User talk:Cplakidas/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Books and Bytes - Issue 19

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 19, September–October 2016
by Nikkimaria, Sadads and UY Scuti

• New and expanded donations - Foreign Affairs, Open Edition, and many more
• New Library Card Platform and Conference news
• Spotlight: Fixing one million broken links

Read the full newsletter

19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Iazyges

Hey, thanks for your help on editing the Iazyges article, I was wondering, what work do you think would need to be done in order to make it good enough to pass a GAN? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Iazyges, my pleasure. Regarding further work, this is really not an area I am knowledgeable in; however some quick impressions from it: a) scrap the century-by-century sections, and try to group by broader chronological eras or chief events, if possible. Centuries are artificial markers. b) right now the history section is (or at least looks) half-done, take it with a relatively consistent level of detail at least to the end of late antiquity. c) a discussion of cultural, social, political, etc. aspects is indispensable for any article dealing with a people, although I don't know if there is anything pertaining to the Iazyges in particular. If not, then probably the same stuff as with the Sarmatians is applicable? d) a section on primary sources concerning them is always a good idea at the beginning, for instance do we have sources on them besides the Greco-Roman authors? Archaeological remains? e) a stylistic issue, as the article gets bigger, I'd eschew using full references and use shortened footnotes (e.g. Smith (2000), p. x or similar), as they are easier to read and follow. Finally, the quality of any article hinges very much on the available bibliography. Are there any studies that deal with them exclusively, or as part of related peoples? Then that is where I would begin from, and then use the other sources to fill out details, give context, etc. For my part I'll keep my eye out for any sources. Best of luck! Constantine ✍ 20:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Jaziran Province

I was doing some reading on this region + Armenia + Azerbaijan + whole of Caucasus + Khazars. And understanding this province is crucial and it's governors, one thing that has been bugging me is what is the capital of this province ???? And in Khalid's book, what is the capital of the Superprovince of Jazira, which includes Armenia (Dbil) + Azerbaijan (Ardabil) Alexis Ivanov (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Alexis Ivanov! As far as I can tell, the "superprovince" was an ad hoc creation, so there was no permanent capital either. The governor might reside anywhere he wanted, or, more usually, be with the field army, and he would have deputy governors in place in each province. Constantine ✍ 07:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The superprovince was created in 702 C.E., but the Jaziran province was created in 692 C.E., how about the capital before the superprovince, those 10 years where did the Governor reside? I always assumed Mosul. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:53, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

For the Jazira, Mosul is the most probable, at least it was the case in later times. But again, in these early times it is likely that the concept of a "capital" as a permanent administrative seat ha not yet emerged, and that the situation was more ad hoc. Constantine ✍ 10:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, that is how I felt the situation was.

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVII, November 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at two new books on the US military Interview: A chat with our new project coordinators Review essay: Nick-D discusses recent works on the British and Australian Armies in World War I Op-ed: TomStar81 on the end of the Battle of the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Kharistan

On 9 November 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Kharistan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in the Battle of Kharistan in 737, the Umayyads caught the Turgesh khagan off guard with only a fraction of his army, and secured a victory that saved Arab rule in Central Asia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Kharistan. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of Kharistan), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

User group: New Page Reviewr

Hello Cplakidas.

Based on the patrols you made of new pages during a qualifying period in 2016, your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed.

New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Cplakidas. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Ancient Greek generals

Please do not remove the category tags I am trying to put on Ancient Greeks Generals. It does nt matter if the categories are "sisters" or sth like that. They were Greek generals so they have to be put on the corresponding category. Thanks! NickTheRipper (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi NickTheRipper. Please read WP:SUBCAT on the subject. It is part of the editing guidelines of Wikipedia to avoid overcategorization by including parent categories, when the parent-child relationship is clear and unambiguous. Ancient Macedonians were Greeks, and Ancient Macedonian generals by default are also Ancient Greek generals. Constantine ✍ 23:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Oooooh! Come on... Are you kidding me? I spent nearly two hours on this....Anyway, thanks! NickTheRipper (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@NickTheRipper: I know the feeling. It takes some time and trial-and-error to learn the ropes around here. Feel free to ask if you need anything. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 19:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter

Hello Cplakidas,

Breaking the back of the backlog

We now have 816 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.

Mid July to 01 Oct 2016

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

---

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .

talk

thankyou: my problem english wiki editing page note open for used stub। (J ansari (talk) 12:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC))

Your GA nomination of Patroclus (admiral)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Patroclus (admiral) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 05:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Mistaken assessment

I have come across two of you recent GA nominations—Droungarios of the Fleet, Protostrator. But these are lists not article, and are not eligible for GAN. Perhaps you could take them to ACR or FAC. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Krishna Chaitanya Velaga. I beg to differ. They are about a specific subject, and include a list of holders. The fact that I chose a list structure for the holders, rather than write them into a text, as I did at parakoimomenos for instance, is incidental. Constantine ✍ 08:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not saying that what you've done is wrong, it must be list, and the assessment to be made list class. It is not to be a GAN. Anyway I ping Nick-D for an opinion. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. My point is that arguing about this is mixing form with substance. If I removed the list of known holders to a separate article, then there would be no question about it being an "article", and eligible for GA; but once I add a list of people who held the post, which is important because it also serves to illustrate the composition of the topic's membership, the entire article becomes a "list"? These articles simply seek to cover a subject comprehensively, and there is not that much information to have separate main articles and lists. The subject's main component quite clearly is not the list. Constantine ✍ 09:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

There's more paragraphs of text in those articles than many other GAs, so they don't seem to be "stand alone lists". Nick-D (talk) 09:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at America's nuclear capability at the start of the Cold War Review essay: Hawkeye7 on the Manhatten Project suite of articles Op-ed: TomStar81 discusses leadership changes in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Article "Joelle Khoury" to review

Hello Cplakidas! Could you please review the article "Joelle Khoury", so the template "New unreviewed article" can eventually be removed by the editor/reviewer? For the notability of the composer and as required by WP, the article fully meets 3 of the 6 criteria for composers (for notability, the article needs at least one of the six points of the criteria):

1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition (the Opera, major work in the article) 2. Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc.) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time. (Opera and other concerts at Esterházy Palace, Eisenstadt, Austria, by Kremerata Baltica (founded by Gidon Kremer in 1997) 6. Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on his or her genre of music. (Thomas Burkhalter book – citation in References, Book on Lebanese composers - written in French, and articles written by the composer, including article in notorious publication).

Thank you very much in advance, hoping you will have time for it. Lebmusic Lebmusic (talk) 14:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

Iazyges A-class

Hey I wanted to ask if you would be willing to be one of the three reviewers for my Iazyges article's A-class review. Thanks, Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter #2

Hello Cplakidas,

Please help reduce the New Page backlog

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

• Improve the tools: Vote here.
• Reduce your review load: Vote here

---

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .

Al-Hasan ibn Ammar

Hello Cplakidas

I have some concerns about Al-Hasan ibn Ammar.

I Found in many sources that he was a Kutama Berber chief and some sources cited him as "Al-Hasan ibn Ammar al-Kutami". This sources are :The Ismailis: Their History and Doctrinesp:178, 179. The encyclopædia of Islam volume 11p: 171. The encyclopædia of Islam volume 1 p:1042.The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates: The Islamic Near East from the Sixth to the Eleventh Centuryp:327. Medieval Encounters: Jewish, Christian and Muslim Culture in Confluence and Dialogue, Volume 2p:181. I think there are two "ibn Ammar". What's your opinion ? --Aṭlas (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Aṭlas! Yes, I thought so too at the beginning, for the same reason. Walker and Brett, however, who are specialists on Fatimid history, clearly name the wasita as "a local Kalbid amir" and "Hassan ibn Ammar al-Kalbi" respectively, and Kennedy also clearly links Ibn Ammar the wasita with Ibn Ammar who led troops from Ifriqiya in 971, and that was a Kalbid-led operation. I tend to prefer the first two sources as they are more specialist, i.e. they focus on the Fatimid state at that specific period in its history, rather than more generalist works like Daftary's, whose focus is more broad. My only guess why some sources name him a Kutama or "al-Kutami" is either because of his close association with the Kutama or, IMO more likely, because of simple confusion (in an Egyptian context he appears solely as the chief of the Kutama troops after all, and both a modern or a medieval historian focusing on Egyptian history might well ignore or forget his previous career in Sicily and simply call him "al-Kutami"). Even the best scholars slip sometimes. Constantine ✍ 09:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia!

