Loading AI tools
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Cplakidas, for the period 10/2008 – 3/2009. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
KP: I have a question about the DYK nomination for this article, on the DYK suggestions page. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 00:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 |
Milhist Coordinator elections | |
| Thank you very much for your much appreciated support in the recently concluded September 2008 Military History Wikiproject Coordinator Elections. I was thoroughly surprised to walk away with a position of Coordinator. Thank-you for your support, and I assure you that I will do my best to serve this spectacular project well. Esteemed Regards, Cam (Chat) 01:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Notre Dame de Lorrette Cemetary - Arras, France |
I am so sorry about the slow response. As you may have noticed, I have now set up checklists to sort out the final selection. What would be really useful would be if you could nominate the proposed replacements mentioned in our original worklists. This'll involve clicking through the worklists, I'm afraid, and writing the rationales but there aren't that many replacements listed. The replacement suggestions all sounded very reasonable and the articles themselves looked in reasonable shape. Because of the way the processes are separated at W1.0, we may end up with both the original article and the "replacement" but I can live with that. --ROGER DAVIES talk 04:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 |
On 4 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Haidari concentration camp, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
|
On 6 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nea Ekklesia, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your idea about sections - for the future. I have plans to flesh this article out more, and when I do, a sectioning plan not unlike yours will probably be appropriate. For now, the article is probably too short to effectively use sections, and such just makes it a difficult read. I hope you understand. Thanks for your other help, and the nom. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello i am to thank you for making the seige of Alexandria page into B class,thank you very much i would to ask you if you can help a new artical i started Siege of Chalcedon i dont have time to make it as allabrote as i can because have to go to work and out with my family,thank you please relpy on my talk as quickly as possible
Secthayrabe
Thank you for the new map of Constantinople. It shows your passion for Byzantine culture - Take Care.... Dinkytown (talk) 00:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello,i am writting to tell you the eastern roman empire is not counted as greek history firstly the capital of the byztines was at turkey the imperial army was their turkey reply about this fouliseand misconseption comoment on my on my talk page
you are wronge the BE were counted as Turkish history ad lets just say it is greeko-turkish should we? reply on my talk page
I am sorry but the Be were Roman,not greek but Roman you should do your homework it is roman constantine was roman you must do your homework you to take care,
thanks,
Listen the Byzintines were NOT GREEKS ok,they were Roman the greeks were not even a country after Romans 100 years befor
reply about on my talk or my good freinds page , Jastcaan or my one
Dear Mr. Plakidas, I posted an addition to the article KARAMANLIDES, exactly after a message [citation needed], because the preceding theory sounded a bit arbitrary to me. You deleted immediately my addition, with this comment :
"rv - The Karaman emirate is not the same as the population called "karamanlis"
I am afraid that the message [citation needed] meant that it was the man who posted the article that had to prove his allegations. You proceede by making another arbitrary (in my opinion) assumption, and delete my well-documented position. Why not leave it there, and let the curious reader verify what is true ?
I always had my reserves about WIKI. It is better to rely on good old books on the subject, or in good reference books that guide you to a wide bibliography. Your stance has enhanced my opinion on WIKI.
I wish you good health.
ILIAS VAFEIADIS from Thessaloniki
PS : I had an uncle, Ioannis Vafeiadis, Topogr. Engineer, who lived in Patras. But he died 40 years ago.
79.103.178.42 (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'll reply here, as you have no permanent address. Hopefully you'll see it. First, let me apologize. It was a bit of hasty editing and bad judgement, prompted by the fact that the formatting of the text you added was odd, and looked very much like the type of rants one gets from anonymous editors in Wikipedia. The Karaman Emirate per se has indeed nothing to do with the Karamanlides, who simply took their name from the area centuries later. I suppose reverting it was a reflex reaction, and not well thought out (and I shall include the gist of your argument in the article forthwith). To be honest, I was feeling a bit uneasy and was about to recheck it. Hopefully you will not draw too many conclusions about Wikipedia from one incident. I agree (and WP states it quite clearly) that primary and secondary sources are always better, however you will find that there is much good work being done here also. best regards, Constantine ✍ 19:45, 18 October 2008
(UTC)
Thank you, Constantine ! I' ve seen the amendment you made, it is a fine summary, OK.
