User talk:Macrakis

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Macrakis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

There's probably a rangeblock on the IP range due to past abuse. Since you're not directly blocked you should be able to edit from other IPs if you have access to them. I would also direct you to WP:IPECPROXY for instructions on how to request IP block exemption by email so this won't be a problem. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I am trying to edit from my T-Mobile phone and am getting IP blocked. --Macrakis (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: I am a logged-in user so IP range blocks shouldn't affect me, should they? I seem to remember that I went through some sort of special registration for this case, but I don't remember what it was. --Macrakis (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've emailed checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org -- hope that's the right magic. --Macrakis (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some IPs can be hardblocked ... i.e., they affect logged-in users as well; this is usually done for open proxies, P2P networks, VPNs, CDNs, webhosting services etc., so block evaders can't use them. I've noticed a lot of people requesting unblock from airport/train station or other widely-used public Wi-Fi; I think those services necessarily have to configure themselves that way.

I hope you get IPBE. People have been complaining that the queue is moving slowly lately, but I have evidence recently that the CUs are responding to it and granting IPBE. Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4

Nice to meet you - Kate --Factual1212 (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Macrakis, The first mention of the word raviole or ravioli appeared in France, you can check it here: https://books.google.at/books?id=RaRMLSUGIHgC&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&dq=Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric+Godefroy,+Dictionnaire+de+l%27ancienne+langue+fran%C3%A7aise+et+de+tous+ses+dialectes+du+IXe+au+XV+e+s,+volume+6&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric%20Godefroy%2C%20Dictionnaire%20de%20l'ancienne%20langue%20fran%C3%A7aise%20et%20de%20tous%20ses%20dialectes%20du%20IXe%20au%20XV%20e%20s%2C%20volume%206&f=false

Hi Macrakis,

Thanks for your message.

I just don’t think it’s fair for AIU degrees to be tagged as “fake” just because they are deemed so by a report from Ghana and Nigeria. My brother graduated from AIU and now applying for graduate school. We are from the Philippines.

I think there should be a better way to phrase it, but generalizing AIU degrees as “fake” is going too far. Stargazer-009 (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just been looking over and editing this section:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek#Sample_2_%E2%80%93_Greek_New_Testament

Not sure if I got it right. If you could cast your eye across it, I'd appreciate it.

I was trying to correct the transliteration part of the John's gospel verses. I've left more info on the article's talk page, if you need it.

TIA if you can.  :-)

Mathsgirl (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Macrakis

if you have some time, can you please give your opinion here, about variations and canonicality :-) of this recipe? Alex2006 (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your work. But I thought we were leaving the original structure of the "National varieties" section and just plugging in Limonana under Israel/the Middle East. Right now Mint lemonade just looks like a copy of Limonana. Yoninah (talk) 11:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoninah:, thanks for your note. As I mentioned in Talk:Mint lemonade, I didn't find any evidence in our sources that there were in fact systematic national variants. If (say) mint lemonade in Peru and nowhere else included ginger, or mint lemonade in the Philippines was always made with calamansi, that might be worth calling out. But there's no value in having national sections just to say that mint lemonade is made in Peru, and that one variant found in Peru includes ginger, especially when it's probably just an accident that we don't have information on mint lemonade in Ecuador, Colombia, and Brazil. --Macrakis (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	A baked apple for you!
	Thanks for creating the new Baked apple article, and for expanding Wikipedia's coverage of food and drink topics. North America1000 06:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Croquette (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Alan Davidson and Garnish

