User talk:Macrakis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3

Contents

Nazi architecture[edit]

You are the one that needs to be sanctioned. 100s of people have edited that article and there are many citations supporting all aspects of the article. There is no copy vios. I am placing the article back. If you remove it again you will be sanctioned by an administrator. IQ125 (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Syntactic gemination[edit]

Hi, I am the IP user who wrote in the "Syntactic gemination" talk. Is the discussion stalling? Or have we already reached the so called "consensus"? When we agree to remove the asterisk symbols I will like to help with that, if instead it will be decided to leave the asterisks never mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.3.235 (talk) 12:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC) Thanks for your answer. Excuse me if I have been pressing. This IP of mine is dynamic so it changes sometimes. If you need to talk to me you can use my first IP's talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.5.75 (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Apparently the same person is using 5 different IP addresses. It would make communication more efficient if you'd create a stable user name. My most recent answer to you is at User talk:151.20.3.235. There is really no hurry in fixing this * thing. And again, I ask both you and [User:IvanScrooge98]] to discuss on IPA for Italian. --Macrakis (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why we should remove the asterisk: I mean, it simply shows where in Standard Italian a consonant is double, and this is especially true for monosyllables, because not all of them influence the following consonant. I would personally leave it at least for monosyllables, but in that case there wouldn't be continuity with its use (in polysyllables). Moreover, I don't think it is a good reason to remove it just because it isn't usually followed by a consonant (in "Il pendolo di foucault marks an important moment in its author's life", as a stupid example, it is); then if someone wants to ignore it, they're free to do it. Italy.png イヴァンスクルージ九十八(会話)Italy.png 14:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Translation of quote[edit]

Hello,

Would be grateful if you could translate the following quote to English (context):

"Ποτέ δεν έκρυψα ότι είμαι αλβανικής καταγωγής. Αυτό θα ήταν ασέβεια προς την πατρίδα των γονιών μου και πολλών συγγενών μου. Είμαι και Έλληνας πολίτης. Στην Ελλάδα μεγάλωσα, εκπαιδεύτηκα, έμαθα ποδόσφαιρο. Στη χώρα που υποδέχτηκε την οικογένειά μου και την οποία τιμώ όπως μπορώ."

Also, is there any ambiguity as to what Kone means with regards to his ethnicity/ancestry/origins?37.46.188.80 (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, appreciate it! Would you mind expanding on the ambiguity?37.46.188.80 (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that you're implying that the general concept of ethnicity is vaguely defined, and in a sense irrelevant?37.46.188.80 (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the resources. It is interesting, indeed. While I do agree with you, I believe there is enough context given in this specific case to determine the general meaning of Kone's statement. There should generally be no ambiguity if someone declares "I'm an American of Irish descent" which is totally different from "I'm an American but I was born in Ireland". Here's one translation given to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cplakidas#Translation_of_quote. I assume you disagree with it? 37.46.188.80 (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Since you asked a question, I feel obliged to answer (or was it rhetorical?). Concerning the point you're making, I don't see how it's relevant. I asked if there is any ambiguity as to what Kone means within that specific context, not if you could lesson me about the ambiguous nature of the concept of "ancestry". Either way, thank you for your time and I'm sorry you found it silly.37.46.188.80 (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
It's not about claiming people, it's about presenting facts, not lies. Mind you, Kone is Greek in many ways, there is no doubt about it. His heart belongs to the country that shaped him. His children will probably not speak a word of Albanian. However, that doesn't change the facts. Many people would argue that the FYROM/Macedonia thing is incredibly silly, but to many Greeks it's serious business, especially on Wikipedia.37.46.188.80 (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Qasrs[edit]

Hi. I thought I had your ear. Please do give it some time to sink in: desert castles are not a Jordanian-only domain. You are formally perfectly right, but people don't function according to algorithms. Efharisto, Arminden (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Always give reasons for reverting[edit]

