User talk:Bigdaddy1204

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello Bigdaddy1204, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions to articles on Byzantine history, particularly your edits to Manuel I Comnenus. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

--Gareth Hughes 18:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Byzantine maps

Hello! You added two maps Image:Byzantium1025.jpg and Image:Byzantium717AD.png claiming them to be PD. Since these images are based on my maps which are licensed under the GFDL you cannot release them into the public domain. You should mark them with the {{GFDL}} template and also link to the original images they were based on. -- Jniemenmaa 08:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


ok I will do that asap Bigdaddy1204 23:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I also found a Image:Manuel'sEmpire.png, which to me seems to be a duplicate of my Image:Byzantium1180.png. I marked your image with the {{NowCommons}} tag, since Byzantium1180.png can now be found in the Commons (this means all language versions of Wikipedia can now use it). -- Jniemenmaa 08:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help with the maps, I appreciate your patience and also thanks for not deleting the 'Manuel'sEmpire map! Bigdaddy1204 15:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manuel Comnenus selected as 'Good Article'!

I am pleased to be able to say that one of the articles I've been working on, Manuel Comnenus, has recently been selected as a 'good article'! I am very grateful for this, and who knows, maybe one day with a bit of luck and some hard work it might even become a featured article! Bigdaddy1204 22:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I left you some more feedback at peer review. Nice changes. Kaisershatner 20:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflation of events in Manuel I Comnenus

I think you may have conflated two separate episodes in the beginning of the article on Manuel. Our article on Raymond of Antioch (husband of Constance of Antioch) says that he was forced to come to Constantinople and make a humiliating submission in 1144 after demanding the cession of some of the Cilician towns. The raid upon Cyprus was made by Thoros II of Armenia and Raynald of Chatillon, also Prince of Antioch as the second husband of Constance (based on the Armenian chronicles and our article on Raynald). This was in 1156; in 1159, Manuel overran the Cilician littoral, forced Thoros to do homage to him, and humiliated Raynald. Could you please check your sources and make revisions to Manuel as necessary, if this is correct? Choess 23:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for pointing out my mistake! I'm now working on putting things right, so hopefully we will have a more accurate version of events in place very soon. Any more ideas on how to improve the article would be much appreciated! Bigdaddy1204 22:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

That's just what I happened to spot. It's a really nice, polished article — that's why I asked you to fix it, as I didn't want to spoil the gloss. Good job! Choess 00:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I've just added a new section about how he was nominated for the throne whilst at his father's side in wilds of Cilicia. Be sure to take a look if you're interested! :-) [User:Bigdaddy1204|Bigdaddy1204]] 15:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flamarande

Gas is a imperialistic word of the opressive Evil Empire of the capitalist United States of America who dominates and opresses the entire world through military might and forces their empty culture at gunpoint. Lol The real problem is that lying politicians and foolish intelectuals are using such stupids phrases and blatant lies to instigate fear and nationalism (which in my pov is simply a milder version of xenofobia) upon the stupid and ignorant masses. And the stupid masses repeat blindly what they say. Not that the USA are angels, far from it. Flamarande 22:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in noticing your improvement of the map (Roman Empire in 395 AD) but I noticed it only on the 29 of Nov. It´s great; all the major cities are there. There is only one mistake here. Namely, the division of the Roman Empire into two, the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire (known to us today as Byzantine Empire). Thats exactly why I wanted this date (death of Theodosius the Great). Ok, I know that I am pushing my luck here, but could you also include the city of Nicea? Please? As far as I know, the city wasn't very important at that time, but it slowly grew in importance into becoming the second city of the Byzantine Empire (it was lost to the Turks and then regained during the 1st Crusade), and was lateron temporary capital of the Byzantine empire (it depends a bit upon ones POV but read this: Empire of Nicaea) during the havoc created by the Fourth Crusade). Thanks Flamarande 22:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I think the map can live without the city of Nicaea, at the beginning it wasn't that important anyway. Perhaps you can include it in later maps (around the time of the 1st Crusade, or perhaps shortly before, as it was temporaly lost to the Seljuk Turks). The later maps are more focused (easier to include Nicaea) anyway because the Byzantine Empire was shrinking. The most important improvement is the inclusion of the major cities at the correct places, something you did superbly (notice how the importance of Antioch is made obvious if you compare all the reconquests). Nicely done, and Thanks.
Look, I don't have a clue if the following proposal makes sense to you, and it is only a proposal; if you don't agree with it simply be honest (I rather apreciate honesty). Everywhere I look, I see the Byzantine Empire in purple. Maps inside of books, computer games (e.g. Rome Total War Barbarian Invasion), book-covers, etc. Even in this article; the main colour is purple (or am I seeing things?). As far as I know that colour had strong Imperial conotations. Only the Emperor could clothe himself entirely in purple. And somehow that colour became the colour of the BE. But the maps are in pink!      current colour
I don't know if this implies a lot of work or not (if it does, then simply forget it; it isn't that important) but would you be willing to eventually change the colours of the maps of the article? I am not proposing to simply to change all maps without asking the opinion of the other Wiki-Byzantines first, of course (I hope most of them will agree with it), but if you are willing to do it, I will propose it in the Talkpage (I think it is nonsense to propose it now, as I don't know how to tinker with the maps). The exact shade of purple I propose to use is this one (it isn't too dark which is bad for inside texts and it isn't too soft):      X11 purple
I must also warn you that it would eventually mean that you would improve all the other maps (or perhaps you could teach me how to do it? It can't be that hard.). Of course you would be free do it slowly, at your own time at you own rate, as you include the cities on the other maps. What is your honest opinion? Flamarande 00:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