Mühlhausen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pickles

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

N. J. Higham (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Society of Antiquaries

Salad bowl (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Michael Field

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Macrakis, sorry to trouble you. I've located the publication details of the book but we still need the page number(s); per policy, "passim" isn't sufficient on its own. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I received a revert warning that you undid my comment to Fabrictramp and at first thought they did it which would be cool, but then I saw it was someone else, you. Was there something wrong with what I put there? If there was, I'd like to know so I won't do it again. If not, I'm curious why you would delete it. Thanks. ToeFungii (talk) 04:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, English isn't my first language, so please excuse any mistakes. I checked the ingredients of both of the desserts and found out that galaktoboureko does not contain baklava filo, muhallebi or sharbat, instead it contains semolina pudding. I have never heard of usage of semolina pudding in Laz böreği. If these are minor differences, I have no problem with the merging of the articles. Thank you for your improvements in the article. Kindly. Laz (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The original does not include the "sola" equivalent, meaning "only". Wizymon (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So is there any way to include both then? Wizymon (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wizymon (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the reversion and the nice box around the Diat quote. I think there was a box there at some point but it disappeared. This other character seems to be a semi-vandal who is convinced of his own genius and of the stupidity of everyone else. This is the second time he's made these same edits. wish I had a nice piece of the pie for dinner tonight! Hayford Peirce (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with all your comments on my talk page! I just used your quote box formatting to fix up Herbes de Provence in the same way. By the way, my memory is terrible -- you went to PEA and Harvard (like me): didn't we exchange some emails a while ago? I'll look through my email archives. Cheers! Hayford Peirce (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was sure that we did, I'll track them down and then move them to a folder where I'll know where to find them the next time. Hayford Peirce (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for giving me a chance of good faith. I must admit that my edit were fueled by both university and early-pandemic stress, skipping proper procedures that i have chose to ignore, and for that i must apologize. It was improper of me. It must also be noted at this point that i am a Javanese person born in Indonesia, so i had, and might still have, a bias in this particular topic.

Still, i do feel that the pages "Java Language" and "Java script" are typo-redirect pages that could equally go toward either way, both their respective programming and natural language, by the lack of non-disambiguating "Programming language" and "-nese" suffix in the title.

Google NGrams have shown me that the term "Java language" and "Java script" have also been used before the debut of the programming language(s) in 1995, though admittedly small.

Perhaps a re-link it to their existing disambiguation pages would be better? Of course, you're the expert in here, i'm merely giving my reasons and my two cents. Sorry for the troubles. Terrabalt (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message, and thanks for editing collaboratively!

As I said before, "Java language" and "Java script" essentially never refer to the Javanese language and the Javanese script in modern English. It just isn't used. Did you look at the hits for those terms in Google nGrams before 1990? All the ones I've looked at fall into two categories:

• The date on the source book is incorrect, and it is in fact clearly referring to the programming language.
• There is some sort of punctuation between the terms, e.g., the books says "Java--language" the way it might say "Java--geography" or "muscle--etymology".

If there are cases where it means the Javanese language, they are very rare. And that is also my intuition as a native speaker of English.

The article Java language already includes a hatnote "'Java language' redirects here. It is not to be confused with the Javanese language." which is arguably unnecessary, but I suppose there are users of Wikipedia whose English isn't native, so it might help them. --Macrakis (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Terrabalt:

Thanks very much for spotting that! "Realist" is a term that seems to have come from nowhere. I've searched Google Books from before it appeared on Wikipedia in 2007 and I agree: I can't find it anywhere. The earliest use I can find, from 2002, is thinking of "reale" serif typefaces, so the French word "royal", descended from the Romain du Roi. I think this is a misunderstanding. Shame-it's a good name, and captures something about these fonts better than "grotesque" or "industrial". 19:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I reverted a couple of your Stony Brook moves, which were contrary to the usual river naming conventions in more ways than one. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers#Multiple rivers with the same name. Dicklyon (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain how Helen scores at 1.186 helen? If there is a problem with the given number, I would have thought the rest of the page would have been edited as well to account for 1 helen launching 1 ship. The article states that 1 millihelen = 1 ship and that 1 helen = 1000 ships. Euphemios (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem with trying to help (I always enjoy furthering general academic understanding). Since I've got you, I'd like to ask a few questions (if you don't mind): 1) How would we work with moderately different proverbs, but all relating to the same thing (I have actually been bumping into a bunch of different references to things similar to "Hunger makes people resourceful", particularly in Caribbean cultures, but that seemed to be the best way to sum up the majority of them)? I think it's these very like-minded and more widespread sayings that deserve a mention on the proverbs list, but required a more general overhead. 2) More of a community question that isn't really mentioned in tutorials: when responding to talk page remarks, do you do so on your own talk page or by going to their talk page (like I'm doing here) to ensure your recipient gets the notification?

Thanks for your assistance!