I think that you should always give reasons for reverting any edit (other vandalism edits). If an edit is not constructive but is not vandalism, I think a note for the revert in the edit summary would be useful. Plus, that may help any other editor, particular new editors, know what was wrong rather than simply "shredding" what they have been editing. "Shredding" edits for no good reason (other than to vandalism edits) is what I feel is not civil. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

By the way, you did make a comment in one of your edit summaries that said "Ha ha" to the same article that you had reverted my edits to, which is the You can't have your cake and eat it article. "Ha ha" appears to sound rather rude because 1) it doesn't give a good enough reason for reverting and 2) it can be interpreted as ridiculing a user. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Fondue[edit]

Macrakis, do not editwar me. I gave the most reliable link to the video online which show all about Fundue. It also confirms the articles sources. The problem with YouTube is, who uploaded the video? Is it the original video and reliable? Has it been modified? German thelevision never hosts videos for long. As German public broadcast is paid by everyone living in Germany and has financial income. Alss those people must pay de:Haushaltsabgabe for public broadcast by law. The newspapers and magazines who are paid by the buyer and those who ordered to print adverising achieved in court the public braodcast must not host for longer time. The question as link and source for an arcile in the wikipedia ist to proof, it is this publication. When removed, there is it to find. So linking the video twice has a good reason. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 19:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Kebab[edit]

Hallo Macrakis, at the moment there is an edit war going on about the origin of Kebab. If you have time and lust, maybe you can comment on the talk page. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Syntactic gemination[edit]

Hi Macrakis. I remember that a few months ago you proposed in this discussion to remove the asterisk * symbols inserted by user IvanScrooge98 (this one) in the IPA of Italian words and names to suggest the syntactic gemination in Italian. Everybody agreed in removing them, but I've noticed that he added the asterisks also in the Wikitionary, also here just at will. Admins who work there say that, even if the insertion was done without consensus, since nobody has noticed it in these months now a consensus is needed to remove them... It seems quite absurd to me, but since I'm sure that IvanScrooge98 is the only proposer of this subjective convention I'm asking you, who already dealt with this issue, to participate in this or this discussion, or better to start a discussion in the related page ([1]). Note that in that very page, where IvanScrooge98 added the symbol * for syntactic gemination, there's an opening reference to Italian phonology and even Help:IPA for Italian, where the asterisk is not contemplated! Would you please give your contribution for this issue, please? If you think it may be helpful, you might also ask Peter238 and/or Ƶ§œš¹ for help, since they also joined that old discussion I've mentioned above. Thanks in advance if you'll listen to my appeal :-) 87.0.150.163 (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Please Macrakis, may you go here and just say you agree about the removal of the asterisks for syntactic gemination? Obviously, just if your opinion about the matter is still the same. Wiktionarists don't seem to be interested, but they prevent me from removing the asterisks if nobody else agree. It's just a quick operation, please help me, you're a veteran and an expert in phonetics. Let me know, thank you :-) 87.0.150.163 (talk) 06:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Programmatic advertising[edit]

You introduced this term in Advertising inventory but it's a red link.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, there was such an article at the time. Fixed. --Macrakis (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I didn't even think to look. Well, there should be an article, as the term keeps coming up as I read magazine articles. I did something that probably doesn't help much, but in one article I edited when looking for a definition, I inserted a definition I found since the article assumed we knew what it was.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
The article that used to be at that title was terrible.
I see that in the Jelli article, it refers to radio advertising. I had only heard it in the context of online advertising. The terminology in this area continues to evolve, and isn't necessarily used precisely or consistently.... --Macrakis (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
In that case, I messed up. But like I said, most of the coverage of the subject that I see assumes you know what it is. Broadcasting & Cable is actually where I see the term the most, and now I'm thinking I used the wrong definition.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 13:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
It's perfectly possible that the term is used in multiple domains with the same, related, or different meanings. I don't claim to know. --Macrakis (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
All I know is the information I've found on the term is very confusing and mostly unintelligible marketing-speak. Since you used that term, I was sort of hoping you'd know.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Triantafyllidis Dictionary[edit]

