User talk:Cplakidas/Archive 23

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cplakidas, for the period 11/2018 – 4/2019.
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 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

DYK for Battle of Meligalas

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

On 2 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Meligalas, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after the withdrawal of German forces, left-wing partisans defeated and summarily executed some 700 to 1,100 Nazi collaborators in Meligalas, Greece? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Meligalas. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of Meligalas), 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) 00:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Constantine V

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Constantine,

Thanks for your suggestions, unfortunately I know no German whatsoever - some Old English, but it isn't really of much help with modern German. I have Angold, M. (2012) Byzantium: The Bridge from Antiquity to the Middle Ages, but as a digital copy which is lacking page numbers, so not a great deal of use. Feel free to add any modern interpretations that can be gleaned from other sources. Urselius (talk) 10:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Urselius, I have access, but no time, it will probably be a couple of weeks or so before I can get to it. I can nevertheless send you a digital copy if you want. --Constantine ✍ 10:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Certainly, thanks. Urselius (talk) 10:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Digital restoration

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Constantine,

Thanks for the download on Constantine V.

I did a digital restoration of the mosaic of John II - just wanted you to see it in case I did something wrong (not having uploaded any image before) and they remove it for some reason. Urselius (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Urselius, the only thing missing is a link to the original file for verification purposes. Possibly also add a {{PD-art-100}} tag to cover the original mosaic. Constantine ✍ 13:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Right, thanks. Cheers! Urselius (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vettore Cappello

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Vettore Cappello 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) 16:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

EI 3

Latest comment: 6 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, Cplakidas. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- LouisAragon (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Did you receive my email? :-) No hurry, just to make sure. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi LouisAragon, yes I did, sorry I was a bit busy. I'll try to get them for you in the next couple of days. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 17:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Aight. Can you ping me when you have sent it? Thanks alot, - LouisAragon (talk) 11:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi LouisAragon, I have sent it already per mail. Have you not received it? Constantine ✍ 11:36, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately I did not. Can you resend them by any chance? - LouisAragon (talk) 11:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, it appears the mail server on your end is blocking attachments. I'll have to copy out the text. Constantine ✍ 11:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: have a look again please. Constantine ✍ 12:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Yep, appeared straight away in my inbox this time (just like previous times). Ευχαριστώ πολύ. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

A pleasure. Happy editing! Constantine ✍ 12:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Portals WikiProject update #022, 11 Nov 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Welcome AmericanAir88

Give a hearty welcome to AmericanAir88, who has adopted working on portals as one of his main purposes on Wikipedia. So far, he has created the following portals:

Way to go!

Where's Evad?

Evad disappeared from Wikipedia on October 18.

He has been, and will continue to be, sorely missed.

Hopefully, he is okay, on a Caribbean cruise or something.

The conversion continues

Portals of the old design, are slowly but surely being converted to the new single-page design.

One factor that has slowed things down is that for many sections, the section header call and section contents call are integrated into a template and buried in a lua module, locking them in on each portal. They have been that way for years.

This means that these sections can't be directly edited like the other sections on the same portal. So, search/replaces affect all the sections except those. So, upgrading headers on these portals, for example, misses the integrated sections and inadvertently results in 2 different header colors.

Before we can continue with the upgrade of these portals, the headers and section contents calls need to be restored to each portal, so that those can be edited in concert with the other sections on the portal, and worked on independently of each other.

This is underway, with a solution implemented on about 1/4 of the affected portals so far. Around 300 of them. The remaining 900 should be done within a couple weeks or so.

Going wide...

We now have banner-shaped pictures included in the introduction sections of 180 portals. The rarity of such pictures has made it difficult to find suitably narrow images for display across the tops of portals.

We have a solution for this, courtesy of FR30799386...

Most pictures are not banner-shaped. But, you can still use them as banners. Here's how:

{{Portal image banner|File:Blueberries .jpg |maxheight=120px |overflow=Hidden }}

Using both maxheight=120px and overflow=Hidden produces this:

Project's status

There are now 4,140 portals, with more being created almost daily. Prior to this project's reboot, portals were created at about the rate of 80 per year. Since April of this year, we've created about 2,600 new portals, or 32.5 years' worth at the old rate.

Of those new portals, about 3/4 of them need links leading to them. Almost all of them are linked to from the category system, but they still need links in article see also sections, at the bottom of navigation templates, and on the main portals list at Portal:Contents/Portals.

Of the 1500 portals created before the reboot, about 300 have been completely converted to the new design so far. About 1100 more have been partially converted, with intros, image slideshows, and associated wikimedia sections getting the most attention.

Discussion has resumed on the portal guidelines.

Until next issue...

See ya round the portal system! — The Transhumanist 11:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLI, November 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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: Peacemaker67 looks at the Sydney Wars
Op-ed: TomStar81 on the end 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) 09:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vettore Cappello

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article Vettore Cappello you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Vettore Cappello 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) 15:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Cplakidas,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW

Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.

If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.

We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.

With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Gascon campaign of 1345

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Constantine. I have just nominated this for an ACR - Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Gascon campaign of 1345. It is the campaign which included Battle of Auberoche, the ACR of which you were kind enough to comment on. And so I thought that I may be able to sweet talk you into looking at this one too. Thanks in advance. (He wrote, pushing his luck.) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I always enjoy reviewing your articles. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 18:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, Cplakidas. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, Cplakidas. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Help with Greek

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Seleucus VI's statue

Hello Constantine. I nominated Seleucus VI Epiphanes for FA. An reviewer noted that no image have an alt. One of the images is a drawing of a Greek inscription found on a statue base. He asked that the alt include a translation of the Greek text. Problem is, the source itself do not translate the inscription, it just explain it. And I cant read Greek. So, is it possible that you translate it for me? Thanks in advance.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 08:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Attar-Aram syria, here it is, both in the original and in translation: [Βασιλ]έα Σ[έλευκον Ἐπιφανῆ]
[βασιλ]έως Ἀν[τιόχου Φιλομήτορος]
[Διον]ύσιος [...]
[Ἀθη]ναῖος τ[...]
[Ἀπό]λλωνι, Ἀ[ρτέμιδι, Λητοῖ]

(implied: Dedicated to the) King S[eleukos Epiphanes],
(son) of king An[tiochos Philometor],
[Dion]ysios [...]
the [Athe]nian [...]
to [Apo]llo, A[rtemis, Leto].

Cheers, Constantine ✍ 09:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much man. Appreciate it.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Always a pleasure :) Constantine ✍ 09:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Basil II

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Can I get your current judgement on the article of Basil II? Векочел (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Векочел, i am a bit busy at the moment, I'll get around to it over the weekend. Cheers, --Constantine ✍ 10:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't really see much difference, unfortunately. Just at the beginning, I still see over-reliance on Psellus when describing his character and intellectual stance, without any modern source to counter-balance him. More worrying, I still see an inability of choosing the right source for the right reference, as exemplified on his parentage: of the five (!) references there, four (!!!) are tangentially related to the topic (Nicol; McCabe; Diacre, Talbot & Sullivan; Durant & Durant), two are incorrectly cited (Diacre, Talbot & Sullivan, where "Diacre" is the French translation of "Deacon"; at Bury etc., you should indicate the precise chapter and its author, not all the authors of a multi-author volume, and the correct term for "and other authors" is "et al."), one that is definitely outdated (McCabe). Another very tangential source (Walsh) is used to reference the meaning of porphyrogennetos. Right after that, I see Hyslop's Varangian, a work of fiction used as a reference on whether Theophano poisoned or not Constantine VII; this was added way back in 2009, but you did not check that.

Moreover, glancing at another usual troublespot, in the Assessment section, his popularity with the military is mixed with his great-uncle Alexander being childless (irrelevant), with the treaty with Venice and the allelengyon (both of which definitely do not belong in the Assessment section but are properly part of the main topic in foreign and domestic policy), the Macedonian Renaissance (without any indication of how/why this is associated with Basil or how this constitutes an "assessment" of his reign), etc. etc. I intended to do a full and detailed review, but I cannot. I would have to put in tags and comments for every single sentence in the article, and at this rate I'd rather rewrite it myself.

Sorry Векочел, but I still do not see the ability to do proper research on the subject. Your editing pattern appears to be random googling-and-citing one tidbit at a time, and then moving already extant text and references around without a clear plan or structure in mind, resulting in a hopeless mess. For instance, the five references I pointed out above were originally used together to cover his parentage as well as his "Laconian Greek" origin, but you split that up and now all five are used in both places; without checking the references' content, this is simply wrong practice. Have you checked Nicol (1992), p. 44? It does mention a "Greek mother Theophano", but it refers to the mother of Otto III, Theophanu, and not Basil's mother (!!!). Again, I mean this as well-intentioned advice: please leave the article for now, improve your knowledge on the topic by reading books cover to cover; improve your editing skills, and come back prepared to approach this in a systematic way. My suggestion is to start writing a draft of the article in your own user space, completely from scratch. Read a couple of books, and with them, and them alone, write a small article. Then, source by source, start expanding it. You can incorporate portions of the existing article as you go along, but it would help you get a far better grasp of the subject and provide a clear structure from the beginning of the process, rather than trying to do this in media res. Constantine ✍ 11:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Some of the material you suggested seems a bit expensive to me. Векочел (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #023, 25 Nov 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

There are now 4,180 portals.

Will we break 5,000 by the end of the year?

I know we can. But, that is up to you!

( New portals are created with {{subst:Basic portal start page}} or {{subst:bpsp}} )

Happy Holidays

Hello everyone! Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice (if it's occurring in your area of the world), and thanks for your work in maintaining, improving, and expanding portals. Cheers, — The Transhumanist 06:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Jingling along

The following portals have been created since the last issue:

Keep 'em coming!