Now concerning the allegation that Karamanlides had not much to do with Greece, as written in the article : I am the descendant of Trabzon Pontians. All my ancestors, to great-great-granpas were from Trabzon, with two exceptions : One was a captain from an Aegean island, who married my great-grandmother from my mother's side, and the other a Karamanli from Kaiseri (Caesareia). He was born around 1820, and died in 1904, and was the grandfather of my father. My father, born in 1892, had vivid recollections of him. While all my other ancestors were merchants, this one was a teacher. His father, a rich merchant from Kaiseri, sent him to study in Athens. He became a teacher, and returned in Kaiseri to work as a teacher to schools the local Karamanli community was ready to found. But the local Turkish authorities did not allowed it, and the man, burning from the wish to teach the marvels of Greek culture, went to Trabzon, where there were no restrictions. There he married my great-granma ! As you see, even in the beginning of the 19th century the Karamanlides knew very well to whom they belonged. The first schools, including hugh schools, in Cappadocia etc were founded at the end of the 19th century, when conditions had eased a bit.
A very good and extended history of Asia Minor communities can be found in SPIROS VRYONIS, THE DECLINE OF MEDIEVAL HELLENISM IN ASIA MINOR AND THE PROCESS OF ISLAMIZATION FROM THE ELEVENTH THROUGH THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY, University of California Press, ISBN 960-250-117-0.
Added in the reference. Gabr-el 06:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- I can't commit much time, but if you need more specific help, do not hesitate to ask for it. Gabr-el 01:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Map of Constantinople
I finally responded to your posting to my Talk page. Sorry for the delay, MapMaster (talk) 02:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes I am Iranian and what Greek!Just because you are a Greek does not mean the BE were Greek they were roman oh and you want me to read a book I have been reading books befor you were born racist Greek,reply on my talk
and you said the same about me telling you i was leaving wiki
Secthayrabe Ø Secthayrabe (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
sorry for saying that but you were the only suspect,lets act like man shall we and so sorry that we dont like each other so lets start a fresh? shall we,bye for now please reply on my talk page
P.S I will not be on wiki for a while I will be writting a book at around christmas ok bye bye for now!!!!!!!!!!!!
ok but please can we start a fresh ? please relpy on my talk page
P.S I will not be on wiki for a while I will be writting a book at around christmas ok bye bye for now!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.125.89 (talk) 08:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
|
On 28 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Niketas Oryphas, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
BorgQueen (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hallo Kostantinos,
and sorry for the late answer. Actually, the reason of the delay is that I am sick, and the story is becoming more and more complicated, largely due to the manifest incompetence of some swiss doctors. I promise you that as soon as I will be able to reach the library, I will correct the map. Thanks for your patience, kalinikta again, Alex2006 (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Good to see you helpin the editor who created this and other pages, but shouldn't this just be a redirect to Shahin with maybe some of the material incorporated into it? dougweller (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Byzantine Constantinople-en.png, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 07:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC) |
An article that you have been involved in editing, History of slavery in Iran, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of slavery in Iran. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello Cplakidas. I want to ask you whether you are interested in translating other German articles on Roman/Byzantine bridges into English? Some other worthwhile candidates would be:
- de:Brücke bei Limyra
- de:Brücke von Pergamon
- de:Pont-Saint-Martin (Brücke)
- de:Aiseposbrücke
- de:Eurymedonbrücke
- de:Makestosbrücke
Kind regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Cplakidas. Saw you are a Greek native speaker. Are you btw also interested in translating de:Brücke bei Limyra into Greek (time is no problem)? Unfortunately, all the people I asked only know ancient Greek and were not familiar with the technical terms. If not, would you be so kind and put the bridge article on a 'to be translated list' at the Greek Wikipedia? I would not ask, if the bridge were not so incredibly important - and fascinating. :-) Kind regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Btw Wurster & Ganzert is available here (takes 60 s). Kind regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hello. Happy New Year! Just curious, are still interested in doing the translations? I applied for good article status for the original Limyra Bridge article, and it looks good. There are also some new well-made drawings and animations which increase the article's value for the reader. Kind regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, I noticed your nomination. You may want to consult R. H. Dolley: The Warships of the Later Roman Empire, The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 38, Parts 1 and 2. (1948), pp. 47-53, too, which describes the structure of the most common six or seven Byzantine warships. Drop me an email, if you are interested. Excellent work btw. I am really thrilled. