User talk:Factuarius

This user may have left Wikipedia. Factuarius has not edited Wikipedia since March 2010. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 12:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Greek Barnstar of Virtue
		For your endless efforts to improve WPGR articles, or metaphorically, guarding the hot gates.Alexikoua (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
		_{this WikiAward was given to Factuarius by Alexikoua (talk) on 16:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:File:Balkans at 1913.jpg

This file was moved to Commons from English Wikipedia, but some description information may have got lost in the process.

As you are noted as the original uploader, or in the history for the file, it would be appreciated if you could help in reconstructing this information.

Thanks for you assistance and keep uploading 'free' media :)Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot about the comments. Seems your Daut arguments were nice and fair, I found at least 8 books (suppose the entire bibliography confirms you) comfirming your version on Cham Albanians. Alexikoua (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you see their sources, you'll find the greek announcements about him. So, really, wouldn't call anything connected to neogreek sources even vaguely reliable. Whether it is Λιακοπουλος or Μπαμπινιωτης it is the same. --Sarandioti (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome in WP:GREECE

Hi, and welcome to the WikiProject Greece! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Greece.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our sidebar points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The Announcements and Open tasks section is updated quite regularly. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPGreeceOpenTasks}} there.
Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

Interested in working on a more complete article? The peer review department of the project would welcome your help!
Interested in a particular area of Greek history, geography, culture etc. ? There are already two task forces, and you could initiate the creation of more focusing on specific topics or periods.
Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every Greece related article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around!

Happy to see you in the project!--Yannismarou (talk) 09:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kresna's Bulgarian casualties

I am afraid I haven't seen any casualties figures.As for the strength one source states that there were 100 or 110 bulgarian battalions versus 80 greek but I need to verify it.I think the turks occupied Edirne again and halted at the old border.--Avidius (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We may write that both sides suffered heavy casualties.--Avidius (talk) 14:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Percentage

Before the war 96 346, after it 111 831 sq. km. I am afraid it seems that source doesn't take in account the loss of South Dobrudja.--Avidius (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[[1]] This book is my source.--Avidius (talk) 11:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE:World War I

In terms of the World War I article, it certainly is fragile and borne out of long discussions. I think the best thing for you to do would be to leave a note on the talk page listing the reasoning behind your edit and why you think it should be included. Please bear in mind that this article is a WP:SUMMARY article as there is not a lot of space to include information on every topic. A lot of information is in other feeder articles such as the assassination one rather than in the main article.

In terms of glorious islands I wish I could be but c'est la vie! ;) Regards, Woody (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kresna

Καλημέρα Ηρακλή! Δυστυχώς για μένα οι βουτιές τέλος, και τα κεφάλια μέσα... About the battle, you raise some very good points: I have already changed the wording a bit as to the Bulgarian claims. I have not restored the phrase "In any case it is unlikely that either sides could achieve a clear win in case of continuation of the war before Romanian army would capture Sofia" for a single reason: that is conjecture and OR. As I repeatedly pointed out in the debates, we cannot include might-have-beens, however reasonable, in the article as if they were facts. It is equally possible that the Romanians would have delayed for a couple of days (their advance was certainly leisurely enough), the battle would have been decided. I hope the changes I made are satisfactory. If not, feel free to edit around. Thanks for the warm message and enjoy the sea! Cheers, Constantine ✍ 10:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would this help?

Hi Factuarius, I have a little tool installed that helps me with adding references. You can find it here. It makes it very easy to just fill in the various fields, and makes referencing so much easier for me. Thought you might find it useful. Cheers. — Ched : ? 11:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Venizelos

I noticed your recent edits at the article Eleftherios Venizelos. Your addition are appreciated. Nevertheless, it would be of great help if you could provide some sources (preferably in english) describing the events of "Noemvrina". From the current sources that we have, none of them mention that the allies attempted to land and capture Athens. They only mentioned the blockade. A.Cython (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the references, these will help. However, we do have a problem. Most of the sources that I have looked (including the one you have provided) mention the forces of the Allies landing in Athens on 1st of December rather than on 18th of November. Additionally, Seligman describes two versions of the story in his book (pp. 128-140) one from Venizelists, who portray the Royalists as the "evil guys" (e.g. the fleet bombard not the city but the barracks in order to force the Greek Royal forces outnumbering the Allied forces to allow to the captured allied forces to return to their ships) and the Royalists' story, who present themselves as the victims. Any comments on that it would be helpful.A.Cython (talk) 06:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... the dates makes sense, but I still feel the way it is written now it shows that the Anglo-French navy attempted (a military hostile action) to capture Athens by force. Most of the sources are vague about their motives or directly of indirectly question the Royalists because the facts do not fit with their story... For example the Greek forces were 20000 versus 2000 the Anglo-French force, it does not make sense for the Entete to attempt something like that. We need to maintain NPOV for all sides, especially when the sources do not explicitly support this. I will try to dig a little bit further, but for me the facts are that a small force landed in Athens and there was a skirmish between them and the bombardment was needed to force the release of the Anglo-French captives by the Greek forces. A.Cython (talk) 07:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Writing is not about about me or how I feel about anything. It all about what the sources say, whether I like it or not. In this case the sources do not explicitly support this position i.e. the Allied forces had not right to be there. This is the Royalist position. Please read this book (pp. 128-140). Also, have a look at the Venizelos web site, where they have a brief biography (a pdf), where they write:

On 18 November 1916, the royalist state of Athens, under Germanophile extremist elements, attacked, by all its forces, the British and French troops dispatched to Athens upon the Greek King’s approval. Greeks and French wept for many victims.

Obviously, they describe the events very different from what you are picturing. Finally, please stay on the facts/sources rather how anyone would feel (and yes there were Greeks dreaming being in/becoming an Empire i.e. reviving Byzantium with their King as an Emperor).A.Cython (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ηρακλή. I have been following your edits in the Venizelos article, but have been rather wrapped up in my Byzantine articles to contribute myself. I will do a thorough copyediting ASAP however. I fully agree with you on the Noemvriana, it needs an article. It is strange that modern Greek history seems to be largely neglected even by the Greek editors on board (and we have grown fewer on number over time, not more), and especially the articles on the National Schism need work. I am glad to see that you're making good contributions, although you need to learn not to vent your personal feelings on other WP users ;). Although personally rather an admirer of Venizelos (one of the too few true statesmen we ever had), I can certainly understand the anti-Venizelist side, and the Noemvriana are one of these things that show what happens when we allow the Powers then and now to play us off against one another. My literature is rather restricted at the moment: I used to have Markezinis' wonderful (albeit too damn royalist) history, but somehow it's gotten lost at some point, and most of my readily available Greek sources are too brief to be of use. Also, I believe the correct term is "gunboat diplomacy", since gunboats generally sufficed to do the job... Best regards, Constantine ✍ 18:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I make some copyedits on your recent additions. I tried to maintain the points you wanted to make. As I told you earlier your additions are greatly appreciated. However, I had to dilute the language used in order to be more compatible with the WP standards e.g. you used the word "humiliated" 3 or 4 times to describe the retreat of the Allies on 1 December, where one time is already too much. Let me know if I forgot something. I will ask Constantine to check it as well. A.Cython (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use the talk page, if you still have disagreements! There is not reason to enter into an edit war!A.Cython (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Βενιζέλος-Κωνσταντίνος-Σχίσμα-Νοεμβριανά-καί τίνος είναι βρε γυναίκα το παιδί (or how far the Allied forces had the right to be)

Κωνσταντίνε διάβασα με προσοχή ότι γράφεις. Ευχαρίστως να σου πω & γω τη γνώμη μου σχετικά με το Βενιζέλο το σχίσμα και τα Νοεμβριανά κλπ αλλά και about "venting personal feelings" που μου γράφεις. Έχω από πιτσιρικάς βγάλει τα μάτια μου να διαβάζω ότι έβρισκα μπροστά μου και έγραφε στο τίτλο "ιστορία" (όλοι έχουμε δικαίωμα στο βίτσιο), ασχολήθηκα και με την εποχή που συζητάμε, χρόνια, και με το Σχίσμα. Αφού πέρασα διάφορες φάσεις, η θέση μου σήμερα γενικά είναι ουδέτερη-εχθρική ώς προς και τους δύο. Οι καυγάδες τους γιά το ποιός θα πρέπει να είναι το αφεντικό στοίχισε στο τόπο εκατομμύρια νεκρούς ή αφελληνισμένους και τη μοναδική ιστορικά ευκαιρία να γίνει η χώρα μιά μεγάλη (πολυεθνική) δύναμη τους 10 τελευταίους αιώνες (και δε νομίζω πως γι αυτή τη χώρα θα υπάρξει άλλη). Δεν θεωρώ κανέναν από τους δύο πουλημένο κορμί αν και σίγουρα τα εντελώς προσωπικά συμφέροντά τους όπως ο καθένας τα σύνδεσε με τις Μ.Δυνάμεις της εποχής παίξανε κορυφαίο ρόλο στις πολιτικές επιλογές πού κάνανε -γιατί να κοροιδευόμαστε-, γεγονός πού φυσικά μονίμως διαφέυγει από τη προσοχή των οπαδών τους. Το αναμφισβήτητο γεγονός πάντως είναι ότι καί οι δύο τους, ανεξαρτήτως προσωπικών προσόντων ή μειονεκτημάτων, αποδείχτηκαν εξίσου κατώτεροι των ιστορικών περιστάσεων. Καί αυτή ήταν η μεγάλη ατυχία γι αυτό “τον έρημο τόπο”. Αυτά είναι τα κακά της ιστοριάς, αλλά υπάρχουν και τα καλά. Αυτό που 90 χρόνια τώρα δεν έχουν καταλάβει τα “μεγάλα μιαλά του τόπου”, ιστορικοί, ακαδημαικοί, πολιτικοί και οι λοιποί εθνικοί κριτές είναι ότι το σχίσμα ήταν ο απαραίτητος όρος γιά να υπάρξει αυτή η ιστορική ευκαιρία. Ότι εάν δεν υπήρχε δηλαδή ο διχασμός και ήσαν αρκετά έξυπνοι θα έπρεπε να τον είχαν εφεύρει. Να στο εξηγήσω: Η ξεροκεφαλιά τού συνονοματού σου ήταν εξίσου απαραίτητη με την διορατικότητα αυτού που συμπαθείς, γιά να προκύψει το ιστορικό “παράθυρο” της Μ. Ασίας. Αυτό που δεν αναρωτήθηκε κανένας μεγαλόσχημος αναλυτης είναι το τι πιθανότητες επιβίωσης είχε ο ελληνισμός της ανατολής το '14 εάν δεν υπήρχε το σχίσμα στην Ελλάδα. Καμμία, οι Τούρκοι θα χρησιμοποιούσαν τον Π. Πόλεμο γιά να ξεφορτωθούν το πιό επικίνδυνο & παλιό πρόβλημά τους τους Έλληνες όπως κάνανε και με τους Αρμένιους (λιγότερο επικίνδυνοι & όμως..). Και κανένας δεν θα τους σταματούσε. Οι μισές Μ. Δυνάμεις ήταν μαζί τους και οι υπόλοιπες ούτως ή άλλως τους πολεμούσαν. Και θα το κάνανε γιατί σήμερα ξέρουμε ότι το είχανε προγραμματίσει να το κάνουνε αλλά δεν προκύψαν οι ευνοικές συνθήκες. Στο μεγαλύτερο διάστημα του πολέμου οι Γερμανοί πασχίζανε να κρατήσουν την Ελλάδα εκτός πολέμου γιατί ξέρανε καλύτερα από κάθε άλλο τις συνέπειες μιάς εισδοχής, σήμερα το ξέρουμε και μείς γιατί το είδαμε. Αλλά τη σφαγή 2-2,5 τη εκατομυρίων ελλήνων δεν υπήρχε ελληνική κυβέρνηση που θα μπορούσε να το καταπιεί χωρίς να την πνίξει και αυτό το γνώριζαν όλοι. Η έναρξη σφαγών στην Ανατολία σήμαινε αυτόματη εισδοχή της Ελλάδας στο πόλεμο και αυτό ούτε οι Γερμανοί ούτε οι Τούρκοι το θέλανε. Έτσι γλίτωσε γιά όσο γλίτωσε ο ελληνισμός της ανατολής γιά να μπορέσει να αποτελέσει μεταπολεμικά το χαρτί που τόσο αριστοτεχνικά έπαιξε ο Βενιζέλος γιά να μπορέσει η Ελλάδα να έχει την ιστορική ευκαιρία πού είχε στην Ανατολία. Από την άλλη εάν δεν υπήρχε η στασιαστική (εκτός εισαγωγικών) στάση του Βενιζέλου, οι πληθυσμοί βέβαια πάλι θα γλιτώνανε αλλά δεν θα υπήρχε το άλλο μισό χαρτί: η θέση δίπλα στους νικητές το '18 και επομένως το ιστορικό παράθυρο της Ανατολίας πάλι δεν θα μπορούσε να προκύψει. Σκέψου το όσο θέλεις και απάντησέ μου όποτε θέλεις, το έχω σκεφτεί από όλες τις πλευρές δεν βγαίνει αλλιώς. Επομένως ο εθνικός διχασμός δεν ήταν η κατάρα πού μας λένε οι ανεπρόκοποι ήταν η ευλογία με την οποία γλίτωσαν εκατομμύρια άνθρωποι. Γιά μένα κάποιος συνομωσιολόγος Τούρκος δικαιολογείται απόλυτα να ισχυρίστεί ότι οι έλληνες το παίξανε διχασμένοι (κάτι σαν το παιχνίδι με το βυθίσατε το Χόρα, Καραμανλή-Παπανδρέου) γιατί αυτό τους εξυπηρετούσε. Οταν τελικά μπήκε (ολόκληρη) η Ελλάδα το '17 ακόμα & οι Τούρκοι ξέρανε ότι πλέον ο πόλεμος ήταν χαμένος & ψάχνανε τρόπο να διαπραγματευτούν (πχ με Ζαχάρωφ/Αγγλους στην Ελβετία κλπ) & υπ'αυτές τις συνθήκες σφαγές πληθυσμών είναι αδύνατες. Αλλά μεχρι πότε ήταν ευλογία? Προφανώς μεταξύ '18-22, από κεί και πέρα κάποιος από τους δύο θα έπρεπε να αναλάβει την ιστορική ευθύνη να βάλει μπροστα το τόπο του και να τελειώσει αυτή τη γελοία προσωπική βεντέτα αποκαθιστώντας με κάποια κίνηση υπέρβασης με κάποιο τρόπο τον άλλο. Είχαν και οι δύο τους από δύο χρόνια να το καταλάβουν. Ο Βενιζέλος όσο ήταν πρωθυπουργός (μέχρι το'20). Ο Κων/νος όταν αποκαταστάθηκε (μετά το '20-22). Αντί γι αυτό ό ένας πετούσε τους αξιωματικούς του άλλου από το στρατό και έβαζε τους δικούς του. Όσο γιά το λαό, απέλυε ο ένας τους δικούς του κληρωτούς και επιστράτευε και έστελνε στη Μ. Ασια τους οπαδούς του άλλου. Δηλαδή εξασφαλισμένα μόνιμο πολιτικό χάος μεταξύ αξιωματικών και στρατιωτών, οι μεν εχθρικά διακείμενοι προς τους δε. Κάνανε την υπηρεσία στο στρατό τιμωρία και τα αποτελέσματα δεν αργήσανε. Υπάρχει μιά εκπληκτική δήλωση του Κεμάλ που λέει ότι “ο Ελληνικός στρατός δεν ηττήθηκε: απέργησε”. Το πιστεύω. Όσο γιά το εσωτερικό διώξεις ΚΑΙ των δύο. Σ'όλα αυτά είναι καί οι δύο γιά κλωτσιές. Πάνω από τον τόπο βάλανε και οι δύο το εγώ τους, και αλοίμονο στο κοσμάκι που έτρεχε μετά να σωθεί.