By the way, the above list was generated using this Petscan query. It can be easily modified by changing the date. The data page (under the Output tab) also has options for receiving the data in CSV or tabbed format, which some operating systems automatically load into a spreadsheet program for ease of use, such as copying and pasting the desired column (like page names).

In closing

We'll keep it short this issue.

Expect a flood next time. Or the one after that.

Cheerio, — The Transhumanist 07:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Treaty of Gallipoli

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Treaty of Gallipoli 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 Spinningspark -- Spinningspark (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Macedonia during Ottoman era.

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

With the gradual conquest of southeastern Europe by the Ottomans in the late 14th century, the name of Macedonia disappeared as an administrative designation for several centuries and was rarely displayed on maps. The name was again revived to mean a distinct geographical region in the 19th century defining the region bounded by Mount Olympus, the Pindus range, mounts Shar and Osogovo, the western Rhodopes, the lower course of the river Mesta (Greek Nestos) and the Aegean Sea, developing roughly the same borders that it has today. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jingiby, I am aware that "Macedonia" fell out of use during Ottoman time as an administrative or geographical term; however it continued to exist as a historical term, as even one of the sources above admits. So the name clearly survived. Furthermore, let's not kid ourselves: you know perfectly well what the context of this statement is, when placed in an article about Emperor Samuel of all people, and why it was put there; it is about the supposed link between Samuel to the modern-day "Macedonians". The "Macedonian name" was not used by Samuel or his people, but by the Byzantines; if it disappeared, only to be appropriated by rival nationalisms in the late 19th century, then it should be clarified as such, and not by omission inferred that somehow the "Macedonian name" was tied to Samuel in the Middle Ages. --Constantine ✍ 19:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Check this please: The ethnic groups inhabiting the former territories of the Ancient Macedonians and the adjacent lands hardly ever called them Macedonia for a period of almost a thousand years before the early 19th century. In the Byzantine period the name Macedonia applied to a part of that is now Thrace, and the territory of present-day Republic of Macedonia was the core of the Byzantine province Bulgaria. Until the late 19th century the Turks did not even know that they were of occupation of a place called Macedonia. The term Macedonia was regularly applied to the territory of the ancient Macedonians only by Western travellers, cartographers and politicians after the Renaissance, and was widely re-adopted for local use first by the Greeks in the early 19th century. Drezov K. (1999) Macedonian identity: an overview of the major claims, p. 55. In: Pettifer J. (eds) The New Macedonian Question. St Antony’s Series. London, Springer, 1999, ISBN 0230535798. By the way I have changed slightly the sentence to NPOV. Jingiby (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, I know. I know that a "Macedonian people" had not existed since antiquity, and I know that for the Byzantines this meant Thrace; however, a) the name was still around, because a certain guy called Alexander had written it indelibly in popular and historical memory, and b) precisely, the connection to Samuel is a modern, ahistorical connection, tying a modern geographical region to a person and a people who did not use it at all (not incorrectly as the Byzantines did, but at all). My problem is with the phrasing, which implies a connection where none actually existed, for the uninitiated reader at least. I'll do a short rewrite to illustrate what I mean. Constantine ✍ 19:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I've moved the text around a bit to follow a bit more straightforward exposition of the problem. I hope it is OK with you, and I think it is more comprehensible for the average reader. Constantine ✍ 20:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Krakkos submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Cplakidas to be Editor of the Week for his outstanding contributions to Wikipedia. During more than ten years of service, Cplakidas has made more than 100,000 edits and created an impressive amount of high-quality articles. He has certainly contributed more to our coverage of the Byzantine Empire than any other editor in the history of Wikipedia. Not content with just creating new high-quality articles, Cplakidas also contributed by cleaning up those created by others (including my own), and frequently resolves disputes by serving as a voice of reason in heated discussions. I could think of no better candidate for the Editor of the Week award. Support for this nomination also came from User:Chetsford and User:Gog the Mild.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Greek Ancestry

Cplakidas

Editor of the Week
for the week beginning December 2, 2018

10 year veteran creator of 10000 outstanding contributions to Wikipedia and an impressive amount of high-quality articles. Has also contributed by cleaning up those created by others and frequently serves as a voice of reason in heated discussions. A model editor.

Recognized for

Modesty, an eagerness to accept others' input and an awareness that there is always room to improve.

Notable work

He has added more to the Byzantine Empire than any other editor in the history of Wikipedia

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 18:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Wow, this is rather humbling. Thanks Buster7, and I am sincerely grateful to Krakkos, Chetsford, Gog the Mild, all of them users I know and esteem highly, for this nomination and their confidence in me. I will try not to disappoint them during the next ten years :). Thanks again, Constantine ✍ 18:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

No pressure then

! Seriously, it is well deserved. Editors like you refresh one's faith in both Wikipedia and human nature. So we will all be expecting another ten years of it . Gog the Mild (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject World War I Op-Ed Series

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		In recognition of the role you played in cleaning up my God-awful spelling and grammar in the World War I Op-Ed series published by the Military history WikiProject's newsletter The Bugle over the last four years, I hereby present you with this teamwork barnstar. It is thanks to so many different editors like you who took the time to copyedit the nearly four year long series that it ended up being as successful as it was, and I am grateful for your help since spelling and grammar are not my strongest suites. Yours sincerely, TomStar81 (Talk) 14:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

You are too kind, TomStar81, for the couple of minor tweaks I did. Thanks to you for your amazing work in the series. Best, Constantine ✍ 18:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Timeline in the period of the Slavic migrations

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hi Cplakidas I removed that prod. It has already been G5'd. I think an Afd is required. I was puzzled the first time around when was not deleted when more than 50% of the edits at that time anyway, were socked edits. Still puzzled. But I think an Afd is needed to determine if the info is worth keeping in a new article. scope_creep^Talk 17:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Excellent work on the portals. Could do with a lot more, a whole lot more (film reference there). scope_creep^Talk 17:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Treaty of Gallipoli

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article Treaty of Gallipoli you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Treaty of Gallipoli 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 Spinningspark -- Spinningspark (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLII, December 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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: Indy beetle looks at military newspapers in East Africa

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) 10:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Lygdamid dynasty

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

On Lygdamid dynasty, you removed Category:Carian people and Category:Achaemenid satraps of Caria. Did you do that because the Lygdamids (unlike the later Hecatomnids) shouldn't be treated as native Carians, and because they need to be categorized with Category:Rulers in the Achaemenid Empire, respectively? I got kinda confused as you removed all "Carian people" categories from individual members of the Lygdamid dynasty (i.e. Pisindelis, etc.), but seemingly did decide to keep the Category:Achaemenid satraps of Caria categories on the very same articles. :D - LouisAragon (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

For the Carian people category, it is now a parent category of the Lygdamid dynasty category; for the Achaemenid satraps of Caria category, this is about the individual satraps, not the dynasty; for instance, a spouse of a satrap would be a member of the dynasty, but not a satrap. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 10:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah...of course. Silly me. Makes total sense. Thank you! - LouisAragon (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Another question about Antiquity-related articles; usually, when something is related to the Greco-Roman world, but happens to take place before the Byzantine "period" (~ 600 AD), I add WP:Classical Greece and Rome and leave it at that. When its also "directly" related to Greece, I add WP:Greece on top of it. Do you think this is a good habit? For example, lets take Tiribazus or Autophradates. Obviously they require WP:Classical Greece and Rome, but I added WP:Greece as well. Happy holidays btw! :-) - LouisAragon (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy holidays as well, LouisAragon, best wishes to you and your loved ones! On the question, that is my practice as well, although I usually err on the side of caution when tagging with WP:Greece (e.g. for Persians who only interacted with Greeks rather than, say, someone like Mardonius who was active in Greece/the Greek world). Constantine ✍ 16:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!
In relation to your reponse to my question: I see, that makes sense. We're on the same page then. But what about someone like Darius III? - LouisAragon (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Good question. In his case, where three quarters of the article (and four fifths of what we know about him) concern his conflict with Alexander, I think one can safely say it is relevant to WP:Greece. Constantine ✍ 10:24, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello Cplakidas,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

		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 16:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Ealdgyth! Likewise for you and the special people in your life all the best, health and happiness! Io, Saturnalia! --Constantine ✍ 20:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Vladimir-Suzdal

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Constantine! I was reading the aforementioned article and saw that it's protected since 2015! I thinks it's too much, even for an article where a moving-war occured. Cheers!--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Renato, that's probably something that you should take up with the administrator who applied the protection. --Constantine ✍ 17:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Husayn ibn Ali

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Constantine. We need to access some articles (1, 2, 3, 4) from EI3 because of the GA nominations in FAwiki, specially for Husayn ibn Ali. May you help us? Benyamin-ln (talk) 12:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure Benyamin-ln, please download them from here and tell me once you have them. Cheers, --Constantine ✍ 13:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot :) Benyamin-ln (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. Happy editing :) Constantine ✍ 21:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 31

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 31, October – Novemeber 2018

OAWiki
Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
Global branches update
Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

	The Original Barnstar
	For Internment of the Greek IV Corps at Görlitz. Sorry to have to put that ugly tag on it, but you did say you'd expand given more time.. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:58, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks and no worries, I plan to get to it during the holidays. --Constantine ✍ 11:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Cplakidas, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,
Johnsoniensis (talk) 10:31, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

--Johnsoniensis (talk) 10:31, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #024, 26 Dec 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Last issue, I mentioned there would be a flood, and so, here it is...

Portals status

We now have 4,620 portals.

And the race to pass 5,000 by year's end is on...

Can we make it?

