Europe or Eastern Europe. It is in the latter section that I hope you can help. I could just use parts of the Byzantine Civil War article myself, but I would just be copying from your own work and you seem to have more expertise in that period of Byzantine history than I do (my main area of interest is the Byzantine-Arab Wars). It would only have to be a paragraph or two summarising the main trends of the decade in the Byzantine Empire. I wonder if you might also have any material on the other areas in Eastern Europe: Trebizond, Armenia, Antioch, Thessalonica, etc.

Sorry for the unusual request, but I would be grateful if you could help. Regards. --Grimhelm (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MILHIST A-Class is not a bad idea. As far as I remember it goes fast, and it would be a nice test before FAC. The reason I do not like GAC is because it has become too slow and too subjective. You may come up with a reviewer after months. I think it is a real waste of time!--Yannismarou (talk) 07:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

I'm replying to your message congratulating me on my new page. I was wondering if you might like to review it, either as a peer review, or a Good Article review. Both are currently active. I guess if you have feedback, that would belong in the peer review, and if you think its already pretty good and want to support it, that would belong in the GA review. Direct edits are obviously welcome as well.

Some links to save you time:

• Wikipedia:Peer review/Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt/archive1 (the peer review)
• Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt (the article)
• Talk:Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt (you can find the GA nomination here)

TachyonJack (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On July 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Leo Sgouros, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 08:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Constatine - I caught your message on my talk page and read your editing of Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347. You did a good job on it (I even learned a few things). However, there is an accidental problem coming up though, you separated Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347 from the Civil war of 1352-1354. Although most of the protagonists are still around in both wars, we have them in two separate civil wars rather than a Byzantine civil war of 1341–1354. Consider the First Palaiologan Civil War (1321, 1322, and 1327–1328) which had three separate peace agreements, yet they are all bunched into one civil war. In contrast, there is the Byzantine–Seljuk Wars 1048 to 1308 which has it as a continuous war, which I don't think it should be. I don't think we should deal with this problem right now and I'm not offering any solutions as of yet, but just to let you know that we might need some type of standard to go by in the future. Long live Constantine XI! Dinkytown (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Again - Yes, it is problematic. Ostrogorsky's History of the Byzantine State (old source I know...) describes them as separate wars with 'peace'(?) agreements separating each, which was the standard I went on. Whenever there was an issue, I always went to the Roman Empire pages since they were very well developed and have already a good developed standard that the Byzantine pages has yet to evolve into.

Since I am not Greek but could pass as a Sami Varangian (what?), I would have (still) have unquestioning loyality to my (last) Emperor (Thomas and Demetrias excluded thank you). However the anarchist in me (Zealots of Thessalonica?) says let the Palaeologi and Kantacusuni kill each other off (-opps, too late - they already did...). The Sami in me however would love to make Hagia Sophia into a reindeer holding pen. Probably the only thing that hasn't happened to the structure in all its history... :) Dinkytown (talk) 06:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS - the Lascaris got a raw deal...

Regardless, how that article is named, I would like to suggest you to check the following more carefully. The title "Catholic Church" is used in the Canons of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils (you can find their text [1]), the canons use the term "Orthodox" when referring to the "Orthodox Faith", or to the the "Orthodox" believers, but very rarely when referring to the Church (the term "orthodox Church" appears only a few times in the canons of the seventh ecumenical council). Many of the Holy Fathers have referred many times to the Orthodox Church as the Catholic Church (you can check some of their statements in the following articles [2],[3],[4]). Another important document the "Confession of the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheus" (which was made after the important Synod of Jerusalem in 1672), also refers to the Orthdoox Church as the Catholic Church (the title "Orthodox Church" does not appear in the confession, instead it is used when referring to the "Orthodox Religion", the "Orthodox Faith" or the "Orthodox worshipers"). The ["The Longer Catechism of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church" of Saint Philaret of Moscow also uses the title "Catholic Church" for the Orthodox Church more times than the title "Orthodox Church". Saint Raphael of Brooklyn also stated around the year 1914"The Church of the East has never from the first been known by any other name than Catholic, nor has she set aside this title in any official document.". An article on the website of an Orthodox Research Institute states "According to Archbishop Basil, “until quite a recent period, the (Orthodox) Church was never characterized by the attribute ‘orthodox’, but always as ‘catholic’". The orthodox theologian John Meyendorff stated that the "Orthodox Church" claims to be "the one and only Catholic Church". A compilation of Orthodox Holy Canons is also called as the "Rudder of the Orthodox Catholic Church". You can of course, support whatever option you wish, but I don't think you can claim that the title "Catholic" is obscure, since it is used to refer to the (Orthodox) Church in canonical texts and by many Saints (they obviously knew what they were talking about). From an orthodox point of view, "Orthodox Catholic Church" distinguishes the True (Orthodox) Catholic Church, from other false "Catholic Churches". Cody7777777 (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Costantine! I've created this article , [[5]] I believe it's an interesting topic about Greece's early military history.Alexikoua (talk) 07:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On July 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 07:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC) 08:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine Barnstar