Τώρα γιά αυτά που μου γράφεις γιά τη διαφωνία μου με τον C. Θα είμαι όπως πάντα ειλίκρινής μαζί σου. Αν και σχετικά νέος εντιτορ έχω αρχίσει να κουράζομαι με την ανειλικρίνια και τις “εμμεσες προσεγγίσεις στο θέμα” τα wiki κόλπα, μη πω τα χειρότερα. Δες το διάλογο: έκανα τις “συνεισφορές” μου, έρχεται και μου λέει πόσο ενδιαφέρουσες ήταν αλλά μήπως μπορούσα να δώσω καμμιά παραπομπή, του ζητάω συγνώμη καί του βάζω 4 & αγγλικές όπως ζήτησε (δύο από πανεπιστημονικές εκδόσεις) στις οποίες πεντακάθαρα εξηγείται πώς ήρθαν οι Αγγλογάλλοι, κλέψαν το στόλο από τη Σαλαμίνα και μετά από λίγο απαιτήσαν και την παράδοση του οπλισμού του Ελληνικού στρατού και όταν τους είπαν ε! όχι και έτσι ρε παιδιά, στείλανε τους πεζοναύτες να τους τρίξουν τα δόντια (ring any bell?), μαζέψανε εν συνεχεία κάτι ψιλές, τα μαζέψανε νύχτα και φύγαν και από την ασφάλεια των πλοίων στο Φάληρο άρχισαν να βομβαρδίζουν την Αθήνα γιά να τους δείξουν τι παθαίνεις όταν είσαι κακό παιδί (ring any bell?). Ζητήθηκε τελικά συγνώμη που τολμήσανε να τους εμποδίσουν να καταλάβουν τη πρωτεύουσα τους πήραν και 6 πυροβολαρχίες (άσχετο-μάλλον τόσες είχανε ανάγκη οι πεζοναύτες τους) και πήγαν έξω από κάθε μεγάλο Ελληνικό λιμάνι κυρήσωντας πείνα μέχρι να φύγει ο Κων/νος και να μπεί η Ελλάδα στο πόλεμο. Αυτή είναι μέσες άκρες η ιστορία, και η κουτσή Μαρία τη ξέρει. Τα γράφω στο περίπου, του εξηγώ και τα περί παλιών & νέων ημερολογίων που δεν ήξερε, τι άλλο να κάνω? Και μετά απ' αυτά μου στέλνει ένα μήνυμα πού όπως βλέπεις αρχίζει με “Ok... the dates makes sense, but I still feel the way it is written now it shows that the Anglo-French navy attempted (a military hostile action) to capture Athens by force.” Εσύ τι θα έκανες? Εγώ μάζεψα την wikiυπομονή μου και του έγραξα διευκρυνίζωντάς πώς και γιατί όντως γι' αυτό το λόγο ήρθαν. Γιά να λάβω απάντηση με παρενέσεις του τύπου “Writing is not about about me or how I feel about anything. It all about what the sources say, whether I like it or not” δίνοντας μου να διαβάσω ένα βιβλίο γραμμένο πριν τελειώσει ο πόλεμος (του 1918) καθαρή προπαγάνδα του πολέμου, και το επίσημο site του Βενιζέλου γιά να αποκρυσταλώσω άποψη: “..extremist elements, attacked the British and French troops..”(ring any bell?) αγνοώντας τελείως τις 4 που του έδωσα. Εσύ τη θα έκανες? Να στο πω πιό καθαρά: Όλοι έχουμε τις ιδεοληψίες μας: Το να αισθάνεσαι Βενιζελικός δεν είναι κακό & γω το πέρασα. Μεταξύ μας είμαστε, το λες όπως εσύ και φροντίζουμε να βρούμε μιά κοινά αποδεκτή κατάσταση να τελειώνουμε. Δεν αρχίζουμε τις μαγκανίες “ενδιαφέρον μήπως έχεις ρεφς”. Και κυρίως όταν είσαι Βενιζελικός δεν πας να βρεις βιβλία 90ετίας γιά να υποστηρίξεις that “the Allied forces had the right to be there”.. in Omonia. Αυτό δεν είναι Βενιζελισμός, είναι κοινή ξεφτίλα. Αυτή είναι η γνώμη μου τι νά κάνω τώρα? Πες μου τη δική σου να την αλλάξω.

Γιά το άρθρο δεν πειράζει θα το παλέψω, καιρός είναι να μάθω. γ. 1:00 η ώρα. Αυτά. --Factuarius (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Σε γενικές γραμμές θα συμφωνήσω μαζί σου στην ανάλυσή σου. Προσωπικά, είμαι "βενιζελικός" (ή μάλλον θα ήμουν τότε) επειδή ήταν ο μόνος εκείνη την εποχή που ήξερε τί ήθελε για την χώρα, που είχε ένα όραμα και ήξερε πώς να το πραγματοποιήσει. Ταυτόχρονα, κι αυτό είναι αδιαμφισβήτητο, ήταν μανούλα στη διπλωματία. Ποτέ δεν συμπάθησα το αντίπαλο στρατόπεδο, όχι μόνο λόγω των φρούτων που έβγαλε, αλλά και επειδή, κατ' εμέ, δεν είχε ποτέ κάποιο πρόγραμμα ή εναλλακτική λύση. Το λέει και το όνομα, ήταν "αντι-βενιζελικοί", δηλαδή κάτω ο Βενιζέλος, πάνω ο βασιλιάς, κι από κει και ύστερα τίποτα, όλα τα προβλήματα λύθηκαν. Σε μια παράταξη ο παλαιός Ιάπων Γούναρης μαζί με τον αντοδραστικό ψευτο-ευγενή Μεταξά. Βγάλε άκρη... Ό,τι παραγωγικό και καινοτόμο έγινε στην διακυβέρνηση της Ελλάδας από το 1909 ως το 1949 έγινε επί κυβερνήσεων Βενιζέλου (με κάτι εξαιρέσεις επί Μεταξά). Οι άλλοι απλά κυβερνούσαν. Για μένα, αν ο Βενιζέλος έφταιξε, ήταν που σε ορισμένα σημεία δεν επέδειξε την απαιτούμενη πυγμή (η μεγάλη διαφορά με τον στρατιωτικό Κεμάλ): α) δεν κατάργησε τη μοναρχία όταν μπορούσε, δηλ. το 1910, διότι ήθελε να τάχει καλά με τους Άγγλους, και ακόμα χειρότερα, επανέφερε τους πρίγκιπες στο στράτευμα β) δεν αντιστάθηκε πιο πολύ στις εξώσεις του 1915. Ήταν εκλεγμένος δυο φορές εντός μηνών με συντριπτικά ποσοστά, δεν έπρεπε να κάνει πίσω. Επιπλέον, με βάση κάποιες αφηγήσεις, ο Κοκός είχε πειστεί να κυρήξει τότε πόλεμο στη Βουλγαρία, αλλά ο Μεταξάς τον μετέπεισε. Δεν ξέρω πόσο ισχύει αυτό, αλλά έπρεπε να επιμείνει. γ) το μεγαλύτερο φταίξιμο, η μη προσπάθεια έστω συμφιλίωσης μετά το 1917. Είχε χρέος να περιορίσει τα έκτροπα των οπαδών του, όπως και την απόταξη αξιωματικών, ή έστω να αναθεωρήσει το περιβόητο επιπλέον "πολεμικό εξάμηνο" αρχαιότητας των Αμυνιτών. δ) οι εκλογές του 1920. Για το όνομα, είσαι ντε φάκτο δικτάτορας, ήδη έχεις πολλάκις ανατρέψει τη συνταγματική τάξη, είσαι σε πόλεμο που θα κρίνει το μέλλον της χώρας σου, δεν κάνεις εκλογές. Θα μου πεις, έλεγε θα κερδίσει. Με 500,000 μουσουλμάνους να ψηφίζουν? Και ένα ε) καθαρά προσωπικό και ολίγον τρελό: ότι στο τσακ δεν εξαπέλυσε τον Πάγκαλο και τη Στρατιά του Έβρου το 1923. Να βάλει τη θάλασσα μεταξύ ημών και Τουρκίας την τελευταία φορά που κάτι τέτοιο ήταν ακόμα δυνατό. Όσο για την απεργία, συμφωνώ απόλυτα: μου έλεγαν οι γεροντότεροι στο χωριό του πατέρα μου ότι όταν ο Κωνσταντίνος επιθεωρούσε το στρατό στη Μικρασία το '22, φώναζαν "απόλυσις, απόλυσις". Με τέτοιο ηθικό, έπρεπε να είχαν οπισθοχωρήσει όσο μπορούσαν. Τέλος πάντων, το θέμα είναι ατελείωτο, και στο τέλος, ως έθνος έχουμε ταλέντο να σκάβουμε μόνοι μας το λάκο μας. Μια απόδειξη, αν έχεις χρόνο: Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347.