The New Year, and the 5,001st portal, await.

( New portals are created with {{subst:Basic portal start page}} or {{subst:bpsp}} )

Evad is back!

After disappearing in mid-thread, Evad37 has returned from a longer than expected wikibreak.

Be sure to welcome him back.

Improved cropping is coming to Portal image banner

User:FR30799386 is working on making {{Portal image banner}} even better by enabling it to chop the top off an image as well as the bottom.

Many pictures aren't suitable for banners because they are too tall. Therefor, User:FR30799386 added cropping to this template, so that an editor could specify part of a picture to be used rather than the whole thing.

Upgrade of flagship portals is underway

Work has begun on upgrading Wikipedia's flagship portals (those listed at the top of the Main page).

So far, Portal:Geography, Portal:History, and Portal:Technology have been revamped. Of course, you are welcome to improve them further.

Work continues on the other five. Feel free to join in on the fun.

Spotting missing portals that are redirects

In place of many missing portals, there is a redirect that leads to "the next best topic", such as a parent topic.

Most of these were created before we had the tools to easily create portals (they used to take 6 hours or more to create, because it was all done manually). Rather than leave a portal link red, some editors thought it was best that those titles led somewhere.

The subjects that have sufficient coverage should have their own portals rather than a redirect to some other subject.

Unfortunately, being blue like all other live links, redirects are harder to spot than redlinks.

To spot redirects easily, you can make them all appear green.

What's new in portal space?

Here are the new portals since the last issue:

Keep 'em coming!

And I'll see you next issue.

Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 08:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Abu Sa'id al-Jannabi

On 28 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Abu Sa'id al-Jannabi, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the followers of Abu Sa'id al-Jannabi, the founder of the Qarmatian state in Bahrayn, believed that he would return after his death, and kept a saddled horse at the entrance of his tomb? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Abu Sa'id al-Jannabi. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Abu Sa'id al-Jannabi), 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.

Casliber 00:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #025, 30 Dec 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We can now crop the tops of pics to make banners

Before, we could only cut off the bottom of pics.

User:FR30799386 has pulled it off, and made the upgrade to {{Portal image banner}}...

So, this:

Niagara falls, from the Canadian side

Becomes this:

Niagara falls, from the Canadian side

Here's the code for the above banner:

{{Portal image banner|File:American Falls from Canadian side in winter.jpg | [[Niagara falls]], from the Canadian side |maxheight=175px |overflow=Hidden|croptop=10}}

To see it employed in a portal, check out Portal:Niagara Falls.

About that end of the year goal...

We were racing against time to create 5,000 portals by the end of the year (just for the heck of it).

We made it. We've passed the 5,000 portals mark, with time to spare!

And the 5,000th portal is Portal:Major League Baseball, by Happypillsjr.

Congratulations!

What's next?

The 10,000th portal mark. But...

...there is plenty else to do in addition to building new portals:

The new portals need to be linked to from the encyclopedia.
On those portals about subjects that are not typically capitalized, the search parameters need to be refined/expanded, to maximize the chances of Did you know and In the news items being found and displayed.
A Recognized content section needs to be added to each portal that has a corresponding WikiProject.
Addition of a category on those portals that lack a subject category.
Implement the portal category system, adding the appropriate categories to each portal.
Upgrade, and complete (as per the tasks enumerated above), the old-style portals that are not regularly maintained, which have not been converted yet (about 1,100 of them).
Find and fix the remaining bugs in the underlying lua modules.
Build portal tools (scripts) to assist in the creation, development, and maintenance of portals.
Build a script to help build navbox footer templates, via the harvesting of categories, amongst other methods.
Update the portal building instructions.
Update the portal guideline.
Refine the programming of the portals to reduce their load time.
Design and develop the next generation of portals and portal components.

And whatever else you can dream up.

But most of all, have a...

Happy New Year!

Cplakidas, thank you for your contributions to the Portals Project, and have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year.

Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 12:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

No need for "attitude"

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"...and yet you prefer blanket-reverting than simply visiting the article and drawing a reference from there; very constructive behaviour, it is not..." Well, obviously I prefer to remove the problem rather than spend time fixing it - have you seen how many such incorrect edits I've :had to undo in the past six months (since the new guideline came in)? if you couldn't be bothered to include the reference yourself, why would you expect others to? Also, check out what happened to User:Mill 1 when he tried the approach you are suggesting. Deb (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Deb. It is not about "attitude", it is about editing in a manner that does not create problems where there are none. I don't know about the new guideline, nor can you expect all users to be up-to-date with every guideline in Wikipedia (BTW could you point me to it?); all I could see was that there was not a single reference in this page, as indeed has been the case in most year/date articles since forever. The first revert I can accept, although again I would never revert an edit before checking out what it is about myself, and fixing it myself if possible; the second revert IMO was unnecessary and rather WP:POINTy. A "situation" was created where none should have ever existed. Anyhow... Cheers, and a happy new year to you and your loved ones. Constantine ✍ 16:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

2018 Military Historian of the Year

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

		2018 Military Historian of the Year
		As voted by your peers within the Military history WikiProject, I hereby award you the WikiProject Barnstar for being nominated for the 2018 Military Historian of the Year Award. Congratulations, and thank you for your efforts in 2018. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

2018 Year in Review

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

		The WikiChevrons
		For you work on Siege of Constantinople (674–678), Battle of Fardykambos, Adrianos Komnenos, Battle of Azaz (1030), Andronikos Komnenos (son of Alexios I), John Komnenos (Domestic of the Schools), Junayd of Aydın, and Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430) you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

		The Greek Barnstar of Virtue
		For your work on Siege of Constantinople (674–678), Battle of Fardykambos, Adrianos Komnenos, Battle of Azaz (1030), Andronikos Komnenos (son of Alexios I), John Komnenos (Domestic of the Schools), Junayd of Aydın, and Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430) I hereby award you with the Greek Barnstar. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
		_{this WikiAward was given to Cplakidas by TomStar81 (Talk) on 19:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)}

		The Biography Barnstar
		For your work on Adrianos Komnenos, Andronikos Komnenos (son of Alexios I), John Komnenos (Domestic of the Schools), and Junayd of Aydın you are hereby awarded The Biography Barnstar. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Wow, thanks TomStar81, I am feeling very virtuous after this ;). I wish you and those you hold dear a happy and productive new year. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 19:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Hamdan Qarmat

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Hamdan Qarmat. So Why 10:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fatimid invasion of Egypt (914–915)

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fatimid invasion of Egypt (914–915) 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 Gug01 -- Gug01 (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIII, January 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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 Albert Speer
Op-ed: Factotem on common problems affecting infoboxes
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) 23:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for October to December 2018 reviews. MilHistBot (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste `{{WPMILHIST Review alerts}}` to your user space

Brill's New Pauly

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hey Kostas. I was wondering; how would you cite an entry from Brill's New Pauly? This one, for example. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi LouisAragon, there's no one way to do this. You can simply copy the stuff that is at the bottom of each article, or combine them with our templates. As long as the attribution is clear, no-one will complain. Personally I use the following template: <ref name="NP">{{cite encyclopedia | last = | first = | title = | encyclopedia = Brill’s New Pauly | publisher = Brill Online | accessdate = | url = }}</ref>. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 07:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. To be honest, I found it to be pretty complicated unlike other Brill Reference works. As you know, these are translations from the German original. In the case of Meridarches (i.e. the example I gave above), would this be a appropriate way to do it, in your opinion?

Ameling, Walter (Jena). "Meridarches". In Salazar, Christine F.; Landfester, Manfred; Gentry, Francis G. (eds.). Brill’s New Pauly. Brill Online..

- LouisAragon (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

"(Jena)" indicates the university, it is not part of the name and not required. Otherwise it looks fine. I probably should create a template on the lines of {{EI2}}, but am rather swamped at the moment. Constantine ✍ 16:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

A template would certainly be nice, but we should be fine like this at least for the time being. No worries. Thank you for your helpful advice, as usual. ;-) - LouisAragon (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Btw, Encyclopedia Islamica's article about Darband contains quite some information about the Arab-Khazar Wars. Thought you might be interested. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

		The Military history A-Class medal with swords
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal with Swords for Arab–Khazar wars, Ottoman conquest of Lesbos, and Battle of Azaz (1030). MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fatimid invasion of Egypt (914–915)

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article Fatimid invasion of Egypt (914–915) 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:Fatimid invasion of Egypt (914–915) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gug01 -- Gug01 (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fatimid invasion of Egypt (919–921)

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fatimid invasion of Egypt (919–921) 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 Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fatimid invasion of Egypt (919–921)

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article Fatimid invasion of Egypt (919–921) 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:Fatimid invasion of Egypt (919–921) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 02:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

May your quill never dry

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

		The Featured Article Medal
		One year ago I felt moved to award you a barnstar "in recognition of your persistent effort in generating consistently high quality good articles". Since then you have excelled yourself, gracing Wikipedia with comprehensive, erudite and captivating articles beyond number. They include the Featured Articles Siege of Constantinople (674–678), Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430) and Battle of Halmyros; six A Class articles; sixteen Good Articles; and new articles more numerous than the stars in their Heaven. It is with great pleasure that I acknowledge their quality as much as their quantity with this barnstar. May your quill never dry. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Gog the Mild, that really means a lot, coming from you. I can only reciprocate the sentiment in the most sincere manner. Constantine ✍ 14:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

And may your keyboard never break...

For we need your help with creating and improving portals...

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #026, 20 Jan 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Well, here's the first issue of the new year. Enjoy...