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi how are you your user page is very intresing well,its just I am new to wiki and want to start on some articals on Roman or Persian related artical and was whanting to know if you could help me thanks,Shahshah39 (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I would like some time to reconfigure the articles, first of all, and later I will change the infoboxes: the first one to: history of the albanians, and the second one th: history of albania. Thanks for helpingBalkanian`s word (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
|
On 29 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ottoman–Safavid War (1623–1639), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Pote piges stin DDR?Dkace (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Hsouna stin Pioneerrepublik Wielhem Piek? Sti Weberlinsee? 'H touristas? Dkace (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Πήγα το 1987 ως Νέος Πρωτοπόρος ( η αντίστοιχη οργάνωση των πιονιέρων στην Ελλάδα). Μας φιλοξένησαν στις κατασκηνώσεις ένα μήνα, με δυο εκδρομές στο Βερολίνο και ένα διήμερο σε οικογένειες στο Schwedt am Oder.Δεν φαινόνταν τα τελευταία ακόμα το '87. Ήταν για εμας μια κατάσταση ιδανική να πω; δεν ξέρω. Βέβαια ήμασταν 13-14 τότε.Dkace (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Κοίτα, οικονομικά το '87 δε φαινόντουσαν πολλά προβλήματα. Ή δεν φαινόντουσαν σε εμας. Με τα παιδιά που κράτησα μετά επαφή, άλλα τους απασχολούσαν ως πολιτικά προβλήματα το '88-'89. Μετά την επανένωση, έχασα επαφή με τους περισσότερους. Τωρα είδα ότι η κατασκήνωση είναι παραθεριστικό κέντρο ( ιδιωτικό βέβαια)...Αν ξέρεις κανένα που πέρασε από εκεί, θα ήθελα να έρθω σε επαφή μαζί του. Dkace (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Geiasou file wikipedian! Ton telefteo kairo mazeva yliko gia afto to arthro, apo agglofonous syggrafeis, itan kryma na leipei apo tin wiki. Efharistw poly, gia tis diorthoseis kai tis prosthikes. Tha eimaste online Thanks! Alexikoua (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to find a reliable source about the reoccupation of Korce by Epirots (on Juny or July 1914). After Kontoulis ceded Korce (1 March), the city came under Epirot command (on 10 or 22 July, as per Korce article, which needs citation too). I have found, on the web, a report of a Dutch officer of that time, which is far too pov. If we had a reliable source (maybe Miller (1966), says something about?) we can add this event on the art..
By the way the article's present form is fine with clear meaning and npov approach.Alexikoua (talk) 12:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Just wanna inform you, that i've found the entire text of Corfu Protocol on a helsinki watch report of 2002. Well, the online version is only in Greek, but it doesnt make a diferrence. About Korce, Corfu Prot. (it was in Albanian command when the prot. was signed) states that (pg. 75):
'19.Αι διατάξεις αυταί θέλουν εφαρμοσθή και εις τον Νομόν Κορυτσάς, κατεχόμενον επί του παρόντος στρατιωτικώς υπό της Αλβανικής Κυβερνήσεως ως και εις τας άλλας Νοτίους ζώνας.'
Suppose the reoccupation (at July, after 2 months) didnt happen in that way exactly as the prot. instructed.--Alexikoua (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
|
On 12 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Backslash Forwardslash 12:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
|
On 13 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ottoman–Venetian War (1570–1573), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Danke für deine Anregungen beim Exarchat von Karthago. Ich habe sie mal aufgegriffen.Tagmatarchos (talk) 12:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Πρώτη φορά διαβάζω ότι είχε τον τίτλο του πρίγκηπα. Υπάρχει καμμιά πηγή γι αυτό; Επίσης ποια νόρμα ακολουθεί η wiki στην ονοματοδοσία των άρθρων. Το Alexandros Maurokordatos μου φαντάζει ορθότερο από το Alexander Maurocordatos.
Ποιά είναι η γνώμη σου; --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Behold! I look forward to any changes you have to make. This, this and this (plus this, already used) may be of some assistance. We should get this up on DYK, so also be on the lookout for a possible, citable hook we can use. - Biruitorul Talk 06:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Happy New Year to you, thank you, and thank you for the finessing you did. I fully endorse your idea of a section merger, but right now my energies on this subject are a bit spent. I also look forward to any future expansion you'll be able to contribute, and the comparison to WWI seems compelling; perhaps Kitromilides makes the connection explicit. Best, Biruitorul Talk 05:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, I've just finished a GA review of Cretan War (1645–1669). I thought it was excellent, a very good read. There are just some minor points that need addressing, which you can see at Talk:Cretan War (1645–1669)/GA1.