Ok, I will now add the new city names to all the other maps as soon as I can (and Nicaea can go on the smaller ones). As for the purple colour      X11 purple, I think the best thing is for me to test it out on one of the maps, then post it here to see what it looks like. If it looks good, then we can propose all maps be changed on the Talkpage. It may or may not be difficult to change all the maps - I would have to try it to find out.
Now, I will attempt to produce one purple map for inspection, and I will also add the place names to all the maps as agreed.
If you want to learn how the maps are made, I could also explain if you are interested. Bigdaddy1204 20:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I am quite interrested and I would be grateful for your help. There are some articles who lack maps at all, and in many articles the maps are simply very crude. The testing of X11 purple in a map is a good cautious idea. Make all the improvements in a slow manner (with all the breaks you want) so you don't burn out (trying to do everything at the same time is simply unneccesary). Flamarande 02:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

New map of 476AD has now been made:

More coming soon. Bigdaddy1204 21:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The map is great (if you really want to, you can include the Western Roman Empire; but don't include a isolated Roman Mauretania, per Talk:Byzantine Empire there is no hard evidence for that), but I don't understand why you are making whole new maps. I mean, wouldn't it be easier to improve the allready available maps? I am not being ungrateful, but wouldn't it be easier for you to simply include a couple of cities (eventually change a colour, or not) in a old map? Perhaps noone can change maps which have been made by someone else or something like that. Flamarande 22:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Don't worry - this is improving the already available maps. I will explain. I have the already available maps saved on my computer. To improve these maps, I simply use Microsoft Paint to add the new place names, or make other changes. I then save the improved version under a new name, and upload it to Wikipedia. This is how the improvements are made. I must do this for every map, one after another, until they all have the new cities marked on. The only downside is that it takes a long time to go through every map and do this... ;) Bigdaddy1204 15:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, now I see what you mean. I forgot that we already have this map: . Which map do you think we should use? Perhaps we should ask on Talk:Byzantine Empire?

Still, I will carry on updating all the other maps with the new city names.

As for the colour purple, I'm finding it difficult to get the colour just right, so I'll have to keep on trying. Next I will improve the 717AD map. Bigdaddy1204 15:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I've made an experimental Byzantine Empire map in a sort of purple. What do you think?

New 550AD map created:

New 717AD map created:

New 867AD map created:

New 1025AD map created:

New 1170Ad map created:

