Well you're welcome to fix mistakes, but I don't think anyone is ignoring Mystras or Trebizond. I don't know where you are from, but in the English-speaking world, 1453 is the conventional date for the end of the Empire. Without Constantinople it is obvious that Trebizond, Mystras, and any other territories were not going to survive much longer, even if they themselves were not conquered in 1453. Adam Bishop 16:20, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for editing John VII and Thomas and Demetrius. There is one more change needed in John VII. Byzantium has received all "city" on sea between Gallipoli and Constantinople + Thessalonica latter ( don't know name of that sea on English ). Ulmost all has been lost latter in war of John VIII against Turks. I like hardfacts. My thinking is that historian need to write what really happened not what they think. Good example for that is roman emperor Marcus Aurelius which is considered good emperor. Before him Roman peace has lasted more of 25 years, but all his rule has been war. In his reign first time after 250 years barbarian soldiers has entered Italy, and he is looking in normal historian standard good emperor !!!! One historian has writen in VI century that Romulus Augustus has not been last "Roman emperor" ( because in west de facto that has been Julius Nepos ) but his name is too good. My help to you Tiberius II : if I not making mistake he is crowned buy Justin II with support of Justin II wife Sofia. Constantine IV is crowned with brothers on people demand because if in Bible if holly trinity then is need for that in reality ?? Crazy but truth.
I reverted it because I understood the old version and but had trouble understanding the new version. Sorry. Everyking 14:35, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Dear Rjecina, In response to your query the deleted sentence is in poor English: "It has been destroyed because of peace making process only after Roman Empire crushing victory against Persia in AD 628". Also, the victory over Persia in 628 was, more accurately, Byzantine.
Following up your point on dating I am relying on the article Byzantine Empire. -- Ian Pitchford 17:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi Rjecina! I see you removed the Croatian Banovina (1939-1941) and Ivan Subasic as ban when you added NDH as kingdom. Thus, no rulers are listed between 1939-41. Why? Hvala. -- Koppany 18:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Please keep the old article for one of those brothers. We should thus save at least some resemblance of edit history. Arrigo 16:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC) - We made a shuffle, according to my wishes. These guys are now in places where they reasonably can continue to be. Shortly what to do in future: Demetrius Palaeologus is the address of the final article. There you can continue to edit. Your previous edit for Demetrius' page (I did not want to take your work, i.e to insert it in my name) is saved at Talk:Demetrius Palaeologus and it woould be quite natural that you take it fully to the article itself, insert, and then continue work Arrigo 19:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand your suggestion that presence of Osman I in the Byzantine Empire would lead to interpreting the rather complex Ottoman-Byzantine relations as a civil war. The two states had little actual interaction until the fateful alliance of John VI Cantacuzenus and his son-in-law Orhan I against John V Palaeologus. During the struggle Orhan gained a foothold in the Balkans. His successors became competitors in the power struggles of the area.
Osman I was the father of Orhan. He was ruler of Söğüt since 1281 but had sworn loyalty to Kay Khusrau III, Sultan of Rüm (reigned 1265 - 1282) and his successors. (Söğüt was just east of Nicaea.) He declared himself an independant ruler in 1299 and captured Eskişehir in 1303. Till his death in 1326, Osman was one among many rival Turkish rulers of Anatolia, each trying to establish rival states by warring against each other and preying on the eastern borders of the Byzantine Empire. Byzantine sources of the time reflect little actual knowledge of what was going on and who their raiders actual were. User:Dimadick
Unfortunetely my books only comment on John VII not having living descedants at the time of his death. No mention is given about any possible descedants who predeceased him. I have never previously heard of "Andronicus V" User:Dimadick
Hi. There is a survey on a proposed standard for the names of Byzantine rulers at Talk:Constantine XI. As a contributor to such articles, I think you may be interested to contribute your point of view. Best, Imladjov 01:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Greetings! You need to list your sources on the claims Aetius was responsible for reactionary attitudes in the Empire, et al. It is so contradictory to the established histories that it needs citing. Thanks! I am in the process of rewriting the article, and don't want to delete anything that can be substantiated by accepted histories and historians. old windy bear 22:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
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 22:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
On Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors I've suggested a limited moratorium because I don't think the current discussion is leading to, or can lead to, consensus. I hope you'll vote, for or against! Best wishes Andrew Dalby 13:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the article is absurdly unbalanced..but if you addition shall have more than a snowball in hells chance of surviving, then it must be sourced. It isn´t. Some interesting Dayan quotes are here: http://www.ussliberty.org/orenbook.htm I am currently editing them into Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict. Thought of starting on both the Six-Day War and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War (equally bad!) when I have finished that. Regards, Huldra 15:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Rjecina! Thanks for your constructive approach. Regarding your comment: If you can find reliable sources that state that there has always a majority of Croatians opposed to NATO membership, you can (and should!) add that in the "debate about membership" section. Note however that NATO never forced Croation government to apply for membership, but invited it to do so. Note also that "propaganda" is a heavily connonated term since WW II, which should be avoided until it is absolutely sure that Croatian government is deliberately misleading public opinion. If you find reliable (preferably academic) sources that prove that this is the case, you can add this. As far as the source tells, Croatian government wants to demonstrate NATO benefits, which isn't the same as misleading or manipulating public opinion. Also, the source never mentioned that NATO forced the Croatian government to start this new strategy. Considering WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V, we better use neutral terms, supported by facts and sources. I suggest that we expand together the "debate about membership" section about Croatia. :-) Sijo Ripa 10:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
This page, with the above title, was in article space, not user space. To create a page in user space, start it with User:Rjecina/ (whatever). NawlinWiki 21:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for checking out the page on the Rijeka terror attack for me. I tagged it for a Croatian expert because I didn't want to alter the meaning of the article by cleaning up the English. I went ahead and copy edited the page to make it more understandable in English. -- Strangerer ( Talk) 20:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Rjecina,
My issue is not with your opinion about pre-emptive attacks. The problem is that you are not following Wikipedia policy. I'm not going to argue with you about international law; the only law that's at issue here is that of Wikipedia. -- Mwalcoff 05:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know, the 3RR means that an editor will be blocked if they make more then 3 edits in 24 hours. An editor who makes 3 edits in 24 hours has not broken the rule, however such an editor could still be blocked for disruptive editing Nil Einne 00:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Well you're welcome to fix mistakes, but I don't think anyone is ignoring Mystras or Trebizond. I don't know where you are from, but in the English-speaking world, 1453 is the conventional date for the end of the Empire. Without Constantinople it is obvious that Trebizond, Mystras, and any other territories were not going to survive much longer, even if they themselves were not conquered in 1453. Adam Bishop 16:20, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for editing John VII and Thomas and Demetrius. There is one more change needed in John VII. Byzantium has received all "city" on sea between Gallipoli and Constantinople + Thessalonica latter ( don't know name of that sea on English ). Ulmost all has been lost latter in war of John VIII against Turks. I like hardfacts. My thinking is that historian need to write what really happened not what they think. Good example for that is roman emperor Marcus Aurelius which is considered good emperor. Before him Roman peace has lasted more of 25 years, but all his rule has been war. In his reign first time after 250 years barbarian soldiers has entered Italy, and he is looking in normal historian standard good emperor !!!! One historian has writen in VI century that Romulus Augustus has not been last "Roman emperor" ( because in west de facto that has been Julius Nepos ) but his name is too good. My help to you Tiberius II : if I not making mistake he is crowned buy Justin II with support of Justin II wife Sofia. Constantine IV is crowned with brothers on people demand because if in Bible if holly trinity then is need for that in reality ?? Crazy but truth.
I reverted it because I understood the old version and but had trouble understanding the new version. Sorry. Everyking 14:35, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Dear Rjecina, In response to your query the deleted sentence is in poor English: "It has been destroyed because of peace making process only after Roman Empire crushing victory against Persia in AD 628". Also, the victory over Persia in 628 was, more accurately, Byzantine.