JacobAronson (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, what do you think about the article of Greek cuisine? Seems very poor after the recent edits. Could you improve it somehow? Thank you. Greco22 (talk)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carob, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Yorker.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lack of sources and not accurate informations. First there wasn't an independant Georgian state in 1801, so it's not "along with georgian state". Secondly there was not 150000 persons from the armenian diaspora in Vanadzor during the Stalin period. Thirdly there wasn't armenian from Western Armenian cities as long as the overwhelming armenian population on these cities perished during the armenian genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supétudiant (talk • contribs) 17:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your understanding Macrakis. Thank you also for indicating me the section "Talk". Sincerly Supétudiant

Dear Macrakis I removed some parts of the article because there are not reliable sources. In fact Azerbaijanis replaced every single armenian villages names into turkish ones. This misinformation is at a state level as the current azerbaijani president removes absolutely everything that is linked to Armenia and tries to erase everything that belongs to armenian. The azerbaijani wikipedia is full of misinformations and spread this disinformation to others foreign wikipedia pages. For the azerbaijani president, armenians are "new comers". There are reliable sources about what I am saying. To revert my modifications is to support this disinformation. Thank you for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supétudiant (talk • contribs) 14:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you may remarked, I didn't know how to correct the information of an article. I have just saw that we can correct on "Talk". Thank you for understanding.

Dear Macrakis How can I correct an article following the rules of Wikipedia ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supétudiant (talk • contribs) 16:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Macrakis Thank you for your explanation. Your answer is very accurate and above all it is important to be neutral for a scientific work and I really understand that. Unfortunately the reality is that there is history revisionism made by azerbaijanis academics works which is a serious concern as history must not be distorted and source of interpretations. As the two nations are on ongoing conflict, there is also, unfortunately, a war of informations carried out by azerbaijanis (there are reliable sources on that). The problem is that information today is moving so fast. The OSCE neutral source (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) evoked this misinformation on an article as an "Anti-armenian propaganda". On a section of "historical negationism" article of Wikipedia, there is a section about Azerbaijan. They think they were victims of genocide made by armenians, and all absurd statements. To retrun on my modifications, as I explained to you, they renamed absolutely all single villages of armenia, under turkish toponyms and present Armenia as an "historical Azerbaijan". It is true that during soviet times, names were changed as the former soviet republics changed some city names. Renaming all armenian villages names into turkish ones is absurd as new villages were built as the demography of a region changes. I really understand that nationalism has not its place on article as it cannot be checked by reliable sources. There are unfortunately conflicting data that exists between two parties. It could be surprising but I want to evoke also an absurd article made by georgians nationalists presenting armenian churches as georgians. We, armenians know well this phenomenon as the historical armenian churches in Georgia (particularly in Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia) were destroyed, abandoned or converted georgian ones. Some of our churches in Armenia and on our historical homeland in Turkey are presented as georgians by some georgian nationalists. Like this article which has a serious lack of sources "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_Orthodox_Church_in_Armenia". It's in fact a sign, that an article is not an accurate one. The writer "georgiano" has received many warnings for theses biased facts, with false and exagerated maps that shows the chauvinist caracter of these nationalists. I wanted to show this reality that unfortunately exists. I would also like to know how to signal an article that seems to have unchecked facts; All this has the aim to improve the quality of the articles on wikipedia. Thank you for understanding; — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supétudiant (talk • contribs) 15:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message Macrakis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supétudiant (talk • contribs) 15:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you are making a lot of reverts that are based more on your opinion than how the subject is discussed by reliable sources. Are you stalking my edits by the way? If you are, please stop immediately. Spudlace (talk) 02:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spudlace: I don't know which particular edits you're objecting to. As you've suggested before, it would be best if you'd discuss issues on the corresponding Talk pages. --Macrakis (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, User:Spudlace deleted the following discussion on his Talk page. I'm including it here for reference. --Macrakis (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re [1], please include page numbers when citing sources (WP:CITEHOW). This is important for verifiability. I've added two in this case. --Macrakis (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last time you posted here it was to complain that I removed unsourced content per WP:PRESERVE, now you are demanding that I add page numbers. Why am I the only editor who has to add page numbers? Stop stalking my edits. Spudlace (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the "only editor who has to add page numbers", and I am not "demanding" that you include them. I am politely asking that you include them when you cite sources, as policy says you should. It's an important part of a complete citation.

I have been editing articles on food and food history here for many years. If you look at my edit history, you'll see that I've recently edited not just articles that you have edited, but also articles on Fettuccine Alfredo, Chop suey, Tiramisu, Egg cream, Strained yogurt, etc. etc. As it happens, you recently edited Gratin dauphinois, which over the years I've edited 9 times, so it's on my watch list. I am not "stalking you" -- I am following a large number of articles on food. --Macrakis (talk) 01:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are stalking me. You said that you just reviewed the additions to the category after seeing the new category on your watchlist, but you reverted on Irish Stew in the same bunch of reverts. That article wasn't in the category, so the only way that could have happened is if you went into my edit history. I'm asking you politely to stop. And please don't post here repeatedly, once in a while is ok. Spudlace (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to accuse me of things, but you don't want me to reply on your page. Nice.