I think that the shade of purple you are using is just fine. It may be even a bit softer (something which is good) upon ones eyes (I am also assuming that X11 is somehow hard to find; and it is foolish to completly stuborn about it :). Choosing between the two maps above I would choose yours; 1st) it has the cities (major point), 2nd) the name of the seas are written down (Black S. and Medi S.). But to be truly honest I think that an inclusion of the WRE is also worthy. BUT DON'T improve your map yet, let me put the colour issue in the Byzantine talkpage first (and wait for the result). If the majority agrees with purple then you (and anyone who is willling and knows how to do it) may have to change eventually all the maps yet again. I propose that we give the WRE      red as mapcolour. But hey if this is too much work we can keep pink (I like purple better but then I am not doing the work here :). Flamarande 17:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know for sure, but it seems to me that you like tinkering with maps. Let's first wait for the votes, depending upon the results you can if you wish improve the map inside the infobox (box which itself seems to be on the verge of a major improvement/replacement-operation) in the article. Perhaps include all the major cities (or not), change the colours, and perhaps show the borders of modern countries (in white, a la Roman Empire). Flamarande 18:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have another improvement proposal to make (I am afraid that I am slowly going on your nerves :), but I can't help it: I sincerly want the best possible map). Ravenna was a major cities during Late Antiquity and the early Middle-Ages, becoming capital of the WRE, and later capital of the Ostrogothic Kingdom. Then it was the local administrative center of Byzantine power in Italy known as the Exarchate of Ravenna. But then it was conquered and lost its importance (around the 800's - reading the articles I am unable to give a precise date). It was slowly replaced by Venice, who became a major power-player in the Mediterranean Sea (main culprit in the 4th Crusade). You could replace Ravenna with Venice inside the maps, if it isn't too much work for you (around 850). PS: I can see that you played Medieval Total War and guess what? I also played, finishing with the Byzantines (never played as often as I play Barbarian Invasion these days). Flamarande 14:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Man, aren't you overwhelmed by the interrest over the maps, and the votes our improvement-proposals are getting? I am sincerly of the opinion that we (you) should still improve the maps following the old rule of "those who remain silent, consent". By the way have you read my improvement -proposal above? Flamarande 02:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Lol! I know, there's so many people showing interest that I can hardly have time to read all their comments! I think you are right - the time has come to act based on the fact that no one has objected (and remember, they were happy to object to 'Byzantine identity' and other proposals, causing big arguments...). So yes, I will add my 476AD map, and I will suggest that we add Venice to the maps at Talk:Byzantine Empire. If no one objects, I will make the changes necessary.

By the way, do you play Medieval 2: Total War? Playing as the Byzantines in that game is quite a challenge - the empire begins with very few provinces, and is surrounded by hostile factions and rebels. And yes, I have played RTW: Barbarian Invasion. My favourite campaign was trying to save the Western Roman Empire from the barbarians - what a game! Bigdaddy1204 12:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems that your personal posts are getting some results. Let's wait for the results (and vote). I have Medieval 2 Total War but I haven't installed it yet. To save the WRE in Barbarian invasion seems to be a most difficult task (unless you destroy the buildings in the rebellious cities gaining cash to invest in the few loyal ones), because you have little cash and a huge defficit, plenty of rebellious cities (did you somehow mantain them?), and almost all Barbarian tribes are headed your way. How did you save the empire? Flamarande 16:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes you're right, I really struggled the first few times I tried it. Often, I had lost half the empire within a few turns, I had no money, my debts were gettting bigger and bigger, and my armies were still not strong enough to stop the endless enemy attacks.

The key to saving the empire is three things:

1). to convert the whole empire to christianity at the start. Demolishing all the Pagan temples will give you the money to build christian shrines everywhere. You will still likely lose one or two provinces to the rebels, but this can be dealt with.

2). destroy the Alemmani immediately! Use your troops to attack them on turn 1, and remove them from the game! The money to be gained from exterminating their city will be very helpful.

3). Search every settlement in your empire for elite units. Comitatenses are VERY expensive to maintain, and you will find several units of them in Rome, and in Sicily. MOVE THESE UNITS TO THE FRONT IMMEDIATELY! You cannot afford to leave them where they are, as they are needed in Carthage and at the Rhine.

Once you have done these things, there are a few more tips - move generals and characters who are Christian into provinces that are having unrest - it helps to convert the population quickly.

Also, one strategy you can use is to abandon Pannonia and Aquincum, disband the army there, and move the general elsewhere. This will save you lots of money, which you desperately need if you are going to save the empire.

Try these things out; you will find your campaign should be very fun once you have used these tips! :D Bigdaddy1204 17:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


First let me tell you that I am quite impressed and very satisfied with the recent improvements of the maps inside the article byzantine Empire. But some (minor) things can (and should) be done to improve the maps even further. On the other hand it is ungrateful work which requers a lot of time and patrience. If I knew to improve the maps I wouldn't be asking, but alas...