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Al-Mu'tamid

The article Al-Mu'tamid you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Al-Mu'tamid for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Domitian an Eponymous archon of Athens?

Hi Costas. Merry Xmas. I found that!. Is this a mistake or ????? --FocalPoint (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Patroclus (admiral)

The article Patroclus (admiral) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Patroclus (admiral) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 13:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Byzantinische Zeitschrift

Hello ! I'm an user of the French Wikipedia and I often work on the Byzantine Empire. Currently, I'm working on the reigns of Justinian and Justin I, notably the influence of the former during the reign of the latter. I've seen that there is an article of the Byzantinische Zeitschrift about that issue (https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/byzs.2007.100.issue-1/byzs.2007.13/byzs.2007.13.xml) but I've no access to it. If you are able to read it, could you give me the abstract of the article or the thesis of the author ? Thank you ! Spartan 117 (talk) 20:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Spartan 117! Check your email! Cheers, Constantine ✍ 12:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks !! Spartan 117 (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

Editor of the Week seeking nominations (and a new facilitator)

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact L235 if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Principality of Samos

Hello Konstantinos, I appreciate that the Turkish name I added is in modern Turkish and that the Ottoman Turkish version in Arabic script would be more appropriate. However, unless you can provide the latter, the modern Turkish name is not irrelevant in that the Principality has been written about in Turkish under this very name and the modern version is likely to be at worst an approximate rendering of the old Osmanlı name anyway, which might help understand potential Ottoman archives transcripted into modern Turkish. But I'm not going to squabble over such a trifle. Kalpvelale (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kalpvelale! I understand your point, but as far as I am aware (my knowledge is limited and any corrections are welcome) it is not simply a question of alphabet used and its transcription, as the modern Turkish syntax is different to the Ottoman one, the latter being influenced by Perso-Arabic forms, hence the names are not identical. As the names included in such articles are the official, and above all, contemporary names, the Ottoman name is suitable, but the modern one is not, just as it would be inappropriate to use a modern Greek name for an ancient Greek entity/concept, even though here too the differences would be rather small. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 10:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Constantine. Yes, I am aware that it is not just a matter of which alphabet to use. My point is that there is no obligation to only mention official names used during the period in question in the body of the article (I would say that applies at best to the infobox). Sisam Beyliği is the generally accepted name in Turkish historiography (one of our main sources for the history of this entity) and as such could it not be legitimately mentioned in the article, preceded by "in modern Turkish"? Kalpvelale (talk) 10:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, this is an understandable position, but it mixes up two things: one is modern historiography, the other is the entity's name. The principality was never called by its modern Turkish name during its existence; the article lede, infobox, etc, are usually reserved for the "official", or at least contemporary names. That is why we don't have Βυζαντινή Αυτοκρατορία at the Byzantine Empire page, Imperio Romano for the Roman Empire, or modern Turkish in the Seljuq dynasty article, even though these are the historiographic terms in languages in which a large part of modern scholarship on the subject is written, and which arguably would even be understandable as a term to the actual contemporaries of these entities. You can see similar examples in most historical states articles. I realize that the closer the "modern" form is to the historical, and the more recent the subject, there is the understandable tendency to not differentiate that much, but the same principle still applies, and it is a principle that has come about after bitter experience. Samos is a relatively harmless and straightforward case, but imagine e.g., what would happen at the Ottoman Empire page if every language was added in whose national historiography the Ottoman Empire looms large... Limiting ourselves to "official" or at least very common, but contemporary, names is both a way to avoid unending disputes over what to include, and is also, strictly speaking, more accurate than using an anachronistic name.

Anyway, in this one case you are probably right that there is no real harm to use the modern Turkish name as a placeholder. I won't revert any addition of it, but if you can find the proper Ottoman name, please add it (I will do likewise). Constantine ✍ 11:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree with that. I was aware of the difference modern historiography vs. entity's name and am very sensitive to it myself. Having limited time, I sort of conflated the two, but you are right of course. Needless to say I would not have argued the same for the Ottoman Empire page. The more specific the subject, the more welcoming I think we should be in terms of how it is referred to in various sources. ;) Have a good day. Kalpvelale (talk) 11:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Likewise, and a happy new year! Best, Constantine ✍ 11:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too Kalpvelale (talk) 12:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Ethnicity-category

Hello Cplakidas.

I feel I must contact you directly regarding a categorization you made, because you spoke in a hostile tone, and this make me afraid that this will result in an argument that could be dangerous for my mental health. You see, I suffer from anxiety, and hostility may result in panic attacks, and no categories in Wikipedia is worth that. Do you think it is necessary to be hostile to a stranger on the internet over a category? You never know their health and history, so please show some consideration. I have a degree in history and I know all that you point out. Because of my fragile mental health, I always let anyone here have their way regardless, but I feel I should explain before that.

This is the issue. The "Category:14th-century Greek People" (and its equivalents) is not about ethnicity. I have myself crated many of those categories.

1) Just as you point out, many nations with these categories did not exist in that century, which make it difficult to categorize them according to citizenship or something like that: this is true. But it is equally true, that to categorize them in accordance with ethnicity is problematic. If you reason like that, then in that case, you will have all sorts of problems that may indeed border on racism. For example: a British singer with Pakistani heritage, may be categorized as "Pakistani singer" even though they spent all their career in Britain, because they did not have "British blood". I am sure you understand how that would look? You may argue that a Pakistani-British singer would belong to the 20th century when citizenship existed, but all these categories must be treated the same way regardless.

2) What is important for this category is not ethnicity. What use could we have for categorizing people by century according to ethnicity? What is the use of it? The use of this category, is to see which people have been a part of the history and development of a (present) country. Maria dalle Carceri and‎ :Guglielma Pallavicini may have been of Italian heritage, they may not have spoken Greek in their entire live, but they lived in the area which is not Greece, and they thus belong to Greek history. That is what these categories are about. Do you understand my point? It is true that the category is problematic because Greece did not exist then, but so is the focus of ethnicity - the category will always be problematic, and we must chose the most useful focus regardless.

3) You talk of "Blood" and such does make me uneasy. Don't you see how that sound? Would you speak the same way of an immigrant in the 21st-century? How would that be regarded? You may argue that the 14th-century and the 21st century is different, but the same rules must apply tot this category regardless of century. Do you include a person from present category in a Greek category if they live permanently in Greece, but do not have "Greek blood"?

Please do not speak so aggressively and hostile. This is an encyclopedia, we all try to do our best, and there is no excuse to disregard a fellow editor because you do not share the same opinion, even if this is the internet were we are all anonymous. If you insist, I do not have the mental health to resist you, because I am afraid of aggressive people (therefore may not have the strength even to read your answer) but please consider what I say above, can you do that, even if you feel very strongly about the subject? I may ad, that this is not about prestige, status and of me being eager to "win" a fight: I could not give less for such things. I just want a historically useful category. If you visit the category 14th century Greek people, then you want to find people who was a part of the history of present Greece in that century, because that is useful and the purpose of the category, and that is the use of the categories regardless of century. --Aciram (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Aciram. Well, let's take things one by one...

"This is the issue. The "Category:14th-century Greek People" (and its equivalents) is not about ethnicity. I have myself crated many of those categories." So did I, and I disagree. It is both about ethnicity and about political identity. A person can be both ethnically X and belong to (political) nationality Y, but that is not the case here. Here you have a ruling class of Italian/French ethnicity, which established its own rule over a subject (Greek) population, and rarely intermarried with them. The political entities they presided over were emphatically non-Greek, but transplantations of their home countries' political and social (and even ethnic) realities on a foreign soil. That is why the Crusades are universally viewed as a period of foreign rule wherever they happened, be that in the Balkans or in the Middle East.

"to categorize them in accordance with ethnicity is problematic." Per the above, no it is not. A Greek person living in the Roman Empire is still a Greek, just as much as a Roman subject; a Greek living in the Ottoman Empire is still a Greek, as well as an Ottoman subject. A person born of Italian parents, speaking Italian, marrying an Italian, belonging to the Roman Catholic faith, and ruling according to Italian norms, is an Italian, regardless of where the rule takes place.

"they may not have spoken Greek in their entire live, but they lived in the area which is not Greece, and they thus belong to Greek history" I fully agree that they are part of Greek history, and this is covered by the other categories under the Category:Frankish and Latin Greece, but that does not make them Greek people. It is the same as saying that Robert Clive is Indian because he was a figure in Indian history, that Hans Frank is a Pole because he was a figure in Polish history, or that Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent is Greek, because he ruled over almost all Greeks of his time...