Σχετικά με τη συζήτηση, σε καταλαβαίνω, κι αν μη τι άλλο, εκτιμώ πολύ που είσαι απόλυτα ειλικρινής. Το θέμα είναι πως με το να αγανακτείς μπορεί να εκτονώνεσαι, αλλά εκτίθεσαι κιόλας. Κατανοώ την αντίδρασή σου, επειδή κι εγώ έχω μερικά ισχυρά πιστεύω. Πολλές φορές μου έχει έρθει να διαολοστείλω κάποιον άλλο χρήστη επειδή είναι άσχετος με ένα θέμα, ή επειδή διαφωνώ κάθετα μ' αυτά που λέει και δεν μπορώ να πιστέψω πως ένας άνθρωπος μπορεί να έχει τέτοιες πεποιθήσεις (άσχετα αν κι εγώ κάποτε μπορεί να ήμουν έτσι :P), ή επειδή είναι απλά πασιφανώς μ***κας. Η WP όμως δεν στο επιτρέπει αυτό (και καλά κάνει, διότι θα γινόταν χαμός). Η συμβουλή μου: σήκω από την καρέκλα, κάνε ένα τσιγάρο, πιες κάτι, δες τηλεόραση, και ξαναγύρνα μετά από κανα μισάωρο και. Και καλύτερα επιχειρήματα θα χρησιμοποιήσεις αν δεν απαντήσεις εν θερμώ, και μπελάδες θα αποφύγεις, καθώς scripta manent. Φιλικά, Constantine ✍ 23:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Συμφωνώ σε όλα 1:1 εκτός από αυτό πού γράφεις γιά να έμπαινε η Ελλάδα από το'15. Όπως σου έγραψα προηγουμένως είμαι σίγουρος ότι σε μιά τέτοια περίπτωση δεν θα έμεναν έλληνες στην Ανατολία γιά μεταπολεμικές διεκδικήσεις. Εκτός αυτού όσο αργότερα έμπενε η Ελλαδα στο σφαγείο πού λεγόταν 1 ΠΠ τόσο καλύτερα. Ο Βουλγαρικός καί ο Τουρκικός στρατός ήταν πολύ μεγάλοι γιά να έχει κάποιο αποτέλεσμα η παρουσία του Ελληνικού στρατού το '15. Θα εμπλεκόταν στο στατικό μέτωπο στη Μακεδονία και απλώς θα φθειρόταν γιά 3 χρόνια τζάμπα. Δες πως κατάντησαν οι Βούλγαροι και οι Τούρκοι μέχρι το '18. Διαλύθηκαν. Με τι στρατό θα πολεμούσαν στη Μ. Ασία έστω και συμβιβασμένοι? Και γιά τι Έλληνες? Όπως ήρθαν τα πράγματα το '18 ήταν ιδανικά, σχεδόν παραγγελία, με τους Βούλγαρους & τους Τούρκους στα κακά τους χάλια αλλά..

Τέλος γιά την απορία σου γιά τις εκλογές του '20. Κωνσταντίνε ήθελε να χάσει. Ο Βενιζέλος ήταν ίσως ο πιό έξυπνος πολιτικός της εποχής του, δεν ήταν ηλίθιος όπως ο Κοκός. Γιά μένα είναι αστείο να λέμε ότι ήταν σίγουρος ότι θα κέρδιζε και τελικά δεν βγήκε ούτε βουλευτής. Τους δούλευε όλους μιλώντας γιά τη βέβαιη νίκη. Γιά να δικαιολογήσει στους δικούς του την αλλιώς αδικαιολόγητη απόφασή του γιά προσφυγή στις κάλπες. Ήταν πολύ έξυπνος γιά να πέσει τόσο έξω. Ήξερε ότι μπορούσε άνετα και δικαιολογημένα να συνεχίσει να κυβερνά με διατάγματα, αλλά προτιμούσε να χάσει και να αποσυρθεί (προσωρινά) γιατί δεν ήθελε να χρεωθεί αυτός τη καταστροφή στη Μ.Ασία πού ήξερε ότι ήταν βέβαιη. Απλώς πέταξε τη πατάτα γιά να επιβιώσει πολιτικά & να τελειώνει με το σόι. Υπάρχει μιά συζήτηση του με τον Τσώρτσιλ πού τη θυμάμαι σχεδόν κατα λέξη καί δεν θυμάμαι πού στο διάλο τη έχω διαβάσει (πριν αρκετά χρόνια), νομίζω την αναφέρει ο ίδιος ο Τσώρτσιλ σε κάποιο κείμενο του (ημερολόγιο?). Με το που χαιρετηθήκαν του είπε: “Φίλε μου πώς το έκανες αυτό, πώς παρασύρθηκες (ίσως εννοούσε από τον Λόυντ Τζώρτζ) και πήγες στη Μ.Ασία? Κατέστρεψες τη χώρα σου καί το πολιτικό σου μέλλον.” Και ο Τσώρτσιλ σημείωνε: “And the poor men agreed” (ή κάτι τέτοιο). Πιστεύω ότι ο Βενιζέλος σαν γάτα που ήταν βρήκε τελικά διέξοδο, έκανε εκλογές. Επειδή μου βγήκε η παναγία να το ψάχνω το απόγευμα γιά να το δώσω στον C. αλλά δεν βρήκα τίποτα αν έχεις υπόψη σου το κείμενο ενημέρωσέ με.

Γιά το θέμα της υποχώρησης πού γράφεις θέλω να σου πω ότι δυστυχώς δεν θα ήταν λύση. Το μεγάλο και αθεράπευτο πρόβλημα του Ελληνικού στρατού ήταν ανέκαθεν ότι όποτε υποχώρησε αυτοδιαλύθηκε, ή διαλύθηκε μετά από λίγο. Αυτό αποδείχτηκε και στις δύο περιπτώσεις πού έγινε. Στη Μ.Ασία μετά την υποχώρηση από το Σαγγάριο και το '41 στην Ηπειρο. Ίσως είναι θέμα ιδιοσυγκρασίας ίσως κάτι άλλο. Γιά το '41 ένας παλέμαχος γέρος μού είχε πεί πριν αρκετά χρόνια έναν πολύ ενδιαφέροντα λόγο πού με άφησε σύξυλο αλλά θέλει πολύ γράψιμο, θα σου πω στην επόμενη ευκαιρία. Και επίσης θα σου πω ποιός κατά τη γνώμη μου ήταν ο μόνος τρόπος μη ήττας στη Μ. Ασίας. Αλλά με εάν & εφόσον δεν γράφεται η ιστορία. Το θέμα εδώ είναι τουλάχιστον να μάθουμε από τα λάθη μας και αυτό προυποθέτει να ξέρεις τουλάχιστον την ιστορία, πράγμα πού μας ξαναφέρνει στη WP και τη προσπάθειά μας εδώ. Δυστυχώς τον τελευταίο καιρό παραδέχομαι ότι έχω αρχίσει και χάνω την υπομονή μου. Θα δοκιμάσω τη συμβουλή σου. Όσο γιά το scripta manent το έχω καταλάβει από καιρό. Αυτό έχει καταλήξει να είναι η ουσία πλέον εδώ μέσα, αλλά όπως σου είπα έχω αρχίσει να χάνω την υπομονή μου[2].

A ξέχασα, γιά την Αν. Θράκη που γράφεις, θα εκπλαγείς αλλά τα πράγματα είναι ανάποδα. Τότε ο Βενιζέλος ήταν στο Παρίσι και οι Βενιζελικοί αξιωματικοί ετοιμάζαν εδώ (ουσιαστικά ο Πάγκαλος) τη Στρατιά Έβρου. Όταν μετά από πραγματικά υπεράνθρωπες προσπάθειες του Πάγκαλου η Στρατιά ετοιμάστηκε, έστειλαν ένα τηλεγράφημα στο Βενιζέλο πού τον ενημέρωνε ότι οι ετοιμασίες ολοκληρώθηκαν και να βρεί κάποια δικαιολογία γιά να διακοπούν οι συνομιλίες έτσι ώστε να ξεκινήσει η επιχείρηση. Τότε αντί απάντησης έλαβαν την επομένη το γνωστό τηλεγράφημα “επετεύχθει συμφωνία”. Αν έχεις υπ'όψιν σου τη ρήση “μας πούλησαν οι χαρτογιακάδες” (τα κολλάρα), είχε υπωθεί τότε, γιά το συγκεκριμένο περιστατικό και απ'το στόμα του Πάγκαλου βασικά υπονοώντας το Βενιζέλο. Μικρότερος, ήμουν & γω απορημένος γιά τη μυστηριώδη αυτή εξέλιξη, αλλά τώρα ξέρω ότι ο Βενιζέλος είχε δίκιο γιατί δεν θα οδηγούσε πουθενά γιατί οι Μ. Δυνάμεις δεν θα αποδέχονταν καμμία τροποποίηση συνόρων εκεί. ΟΙ Μ.Δυνάμεις είχαν από το '13 καταστήσει σαφή την απόφασή τους ότι δεν επρόκειτο να επιτρέψουν σε καμμία χώρα να μοιραστεί τα Στενά (μία όχθη σε κάποιον, η άλλη σε άλλον). Τα Στενα θα έπρεπε να ανήκουν πάντα σε έναν. Ήταν ο λόγος γιά τον οποίο η Βουλγαρία υποχρεώθηκε το '13 να εγκαταλήψει τι γραμμή της Τσατάλτσας καί να πάει στη γραμμή Αίνος-Μήδια. Γιά να καταλάβεις τη λογική πίσω από το “δόγμα” θυμήσου τι είχε γίνει με το Σουέζ όταν πήραν την ανατολική όχθη οι Ισραηλινοί. Η Δύση κινδύνεψε με Κραχ γιατί η Αίγυπτος έκλεισε το Σουέζ εκβιάζοντας τη διεθνή κοινότητα. Το ίδιο κρίσιμα θεωρούνταν τότε -'13- τα Στενά λόγω (Τσαρικής) Ρωσίας.