  • Please place the city of Syracuse inside the maps. It seems to have been the local provincial capital (I might be wrong here) and the center of Byzantine power in that area.
  • Please divide the empire in the first map (with the Byzantine Empire in light purple, and the Western Roman Empire in blood red). With the death of Theodosius the Great in 395 AD the division of the old Empire was made permanent (by the way that was the original reason for this date).
  • Please replace the map inside the infobox (violet and green) with a map which follows the agreed colour schema ("light purle" + (please choose a good contrasting colour))
  • Please replace Ravenna with Venice in all the maps after 750 AD. As per the article Exarchate of Ravenna Byzantine power over it ended around that date, and Venice slowly rose in power and importance into becoming a major player in the Mediterranean Sea.
  • Please replace Carthage with Tunis in all the maps after 700 AD. Per both articles Carthage was conquered by the Arabs and lost its importance/was replaced by Tunis.
  • After all these improvements the "map changinging box" at the end of the article could be then be improved with the light purple maps.

Don't be afraid of postponing any of these requests to a later date Flamarande 20:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC) PS: I fear that my old computer is not the best to play Medivial Total War. Another (disapointing) thing is the fact that one is forced to play with England, Spain, France, or Holy Roman Empire (how did you manage to be able to play with the BE so quickly?). Time to buy a new computer (this might take a few months). In which dificulty level did you play Barbarian Invasion?

[edit] re:Retreat of glaciers since 1850

I appreciate your support (again) on the article. I think the changes made since the last nomination have been good. Happy editing!--MONGO 06:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice job on Manuel I Comnenus...I need to pay more attention to the FA candidates and help others get articles to the level you got that article to. Good work!--MONGO 19:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manuel

Congrats! The article looks fantastic. (sob) and I remember when you were just...(sob)... asking around about peer review...(wipes away tears). Really good work! Kaisershatner 12:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey on the use of Latinized/Greek names for Byzantine rulers

Hi. There is a survey on the names of Byzantine rulers at Talk:Constantine XI. Maybe you are interested in.--Panairjdde 17:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For you

The Epic Barnstar
for your work on Byzantine history. Tom Harrison Talk 02:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey on the use of Latinized/Greek names for Byzantine rulers Follow Up

Greetings. As a recent contributor to the survey on the names of Byzantine rulers at Talk:Constantine XI, you may be interested in the following. A mediation sought by Panairjdde resulted in the recommendation that "that proposal two from this page be implemented in the short term, until a consensus can be reached about proposal three". Accordingly, before resuming the editorial process, I am seeking feedback on whether option 2 or 3 of the former survey is more acceptable. Please state (or re-state) your opinion in the follow up survey on Talk:Constantine XI. Thank you for your time, Imladjov 14:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Comnenus

Hey, yeah I am kind of busy I guess, but I'll try to help out if I can (as usual, though, my perspective would likely be that of the crusader states, from the outside looking in!). Adam Bishop 16:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manuel I Komnenos

It seems that the survey consensus is indeed in favor of ODB forms for both titles of articles and their content. However, in this case, it appears that the article title "Manuel I Komnenos" already existed before someone redirected it to "Manuel I Comnenus". Would it be possible to reverse this situation? Also, it seems to me that either way the first line should read:

Manuel I Komnenos or Comnenus (Greek: Μανουήλ Α' Κομνηνός, Manouēl I Komnēnos), etc...

I would be happy to make these changes and edit the content, but given your great contributions here, I think it would be more appropriate if they came from you. Best, Imladjov 01:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

My thanks to you, Imladjov, I will make the changes today :) Bigdaddy1204 11:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for all the hard work. I have edited and moved most rulers' pages (rulers since the mid 11th century anyway) in accordance with the discussion on Talk:Constantine XI, but I could not move the following because there was a pre-existing redirect from the ODB form. Could you reverse that (just like you did for Manuel I Komnenos), or else instruct me how I can do that myself? The articles in question, so far, are: Thomas Palaeologus (should be Thomas Palaiologos). Thanks in advance, Imladjov 22:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the page under Thomas Palaiologos is the same as the one under Thomas Palaeologus. Unless I have made a mistake, it seems that we need take no further action on this page, as whichever name the user enters, they will receive the same information from wikipedia. My apologies if I have made a mistake, I've just got back from a night out and it's very late so I might have overlooked something, but as far as I can tell at the moment there is no need to take any action on this issue. Bigdaddy1204 01:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

