User talk:Lysandros

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Lysandros! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- Kukini 01:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

[edit] Edit Summary Request

I have noted that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! -- Kukini 01:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I always edit with an edit summary now, thanks. Lysandros 00:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From Gligan

What do you mean by "sneaky vandalism"?? I wrote the truth in the article "battle of Maritsa". You know very well that the lands ruled by Valkashin and Uglesha were inhabited mainly by Bulgarians (as they are today). They were of serbian origine, but the army they led consisted mainly by BULGARIANS; so i have written Bulgarian army correctly => this is NOT vandalism.--Gligan 18:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gligan, for the definition of 'sneaky vandalism', please see Wikipedia:Vandalism (types of vandalism). If i misunderstood this definition, i can apologize for that but, you have edited without edit summary and deleted information (Serbian army, Serbian camp, Serbian king...). Where is the Serbian army in your 'version'? This battle was called "Sırpsındığı/Serbians' coffer" by Turks, and sorry but, an army under a Serbian king is a Serbian army, even if it contains some Bulgarian forces. Please check some valuable sources about this battle, (encyclopedia Britannica and various others...). Regards. Lysandros 22:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Lysandros. Serbian king, i think should be the title used by the king of Serbia, not of Prilep. Valkashin's realm was not Serbia. Why should be his army called serbian, when its king, though of serbian origine was not king of Serbia and the soldiers were ethnic Bulgarians. The serbs inhabited the lands west of the Morava river and north of Kosovo (including it of course); but the lands to the east and to the south were Bulgarian. Stefan Dushan was the first serbian king to conquer Macedonia, till those moment it was constantly Bulgarian, and sometimes Byzantine. The serbs did not even hold it for more than 20 years. So, the right definition should be Bulgarian army of the Serbian feudal lord Valkashin.

In my opinion you know quite well that the victorious write the history. The british and the french always feared Bulgaria and supported its enemies; they won the world wars, they supported the serbs, the greeks and the romanians in their trechorous actions against our country; they said that Macedonia is Serbian. So why should be encyclopedia britannica a valuable sourse??? They were simply trying to prove that Macedonia should remain in yugoslavia.

As far as edit summary is concerned, i do not know how to use it; and wrong information should be deleted... :)--Gligan 11:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, are you a Serb? You name sounds greek.--Gligan 11:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Now the situation is like; your opinion (and probably Bulgarian sources) Vs the majority of the generally accepted sources ('battle of Maritsa' in Google book search and see the results...), and Turkish sources. What can we do with this...?

My name, (not my real name) is of Greek - Spartan origin. I am not Greek nor Serb, but from a country situated a bit more to the east with larger frontiers...

For the use of edit summary; Help:Edit summary... Lysandros 18:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, Lysandros. Now, let us draw a conclusion. The different sourses of the time are, of course, one-sided-the Bulgarian, the Serb and the Turk. The Bulgarians usually did not mension that Vulkashin was of serb origin; it was led by Bulgarian feudal lords; the army was 20,000. The serbs did not mention that there were Bulgarians in the army and call it serbian. The Turks made little difference between Bulgarians and serbs (they were both usually called "infidels"); they were new to the Balkans so they did not know that the lands in Macedonia are Bulgarian, they only knew that the enemy commander Vulkashin was of serb origin =>they called this army serbian; they pointed out that the army was 60,000 to use it for propaganda. For the british sourses i mentioned before.

I we think neutral, what remains of it??? First, it is OBVIOUS that Macedonia was inhabited by Bulgarians (they were the ordinary soldiers), the leaders were of serbian origine (the Bulgarians were lead by serbs. 60,000 is very large number, the Byzantine and the Bulgarian Empires rarely gathered so many troops even in their zenith; it would be VERY difficult for two feudal lords to summon such an enormous army, so 20,000 (again very large army for the Balkan standards in the 14th century) is the more realistic number. --Gligan 09:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I really respect your efforts Gligan. You are trying to prove that the Serbian sources are wrong, the Turkish sources are wrong, and the big majority of the western sources (like Britannica) are wrong... This is very difficult to agree. Even if i accept that, others will not.