Hello. Please see this: Talk:Triantafyllidis Dictionary. --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Case filed[edit]

A case has been filed concerning you and the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain. You are being notified since you are an editor of this article. Please give a summary of dispute here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain Gordon410 (talk) 11:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

A case has been filed concerning you and the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain. This case is being re-filed. You are being notified since you are an editor of this article. Please give a summary of dispute here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain Gordon410 (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter (August 2016)[edit]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter: September 2016[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Kanafeh[edit]

Hallo Macrakis, lately it started a low intensity edit war on Kanafeh, as always related to the dish origin, which seems to be well sourced. Maybe you want to comment on the thread which I opened on the talk page, and that unfortunately is until now ignored. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 14 September[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Newsletter: October 2016[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Thanks for improving my edits to the Dairy products article. I edited it in only about 45 minutes, and your help is appreciated.

Thanks! Your Pal, MooperVeltresleex 19:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter: November 2016[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Salting the earth[edit]

Hello, Thank you for your message; I was too willing to assume that the Military History rating was correct. On examining the article again I see that it is not but it will need to be changed by a member of that project.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Chicken wing and Chicken wings[edit]

Maybe they should be sent to WP:RFD so they can be retargeted. I mean, I definitely get where you're coming from with those: I was just restructuring Chicken wing (disambiguation) to meet MOS:DABPRIMARY per the redirects' current target. But either way, they should probably be nominated at WP:RFD since Chicken wing and Chicken wings both have had rather slow edit wars regarding their targets. Steel1943 (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

v:Calculus I[edit]

Stavros: please help my translation in:

My French is only fr-1. I used Google Translate and someone at French Wikipedia said that the translation is not good. Please tell others about the English page, such as high school and college math students and faculty. Thanks in advance.--2602:304:CDC1:90:64C5:4976:D62C:FF33 (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, this translation is really terrible and isn't really worth fixing. Someone who actually knows French and French mathematical terminology and conventions needs to translate it. --Macrakis (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Flambéed listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Flambéed. Since you had some involvement with the Flambéed redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Laodicea in Syria[edit]

Merge-arrows.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing—Laodicea in Syria—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Yazan (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo of The Coffee Connection.jpg[edit]

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

User:ChrisChichester Facebook communication to me[edit]

I do not know User:ChrisChichester outside of Wikipedia. I recently reverted his edits to Christian Gerhartsreiter and explained my edits on User talk:ChrisChichester. Rather than replying on Wikipedia, he sent me the following messages through Facebook:

Chris Chichester: You listen to me you know-nothing dolt. My name is Chris Chichester. I live in Penfield, New York. Every single word in the Wikipedia edit is true. Every single entry is true. This criminal Christian Gerhartsreiter used my name for years. And I had to deal with it. I had to live with that reality. I had to react to people thinking this imposter, fraud and murderer is truly me. Have you ever had your identity stolen? Of course not.
Chris Chichester: And I am going to report your incompetence and your lies and your pathetic intervention to Wikipedia. You must have your ability to make any editorial changes to the site permanently suspended. As your feeble little mind does not possess the ability to determine the truth. The truth is the motivation for Wikipedia. To Stavros Macrakis the truth is a casualty. To Stavros Macrakis the truth is a joke. To Stavros Macrakis the truth exists for a butchering. To Stavros Macrakis the truth is reduced to a 1984 universe. To Stavros Macrakis the truth is inseparable from fiction. Do you understand me?
Chris Chichester: "Studied" at Harvard University? How pathetic. That's a desperate attempt at relevance. It only counts in life if you earn a degree.