Re Irish stew, you might notice that I last edited that page in December 2019, months before you touched it, so it was on my watch list. --Macrakis (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're being honest here. On September 3rd you came here to say "you shouldn't revert things simply because they aren't well sourced." Only a few days later you're back with "please include page numbers when citing sources (WP:CITEHOW). This is important for verifiability". It's not polite, no matter how politely you asked. You can post here, but please do so constructively. Spudlace (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly polite and constructive to inform fellow editors of WP policies. We try to be collaborative here on WP. And I don't see what that has to do with "honesty".

By your definition of "stalking", it seems to be you that is "stalking" me: I saw on my watchlist this morning that you edited four articles within an hour that I had previously edited and that you had never previously edited: Apple dumpling, Custard, Egg cream, and Chicken à la King.

To be clear, there is actually nothing wrong with being interested in the same topics as another editor, or even following their edits and reviewing them. What is not allowed is harassment in the form of (for example) systematically reverting edits without valid reasons. --Macrakis (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't post here again. Spudlace (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cretan Turks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Side.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Macrakis,

AIU is not a fake university. It is un accredited university. There is a difference between fake and un accredicated. Why did you repeatedly revoking my edited contents?

If you want to proof it's fake, then try to pay them in enrolling a course and ask for the diploma, if they provide you only then you can reach to a conclusion that its fake.

Thousands of students are reading from that university so it is not correct to mention fake. Think about them also. Please re-consider and revert back to the content edited by me.

Thank you Regards, Arun — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arun231974 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Macrakis, don't ping me again. You pinged me three times for the same notification after I requested you stop harassing/stalking me. That is not the way to show that you are not harassing someone. Spudlace (talk) 03:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. I haven't pinged you even once recently. Maybe WP's automatic systems pinged you; I didn't. In any case, a ping is normally considered a courtesy, not harassment. --Macrakis (talk) 03:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with you starting an RfC, or notifying others of the RfC, but what you did was lie and say "Spudlace unilaterally redirected Baked apple into Cooking apple", even though baked apple was redirected after an AfD discussion where 8 people voted to merge out of 11 participants. Did you not know that WP's automatic systems would ping me?

The problem is that after your response to my indicating that I was feeling harassed, I can't see our interaction as being in good faith any longer. I don't like discussions with you, you are cavalier about our sourcing policies and my opinion is that you are not as knowledgeable about the subject as you think you are (a horrid combination). You don't seem to object, for example, that the article is called "baked apple" while the name of the dish is "baked apples". It seems like you hold others to higher standards than you hold yourself, a behavior that I find despicable. But, I have tried to be polite to you, and I will still discuss with you (if you want to) because discussion does sometimes lead to improvement and I don't want to shut the door on that collaborative process.

Spudlace (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you feel harassed.

Your unilateral redirect happened 14 years after the RfDAfD discussion, which was based on different facts.

If you have a problem with my sources, discuss at the appropriate article Talk page.

If you think my edits can be improved, improve them. That's the general rule on WP. I try to do the same thing with everyone else's edits.

If you think the article's title is incorrect, the constructive thing to do is to rename it (or propose to rename it), not to delete it.

You have asked that I not write on your Talk page, so I have limited my interactions with you to articles' Talk pages.

--Macrakis (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No particular point, just thought the topic was fun and that you might find it interesting.

BTW, John of Basingstoke claimed to have picked up his system of numerals (which went from 1 to 99) in Greece, that would've been around the year 1200, but no-one's been able to find anything like it there. — kwami (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: Yes, that sounds fun! I'll have to ask my GF about it -- she's a historian of medieval Britain, though 1200 is late for her. --Macrakis (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it for DYK. Kind of thing I like to read there. — kwami (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Painting33 (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mackratis,

As I am a new user, and I still need to learn a lot on the platform, I read what you have written on the discussion page for the Focaccia article. To be completely honest, I just now realised what I had done and what was wrong with it, so thank you for it. Anyway, I agree that deleting the Ingredients and Recipe subchapters was the right call (even if what I wrote was information similar to what was written on the Italian version of the article on Focaccia and Focaccia Genovese) but, you also deleted this:

"The recipe of the original focaccia needed a dough made mostly of white flower, a little salt, a little olive oil and the necessary water. The dough was then laid with a rolling pin on a shallow oiled baking tray. Afterwards, the typical holes were made by the baker's fingertips and some oil and salt was added at the end. Finally, the dough is put into an oven and cooked until the top got of a golden colour.