New participants

A hearty welcome to new arrivals to the portals department:

Harvesting categories tool prototype

DannyS712 has created a user script prototype, User:DannyS712/Cat links, that can pull members from a category, a functionality we've been after since the project's revamp last Spring. Now, it's a matter of applying this technique to scripts that will place the items where needed, such as with a section starter script and/or portal builder script.

New portals since last issue

What else is going on

There have been some discussions at Wikipedia talk:Portal guidelines.

DreamyJazz is working on a bot to place links to portals on root articles, category pages, and navigation footer templates.

Portal bugs are getting dealt with soon after they are reported.

Lots of wikignome activity (using Hotcat, etc.).

Keep up the good work. — The Transhumanist 09:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Kassos

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi (and χρόνια πολλά). The attack on Kassos is one of several cases about the War of Independance where the primary event has been so much amplified that it has almost lost its original significance and acquired some mythical traits. Lots (all?) of modern accounts of this (ie non reliable sources like touristic or romanticized patriotic litterature/websites) now describe an extensive slaughter of the entire population coupled with total destruction. Don't you think the discrepancy between contemporary accounts and modern ones might be worth mentionning?--Phso2 (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Phso2, likewise χρόνια πολλά! :) I agree that it is an issue, but a) it is a general phenomenon, not specific to this article or even topic; exaggerations of numbers is a common thing with all sensitive historical events once a political agenda takes hold of them; so I am unsure whether it really merits mention specifically here, and b) by definition, "touristic or romanticized patriotic litterature/websites" are not WP:RS, and this case again proves why we should not use them; pointing out that sources like these have unreliable information is rather redundant. Our job is to provide (to the best of our ability) reliable information, not to point out which other sources are incorrect and how (which, once begun, is a task that would probably take over the entire article). Constantine ✍ 11:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Porta

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Porta 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 Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Porta

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article Battle of Porta 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 Porta for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fatimid invasion of Egypt (919–921)

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article Fatimid invasion of Egypt (919–921) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fatimid invasion of Egypt (919–921) 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 Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fatimid invasion of Egypt (914–915)

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article Fatimid invasion of Egypt (914–915) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fatimid invasion of Egypt (914–915) 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 Gug01 -- Gug01 (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Abu Sa'id al-Jannabi

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Abu Sa'id al-Jannabi 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) 00:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Abu Sa'id al-Jannabi

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article Abu Sa'id al-Jannabi 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:Abu Sa'id al-Jannabi for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #027, 28 Jan 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Portal styles

For a visually intensive portal, see Portal:Hummingbirds.

If you find any other portals that stand out, please send me the links so I can include them in the next issue. Thank you.

Conversion continues

There are about 1100 portals left in the old style, with subpages and static excerpts. As those are very labor intensive to maintain (because their maintenance is manual), all those except the ones with active maintainers (about 100) are slated for upgrade = approximately 1000. We started with 1500, and so over a quarter of them have been processed so far. That's good, but at this rate, conversion will take another 3 years. So, some automation (AWB?) is in order. We just need to keep at it, and push down on the gas pedal a bit harder.

You can find the old-style portals with an insource search of "box portal skeleton".

Flagship portals: the portals on the Main Page

Speaking of upgrades...

The following portals are listed in the header at the top of Wikipedia's Main Page, and get far more traffic than all other portals:

Of those, all but one have been revamped to an automated self-updating single-page design.

The remaining one, Portal:Mathematics has manual maintainers, and has been partially upgraded.

As these are our flagship fleet, they need to be kept in top-notch condition.

Check 'em out, and improve them if you can.

And be sure they are on your watchlist.

New portals since last issue

Keep 'em coming!

Deorphanizing the new portals

As you know, thousands of the new portals are orphans, that is, having no links to them from article space. For all practical purposes, that means they are not part of the encyclopedia yet, and readers will be unlikely to find them.

What is needed are links to these portals from the See also sections of the corresponding root articles.

Dreamy Jazz to the rescue...

Dreamy Jazz has created a bot to place the corresponding category link to the end of each portal (if it is missing), and place a link to each portal in the See also section of the corresponding root articles.

That bot, named User:Dreamy Jazz Bot, is currently in its trial period performing the above described edits!

To take a look at the edits it has made so far, see Special:Contributions/Dreamy_Jazz_Bot.

It shouldn't be long before the bot is processing the entire set of new portals.

Good news indeed.

Way to go, Dreamy Jazz!

And, that's a wrap

That's all I have to report this time around.

No doubt there will be more to tell soon.

Until then, — The Transhumanist 13:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Hamdan Qarmat

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

On 30 January 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hamdan Qarmat, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Qarmatian movement began when Hamdan Qarmat renounced the claims of Abdallah, the future founder of the Fatimid Caliphate, to be the Islamic Messiah? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hamdan Qarmat. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hamdan Qarmat), 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.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Cape Ecnomus

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Constantine. I hope that things are well with you. You seem to be busy, Wikipedia wise. I am looking for a favour. I have greatly expanded Battle of Cape Ecnomus, from the First Punic War, and nominated it for GA. I am hopeful that this one may, eventually, go to FA. If you have the time and motivation I would be grateful if you could pick it up at GAN and give it a rigorous looking at. Obviously, if time does not permit feel free to decline. Many thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gog the Mild, I was rather busy in RL the last few weeks (conference submissions season ;)) but I should have a bit more time now. I'd be very happy to have a look, as it is also a subject that interests me (and I now a few things about). Cheers, Constantine ✍ 15:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Constantine. I would, if at all possible, prefer your experienced and knowledgeable review, even if it means that I need to wait an indefinite period. (From the GAN instructions: "If someone else has started a review, you may add comments to the review page, but the review should be closed by the first reviewer.") Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gog the Mild, I know that input form other users is allowed (I've often butted in myself when I felt it necessary), but I'd like to clarify out fellow Wikipedian's intentions. He may not be aware of rules and practice regarding GANs. Regarding the waiting, don't worry, I'll definitely start working on it tomorrow :). Constantine ✍ 21:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #028, 04 Feb 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Here's a quicky status report:

Old-style portals: 1,018

Single-page portals: 4,367

Total portals: 5,385

But of course, there has been more going on than just that...

Dreamy Jazz Bot is up and running!

Dreamy Jazz Bot has been approved and is now up and running.

What it does is places missing links to orphaned portals. It places a link in the See also section of the corresponding root article, and it puts one at the top of the corresponding category page.

We have thousands of new portals that have yet to be added to the encyclopedia proper, just waiting to go live.

When they do go live, over the coming days or weeks, due to Dreamy Jazz Bot, it will be like an explosion of new portals on the scene. We should expect an increase in awareness and interest in the portals project. Perhaps even new participants.

Get ready...

Get set...

Go!

Another sockpuppet infiltrator has been discovered

User:Emoteplump, a recent contributor to the portals project, was discovered to be a sockpuppet account of an indefinitely blocked user.

When that happens, admins endeavor to eradicate everything the editor contributed. This aftermath has left a wake of destruction throughout the portals department, again.

The following portals which have been speedy deleted, are in the process of being re-created. Please feel free to help to turn these blue again:

And the corresponding talk pages:

New portals since the last issue

Keep up the great work

Until next time, — The Transhumanist 08:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, plus CoA of Greece

Latest comment: 5 years ago16 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, thanks for the barnstar you recently gave me! I've recently done quite a bit of work on the Coat of arms of Greece. I seem to remember you are interested in vexillology and heraldry, I'd love to know your opinion. It's quite hard to find reliable information on Greek heraldry, but I've done my best with what's available. Thanks! --Michail (blah) 09:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Michail, I'll definitely have a look. From a first glance, however, I think you have misinterpreted the 1822 cockade: ἐκ λευκοῦ καὶ κυανοῦ χρώματος τοιουτοτρόπως, ὤστε τὸ μὲν λευκὸν νὰ προτίθεται, τὸ δὲ κυανοῦν ν' ακολουθῆ, καὶ τέλος τὸ λευκὸν· means white followed by blue followed by white for the entire cockade, i.e. across the cockade; what you have interpreted would be white-blue-white-blue-white. In other words, the 1822 cockade is identical to the later ones, which also chimes with whatever representations I've seen of it (e.g. the Kapodistrian-era uniforms here). Constantine ✍ 10:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Cplakidas - I think the cockade you have in mind is the 1833 one, established by a separate decree, which does indeed have only two bands. The description of the 1822 one though seems to have had three bands. This is based on the actual text: τὸ μὲν λευκὸν νὰ προτίθεται, τὸ δὲ κυανοῦν ν' ακολουθῆ, καὶ τέλος τὸ λευκὸν; the white should be forward (προτίθεται), then the blue, and finally the white. This would make it white-blue-white from the centre of the cockade (as cockades are always described from centre to the outside, for example France’s is blue-white-red because its blue in the centre). The white can’t προτίθεται if it is in two bands, because the white is by definition behind the blue. If it was blue-white like the later one what is “the white is forward” in reference to? It can’t be in reference to the outer band because, in the fabrication of the cockade, that layer of fabric is the one further behind (the cockade is three [or two] pieces of fabric of different diameters on top of each other, so the last described is the biggest one and therefore the last). The later cockade from 1833 is indeed in two bands, and we know this because it describes it in two sections (blue first, white second, and specifies the overall diameter of the blue section as 2/3 of the “total diameter’’ of the cockade) as opposed to three described in 1822 (white first, blue second, and finally white). —Michail (blah) 13:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Also the cockade on the 1829 image on the army website has a further smaller white circle inside the blue, consistent with the above. I am at university and on my phone right now though, so I’ll have another look when I’m home at my desktop. —Michail (blah) 13:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure. The 1822 decree is certainly not clearly worded; it can be interpreted both ways, whereas the 1833 decree clearly describes a centre and a rim. I still think that the more natural reading is what I wrote above, especially given that cockades reflect the colours of the national flag, and the preponderance of blue on the Greek flag: your interpretation is more appropriate for the Finnish flag ;). On the army webpage uniforms, that is not a white central circle, but a metal pin to hold the cockade in place (e.g. contemporary French shakos, on which the Kapodistian uniforms were based), which is why you can see the same in the Othonian-era uniforms, both in the army website and in other depictions, like this by the uniformologist Richard Knötel. Constantine ✍ 14:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think what you're seeing is the pin used to hold the cockade together, it would not be that big so as to register as large so as to see it at that scale. At any rate I don't think that is a reliable source, looking at it now at home the 1829 uniform does not show a cockade , and the guy in the background is the guy from the 1833 illustration, which would have already switched to this. I still maintain that my translation is accurate, since cockade are described from the centre outwards, not from side to side as you suggest (they have no side, being round), and given that it gives a three-step process to make it. Sadly the oldest evidence I can find is from 1833 so it shows the cockade specified under Otto. To avoid contention I have taken it out, but I think it would be good to get some opinions on this, maybe from the folks at WP:HV. Apart from this, let me know what you think of the article if you have the time/interest. I've also put a request at WP:GOCE for copy-edit. --Michail (blah) 23:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually scratch that because the 1833 file also shows the white-blue-white cockade, along with the old merchant flag, marked as "Grece Md." (above Bavierel). --Michail (blah) 23:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