		The Byzantine Empire Barnstar of Excellence
		To Cplakidas, an outstanding contributor to Byzantine related articles on wikipedia. Wikipedia is a much better place with you around improving articles on history. Keep up the great work and I expect to see many more featured and good articles!! Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Keep up the great work and borrow many more books from the library!! Have a great day! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The June 2009 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) 21:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Awesome Barnstar
		To you Cplakidas you have effectively turned the hodgepodge rantings of a lunatic into a splendidly written polemic on the negative effects of civil wars on the Byzantine Empire . Without you my utilitarian yet sketchy work just wouldn’t sound and look right. I personally have not mastered all of the features of Wikipedia; your copy editing is fantastic. Without you we would have horrible concrete unclassical articles. --Zaharous (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is. I think I might begin working on it a little bit in a week or two, but we will see what happens. Nevertheless you surely brought up the articles standing significantly. --Zaharous (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On July 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hetaireia, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to thank you for your help in Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus (just reached 'ga').Alexikoua (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help with the Myrivilis article. Much appreciated. I've started two new ones on Vasilis Arvanitis, and Pyx Lux. --Pavlos Andronikos (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC) --Pavlos Andronikos (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the maps. I;m sure you're familiar with Paul Stephenson's works, such as Byzantium in the year 1000. If you need direct referral, just drop me a message when you're editing your map. I'd be happy to help Hxseek (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, how do you make your maps on Inskcape. Do you create the topography de novo ? Or do you scan an existing map in ? Hxseek (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi C.P.! I've created an article about Ancient Epirus. I see there is already a small article named Epirote League. However, I believe that the term 'League' (Koinon), isn't a representative one about this state, since Epirus, with an exeption of ca. 50 years, was a monarchy. What's your opinion about? Merging both into Epirus (ancient state), or Ancient Epirus woulb be better to me...Alexikoua (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, organization section needs to be improved. I was just wondering because the Epirote League was the only 'Monarchic League', contrary to the others in ancient Greece (Aetolian, Achaean, Boetian). Usually the term 'League' is somewhat contradicting with that of 'Monarchy', but I've to check some books on that.Alexikoua (talk) 11:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I see that you moved "Naval Base Aksaz" to "Aksaz Naval Base" along with some other Turkish naval bases links for some reason I don't know. I named these bases in English just like other naval bases in Wikipedia, e.g. Naval Base San Diego, NB Kitsap, NB Guantanomo Bay ... (check many others). Would you please explain to me why it was wrong with my naming. Thanks.CeeGee (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Γεια σου Κωνσταντίνε. Σχετικά με τη μάχη της κρέσνας: Ο λόγος γιά τον οποίο εξέφρασα τη γνώμη να μείνει το κείμενο ως είχε δεν αφορούσε το κονσένσους σχετικά με το αποτέλεσμα της μάχης (όπως μου γράφεις) γιά το οποίο θυμάμαι πολύ έντονα τη καθοριστική σου συνεισφορά στο θερμό διάλογο πού είχε προκύψει τότε καί το οποίο θεωρώ χαρακτηριστική προσωπική σου επιτυχία. Όντως είχε επιτευχθεί συμφωνία καί είχες αλλάξει με κοινή συναίνεση το αποτέλεσμα στο ινφομποξ (μου φαίνεται και στο κείμενο). Αλλά όπως θα θυμάσαι κανένας από όσους είχαν λάβει μέρος στη συζήτηση δεν φαινόταν μετά να θέλει να επαναδιατυπώσει συνολικά καί το κείμενο, ίσως φοβούμενος ότι έτσι θα ξεκινούσε ένας καινούριος κύκλος αντιπαραθέσεων, τον οποίο όλοι βαριόμασταν να ξανακάνουμε. Μετά από καμιά βδομάδα δοκιμών καί επαναδιατυπώσεων (τότε) είχα αναρτήσει τις απαραίτητες αλλαγές στο κυρίως κείμενο καί είχα εισάγει το κεφάλαιο “κληροδότημα” (πού τώρα διόρθωσες) καί με ευχαρίστηση είχα δεί ότι δεν είχαν υπάρξει αντιδράσεις. Έτσι θεωρώντας το, ένα ντεφάκτο κονσένσους κείμενο απέφυγα έκτοτε να το ξανακουμπίσω γιατί πίστευα (καί πιστεύω) ότι ήταν (και είναι) σε κατάσταση εύθραυστης ισορροπίας καί ότι η παραμικρή αλλαγή θα μπορούσε να χρησιμεύσει σαν δικαιολογία γιά αναθεώρηση του πού πιθανόν να οδηγούσε σε νέες αντιπαραθέσεις. Η μόνη αλλαγή πού είχα κάνει από τότε ήταν τις μέρες πριν την αναθεώρησή σου αναφορικά με τις απώλειες τού ελληνικού στρατού κι αυτή μετά από κοινή (καί όντως ευγενική) συναίνεση κατόπιν διαλόγου του αβίδιους μέχρι να βρεθούνε καί οι αντίστοιχες βουλγαρικές, γιατί όντας με μόνες τις ελληνικές φαινόταν μάλλον σαν μιά ελληνική συντριβή, πού φυσικά δεν ήταν η πραγματικότητα. Καί τη διόρθωση της απόστασης στην οποία έφτασε ο ρουμανικός στρατός από τη σόφια πού δεν μπορουσε να αμφισβητηθεί. Όπως σου έγραψα, το κείμενό σου ήταν σαφώς καλύτερο (έχω πάντα πρόβλημα στη διατύπωση σε μικρότερες προτάσεις καί σωστά με έχεις διορθώσει πολλές φορές -π.χ. στους βαλκανικούς-), αλλά εκτός του ότι όπως σου είπα φοβόμουν ότι θα μπορούσε να προσελκύσει ουσιώδεις αναθεωρήσεις καί συνακόλουθα συγκρούσεις, είχε καί δύο διαφοροποιήσεις πού αύξαναν ένα τέτοιο ενδεχόμενο πού ίσως δεν πρόσεξες: Είχα γράψει ότι η μάχη δεν θα μπορούσε να είχε τελειώσει λόγω της ρουμανικής προέλασης, εσύ γράφεις ότι δεν θα μπορούσε να κρίνει τον πόλεμο, με το οποίο δεν μπορούσα να προεξοφλήσω ότι όλοι συμφωνούν. Εγώ συμφωνώ ότι ούτως ή άλλως η υπόθεση ήταν τελειωμένη λόγω ρουμάνων αλλά αν εμφανιστεί κάποιος με αργοκίνητο ρολόι καί πεί π.χ. “όχι, εάν δε μας σταματούσε η κυβέρνηση την επόμενη μέρα θα τους συντρίβαμε καί θα στρεφόμασταν κατά των ρουμάνων”, δεν θα ξεκινούσε η συζήτηση φτού κι από την αρχή? Θεωρείς αδιανόητη μιά τέτοια θέση? Ξαναδιάβασε τον χαλ. Τι θα γινόταν σε μιά τέτοια περίπτωση θα ξαναρχίζαμε τη χαλομαχία? Τέλος απάλειφες τελείως τη πρόταση στην οποία δικαιώνεται κατά κάποιον τρόπο ιστορικά η παραδοσιακή θέση των βουλγάρων περί επιτυχίας της επιχείρησης (αλλά όχι ο ισχυρισμός τους της νίκης πού φυσικά είναι παράλογος), η οποία υπήρχε εκεί σαν μία αναγκαία παραχώρηση έναντι της μαξιμαλιστικής θέσης ότι “νικήσανε οι βούλγαροι” ώστε να διευκολύνει την κοινή αποδοχή του κειμένου (όντως λάθος το σιμς). Αυτοί είναι όσο γίνεται πιό συνοπτικά οι τρείς κύριοι λόγοι τού ρβ μου καί όχι λόγοι αίσθησης ιδιοκτησίας ή αλάνθαστου καί αυτό ενοούσα με το "ντεφάκτο κονσένσους κείμενο". Εξάλου απ' ότι θυμάμαι αν και έχουμε "συναντηθεί" αναρίθμητες φορές τους τελευταίους 8? μήνες ποτέ δεν έχω αναιρέσει κάποια αλλαγή σου σε ότι έχει τύχει να μου διορθώσεις. Αναφορικά με το παρόν άρθρο η προσωπική μου γνώμη πάντως είναι ότι γιά λόγους λεπτών ισορροπιών (τώρα καί στο μέλλον) αυτά τα δύο σημεία πρέπει να αλλαχθούν αλλά δεν πρόκειται να τα ξαναλλάξω γιά λόγους πού μπορείς να καταλάβεις. Εξάλου ο αύγουστος είναι περισσότερο μήνας σουιμιπίντιας παρά γουικιπίντιας. Οπότε, καλές βουτιές, ηρακλής. --Factuarius (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: συγνώμη γιά τα ελληνικά αλλά βαριόμουνα (λόγω.. καλοκαιριού)

Checkhead you have completly destoryed my artical with your work you silly person reply on MY TALK PAGE Secthayrabe (talk)