"You talk of "Blood" and such does make me uneasy." please don't exaggerate or jump to conclusions. Blood, in terms of origin, is one of the factors determining ethnicity, along with language, culture, religion, etc. That and that alone is meant here.

"Do you include a person from present category in a Greek category if they live permanently in Greece, but do not have "Greek blood"?" Well, as it happens, I would, insofar as they were Greek subjects, and/or were significantly active in the context of the modern Greek state. None of which applies to a Crusader ruler in the 14th century who lived consciously separate from the bulk of the populace he/she ruled over.

Regarding fights, I fully agree that this is not a contest. However there is such a thing as making an edit that, however well-intentioned, is historically and factually unfounded. Cheers, and a happy new year! Constantine ✍ 19:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 Year in Review

		The Barnstar of WikiProject Greece
		For your contributions to the Featured Article Theodore Komnenos Doukas, you are hereby awarded The Barnstar of WikiProject Greece. Congratulations! For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 07:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

		The WikiChevrons
		For your contributions to the Featured Article Theodore Komnenos Doukas, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons. Congratulations! For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 07:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot TomStar81, much appreciated! A happy and productive new year to you! Constantine ✍ 08:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sack of Damietta (853)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sack of Damietta (853) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ErrantX -- ErrantX (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIX, January 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at three recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on a curious episode of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Muhammad ibn Tughj al-Ikhshid scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Muhammad ibn Tughj al-Ikhshid article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 21, 2017. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 21, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the man with the "tumultuous career"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Glad you liked it! Cheers, Constantine ✍ 08:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sack of Damietta (853)

The article Sack of Damietta (853) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sack of Damietta (853) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ErrantX -- ErrantX (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Really enjoyed that article :) Good work! --Errant ^(chat!) 10:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Protovestiarios and Orphanotrophos

Hi Constantine, could you try to solve a dilemma about dates? According to the article Protovestiarios, this title appeared just in 412 as a comes, but according to Orphanotrophos the title already appeared during Constantius II's rule when Zotikos was the holder. Do you have anything in mind to solve this more than 60 years gap?--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Renato de carvalho ferreira! It's quite simple: the Orphanotrophos article references the Patria of Constantinople, a 10th/11th-century source, that uses contemporary titulature and is nit always that reliable. In this case, Zotikos probably existed, but the title of protovestiarios attributed to him is probably anachronistic. I'll have a look in the PLRE though, to see if there is anything more. Best, Constantine ✍ 07:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Renato de carvalho ferreira: the PLRE does not contain Zoticus, but I've checked Preger's edition of the Patria, and in Vol. II, p. 235, it says "Επί Κωνσταντίου του υιού του μεγάλου Κωνσταντίνου Ζωτικός πατρίκιος και πρωτοβεστιάριος κτίζει τους εν κυρίω αδελφούς κατοικίας, τροφάς αυτάρκεις αυτούς" ("Under Constantius, son of the great Constantine, Zoticus the patrikios and protovestiarios built..."). So the information is correct. Constantine ✍ 08:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Changing the topic, don't you think that this phrase - The court poet Theodore Prodromos and the so-called "Manganeios Prodromos" - has something more? There is a mention to these authors, but not what they did.--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Oops, a rather major oversight. Thanks for the heads up, it is now fixed. Constantine ✍ 09:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Greek parties

Hello Cplakidas. I was wondering whether you could possibly help me clarify something. Some time ago, I created articles on National Democratic Party (Greece) and National Radical Party (Greece). An IP has recently merged the articles, claiming they are the same party (the NDP was renamed the NRP). This seems possibly true, but I can't find any source that supports it (I suppose because I can only search in English, and not very well at the moment as I'm in a country where Google is blocked). Would you be able to confirm whether the IP is correct? Cheers, Number 57 07:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Number! The merge is legitimate, I've had a look in Greek sources and they confirm that Kondylis indeed renamed his party. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 07:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Great, many thanks for the quick response too! Number 57 07:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Al-Muktafi

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Al-Muktafi you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

byzantium work/task

pity it is solidly embedded into greece project - havent done as much tagging as I would like to have done - I have come across a number of turkish and other country categories where byzantium is in the title - it feels odd appropriating talk page space with a greek project tag in a syrian or turkish category... not to worry - I would dream some day of a byzantium project as a stand alone - dreaming I think JarrahTree 08:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi JarrahTree, it is true that ideally it should be stand-alone, but there are not too many people active in the area to justify and maintain a full project. Furthermore, the embedding in the Greek WikiProject, that is for reasons of history and common practice: if you have a look at most university departments dealing with Byzantine history, they are usually titled "Byzantine and Modern Greek studies". Byzantium is the birthplace of the modern Greek nation after all. Constantine ✍ 08:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Long live those departments (in the dumbing down of the world seen by current events) - I am not denying your assertion - I am sure it will one day become a project - just a few odd tweaks for a while : ) JarrahTree 08:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Template + transliteration

Hey Constantine. Small question; what exactly does the "History of Azerbaijan Republic" template and the Azeri Turkish transliteration have to do on the Babak Khorramdin page?[1] Am I missing something? Just wondering, cause I agree that for the rest indeed quite a few good links had been removed. The restoring of these two things I didn't quite understand however. - LouisAragon (talk) 09:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, Babak was active in the area of (Iranian) Azerbaijan, and is hence part of Azeri history (that covers the template). The fact that the modern Azeri language has no relation with the original Iranian Azeri language is problematic, but apparently he is considered a national hero in Azerbaijan, so the modern name has a basis. Given usual practice in similar articles on the Balkans, however, I am quite open to removing the modern name(s) from the lede altogether. Constantine ✍ 10:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. The main problem with adding transliterations of unrelated/anachronistic languages to such articles, is that it is not much more than to tag them with an ethnic label. We can be frank about that considering we both mostly edit history-related articles, and see it happen on basically a daily basis. He was indeed active in the historic Azerbaijan region, but at a time that that it hadn't been Turkified yet. Second, and probably most importantly in this regard, he as a person wasn't even an ethnic Azeri (or anything Turkic as a matter of fact). Thirdly, I'm not exactly entirely sure about the statement that just because something or someone is part of Azeri history, that it would be also necessarily related to the History of Azerbaijan Republic (a territory to the north of the historic Azerbaijan region). Same thing vice versa as well. I will add that I had thought about this myself in the past as well for many other topics, but always remained kind of indecisive about it.

This article, I can attest to it, and many more articles of that region as you know (Azer/Iran/Armenia/Georgia/Turkey), are often especially targeted by SPA IP's and socks who only visit to "ethnic label-bomb" everything with anachronistic/unrelated transliterations and content based on what they "believe" should be there, or whatever they have been told (such as by the educational system in their country of origin, to name one of the many reasons) what is "true" and not based on the verifiable facts or based on what we consider actual academia (e.g. "reliable sources"). A quite similar (notorious) example that came to mind, though certainly less prevalent nowadays, are the IP's and SPA accounts dropping Slavic Macedonian transliterations on the page of Alexander the Great every once in a while. Or the many Greek history articles that are geographically or in any other way related to present-day Albania. Directly unrelated transliterations + templates should be therefore always left out imho. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my stand on the issue too. Regarding Azerbaijan, I see that the History of Azerbaijan page explicitly covers only the area of the modern republic, so you are right, it is rather irrelevant. I am proceeding to remove them from the article right now. Constantine ✍ 18:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John I Doukas of Thessaly

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John I Doukas of Thessaly you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Protostrator

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Protostrator you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Droungarios of the Fleet

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Droungarios of the Fleet you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Droungarios of the Fleet

The article Droungarios of the Fleet you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Droungarios of the Fleet for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Ibn Tumart

Hello Cplakidas (thank you for the last time for your helpful response :))

What's your thoughts about this editor edits, [2] ? Regards --Aṭlas (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I hope that the discussion didn't give you a headache ? --Aṭlas (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Is opening a WP:RFC for this page a good move ? What is you opinion ?--Aṭlas (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, we have what amounts to a WP:SPA, possibly even a sock of a former user, pushing his own interpretation against overwhelming evidence. Normally I'd say there is no dispute to be had here, and discretionary sanctions apply to someone who refuses to get the point. But an RFC is always a good way to establish firmly what the consensus is, so go for it. Constantine ✍ 21:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid that it will be considered as a non-neutral RFC. There is some recommendations for requests for comment, and I can't follow this recommendations. --Aṭlas (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