As I said, it may well be, it is a possible interpretation. Barring any direct visual evidence from Greece, however, it is interpretation. I agree it is better left off for now. I will definitely have a look over the article over the next few days. Constantine ✍ 14:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Michail, I am not sure about the first paragraph of the "Heraldic designs" section. It implies that the choice of the eventual national emblem was made with conscious reference to the Byzantine arms, but this is patently untrue as Byzantine heraldry was virtually unknown at the time, and, more importantly, as the emblem was simply taken from the national flag, whose origin is plain enough: the cross in direct reference to Orthodox Christianity and direct opposition to the Ottoman crescent; it is well known that the specific design chosen was also first used in 1807 at Skiathos by Giannis Stathas and the Greek chieftains under him. In other words, the simple shield and cross were not chosen as the "basis for the coat of arms of Greece", but the flag was made into the central element of the coat of arms, since Greece lacked another heraldic representation, by Otto's regents. Constantine ✍ 13:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to read the article. I did not intend it to come across as a conscious reference to Byzantine heraldry - merely that that's how it was retrospectively justified through the various theories. Thanks for making it more clear; Any particular sources you have in mind re your last comment regarding the adoption of the flag as an emblem during Otto's times? It's pretty straight-forward but might need citation if the article is sent for GA review. --Michail (blah) 18:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The same BTW also goes for the Palaiologan design: there was no tradition of a "coat of arms" in Byzantium, but the design of the imperial flag was used as a motif in escutcheons by Latin powers in contact with Byzantium (Galata, the Gattilusi, the Palaiologoi of Montferrat, etc). You can refer to G. E. Tipaldos (1926), "Είχον οι Βυζαντινοί οικόσημα;", Επετηρίς Εταιρείας Βυζαντινών Σπουδών, τόμος Γ', pp. 206–222. Constantine ✍ 13:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. As you pointed out the way I wrote this sounds like I'm suggesting it was chosen as a result of Byzantine heraldic traditions, which was not my intention. Perhaps a more relevant way of putting the Byzantine "heraldry" cross theories in the text would be to bring examples of the cross as used by the Byzantines on coins and on banners rather than introduce it in specifically heraldic terms. --Michail (blah) 18:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

A few omissions: the phoenix was also used by the PEEA in 1944 (you can see it in photos of sessions of the National Council). Also, there was another variant of the cockade, with a white Greek cross on the blue part of the cockade. This was used at some point in the 1930s under the 2nd Republic, but also by the collaborationist government (you can see it worn during the swearing-in ceremony of the "Evzone" battalions of the Rallis government in 1943). I've seen plenty of examples, but unfortunately, when you want something you can't find it, and I can't find any high-res photos of these online right now, the best I could find is from Mylonas' book (central figure), or this. In the same vein, perhaps a mention of the ELAS and DSE cockades might be worthwhile (at least in the gallery). Constantine ✍ 14:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Strike part of my last comment, I found at least one ΦΕΚ where the Republican cockade is explicitly mentioned (page 455, PD of 26/2/1935) as of elliptical shape, with a cross in the centre, surrounded by two laurel branches. This would appear to be the somewhat unusual emblem that Papagos is wearing in this photo. I'll keep looking for earlier statutes, but the search isn't easy. Constantine ✍ 16:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, thanks. I know it sucks going through all the FEKs to find what you need. I'm happy with the corrections that you've made. --Michail (blah) 18:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Cplakidas I've made some changes, let me know what you think. Also I can't seem to open the file you list asPD of 26/2/1935, the link seems to be broken or the session expired. --Michail (blah) 21:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Abu Sa'id al-Jannabi

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article Abu Sa'id al-Jannabi you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Abu Sa'id al-Jannabi 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) 04:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Marj Rahit (684)

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Constantine. I was thinking of assessing this one for GAN. But I seem to be assessing a lot of yours lately. If you would rather I leave it in the pool for someone else to pick up, let me know. If you are happy for me to assess it, would you prefer a straight GA version, or should I have an eye on your wanting to take it further in its present form? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gog the Mild, I'd love to get a review from you. I don't think there is anything inappropriate, it's not as if we are doing it on a quid pro quo basis or winking each other through ;). Regarding it going further, I don't really know. Gnerally with such articles where there are not too many sources, I am content to leave them at GA for a while, until I gather more sources (if I can find them). Best, Constantine ✍ 08:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Ha! If anyone does accuse us of winking articles through, I shall refer them to Battle of Cape Ecnomus. We are more likely to be suspected of competitive nit-picking. I didn't think that it was heading for ACR, at least not without a rewrite, but wanted to check. One "ordinary" GA assessment coming up. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Irfan Shahid

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Constantine! Long time no see! I hope you keep producing all marvelous articles of yours to Wikipedia. I came just to announce that a blessed soul from Heaven uploaded all books from Irfan Shahid on the internet (LibGen) and I presume you would like to know it in case you already don't. I cannot put any direct link here from them, but if you don't have any link to access, I can send by e-mail any time you wish. Cheers!--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 03:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Renato, thanks, I am fine, I hope you are too! That is great news indeed, I am going to have a look :). Cheers, --Constantine ✍ 08:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Marj Rahit (684)

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Marj Rahit (684) 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 Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 11:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIV, February 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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
Review essay: Nick-D on the Japanese battleship Mikasa

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) 12:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #029, 13 Feb 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Where we are at:

Single-page portals: 4,704

Total portals: 5,705

The Ref desks survived the proposal to shut them down

You might be familiar with the Ref desks, by their link on every new portal. They are a place you can go to ask volunteers almost any knowledge-related question, and have been a feature of Wikipedia since August of 2005 (or perhaps earlier). They were linked to from portals in an effort to improve their visibility, and to provide a bridge from the encyclopedia proper to project space (the Wikipedia community).

Well, somebody proposed that we get rid of them, and the community decided that that was not going to happen. Thank you for defending the Ref desks!

Here's a link to the dramatic discussion:

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Indefinitely_semiprotecting_the_refdesk#Proposal_II:_Shut_down_the_Ref_Desks

The cleanup after sockpuppet Emoteplump continues...

The wake of disruption left by Emoteplump and the admins who reverted many (but not all) of his/her edits is still undergoing cleanup. We could use all the help we can get on this task...

Almost all of the speedy deleted portals have been rebuilt from scratch.

For the portals he/she restarted (many of which were done mistakenly, overwriting restarts and further development that had already been done), and/or tagged as the maintainer, see https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User:Emoteplump&oldid=881568794#Additional_Portals_under_my_watch

10,000 portals, here we come...

We're at 5,705 portals and counting.

New portals since issue #28

Prior to 2018, for the previous 14 years, portal creation was at about 80 portals per year on average. We did over 3 times that in just the past 9 days. At this rate, we'll hit the 10,000 portal mark in 5 months. But, I'm sure we can do it sooner than that.

What's next for portal pages?

There are 5 drives for portal development:

Create new portals
Expand existing portals, such as with new sections like Recognized content
Convert or restart old-style portals into automated single-page portals
Link to new portals from the encyclopedia
Pageless portals

Let's take a closer look at these...

1: Creating new portals

Portal creation, for subjects that happen to have the necessary support structures already in place, is down to about a minute per portal. The creation part, which is automated, takes about 10 seconds. The other 50 seconds is taken up by manual activities, such as finding candidate subjects, inspecting generated portals, and selecting the portal creation template to be used according to the resources available. Tools are under development to automate these activities as much as possible, to pare portal creation time down even more. Ten seconds each is the goal.

Eventually, we are going to run out of navigation templates to base portals off of. Though there are still thousands to go. But, when they do run out, we'll need an easy way to create more. A nav footer creation script.

Meanwhile, other resources are being explored and developed, such as categories, and methods to harvest the links they contain.

2: Expanding existing portals

The portal collection is growing, not only by the addition of new portals, but by further developing the ones we already have, by...

Improving and/or adding search parameters to better power the Did you know and In the news sections.
Adding more selected content sections, like Selected biographies.
Adding and maintaining Recognized content sections, via JL-Bot.
Adding pictures to the image slideshow.
Adding panoramic pics.
Categorizing portals.

More features will be added as we dream them up and design them. So, don't be shy, make a wish.

3: Converting old portals

By far the hardest and most time-consuming task we have been working on is updating the old portals, the very reason we revamped this WikiProject in the first place.