Yes ok you made the artical better but why didnt you start it earlier than me then saving me time Secthayrabe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.36.66 (talk) 10:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The July 2009 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) 19:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Constantine. About the Kresna, everything in order. Some months before you had rv me in the battle of Sorovich article when I edited the name of Vevi as the greek name for the battle. Nothing wrong about it, you had right, but since a discussion started there and in the article of the battle of Monaster/Bitola about the appropriated names of the battles I remembered you and thought to inform you about. Also I would like to inform you that I have completely rewritten the Balkan League article[6] since it was very poor. And as always every edit or suggestion is welcomed. Τέλος & γιά μένα, οπότε καλό (& παραγωγικό) Φθινόπωρο, Ηρακλής. --Factuarius (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really skillful work. --Factuarius (talk) 06:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work (2). Καλησπέρα Constantine. Ι think an article about the Noemvriana is needed. It was the high point of the politics of that period, had enormous and enduring consequencies, both inside and outside Greece both in the politics and the military (by eventually putting Greece to the war), also to my knowledge was the end of the 19th century "Battleship Diplomacy". I lack the experience to start it but I will participate extendedly in the writing and photos. Can you spare some time to help? You can find a nucleus I put in the Eleftherios Venizelos / The Noemvriana - Greece enters World War I section. Regards, Ηρακλής --Factuarius (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.My answer is in in my talk page.--Factuarius (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.My answer is again in my talk page. This is only for your information no answer is needed. Going to nana, see you. --Factuarius (talk) 03:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be grateful if you could check/comment/improve my recent copyedits on Factuarius recent additions. I know that you are busy in your life (I am as well) but since you have confessed your admiration to Venizelos and probably agree that Venizelos' article should have FA status (not there yet) then any input from your side is most welcomed. Thanks in advance. Enjoy Life!A.Cython (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm..Admitting defeat. --Factuarius (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked my opinion about your resent edits: I was surprised in finding out that you too agree that the expression "humiliated defeat" implemented to the Allied defeat during their operation to capture Athens in 1916 is not (although fully & highly qualified referenced) compatible with WP, thus you removed it, evidently agreeing with Cython's objections (see his edit waring activity yesterday). Especially because you together with Cython as you where among the main contributors of the article, did not had such objections in the usage of that expression to describe the 1897 Greek defeat. Leaving that expression inside the article for months until 17 of May, when I finally decided to remove it. As for the rest as you have seen Cython's Allied-apologizing censorship eventually did not left unaffected your text also. My message in the article's talk page doesn't concerning you. --Factuarius (talk) 09:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no humiliated defeats in a war scale event. Because at any war always are happening a variety of events from heroic to coward. Or every defeated war is humiliated thus no need to mention the adjective. The 1897 defeat unlike what you are thinking was a very very normal defeat as was (almost) the Bulgarian defeat in '13, the Serbian defeat in '15 or the Austrian defeat of '66 and unlike the France's defeat of 1870 which was what you call disaster. But in smaller scaled events there can be a humiliated defeat or withdraw when you are fleeing the battleground with undignified way e.g. overnight or on the running, as was the Italo-Franco-English case in Athens at '16. Thus the Clogg's “ignominious”, which is a very deserved adjective not only for battles but also for behaviors. That is my opinion, anyhow. Regards, --Factuarius (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I told you nothing about superior enemy. I told you that there are no humiliated defeats in a war scale event and I told you why. My positions about the Schism is well known to you having to do more with characters, interests, power, ego, and people's stupidity, than 1897. --Factuarius (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition for a humiliated war (“when the defeated country managed absolutely nothing noteworthy”) is very weak almost non acceptable. Also the discussion has only theoretical value since under the current situation, if you will retry to put back the "humiliating war" expression for the '97 war the Allied Gendarme will be obliged to revert you “due to strong wording”. --Factuarius (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still I do believe that there are no humiliated defeats in a war scale event, because as I told you at any war always are happening a variety of events from heroic (Smolenski) to coward (Constantine). In such events as single battle's, there can be a humiliated defeat or withdrawal when a part are fleeing from the battleground with undignified way e.g. overnight or running, as was the Italo-Franco-English case in Athens at '16. But If you really believe in your definition why don't you try to impose such an expression as the result of the 2nd BW? According to your definition that war covers fully these conditions. I also disagree with you about the article. It's a very narrow, very rounded, almost useless, almost boring article, dried from anything interesting fact, and most of all almost having nothing to do with Venizelos. More of a general history of the period. Most of it it would it had another title without big a problem (it says almost as much for Venizelos as much a general history of the period would said). Has the totally wrong orientation in following the events (and these with very dried way) instead to follow the person.To me is the definition of what an article about an historical personality must not be. The fact that has nothing to say about the very reach and importand backstage of the era and his life, although 100 years have past, make them available to any editor, is the proof of what Allied Gendarme can do to history even today. Thanks for Kitromilides I also have it, still wonder if the Allied Gendarme has it or has read it. Cheers, --Factuarius (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear that you agree. About the section, when I started to edit it I had the intention (as I had told) to leave totally outside the Royalist-Venizelist events. But as the situation came, I believe it is necessary to say a word also about the Venizelist interference in the incident on which I trust you are aware. Generally, the section looks evidently exactly to the place that it was born: a battleground. Never seen in WP a paragraph with exactly 20 refs. I don't know if there is such a WP term: ref waring.--Factuarius (talk) 02:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. After extensive communication with Cython [7] came to the decision to give the full and uncompromising dimension of the historical events called the noemvriana. One of my sources about is the J.F.Abbot's "Greece and the Allies 1914-1922". I prefer it because the author is an eye witnessed Englishman and has a very detailed narration of what really happened there and then. Also what he is saying seems to have the full agreement of a well known in Greece English Admiral the M.Kerr (see preface). I thought you would be interested to take a look to the book, you can find the full text in the Open Library[8]. I hope to find it helpfull in your research. Regards, --Factuarius (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On August 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Kourkouas, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 23:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hallo there! 'Happy winter' by the way. I was wondering if there is some way to keep this image: File:Mitralexis2.jpg. It's a work used by government (military) authorities in books and posters. Any help would be vital. Thank youAlexikoua (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the painting with the pilot's image. Thanks for the advice.Alexikoua (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dacians/Getae are considered North Thracians and Dacia Northern Thrace.The popular region we name "Thrace" is in effect considered Thrace proper.Linguistically ,culturaly and in the writings of several writers its one thing.Megistias (talk) 10:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also i am still working on them , so you please my inadequacies.Megistias (talk) 10:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Than we should change the title or titles to make things more understandable.I believe that including thrace/thracians and dacia/dacians in thrace/dacia articles that are lists and have similar structures gives a more spherical view to the reader regarding the interactions and the culturo-geographical elements that shaped that region in general.Megistias (talk) 11:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could simply add, "and Dacia" in the titles and modify the first paragraph a bit.I know what you mean but i believe we can use a simple format that will in the end create a greater understanding by combining the two.Megistias (talk) 11:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suck!Megistias (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do. My apologies for not being more responsive. RL has been rather busy as of late. Cam ^(Chat) 04:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The shield was the heaviest you're right. The fact stands though that it was dishonorable for a spartan to drop his shield or not come back with. The sentence, before the one that I have changed twice, contradicts the sentence after it. The mothers of Spartan Soldiers said "With it, or on it." The "Spartan Hoplite" page also contradicts the Spartan Army page. Throwing a Spartan's shield away was not acceptable. In the end, a Spartan would not get rid of his shield until he had dropped everything else; which includes his Breastplate and other self-protection objects. The reason I say this is because a Spartans shield not only protected that individual Spartan, but all the Spartans around him. I am going to change it back to being the "last" thing that would be dropped.