Hi, the recent edit you made to Eleftherios Venizelos has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. A.Cython (talk) 07:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the Panzer IV, even the Germans in the Bundesarchiv apparently made that mistake, so you're off the hook :P I also went through the Noemvriana section, please check it and tell me your opinion. Again, don't let yourself be drawn into arguments about politics or ad hominem attacks. It distracts from the fact that you are making some contributions of substance in several of the more obscure or neglected articles on Greek history. Constantine ✍ 14:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the word "humiliating", well, you are right, I am not hesitating to use it for 1897, because it was. It was a complete and utter disaster, which led to financial collapse and considerable political turmoil. Also, I think you'll agree that it was indeed felt as a national humiliation, and that I am not really passing my own judgment here. As for the Noemvriana, certainly the Allied landing was a debacle, but "humiliating"? I don't know how they perceived it (du Fournet certainly was humiliated), and the fact that they eventually came out on top prevents me from using too strong language. If anything, the whole affair, and especially its aftermath with the terms imposed on the Athens government, was a far larger humiliation for Greek sovereignty and national pride. Plus, the scale of the two events is not really comparable: the defeat of an entire country within a matter of days and the repulsion of a landing party. Of course, both can be "humiliating", but 1897 shaped the attitudes and politics of Greece for 20 years, while the Noemvriana were one episode in a series of events. That's my opinion, anyhow. Regards, Constantine ✍ 11:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If by the comparisons with other wars you mean that we lost because we faced an overwhelmingly superior enemy, yes, that is true. But it was felt as a national humiliation, or at least that is the gist of every single history I have read on it. It was this sense of humiliation that indirectly led to the National Schism, as it was 1897 when many people first became disenchanted with the monarchy. And, speaking of "overwhelmingly superior" enemies, that was the same thing that happened to the Allies in Athens in 1916 ;). Constantine ✍ 13:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Κάπως καταφέρνουμε να παρανοούμαστε... There are defeats in war that are heroic even if unavoidable (Serbia in WWI is the prime example), and then there are defeats that are humiliating, when the defeated country managed absolutely nothing noteworthy. Greece in 1897 qualifies for this. An unprepared army, an incapable officer corps, a clueless leadership, a timid navy, and an over-enthusiastic population that believed that we could win just by sheer elan... Instead we got thrashed by a bigger, but also far better trained, better equipped and better led army, and got exposed for the loudmouths we were. For years afterwards Greece was an international pariah, with no diplomatic alliances, under foreign financial supervision, etc. That I think qualifies as "humiliation", ταπείνωση, in the most literal sense. Constantine ✍ 15:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My definition of a "humiliating war" covers all of the above, i.e. the previous aggressive mentality and the (humiliating) προσγείωση στην πραγματικότητα. That is what "humiliation" means in its literal sense, to prove to someone the extent of his misconceptions as to his own strength. Either way, the discussion is academic (which doesn't mean I don't enjoy it). With the exception of the adjectives, I think though that a stable version has been reached in the Venizelos article. I do still think though that (due to the dispute and the need to back everything up with sources) too much weight and details have been given to the issue (esp. the foreign reaction thing, which belons, as I had said before, to the Noemvriana article proper). BTW, for your intended expansion of the latter, the sources I used as refs are all available on Google Books. I also have Kitromilides as a pdf, if you want I could send it to you per email. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 17:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I said we reached a "stable" version, I meant the particular section, and that does not mean that it is a satisfactory one either, just that the main points in terms of content (and chronology, after this incredible mess-up with the OS dates) have been established. Otherwise I happen to agree 100% with your opinion of the article. Constantine ✍ 20:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree with ✍ . The point is still disagree is whether "humiliating" or "ignominious" is academic discussion or not. Personally i think it is misleading and thus should be avoided. For example, for the war in 1897 this kind of description is accurate irrespectively how you will look at it. But still it should be avoided. In our case we have some sources saying the the Greek forces were 10 times more than the Allied forces, Seligman mentions that the king invited the Allies but later he changed his mind, Chester describes as it a surprise and "treacherous attack" from the irregular royalists, which also used by Kitromilides. So if it was indeed a "trap" to kick the Allies out by a numerically larger force then there is nothing humiliating in this. In fact it should be described as a sneaky military move and at the same time a smart diplomatic move which was effective against the Allies' demands. And even in the case of this event being humiliated I doubt Britain a colonial superpower would have a crisis over this. Even today where US & UK are more liberal and democratic than what they were they do not have a trouble into entering foreign countries. The argument that we are using is more than weak and it desperately needs a citation. Failing to bring Greece in to war during a critical time in WWI makes much more sense. What I still do not understand why need to present the kind of pro-royalist version of the story in the main article. Maybe that's what happened but we do not know that... we should allow the events to speak for themselves. Also, Burg (p.145) and Hickley (p. 12) state that Venizelos declared war on the Central powers before the landing of the Allies in Athens and if I remember correct other sources state this, thus we are using a source that probably has it wrong. I will check it later but please do check it as well. Thanks in advance.A.Cython (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be obliged if you could keep your colonialisτic-apologizing bullsits out of my page. If you want to tell something about the article use the talk page of the article, thanks--Factuarius (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... now it is your article?? I thought you said that everyone can edit WP with reliable academic sources!A.Cython (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are writting in my talk page you.. Vice Admiral.. Is that you? --Factuarius (talk) 01:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep you are right, but anyone can write here if they want to tell you something... but... I am not "Vice Admiral" I am King George I taking revenge on the royalists who ruined my kingdom! By the way have you seen my horse?A.Cython (talk) 02:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Highness.. you are sitting on it --Factuarius (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back. I wish I had been there. Καλό χειμώναAlexikoua (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skopje - liberation?

About the First Balkan War changes. I agree with you about not giving too much detail on what Serbian interests were when retaking southern lands. However, liberation is a very shady term. Its use is not universally welcome when rival populations reside in the same place. Used correctly, it requires a noun object following from. As such, one is liberated from something and that thing is the outgoing authority. So Slavic people in Skopje were indeed liberated from Ottoman rule if only to have it replaced with Albanian discipline. Looking at it that way though, any change of government can be seen as liberation to anyone except to those affiliated to the ousted party, majority or minority. The trouble with using "liberation" for an Albanian Skopje is that it implies that the city itself supported Albanian rule and history itself has recorded that this was not the case. Today, there are over 100,000 Albanians in Skopje, but the city has over half a million people. The percentage of Albanians have grown. The encyclopaedia Britannica in 1911 clearly shows that the main population of Skopje was Slavic, and that these were Bulgarians and Serbs. I now realise that those former Bulgarians/Serbs' descendants became ethnic Macedonians. To use "capture" has no negative connotations. Better still, it can be rephrased to say that successful Albanian insurrections won over Skopje; or that Skopje changed hands from Ottoman to Albanian rule etc. I know that many events have "liberation" as part of their title, and I do oppose them as well. Here where it is not such a major issue, I feel we can resolve such an issue with simple discussion. Evlekis (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that as you put it, this city would have been impossible to liberate in any case, since neither Albanians nor Serbs, nor Bulgarians could liberate the city since no one was a majority during the era, (if someone adds the non Albano-Bulgaro-Serb population into the city). More important, if we apply your argument to the rest areas of the European parts of the Ottoman Empire (Macedonia and Thrace) then there was not a single liberated area during the war either from Bulgarians Serbs or Greeks, being all “captured” according to your definition of liberation. I suspect that no Bulgarian Serb or Greek editor is willing to accept such a rationale (since among others it is also contradicting to any known bibliography). --Factuarius (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thank you

Sure I'll post them soon in wp:commons. Have a nice day. Take also a look at [[3]]. Thank you.Alexikoua (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Hello, Factuarius. I saw that you've uploaded A Synvet 1877.jpg, and, as I am out of options, I came to ask you if by any chance you know the first name of Synvet? Greetings and sorry for the disturbance.--89.215.37.29 (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry no. I'll try to find out and update the file's log. If you in the meanwhile be more lucky please inform me or feel free to update it. Regards, --Factuarius (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anyway. I'll let you know if I find it before you. Regards, --89.215.37.29 (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xenos

Hmmm, it does read like him. If it is truly him, more's the pity. He is clearly intelligent, and if he had access to sources & a less biased mentality he'd be a great contributor. Δε σου κρύβω ότι πολλά από όσα λέει για μας ως χώρα και έθνος τα έχω κατά καιρούς σκεφτεί και πει κι εγώ (δεν είναι και δύσκολο να απελπίζεσαι με την Ελλάδα άλλωστε), πλην χωρίς τις γενικεύσεις και το βρίσημο, ή την απόλυτη πεποίθηση ότι ξέρω καλύτερα από όλους. Ο τύπος είναι ο κλασικός αγγλοσάξονας που έρχεται να χαρίσει τα φώτα του στους βαρβάρους, τους οποίους ταυτόχρονα οικτίρει και βρίζει, αυτοεπιβεβαιώνοντας έτσι τη δικιά του ανωτερότητα, αντί να κάτσει να κοιτάξει τα χίλια στραβά που υπάρχουν στη δικιά του (και σε κάθε άλλη) χώρα... Τελικά είναι το ίδιο ανώφελο να μιλάει κανείς μαζί του όσο και με τον κλασικό Ελληνάρα που έχω συναντήσει πάμπολλες φορές σε Γερμανία, Γαλλία και Αγγλία, όπου πάει, βλέπει απίστευτα μουσεία, τεχνολογία αιχμής, τα πάντα οργανωμένα και σε τάξη, και επιστρέφει στην Ελλάδα χωρίς να έχει μάθει τίποτα και πεπεισμένος ότι ζούμε στον επίγειο παράδεισο επειδή έχουμε ήλιο, θάλασσα και μπορούμε και περνάμε με κόκκινο. Κατάθεση ψυχής τέλος...:P Constantine ✍ 12:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corinthian helmet

Δεν έχει σχέση με Χριστιανισμό ή ταμπού, απλώς με το ότι είναι παντελώς και προφανώς μη εγκυκλοπαιδικό, καθώς και καθαρά προσωπική σου γνώμη. Ναι, τώρα που το λες, υπάρχει κάποια ομοιότητα, αλλά το ίδιο μπορεί κανείς να πει για χίλια άλλα αντικείμενα. Αν μη τι άλλο, τη σεξουαλικότητα στον αρχαίο κόσμο δεν την κρύβαν και καλά κάναν, αλλά εδώ μου φαίνεται πολύ άκυρο. Επιπλέον, το αφαίρεσα επειδή μάλλον θα είχε συνέχεια (trolling) αν παρέμενε εκεί... Αν άρχιζα να πηγαίνω στη σελίδα του Saturn V και να γράφω ότι είναι φαλλικό σύμβολο (έχεις δει φαντάζομαι Dr. Strangelove), το ίδιο θα γινόταν... Constantine ✍ 01:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a multiply times blocked user, continues his activity now in irc. His last effort was to nominate template:Northern Epirus, for deletion [[4]].Alexikoua (talk) 07:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*cough* WP:CANVAS *cough* --Chris 09:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks, Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alarichus

If you believe Alarichus seems "impressively experienced", discuss it with him, or request a checkuser, or raise the issue at a noticeboard. This kind of comment, as you yourself actually noted, is not at all appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 10:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know Sarandioti, so I couldn't reliably comment (as an aside, anyone who actually links Nietzsche to Hitler obviously hasn't read anything by Nietzsche...) but, again, if you feel you have a case, it may be worth filing a checkuser request. I do feel the Alarichus is a new user- his article writing skills are excellent, but that is perhaps due in part to the help he received early on from people like myself and Chzz. I have seen an improvement in his work, and an improvement in his knowledge of Wikipedia, as time has gone on- so, if he is a sockpuppet, he is a very convincing one. J Milburn (talk) 11:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Sarandioti sock

Hi,

I very much agree with you that Alaricus is in fact none other than Sarandioti. I have filed an SPI here [5]. Please feel free to add any evidence that I might have missed. Regards. --Athenean (talk) 05:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems your initial idea about Sar.-sock is now comfirmed. Because I'm going to play 'stoixima' can you tell me what exactly to write down?Alexikoua (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a reincarnation of that guy? Your supernatural, psyhist abilities, are astonishing. I'm still waiting for the 'stoixima'Alexikoua (talk) 07:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, your time pattern seems ok. I have already checked you.Alexikoua (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

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

Comment

I wrote what I believe, but User:Alexikoua removed it! --Kreshnik25 (talk) 11:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted you. I had no intention to do it at first, but I found out that BEFORE adding new lead we should discuss, not AFTER adding it. Best, --Kreshnik25 (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

epirus (region)

if you disagree with something i added pls tell me exactly what...megistias wont so i dont care about his opinion87.202.19.115 (talk) 03:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and why did you call me 'Edwards'?87.202.19.115 (talk) 03:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ναι όμως αν δεν μπορείς να δεχθείς ούτε το ήπειρος 4000 χρόνια ιστορίας και πολιτισμού σαν αξιόπιστη πηγή...το οποίο πέρα από τον λαϊκιστικό τίτλο είναι ΣΟΒΑΡΟΤΑΤΟ βιβλίο...άσχετα με το τι λένε αλβανοί χρήστες και κοσμοπολίτες που κοιτάν τα βαλκάνια απτα ουράνια...γραμμένο από επιστήμονες όπως Cabanes , Hammond, Leveque και στα μεσαιωνικά πχ Nicol...ο οποιος ειναι καπως μη φιλλέληνας αλλά δεν πειράζει γιατίναι σοβαρός..., τι μπορούμε να κάνουμε...; το δαπεργολα τον εφερα ως παράδειγμα μπορεις να ανατρέξεις κάποια στιγμή στα σχολια του Lemerle για τα θαύματα του αγιου δημητριου...τελος θεωριες οπως του 'κεκαυμενου' για τους βλαχους αναφερονται μονο γιατι ειναι οι πρωτες πηγες που απασχολουν το θεμα και δε παιρνουν θεση...αν κι εγω συμφωνω ότι οι βλάχοι οι οποιοι φυσικα ειναι ΕΛΛΗΝΕΣ...ας τα ξεχωρισουμε αυτα... προερχονται κάπου απο μυσία μεριά87.202.19.115 (talk) 03:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