There are two approaches here:

A) Restart a portal from scratch, using our automated tools. For basic no-frills portals, that works find. But, for more elaborate portals, as that tends to lose content and features, the following approach is being tried...

B) Upgrade a portal section by section, so little to nothing is lost in the process.

4: Linking to new portals

Or "portal deorphanization"...

Dreamy Jazz Bot is purring along.

And a tool in the form of a script is under development for linking to portals at the time they are created, or shortly thereafter.

5...

See below...

New WikiProject for the post-saved-portal phase of operations...

Saved portals, are portals with a saved page.

What is the next stage in the evolutionary progression?

Quantum portals.

What are quantum portals?

Portals that come into existence when you click on the portal button, and which disappear when you leave the page.

Or, as Pbsouthwood put it:

...portals that exist only as a probability function (algorithm) until you collapse the wave form by observing through the portal button (run the script), and disappear again after use...

Introducing...

Wikipedia:WikiProject Quantum portals (see it's talk page).

Keep on keepin' on

...'til next time, — The Transhumanist 10:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Upper Mesopotamia under the Abbasid Caliphate has been nominated for discussion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Category:Upper Mesopotamia under the Abbasid Caliphate, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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) 21:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity (2018)

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Kostas, hope all is well. I just made two templates for the Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity.[1]-[2] Could you review/inspect them? Thanks a lot, - LouisAragon (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Al-Mu'tasim TFA

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, this is to let you know that the above article will appear as Today's Featured Article on March 6, 2019. The blurb to be used can be found here. You are free to edit the blurb, and may want to watchlist that page, as well as WP:ERRORS in case there are queries about it on the day it runs, as well as the previous day. If you have questions or concerns, feel free to post on my talk. Thanks for building quality content!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the article, "about the eighth Abbasid caliph. A younger prince who under normal circumstances would never have become caliph, as a person al-Mu'tasim was in stark contrast to his erudite predecessors, by being a military man through and through; indeed he cemented his fame as a warrior caliph by leading one of the most famous early Muslim feats of arms, the Sack of Amorium. More importantly, his reign saw the completion of the process of dis-empowerment of the older elites, including the Arab settler communities that had held power in the provinces since the Muslim conquests, in favour of the Turkish slave soldiers as the main military (and inevitably also political) support of the monarch. In this way, he inadvertently created the preconditions for the downfall of the Abbasid Caliphate, but also established a new norm of political organization that was widely emulated and prevailed in large parts of the Muslim world even until the early modern era (think of the Mamelukes or the Janissaries)."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Al-Mu'tadid

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hey Constantine - Sorry for taking so long to get back to you on this. In regards to al-Mu'tadid's family, I wasn't able to find much, but his fourth son was named Harun: [1]. To add slightly to that, Ibn Hazm, p. 29, describes Harun as "long-lived" and says that he died in the days of al-Muti. Afraid I don't have anything to contribute in regards to wives or concubines.

Other than that, I really don't have anything substantive to add here - it's a very good article, and I like it a lot!

Thanks a lot Ro4444, that means much to me. ~~On Harun, do you have some details on the source you linked? I can't find any details on this issue of the Supplement of the JAOS.~~ Constantine ✍ 11:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

A slightly related though random question - have you ever gotten a look at al-Mu'tadid's expenditure budget that Hugh Kennedy references? There's a complete version of it that's available in German, but I've never been able to reconcile it to either Kennedy's totals (the German version has a daily expenditure of 6,981 dinars, vs. Kennedy's 7,915) or his allocations between military/non-military items . Not an article issue per se, just one of those things that always drove me a bit crazy trying to figure out. Thanks, Ro4444 (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Can you send me the version in German? I'd also be interested in it. I agree, such inconsistencies are often maddening to encounter and even more so to fathom; history is not an exact science, but this really shouldn't happen... Constantine ✍ 11:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Here's a copy of the budget. Kennedy cites both this article and the original text from Hilal al-Sabi for his figures, so perhaps he drew a different reading from the latter...in any case, perhaps you can make some more sense of it.Ro4444 (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

PS, with your endorsement, I will go ahead and submit the article for FAC after a GOCE copyedit. You are more than welcome to add any further comments/suggestions there :). Constantine ✍ 11:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Happy to! Ro4444 (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Marj Rahit (684)

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article Battle of Marj Rahit (684) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Marj Rahit (684) 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 Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Cape Ecnomus

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Constantine. Apologies again for the amount of work I left for a reviewer - you - to do, and many thanks for how thoroughly you did it. I have counter tweaked some of your comments re marine capacity and you may want to take a look. Would you care to venture an opinion as to whether this article might be ready for ACR, or even for jumping straight to FAC? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gog the Mild, no worries there. It definitely looks ready for ACR, if the map referencing is dealt with; especially for File:CapeEcnomus.png, I would recommend making a new, corrected version of it (ideally in svg) with a proper reference. You could enlist the WP:GL/MAP for help. For FAC, I don't see any other major hurdles either, although I strongly recommend going through ACR first; the more reviewers the better the article in the end. Constantine ✍ 08:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, I am a little bored with shepherding articles from 1345 and 1346 about the Hundred Years' War and would like a change of pace. But I need to get the map sorted, so I will put this in for ACR while waiting and, as you say, get more eyes on it. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Basil II

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Constantine, what more do you think the article on Basil II needs? Векочел (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 32

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 32, January – February 2019

#1Lib1Ref
New and expanded partners
Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
Global branches update
Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Porta

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article Battle of Porta you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Porta 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 Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

		The Epic Barnstar
		A long-overdue token of gratitude for your incredible work creating and expanding articles about the medieval Arab world, from the battle for Umayyad existence to the Abbasid caliph al-Mu'tasim and much more. I look forward toward seeing the fruits of your future efforts. Your presence here has been, and will continue to be, indispensable and inspiring. Thank you! Al Ameer (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, Al Ameer, this means a lot coming from you :) Constantine ✍ 10:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

A source

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Constantine. I have just started reading "Prospective Gain or Actual Cost? Arab Civilian and Military Captives in the Light of Byzantine Narrative Sources and Military Manuals from the 10th Century" by Szymon Wierzbinski (of Lodz University) and it occurred to me that it may be of interest to you. I am only part way through, but it seems to cover some of the same ground as your Battle of Andrassos, albeit from a different perspective. Let me know if you would like to look at it and I will email it to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Gog the Mild, that sounds very interesting, please send it. Best, Constantine ✍ 07:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello Cplakidas, you don't happen to be in possession of the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire vol II and III in pdf? If so, could you send them to me? Would very much appreciate it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Got your mail, thank you very much :)! --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome HistoryofIran! If you need anything else, don't hesitate to ask. Constantine ✍ 20:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

By any chance; could you send it to me as well? Thanks a lot, - LouisAragon (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Fatimid invasion of Egypt (914–915)

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

On 2 March 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fatimid invasion of Egypt (914–915), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 914–915 and in 919–921, just a few years after its founding, the Fatimid Caliphate launched two unsuccessful invasions of Egypt? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fatimid invasion of Egypt (914–915). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Fatimid invasion of Egypt (914–915)), 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) 12:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Fatimid invasion of Egypt (919–921)

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

On 2 March 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fatimid invasion of Egypt (919–921), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 914–915 and in 919–921, just a few years after its founding, the Fatimid Caliphate launched two unsuccessful invasions of Egypt? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Fatimid invasion of Egypt (919–921)), 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) 12:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

	The Special Barnstar
	Long overdue. Simply one of the best editors on this place, hands down. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot LouisAragon, very much appreciated :) Constantine ✍ 17:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Kırkdilim

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Kırkdilim 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) 17:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of K?rkdilim

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article Battle of K?rkdilim you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Battle of K?rkdilim for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Philip I, Prince of Taranto

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Cplakidas. I want to know in what year this character died. Because there are many proposed dates like 23 December 1332, 24 December 1331 or 26 December 1332 and I'm not so sure what is the real date. A greetings. Kardam (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kardam! The only date I could find, consistently, was 26 December 1331. I've added it to the article now. Where do the others come from? Constantine ✍ 09:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Cplakidas. I asked you this question because you edited an article called Philip, Despot of Romania. I know that he is Philip's son, but in this article you took as a source an article in italian called "Filippo I d'Angiò, imperatore nominale di Costantinopoli" and it said that Philip I of Taranto was born in 1276 and that he died 24 December 1331. Also "The Old French Chronicle of Morea: An Account of Frankish Greece after the Fourth Crusade" (2018) and "The Chronicle of Morea: Historiography in Crusader Greece" (2009) said that Philip of Taranto died in 1332 not 1331, but they didn't mention the day or the month. That's the reason why I have that doubt, and even when he was born. A greetings. Kardam (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, 1332 is obviously wrong, and possibly resulted from the very late date of his death, almost into the new year. On the exact date, the DBDI indeed says 24 December, which is odd; the article is very well researched, but all the English sources I consulted today that placed the date with any accuracy were unanimous on 26 December. Odd indeed. I will add the second date as well. Thanks for the heads up. Constantine ✍ 19:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi. The date of 26 dec 1332 is from his tombstone in San Domenico Maggiore (Naples), it has been accepted at least since Ducange work on the Latin Empire, but corrected by Hopf in the 19th century (note 1) because the year in Medieval Naples was numbered from October (so 1332 started in October 1331) (p 430 n.3). 24 instead of 26 in Kiesewetter must be a lapsus. (text of the epitaph is here in Ducange, I couldn't find a photo)--Phso2 (talk) 09:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your knowledgeable (as usual) insight, Phso2! Constantine ✍ 18:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