This of course violates Wikipedia policy on civility, personal attacks and harrassment. --Macrakis (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

For the record... he now sent me email at my personal address (not via the Wiki or on my Talk page). In it, he accuses me of reverting his edits to Christian Gerhartsreiter three times (actually it was two; then three other editors reverted his edits) and of blanking that page (which I never did). He continued: "...he must be banned from WIKIPEDIA. He DELETED THE ENTIRE ENTRY for Christian Gerhartsreiter.... Stavros Macrakis is a disturbed, sick and delusional individual. He is a perfect candidate for permanent banishment from WIKIPEDIA...pathetic individual". In the meantime, ChrisChichester has been blocked from editing. --Macrakis (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

For the record... ChrisChichester sent me obnoxious notes on Facebook. I have now blocked him there. --Macrakis (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I have blocked his account here now, indefinitely. Fut.Perf. 18:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Insufferable whatsit Let them eat cake[edit]

Ah, thanks for your work to amend that section. This is why alcohol and Wikipedia simply don't mix. Apologies etc. 141.8.62.18 (talk) 12:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Syntactic gemination[edit]

Hello, I'd like to ask you a favour. I've seen that you've partecipated in a pair of discussion about syntactic gemination and the improper use of the asterisk symbol to note it in IPA transcriptions. Since you've brought arguments against this symbol and since you're an autoreviewer, extendedconfirmed, reviewer, and rollbacker who can speak Italian a little, would you like to say in short your opinion in an Italian discussion? Italian users aren't interested in this issue, there're just a user contesting the asterisk and another one supporting it, after 10 days no one else has joined the discussion so it's stalling. In case you were interested and willing, as I hope, the discussion is here: [2]. Good night and thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:B0C0:1:A1:0:0:A74:3001 (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Schadenfreude[edit]

I don't know how I can give you a barnstar but I can at least thank you for helping me create a better text for schadenfreude. Your edits are forcing me to rethink how I can more effectively communicate what i believe is needed without the extraneousness cruft. On a side note I also now know from reading you page, what I have always thought of as Persian rugs are Killms? And that there is a food and drink project which I will have to go look at. Also thanks for all the work you do in writing and maintaining open source projects! best wishes kate X-mass (talk) 08:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Μήνυμα[edit]

Βλέπω ότι μου έστειλες ένα μήνυμα πριν από λίγο, σχετικά με το λήμμα Θεσσαλονίκη, αλλά δεν μπορώ να το δώ. Αν έχει πάει στο email μου, δεν μπορώ να το ανοίξω γιατί έχω χάσει το password. Αν δεν είναι κάτι ιδιαίτερα εμπιστευτικό, πόσταρέ το εδώ ή στη συζήτησή μου. Σόρυ.--Skylax30 (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (PDP-15) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating PDP-15, Macrakis!

Wikipedia editor I dream of horses just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

This article has been unpatrolled for this long?

To reply, leave a comment on I dream of horses's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

 I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 04:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Dessert hummus[edit]

Hello, Macrakis. I saw that you removed my edits on the hummus page. I think that the existence of a sweet variant of hummus is noteworthy. Do you think there is another way we could incorporate information on sweet hummus into the hummus article? —Michipedian (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Baklava[edit]

baklava: hallo. I have adited your article on baklava. You have deleted my suggestion. Your article reads like turkish propaganda: you describe greek and roman origin in ancient times but tha propose baklava has its origin in historic ottoman time? This doesnt make sense and methodological absurd. Why do you want to spread ant-greek and pro-turkish propaganda? Are you by any chance a muslim greek of thrace? (unsigned message by User:77.176.87.24)

Hi,

i edited the Baklava article, you reverted my edit and told me "don't add things to the infobox unless they are also discussed in the body". I just wanted to inform you that i asked a question about about the Ottoman place of origin claim few days before my edit here, in the "Turkish" section. My concern is about what the source number one states :"The baklava we know today by its Ottoman Turkish name is a rich buttery, dense, ultra-sweet multilayered, honey or sugar-drenched paper... and is thought by most food historians to be an innovation of the Topkapi helvahne kitchens", this means that the modern form of this dish originated there. Encyclopedia of Jewish food states the same sentence with additional etymological analysis of the word "baklava" and seems more accurate (although it's tertiary source). Please note that I'm not here to argue with you about a new article change but only to understand why encyclopedia of Jewish food is, according to you, "not a great source for baklava" ? do you say that just because it's a tertiary source?