173.25.110.158 (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Taylor Brown[reply]

Well thankyou sir. Well I did start them after all..... Only too glad to clean up the mess created by the good Doctor.... very surprised few of them have since been expanded, they are very interesting topics! The late Dr. Blofeld though was appreciate of your efforts similarly and donated you a barnstar form his evil organization..Any help you can give to convert the stubs would be much appreciated, over the next weeks weeks I'll aim at fleshing out every one of the Greek museums... Himalayan 17:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I wanted to ask you to rewrite the article for the Uprising of Ivaylo because my English is really not that good and I saw that you had found it after all ;-). I would like to ask you to make new sub-section in the "Course" section because I don't know whether they are appropriate. Unfortunately, I have only one book for the uprising at home so the inline citations come only from it. If you have time, it will be nice to find Byzantine sources and even expand the article further. I hope you can do those things when (if) you have time. Best, --Gligan (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Constantine I would appreciate if you could check your sources about the burning of the town of Kilkis during or after the named battle of the 2nd BW in order to clear the matter in the related article. I couldn't find anything about for months now. Thanks in advance, --Factuarius (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On August 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vigla (tagma), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

NW (Talk) 17:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to take a look here.[9] --Factuarius (talk) 09:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Είναι αυτός γιατί μου έστειλε ένα υβριστικό και έξαλλο mail με user name το όνοματεπώνυμό του από το "ινστιτούτο" του μέσω της WP ώς Xenos. Ο Ελληνικός λαός δεν είναι τέλειος, κανένας λαός είναι. Όλοι έχουν τα πλεονεκτήματα και τα μειονεκτήματά τους. Το να απομονώνεις tα μειονεκτήματα κάποιων, να τα γενικεύεις και μετά να βρίζεις ολόκληρους λαούς είναι αρρωστημένο και προδίδει συμπλεγματικό υπόβαθρο ή ύποπτες προθέσεις. Δεν είναι η πρώτη φορά που ολόκληροι λαοί κατηγορούνται γιά λανθασμένες συμπεριφορές κάποιων. Το 1933 τέτοιου είδους λογικές φτάσανε μέχρι την εξουσία. Αλλά τελευταία βλέπω μιά παγκοσμιοποιημένη μεθόδευση ενοχοποίησης του παρελθόντος όλων των λαών με κάποιο ιστορικό υπόβαθρο, που συμπτωματικά πάει χέρι-χέρι με τη πίεση γιά παγκοσμιοποίηση και την επιβολή ανοχής έναντι του φαινόμενου της μαζικής λαθρομετανάστευσης (εξού και το ινστιτούτο στο οποίο (συν)προεδρέυει). Στους αμερικανούς για τους ινδιάνους, στους άγγλους γιά το αποικιοκρατικό παρελθόν τους, στους γάλλους για τον εθνικισμό τους, στους ισπανούς για το ..Μοντεζούμα, τους γερμανούς για το ναζισμό τους, και πάει λέγοντας. Φαίνεται ότι κάποιοι έχουν αποφασίσει ότι γιά να μας στείλουν στο νέο μέλλον πρέπει να μας κάνουν όλους να νρεπόμαστε γενικά γιά το παρελθόν. Η δική μου γνώμη είναι ότι αντί να μας λένε μαγκανίες, παλιές ιστορίες, και τρυφερές θεωρίες, να κάτσουν να μας εξηγήσουν με ειλικρίνεια γιατί είναι καλύτερο και γιά μας το μέλλον όπως το έχουν σχεδιάσει και να μας αφήσουν και μας να αποφασίσουμε εάν μας αρέσει και μας συμφέρει ή όχι (π.χ.θα μοιραστούμε τα οικονομικά οφέλη πού θα προκύψουν ή θα πάνε όλα στη τσέπη τους). Τα υπόλοιπα είναι αερολογίες βιαστικά προετοιμασμένων αγκιτατόρων της πεντάρας που με την ημιμάθιά τους και τις γελοίες γενικοποιήσεις τους εναγωνίως προσπαθούν να δικαιολογήσουν το μισθό τους κάνοντας φασαρία. Και μόνο σαν τέτοιες πιστεύω ότι πρέπει να αντιμετωπίζονται, γιατί μέχρι εκεί φτάνει το μιαλό τους. --Factuarius (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know i am sloppy, but modern bibliography refers to helmet as ".... type helmet" about 90% of the times so there wont be any confusion.Those articles should be named ".... type helmet".Megistias (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On September 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Turma, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 23:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Check it out, needs some order.Albanian nationalismMegistias (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.please have a look in the 1st BW talk page, I've sent a msg for you there. Thanks, --Factuarius (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Κανένα πρόβλημα. Καλά έκανες. Καμμιά φορά με πιάνουν ανεπίτρεπτες κρίσεις χιούμορ. --Factuarius (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi do you think you could add something about the vlachs in pindus and how they migrated there? 87.202.43.218 (talk) 09:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop weaseling and removing material numbered user diff.Megistias (talk) 09:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I guess you are right my English there is not so good. I will work on the article. Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 08:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These is a (very) minor dispute in Albanian Resistance of World War II's box. Your advice would be vital in the article's discussion page.Alexikoua (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Konstantinos. I need a proficient Greek speaker to help me with a tidbit from an upcoming article. The subject is Romanian, but it features a transliteration of the expression παρηγοριά του κόσμου, without providing a standard translation. Using dictionaries etc., and with absolutely no prior knowledge of Greek, I'm assuming this means something like "caress of the world", "caress of the people", "tender touch of the universe" etc., but I humbly accept I may be entirely wrong on all counts. How would you say is best to translate it? (No rush, just please ping my talk page when you have the time to answer.) Thanks and regards, Dahn (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The article will be on Kir Ianulea a short story by Ion Luca Caragiale, whose main character is a devil passing himself off as a Greek or Arvanite, and visits Bucharest under the Phanariotes. The expression is used by the protagonist in reference to and addressing his wife - which is also why I'm thinking that it could perhaps be a less generic synonym of "consolation", if such a thing exists. Do you agree?

There are more Greek terms in the story, but they are trivial to the plot, and in some cases have become assimilated into urban Romanian (or, at least, I was already able to find some explanations for them). But παρηγοριά του κόσμου is transliterated verbatim into Romanian, and only has some sort of explanation in the text itself, with no other source. Since Caragiale tends to poke some fun at his characters and readers, I didn't really want to take that at face value :). Plus, there was a possible question of losing something in the translation from a Romanian rendition of a Greek sentence.