True, there is no problem accessing the information. There is just the matter of consistency (article title matching contents), which seems important to several of our contributors (as you may recall, I was comfortable with "Latin" article titles and ODB usage within). So ideally we should switch the redirect around and make Thomas Palaiologos the article and Thomas Palaeologus the redirect. But in the worst case the status quo on that particular article is fine with me. Best, Imladjov 02:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

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:

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

  • Starting some new articles? Our article structure guidelines outline some things to include.
  • Interested in working on a more complete article? The military history peer review and collaboration departments would welcome your help!
  • Interested in a particular area of military history? We have a number of task forces that focus on specific nations or periods.
  • Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every military history article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 08:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On June 6, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Levounion, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Cactus.man ✍ 10:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On June 8, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Komnenian army, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Cactus.man ✍ 11:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your article, Battle of Beroia, was selected for DYK!

Updated DYK query On June 24, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Beroia, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! ++Lar: t/c 14:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - June 2006

The June 2006 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.   — ERcheck (talk) @ 02:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move request for emperors of the Palaeologus/Palaiologos dynasty

Hi. There is a move request for several Palaeologus/Palaiologos dynasty emperors at Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors. I tought you might be interested in.--Panairjdde 22:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006

The July 2006 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot.

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history Coordinator Elections!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 11!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 18:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006

The August 2006 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 11:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Skylitzes2.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Skylitzes2.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manuel's empire

You reverted my edit saying "But that is the whole point - Manuel's empire reached out to all corners of the Mediterranean. It had broad horizons. Furthermore, this map is more accurate than the old one."

However, I do not see what's the point of including Spain, for example.--BlaiseMuhaddib 19:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flooding FAs with POV details

Hello, Bigdaddy. I respect your work but adding so many details about an episode in the history of the Byzantine Empire into the generalized FA seems to disrupt the featured article. Therefore I took the liberty to remove your additions. We need to work out a consensus on this. Per WP:MOS, when a section gets too long, we are encouraged to move details into separate articles. Why do you want it the other way? --Ghirla -трёп- 11:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not only with the size but with POV of your edits. They try to justify the meaningless carnage and looting inflicted by the crusades on the capital of the Christian world. A timeless crime which poisoned the relations between the Eastern and Western churches forever. A perfect example of how Greed is eager to destroy Culture. The article is about the Empire, not the crusaders. The mercenary motives of crusaders should not overshadow the infamous catastrophe which they brought about. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to justify anything. My edits are not POV at all. The Fourth Crusade article I used for reference is not POV either, although my use of it as a reference may explain why you seem to think the edits focus too much on the Crusaders. Regardless, I have worked hard to reduce the details on the crusaders and to refocus it on the empire anyway. So let's not start accusing people of POV - rather lets get on with improving this superb Byzantine empire article to the highest quality possible. Bigdaddy1204 08:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I will not revert your changes again. Let the community be the the judge. On the other hand, I'm disturbed that the article concentrates with so much detail on the Komnenoi-Angeloi period, as if it was the heyday of the Empire. The focus should be moved to the reign of the Makedonioi. The coverage of the pre-Makedonioi centuries, when Byzantium was the strongest power in Europe, needs to be seriously expanded. We should aim at the harmonious coverage of all periods, don't you agree? I don't see how addition of huge chunks of text about random emperors may further this goal. The article is overlong as it is. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Who is talking about adding huge chunks of text about random emperors? Please stay on topic. If you are referring to information concerning the Angeloi in the Fourth Crusade article, your comments are unreasonable, since it is impossible to explain the facts of what occurred without mentioning the Alexios III, Alexios IV and Alexios V.

Now, I agree that the section covering the years c.800 - c.1050 needs to be expanded. Harmony is indeed desirable. But the current layout of the article is the result of its evolution over time. Originally, the article covered everything up to about c.800 in detail, and then suddenly ran out of steam. The rest of the empire's history was briefly dismissed in a few very short paragraphs. Since then I have done a lot of hard work to correct this imbalance, especially with contributions on the Komnenoi emperors, which is my area of interest. However, other contributors have failed to give the Makedonioi emperors the same treatment. This has resulted in the imbalance you see now.

