I agree with you about the prejudice. But we need to be more specific on what we suggest (for example if they were of mixed origin) and provide the appropriate references.Alexikoua (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, if the whole book has 96 pages, ([1]), just count backwards ;). It is generally best to include the pages for ease of reference, even if they are not themselves numbered. Otherwise use the name and/or number of a chapter Constantine ✍ 16:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! I noticed you've made edits or that you are in some way connected to Albania or Albanians related articles. We are a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Albania and Albanians related topics and are organized within WikiProject Albania. I thought that you may be interested in viewing the current tasks of our WikiProject or its talk page and get involved. Furthermore, if you are interested in joining the wikiproject, please feel free to add your name in the Participants' page!. Thank you and, again, welcome among us!

--Sulmues ^(talk) 17:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Great work so far, but please read the manual of style and the citation guidelines to improve your formatting and layout of the articles. A few examples: don't use one-line paragraphs, group relevant citations together (via <ref name="XXX">), always provide page numbers and never use "op.cit.", etc. For specific questions or help, feel free to ask! Cheers, Constantine ✍ 17:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Periptero, I am familiar with the material you brought forward. In fact both studies are mentioned on the article Origins of the Albanians. In both studies you can see a very high E-V13 presence in Albanians in Kosovo. The highest in the world for that specific genetic sub-group (that is also very high in Greek population). I think that such studies are very important, and I am glad that you have interest in such things. I am also a regular reader of Dieneke's Blog on genetic studies. Thanks! —Anna Comnena (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	You are cordially invited to join WikiProject Greece
	You appear to be someone that may be interested in joining WikiProject Greece. Please accept this formal invitation from a current member of the project.
	If you decide to join the project, please add your name to this list.
	I hope you accept! -Alexikoua (talk) 14:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Lots of constructive discussions and endless contribution in several articles. Hopre this is just the beginning. Alexikoua (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! The selection looks fine to me, if you want a graphics-experienced editor to help in compiling a nice-looking collage, I'd suggest Philly boy92 (talk · contribs) or Sv1xv (talk · contribs). For anything else, I'd be glad to help. Constantine ✍ 11:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very good selection of personalities. I believe we should place them all in the box.Alexikoua (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How is this? --Philly boy92 (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's good, but you've got the wrong Alexios Komnenos (Alexios Komnenos (co-emperor), while we need Alexios I Komnenos. Constantine ✍ 18:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Check the new version, Periptero sent me the correct picture. --Philly boy92 (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good. Please check the discussion over at Talk:Greeks, different images are needed for Leonidas, Archimedes and Hypatia. Constantine ✍ 12:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe it's not big deal to choose for example Karaiskakis or Kolokotronis. Either one of them or both of them is ok to me. Don't become upset, as I see we have to deal with some tiny details in the collage.Alexikoua (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi; one shouldn't mind deleting modern terms such as "good faith guarrantor"; but the reader must understand that Plapoutas was offered as a precious hostage to the Arvanites party (Tertsetis' lame ενέχυρον, supplanting the turkish term): he wasn't a mere "trust-my-say-so" personality. He knew the language (Arvanitika), so could catch the nuances of nervousness in the party, and was sufficiently high-value for the contingent to protect their lives through him. If one could supplant a better term that indicates he was a hostage, and Kolokotronis did his best to substitute him with members of his (K) family as soon as the contingent left the city, all the better, but as it stands, the passage is at best confusing, and one wonders what it means. Indeed, Elmas Bey is central to the story, as Finlay's history makes clear. The importance to the narrative is in explaining why Kolokotronis was so sharply focussed on that contingent, the only credible military threat, to the detriment of essentially everything else. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't have any ideas about clarifying the sentence, but a wikilink would still leave the reader clueless. K gave EB Plapoutas as a hostage, but I did not want to use the charged term hostage. (The casual reader would, however, have no clue as to what is meant, and it is probably up to you to choose a cogent term). As for Elmas Bey, I don't really care, and, indeed, he only occurs in Finlay (I changed my mind and weblinked the online Google books copy, as he was already referenced twice; hes hould be read with caveats and care, however.) a Books; however, I did not consider wise to adduce him as a reference. As for the aftermath, I suspect the XXIst century reader would wish to understand what actually happened: 1) who was the boss? 2) who did the killings? 3) why? Even partial hints of facts surrounding these questions might be relevant. ... 1) Nobody knows. Nominally, Ypsilantis, who was duplicitously sent out of town, so as not to make trouble, and was appalled to see the carnage upon his return much later; and was ridiculed by the Greeks as a chump and a loser, and, worse, unfunded---his political career was over right then; the standin being Petrobey, who was so ineffective as to be almost irrelevant; and the de facto strategist being Kolokotronis, who both dealt with the only serious military threat of the siege and got the lion's share of the spoils, to keep his army going, but thereby being resented by other Greeks and Philhellenes alike. 2,3)The plunder issue is delicate, because the perpetrators of the massacre were the plunder-thirsty irregular crowds that gathered randomly before the fall of the city, as described by Kolokotronis, appreciating that this was a risk-free free-for-all, and K had no standing in controlling them precisely because he got the lion's share, beyond having his hands full with the delicate safe-passage deal. Thus the noncombattants were left at the mercy of irregulars, because nobody was really in charge. This is not just a XXIst century perspective, it is close to the heart of the facts... The fallout of the massacre alienated Philhelenes such as Gordon. My sense is that the French wikipedia article addresses many of these issues better; but this article is so terse as to be obscure, and thereby invites the reader to shrugg it off and walk away... In my view, it was the defining event that made the subsequent civil war all but inevitable... So, a few nuggets of fact could at least alert the reader of the situation that prevailed..... I don't have the time to improve it, but perhaps you might? Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a thought: surety appears like the proper dictionary term for the guarantor hostage rôle Kolya Plapouta's son played in the deal, and it is a bona-fide mediaeval term, so impeccably old. Maybe you'd wish to use that one. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi--- thanks for your comments, and I agree with most of them... Editing wikipedia is sometimes like writing on sand, so I guess we should be all resigned to indefinite drifting of focus and style... Concerning the size of the article, yes, shortness is not a defect. An opportunity to easily link on to primary sources is, however, greatly useful, and the reader must quickly be able to get to sources in the language of the article. I gather most Greeks read the Greek article in wikipedia, which resembles the French, albeit... well...