It depends what you want the RFC to achieve. I'd recommend staying away from user RFCs, and making it about what the article should say, and how. That is the crux of the matter. Once it is decided, then there is no more grounds for edit-warring, and if it doesn't stop, there is ANI. Constantine ✍ 21:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I hope I'm not disturbing you ?
Do you really reject the reliable secondary sources that I provided ? (see, if you want, a "summary" at the end of this part). "All of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on the topic" are still not reflected, especially in the lead.
And please assume good faith. Fulgery (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fulgery, no you are not disturbing me. I have looked your arguments over, and I stand by what I have written. You cite extensively from The Dearest Quest: A Biography of Ibn Tumart, but this is not WP:RS as it is a self-published book, and leafing through it, its author certainly has some axes to grind. On sources like A short History of the Saracens and The Rise of the Spanish Empire in the Old World and the New, they only deal with the matter tangentially and probably use "Arab" as a cultural label; certainly they are not serious arguments against a host of expert sources that address the issue directly and specifically. So the scholarly consensus remains unaffected. If there were scholarly arguments about the ethnicity, if there were scholars that mention "we are not sure", then you would have a case like what you have linked with al-Baladhuri, al-Farghani, and the rest. Have a look at what kind of references are given there, they are modern, reliable, critical sources. Indeed, this is one of the rare cases where scholarly consensus is, as far as I can see, unanimous. As for points 8 and 9, they are minor quibbles and do not affect the main issue at hand. Constantine ✍ 16:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, I respect your opinion. Please note that I'm still convinced that I have brought reliable secondary sources. I'll see what are the remaining alternatives, if any. Fulgery (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

If there were scholarly arguments about the ethnicity, if there were scholars that mention "we are not sure", then you would have a case like what you have linked with al-Baladhuri, al-Farghani, and the rest.

Can you read Arabic (I don't think so, as it's not in your "Languages" part) ?

1) Here's a biography of Ibn Tumart : المهدي بن تومرت - حياته وآراؤه (Abd al Hamid al Najjar. 1983. The Mahdi Ibn Tumart, his life and thought. Dar al gharb al islami. Beirut)

The biographer is a reputable scholar who has written many books on Islam.

The publishing house is well known.

Concerning the Arab lineage :
- The biographer himself favors it after a thorough analysis, and he validates Ibn Khaldun and al-Marrakushi's views on it. (p. 30)
- He cites two modern authors, also quoted in « The Dearest Quest », saying these two also accepted it : Abd Allah Ali Allam who wrote in 1971 a book on the almohads, and the reputable Abd al-Hamid al-'Abbadi who wrote on Al Andalus history in 1958, on the Amlohades (see note 14) in 1962 and wrote books on Islam.

2) A reputable Arab (^^) scholar, Dawud Ubaydat (first link ; it's his complete bio on the site of his university). He wrote several times about the Almohads, the Almoravids and Al-Andalus. With a reputable publisher that is on this list (it's the site of the National Library of Jordan) and also there for example. He says after analysis :

"What comes to light after all that preceded is that Ibn Tumart was likely Arab by descent" (translated) (Dawud Ubaydat. 2006. Al Muwahhidun fi al Andalus. Dar al kitab al thaqafi. Jordan) Fulgery (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, and unfortunately, I cannot read Arabic. If someone who can can verify the content and the scholarly credentials of the authors, then this could be added to the article. However even then, the overwhelming view is concerning Berber descent, and the fact that modern Arab authors claim him as an Arab is rather unsurprising, and leaves open questions of POV. I really cannot judge on it without being able to read and research further, but even if these sources are fine, it still would not amount to more than "some modern Arab scholars have lent credence to Ibn Khaldun etc.", which would not be enough to offset the mountain of sources of the "other" side. It should still be mentioned in the article, but not as an equal possibility, but rather a variant interpretation. Constantine ✍ 09:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

عبد المجيد النجار (Abd al Hamid al Najjar) is not a historian. This work is a Thesis for his doctorate in Al-Azhar University. In 1981 he obtained a doctorate in Aqidah and sources of shariah. I don't think that a work of an islamist politician, a modern ʿĀlim is concidered a reliable source (and it's so normal that a modern Arab author to claim this, as Cplakidas said. You know that there is other authors claiming that all the ancient egyptian civilization was an arab civilization "معجم ألفاظ القرآن الكريم في علوم الحضارة" ?.... or that they just stole this civilization from ‘Ad people "الفراعنة لصوص حضارة" ?....). There is a difference between "Sharia and Fiqh" scholars and Islamic historians (W. Montgomery Watt, Hugh Kennedy.......). You're still using "The Dearest Quest" !!? I (and Cplakidas) already explained to you that this work is a self-published book and written and edited by a "British independent intellectual, research scholar, author, publisher, and political activist" Is there any comparison with Encyclopedia of islam ? --Aṭlas (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Constantine, I added a second reliable source above (and edited my summary).
Also, I would like to comment on your rejection of A short History of the Saracens : Syed Ameer Ali says explicitly "an Arab by descent" and "descended from Hassan I" so it's not a cultural label, and I think that the author is reputable enough in this subject (see his bio) to grant him the fact that he has done a serious research before relating the Arab lineage, no ? Fulgery (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Fulgery, that may be, but you are missing the big picture: when you have to really work hard to find a couple of moderately good sources to support a particular thesis, whereas you can find a few dozen, top-notch, highly expert sources that say the exact opposite after only two minutes' Googling, then it is almost certain that the latter represent the scholarly consensus. That Syed Ameer Ali accepts the SHarifian genealogy is one thing, but all things considered, an 1898 generalist source (A short History of the Saracens is, by its very name, not an in-depth analysis) is not equal to a ton of modern specialist reference works that say the opposite. As I have written before, you can use it as an indication that this claim is still upheld by some modern scholars, but it is by far not the common view on his ancestry. Constantine ✍ 15:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you, there's several medieval and modern sources that deny it. But the other opinion existed and exists also, therefore I think it should be mentioned. I'm not talking about you, but don't you think that if an argument (here "the majority of scholars deny it") is used by an editor to refuse the adding of a reliable sourced element in an article (here the "Arab validated" part in the lead), this argument should be itself reliably sourced ("such scholar wrote that the majority of scholars deny it") ? (and I'm not even talking about the validity of this argument in our case)

Another question please for my possible future contributions : Generally speaking, does a simple note relating a view in a reliable source is acceptable for an add ? (as I can read for secondary sources "It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.") Fulgery (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's not straightforward. It certainly is enough to warrant being mentioned in the article. For the lede, however, it is another story altogether. If it is universally (or well-nigh) rejected by scholarship, then generally I'd say to leave it out. In this case, since Sharifian descent is, AFAIK, one of the prerequisites for being the Mahdi, a case might be made towards incorporating it somehow in there. However, it would not be against Wikipedia's rules if it is left out either, since it is certainly not among the most major things one needs to know about him, which is all the lede should contain. Constantine ✍ 18:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Understood. As for me, it's the prohibition of adding it (especially as the other identity is mentioned) that I find quite problematic.

And for the question concerning using a note as a source ? Fulgery (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

A note is equally as good as if it were part of the main text; it depends on the quality of the work as a whole, if that is WP:RS, then the note is just fine. Just make it explicit in your citation that you refer to the note (cf. Yazaman al-Khadim). Constantine ✍ 18:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Fulgery (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 20

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 20, November-December 2016
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs)

• Partner resource expansions
• New search tool for finding TWL resources
• #1lib1ref 2017
• Wikidata Visiting Scholar

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It's the First Bulgarian Empire

There is no sich thing as Bulgarian Khanate.

Please have a look at your talk page. Thank you. Constantine ✍ 17:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Check this out

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ibn Tumart#RfC: Should the article gives weight to the mahdist/sharifian claims. . Aṭlas (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Zenobia FAC

Hi Constantine, I don't know if this is quite your subject but I'm sure it would benefit from your commentary if you have time... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ian! It certainly is an interesting topic, I'll have a look within the next few days. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 12:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Al-Muktafi

The article Al-Muktafi you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Al-Muktafi for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

New Mailing List

Hello! You are receiving this message because you have added yourself as a member of the Roman and Byzantine Milhist Project. This is the first such message, however we hope that this can be used to coordinate editing and development of articles later down the road. If you wish to opt out of further messages, please remove yourself from here. 05:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Al-Muktafi for DYK?