TFA

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Congratulations on putting an outstanding article on the front page. It only seems a week or two since I was looking at it; it must have flown through ACR and FAC. It reminds me of just how well you do these things. Keep them coming. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words Gog the Mild, I am glad you and others have liked it; it is after all the product of several years of on-and-off work. I can only reciprocate both the appreciation and the urging to keep it up :). Cheers, Constantine ✍ 15:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

PS, Gog the Mild, I have another Abbasid caliph on the pipeline for FA, and have requested a GOCE copyedit. If you'd like to take it on, I'd be delighted. Best, Constantine ✍ 08:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Constantine. I noticed it, but was aware that I was repeatedly cherry picking your requests, and thought that you may welcome a different pair of eyes, if only to compare and contrast approaches and styles. That said, it is, genuinely, always a pleasure to go through your articles. I have recently started copy editing an article on a Nasrid Emir, and GOCE gets tetchy if you try to "reserve" requests. As soon as I clear the decks I shall have a look at yours. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gog the Mild, I normally wouldn't ask, for exactly the same reason: I'd like to have different pairs of eyes as well. But I really want to get this article going as soon as possible, and it appears that GOCE is rather slow with processing requests lately. That's why I am taking the shortcut ;) Constantine ✍ 13:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Ha, I have been spoiling you. GOCE have recently been feeling smug that the mean time to completion of requests fell to 15 days last year, from 26 in 2017. And I note that the oldest unaddressed request is currently only 15 days old. I dunno, you content creators, never satisfied. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Fine, fine, it is first-world-problems-level whining, I know :). Either way, thanks. Constantine ✍ 13:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Input appreciated

Latest comment: 5 years ago17 comments5 people in discussion

Hey Constantine. I would like to hear your opinion regarding a newly created article. It titles: the Sons of Antiochus VIII. Simply, all the featured articles about those kings were copied and pasted in this huge new replicat article. I have started a discussion here and would really apreciate your thoughts. Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey Constantine. Again, it happens. This is getting out of hand. Please see this Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Early life of Cleopatra/archive1. Obviously, the author (PercilesofAthens) does not know about this, otherwise he wouldnt have aggred that Векочел continue with the nomination--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Constantine, hi Attar-Aram syria. You may also be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Marcus Aurelius, especially my lengthy source review. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey Gog the Mild. I saw that review a while ago as well. The editor was also able to bring Ptolemy IX Lathyros to GA even though the article is missing practically most details about the reign of that king!. To mention a few: no word about the circumstances surrounding the marriage to Cleopatra IV which led Cleopatra III to force a divorce. No word about the campaign of Ptolemy IX in the Levant which culminated in a regional war that included two kings of Syria, the king of Judea, Cleopatra III and Ptolemy X in addition to Ptolemy IX himself!!! No word about Ptolemy IX's role in elevating Demetrius III of Syria to the throne...etc etc etc. It is not the duty of the reviewer to know that stuff are missing. The nominator should make sure that his article is ready before nominating. But when we have an editor who simply pick an article because it looks good and copy-edit it and inflate it with photos then nominate it, then its no wonder that articles that dont deserve a GA or an FA status end up acquiring it.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild:, @Attar-Aram syria:, yes, I just this morning had to quick fail an amazingly spurious GA nomination of Basil I. I've written a message to the user, but this is nothing new, and he is obviously unable or unwilling to learn from previous incidents, or even reply to concerns raised in a meaningful way (witness the blanking of my and Attar-Aram's criticism at the Sons of Antiochus VIII discussion). I am seriously considering a WP:NOTHERE and WP:COMPETENCE-based complaint at WP:ANI at this point, with at least an indefinite ban from nominating any article for GA/ACR/FA until he can show some ability to work seriously (and honestly) on an article. Constantine ✍ 12:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Now, the article of Cleopatra's early life is actually up to FA standards, thanks to its writer's efforts. But the author decided to retire Wikipedia, and since he wrote such a good article, then it will probably pass, giving the nominator a credit that he does not deserve, which is apparently the motivation behind all the trivial mass edits he conduct on articles that he nominates. I think this should be stopped, because passing the article of Cleopatra's early life will only encourage the nominator to continue using the efforts of other editors.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I also agree and would be willing to support. I have been trying to AGF, but there is a clear pattern and it is sucking up a lot of other editors' time which could be better spent, with little meaningful input from the editor in question. I personally have no qualms with a drive by nomination of an abandoned but FA-worthy article, whether or not the nominator deserves it. But the shotgun nomination of articles when the nominator is clearly unable to assess their quality in terms of either their content or their adherence to basic MoS needs to stop.

Regarding Ptolemy IX Lathyros, embarrassingly I seem to have assessed that article myself. However, with no comments whatsoever and not even completing the review boxes. I believe that Constantine will vouch that even with his better articles I always find something to pick at, usually quite a bit. So I seem to have had a complete aberration on this one. Clearly it needs a reassessment. Attar-Aram Syria, possibly you could start one [?], maybe by cutting and pasting in your comments above. I will then come in with a mea culpa and we will take it from there. Or I could start one with an admission of (hopefully) temporary incompetence. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, you have reviewed my articles before, and it was not an easy review and it helped the articles getting better. So the passing of Ptolemy IX has nothing to do with your competence. It has to do with the material. The article of Ptolemy IX was too short and incomplete, while the GA rules are clear that articles need to be very close to be complete. You assumed good faith, and thought that the article was complete, and it was not your job to research the historiography outside Wikipedia as this should have been done by the nominator, who should be stopped from such desruption. I prefer that you deal with the article of Ptolemy IX, and tag me if you need my comment. Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Will do. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Gog the Mild: @Attar-Aram syria: I'm afraid its not limited to Roman-Byzantine/Hellenistic articles. For instance, would you say this has been GA-worthy imput?[3] - LouisAragon (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Not at all LouisAragon. I think we need to go through all his GA's and demote them because he did not improve them at all.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Attar-Aram syria, Gog, and Constantine, I may be able to use the same books that I am using for the FAC of Early life of Cleopatra for the article on Ptolemy IX. Unfortunately, I don't know where many sources on King Faisal of Saudi Arabia can be found. Векочел (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Векочел, my opinion for one is well known to you: take the time to write an article from zero, and in the process learn how to use sources and compose a narrative that covers the salient topics. Learn by doing. And please leave the nominations of other editors' articles be for the time being, that is not the purpose of Wikipedia, nor should it be your purpose. Constantine ✍ 00:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I dont think you can use the sources from Cleopatra for her grandfather Ptolemy IX. You need specialized sources and they are many. Thats the whole point of doing research, and it is a rewarding activity. I can help a little. For the war in the Levant, you need to use The Judean-Syrian-Egyptian Conflict of 103-101 B.C. by Van 't Dack. For the family of Ptolemy and his marriages and children and all the political conflict resulting from them, see Cleopatra V Tryphæna and the Genealogy of the Later Ptolemies by Bennett, Christopher J. (1997) Ancient Society Journal vol 28. Peeters Publishers. Those are just two sources that can be used. For a king who was in power for more than 20 years, the article will be double that of Demetrius III for example. Thats why I dont think you can improve the current article to keep its GA status, because you simply need to write it from scratch and this will take months.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Attar-Aram syria: Steady. Let's take a deep breath. Certainly, let's review all articles which Векочел nominated. But if they are worthy of their status it doesn't matter if the nominator did nothing to them. In fact the rules specifically allow this. They have done the encyclopedia a service by identifying articles worthy of promotion. We don't demote them just because the nominator's practices. That said, I will be opening a reassessment of Ptolemy IX Lathyros. There may well be others which one of us considers it worth reassessing. It may also be helpful for us to visit Векочел's talk page, point out as positively as possible what we consider the issues with his edits and nominations to be and offer some contrucive suggestions as to how they might address them, both short and longer term. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Correct. Векочел's involvement is not a guarantee that there is something fishy with the articles that were passed. However, it is definitely a good idea to revisit his nominations. Constantine ✍ 00:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I did not mean that we need to go demote at once, but definitely re-review them. Since the pattern is to take a random article that looks good and nominate it without improving, I doubt many of the editor's good article will retain their status.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLV, March 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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 US Navy aviation safety and Australian war crimes trials

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) 11:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Basil I

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I had a look at the GA review of Basil I. I agree that the reign is too sparsely represented. Out of interest, I looked for a copy of the Tobias biography online, there was one copy on Amazon for £1,200+! I cannot see any editor acquiring one soon. I was quite put out, stating it mildly. Urselius (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, publications on "unpopular" subjects can become quite expensive after they get out of print... Amazon.de has it for "only" 244 Euros if you can afford it, BTW... I am regularly trawling ebay and antique shops on the off chance I find something that I am interested in, but I rarely get lucky.... Constantine ✍ 17:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I have a daughter's 18th birthday and a nephew's wedding coming up next month, so it will be a while before any expensive book purchases are possible, not that £1,000+ would ever be feasible. I thought Birkenmeier was expensive enough! Urselius (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Urselius: I promise you that if I ever win the lottery I will buy a copy for you ;). Happy birthday and best wishes for your daughter and nephew! Cheers, Constantine ✍ 20:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks on all counts :) Urselius (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Basil II!

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

I have only a few sources on the emperor and I cannot get my hands on a copy of The Oxford Encyclopedia. Векочел (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Which The Oxford Encyclopedia do you mean? I don't know of any such work. Constantine ✍ 12:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The name is The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. Векочел (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Векочел: I'm subbed to Oxford through Wiki (Oxford Reference), so I can give you the entries you need. However, Oxford Reference doesn't mention the corresponding page numbers in relation to the hardcover version. So please bear that in mind. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, LouisAragon. I am not in need of any Oxford Reference entries at the moment. But I will notify you if I need any entries. Векочел (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Likewise, if you need any entry, I have access to a hard copy. Constantine ✍ 22:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any advice on the Basil II article? Векочел (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I plan on working through the article myself during the coming days, let's see what comes from it... Constantine ✍ 19:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

When will your work on the article come? Векочел (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello Cplakidas,

News

The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.