Best regards

Wikaviani (talk) 11:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Reversion of Office reference in Turtles all the way down[edit]

Hello there Macrakis, Wondered if you could explain your rationale for reverting the recent good-faith contribution by Librerica to the article Turtles all the way down? Thanks, Shameran81 (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Relevant discussion on fringe noticeboard[edit]

Hi Macrakis, I remember awhile back we had a discussion about how best to contain the pushing of "Turanist" racialist POV on wiki. Well, it seems that that particular fringe view still rears its head on wiki from time to time and I have not had the time to deal much with it. I thought I would let you know that there is a discussion on the fringe theory noticeboard that is of relevance to our discussion. I thought you might be interested in the discussion as I hope it goes in a direction that will be enlightening as to how best to deal with sources that push racialist and scientific racist POVs - its an issue that matters and is important to get right, and I thought you might be interested as well. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Copyeditor Barnstar Hires.png The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Thank you for all of your help. Roy.c.white (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Albanian language[edit]

@Macrakis: Please do not delete my section without consulting first. As I am still fixing it. And I insure you that I am ignorant of the other methods of discussion and every method of analyzing deserve to be introduced. The Genocide against Albanian language will stop and you will have to learn to truth.

The information that I cite is well cited. If you have any concern please talk. --BenWeb13 (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Adage/Multiflow Merger[edit]

Hi Stavros, Yes, this is worth adding to the Multiflow article, and I've put in on my todo list. Thanks for suggesting it. Best, Josh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshfisher (talkcontribs) 20:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Japanese people[edit]

I took some action on this today, per your old advice, and summarized the edits in a post at WT:WPJ. The article created was at Genetic studies on Japanese people, but has since been moved by another editor to Genetic and anthropometric studies on Japanese people. If you have any comments on the reworking of the main Japanese people page, please let me know. Best, Dekimasuよ! 18:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Black fever[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Black fever requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Seraphim System (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Opinion either way required on Byzantine Empire[edit]

I added what I thought was an important edit. It was reverted and I am curious for a 3rd member to tell me if I was correct or not - as as it statnds - it is my beliefs against that of another member:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Byzantine_Empire#Empire_was_known_in_the_West_as_Imperium_Graecorum_(Empire_of_the_Greeks)_-_needs_to_be_in_lead