Any interest nominating Al-Muktafi for DYK so that it appears in the main page? I think it qualifies as a recent GA. HaEr48 (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi HaEr48! I had it in mind, but am rather busy for nomination and QPQ right now. If you like to nominate it yourself, go ahead, otherwise I'll get round to it in the next few days. Constantine ✍ 09:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@HaEr48: Done, but I could not think of any suitable hook apart from a very unoriginal one. If you have an idea for something juicier, feel free to add it there. Best, Constantine ✍ 20:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Nice. I don't know which ones are better hooks, the one that is unoriginal but conveys a well-rounded summary of the topic, or the one that's juicier but is just a small aspect of the topic. Of the latter type, probably you could add something on his closing of his father's dungeons. HaEr48 (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Constantine Angelos

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Constantine Angelos you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Andrassos

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Andrassos you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Protostrator

The article Protostrator you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Protostrator for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lordship of Argos and Nauplia

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lordship of Argos and Nauplia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Llywrch -- Llywrch (talk) 06:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Andrassos

The article Battle of Andrassos you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Battle of Andrassos for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John I Doukas of Thessaly

The article John I Doukas of Thessaly you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:John I Doukas of Thessaly for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Cplakidas. You have new messages at Talk:Battle of Pallene.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your GA nomination of 19th Mechanized Division (Greece)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 19th Mechanized Division (Greece) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Constantine Angelos

The article Constantine Angelos you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Constantine Angelos for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Droungarios of the Fleet

On 4 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Droungarios of the Fleet, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that from the 9th to the late 11th centuries, the droungarios of the Imperial Fleet headed the main fleet of the Byzantine navy, stationed at Constantinople? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Droungarios of the Fleet. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Droungarios of the Fleet), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Al-Muktafi

On 4 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Al-Muktafi, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the six-year reign of the caliph al-Muktafi saw the Abbasid Caliphate recover the territories of Egypt and Syria, marking the last revival in its fortunes before its collapse? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Al-Muktafi), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Vanamonde (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello Cplakidas,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 816 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thracesian Theme

Good catch; my eyesight failed me in going over that more detail-riddled map. Could you improve the lead a bit to mention the source of the name?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Good point, done! Constantine ✍ 18:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXX, February 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at submarine warfare in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Theodore Komnenos Doukas scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Theodore Komnenos Doukas article has been scheduled as today's featured article for February 25, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 25, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the story about an "ambitious, capable, and quite ruthless man, who sidelined his nephew, captured Thessalonica from the Latins and almost succeeded in recovering Constantinople and restoring the Byzantine Empire, only to be defeated, captured and blinded ..."! - I have a FAC open, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of John I Doukas of Thessaly

Hello! Your submission of John I Doukas of Thessaly at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for John I Doukas of Thessaly

On 10 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John I Doukas of Thessaly, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that John I Doukas, ruler of Thessaly, sneaked out of his fortress during a siege, disguised as a groom seeking a stray horse? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John I Doukas of Thessaly. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, John I Doukas of Thessaly), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lordship of Argos and Nauplia

The article Lordship of Argos and Nauplia you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Lordship of Argos and Nauplia for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Llywrch -- Llywrch (talk) 07:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Constantine Angelos

The article Constantine Angelos you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Constantine Angelos for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 14:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Andrassos

The article Battle of Andrassos you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Andrassos for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 19th Mechanized Division (Greece)

The article 19th Mechanized Division (Greece) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:19th Mechanized Division (Greece) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

An aquila for you

File:Aquila imperiale romana.png

I award you this aquila for your contributions on history of the Romans, Byzantines, and Persians. --Z 17:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello Cplakidas,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 816 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Colonel Christodoulou interrogates Bulgarian POWs.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Colonel Christodoulou interrogates Bulgarian POWs.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Svg maps

Hello Constantine! Thanks for the support with the maps there. But still about them, what font do you usually use for your maps? I'm translating your file:Greece_in_1278.svg and I don't know which one you used.--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Renato! I use Inkscape for drawing maps, and since I run Linux on all my machines, the fonts may be a bit peculiar. I use the generic serif and sans serif fonts offered by Inkscape under Linux, but you can substitute with whichever ones you prefer. Constantine ✍ 11:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Cplakidas. You have new messages at Template talk:Ottoman battles.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bugle: Issue CXXXI, March 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at works on two facets of US military power Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Russian Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Help with references

Hello! I've been poking through the gigantic backlog of articles without references and stumbled upon 1/38 National Guard Command which you made long ago. I can't find any references that discuss the topic, but of course I don't speak Greek and know nothing about the Greek military. Any chance you remember where you got that info and could add a reference or two to the article? (While you're at it, if you've got a reference for 95th National Guard Higher Command (Greece), you'll be my hero). Thanks a bunch! Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Still can't find any references. You must've got this information from somewhere. Please help? Thanks! Ajpolino (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Prosopography of the Byzantine Empire

Hello friend! I imagine you already know about it, but I would like to share for precaution this information anyway. I discovered few minutes ago that there are an online English version of the first half of the Prosopography on this link. It covers between 641-867 and it was made by Martindale. Cheers.--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Renato! As a matter of fact, I was aware of a far earlier version, but this is great! Thanks! Constantine ✍ 18:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in the Bosporan wars of expansion

Hello there, I'm very thankful that you helped me with the article Bosporan wars of expansion. It was a great help of you to "clean up" what I had done wrong, and I'm grateful for it. I only have a question if it should "Bosporan Wars of Expansion", as to my knowledge, that's how it should be put. I don't know whether it's right or wrong, but thank you so much regardless. LeukonTheBosporan (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves
		For your excellent work on Asad ibn Abdallah al-Qasri, Al-Mu'tadid, and Al-Mu'tasim, promoted to A class between October 2016 and April 2017. For the coordinators, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 21

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 21, January-March 2017
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

• #1lib1ref 2017
• Wikipedia Library User Group
• Wikipedia + Libraries at Wikimedia Conference 2017
• Spotlight: Library Card Platform

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Jan to Mar 17 Milhist article reviewing

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing one Milhist article at ACR during the period January to March 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

The Bugle: Issue CXXXII, April 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at air power and nuclear weaponry Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on Australia's part in the advance on the Hindenburg Line Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Maps

Hello Constantine! As soon as possible I want to creat a svg version of File:Byzantine Empire in 600.png, but I'm worried about the boundaries in Balkans and Italy. Was Calabria almost totally lost in 600? What I know about it is that the Byzantine Empire held such province por centuries, and didn't lost it to the Lombard people. And, what about Balkans? At this point, even during Maurice's expeditions, did the Sclaveni take almost the entire peninsula? In my opinion File:Roman Empire 600 ce-pt.svg (that was translated from another map) is more reliable about such topics, even possibly having another problems. Cheers!--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 03:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Renato, sorry for the delay, I oversaw your message. On Italy, the Italian WP article on the Exarchate of Italy has some detailed info, which seems to correspond by and large to that of File:Byzantine Empire in 600.png. If I were about to redraw a map, then I'd use the chronologies on when the Lombard captured the various cities. For instance, Mantua, Padua, and Cremona were not captured until 601. Plus I'd also use a striped format to indicate contested territory. On the Balkans, the File:Byzantine Empire in 600.png is rather inaccurate, since under Maurice the Danube frontier was still successfully held. I would use some form of patterning (points?) to indicate that the interior was subject to Avar and Slavic raids, perhaps, but Slavic settlement is not (yet) attested, AFAIK. Constantine ✍ 08:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Lyncestis

Hello, Constantine -- I'm in the middle of copy-editing Macedonia (ancient kingdom), and I looked at Lynkestis because I also saw a link to Battle of Lyncestis and wondered why one was spelled with a "k" and the other with a "c". I saw that, in fact, the first article's title is spelled with a "k" and the second, Battle of Lyncestis, is spelled with a "c". I wonder if you think this is all right, or whether the spelling should be more consistent. Also, I noticed that the Battle of Lyncestis article contains a lot of "citation needed" tags.  – Corinne (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Corinne! Both forms are the same, Lynkestis is a transliteration from the Greek, and Lyncestis is the latinized form. The latter is probably more common due to the historical preference of Classicists for latinized forms, but this may have changed in recent years, where there is a trend to use more "native" forms. IMO, there is no need for strict consistency here, but this can easily be resolved with a page move. On the battle, this is rather beyond the area I am knowledgeable in, and I cannot really help much with sources there. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 08:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Constantine. As long as the inconsistency in the spelling of the titles doesn't bother you, I guess we can leave them as they are.  – Corinne (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Cthonic

Constantine, this week's article for improvement is Chthonic. I have just made a few copy-edits, and there was one sentence that I found unclear. It also has no source, so I added a "citation needed" tag. It is the last sentence in Chthonic#Cult type versus function. It is this sentence:

• The absorption of some earlier cults into the newer pantheon versus those that resisted being absorbed is suggested as providing the later myths.