Discussions of interest

Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
{{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.

Reminders

NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.

NPP Tools Report

Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Islamica

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, I just created this template.[4] I modeled it on your EoI THREE template.[5] Could you review/check it? Thanks a lot, - LouisAragon (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi LouisAragon, looks good. I'd only alter the title of the work to Encyclopaedia Islamica Online, since right now it only refers to the online version. Otherwise you might differentiate the print and web versions (cf. Template:Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit). Constantine ✍ 22:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Done![6] - LouisAragon (talk) 15:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Byzantine–Venetian treaty of 1268

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Byzantine–Venetian treaty of 1268 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 Spinningspark -- Spinningspark (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #030, 17 Mar 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Previous issue:

Single-page portals: 4,704

Total portals: 5,705

This issue:

Single-page portals: 4,562

Total portals: 5,578

The collection of portals has shrunk

All Portals closed at WP:MfD during 2019

Grouped Nominations total 127 Portals:

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/US County Portals Deleted 64 portals
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Districts of India Portals Deleted 30 Portals
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portals for Portland, Oregon neighborhoods Deleted 23 Portals
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Allen Park, Michigan Deleted 6 Portals
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cryptocurrency Deleted 2 Portals
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:North Pole Deleted 2 Portals

Individual Nominations:

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Circles Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Fruits Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:E (mathematical constant) Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Burger King Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cotingas Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Prostitution in Canada Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Agoura Hills, California Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Urinary system Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:You Am I Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cannabis (2nd nomination) Reverted to non-Automated version
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Intermodal containers Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Adventure travel Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Adam Ant Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Benito Juárez, Mexico City Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Spaghetti Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Wikiatlas Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Greek alphabet Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Accounting Deleted G7
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Lents, Portland, Oregon Deleted P2
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ankaran Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Jiu-jitsu Deleted G8
Portal:University of Nebraska Speedy Deleted P1/A10 exactly the same as Portal:University of Nebraska–Lincoln also created by the TTH

Related WikiProject:

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Quantum portals Demoted

(Attribution: Copied from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Portal MfD Results)

WikiProject Quantum portals

This was a spin-off from WikiProject Portals, for the purpose of developing zero-page portals (portals generated on-the-screen at the push of a button, with no stored pages).

It has been merged back into WikiProject Portals. In the MfD the vote was "demote". See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Quantum portals.

Hiatus on mass creation of Portals

At WP:VPR, mass creation of Portals using semi-automated tools has been put on hold until clearer community consensus is established.

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Hiatus on mass creation of Portals.

The Transhumanist banned from creating new portals for 3 months

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal 1: Interim Topic-Ban on New Portals.

Until next issue...

Keep on keepin' on. — The Transhumanist 10:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Isaac Komnenos (son of John II)

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Isaac Komnenos (son of John II) 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) 19:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Isaac Komnenos (son of John II)

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article Isaac Komnenos (son of John II) 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:Isaac Komnenos (son of John II) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 07:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Liever Turks dan Paaps

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, please see if you like the headers I inserted in the Liever Turks dan Paaps-article. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 10:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jeff5102, they look good. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 13:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Kaldellis (2019): Theophobos =/= Nasr

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Some interesting new material:

"Previous scholars identified Theophobos with the Khurramite general Nasr, but Juan Signes Codoñer has offered a decisive argument that Theophobos was in fact Nasr's son, a conclusion that finally resolves the otherwise odd tales about him in the Roman sources. According to the sources, Theophobos was raised in Constantinople, probably at the court. Signes Codoñer proposes that he was deposited there by Nasr during an embassy to seal a prior alliance between Rome and the Khurramites. This explains why the Roman sources say that Theophobos was properly educated, indeed that he was especially eloquent (i.e. in Byzantine Greek), and also why he would have been a suitable match for an imperial marriage." -- Kaldellis, Anthony (2019). Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium. Harvard University Press. p. 131

- LouisAragon (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this LouisAragon, I'll definitely have to check this out. Best, Constantine ✍ 11:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Isaac Komnenos (son of John II)

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article Isaac Komnenos (son of John II) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Isaac Komnenos (son of John II) 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) 20:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Qarmatians

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Your thoughts concerning the addition of "heretical" and Shia views.[7] --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kansas Bear, AFAIK modern scholarship generally considers the Qarmatians to have been a Muslim sect, with many of the "un-Islamic" practices attributed to them being calumnies, not dissimilar to the charges levelled against the Fatimids or other Shi'a sects. Leaving aside the cherry-picking of events and sources (being opposed to the Fatimids does not make one a heretic, and the Fatimid-Qarmatian schism was a foundational event for both communities) used to "illustrate" their heretical nature, the IP inadvertently makes the issue clear when he writes that "Shia Muslims (Zaydi, Ismaili and Twelvers) consider Qarmatians to be a non-Muslim, heretical movement." The fact that others consider them "heretics" does not mean anything; they considered themselves to be Muslim, and their movement stemmed from a well-documented strain of Muslim theology. Therefore it cannot be simply stated that they were "heretical" in the lede or elsewhere, this must be placed in context. Constantine ✍ 09:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for January to March 2019 reviews. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste `{{WPMILHIST Review alerts}}` to your user space

Your GA nomination of John IV of Ohrid

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John IV of Ohrid 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 Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

it is easier to revert than follow the link and fix it, I suppose

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Absolutely true. If I had a pound for everyone who's put that in their edit summary, I'd be very rich indeed. Deb (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Deb: Good to know. Perhaps you might consider actually following that advice, if it comes so often? Food for thought. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 10:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Or maybe you could just accept that you did something wrong and not expect other people to clear up after you. Deb (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing "wrong" about a good-faith edit. If you curate any type of content, and encounter the same problem over and over (by good-faith editors), then obviously a) editors generally are not aware that it is a problem, and b) you should have come to accept it as part of your job of curating said content. Which means that the correct response is to WP:SOFIXIT, and contact the editor and provide a link to the relevant policy so that in future they know about it. Just my two cents, as someone who also clears up after a lot of people in other areas of Wikipedia. Constantine ✍ 11:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Byzantine–Venetian treaty of 1268

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article Byzantine–Venetian treaty of 1268 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Byzantine–Venetian treaty of 1268 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 Spinningspark -- Spinningspark (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John IV of Ohrid

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article John IV of Ohrid you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:John IV of Ohrid 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 Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Cappadocia map?

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hey! I recently created this article. What the article really needs is a map showing Cappadocia in the Achaemenid era, or during the Kingdom of Cappadocia. Are you perhaps aware of any good map I could use? I'm thinking about using this one,[8] but I haven't made up my mind yet. I guess I could use a map of early Roman Cappadocia, as a last resort? Any suggestions are welcome, - LouisAragon (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi LouisAragon, no, unfortunately I don't know that we have any good map, certainly not of that period. Even the specialized atlases I have generally omit it, and only show Anatolia in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Constantine ✍ 14:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I was afraid you'd say that, haha. I'll just use Shepherd's 1923 map then. :-) Thank you for your reply. Cheers, - LouisAragon (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Patrick Lange (conductor)

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see note on your DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVI, April 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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: Peacemaker67, Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at three books focussing on the World Wars
Op-ed: Indy Beetle on the fall of Idi Amin

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) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Christingg

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I'm sorry to drop this in your lap, but I don't have the time to chase it up myself. Could you possibly have a look at [[9]] and take some appropriate action? I fear I find myself in a desperate struggle not to be 30 days behind on my own watchlist. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Pinkbeast, I'll definitely keep an eye out. But it may be time to start dropping WP:WARNING messages, since this is textbook WP:IDHT behaviour. If that continues, then ANI is the logical conclusion. Constantine ✍ 12:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

It may, I just don't have time to do it. I'm sorry, especially since I recognise you doubtless have limited time as well. (I find today that struggle is one I am losing; some things have fallen off the end. :-( ) Pinkbeast (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Egypt under the Fatimid Caliphate has been nominated for discussion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Category:Egypt under the Fatimid Caliphate, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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) 08:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Improvements for Basil II

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Do you have any improvemnts to suggest for the article on Basil II? Векочел (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

THere's still much work to be done, but I lack the time to do it properly in one go. I will continue to work on it however. Constantine ✍ 12:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

HMS Arrow (1796)

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Cplakidas, thanks for the links to Kapudan Pasha, etc. As for the Victorian spelling, I realize that we are not obliged to follow it, but I try to keep both the Victorian and the correct, or current spelling or terms in articles for two reasons. One is general education to help readers make the connection between what's in the source and the modern form, and two, to facilitate search. If someone wants to search older sources, it might help them if they know the names contemporaries used. This comes up a lot in geographical terms. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 10:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Acad Ronin, I realize and appreciate that, but IMO if an older term is so archaic that it obliges you to put [sic] after it, then it probably is too archaic to use ;). Cheers, Constantine ✍ 11:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Disagree :-). The sic in that case was because it was clearly an English mangling of some Ottoman term, and I had no idea what the correct term was, for which many thanks. But the issue of facilitating search remains. For instance, the article on the Septinsular Republic does not include the terms Heptanesos, or Seven Islands. Also, I do a lot of work on the ships of the British East India Company. That has led me to create the List of ports of call of the British East India Company. I hope to save some student or genealogist looking at old log books or other old sources from having to try to figure out what is the current name of the place mentioned. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)