The story an interesting and relatively short read - you can find an English translation here (it will take some time to load, in case you want to check it out). In any case, I should be done with the article in a, say, a week or so, and I'd be honored if you also want to review the "finished product". Dahn (talk) 01:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see, and yes, that makes sense. Thank you, you've been of great help. Dahn (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's not still at it, is he? I find it very difficult to imagine that he will ever contribute something constructive (he can't even speak English...), but some of his minor edits are passable. With all the warnings and ample evidence of disruption, the moment he starts doing the same, the only recourse is AN/I, and it shouldn't take more than an hour to find a resolution. I must say that I get rather morose when I notice that the few Aromanian contributors this project gets are at the very least POV-pushers - the articles in question could use a lot of good faith, competence and literacy. Instead, they most often get inglorious crap pasted from advocacy sites, which are themselves ridiculously confused about what they mean to say and wish to achieve. Dahn (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How did I miss that? (I'm actually not watchlisting those pages, just going through their history then and again.) I'll normally go with AN/I, but your message comes right after I've started an AN/I debate on an unrelated issue, and I don't think I for one can handle two in one go. Dahn (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that ^, I noticed the new thread. Good call. Dahn (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've gotta start waiting a minute or so before posting our replies :). Anyway, I'll follow up on it. Dahn (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is an insult, you may wish to report it. (I'm posting this because I don't know if you've watchlisted that talk page.) Dahn (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I thought it was transliterated Greek. I have no idea what it means as a whole (Aromanian doesn't make much sense to me), but I looked some of it up and it seems to be about country and liberty and some other stuff. It's probably because he imagines you would find him speaking Aromanian insulting, since you are Greek, and, like all Greeks, you already hate him and have always hated his people. In fact, I'm sure you wish you could fine him for using the language, don't you?

Anyway, no biggie. Let this be the least of our concerns. Dahn (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The red link is filled, so if you're still interested in the article I'd welcome any comments or suggestions. Thank you again and looking forward to it, Dahn (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And thank you for the copyedits: you were my second pair of eyes - these old ones are really starting to fail me. I also hope you enjoyed the read. Dahn (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer to the letter of your question: with an actual Romanian literature having only emerged ca. 1800, one would have trouble finding something that's not modern ;).

To answer the spirit of your question: almost everything by Caragiale. Really: he is, to my mind, the greatest and one of the most culturally-relevant Romanian authors. He also has the great advantage of having determined the Romanians' tickle bone and Achilles' heal. If you read his stuff, you'll find the funniest, most elaborate and most intelligent jokes Romanians still make about themselves - stuff which addresses Romanian realities to this day. It's universal because it reaches that level of accomplishment, but it's strictly Romanian because it shows how ridiculous our specific affixed ideas can get, and because it tells stuff that we could never deny about ourselves. You'll discover in what way and how we are alarmist to the point of insanity over the most insignificant stuff but mellow and lethargic over stuff that requires investment, how we can be at each other's throats and tear our hair out in public before we suddenly reach a tacit compromise, how we can waste the most time by formulating problems in the stupidest most impractical way before we declare ourselves defeated, how we think we're really smart if we deceive each other and declare ourselves outraged when we discover we were deceived, how we can describe kitsch as inspiring when it's made to look patriotic, and so much more. I'm sure much of this (to the measure where it is applicable, not just satirical) could potentially be ascribed to the [rest of the] Balkans, and, with or without that, Caragiale is also one of the great Balkan authors. Not that surprising, considering that he was actually Greek (and occasionally vilified as such by those who could not take his jokes).

The only problem about Caragiale is that some of his stuff doesn't really translate well. For one, there is a level to his work that would require some insight (for instance, you could understand O scrisoare pierdută/A Lost Letter as just a pun on political games, and it could work very well as such, but it's more interesting after you get insight into which specific political games it addresses - remains to be written into an article here). The other thing is that he has coined some expressions which lose some expressive power in translation, and which have become, well, Romanian shibboleths. (I'm sure this is the case for many Greek-language writers as well.) Other than that, he is very accessible and enjoyable.

This, and what has grown from it into modernism, is what I would call specifically Romanian. An interesting offshoot of that is the stuff written by Caragiale's son Mateiu, specifically this - it's very different and very similar to what his father wrote, and it's generally viewed as one of the most representative Romanian books. (There's also good cause to reading stuff by many Romanian avant-garde writers, such as Max Blecher, but I understand you'd rather stick with more traditional prose.) Outside of this context, there is an explicitly traditionalist, anti-urban literature that was very popular around 1900, which has given Romania some classics, but I for one find too isolated and transparent (and sometimes demented) for my taste. It's also that they've been favored by the gazillion nationalist educators Romanian kids have had the misfortune of having to obey, and they've become more a recipe for patriotic sciolism than a phenomenon that one can distance himself from. There is one writer among them, whom some like and some despise, but who is interesting: Mihail Sadoveanu, whose best work I guess would have to be The Hatchet (it's a good read irrespective of the minimalist rural subject; his other novels are more worth picking from than reading through, but they do offer another extreme to Caragiale's take). You may also find interesting for their specificity and style, if a tad puerile, the tales of Ion Creangă (while his memoirs, granted, are probably not relevant to a non-Romanian public, and some would argue that they aren't even relevant for a Romanian public).

All of the above have been translated into English (and some, I'd wager, into Greek). For a quick source on such translations (or fragments of translations for larger works), search through the Plural Magazine archive (I've recently discovered it myself, and have linked it into several articles mentioned above). Granted, some translations there are not exactly masterpieces, but then again some are really good. If you want me to look some more into this (say, if something from the above catches your eye but you have trouble finding the book - the titles may vary, the editions may be obscure etc.), please don't hesitate to ask me. Dahn (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Constantine for the link you gave me. It was an interesting read.--English Bobby (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The August 2009 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) 19:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making that edited on the Korcula Page. I did pick up the error, but just forgot about it! Regards Sir Floyd (talk) 08:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please take a look at Zappas Olympics. Thank you.Alexikoua (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interested as well as neglected topic (at least in the Greek bibliography). You read my mind about the DYK. Your assistance is vital.Alexikoua (talk) 04:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if there could be some picture added together with the hook.Alexikoua (talk) 05:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the medal. I added it on wp:dyk. Alexikoua (talk) 09:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The national character of these Games is quite clear, as well as their role in the revival of the international (from 1896) Olympic Games.Alexikoua (talk) 06:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Constantine,

I hope this finds you well? It's always a pleasure to find someone who is as obsessed with Byzantine History as I am! A quick question, if you happen to know the answer...

I have just updated Romanos IV Diogenes' entry with corrected details about his eldest son Constantine. Do you happen to know if this Constantine was ever made co-emperor along with his father? According to entries in the Dumbarton Oaks collection, his two youngest sons born to Eudokia Makrembolitissa, Nikephoros and Leo, were made co-emperors shortly after their births and prior to Romanos' overthrow in 1071. These two boys were then confined to a monastery by the Caesar John Ducas, which would make sense if they were indeed raised to the purple. But the eldest, Constantine, escaped this fate, marrying Theodora Komnenos before dying in 1073 outside of Antioch fighting alongside Isaac Komnenos. By this I conclude that he wasn't crowned co-emperor along with his younger brothers during Romanos' lifetime.

Do you have any thoughts on the matter?