It is not clear which type of cult – those that were absorbed or those that resisted being absorbed (until later?) – provided the later myths. I think the structure of this sentence (with "versus" in the middle) is confusing.

Also, the sentence right before this one:

• Also, Demeter was worshiped alongside Persephone with identical rites, and yet occasionally was classified as an "Olympian" in late poetry and myth.

perhaps could use some clarification. I don't think it would mean very much to the average reader. It's not clear why Demeter would not be classified as an Olympian in earlier poetry and myth, and what kind of rites are being referred to by the phrase "identical rites" (chthonic?).

There are other "citation needed" tags, and I think the article overall could use the attention of an expert. If you have time, perhaps you could take a look at it.  – Corinne (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lordship of Argos and Nauplia

The article Lordship of Argos and Nauplia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lordship of Argos and Nauplia for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Llywrch -- Llywrch (talk) 06:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIII, May 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Strategic Air Command doctrine Op-ed: Tomstar81 looks at a little-known aspect of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Junayd of Aydın

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Junayd of Aydın you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 04:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Junayd of Aydın

The article Junayd of Aydın you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Junayd of Aydın for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Xerigordos

No objection to correcting this, but since "Xerigordon" is way more common in the literature (owing to Runciman?) I think it needs to be mentioned somewhere. I have tried to find a source that explains the difference, i.e., that Xerigordon is an error and the only source (Anna) gives Xerigordos, but I haven't found one. I am not comfortable calling it an error on my own authority. Do you know of a source that describes Xerigordon as an error? Srnec (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Srnec. On the name itself, Albert of Aix mentions no name, but merely that the castle where Suleiman was residing was three miles from Nicaea: "ad castellum quoddam Solymani, viri magnifici, ducis et principis Turcorum, pervenerunt, ubi montana terminantur [0401B] et silva, distans a Nicaea spatio trium milliarium." (Book 1, Chapter 17, my Latin is rudimentary, but that I can make out). Guibert of Nogent uses a corrupted Latinized form, leaving only Anna (Χ.6.2) for the original Greek name: "Λόγου δὲ ἀναμεταξὺ αὐτῶν τε καὶ τῶν μὴ σὺν αὐτοῖς ἀπελθόντων κινηθέντος, ὁποῖα φιλεῖ ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις γίνεσθαι, τοῦ φθόνου τὸν θυμὸν ἀναφλέγοντος τῶν ἀπολειφθέντων κἀντεῦθεν ἁψιμαχίας ἀμφοῖν γενομένης οἱ τολμητίαι Νορμάνοι ἀποκριθέντες αὖθις τὴν Ξερίγορδον καταλαβόντες ἐξ ἐφόδου κατέσχον". That is clearly a feminine name, hence η Ξερίγορδος, since AFAIK the place is only ever mentioned by Anna among Greek writers. How Runciman was confused I don't know, but it is not as if this is a major mistake. Simply an oversight on his part, I guess. I am fully in agreement with adding the "incorrect" name to the article as well though. Constantine ✍ 17:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Hello Cplakidas,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 816 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430)

The article Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIV, June 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at the Battle of Kokoda and US defence acquisition in the 1960s Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of Messines Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed decarch article - merge into decanus or is it enough to stand alone?

Decarch (Greek: δεκάρχος, dekarkhos, Latin: decarchus) was a rank in the Roman army, used in the eastern Roman Empire, among Greek-speaking soldiers, that continued on as a Byzantine military rank.

In Latin, the rank was called decurio (initially, in the cavalry only) and later decanus (in both the infantry and cavalry); the Greek term is Latinised as decarchus. It referred to the second or third-to-last rank, above a pentarch, and later, above a pentarch and tetrarch. (The tetrarch appears in the Strategicon of Maurice, but it may have become a rank earlier, in the reign of Zeno).

The Miracles of Saint Demetrius mentions the centarch, pentecontarch and decarch, but not the chiliarch. Conversely, the Life of Saint Philaretus the Merciful does not mention the decarch. Warren Treadgold theorises that this is because at that time the irregular troops of Thessalonica did not amount to 1,000 men and therefore were without a chiliarch, while the Life of Saint Philaretus does not mention decarchs because they were so far beneath the others. Both texts omit the pentarchs and tetrarchs, but they appear again in 9th-century texts and cannot have fallen into disuse in the meantime.

The rank's antecedent was the decurio (decurion), originally a cavalry rank under the Republic and Principate, which became an infantry rank during the Dominate after the reforms of Diocletian. A decurion oriignally commanded ten men; however, this was reduced by Diocletian to eight (including the decurion himself). Although the Late Roman δεκάρχος seems to have been used interchangeably with decurio and decanus in the East, it sometimes was not used at all: Saint Jerome lists the ranks of a typical cavalry regiment that includes no decarch or decurion, and research shows that some infantry units used this system as well. The source of the innovation is the Scholae Palatinae of Constantine, and Treadgold reasons that at the time frontier regiments East and West using the older and newer rank systems were deployed together, and each understood the system used by the other. For a cavalry regiment like Jermoe's, Vegetius says that the lowest-ranking functionaries were circitor and semissalis and these probably became ranks in the scholae, roughly equivalent to the decarch. In regiments that used decarchs, there would have been 50 of them.

The rank continued in Byzantine use through the tenth century.

References

Hi Jpbrenna! It looks to me that the decarch article is perfectly fine to stand on its own. It is common practice to have articles for different rank names, even though they all mean the same. With decarch/decanus the distinction is even clearer due to the latter's use elsewhere (Byzantine use, origin of "dean", etc). The only question would be whether decarch is distinct enough from decurio, but as I said, common practice on WP at least supports it. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 07:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430)

The article Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

	A flag for you!
	Thank you for your assistance on the Genoese navy article, and for your creation of the Genoese navy category. I am pleased to send you the flag of Genoa as compensation for you efforts. Cheers. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Panathenaic Stadium

Hello Konstantinos. I wanted to know your opinion one the following matter. This source has an image of the stadium from Ferdinand Stademann's Panorama of Athens (Munich, 1841). It presumably shows the ruins of the stadium. Do you think it is legitimate to use in the article? You may compare it with the this image from this book. Also, could you check if the caption under the picture in the book says it's from Ernst Ziller's book? --Երևանցի ^talk 20:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Yerevantsi! The image is definitely suitable for use in the article, and properly licensed. The caption beneath says it can be redistributed under CC-BY-SA 4.0, but in reality I would say it is public domain due to its age. The draing comes from Ferdinand Stademann's Panorama of Athens, showing the city as it was in 1835, and published in Munich in 1841. Nice find! Cheers, Constantine ✍ 09:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Help in changing article name

I'm doing some research on Ottoman Grand Admirals (Kapudan) and I didn't like the title of Müezzinzade Ali Pasha, he is known as Sufi Ali Pasha, that might be true but every source I have read about him never call him Sufi Ali, he is more renown for Müezzinzade (Müezzin = Muezzin, Zade = son). I hope you can move it Mr.Helping Hand (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Mr.Helping Hand! I have moved it back. In future, you can request page moves at an article talk page. It is better that way since any arguments and counter-arguments, as well as sources supporting them, can be listed there. The discussion usually establishes a consensus and avoids constant page moves, while also serving as a future reference. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 09:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, very much, I will keep that in mind. Mr.Helping Hand (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 22

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 22, April-May 2017

• New and expanded research accounts
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: OCLC Partnership
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Paok fc

I would appreciate if you could help me in a little conflict regarding rhe article of Paok fc and tell your opinion RegardsGreco22 (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Gedik Ahmad Pasha

I believe he is a Serbian (born near Vranje) not Albanian or Greek, but he did indeed serve in the Ottoman Navy and even led them as a Grand Admiral (but held the Sanjakbey title), I will try and provide sources. I noticed you are missing one major source, that I would like to help you with and perhaps I can send you an email if you are interested. Mr.Helping Hand (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