επισης γιατι ολοι περα απο τις ενστασεις αφαιρειται και πηγες που βαζω για πραμματα που βρισκονται ηδη στο αρθρο...? εβαλα ας πουμε τον Cabanes επειδη ειχα προχειρο το βιβλιο του 'Illyriens για το περιστατικο του γαμου της Αγαριστης στον Ηροδοτο αλλα εξω κι αυτο...87.202.19.115 (talk) 03:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

βεβαια για τους θεαροδοκους που κι αυτους εγω τους εβαλα δεν υπαρχει αντιρρηση ε...? αληθεια για τους βαιουνιτες που μπορει να βρισκονταν μακεδονια και οχι ηπειρο ομως αυτη εδω η βερσιον δεν το αναφγερει τι προβλημα εχεις? 87.202.19.115 (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

μα δεν απαντά κανείς στην talk page αυτα τα λεω ξανά και ξανα ειλικρινα δε νομιζω οτι καθεται κανενας να διαβασει το περιεχομενο οποτε τι βοηθεια να προσφερεις...87.202.53.127 (talk) 08:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

φιλε φακτουαριε δεκτες οι συμβουλες σου ομως οταν προσθετω μια ΠΛΕΟΝ ΑΞΙΟΠΙΣΤΗ πηγη και ο ιδιος χρηστης μου κανει ριβερτ γραφοντας 'rv falsified(!) source' και δεν καθεται επισης να συζητησει καθολου..δεν μπορω να κανω πολλα ναι...? τελος παντων ευχαριστω και παλι87.202.4.77 (talk) 02:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curiosity killed the cat

I do not mind you asking. Anna Comnena was one of the first woman historians to write a book. I somehow like to be identified with her, as she was also one of the first historians to mention Albanians in her writings. How about you, can I ask what is your nationality? —Anna Comnena (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tadija was blocked for 31 hours and put under "ARBMAC"(whatever that means)--Kreshnik25 (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Map

The map is quite accurate as these other examples testify [[6]],[[7]]. So get used to the fact that this is not a Greek centred article since the Greek Army was not the decisive factor in the war like the map you have edited is trying to imply.--Avidius (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Compared to the biased Greek map the first map is far better as the other examples I gave you show. Also them "Bulgarian" map was in the section about the Bulgarian theatre of operations and affcourse it focuses on the Bulgarian movements the most. Not to mention that it represents the Greek Army movements in far more detail then the "Greek" map does with the Bulgarian movements.--Avidius (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it biased? Really/ Well for example look at the arrow pointing at Edirne. You think that was the exact direction of the Bulgarian advance. I can use your own argument about the factual inaccuracy of your map to remove it like you did.--Avidius (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hydra class warships

User Iconoclast is a copyright paranoid and has been a very disuptive user during the last few months. He has caused serious problems which lead to the deletion of many photos of buildings in Greece based on an obscure copyright issue.

In this specific case, it is not known who and when created the images (although they really old) and when they were first published. They are not on the web site of the Hellenic Navy. Even if they were, there is no evidence that they were created by the Royal Hellenic Navy. I would accept them in good faith but I cannot confirm that they are really free of copyright restrictions due to lack of evidence. Sv1xv (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, hellasarmy.gr is not the official site of the Greek Army, the official site is http://www.army.gr Sv1xv (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

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

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lejean's map

Thanks by the way... I was searching it[8] for years now! There's still hope for the world. Guildenrich (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Phiale of Megara

I've got hold of the O'Neil paper and re-expanded the article on that basis. If we're lucky, we might even earn a common WP:DYK credit for it. Unfortunately, O'Neil's argument about the identification as Macedonian seems a bit fishy – your own image you uploaded in fact contradicts it, as does the reference added by Anothroskon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but on another issue, could you perhaps solve that mystery and tell me where you got that idea from that the Milan Papyrus has anything to do with the issues of Ancient Macedonian? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Phiale of Megara

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

Mifter (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence

Fair point. I think the whole "Sexuality" section is weak, and hasn't been improved by recent edits.

I'm a pretty serious L scholar and have like six feet of books, all the standard references, on a shelf. So I think what I need to do is, first, pull out a ton of fully-attributed citations and blast them into a "references" section on the Talk page, so that the actual citeable evidence is out there where everyone can see it. Based on that, I'll start whittling away at the Sexuality section and try to introduce a rigorous "no original research" style.

As for the "S.A." stuff, while nobody knows, there is all sorts of good evidence that on balance, the most probable interpretation is Sheikh Ahmad AKA Dahoum, and the fact that L freely professed his love for this young man is probably relevant in a sexuality section. FWIW, while nobody will ever know, I think that most serious Lawrence scholars think it quite likely that he died a virgin. And finally, the episodes of L having himself whipped in later life are multiply attested by respectable sources, not just a rogue biographer who turned to UFOs in later life. Tim Bray (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assembled a research survey in Sex and T.E. Lawrence and dropped a note into the Talk page under the existing "Sexuality?" section. Feel like cleaning up the section based on nicely-verifiable citations? It would be great if someone would fact-check my research by going through the cited books (because I spent like 5 or 6 hours doing this and it'd be miraculous if I didn't screw up typing in one of the references) but that's probably too much to hope for. Tim Bray (talk) 08:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, think we should do an archiving sweep on the Lawrence Talk page? It's getting pretty unwieldy and there are lots of mouldy old arguments from 2005 there. Tim Bray (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get into an edit war. Let's take this to the talk page, I'm going to go add an "attitude toward homosexuality" section.

You know, this shouldn't matter, but because I think you suspect my agenda: I am a middle-aged straight male married-with-children Canadian computer programmer. I grew up in a theatrical family and have gay friends but am not militant about gender politics. I have some prejudices: I am atheist and, having grown up in Lebanon, strongly pro-Palestinian (while disgusted at the quality of Palestinian leadership). My strongest bias may be read in http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/Truth Tim Bray (talk) 06:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek village

Umm, would you be interested in moving the article Konomladi to its proper title with the transliteration of the Greek name. I think it's supposed to be Μακροχώρι, but I'm not sure how the actual spelling in English should go. As it is of now, it's just a POV fork of an actual article. We've got a descendant of Alexander the Great messing up some articles. Thanks and have a Merry Christmas :) --Laveol ^T 17:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vidal Lablache Atlas

The citation given for the statement that this atlas was pro-Bulgarian, doesn't state anything like that. It actually says that it contained pro-Bulgarian maps, a subtle but important difference. Also, from the context it's obvious that pro-Bulgarian are those maps "that regard Macedonia was Bulgarian territory". This is an opinion, more so an opinion valid for just one area of the Balkans and in no way can it be used for a source that the atlas was pro-Bulgarian.

There is no consensus on the talk page of First Balkan War. It's just Alexikoua stating his opinion.

The source about Stanford actually calls him pro-Greek. This is something completely different from this case and can't be used as an argument. Kostja (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now Kostja, we are both big boys, if the Atlas contain pro-Bulgarian maps then the map must be pro-Bulgarian! What other pro-Bulgarian map could possibly contain? That of Germany? Please.. "There is no consensus on the talk page of First Balkan War"? :I believe all of us understand the elemental things. When both permitting the other to have the maps, and the other permit the footnote in the caption in the article, by this ending a long edit war, then we have a consensus. What you really want to do by saying "there is no consensus"? To start another stupid round of edit warring which will end again to nothing for both the parts? I don't like that map, showing all the Balkans Bulgarian, it's POVish and you know that, and you don't like Stanford for the same reasons. The footnotes is a compromise for both. Don't start another edit war and don't be maximalist, it always ends to nowhere. For me it is -by now- only very boring. --Factuarius (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Factuarius, I saw that you asked me something in my talk page. I reverted your edit because it was out of the topic. The article "Vlachs of Serbia" was not about Bulgaria or Macedonia, but about the Vlach population of Serbia and it has nothing to do with the Bulgarian point of view concerning the ethnicity of the Slavs of Macedonia.
However, even concerning the "Bulgarian view", most ethnic maps published before 1900 considered the Slavs of Macedonia to be ethnic Bulgarians (and you know this too). And this is also what Henry Robert Wilkinson means. However, I noted Wilkinson's remark on the description of the image in Wikimedia Commons, so you can remove all the comments from en.wiki because they are obsolete now. Best wishes! --Olahus (talk) 12:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine XI

Hello. I have been very busy lately, and as such, haven't had the time to be at computer much. The issue with Constantine XI is that he was the last Roman Emperor (I am not a Roman Catholic, and you shouldn't assume that I am) by Roman law, and needs to mentioned as such, even though he was ruling in the much diminished Eastern Roman-Byzantine Empire, he was still the Roman Emperor. The statue of Constantine XI is a modern creation, and highly fanciful, as opposed to the older iconic image. It does not imply that Constantine XI is recognized as a saint officially - it is simply the more accurate depiction we have of him. Regards, --Kurt Leyman (talk) 14:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I did not write to my talk page, but instead your's, is because I've grown accostumed to do so. Now, to what you brought forward. 1. It is still a more periodical reference for his appearance as opposed to the modern statue. 2. No one is linking "Byzantine Emperor" as Roman Emperor. The link Roman Emperor in the article goes directly to the prime article for Roman Emperors; from Augustus to beyond, of which Constantine XI was the last by Roman law. He was the last Roman Emperor in accounts of being the last from Augustus to the end, and being the last Emperor of the Eastern Roman-Byzantine division of the empire; these both factors must be taken into account and are covered by links to appropriate articles. 3. I have never heard of a legend of Constantine XI reconquering the empire: I know, however, of the legend that he will reconquer the city (Constantinople), and because of this I belived that you had accidently broadened reconquest of the city to that of the empire. If you can directly quote the reference for the legend that Constantine XI will reconquer not only the city but the empire itself, than I have no problems with you adding that to the "Death and legacy" section of the article - there is really no need for another section, as legacy relates directly to posthumous legends. Regards, --Kurt Leyman (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. First, I must tell you that I am not the user Kurt Leyman, but his brother. The reason I am writing on his behalf to you is because my brother (and to extent also me) is busy with real life issues (our grand-mother passed away just recently, and we, together with other close family, are quite occupied with the issues brought forward). I noticed that you are the last person my brother had discussed contributions to Wikipedia with, and as I understand, you are waiting a reply from him. Unfortunately, I cannot give one from my brother's behalf - I just wish you to understand that he has been quite busy, and will still likely be for the coming week.