Regards,

Alexander. Oatley2112 (talk) 04:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Constantine. It just confirms what I have read from my search of the historical and secondary sources. Have a good day. Alexander. Oatley2112 (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would reconsider this move. Regardless any transliteration rules, the word "menavlon" is more common (certainly not by far) in the respective bibliography and gives a better sense of the real pronunciation of the word. GK1973 (talk) 10:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your earlier support in that debate. Cody7777777 (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The map [10] is indeed the most accepted academic one, (I now realize that it is based on E. Kettenhofen's "Das Sasanidenreich" which is apprently impossible to dismiss.). So how should we go on? Do you know how I can make a (nice) map based on them? Xashaiar (talk)

Hi Cplakidas. Yes we should go ahead with requesting at the map lab. so the map should combine this map with this one. Would you please place that request? Xashaiar (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did put a request! Thanks. I hope they will accept our request. Xashaiar (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On September 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Zappas Olympics, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

SoWhy 13:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On September 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chalke, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 21:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Gia sou Constantine,

The German's parents were both Bavarian. He is not half-Greek but was born in Greece. How can you claim he was half-Greek?

Regarding the citizens of the Ottoman Empire who happen to be of ethnic Greek decent. These are citizens of the Ottoman Empire whose parents, grandparents, great-grandparents (and more greats) were born in the Ottoman Empire and not in Greece. They did not have Greek citizenship and they spoke some Turkish as well as Greek to do business and Greek in their domestic lives.

When Greece became independent of the Ottoman Empire in 1821 the ethnic Greeks spread across the Ottoman-occupied world found themselves separated nationally.

Pete Sampras, the great tennis player, is an ethnic Greek who competed for the United States. In international competition he represented the United States. Philippousis, another ethnic Greek competed and still competes for Australia. Andre Agassi, an ethnic Armenian (his original name was Agassian), competed for the United States.

Zappas.org is a source with original content about the early modern history of the Olympic Games. There is no content that I have read on that website that is incorrect.

Your argument is that the Olympic Games (which were formally called "Olympic Games" and that is what they were formally called on the programme of those Games) were not international. How are they not international?

In 1875, Mindler whose parents were both Bavarian and whose ancestors were Bavarian was a participant. Are you trying to classify him as an ethnic Greek? Does the fact that he was born in Greece make him Greek?

In 1870, when the Cretan competed are you claiming that he was Greek even though when Crete became independent of the Ottoman Empire it was an independent country up till 1913? Crete was never part of Greece before 1913.

And in 1859, when Velissariou of Smyrna came first in a running contest - Smyrna was Greek for a brief period in 1922. Prior to that it was Ottoman for three hundred plus odd years and after that it has been a part of the Republic of Turkey.

Are you claiming that Velissarios was a Greek citizen just because his great-great-great-great-great-grandfather was born in one of the ancient regions of Hellas ruled over by Byzantines or Romans.

Think about this. This is a very serious issue. Now tell me is Mindler Bavarian or Greek?

If you say Greek then the Ottomans were Ottomans which means that these Olympic Games were international.

If you say he is German then this means that the 1875 Olympic Games was international.

You also claim that the Cretan was Greek but he would have to be born after 1913 to be Greek.

You also claim Velissarios was Greek. If he had a passport it would have been an Ottoman passport. He would have been fluent in the Turkish language as well as the Greek language.

Think about this. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 05:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask the same questions again because I feel that I am being ignored and I do not deserve to be. By answering these two questions we resolve the internationality of the Olympic Games sponsored by Zappas:

1. Is Mindler Bavarian and Velissariou Greek OR is Mindler Greek and Velissariou Ottoman? Those are the two options.

If Mindler is a Greek then those born in the Ottoman Empire are not Greek. Their ethnicity is unimportant when it comes to citizenship. The Ottomans were not citizens of Greece. The Ottomans were not born in the country called Greece that was liberated in 1821. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. If these Games were Panhellenic then what were foreign citizens doing competing in them? Remembering that "Panhellenic" and "Panhellenism" is not the same thing (and the difference is not pedantic). These Games were not Panellhnia (a Greek word) Games. Nor were these games Panhellenistic (from the Greek "Panhellenismos") which means that only ethnic Greeks could compete. These Games were open to all competitors and the competitors came from Greece and the Ottoman Empire and a non-ethnic-Greek competed in these Games. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Do you agree or disagree with the facts? I have not presented fiction. These are the facts. Do you agree or disagree?

I am not trying to teach you history. History is reported by scholars who regularly and/or conveniently fail to convey the facts. One of the facts that they have failed to convey is that the revival of the Olympic Games that began in 1859 in Greece was international. They also fail to convey that the Athens 1896 Olympic Games would not have happened without the Panathenian stadium and without the experience of the earlier Olympic Games that were sponsored by Zappas. Without Zappas there would have been no 1896 Athens Games. Without Zappas the Panathenian stadium would not have been the first stadium to host a modern Olympic Games or the only Olympic stadium to host events at the Olympic Games five times. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I regularly find on Wikipedia that when an argument is watertight nobody responds. All I am interested in is that history is based on facts and not repeated nonsense. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

gia sou! me pio skeptiko den boroun na boun oi voulgaroi?epidi kanan prosartisi sti voulgaria ton edafon toys?..sosti logiki alla tote de tha prepe na fanetai afto ston kedriko xarti?Greco22 (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

καταλαβα...απλα το infobox οπως ειπες,οντως σε μπερδευει λιγο γιατι εχει κ το πρασινο των βουλγαρων Να ρωτησω κατι αλλο αν δεν κανει κοπο?Επειδη θελω να μεταφερω σε ξενες εγκυκλοπαιδειες(γαλλικη,ιταλικα πχ),καποια ελληνικα προσωπα που δεν υπαρχουν-οπως σωλομο-ειχα την απορια αν περνιεται αυτοματα η "νεα γλωσσα" στις λιστες ολων των υπολοιπων γλωσσων(αριστερα κατω) γιατι φανταζομαι αλλιως ειναι λιγο κοπιαστικο....!ευχαριστωGreco22 (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one! When you can produce a decent article about a hall of a building, one wonders how many articles potentially we could have.... Himalayan 15:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On September 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bonus (patrician), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

JamieS93 20:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I just sent you an email. Amsaim (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems Zappas Olympics generated small edit wars, but things might be complicated. I believe it needs a careful description. I've created Panagiotis Soutsos, so completing the 'olympic puzzle' history. When you have time take a look. Thanks.Alexikoua (talk) 06:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed Soutsos for dyk. Actually there were some 3-4 good hooks, but I prefered a simple one. It would be interesting if you suggest some alt. hook more 'catchy' one. Thanks for the c-e job againAlexikoua (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a wierd issue on wiki commons where a user proposes for speedy deletion several pictures related to Greece [[11]], with the reason that... there is no freedom of panorama in Greece. On of his last victims was a piture of the statue of Pyrrhus [[12]].Alexikoua (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination user was blocked, due to massive deletion requests.Alexikoua (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the offspring were removed? They are also under Maluk Dynasty of Baghdad.