To give you a glimpse of where I'm coming from, I do appreciate your central point, admiring K as I do, that he need not pass the "character tests" that Finlay, among others, seems to believe he has failed: given the circumstances, I cannot imagine how he could have done things better. But, personally, I actually don't think he was responsible for the massacre in the way "westerners" would project responsibility on him. The massacre is important, because it is the largest such event in modern Greek history, and has to be taught and considered in the hyperpoliticized debates and asymmetric "contrasts" to Turkish atrocities, "qualitative cultural differences", etc... But, beyond alienating philhellenes for a short while (only), and incensing the cruelty of the adversary side, it is not as important for that place and time, which might explain why it is not as widely taught. It is a bit of an "accident".

Before being misunderstood, let me indicate what I mean. I think the actual operation was a symbolic, provincial event; which has acquired siginficance over the years, by dint of subsequent historical events. As a military operation, it was minor. The fate of the city was sealed at Valtetsi, etc, and the actual munitions of the defenders were substandard, as Finlay reports. In effect, it was not conquered: it sort of "fell", once the "diplomatic" strand of the central Kolokotronis-Elmas deal was pulled. Thus, I agree with you that this is the heart of the story. It is none of the "Greeks versus Turks" pitched battle fantasized about in ersatz historicizing. As K takes special care to return to the issue in his memoirs, the loot was not an inconsiderable element in the story. First, the army (under Ypsilantis), and then Petrobey, (who, in principle was the commander in chief, but, in practice, as you indicate, deferred to K), then everybody else, argued about the spoils and treasure, to no effect, as they simply were not one cohesive army with well-defined lines of command or influence... no Jena, here, as you say.