"While little is known about the early years of Gedik Ahmed Paşa, the Turkish scholar Mükrimin Halil Yınanç has cited unnamed Western sources claiming that he was of Palaiologan

origin. More recently, the 1985 study on the Serbian region of Vranje by Aleksandar Stojanovski, has established that Gedik Ahmed Paşa was a member of the minor Serbian aristocracy. In Stojanovski’s study of a fifteenth-century cadastral survey (tahrir defter), a timar (fief) holder is listed as the newly converted “father of the illustrious Gedik Ahmed Pasşa.” This identification, while undermining Yınanç’s suggestion of Palaiologan ancestry for Gedik Ahmed Pas*a, would make him a member of the Serbian military aristocracy, since his father is shown to have previously held a pronoia (fief)." Stojanovski's book is Vranjski kadiluk u XVI veku (Vranje, 1985). I'm sorry I can't agree with the Albanian, or Greek, even İslâm Ansiklopedisi (which I'm trying to utlize more) and EI3 say that he was born in Punoševce, near Vranje. Today there is two Punoševce: Donje Punoševce and Gornje Punoševce. My source is "The Nature of the Early Ottoman State" page 116. If you need it I'm willing to provide. One last question even though Gedik Ahmed served a Grand Admiral late in his career I still put Grand Vizier as the office on top of the infobox, the office is more prestigious than being a Sanjakbeyi, this was before Hayreddin's era.Mr.Helping Hand (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXV, July 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at planning for the unthinkable Op-ed: TomStar81 on Russia's Provisional Government in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Junayd of Aydın

On 7 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Junayd of Aydın, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the civil war of the Ottoman Interregnum, at one time or another Junayd Bey, ruler of the Beylik of Aydın, supported four different Ottoman princes vying for the throne? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Junayd of Aydın. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Junayd of Aydın), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Apr to Jun 17 Milhist article reviewing

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 1 Milhist article at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period Apr to Jun 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

DYK for Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430)

On 11 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the Siege of Thessalonica in 1422–1430, the city changed hands from the Byzantine Empire to the Republic of Venice, and finally was captured by the Ottoman Empire? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 12:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Some assistance

Hey Cplakidas, I noticed you editing Alexious I and was curious; do you recall/know of a Barbara Comnena? I stumbled upon that name and could not find who her parent(s) were.

• Women in World History, Volumes 1-2 - Page 147, Anne Commire - 1999
  

"Name variations: Barbara Comnena. Died on February 28, 1125; married Svy- atopolk also known as Sviatopolk II, prince of Kiev (r. 1093-1113), around 1103". --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Kansas Bear! No, the name is unknown to me. That is a very unusual name for a Byzantine lady (off the top of my head, I cannot remember any Barbara in Byzantine times), and Varzos' comprehensive work on the Komnenoi mentions no such name in a suitable timeframe. Sviatopolk II of Kiev also mentions nothing of the sort. Probably a mix-up. Constantine ✍ 07:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you. I will keep digging around. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Cplakidas, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
• Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

• Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
• The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
  • User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
  • User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:

• Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nikephoros Komnenos

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nikephoros Komnenos you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Washoe the Wise -- Washoe the Wise (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nikephoros Komnenos

The article Nikephoros Komnenos you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Nikephoros Komnenos for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Washoe the Wise -- Washoe the Wise (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Qatna FAC

Hi Constantine, this FAC seems to be going pretty smoothly, and it may or may not be your precise area of expertise, but I'd value your comments -- even briefly -- if you have time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ian! Although this is indeed far from my area of expertise, it is an interesting topic. Overall it seems OK, right now I am only making some minor stylistic tweaks. If I hit upon anything major, I will comment in the FAC page. Constantine ✍ 12:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nikephoros Komnenos

The article Nikephoros Komnenos you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nikephoros Komnenos for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Washoe the Wise -- Washoe the Wise (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Hamdanid emirs of Mosul has been nominated for discussion

Category:Hamdanid emirs of Mosul, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVI, August 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of Messines and recent Australian Army leadership; Nick-D on South African armour Op-ed: Nick-D talks photography Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:Nestorianism in the Abbasid Caliphate has been nominated for discussion

Category:Nestorianism in the Abbasid Caliphate, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Excellency usage on Infoboxes

Hello, I have seen that as a reason for your reverts you stated: "Greek politicians do not have titles and honorifics". However, if you take a look at this, this, that, that and that, you can clearly see that the infoboxes of these persons contain the title.

Would it be possible for you to cite me a source that says so? Taking into consideration this article, I can see that heads of state, heads of government, governors, ambassadors, certain ecclesiastics, royalty etc.. Is there an exception for Greek politicians only? Furthermore, if you search "Greece" here, you can see that Greek PM Alexis Tsipras is styled "His Excellency Mr Alexis Tsipras". I Thank you εκ των προτέρων... --Morretor (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi! First off, the fact that someone added a title in some Wikipedia articles is not evidence of anything. Second, the Greek Constitution explicitly forbids the award of any titles of distinction, and has done so since the Greek War of Independence. An appellation like "excellency" is of course usual in international protocol, so of course, in an international conference etc. a Greek president, PM, ambassador etc will be called that. However it is ex officio, and has nothing to do with the person; once the tenure is over, no title applies, quite unlike the host of port- and pre-nominals that the English-speaking countries seem to be so fond of. It is the same thing with the obsession by some WP editors (particularly Americans) to neatly number every Greek office-holder in succession; such conventions are neither universally used nor relevant. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 14:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

I'm just so happy someone as skilled at wikipedia as you was able to do something with those articles which have been bothering me for so long. Thank you!!! <3<3<3 Bulgarios (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Precious four years!

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda, here's to four more years! :) --Constantine ✍ 08:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Duchy of Archipelago

hi Cplakidas. Dukedom as a place controlled by a Duke obviosly doesn´t exist anymore. A vacant title, however, can be restored by direct line of sucession, and recognition by a valid fons honorum, this is the case of Duchy of Archipelago. For exemaple, Kingdom of Brazil doesn´t exist since 1899 ( Republic ) however a Brazilian Royal Family and sucessors do exist and maintain titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DPPS Ltda (talk • contribs) 16:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi DPPS Ltda! If you want to argue about a valid line of succession, then you need to present verifiable, reliable third-party sources. What you cite as a reference is neither the former nor the latter. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 17:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

And please check up on the WP:BRD guideline. You have been reverted by two editors already, please do not revert again as you will be in violation of WP:3RR. Constantine ✍ 17:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

this isn´t a problem. I have original documents from Archivo Real de la Sociedad Heraldica Espãnola as well as sworn translations from a Public Notary registered at Junta Comercial do Estado de São Paulo in Brazil. Sworn translations made by a public notary have legal validity wordwide, accordingly Apostille Treaty of Vienna 1961. Just let me know how these documents can be presented to you to solve this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DPPS Ltda (talk • contribs) 17:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Whether a document is notarized or has apostille has no bearing on its being a WP:RS. One can go to a public notary and declare himself "legally" heir to the title of Emperor of Rome. Claiming such things is nothing new, there are enough impostors or wannabes out there who claim medieval titles. This needs a serious, third-party, investigation that examines the claim and declares it for valid, and this must be publicly accessible so as to be verifiable. I suggest you upload copies of these documents to Wikimedia Commons. Constantine ✍ 17:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I dont´know in your country, but in Spain and in Brazil, a false statement is a crime heavily punishable by law. Nobody "declared" himself Duke, if you peruse my text, you can read that an official genealogical society of Kingdom of Spain, who have as patron a Prince of Orleans y Braganza ( not phony, it´s the grandfather of present King of Spain ) made this research and proved line of sucession. After that, documents were translated into portuguese by a public sworn notary. Anyway, I frankly I don´t understand your answer: after upload to Wikimedia Commons, documents can "verified" - by who ? Are you a genealogical researcher ? Can we see you credentials ? Because your profile says: Electrical and Computer Engineer — Preceding unsigned comment added by DPPS Ltda (talk • contribs) 18:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

After you have uploaded them to Commons, these documents can a) be verified to exist, rather than possibly be the invention of some random guy on the internet, and b) can be scrutinized by me and by anyone who is interested to verify their accuracy. For instance, I could send an email to the genealogical society to ascertain that they are not forgeries. Furthermore, an affidavit or other document that states that X recognizes the validity of Y's claim on something is worthless for an encyclopedia, unless it can be verified that this claim is historically valid. Please read carefully what WP:RS says about what is a reliable, third-party source. As to my credentials, they are not at issue here; I am not pretending or claiming to be something I am not. You, however, are making an exceptional claim. That requires exceptional, iron-clad evidence, and the burden is on you to provide it. If you do so, I will happily reinstate the information in the article. Until you do so, it stays out. Constantine ✍ 18:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 23

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 23, June-July 2017

• Library card
• User Group update
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: Combating misinformation, fake news, and censorship
• Bytes in brief