What is your Problem? the descendants are in germany, and you can read it under dynasty of Hasan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zibi Fer (talk • contribs) 04:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I invent something? As I say you are Greek and we know the thoughts of the Greeks on Muslims.My book is in the work and then all can see that I am right. It is very interesting to know,that descendants of historic persons,lives.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.128.114.237 (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My own family tree?? I do not understand. These people are Muslim Turks with Georgian ancestors, and not related to me. I am a woman and a Hungarian, Catholic faith. So what has to do with me? I am a writer, and am looking for rarely historic people of the Ottoman Empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.189.55.246 (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking fine sir and all your edits are helpful to Wikipedia your help on the Dalimants and many other numerous articles are all in good faith and have helped many (including me) learn me about history. So Mr Cplakidas I humbly ask you to except my apology and let us start I fresh thankyou,Secthayrabe (talk)

Thankyou my lad will doSecthayrabe (talk)

Your attentions to Imperial cult (ancient Rome) are appreciated - I've no Latin to speak of and even less Greek, so dea Roma - in part a feed from Imperial cult - would probably benefit from your attentions, should the mood take you. Regards. Haploidavey (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On September 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chrysotriklinos, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Kanonkas :  Talk  04:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a pleasure reading the Byzantine navy atricle. Well done.Alexikoua (talk) 08:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The September 2009 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) 23:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On October 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Church of the Virgin of the Pharos, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

NW (Talk) 18:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Καλημέρα σας! θα ήθελα την βοήθεια σας στη σελίδα του topic (Alpha Trust Investment Services S.A.) την οποία προσπαθώ να δημιουργήσω καμμιά εβδομάδα τώρα όπου μου την διαγράψατε. Έχω δει πολλές εταιρίες του Ελληνικού χώρου όπως ALPHA BANK, EUROBANK που έχουν ανεβάσει άρθρα στο wiki και δεν έχουν κάτι διαφορετικό άπο references. θα μπορούσατε σας παρακαλώ πάαρα πολύ να μου πείτε τι μπορώ να κάνω ώστε να μου επιτραπεί η έκδοση της σελίδας? σας ευχαριστώ εκ των προτέρων και συγνώμη για την ενόχληση.

Didraki (talk) 06:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite like no one really saw Blair as PM after Brown became leader of Labour. There were, however, three days between the two titles. Please, the article quite explicitly says that he is "prime minister-elect" not "prime minister" but does state he is being sworn in tomorrow. A single day is all that needs to be held back for correctness' sake. It does say he has been invited to become PM. Saad Hariri was invited to become PM of Lebanon by in March and is still waiting to form a coalition. Tzipi Livni was invited to become PM of Israel last September and was unable to form a coalition, fought an election and lost. I understand that that won't happened here because he has gained that majority but you must understand that being invited and taking office are two different things. A single day for the sake of being as correct as we can. Please. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lame duck presidencies and premierships, as frustrating as they are, have to be respected in an encyclopedia which focuses on those technicalities. Sorry for being brusque, I was trying to speed around and was quite forgot to respond to you. I been berated fairly often for jumping the gun, so I try to be as careful as I can nowadays. Good night. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thank you for taking your time correcting the page created by me, a rookie wikipedian.

I am sure you are "more qualified" than me to decide what is the best text to the page, but let me just raise some questions / justifications:

• Greek spelling of Skotino and its transliteration - I used Σκοτεινόν (with "ν" in the end) because it's spelled that way in Google Maps. I also have seen it transliterated as Skotinón, namely in http://www.geonames.org (http://www.geonames.org/search.html?q=skotino&country=GR). I had included a list of alternative transliterations aiming at the people who searched for any of the forms find the article, even if they used a less accurate spelling/transliteration.

• Transliteration of Agia - I think this form is more usual than Ayía, but I decided to use the latter because it's the one used in the Rough Guide, which is commonly reputed as being very careful with that kind of detail.

• Suppression of the link to Paraskevi - I see no reason for not keeping it.

Best regards, --Stegop (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I expand a bit the early history of the lateen to which the Byzantine developments are central. If you stumble across a medieval illustration of a lateen (mosaics, wall paintings, etc.), please include the pic there. Kind regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On October 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Theophanes (chamberlain), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

SoWhy 19:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On October 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Opsikion, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Sponsored by "Halloween Hooks R us" Victuallers (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On October 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Armeniac Theme, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Sponsored by "Halloween Hooks R us" Victuallers (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On October 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anatolic Theme, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Sponsored by "Halloween Hooks R us" Victuallers (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On October 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thracesian Theme, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Sponsored by "Halloween Hooks R us" Victuallers (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the topic, but it seems clear that english translation of Haf ranks adopts the usaf rank system [[13]] (since ca. 1967). Apart from Klokozas' cv which mentions him as 'Lt. General' in haf.gr, the Greek Air Force personell i.d.'s adopts the usaf rank system.Alexikoua (talk) 05:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally prefer the raf rank system too, sounds also more romantic. I've noticed this incosistency because I'm preparing an article for the Greek Chief of the Armed Forces and was a little confused on which rank translation to use. I apologize if my previous msg sounded like war declaration.Alexikoua (talk) 11:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cplakidas. You have new messages at Roger Davies's talk page.
Message added 07:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Sorry, but I don't see how you can argue that Latin was not an official language after the 7th century when imperial coins continued to show legends in Latin (both letters and words) until the time of the Comneni. You are also wrong about the majority language in the Balkans. The population in Thrace/Illyricum continued to be majority Vlach (i.e. Latin speakers) until the 9/10th centuries, when large numbers migrated to North of the Danube (to avoid Byzantine rule) and most of the rest were assimilated by the Slavic-speakers (substantial pockets of Vlachs remained all over the Balkans until modern times). regards EraNavigator (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see much point in a transliteration into Latin letters if it doesn't tell the reader how the Greek is actually pronounced (cf. Latin transliteration of official name of Libya). PS: please enlighten me why we need to have empty boxes instead of some of the Greek letters. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The coin legends continued to be in Latin into the 11th c. On the other hand, it does appear that imperial decrees were issued in Greek only after Justinian. It's fair to regard this as the end of Latin as an official language. On this basis, the caption should read "until 6th c." not 7th c. The claim that it was Heraclius who "abolished" Latin as an official language appears spurious. As the Oxford Dictionary states, all that Heraclius did was to substitute Greek imperial titles (e.g. basileus) for the traditional Roman ones(sebasteos etc). As regards the residual Latin-speakers in the Balkans, their importance is much underrated. Even with the Slavic invasions, at least half the population of Thrace/Illyricum must have remained native Latin-speakers. This is supported by the evidence of the Vlach-Bulgar Rebellion of 1185. Even at this late date, it's clear from references that the Vlach element in this event was at least as important as the Bulgarians and the Asen dynasty tsars of the resulting new Bulgarian empire styled themselves rex Bulgarorum et Vlachorum. (It was the collapse of the previous First Bulgarian Empire under Byzantine military pressure that resulted in vast numbers of Vlachs migrating north of the Danube (where previous waves of Vlachs had already taken refuge) and to found the Romanian nation).