Thank you for understanding the situation - and for the condolences. I did not have time to really be involved with Wikipedia, nor was I in the mood really. But now those things are behind me; life goes on. To return to the issue of Constantine XI:

The iconic image is more closer to a periodic reference, as opposed to the modern statue. That it depicts Constantine XI as a saint is not the issue - it is explained in the article that he is not officially recognized as a saint - but that it is closer to a periodic reference. Majority of Wikipedia articles dealing with rulers of whom depictions closest to the persons reing exist use those depictions - even if their quality would not be that good - because they are closer to the person in terms of age. That said, the modern statue should be in the legacy section. "I cannot understand why you insist in not being a Byzantine Emperor and you linking him to the Romans." That's not what I have said, I said that Constantine XI was the last Roman Emperor, and he was in accounts of being the last from Augustus to the end, being the last Emperor of the Eastern Roman-Byzantine division of the empire. The unified Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman-Byzantine Empire are intervened, and these factors must be taken into account and are covered by links to appropriate articles. I do not think that Constantine XI was not an Eastern Roman-Byzantine Emperor because he was a Roman Emperor; Roman Emperor, from beginning to divisions to West and East, to the end in Constantinople, are intervened: one is dismissing other over another - the Byzantine Emperor and Roman Emperor are linked appropriately as they should be in the case of Constantine XI, who was the last Roman Emperor, not only in the East, but the last from beginning to end. He was the Eastern Roman-Byzantine Emperor in the east from the division of the Roman Empire, and the last Roman Emperor as such. "You never heard of a legend of Constantine XI reconquering the empire? And is this my fault?" No, and I have never said that it would be. I had, however, head of the legend that he will reconquer the city (Constantinople), and because of this I belived that you had accidently broadened reconquest of the city to that of the empire - that however was not the case. Regards, --Kurt Leyman (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot say that what you consider to be a conclusion is a good way to end. Roman Emperor and Eastern Roman-Byzantine Emperor are intervened; there is no Emperor in the East from the division of the Roman Empire to be ruled by two Emperors without the other. Yes, I understand, what you said about the images (the iconic and statue), but I think you also understand the issue of Constantine XI: this is not a reference race. Constantine XI was the last Roman Emperor and also the last Eastern Roman-Byzantine Emperor, ruling in the East due to division of the Roman Empire to be ruled by two Emperors. Constantine XI was the last Roman Emperor by Roman law; I do not think anyone of us can change the Roman law. I am not your enemy, and I have nothing against you, or Constantine XI to that matter. Regards, --Kurt Leyman (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DNA and ethnicity

I have reverted you accidentally in Cham Albanians. Please accept my apologize.Alexikoua (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Resistance

Hello! All right, let's begin with the simple question, no 2. Where did I oppose mentioning or wanting to disguise that EAM-ELAS (why do you keep spelling it ELLAS, BTW?) was communist-controlled? Obviously that must be made clear. Now, number 1), the antagonism between Britain and the Soviet Union was also an antagonism of ideologies. You cannot oversimplify things as a traditional British-Russian "Great Game". Ideology was a powerful motivator and shaped strategic considerations. The point is, the phrasing "lose to the Soviet Union" implies active Soviet intervention/occupation. In fact, if EAM-ELAS had seized power, it would have done so alone, against Soviet advice. The motivator of the EAM leadership was not how to increase Soviet power but how to advance the cause of world communism, in other words it would have done so out of ideological considerations. Also, bear in mind that in conditions of near-civil war, the country was pretty much split along political lines, i.e. between communists/socialists etc on the one and the right and center on the other. Great power antagonism only came on top of this underlying division. That is why I prefer the ideological tag. Either way, when one speaks in a 1940s context of "losing a country to Communism", it is pretty much clear what is meant. In my experience, that phrase is also the more often used in this form or variants thereof...

Hmmm, well... The Soviets had sent a military mission to Greece in summer '44 under Col. Popov, who was conspicuously scrupulous in not giving any encouragement for an armed coup by EAM-ELAS. EAM was also extraordinarily ready to compromise during the negotiations in Lebanon, again due to Soviet advice relayed via Tito. The Soviet government had advised EAM not to seek a confrontation, since Stalin was already thinking ahead, esp. with regard to Poland. The percentages agreement which came later only formalized what had already been de facto Soviet policy. As for the Great power play, certainly, their antagonism exacerbated the political dispute and turned into a fully-fledged civil war, but either way, the main question was whether post-war Greece would be capitalist or communist. That is what the civil war was fought over, the British and later Americans were merely the chief representatives of one camp. What the old-guard politicians objected to in EAM was not "control by Moscow" just because it was Moscow, but because Moscow was the communist capital. What they opposed, even before the war, was communism and the threat of it being imposed on Greece. That Britain's own imperial ambitions (or rather pretensions, by this stage) also played a role is an added factor. But in the 1940s and 1950s, when people spoke of a country falling under Soviet influence, they said "falling to Communism" [9] for a reason: the Soviet Union was never a traditional Great Power, solely pursuing its strategic goals in terms of a sober assessment of power balance or geopolitics. It had a very strong political and crusading ideological character to it, which is at the very center of the Cold War. To ignore that and somehow pretend that this was simply an extension of 19th-century Russo-British antagonism is missing the point entirely. There certainly was a strong element of continuity, which is why I added the phrase about Britain's imperial lifeline, but the political/ideological factor is too strong to be left out. As you rightly point out, EAM-ELAS was guided by a Communist party, with Communist cadres throughout etc. and suddenly it is merely a tool of "Soviet Great Power imperialism"? ELAS was not fighting for the Soviet Union, it was fighting for its ideals, "Laokratia" foremost. Right or wrong, disproved by history or not, that is a fact. I really don't see what is so bad about keeping the current phrase. No one would ever mistake its meaning in terms of power blocks, and it makes the political dimension more explicit, which is a good thing. Constantine ✍ 21:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't dispute that imperialism is imperialism, no matter what the ideological cloak. But ideology played a crucial role in the 20th century , and that is a fact. Nazi imperialism was totally different from Imperial German imperialism in its aims, methods and justification, although some elements remained the same, just as Soviet imperialism was ideologically motivated to an extent far beyond the Russian Empire's pan-Slavism or projected "descent to the warm seas". Even the Soviets' worst enemies agree to that. Read some books on Soviet foreign policy or the KGB operations abroad, and you will understand the extent to which the Soviet leadership saw things under an ideological lens. We may be cynical today in this morally gray world we live in, but that does not give us the liberty to dismiss these factors for the motivations of people of the past. In the same way, we can go ahead and dismiss Christian faith as a factor in the Byzantine Empire, Islam in the Ottoman Empire, etc. Political ideologies were the 20th century's secular analogues to these religions. Flawed they were, abused they certainly were, but they existed nevertheless and played a role. Our role here is to report on that, not pass judgment. As for mixing the dates, EAM's political objectives etc, what exactly do you understand under "Laokratia", which was EAM's stated goal since 1943? The fact that EAM was a much broader organization than DSE does not mean that it it was not led by KKE (as you rightly point out) or that, had it triumphed, Greece would not have wound up Communist and under Soviet control, and we both agree on that. So what is the problem? Why does the mention of "Communism" annoy you? "Falling/Being lost to Communism" is an accepted and well-used phrase for this process which is perfectly understood by everyone in its meaning. Ειλικρινά δεν καταλαβαίνω γιατί διαφωνούμε εδώ...

Now, on the article as a whole. I wrote much of it at a much earlier date, mostly as a rough draft. Obviously I haven't really kept up with it, and I have never been happy with how it has been left to stand. For the famine, you are more than welcome to write the relevant article, it has been on the "wanted" list for too long and is indeed a most "interesting" subject. For the "fatal error", well, EKKA's disbandment was a fatal error politically, no matter how you see it, for all involved: it destroyed any chance of a lasting national unity government, it polarized the nation to the extremes and in the event EAM suffered in the long term more from it than its opponents. Για να το πώ πιο καθαρά, ακόμα και σήμερα, 66 χρόνια μετά που λες κι εσύ, η μόνιμη επωδός κατά του ΕΑΜ είναι η διάλυση της ΕΚΚΑ. Αν κάτι έβλαψε ανεπανόρθωτα την εικόνα του, ήταν ακριβώς αυτό το γεγονός. Και την ίδια στιγμή οι ταγματασφαλίτες που στελέχωσαν τη μεταπολεμική χωροφυλακή και ο ΕΔΕΣ της Αθήνας με τον Πάγκαλο που συνεργαζόταν με τους Γερμανούς περνάνε εν πολλοίς στα ψιλά. Το ότι το ΕΑΜ έκανε τεράστια σφάλματα είναι προφανές. Το ότι όλοι οι πολιτικοί παράγοντες διέπραξαν εξίσου τεράστια σφάλματα, και το ότι όλες οι παρατάξεις ενεπλάκησαν σε εγκλήματα κατά Ελλήνων επίσης. Δεν χρειάζεται να μαλώνουμε κι εμείς σήμερα για τα λάθη που διέπραξαν οι παππούδες μας, οπότε ας μην υψώνουμε τους τόνους. Κάνε τη δουλειά σου όπως νομίζεις καλύτερα (στην πλειοψηφία ως τώρα άλλωστε συμφωνώ με τις αλλαγές που εισήγαγες) και όπου διαφωνήσω με κάτι θα σου το πω. Regards, Constantine ✍ 09:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we don't really disagree. As I have repeatedly stated, the phrase in question is a standard, widely used phrase which implies all this, namely a) a change in political regime and b) a change in the "imperial camp". In the 1940s, Communism=Soviet Union. IMO, it is a much more elegant phrase to use than the alternatives. As for "Laokratia", no one was under any illusions about who guided EAM, and what this "Laokratia" would have in effect meant had EAM alone come to power. "People's rule" etc in various variations were slogans used throughout Eastern Europe at the time; Communism (note: as it was practiced, I won't go into a discussion about whether it merits the name) was in all cases the end result. For the record, I do not agree with your wholesale dismissal of ideology as a historical factor, period. Since you have had so many family members in the EAM, you should know that well enough. I also do not particularly care for your family's political background, although they do have my sympathy for what they must have gone through. Even if you were (or are?) on the political right, it wouldn't matter as long as your edits are accurate and non-biased themselves. Out of curiosity, may I ask what books you intend to use in the article? Constantine ✍ 16:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Παρεμβαίνοντας απρόσκλητος στην άκρως ενδιαφέρουσα συζήτησή σας, επιτρέψτε μου, κατ' αρχάς, να πω ότι κακώς την κάνετε ο ένας στη σελίδα του άλλου. Η συζήτηση αυτή έπρεπε να διεξάγεται στο talk page, ώστε να δίδεται η ευκαιρία σε ευρύτερο κοινό να παρεμβαίνει και να την παρακολουθεί. Επί της ουσίας, θα έλεγα ότι συμφωνώ και με τους δυο σας και προσωπικά θα ήμουν εντάξει και με τις δυο διατυπώσεις. Δεν πρέπει να είναι σώνει και καλά ένας από τους δυο σας λάθος. Είναι θέμα οπτικής καθαρά.