Thanks, Reaper7 (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Although we disagree on the proposal - thank you very much for chiming in. Reaper7 (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your latest response. To be honest I was just testing waters. First and foremost to see what editors conflated what the West called the Byzantine Empire and whether the Empire was 'Greek' - thus revealing a bias. Immediately we saw an editor suggest the Empire is not Greek - even though that was never the proposal or suggestion - so I got my answer. I noticed the same editor playing a critical role in the identity of the Ancient Macedonian pages over the years and I knew it would hard work. As soon as I realised the page was under his guardianship I knew it would be an upward battle and sure enough it was. The reiterate the Empire was not Greek - however it was perceived as such outside the Empire itself by the West and named as such outside of the Empire itself. Of this there is no doubt - my sources used later prove that beyond doubt - I only added those later sources to silence the disinformation that followed. However my reason for the original edit was about something that is not adhered to enough. Those actually wanting to use an encyclopedia. After reading arguably the greatest medieval novel - Tirant lo Blanch - I realised not only this contemporary work - but most others only refer to the empire as 'Empire of the Greeks' - and all those millions of readers who subsequently start reading the page on the Byzantine Empire should see that reflected in the lead - even if only in passing. The lead is saturated with nomenclature as it is - whether on purpose or not. My final proposal of a very brief mention was also turned down. It was worth a shot however. I have no interest in perusing the matter however as I can see how the page is controlled. I have given years to even get the word 'Greek' included in the lead of the Ancient Macedonians and the battle is still going on as there is plenty of modern political aspects that have major backing. Thanks at least for putting one editor straight on his strange claim the name 'Empire of the Greeks' was only used after 1000 AD. Also thanks for getting involved even though we were on opposite sides. I think we can put the whole thing to bed now - was just a testing of the waters. Reaper7 (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I apologise I didn't read your response on my talk page apart from the disingenuous part - where i quickly stopped and came here to respond. I will not call you names in response because I believe immaturity and insidious slurs should not be fed - no matter the baiting to encourage them. I am afraid this matter is going to be put to bed. I will continue to edit and create articles to help the general public get the best possible use of our encyclopedia - however the Byzantine Empire page - like a few others - I will not waste my time on for the reasons I carefully and honestly denoted above. I am very proud of the articles I have written from scratch, the images I have added and the edits I have made and I will continue to edit and create where there is good faith. I believe my argument for inclusion of the Empire of the Greeks in the lead were water tight. I am happy to now leave the subject considering what the editors claimed. Reaper7 (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Again.... I have made many edits to certain articles and hugely enhanced them. I have however noticed where there are a few select editors at home in certain talk pages (as I described extremely clearly above..) - I simply don't have the energy to spend years back and forth over a small edit (as has previously happened) - concerning an edit that has already been assumed to be made for identity rather than nomenclature. I have been here before with the same editors. Testing the waters for good faith with an edit I 100% believe in - is not against the rules and you accusing me of being disingenuous - although bad faith and hugely offensive - considering everything and my lack of interest in name calling as described clearly above.. It will be put to bed - no matter how many responses you need to make in this thread. That is why in good faith my next response will be 'indeed.' An interesting discussion for you to get involved in seeing as clearly you do have time and interest is this debate (ancient languages):https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom)#No_to_%22southern_Greeks%22
Reaper7 (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually it is just one specific editor in there against all the others but he is extremely powerful. When I used to be involved in those pages - that particular editor and the first one to revert and respond to my proposal in the topic I called you into last week - were pretty much unified against every single point I made in the talk pages. The discussions lasted years and I am afraid the articles reflect that. I will not judge you however for not getting involved in those pages the way you judged me for not getting involved in this one - despite your clear and useful knowledge of the subject. Take care and please in future - go easy on the false accusations. It tends to raise the temperature. I called you in in good faith and even thanked you. I know in academia one fires first and asks questions later - but please try and have good faith. I believed in my edit and did nothing sinister in realising it would be an uphill battle in that talkpage. Take care. Reaper7 (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

incorporating Greek alphabet/words into Wikipedia pages[edit]

Dear @Macrakis: I can see you recently edited stuff concerning the Greek alphabet. My problem is that I would like to incorporate Greek words into my botanical articles when Greek has been used for the basis of a name.. But I can't see how to do it. I was hoping you might be able to help me. Regards, MargaretRDonald (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

De la Roche family[edit]

I notice you've recently made edits to this page, which to my eye has a number of problems:

  • I can't see any inline references.
  • If the family of the Dukes of Athens is extinct in the male line, as I believe it was in the 1300s, how come people using the family name in the 21st century are descendants? Isn't it more likely that nobody with the name today is related to them?
  • Many places in France have the common word “roche”, meaning rock, in their name and there have been many families called “la Roche” or “Laroche” and “de la Roche” or “Delaroche”. What connects them to the Dukes of Athens? What makes the name rare, when it is in fact relatively common?
  • What evidence is there that anybody called “de la Roche” left France after the 1789 revolution?
  • What authority has the family tree on the page? Why is it sometimes in ordinary English, sometimes in archaic English, sometimes in French, sometimes in Italian, and at least once in Latin?
  • Why does the list of people include many who by no stretch are notable?

Without having studied them closely, the articles in Catalan, French, German, Greek and Spanish all seem superior to this one in content and sources, in every case limiting themselves to the ducal family. As there are already articles for the five dukes at Duchy of Athens#Dukes of Athens#De la Roche family, do we need this article in English at all?