If the Vlachs were numerous in Thrace in the 11/12th c., they are likely to have been even more numerous in the 8/9th c. The point is that the Vlachs were no more or less than the indigenous Latin-speaking population of the Balkans pre- the barbarian invasions. The difficulty arises from the fact that Byzantine chroniclers did not use the term Vlachs until the 11th c. Before that they simply referred to "Thracians" and "Illyrians", who thereby became disconnected from the Vlachs. Vlach is simply a variant of what was clearly a common barbarian term for Romans, which appears in various forms all over the empire: Welsh, Walloon (the French speakers of Belgium), Olasz (the Hungarian term for Italians), Welscher (the Austrian slang for Italians). The origin of this term is uncertain, but may come from vallum ("wall" or "ditch"), with wallscher being the original Grmanic word, meaning "people of the wall" (i.e. from behindthe Roman defence lines). After the barbarian invasions, when the barbarian tribes became the masters of Roman Europe, the term acquired a pejorative sense. My overall point is that the Balkan Romans, even allowing for the constant wars and barbarian invasions, must have remained an important component of the population until many fled N otf the Danube, leaving the rest in isolated pockets which shrank with every century. EraNavigator (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(2) Although I won't contest Latin as an official language "until 7th c" further (the evidence is not clearcut enough to make any firm conclusion), I continue to dispute strongly that the term Eastern Roman Empire in English historiography is normally used to denote the empire for its entire duration. I have in front of me the Encyclopedia Britannica, whose main article "History of the Byzantine empire" has a section entitled "The 6th c.: from East Rome to Byzantium". I challenge you to find a single serious historical work in English that refers to the empire post-641 as the "East Roman empire". The point is that the end of Heraclius reign, and the permanent loss of the vast territories of Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Africa after 700 years of Roman rule was THE watershed in the empire's history (a point that the lead still fails to highlight properly). Before that date, the empire was recognisably the eastern half of the old Roman empire. After that time, it was transformed into something far less impressive: a Balcano-Anatolian dictatorship with a narrow, Greco-Armenian orientalising culture far removed from classical civilisation. The transformation is seen also in military affairs. Until the mid 6th c., the army was essentially identical, in structure and dispositions, to the eastern section of the 4th century Late Roman army, as shown in the Notitia Dignitatum. After the change, the army was transformed into the theme-based army characteristic of the Byzantine era. EraNavigator (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you've defended your changes effectively, and I won't contest them further. But I remain unhappy with the transliteration, which I think is unhelpful to readers. Regarding the missing Greek letters, maybe my computer/software cannot recognise certain characters. But instead of the capital P of Romaion, I simply get a an empty square icon. Same for the w of twn. EraNavigator (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On October 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lykandos, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 09:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

On October 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Melias (general of Lykandos), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 09:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

At Template talk:Infobox order#Version 2, I've put up a suggestion on a new version of the template to address (largely unanswered) criticism. Suggestions would be nice on improving the new code (at that page, notwithstanding that I am an IP). Thanks, 118.90.35.155 (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Constantine, see email please. Kind regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your comment on their talk page. As this issue stretches back years according to their talk page, opening a Request for Comment on their editing might help. Fences&Windows 02:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I would like to suggest you a couple of things. The first on is to create an article "History of the Byzantine-Bulgarian (diplomatic?) relations". The two countries had coexisted together for more than 5 centuries and quite obviously they were not constantly at war. I think that the article should include the commercial, diplomatic and cultural relations and exchange and mention the Byzantine influence over Bulgaria in terms of culture and during the Second Empire administration, about marriages and all types of non-military relations as a whole. And if you think of any Bulgarian influence over the Byzantine it would be great :):):) To my mind such an article is needed because unfortunately it seems that foreign historians and researchers of the Byzantine Empire do not pay enough attention to the relations with the Bulgarians. I really hate when they write Byzantine relations with the Slavs, who are those Slavs, didn't they had countries? According to me they underestimate the role of Bulgaria... I am writing this to you because I think you are the most appropriate person to write it because I have neither talent nor good enough English and according to me you can provide much better structure and citations. Of course, I will help with citations from Bulgarian authors and will add some things if needed. I hope you will have time and interest to do this but after all it really depends on your own plans and free time.

Secondly, isn't it better a WikiProject Byzantine Empire to be created? The Empire is undoubtedly a whole world and the extend of the topics is large enough to earn its own project.

And lastly, one request: I have nominated Battle of the Gates of Trajan for GA and I tried to search for more citations of English books and sources but I did not did anything, so I would really appreciate it if you find some if the reviewer states that there are too many Bulgarian language citations. I hope that the reviewer wouldn't mind but if he does, I hope you will be able to do something :) Best, --Gligan (talk) 12:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Well, I am a little clumsy with computers and don't know how to e-mail you unless you type me your e-mail address or tell me how exactly to find it. It would be really good to send me those sources and write me a suggestion about the structure of the article. I will probably begin it today or these days under the title you suggested. It would be nice to add citations to the battle of the Gates of Trajan in the weekend, thank you very much :):):) Best, --Gligan (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work with the article Background of the Winter War! It is now promoted as GA-class. I was wondering do you have also extra time to take a look in the article Winter War? Currently, it is under FA-review Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Winter War/archive1, and very close to achieve the FA-class (hopefully). And the 30th November will the 70th anniversary of the war. Peltimikko (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are behind with giving out DYK awards. My idea is to give out some awards and deputise those people to give out some more awards. Do you think that might work? Victuallers (talk) 10:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The 50 DYK Medal
		This to celebrate your contribution. Some really interesting articles that remind us that not every article has to be about a baseball player or an old English church. You are certainly helping with Greece's contribution. Can I just tell you that the 100 award is a great shade of gold! So don't let me deter you from going on to a century. Thanks again from me and the wiki. Victuallers (talk) 10:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The October 2009 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) 18:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion made me smile. You suggest that there is a comment on DYK awards page to say that anyone can award an award and "someone" should add it. My thought was "How do I know that I'm permitted to add such a notice?" .... Should I get someone to add a permission coment for me to add one for you?

Seems to me that the solution is that you should add the comment. That way you will know that you are allowed. You can award awards, make up awards, host award ceremonies etc.... this is our project! Be BOLD! Victuallers (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cplakidas. You have new messages at Theodore Kavalliotis's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Would you like to help me? Years ago I copied a Moschopolis' corporate statute (roufetion), but in latin script? Maybe you can change it bach to Greek. Or redirect me to someone who can. The first paragraph reads like this:

† 1779 Ianouariou 2

Epidhi olon to systima toude tou pantos, me taxin kai eurrythmian diakatadechetai, kai pote den empiptai eis amichanian, dia to aischimonws dioikeisthai, you tou ouranion, kai tou epigeiou vasilews. Guildenrich (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen you have done that,and as the article is new,we are going to find more sources and the notability needed,I m not gonna mentioned the famouse people as others have done in their article,Greek-Cyprot,Greek-Canadian,can you just look into them and see what notability is there?,I have seen article about Philippines in Greece mentioned about working as a domestic worker,can you read KRESIES EFKERIES TO see if there is no greek work, as a domestic workers?do you think is that notability? thank you Lafleure355 (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been named as an involved party in a request for mediation WP:Requests for mediation/Byzantine Empire for your involvement in the article Byzantine Empire. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 23:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Cplakidas. You have new messages at Maralia's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Byzantine Empire. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

                      http://www.new-byzantium.org/houseof.html

On December 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gasmouloi, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

On December 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Prison of Anemas, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

On January 14, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Michael Bourtzes, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

On January 17, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peter Phokas, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

On January 22, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vitalian (general), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

On January 23, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Justinian (general), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

On January 28, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Justin (consul 540), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

		The Epic Barnstar
		For your endless efforts to create and promote hundreds of historical articles, like a modern Skylitzes.Alexikoua (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]