Cheers, MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello Constantine, thanks for the note. I don't have very strong feelings about it either. Would it be an option to include both the standardized transliteration and the Byzantine/modern pronunciation? The spelling hē Vasilévousa, at least, does not seem to accurately reflect the latter, since it still contains the spiritus asper and non-iotacized eta. I think we should at least be consistent in this. Kind regards, Iblardi (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Γειά σου, Can you think you can find some more infos on Lt Roussen?
Kάπνισμα 00:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
It is not known if the map is Public Domain outside the USA, as the names (and therefore the date of death) of the designer and the engraver are not known. There are some Copyright Paladins in Commons, who would delete the map without this information. Sv1xv (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
|
On February 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eustathios Daphnomeles, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Please, see Cham Albanians, that is the page for which I am writtin right now. I have totally revised, rewritten and expanded the article. After I finish with it, I will rewritte Chameria issue page, and I will create pages about the "Batalion IV Ali Demi" which chams created in Elas army, and Keshilla, which was a local administration of Italy made up by Chams. Do not forget, only a minority of Chams collaboreted, the majority either were part of ELAS and Albanian Anti-Fascist Army (they were more than the ones on Keshilla), or did not take part on the war. (see:Cham Albanians, under the new consensus). Thanks, and you are welcomed on contributing on Cham Albanians page, which is still under reconfiguration. (see also:Talk:Cham Albanians, about consensuses reached so far).Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks great edits! Eyxaristo.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Fenete oti ta agglika mou den einai toso kala. Meta apo kathe edit, pantote einai kapios pou ta suluponi.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Can I have your opinion on Talk:Cham Albanians, too many words.Balkanian`s word (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Fenete oti ta agglika mou den einai toso kala. Meta apo kathe edit, pantote einai kapios pou ta suluponi.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Please can I have your thoughts on this discussion, because it became too idiotic.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Just what I wanted. But I have a little worry - see the talk page about a bit you cut out. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC))
Is this not actually and originally the Greek term? Could you have a quick look at the article & add some Greek balance (something nearly all icon articles could do with). Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
All this work I did for wiki and all I got was cookie.(wah wah, Just kiddin! Thanks Constantine).LoveMonkey (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, after your last edit i think we should discuss the matter because I think you have underestimated the real numbers. According to Richard Hall after mobilisation the Army could raise 417,720 men in the operating army. He also continues that on the 10 July 80 000 men of the Romanian V crops invaded Dobrudja and a days latter the Romanian Danube Army consisting of 250 000 followed it. Official bulgarian sources usually put the number of the mobilised Romanian Army between 450 000 and 500 000 which is close to what Hall says. that is why I think the number 200 000 is not realistic.--Avidius (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed! The bulgarian number of 500 000 represents the total mobilisation including the reserves of the field armies and the units guarding the boarders, perhaps we can place the total mobilised forces in brackets after the numbers of the active armies e.g Greece 145 000(190 000 mobilised); Bulgaria 370 000(500 000 mobilised). What do you think?--Avidius (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Please stop mass-deleting at Cyprus massacre.--hnnvansier (talk) 06:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Your 'reverted' edition itself is 'POV'. People on wikipedia loves to hide behind the pov issue.--hnnvansier (talk) 06:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I've added 3 books that tells Ottoman conquest of Cyprus; but does not mention a massacre. Those are the ones that I know, I'm sure there are many out there in bookshops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lardayn (talk • contribs) 10:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- I do not say "not happened" but "might not happened". Which makes the 3 books reliable enough as sources to that claim. Also, current first 4 references are also one from an Armenian author, who is known for not loving Turks desperately; a brief in US that we do not know the purpose of it and 2 others definitely not neutral history books (not even history books).--hnnvansier (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agenda?? HAHA.. lucky not all Greek people think that whole Turkish nation dedicated itself into Aegean and Cyprus problems. The fact is, I do not care what happened or will happen to Cyprus. BUT, the fact is, those books do not tell us the author. 20.000 were killed... Who says that? Which exact historian in that era, which historian at Cyprus in 1570 gives us this information? No one. IF you wanna see POV, that is a good example of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lardayn (talk • contribs) 11:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- That still does not forbid me to note that "it might not be happened".--hnnvansier (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, please read my recent comment on the nomination of removal page. It tells why 'not mentioning' means same as 'denying'. Thanks.