Για να μιλήσω με συγκεκριμένα παραδείγματα: Αν το άρθρο το έγραφε ο Theodor Rousevelt ή ο Kissinger ή θαρρώ ακόμη και ο Τσώρτσιλ θα χρησιμοποιούσε την ορολογία του Factuarius. Στο μυαλό των ανθρώπων αυτών υπήρχαν (ή υπάρχουν) μόνο σφαίρες επιρροής, όλα τα άλλα είναι προκαλύμματα και υποκρισίες. Αν, όμως, το άρθρο το έγραφε ένας Reagan παίρνω όρκο ότι θα χρησιμοποιούσε ορολογία Constantine, γιατί αυτή η κατηγορία ανθρώπων πίστευε ότι πολεμούσαν ένα σύστημα πολιτικοοικονομικό που στο μυαλό τους εκπροσωπούσε το "κακό" και όχι ότι ήθελαν να επεκτείνουν τη σφαίρα επιρροής τους - αυτό ήταν παρελκόμενο! Θα μου πείτε και θα έχετε δίκιο ότι μας μιλάς για άλλες εποχές. Μα μήπως αυτός ο φόβος κατά του κομμουνισμού, που ξεπέρναγε μια απλή ψυχρή λογική ισορροπίας δυνάμεων εμπνεύσεως Μέττερνιχ ή Ρισελιές, δεν ήταν διάχυτος καθόλη την περίοδο του μεσοπολεμού και, φυσικά, και κατά τη διάρκεια του Β' Παγκ. Πολέμου. Αυτός ο φόβος ήταν ΚΑΙ κάτι άλλο (-όπως και ο φόβος κατά του φασισμού δεν ήταν ένας απλός φόβος κατά της επέκτασης της γερμανικής σφαίρας επιρροής). Ήταν ο φόβος κατά ενός συστήματος που πίστευαν ότι μπορεί να πλήξει και τη δική τους πολιτειακή και κοινωνική τάξη. Αυτό αποδεικνύεται και από τις λυσσαλέες μάχες που δόθηκαν στο εσωτερικό Ευρωπαϊκών κρατών μετά τον Α' Παγκ. Πόλεμο κατά των κομμουνιστικών κινημάτων. Δεν ήταν ο φόβος επέκτασης της μπολσεβικικής ρωσικής σφαίρας επιρροής που συνάσπισε τις καθεστηκυίες κοινωνικές τάξεις σε κάθε κράτος ξεχωριστά, αλλά ο φόβος κατά του "κομμουνισμού". Με αυτά τα δεδομένα, φτάνουμε στο Β' Παγκ. Πόλεμο και, ασφαλώς, ο φόβος αυτός κατά του κομμουνισμού συνεχίζει να ενυπάρχει παράλληλα, ίσως αλληλένδετε, με το φόβο κατά της επέκτασης της ρωσικής σφαίρας επιρροής. Ήταν σαν δύο δεινά συνενωμένα και συναρμοσμένα που κινούνταν απειλητικά παράλληλα! Άλλο, αν ο Ρούσβελτ και οι Δυτικοί σίγασαν το αντικομμουνιστικό μένος τους όταν ο Στάλιν συνασπίστηκε μαζί τους. Τα αντικομμουνιστικά σύνδρομα θα ξυπνούσαν, όμως, και πάλι, λίγο πιο μετά τις δηλώσεις-σοκ για την εποχή του Τσώρτσιλ, που έκανε λόγο για "σιδηρούν καταπέτασμα". Και, ναι, χρησιμοποίησε ορολογία σφαιρών επιρροής ο Άγγλος, αλλά ελάχιστα πιο μετά θα αποκαλυπτόταν και πάλι δριμύτερος και ο φόβος για το "δίδυμο" δεινό, τον κομμουνισμό. Λες και ήταν ένα ξεχωριστό αυθύπαρκτο θεριό. Οι Αμερικανοί ιδίως με τον ιεραποστολισμό που τους διέκρινε σε όλο τον Ψυχρό Πόλεμο (με εξαίρεση το Νίξον) δήλωναν και ενίοτε πίστευαν (άλλοτε απλώς κάλυπταν μια ψυχρή πολιτική σφαιρών επιρροής) ότι πολεμούν τον Κομμουνισμό! Δεν είναι τυχαίες οι αρχικές αρνητικές αντιδράσεις στην προσέγγιση Κίνας - ΗΠΑ επί Νίξον. Στο επιχείρημα ότι βάσει σφαιρών επιρροής ήταν μια ευφυής κίνηση κατά της Ρωσίας, οι ιδεαλιστές απαντούσαν ότι αυτό δεν έχει σημασία, γιατί και η Κίνα είναι μέρος του κακού, του "κομμουνισμού"!

Για όλους αυτούς τους λόγους, δε με ενοχλεί καθόλου η τωρινή διατύπωση. Θεωρώ ότι αντιπροσωπεύει πραγματικές διαχρονικές ιστορικές αντιλήψεις περί της αναγκαιότητας μιας ιδεολογικής μάχης κατά του κομμουνισμού. Η αντίληψη αυτή ήταν υπαρκτή, εμπότισε μάζες και πολιτικές ηγεσίες και δεν αποτελούσε (ή τουλάχιστον δεν αποτελούσε πάντα) προκάλυμμα καπνού. Από την άλλη, βέβαια, και μια φράση βασισμένη στη λογική των σφαιρών επιρροής δε θα ήταν λαθεμένη. Επιμένω, όμως, ότι η λογική αυτή της ισορροπίας δυνάμεων και των σφαιρών επιρροής αντικατοπτρίζει μόνο μια εκδοχή της ιστορίας και πάλι όχι με πληρότητα. Το ίδιο και η εκδοχή της ιδεαλιστικής αντικομμουνιστικής πάλης. Τίποτε από τα δύο δεν ισχύει απόλυτα. Τίποτε από τα δύο δεν συνιστά πλήρη ιστορική αλήθεια.

Διάβασα ότι υπάρχει σκέψη για τη δημιουργία άρθρου για το λιμό της Αθήνας. Αυτό είναι πολύ θετικό. Ο τρόπος όμως που προαναγγέλθηκε με προβλημάτισε λίγο. Το θέμα δεν είναι να γράψουμε ένα άρθρο με αντι-βρετανική λογική. Το θέμα είναι να γραφεί ένα άρθρο, που θα αξιοποιεί όλες τις διαθέσιμες πηγές και θα εξετάζει σφαιρικά όλες τις πτυχές του ζητήματος. Η χρήση πρωτογενών μη δημοσιευμένων πηγών είναι ένα θεματάκι, δεδομένης της OR πολιτικής της WP. Από την άλλη, βέβαι, θαρρώ ότι βρετανικά αρχεία έχουν ήδη χρησιμοποιηθεί σε δημοσιευμένες μελέτες επί του θέματος. Ή αυτή είναι η εντύπωσή μου, η οποία μπορεί να είναι και λαθεμένη καθώς έχει περάσει λίγος καιρός από όταν διάβασα επί του θέματος. Θα το τσεκάρω πάντως.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Καλωσορίζω το Yannismarou στη συζήτησή μας. Θα ήθελα να ενημερώσω τον Κωνσταντίνο ότι δεν είμαι "δεξιός" όπως δεν είμαι και "αριστερός" (Ι know you don't care), και κατα τη γνώμη μου αυτή η πολωμένη λογική ("ότι δεν είναι αριστερά είναι δεξιά") έφερε την αριστερά εκεί που κατάντησε την εποχή που συζητάμε, να μην πω και σήμερα. Είμαι Ηρακλής σκέτο και πιστεύω κάνω και λέω ό,τι το δικό μου κεφάλι κατεβάζει για κάθε θέμα, πράγμα που από τη μια μεριά στοχοποιεί τις θέσεις μου τόσο από "αριστερούς" όσο κι από "δεξιούς", αλλά από την άλλη το προτιμώ, γιατί μου παρέχει τη πολυτέλεια να μην αφήνω τον εαυτό μου να με τραβολογάνε από δω κι απο κει οι κάθε λογής "αρχηγοί" (να μη πω τίποτα χειρότερο), τύπου Σιάντου και Ζαχαριάδη από τη μιά και βασιλάδες και Ράλληδες από την άλλη. Ανέφερα το οικογενειακό background και για έναν επιπλέον λόγο Κωνσταντίνε, για να σου πω ότι εξαιτίας αυτού είμαι σε θέση να γνωρίζω "λεπτομέρειες" και καταστάσεις της περιόδου, που δεν πρόκειται ούτε να ονειρευτούν άλλοι, γιατί τέτοια πράγματα τα στελέχοι εκείνης της εποχής τα συζητάγανε μόνο μεταξύ τους ή σε πολύ συγγενικό περιβάλλον, και μόνο όταν αυτό το περιβάλλον ήταν στον ίδιο στενό πολιτικό χώρο. Εγώ μεγάλωσα ακούγοντας ιστορίες για το Σιάντο, το Βαφειάδη και το Βλαντά (μερικές απ'αυτές αρκούντως ανατριχιαστικές) στην ηλικία που άλλοι ακούγανε τη κοκκινοσκουφίτσα, και μάλιστα παρόλο μικρός τις προτιμούσα. Γι'αυτό το ανέφερα και όχι για να σου επιτρέψω την ευκαιρία να με προσβάλεις ("Ι don't care..κλπ"). Αλλά αναγνωρίζω ότι ήταν λάθος να προσωποποιήσω τη συζήτηση το οποίο δεν θα επαναλάβω παρά μόνο αυτή τη στιγμή, για να πω ότι από προσωπική γνώση τυχαίνει να ξέρω ότι η υποκρισία και η διγλωσία του Στάλιν της εποχής, δεν ήταν καθόλου εντοπισμένη στους "διαδρόμους του Κρεμλίνου" αλλά διαπερνούσε όλη την ηγετική δομή του τότε ΚΚΕ-ΕΑΜ με τραγικά μερικές φορές απότελέσματα στη ζωή αγνών ιδεολόγων ανθρώπων αλλά σε τελευταία ανάλυση και του ίδιου του κινήματος. (Period)

Επί της ουσίας: Νομίζω ότι και οι δύο παρεξηγήσατε κάπως τις θέσεις μου και μιάς και συνέβει και στους δυό σας άρα είναι καθαρά δικό μου λάθος. Δεν ενοούσα ότι οι ιδεολογίες δεν παίζουν ρόλο στο ιστορικό γίγνεσθαι, αλοίμονο. Πώς μπορούμε να αφαιρέσουμε αυτό το στοιχείο από τα γεγονότα του Β' ΠΠ (αλλά & πριν & μετά). Αυτό που ήθελα να αναφέρω είναι ότι για κάποιο δυσεξήγητο λόγο το στοιχείο αυτό ενώ είναι καθοριστικό για να ερμηνεύσουμε τη συμπεριφορά των στενότερων ή ευρύτερων μαζών, ακόμα και των στελεχών των συνασπισμών της εποχής, φαίνεται να εξασθενεί καθώς ανεβαίνουμε την πυραμίδα, για να φτάσει στο τέλος, στη κορυφή, να δίνει τη θέση της σε συμπεριφορές και επιλογές που χαρακτηρίζονται περισσότερο από "πραγματισμό" ή και κυνισμό παρά από ιδεολογία. Για κάποιο λόγο -που φοβάμαι κανένας μας δε θα θα φτάσει τόσο ψηλά για να καταλάβει- τα πράγματα από πολύ ψηλά φαίνονται πολυ διαφορετικά απ' ότι από κάτω και ίσως αυτό να είναι και το πραγματικό νόημα τις (πιθανά) παρεξηγημένης ρήσης του Στάλιν που κάπου προανέφερα. Τέτοια στοιχεία κυνισμού αναμφισβήτητα είναι ορατά στη συμφωνία Τσώρτσιλ-Σταλιν το '44, και για μένα είναι σίγουρο ότι αν οι κάτω, στο "στίβο" είχαν γνώση, οι συμπεριφορές τους θα ήταν πολύ διαφοροποιημένες (μη πω ότι στην επόμενη καταμέτρησή τους, παρόντες θα ήταν μόνο οι καταμετρητές). Και γι'αυτό και δεν το μάθανε. Όχι ότι αυτό απαλλάσει τους από κάτω και ειδικά τις τοπικές ηγεσίες των ευθυνών τους: Βλέπεις ότι οι Σοβιετικοί μπαίνουν στη Βουλγαρία και μόλις φτάνουν στα σύνορα σταματάνε. Βλέπεις ότι μπαίνουν στη Γιουγκοσλαυία και μόλις φτάνουν στα σύνορα σταματάνε. Βλέπεις ότι οι Βρετανοί πέρνουν στρατό από την Ιταλία και τον φέρνουν στην Ελλάδα αλλά δεν κάνουν το ίδιο με την Αλβανία που είναι δίπλα τους. Αν δεν καταλαβαίνουν τίποτα είναι απλώς βλάκες και ανάξιοι για ηγεσία. Τι κάνει νιάου νίαου στα κεραμίδια ο σκύλος που μαθαίνει ξένες γλώσσες? Πας και ρωτάς το Ρώσσο να σου πει, και δε σου λέει τίποτα, και τι κάνεις? τον κατηγορέίς για "σφίγγα". Τι περιμένεις να σου πεί? Σου είπε, εσύ δε κατάλαβες, και το χειρότερο δε βλέπεις και μπροστά σου. Τέλος πάντων, η ουσία για μένα είναι ότι ο ιδεολογικός παράγοντας σαν καθοριστικό κίνητρο συμπεριφοράς είναι περισσότερο αισθητός κατεβαίνοντας τη πυραμίδα παρά ανεβαίνοντας γενικά στην ιστορία από τότε που εμφανίστηκαν ιδεολογίες (εξαιρέσεις πάντα υπάρχουν). Η ηγεσίες βλέπουν τα πράγματα "ψυχραιμότερα". Και η συναλλαγή Στάλιν-Τσώρτσιλ τότε, θεωρείται ιστορικά από τα χαρακτηριστικότητα δείγματα τέτοιου κυνισμού. Αλλά θα συμφωνήσω με τον Γιάννη ότι είναι λάθος να γενικεύουμε όπως επαρκώς ανέλυσε. Εγώ απλώς μιλούσα για τη συγκεκριμένη εποχή, για τους συγκεκριμένους πρωταγωνιστές, και τα συγκεκριμένα γεγονότα. So I am not trying to imply "a wholesale dismissal of ideology as a historical factor" as Constantine possibly by my mistake misinterpreted what I had said. Γι 'αυτό και δεν ζήτησα "ντε και καλά" να παρουσιαστεί στο κείμενο η Σοβιετο-Βρετανική σύγκρουση, σαν σύγκρουση Μεγάλων Δυνάμεων, αυτό που λέω είναι ότι δε είναι σωστό να παρουσιάζεται σαν σύγκρουση "ιμπεριαλισμού versus ιδεολογία", γιατί είναι politically biased. Και οι Βρετανοί είχαν ιδεολογία και όπως εύστοχα παριέγραψε ο Γιάννης, δεν μπορούμε να απορίψουμε και την ιδεολογική διάσταση της αντιπαλότητάς τους ως προς τους Σοβιετικούς. Παρά το πραγματισμό που αναμφισβήτητα επέδειξε τότε ο Τσώρτσιλ και αποτυπώθηκε και αργότερα στη περίπτωση Νίξον. Αυτό που λέω από την αρχή είναι ότι πρέπει να επιλέξουμε (επιλέξει) μια διατύπωση είτε σε ιδεολογική, είτε σε σφαίρες επιροής βάση. Όχι χιαστή. Aλλιώς τι θα πούμε σε κάποιον που θα έρθει και θα μας πεί ότι διαφωνεί και ότι ήταν μια κατάσταση στην οποία οι Βρετανοί προσπαθούσαν να διασώσουν τη δημοκρατία και οι Ρώσοι να βάλουν στο χέρι την Ελλάδα?