If you want to fix this imbalance, then go ahead and expand the sections covering that period. I will be glad to support you. I look forward to seeing your work. Bigdaddy1204 19:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The September 2006 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 is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 18:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manuel I Komnenos

It does have a decent number of footnotes (not as many as recent articles, but not enough to be a major problem per se); but I'm slightly concerned that the citations don't include page numbers, which is something that's pretty much required now. Is there any chance you could add those (or at least give the page ranges for the relevant chapters)? Kirill Lokshin 19:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Things move fast - back in the spring, page numbers weren't asked for. I didn't know they have become compulsory since. It won't be easy for me to add page references for at least a couple of weeks because I've just moved back to London to continue my University course in Ancient History. I won't have access to the books I cited until I visit home in October. Still, when I do get access to the books again I will see what I can do. Bigdaddy1204 20:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine. We're mostly trying to figure out where we stand at this point, as we have a huge list of articles whose citations aren't up to current standards; since WP:FAR has apparently started to move on enforcing proper citation in all FAs, this has become an actual practical concern. Once you get your hands on the books again, making the citations here more specific (and possibly adding some more of them, particularly in places where entire sections don't have any) would be extremely helpful, I think. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 20:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Byzantine discussion

Its been my pleasure to share my passion and my knowledge of the Byzantine with you and the other admirable wikipidans that sought to join the discussion. I think it only natural to hold calm and polite dialogue, to better respect our peers and to convey insight. I would hope to hold more involment with your good work in the Byazantine articles yet time is not on my side. Should you ever erequire some information, a thought or a review do not shy from sending on over a request. --Dryzen 14:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Byzantine Empire

Hello, I know I am not the most diplomatic person, especially on Wikipedia and especially within the past few months, but I thought I should clarify that I meant no disrespect by what I said on the Byzantine Empire talk page. Sometimes it seems like people, of course including me, on many articles, begin to discuss their own theories, and sometimes these begin to make their way into the articles themselves. I was not accusing any of you of doing that, I just wanted to remind everyone that we shouldn't do it. Adam Bishop 19:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I am glad that you have come here to clear up the issue of the discussion at Talk:Byzantine Empire. I accept your apology, and I also respect you for making the effort to do this.

As you know, I thought the way you put the reminder was excessively severe; however I do believe my reaction may also have been excessively severe.

During the time that I have worked on Wikipedia, I have encountered some really helpful people and taken part in some fascinating and constructive discussion. But I have also seen another side to Wikipedia - a side which I think you would recognise as well as I: people pushing their arguments aggressively, making personal attacks on others, starting destructive edit wars, and running each others contributions down. The lengthy arguments over the 'Name of the Byzantine Empire' and the introduction, which ran to great length on the talk page, are an example of this. I stayed clear of that discussion, not wanting to get involved.

To get to the point, I think what I am trying to say is that if we all make an effort to treat others with respect, and not surrender to the temptation that we all sometimes feel to just push our way through regardless, then Wikipedia will be a better place for all of us. I think Dryzen put it well when he said the ideal Wikipedia is a place where we try "to hold calm and polite dialogue, to better respect our peers and to convey insight" I look forward to hearing from you in future, in discussion on Byzantine Empire and many other topics. Bigdaddy1204 23:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I must also apologize for my tone! I just did not like the way you reacted to criticism. As a matter of fact, I was ready to re-edit my intervention, in order not to be offensive towards you, when I saw your answer. In any case, the most important thing is to get this article improved and to keep the star. And I think you are well-equipped to do that. Cheers!--Yannismarou 09:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excellent Contributions

I am an enthusiastic amateur Byzantinist, and may I say I have thoroughly enjoyed your contributions on that topic, maps etc. Well done.