--hnnvansier (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ogh I am getting out of space here. Column is too close to the right. Well, I am still 'not' convinced with the number. Why should Turkish fleet 'mass-murder' over 20,000 civilian? And what were Armenians doing there at that time? Also, mentioning 'Christians' in the article, does not that turn the article into a 'religious conflict'? Who could those people be but Orthodox Christians at that era, Indians? Chinese? Buddhists? Of course they were Christians; but mentioning that is, apparently leads people to think Ottomans killed them because they were Christians.. And also, that means Ottomans 'love' to mass-murder people who were not Muslims, which was not true. We know how tolerate was Ottoman rule over Europe, according to the 'standards' of Medieval and New Age. At those times, in Spain Jews were killed or exiled; and it is obvious that there were not a SINGLE Muslim village among the whole Europe; while Christians had their central churches in Istanbul. That is a fact, far more reliable. 20,000 is a great number; if it was ever happened; at least ONE of Turkish sources should have to mention it. Ottomans were not a nomadic tribe or a small feudal lordship. They were an empire, with institutions and establishments, lasted for six centuries. When we look at the Ottomans sources, we can easily see the numbers; like how Sultan Yavuz ordered to kill tens of thousands of people because they were rebelled to join Persians. formal Ottoman historians had no afraid of anything for 'not to' write those events. Actually, it was 'quite' normal when we consider the rest of the world. But they do not mention a massacre in Cyprus.. Why? What had changed? While they were writing down every single event of the Empire, why did they miss that point? They were so strong, they did not even think that the Empire would collapse one day; so they called it 'The Eternal State of Ottoman'. If it was happened, Im pretty sure we could read it in a source. But, you can say that the archives could be damaged over the time; or still not being read and translated into modern Turkish (No of Turks today can read or understand Ottoman Turkish without a specific education, that is unfortunate) or could be 'hidden', deleted maybe. But that still, when we consider it is 'impossible' to count the numbers for an enemy historian. How did he (who is he anyway?) manage to count the deaths while he was probably not in the city. Also, it is certain, rival sources always raise the numbers to show the opposite side as evil. And at the very end, we still need to know this vital answer of: Who did tell us about the massacre and the number? Who estimated them at the first hand? It definitely deserves more than a single line in a paragraph; as currently it only says "bla bla bla... and 20,000 killed, then bla bla bla" Thats all we know. Note: Also, why would they say "we did not kill" anyway? If you claim something that did not happen, you dont even say it. Cause it did not happen. --hnnvansier (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- :)--hnnvansier (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ogh I am getting out of space here. Column is too close to the right. Well, I am still 'not' convinced with the number. Why should Turkish fleet 'mass-murder' over 20,000 civilian? And what were Armenians doing there at that time? Also, mentioning 'Christians' in the article, does not that turn the article into a 'religious conflict'? Who could those people be but Orthodox Christians at that era, Indians? Chinese? Buddhists? Of course they were Christians; but mentioning that is, apparently leads people to think Ottomans killed them because they were Christians.. And also, that means Ottomans 'love' to mass-murder people who were not Muslims, which was not true. We know how tolerate was Ottoman rule over Europe, according to the 'standards' of Medieval and New Age. At those times, in Spain Jews were killed or exiled; and it is obvious that there were not a SINGLE Muslim village among the whole Europe; while Christians had their central churches in Istanbul. That is a fact, far more reliable. 20,000 is a great number; if it was ever happened; at least ONE of Turkish sources should have to mention it. Ottomans were not a nomadic tribe or a small feudal lordship. They were an empire, with institutions and establishments, lasted for six centuries. When we look at the Ottomans sources, we can easily see the numbers; like how Sultan Yavuz ordered to kill tens of thousands of people because they were rebelled to join Persians. formal Ottoman historians had no afraid of anything for 'not to' write those events. Actually, it was 'quite' normal when we consider the rest of the world. But they do not mention a massacre in Cyprus.. Why? What had changed? While they were writing down every single event of the Empire, why did they miss that point? They were so strong, they did not even think that the Empire would collapse one day; so they called it 'The Eternal State of Ottoman'. If it was happened, Im pretty sure we could read it in a source. But, you can say that the archives could be damaged over the time; or still not being read and translated into modern Turkish (No of Turks today can read or understand Ottoman Turkish without a specific education, that is unfortunate) or could be 'hidden', deleted maybe. But that still, when we consider it is 'impossible' to count the numbers for an enemy historian. How did he (who is he anyway?) manage to count the deaths while he was probably not in the city. Also, it is certain, rival sources always raise the numbers to show the opposite side as evil. And at the very end, we still need to know this vital answer of: Who did tell us about the massacre and the number? Who estimated them at the first hand? It definitely deserves more than a single line in a paragraph; as currently it only says "bla bla bla... and 20,000 killed, then bla bla bla" Thats all we know. Note: Also, why would they say "we did not kill" anyway? If you claim something that did not happen, you dont even say it. Cause it did not happen. --hnnvansier (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, please read my recent comment on the nomination of removal page. It tells why 'not mentioning' means same as 'denying'. Thanks.