Chinese, Arabic and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Aromanians

Hey Kosta, ich hab es Satt wieder die gleiche Scheisse mit dir? Die Wahlen in Albanien waren im 2013 und die Mitgliederzahl war von 2017. Herrgott nochmal!!!!! Du kannst nicht sagen wieso wir 700 Stimmen haten! AlchiviadDiSamarina (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Und was Flagge angeht, die ist unsere Flagge. Auch heute erwähnen wir die Sohne als Gott. Das Foto wurde beim Vlachisches Festival geschossen, du kannst nicht sages das die Fahne nicht unsere ist! AlchiviadDiSamarina (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Die Partei gibt es, auch wenn sie 0 Stimmen hat oder garnicht dabei ist, die gibt es!!!!! Es ist als Parteu in Albanien registriert worden!!!!! AlchiviadDiSamarina (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Ach, du bist es. Ja, ich hab mich schon gewundert, wieso plötzlich jemand wieder (und gar mit solch einem username) am gleichen Unsinn herumwerkelt. Die Argumente vom letzten Mal gelten genauso heute wie damals. Was ihr zu sein behauptet, und was ihr seid, sind zwei offensichtlich verschiedene Sachen. "Du kannst nicht sagen wieso wir 700 Stimmen haten!" Tja, die hattet "ihr" eben, nach eigenen Angaben, da du den Artikel geschrieben hast. Wenn du nicht verstehst, dass eine Partei, die 700 Stimmen bekommt, und behauptet, sie repräsentiere trotzdem alle Arumänen Albaniens, nicht ernst zu nehmen ist, dann kann ich nicht halfen. 700 sind ein Bruchteil von 8.200 (nach offizieller Rechnung) und ein lächerlicher Prozent von geschätzten 200.000 Arumänen in Albanien. Das heisst, diese Partei repräsentiert eine verschwindend kleine Minderheit in eurer eigenen Gemeinschaft, und dass eure Symbole eben die von dir und deinen Gesinnungsgenossen sind, aber nicht aller Arumänen Albaniens, geschweige denn aller Arumänen überhaupt, wie du in unseren früheren Diskussionen so vehement behauptet hattest. Demnach bleibt ihr eine WP:FRINGE Gruppe, von ungenügendem enzyklopädischem Wert per WP:NOTABILITY. Ich habe vorsichtshalber auch eine Google Suche nach der Partei gemacht, und es kommen kaum 52 Ergebnisse raus, viele davon clones von Wikipedia selbst. Soviel dazu. Deine Beiträge zum Thema verletzen zusätzlich einen Haufen Richtlinien von Wikipedia: WP:NPOV, WP:COI, WP:SOAPBOX, usw. Wie zuvor schon zig Mal gesagt: bring verlässliche Quellen, und keine Rhetorik. Solange du das nicht tust, solltest du dich nicht wundern, wenn es angezweifelt, bzw. gelöscht wird. Constantine ✍ 21:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

In Albanien mein Freund ist scheissegal wieviel Stimmen du hast. Was ist deine Meinung? Wieviel Stimmen muss die Partei haben , um eine Partei zu sein? Und was das Foto mit Vergina Sonne angeht, wieso machst du es weg? Diese Foto zeigt eine Arumänische Fest in Albanien. Wo ist da das Problem? AlchiviadDiSamarina (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Kolleger, was willst du mir sagen? Willst du mir sagen das diese Partei nicht egsistiert? Oder das man mit 700 Stimmen keine Partei ist? AlchiviadDiSamarina (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Und was meine Name angeht, dieser Alkiviadh war ein Arumänischer Patriot, und ich respektiere ihm, so wie ihr auch eure respektiert! AlchiviadDiSamarina (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Ihr seid eine Partei, das bezweifelt keiner. Genauso klar ist aber auch a) dass ihr nicht die gesamte aromänische Bevölkerung repräsentiert, sondern eine sehr kleine Minderheit, b) dass du persönlich mit der Partei assoziiert bist, und nach WP:COI nicht erlaubt, über sie zu schreiben, und c) die Photos bezeugen, dass manche Aromänen diese Flagge verwenden, bei langem aber nicht daraus automatisch zu schliessen ist, dass das für alle oder gar eine Mehrheit gilt. Die Flagge ist also nicht repräsentativ für alle Aromänen Albaniens, und sollte nicht als solche auch nur implizit gezeigt werden, besonders, wenn es um ein hoch umstrittenes Symbol wie die Verginasonne geht. Aber das alles haben wir schon Duzend Mal diskutiert, bzw. ich habe versucht, die Politiken Wikipedias und die Grundsätze Quellenbasierter Recherche zu erklären, und du pfeifst einfach darauf. Constantine ✍ 21:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

alb365.com/kreu-partise-vllahe-abde-petraj-pse-jo-deputete-ne-parlamentin-2017/ AlchiviadDiSamarina (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok sag mir wie kann ich es beweissen? AlchiviadDiSamarina (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Und die Flage auf dem Bild ist nicht Vergina, sie ist mit 8 Striche und nicht mit 16 wie die Vergina! AlchiviadDiSamarina (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Sollte eh klar sein. Irgend eine Quelle, die halbwegs verlässlich und neutral ist (kein Blog, keine Parteipublikation, usw) die Mitgliederzahl angibt. Nach den Wahlen sollte natürlich eh klar sein, wieviel Unterstützung ihr wirklich habt. Constantine ✍ 21:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

PS. "Und die Flage auf dem Bild ist nicht Vergina, sie ist mit 8 Striche und nicht mit 16 wie die Vergina!" Du scherzt wohl, was? Es kann nicht sein, dass du wirklich so ahnungslos bist... Den Stern von Vergina gibt es in mehreren Varianten auf antiken Kunstwerken, mit 12, 8, 6, usw Strahlen. Glaubst du etwa, dass dieses Symbol wirklich nicht der Stern von Vergina ist, und dass nicht klare politische Zwecke hinter seiner Auswahl als euer Symbol stecken? Dann kann ich dir wirklich nicht helfen, Freund, denn du wirst für dumm verkauft. Constantine ✍ 21:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Geht auch ofizielle website? AlchiviadDiSamarina (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Wieso schreibst du unnsin? Wann habe ich dir gesagt das ich von der Partei bin? AlchiviadDiSamarina (talk) 12:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

"Du kannst nicht sagen wieso wir 700 Stimmen haten!" ist ziemlich eindeutig, würde ich sagen. Constantine ✍ 12:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Ich wollte sagen "wir" Arumänen! Ich lebe nicht mal in Albanien. Ich nehme nur Infos von Parteichef durch Viber! AlchiviadDiSamarina (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Ihr griechen habt uns immer sabotiert, das tut ihr immer noch, auch wenn es nur Wikipedia ist! Viele Arumäner sind uhrsprünglich aus GR aber wir haben Arumänisches Blut mein Freund! AlchiviadDiSamarina (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Ich weiss nichts von dir, ausser das, was du selber schreibst, aber nichts an deinem Verhalten und dem Inhalt deiner Mitteilungen bis jetzt lässt mich daran zweifeln, dass du mit diesen Leuten irgendwie assoziiert bist. Alleine der ganze Verginasonne-Unsinn ist Indiz genug, auch wenn du dich nicht aus Versehen verplappert hättest. Was für Blut in meinen Adern fliesst, das würde dich wohl erstaunen... Das ist eben der Unterschied zwischen uns: ich teile nicht die Menschen auf je nachdem, was für Blut sie in ihren Adern haben. Als Wikipedia-Editor kümmert mich nur, ob sie ihre Behauptungen sinnvoll, rational, und gründlich belegt argumentieren können. Ein anderer wäre übrigens sicher nicht so lange mit dir hingesessen, um dir Tips zu geben, wie du ordentlichere Arbeit machen kannst. Dass du das immer noch nicht zu tun vermagst, liegt an keine böse Griechen, es liegt and dir und nur dir. Constantine ✍ 14:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Aber nicht jede Sonne ist Vergina. Die Sonne steht auch im Argentinische Flage, ist aber kein Vergina. AlchiviadDiSamarina (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Wenn du dich dumm stellen willst, ist es dein Recht, aber dann erwarte bitte keine weitere Antworten meinerseits. LG, Constantine ✍ 15:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Ich meine du hast kein Recht jede Sonne eine Vergina zu nennen. Du kannst auch nicht sagen das die Fahne von Mazedonien (F.Y.R.O.M) eine Vergina ist. OGM!!!! AlchiviadDiSamarina (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Cplakidas, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

• Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
• Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)