Following up your point on dating I am relying on the article Byzantine Empire. -- Ian Pitchford 17:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi Rjecina! I see you removed the Croatian Banovina (1939-1941) and Ivan Subasic as ban when you added NDH as kingdom. Thus, no rulers are listed between 1939-41. Why? Hvala. -- Koppany 18:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Please keep the old article for one of those brothers. We should thus save at least some resemblance of edit history. Arrigo 16:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC) - We made a shuffle, according to my wishes. These guys are now in places where they reasonably can continue to be. Shortly what to do in future: Demetrius Palaeologus is the address of the final article. There you can continue to edit. Your previous edit for Demetrius' page (I did not want to take your work, i.e to insert it in my name) is saved at Talk:Demetrius Palaeologus and it woould be quite natural that you take it fully to the article itself, insert, and then continue work Arrigo 19:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand your suggestion that presence of Osman I in the Byzantine Empire would lead to interpreting the rather complex Ottoman-Byzantine relations as a civil war. The two states had little actual interaction until the fateful alliance of John VI Cantacuzenus and his son-in-law Orhan I against John V Palaeologus. During the struggle Orhan gained a foothold in the Balkans. His successors became competitors in the power struggles of the area.
Osman I was the father of Orhan. He was ruler of Söğüt since 1281 but had sworn loyalty to Kay Khusrau III, Sultan of Rüm (reigned 1265 - 1282) and his successors. (Söğüt was just east of Nicaea.) He declared himself an independant ruler in 1299 and captured Eskişehir in 1303. Till his death in 1326, Osman was one among many rival Turkish rulers of Anatolia, each trying to establish rival states by warring against each other and preying on the eastern borders of the Byzantine Empire. Byzantine sources of the time reflect little actual knowledge of what was going on and who their raiders actual were. User:Dimadick
Unfortunetely my books only comment on John VII not having living descedants at the time of his death. No mention is given about any possible descedants who predeceased him. I have never previously heard of "Andronicus V" User:Dimadick
Hi. There is a survey on a proposed standard for the names of Byzantine rulers at Talk:Constantine XI. As a contributor to such articles, I think you may be interested to contribute your point of view. Best, Imladjov 01:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Greetings! You need to list your sources on the claims Aetius was responsible for reactionary attitudes in the Empire, et al. It is so contradictory to the established histories that it needs citing. Thanks! I am in the process of rewriting the article, and don't want to delete anything that can be substantiated by accepted histories and historians. old windy bear 22:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
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 22:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
On Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors I've suggested a limited moratorium because I don't think the current discussion is leading to, or can lead to, consensus. I hope you'll vote, for or against! Best wishes Andrew Dalby 13:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the article is absurdly unbalanced..but if you addition shall have more than a snowball in hells chance of surviving, then it must be sourced. It isn´t. Some interesting Dayan quotes are here: http://www.ussliberty.org/orenbook.htm I am currently editing them into Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict. Thought of starting on both the Six-Day War and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War (equally bad!) when I have finished that. Regards, Huldra 15:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Rjecina! Thanks for your constructive approach. Regarding your comment: If you can find reliable sources that state that there has always a majority of Croatians opposed to NATO membership, you can (and should!) add that in the "debate about membership" section. Note however that NATO never forced Croation government to apply for membership, but invited it to do so. Note also that "propaganda" is a heavily connonated term since WW II, which should be avoided until it is absolutely sure that Croatian government is deliberately misleading public opinion. If you find reliable (preferably academic) sources that prove that this is the case, you can add this. As far as the source tells, Croatian government wants to demonstrate NATO benefits, which isn't the same as misleading or manipulating public opinion. Also, the source never mentioned that NATO forced the Croatian government to start this new strategy. Considering WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V, we better use neutral terms, supported by facts and sources. I suggest that we expand together the "debate about membership" section about Croatia. :-) Sijo Ripa 10:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
This page, with the above title, was in article space, not user space. To create a page in user space, start it with User:Rjecina/ (whatever). NawlinWiki 21:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for checking out the page on the Rijeka terror attack for me. I tagged it for a Croatian expert because I didn't want to alter the meaning of the article by cleaning up the English. I went ahead and copy edited the page to make it more understandable in English. -- Strangerer ( Talk) 20:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Rjecina,
My issue is not with your opinion about pre-emptive attacks. The problem is that you are not following Wikipedia policy. I'm not going to argue with you about international law; the only law that's at issue here is that of Wikipedia. -- Mwalcoff 05:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know, the 3RR means that an editor will be blocked if they make more then 3 edits in 24 hours. An editor who makes 3 edits in 24 hours has not broken the rule, however such an editor could still be blocked for disruptive editing Nil Einne 00:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)