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 2006 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Byzantine empire

Hello dude. You don't know me, but I've seen you around the Byzantine Empire article and the relevant talk page. I'm contacting you because of this one. I just want to say, that often the best strategy is to ignore un-wikilove-ish comments and discussions alltogether. Enjoy your editing and leave petty "talk-page politics" to those that bother. Don't let yourself be dragged into getting fed up with wikipedia, it is just plain not worth it. If you find that editing the particular article is starting to become tiresome to you, why not move to a different topic for a while, and be refreshed? Or even take a wikibreak? I hope this message cheers you up, even for just a bit. As an eighty-year old athonite monk told me once: carry on. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silence

Hi, sorry that I didn't respond to you anymore. :( I got ill for some days (nothing serious, just enough to confine me to the bed), and was severely swamped in work afterwards, so I decided to skip on Wikipedia altogether until that was solved. Sorry again. :( I've got to do some catching up now; is what you posted on my page still relevant? :)

Edit: I've read the Byzantine Empire discussion now, and left some remarks. :)

Regards, Varana 13:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Byzantine 1025

The following are your own find from Haldon and then my vectorisation from Treadgold. Mine isn't all that visually pleasing, made to highlight the Iberia Themes later disbanded by Constantine IX. Looking at them the differences in Italy, Middle-east and Crimea, these are negligable. These fluctuations can be dismissed for various reasons and aren't worth debating (i.e. Boders where never precisse, scanning and drawing methodes could be off, etc..). The real discrepency is in the Balkans, the spot wroughly taken by modern Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina or ancient Dalmatia.--Dryzen 15:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Image:1025AD.PNG Image:Byzantine-Iberia.jpg

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Byzantine Empire

Oh, yes, this was a strong object by me:). btw, judging from your userpage and your contributions in the article (and other related ones), u are much more aware of byzantine issues than others... Much regards Hectorian 22:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it's good to know someone has noticed my work on Byzantine topics :) I went to Istanbul/Constantinople last summer, and I have uploaded some of my photographs to wikipedia. These can be seen at Constantinople - the photograph of the city walls and the mosaic of the Emperor Leo 'the wise' were taken by me. I was impressed by what I saw there - the trip was actually a lot better than I had expected! I was worried that I wouldn't like it because the city has changed so much from Byzantine times, but actually I really enjoyed it!

I hope the vote at Talk:Byzantine Empire will allow everyone to show how they feel about Roydosan's proposal, and this will hopefully avoid the need for long arguments where people get angry. Once everyone who wants to has voted, it should be clear what the majority want for this excellent Byzantine Empire article. Bigdaddy1204 23:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well Bigdaddy1204 it has been proved on several occasions that you're probably the only person who deals with this article in a purely scientific manner (this is not ass-kissing, just my opinion). It was proved by your invaluable contributions, and it's proved again by your stance on the specific debate. In other words, your contributions have not passed unnoticed to people who care about the article and the topic in the way you do. I'm not going to ask from you to take my side or anything like that, I'm just going to ask from you to protect the article from Javits' last edits. Everybody knows that we want the article reduced and that Javits' last edits were not a real contribution but more like an act of "building an article inside of an article" in order to force the creation of the article he desires. I sacrificed my time in order to copyedit and move his edits in an existing article. All we have to do is take the discussion and the debate in Byzantine Greeks. The Byzantine Empire article must be left untouched for the time being, people's hard work doesn't deserve to fall victim of this situation. PS: You should provide an email in your preferences, and don't worry, it's safe. Regards. Miskin 00:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] about the barnstar

Thanks man, I'll put it on my userpage! :)) Keep up! --Michalis Famelis (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Purple

Hi, and thanks for letting me know about the discussion. I have expressed my opinion in the talk. It was nice watching such a debate for that article, unrelated to all those ethno-linguistic debates in the past:). Though it may does not seem so important, i think it would be good for the article to change the colour of the maps, something that, i suppose, will benefit the article's readability; and, i can't see any other colour more suitable, than the imperial purple! Cheers Hectorian 04:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006

The December 2006 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Energy: world resources and consumption

Could you please look at Energy: world resources and consumption and comment if it is ready to be a featured article? Thank you for your help.
Frank van Mierlo 13:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 10:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manuel I Komnenos FAR

Manuel I Komnenos has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Todor→Bozhinov 11:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! For the time being, the most helpful thing would be if you could find some time to add pages in the printed sources you used. In any case, if you don't have time, I'll complement your sources with further sources I'll collect, and the lack of pages won't be a great problem. If you think that something I edit is wrong or against the spirit of your work (which I try to respect as mush as possible) do not hesitate to intervene and to admonish me! Cheers!--Yannismarou 19:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thanks! But there is still a lot work to do!--Yannismarou 08:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 13:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/i/g/User_talk%7EBigdaddy1204_9774.html"