K was by far the most capable and talented warlord, so he quickly seized the initiative in the free-for-all, and homed in on the lion's share, not out of greed (a recurrent British prejudice on this....), but to maintain his army, that the "government" did little to support.... (he had to wheedle with Karystaina kotzabashis to get provisioned, etc...). He understood, and could use his army most effectively, and hardly anyone else would shoulder that responsibility. So he was out to help his "own" war party, and wisely, at that, considering the circumstances. He thus homed in on the linchpin of the resistance, Elmas' contingent, and effectively, and brilliantly, got it through... with Dimitris Plapoutas ultimaely entrusting his life to his ability to carry out the deal without a snafu. Which he succeeded in. Without the Arvanites' band, the city was virtually indefensible, and it was all over.

In this hyperfocussed sensitive operation, he had no energy, resources, or ability, to police the city, or control anything else that might happen.... He did not "own" the city, or "the Greeks" rampaging in it for days. I actually believe that, as he suggests in his memoirs, the orgy of killing and looting was carried out by irregular mobs that had heard about the imminent fall, wanted part of the loot, and gathered around the city, getting in when it fell. That is, I am pretty convinced that the carnage was not perpetrated by the organized combatants of K, who were still focussing on the citadel (the saray, to capitulate days after the fall), and had spoils promised to them by K; but, instead, by the mobs of armed, out-of-control, independent operators who entered a defenseless city. That is why distinctions between Moslems, Jews, etc.... were as relevant there and then as in the fall of Troy, so to speak! Assuming the commander in chief (K?) was somehow "responsible", Finlay's unstated position, is unrealistic, given K's objectives and capabilities.... Gratuitous policing of a chaotic city is beyond imagining for a professional "klepht" in the middle of an extraordinarily delicate deal, which, in the end, he carried out well (and prides himself justly of sticking to his word).

So, in summary, I really agree with your assessment of placing the event in its context. I think both elements, the strategic deal/capitulation/collapse and the random carnage and looting, have a place in the narrative, and, ultimately, interested parties may focus on what they wish to know more about through primary sources. Thanks.Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The WikiProject Greece Newsletter Issue XII (VIII) – March 2011

Project news This is the eighth newsletter of the WikiProject Greece, and the first after a two-year-long hiatus! Please comment on its form, the way it is delivered, its content etc. We need your ideas and contributions! Recognized content: as of publication, our project stands at 47 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 11 A-class articles and 102 Good Articles, making up 1% of its ca. 15,000 tagged articles and lists. Ongoing drives and discussions – You can help! Due to the restructuring of the administrative divisions of Greece as a result of the Kallikratis reform, a large number of administrative units and settlements need to be updated. Please refer to the discussions at the project talk page and the overview table for more information. Project members are requested to aid in checking the huge backlog of articles created by Pumpie (talk · contribs) for mistranslations and original research. This affects over 2,000 Greece-related articles and lists, and your help is vital! A new portal on Greek Macedonia has been set up: Portal:Macedonia (Greece). Please contribute by adding content and improving it and the other portals related to our WikiProject! Additional input is always needed in the ongoing deletion discussions about Greece-related articles. You can help with assessing unassessed articles for quality and importance (Guidelines).

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece/Outreach#Delivery options.

Hi Periptero, do you read italian? [2] Italian Arberesh feel themselves Italian of Arberesh descent (in italian "Italiani di origini greco-albanesi"), but they don't feel themselves modern Albanian or Shqiptarë. In many cases Italian Arbereshe came to Italy in 15th from Greece (Epiro, Peloponneso) and not from Albania. Italian Arbereshe are heavily mixed with Italians, and it's wrong to consider them as a part of Ethnic Albania. Ciao. --Prodebugger (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Periptero, i know very well what you are talking about. I wil answer you next days. Buona giornata. --Prodebugger (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in ancient Dacia. Would you like to join the WikiProject Dacia? It is a project aimed to better organize and improve the quality and accuracy of the articles related to these topics. We need help expanding and reviewing many articles, and we also need more images. Your input is welcomed! Thanks and best regards!

--Codrin.B (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Periptero, how are you? Still active on wikipedia? --Prodebugger (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]