Clifford Mill (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts! I may do some editing to this article after a proper study of the ones in other languages. All the best. Clifford Mill (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Steakburger/Steak-burger marketing term[edit]

Just wanted to let you know I agree with you on "steak-burger" article. it needs to be merged with "hamburger." This term is a has no meaning other than a marketing term used to denote anything the seller wants to convey. I don't have much time to cast around for analogies, but "deluxe salad" comes to mine when this could mean a larger salad with the same ingredients, better ingredients, simply more varied ingredients -- or nothing whatsoever different from a standard salad. We would not create a Wikipedia page for "deluxe salad." Steak can mean anything. It typically refers to cutting orientation, cutting against the muscle grain you can make a steak out of top loin, sirloin, or in fact from flank, brisket, or rib. Steak can be cut from sections of the animal that sell for $25lb a pound or $2.50 a pound.Explainador (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree! Plant a formal merger proposal, and I'll support it. Unschool 05:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Obsolete & Verbing Nouns[edit]

Regarding this edit of yours, I must bow my head in defeat. I truly am embarrassed that I failed to scroll down far enough on the M-W page to find the verb.

I would still contend that your language is in such rare usage that most people, while understanding it, will nonetheless do a mental double-take, and that my language is more akin to what most people use. But I will not even suggest reverting, because a) I don't edit war, and b) no one is harmed by being exposed to new language usage; to the contrary, it is of great benefit.

Nonetheless, I cannot help but be amused by your construction, as it reminds me of one of my favorite mini-essays of all time, a piece penned by someone at Newsweek upon the occasion of Alexander Haig's resignation as Secretary of State. Not sure if you were following politics in the early 1980s or not, but Haig's diction was a source of greater amusement than even some of our more recent Presidents. His most salient habit was employing nouns as verbs. My favorite line from the essay reads:

diplomatic nuanceniks premised that Haig was on-purposely phrasing his pronouncements camouflagedly, to confound Soviet translators, or perhaps having masterminded a brilliant new anti-leak speak. But Haig himself cold-watered that notion when, asked to clarify a statement, he press conferenced, "That was consciously ambiguous in the sense that any terrorist government..., I think, knows clearly what we are speaking of."

Cheers, and, nice to make your acquaintance. Unschool 04:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. It's always hard to know what usages are "generally accepted". To obsolete has been used for some time in a variety of contexts:

1915, legal -- [it] practically obsoletes the Denver Narcotic law
1930, advertising -- SPRING-AIR supplants — and completely obsoletes — the old-style mattress.
1938, advertising -- the ingenuity of today obsoletes the ...
1967, congressional testimony -- We are not going to ... obsolete the freeways,
2007, technical -- This edition of The Unicode Standard, Version 5.0, supersedes and obsoletes all previous versions of the standard.

... but it may still sound strange to some ears. I am not 100% certain that I like it, but I do in general like concision. In fact, if you hadn't based your edit on the claim that it wasn't recorded in dictionaries, but rather on "better style", I would have hesitated. --Macrakis (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes recognizing common usages can be difficult, but I think your examples actually support my original point. Your only examples within the lifetime of 90%+ of readers are from a 50-year old congressional testimony (congressional hearings are rife with vocabulary unknown to the common man) and a technical manual. I love the 1930s examples; they fit in perfectly with the between-the-wars attempts of marketers to "modernize" their work (though this was probably more common in the 1920s than '30s).
Still, for the reasons I gave already, I support leaving your edit in there. Unschool 17:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I gave the early 20th century examples to show historical depth. It's true that I may be influenced by usage in modern technical manuals, but then one technology obsoleting another sounds fairly technical.... "obsoletes" [3] [4]
But overall, I think you're right stylistically. I will change it back to your "renders obsolete". --Macrakis (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Are you always so damned agreeable?
 :-) Unschool 17:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Category:Churches dedicated to Holy Wisdom has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Churches dedicated to Holy Wisdom, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Fayenatic London 07:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 6[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Platitude, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tautology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 13[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tube (container), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages New London and Mustard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Katavothra[edit]

Thanks for the edit explaining what the katavothra was in Beotia. Much appreciated! / Goudron (talk) 21:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Washington Semester[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Washington Semester, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Edwardx (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)