Nowadays, the recipe is different and the cooking time depends on multiple factors: the kind of oven, the temperature, the climate, humidity, the proportions of dough and the taste of the baker and of his/her clients."

And I believe it follows the rules of the page you added to the edit history page, plus, it gives insight on the changes of the recipe without making it look/feel/be a recipe book.

Let me know,

Frabckpckr96 (talk) 09:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve noticed that there are tensions over the correct word to use discussing the debates over the usage of falafel in certain countries. The link that IamnotU provided only stated that Arabs have complained over Israelis using falafel, it also claims that both groups acknowledge the origin and history. Debates over the usage of falafel in Israeli culture has lead to debates over the relationship between Arabs and Israelis, not the origins or history of the dish Itself. Frankly, the origins of the dish are pretty known to not have originated in Israel, so why would that be a topic of conflict? It seems that this user and I have had troubles finding the right word to use. I’ve already started a talk page, but he would rather edit disputed context instead of finding an actual resolution. Reinhearted (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Macrakis, thanks for your views on how to improve the page for Constance - they are useful. However, I'm not sure it's accurate to refer to Constance as a 'performance artist' because she creates costumes, painting and videos as well. In her BBC IDEAS performance/transcript: [[2]] and for her recent performance on Sky One she's credited as an 'artist' which presumably covers all the areas she works across. She is also referred to as an 'artist' on Tate website: [[3]] I believe some people refer to her as an interdisciplinary or conceptual artist, but 'artist' seems like a good fit. What are your thoughts on this? 2A00:23C5:E705:8200:54AE:D783:8FD1:2544 (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I will answer on the Talk page. --Macrakis (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Macrakis. I understand that you have some knowledge of the Greek language. Can you please tell me what is the meaning of these words? (Greek: Λέο νπου πατρος του ριββι παρηγοριου και Ιουλιανου παλατινουα ποχρυσοχων) I know that "ribbi", as used here, is the Jewish-Palestinian dialect for saying "Rabbi," and is here a transliterated word. The rest is not so clear to me. Thanks.Davidbena (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidbena: the text is preserved on this page and is strange in various ways -- there is already a translation on the page Beit She'arim necropolis, which you have edited, and I admit that my knowledge of epigraphy isn't good enough to do better. In any case, a real epigrapher is going to want to see an image of the text, not a transcription. The document on that page is an English translation of a Hebrew document which preserves the archaeologist's interpretation of the writing -- lots of chances for error. Let me know what you find out! --Macrakis (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the source that was seen by us, but we have yet to see a photograph of the original inscription. As for the word "ribbi," archaeologist Benjamin Mazar was the first to discover its linguistic usage in the funerary epigrams of the 3rd and 4th-century CE, during excavations at the catacombs in Beit She'arim (Roman-era Jewish village). Nahman Avigad, speaking of the same, wrote: "Of special interest is the title Rabbi and its Greek transliteration (Greek: ΡΑΒΙ). In the inscriptions of Beth She'arim found in the former seasons ריבי and ביריבי are usual, and only once do we find רבי, which has been regarded as a defective form of ריבי, for in Greek we generally find the form (Greek: ΡΙΒΒΙ). The transliteration (Greek: ΡΑΒΙ) found here shows that the title was pronounced in Palestine in different ways, sometimes Rabbi (ΡΑΒΒΙ, ΡΑΒΙ), sometimes Ribbi (ΡΙΒΒΙ, ΡΙΒΙ) and occasionally even Rebbi (ΒΗΡΕΒΙ)."^[1][2] Perhaps we can find someone to help us translate the text as we have it.

References

Davidbena (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I would like to ask you what does (RV) content-free peacock language stand for. And also, personally, I don't see any overly detailed listing, I just added some things that should've been added long ago imho. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holloman123 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you dare to translate the Italian 'vedi?' with 'see?'… I SEE!!!! Well, AS I KNOW 'see' doesn't implies any second person singular at all AND I HUMBLY BELIEVED that 'Do you see?' WAS (I mean in the past… but things are changing so fast in matter of language, out there) the right translation! Am I wrong? Is my poor, misarable 'english' outdated? I'm happy to learn by you! 3 February 2021 GianMarco Tavazzani — Preceding undated comment added 20:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GianMarco Tavazzani and Itsmeyash31: Thanks for your note.