Υπάρχει και ένας άλλος λόγος που θεωρώ θετική την παρέμβαση στη κουβέντα του Γιάννη. Πέρνωντας μιά πιό συνθετική θέση στο θέμα άνοιξε μια πόρτα σε μια λύση που ούτε εγώ, ούτε πιθανά ο Κωνσταντίνος είχαμε σκεφτεί πιό πριν και που ίσως να είναι μια ικανοποιητική λύση για όλους μας. Αφού όπως προέκυψε από τη συζήτηση κανένας τελικά δεν αρνείται ότι και στα δύο στρατόπεδα ενυπήρχαν στοιχεία τόσο ιδεολογικά όσο και σφαιρών επιροής, μήπως θα ήταν ένας καλός συμβιβασμός να αναφερθούν και τα δύο, στο στύλ: "Οι Βρεττανοί αντιτίθονταν στην μεταπολεμική κυριαρχία του ΕΑΜ στην Ελλάδα λόγω της πολιτικής αντίθεσης τους στην επέκταση του κομμουνισμού, ενώ μέσα στα πλαίσια της λογικής των σφαιρών επιροής θεωρούσαν ότι μια τέτοια εξέλιξη θα οδηγούσε μια χώρα που παραδοσιακά συμπεριλάμβαν στη δική τους σφαίρα επιροής σ'αυτήν της ΕΣΣΔ." και να τελειώνουμε?

ΥΓ: Σκέφτηκα μετά το μήνυμα του Γιάννη να μεταφέρω όλα τα μηνύματα που ανταλλάξαμε με τον Κωνσταντίνο στο talk page του άρθρου για το λόγο που είπε, άλλα λόγω του κάπως προσωπικού τόνου (δική μου ευθύνη) δε νομίζω ότι είναι απόλυτα κατάλληλα εκεί και καλύτερα είναι να παραμείνουν στις προσωπικές μας σελίδες. Μετά σκέφτηκα να ανοίξω από την αρχή τη συζήτηση εκεί, αλλά για να πω την αλήθεια εγώ τουλάχιστον βαριέμαι να ξαναπώ τα ίδια. Αλλά αν θεωρούμε ότι έχουμε μια ικανοποιητική λύση με βάση (περίπου) τα παραπάνω, θα μπορούσαμε ίσως να αναφέρουμε στην article's talk page ότι κατόπιν συζήτησης (βάζοντας τα 5-6 links των διαδοχικών μηνυμάτων) η διαφωνία μεταξύ των δύο χρηστών, στη διατύπωσης της συγκεκριμένη φράσης και με τη συμμετοχή στη συζήτηση του Yannismarou κατέληξε στη συγκεκριμένη επαναδιατύπωση, όποιος διαφωνεί ή θα ήθελε να συνεισφέρει κάτι επιπλέον μπορεί να το κάνει εδώ. Κι ο Θεός βοηθός. --Factuarius (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Χαίρομαι που μου θύμισες το βιβλίο, γιατί ομολογώ ότι το είχα ξεχάσει. Με μετακομίσεις και τόσα άλλα, επισκιάστηκε από άλλες έγνοιες. Με το που θα κατέβω Ελλάδα, ελπίζω να θυμηθώ να το κοιτάξω. Για το θέμα του άρθρου δεν έχω κάτι άλλο να προσθέσω. Είμαι σίγουρος ότι με τον Κωνσταντίνο θα βρείτε την καλύτερη δυνατή λύση. Έχετε και οι δύο, ομολογώ, εξαιρετικά συγκροτημένη σκέψη και εκθέτετε εξίσου ολοκληρωμένα τα επιχειρήματά σας, που δε μου αρέσει να αναμιχθώ περαιτέρω ή να επιχειρήσω να κάνω τον επιδιαιτητή σε ένα άρθρο, πάνω στο οποίο εσείς έχετε ασχοληθεί και δουλέψει πολύ περισσότερο. About the famine article, I promise I'll keep an eye, and, when I return to Greece, I'll try to contribute with my sources, if it is necessary, namely if the issues treated by Fleischer and his sources aren't already covered by Factuarius' sources. Καληνύχτα!--Yannismarou (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Η προτεινόμενη διατύπωση με καλύπτει πλήρως, οπότε go ahead. Ανυπομονώ να δω το άρθρο για το λιμό. Έχω κι εγώ τα βιβλία του Φλάισερ πάντως. Best regards to both, Constantine ✍ 10:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts

Just in case you overlooked it, this edit by Ptolion wasn't an "unexplained rename of chapter and massive edit" as you claimed in your edit summary [10], but a simple revert to a long-standing consensus version which had previously been butchered by a tendentious IP [11]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Γεια!

φίλε μην πολύ κολάς με τον fut. perf. αν ψαξεις την edit history του θα δεις ότι ο τύπος το παίζει παναγίτσα αλλά δεν είναι κάθε άλλο μάλιστα. --87.202.70.6 (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Κι αν ψαξεις τι δική μου θα δεις ότι είναι γεμάτη συγκρούσεις μαζί του. Συμπεριλαμβανομένης και μιας ποινής που έχω απ'αυτόν. Και δε θυμάμαι να το έπαιξε ποτέ παναγίτσα. Απλώς πολλοί δυσκολεύονται να καταλάβουν την ειρωνία του. --Factuarius (talk) 12:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albania TF

Could you please respond shere? --sulmues (talk) 23:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not trust or distrust. I just want things to be neutral. Do you think it is fair to have two maps with pro-Greek content out of three in an article; and above all articles that are related more to Bulgaria than Greece. Why we have three ethnic maps for Eastern Rumelia and two of them pro-Greek while the article for Venezelos which is much longer has only two and none of them neutral. Why don't you include the map of Ravenstein there? You apply double standards, that is what I think. I will not revert that for now. I would like to have a discussion on that topic for the articles Eastern Rumelia, Treaty of San Stefano and Congress of Berlin. Since the issue is one and the same, I will start it in the talk page of Treaty of San Stefano --Gligan (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted you at Tarantella

Please let me know if you disagree with the changes I made "here". Dionysus is the same as Bacchus, in addition I removed erotism. --sulmues (talk) 06:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comment at Athenean's talkpage

This is my reply to your comment here: I did not express myself clearly. Under Synvet and Stanford I meant their respective maps which have been proven pro-Greek by independent sources. I didn't request a citation that Stanford was pro-Greek but that the Greek delegation used his map or that the map was key to the treaty which was after all the main reason you argued for its inclusion. Kostja (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Factuarius, you say that 21 years is not much for ethnology in the case of Stanford's map (and it's actually 36 years), yet you are against the inclusion of Lejean's map because it was 17 years out of date? Why don't you attempt to show at least some neutrality? Kostja (talk) 08:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't quite understand your comment on my talk page. However, you insist on Stanford's map being included in First Balkan war despite it being 35 years out of date. Meanwhile, you want Lejean's map removed because it was 17 years out of date. You may not see any double standards here but I sure do. Kostja (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Greeks in Bulgaria.JPG

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Greeks in Bulgaria.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Constantine ✍ 11:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)

The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First Balkan War

In your map File:Grece 1ere Guerre balkanique.png, what does the orange line represent? thanks. Politis (talk) 13:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010)

Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial

Project news

Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank

Articles

Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content

Members

June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members

Editorial

LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010)

Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial

Project news

New parameter for military conflict infobox introduced;
Preliminary information on the September coordinator elections

Articles

Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content

Members

July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy

Editorial

Opportunities for new military history articles

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dance of Zalongo

Have a look at the article about dance of Zalongo. Read the talk page. Your help and advise is needed.Seleukosa (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010)

Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial

Project news

The return of reviewer awards, task force discussions, and more information on the upcoming coordinator election

Articles

A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound

Members

Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants

Editorial

In the first of a two-part series, Moonriddengirl discusses the problems caused by copyright violations

To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team, Roger Davies ^talk 21:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010)

Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial

Project news

The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals

Articles

A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles

Members

Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)

Editorial

In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

Your Military history Newsletter

Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients
Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

Your Military History Newsletter

Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients
Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms"
To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

Your Military history Newsletter

Project News: From the editors
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients
Editorial: EyeSerene discusses "Writing neutrally for Wikipedia"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project News: From the editors
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients
Editorial: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project News: From the editors
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients
Editorial: Dank helps you see what article writers want from reviewers

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project News: From the editors
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients
Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project News: From the editors – Contest results, A-class medal recipients
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Editorial: Hawkeye's thoughts on the article writing process

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Finland and Spitfires
Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Zeebrugee and Afghanistan
Op-ed: WereSpielChequers examines RfA

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Carthage and Australia in Palestine
Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Book reviews: Nick-D and Ian Rose look at Australian air power
Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results
Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content
Book reviews: Nick-D analyzes three books from Osprey Publishing
Review essay: Nick-D reviews the new Bundeswehr Military History Museum

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors – MHotY coming; contest results
Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content
Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the Congolese Wars
Review essay: Ian Rose goes to El Alamein
Op-ed: DCI's call to revitalize WikiProject History

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results
Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content
Book reviews: Nick-D Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books
Review essay: Kirill Lokshin, the first coordinator
Op-ed: Hchc's English Castles

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 Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results
Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content
Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books
Op-ed: Ian Rose discusses article assessments

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 Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Files missing description details

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 01:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill ^[talk] 17:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:E.benizelos.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:E.benizelos.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 07:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Ancient makedonia.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Ancient makedonia.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 12:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Balkan troubles.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Balkan troubles.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 09:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User group for Military Historians

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Andon Kalchev.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Andon Kalchev.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Turks prisoners.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Turks prisoners.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Greek infantry 1912.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Greek infantry 1912.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Andon Kalchev.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Andon Kalchev.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Andon Kalchev.jpg

The file File:Andon Kalchev.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Ferdinand romania.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Ferdinand romania.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]