The Turks distinctively mentioned the presence of the Bulgarians (maybe the larger part) with other forces (Serbians, Hungarians, Bosnians, Wallachians, Moldavians...) in the allied Balkan army, then they knew probably well who is Bulgarian and who is not...

The number of 60,000 or 70,000 men (according the sources not only Turkish) is not unrealistic for an allied army of that time, but if you can cite any serious sources (in English please) to support the number of 20,000 we can include it in the battlebox.
Lysandros 22:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, then I hope you will agree with the last change I made in the article. I also must agree that may be the right term is "allied Balkan army" but definetely NOT serbian. Bulgarian army is also exaggerated. Both Bulgaria and Serbia officialy did not participate.

It is good that you have so deep knowledge of medieval history. I only cannot understand why are exactly the british (and perhaps american) sourses so valuable for you...:):):)--Gligan 08:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Kosovo

Sorry, I haven't looked carefully who was editing what. I was more careful now. Nikola 19:55, 12 November 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:

• 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're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
• Most 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, peer review, and project-wide collaboration.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• Our requests page has extensive lists of requested articles, images, maps, and translations.
• We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.

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 20:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[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 22:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

See User talk:Anittas#Sources for Battle of Vaslui. Khoikhoi 19:46, 9 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 23:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kosova savaşı

slm Lysandros, savasin sonucunu update ettim, haber vermek icin yaziyorum. ben de osmanli zaferi oldugunu dusunuyorum ama consensus olmadikca bunu yazmak dogru olmaz:( Ati7 07:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Selam Ati7, maybe you know already, but i am not the person who changed the 'result' section in the battlebox (see user 76.212.129.244). And... if this article supports the 'inconclusive' point of view, the section should simply contain one of these two words; indecisive or inconclusive instead of a whole 'paragraph'. Lysandros 11:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

indecisive or inconclusive , I like that. Let's put this into the discussion section. Sorry, I didn't realize it was someone else Ati7 15:26, 22 January 2007 (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 21:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Slankamen

Casualty figures and strengths are all from the same source. See Note 1. Cheers Raymond Palmer 20:37, 25 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 11:09, 31 January 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 14:26, 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 15:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Kosovo

Hi Lysandros. I appreciate your efforts to improve the article. I saw today some anons made some major additions to the article. Can you please check their accuracy when you have the time? Regards.--Doktor Gonzo 14:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Doctor Gonzo. I tried to check the addition's accuracy with my rather limited history knowledge. There is nothing fundamentally illogical in here to me, but... there is also some problems. First of all, on top, it says "Inserts from 'The longest days of 1389 and the battle of Kosovo' with permission." (this should be mentioned in 'notes', not in the article itself by the way). I checked this 'source' in Google and found nothing. If it really exists, it's possibly a Serbian source. I hope that 'anon' who edits without edit summary, says the truth and this is not a copyright violation. It also contains some spelling and link errors.

I do not think a revert it's a good idea for this situation, because the article initially lacked a real background section (in a political sense). Then i suggest to contact the editor and ask him more details about his source and to provide edit summaries. We should also add tags for the claims like troop numbers, and fix spelling & link errors. Lysandros 17:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 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 19:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A primary source for Battle of Rovine

Hi. I've noticed your interest in this battle, but also in several medieval battles from Balkans. I wonder if you have access to a primary source called "The life of Despot Stefan Lazarević" which was written in early 1430s by Constantine the Philosopher (Konstantin Kostenechki). I have scholarship addressing this primary source, but the text could make me understand better the events and hopefully get that article moving. A version in English/French/Italian/German would be preferable for me, but if you have it in any other language I'd appreciate if you can provide a translation, as well. Thank you in advance, Daizus 15:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)