--hnnvansier (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- That still does not forbid me to note that "it might not be happened".--hnnvansier (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agenda?? HAHA.. lucky not all Greek people think that whole Turkish nation dedicated itself into Aegean and Cyprus problems. The fact is, I do not care what happened or will happen to Cyprus. BUT, the fact is, those books do not tell us the author. 20.000 were killed... Who says that? Which exact historian in that era, which historian at Cyprus in 1570 gives us this information? No one. IF you wanna see POV, that is a good example of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lardayn (talk • contribs) 11:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- I do not say "not happened" but "might not happened". Which makes the 3 books reliable enough as sources to that claim. Also, current first 4 references are also one from an Armenian author, who is known for not loving Turks desperately; a brief in US that we do not know the purpose of it and 2 others definitely not neutral history books (not even history books).--hnnvansier (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I've added 3 books that tells Ottoman conquest of Cyprus; but does not mention a massacre. Those are the ones that I know, I'm sure there are many out there in bookshops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lardayn (talk • contribs) 10:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I have asked a peer review about Cham Albanians. Please join.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, I wasn't saying that you had to include a conclusions section, just that it might finish the article nicely! Anyway, I think you've done a great job of summarising things. I don't think you need to worry about NPOV - as long as you can reference statements to reliable source, I think it's fine to say "there is this view of x but there is also this view". I really think this section is a better way to end. I've gone through it, made some small changes in the way it read, and tried to link it together better, which I hope is OK. I'll try and work through the second half of the article soon for similar things.
Cheers, MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- You wanted to work on a different structure here. So far, I'm quite satisfied with the changes to the article. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- I marked the issues yet solved. The problem with the structure remains. You're reading books and writing an article, these are two different animals. The reader of an article doesn't have the long enduring attention of the reader of a book, thus requiring a different presentation. Another issue is the missing information on the galleys of the Late Byzantine navy. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on this article finally becoming featured! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 10:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Constantine,
I have given my support for the elevation of the article.
Please can you see the proposal I have made in Talk:Chameria page.Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations! And thanks to you for your excellent work. Todor→Bozhinov 12:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations! Thrilled to see another Byzantine-related article promoted to FA status. What's next now?!--Yannismarou (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I have nominated Cham Albanians for the GA status, can you have a look and give your opinion?Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Hallo. I've made some adjustments in the lead of the Souliotes with some additional sources, when you have time feel free to check them (considered that someone will not revert them).Alexikoua (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I will try to make it better.Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt and knowledgeable attention to the new articles on Demetrios Chloros and especially kanstresios. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi -
I'm a bit confused about the moving of the KISA article. The organisation is known in English as KISA (check all references on and offline, newspaper coverage, our own website, etc). The naming conventions state that the most commonly used form should be the article title, which is KISA - however, there are several other KISA's so I included the translated Greek name as a way of differentiating. Maybe it should be KISA (charity)? In any case, nobody will look it up under any name other than KISA. Vizjim (talk) 09:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Came up with a better solution, and moved it to KISA (NGO). I just had a look at your edits, and realised that you might not be so familiar with the way things work in Cyprus, which is much more linguistically fluid than Greece. KISA's constitution, for example, is in English rather than Greek. That's why the MOSNAME rules can be tricky to apply consistently to Cyprus-related articles. Vizjim (talk) 09:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
|
On March 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Lalakaon, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
This is just to thank you most sincerely for the map of Byzantine Constantinople. As an enthusiastic reader of Gibbon I have long been in search of a good map to illustrate the history of the city under the later empire, and I have never seen anything, printed or online, that comes close to this in quality and detail.
Such a labour of love is the best possible answer to those who still argue that Wikipedia is not to be taken seriously as a reference source.
Oliver Mundy (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