• I wasn't the one who reverted your change. That was Itsmeyash31.
• That said, Itsmeyash31 was right. "See" is the word-for-word translation. Though "see (2s)" would be more precise, the topic here is the use of the subject pronoun, not the verbal agreement (which is noted in the introductory text).
• We try to be civil in our interactions and not SHOUT or write sarcastically.
• I think you mean "from you/me" rather than "by you/me".

Cordiali saluti, --Macrakis (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Macrakis, for your kind explanation of your interesting point of view. Yes, it had to be 'more precise'; I regret you to have renounced to be it and even more to have to disagree.

The REAL topic is to descrive how higher evolved languages did drop pronomes for 'efficiency and economy' avoiding redundances and being at the same time… 'PRECISE' without boring turns of words (Ok that nowadays 'political correctness' and 'privacy' forbids me to tell you if my secretary is a male or a female but… come on: is THIS a 'precise and econimical language?).

The REAL reason why I did correct the translation is because the 'word' 'vedi' (according with the meaning of this Wikipedia page) implies EXACTLY that 'you' and implies so deeply to can't be diminuished in a simple 'see' without bertaying its whole meaning, as all this page tries to explain to who has no conception about the many languages which, at least written, we manage (Latin, Ancient Greek (your surname is of Ellenic origin, right?), German and Italian by my side and a bit of Brittish and French) enough to can appreciate their approaces to how to express similar… no: IDENTICAL (as long as possible) concepts.

If we both are here to deepen this 'pro-drop' topic, is because you're interested in it like me -which I do appreciate!- and I regret that I couldn't appreciate by you a bigger engagement and a more propositive change, correction, integration resolving the problem I've pointed out, so far to come to agree that that cheap, lazy and quite ignorant 'revert' was the best possible solution.

I'm sure you were and are, so please do: you know too much better than me the Brittish language and, 'as it is', the translation stays misleading and I keep thinking comforted by a large research on highly estimated sources, that just 'see' can't be considered under any aspect, as you also partially admit, an even only 'a bit near to accurate' translation of 'vedi'.

Your hearty healthy wishes are very welcome and deserves to be replied with an even more 'econimical'Latin; imperative verb:

VALE, MACRAKIS! :-)

GianMarco Tavazzani (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your guidance to Hyderabadi biryani, I have applied your suggestions, may you provide your opinion for "Lead" and "History" sections. Remaining other sections are in pipeline will soon work on it. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 13:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Thedefender35. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to sliding (rail) seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. you need to make sure that you don't get rid of info without and facts. — Preceding undated comment added 19:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Thedefender35:, thanks for your message. I think I have some understanding of WP:NPOV, after 16 years and 43,000 edits. Experience doesn't mean I'm always right of course, but deleting the info on accidents on sidings from the siding (rail) article is pretty clearly not an NPOV issue, though it is a difference of opinion. If you disagree with the deletion, I suggest you bring it up on the article's Talk page rather than on my Talk page. Also, please sign your talk page messages with --~~~~. --Macrakis (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While investigating following links to dubious sources that still exist in WP I noticed you were already aware of some of them and working on that in 2005, so I thank you for your work keeping WP safe from fringe claims. This particular instance was in relation to Poulianos, AAH (Anthropological Association of Hellas), Davlos, claims about the alphabet, Homo fossils and the grecoreport website... —PaleoNeonate – 19:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PaleoNeonate: thanks for your note. Any particular pages you think I can help on now? --Macrakis (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually not sure yet, but was acknowledging your past efforts in the area. I noticed the claims off-Wikipedia so did a few searches which is how I noticed your intervention that also helped me to learn more about the topic. I couldn't process the results yet, but a starting point might be checking the material the few extant instances of insource:"grecoreport.com" support... I also noticed this user-space draft that may need evaluation/merge/delete: User:Drummerman911. Thanks for asking, I'll probably look again myself tomorrow or in the next few days, —PaleoNeonate – 00:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In case this still interests you, the only extant in-process discussion I noticed is at Talk:Petralona cave#Proposed split (May 2018) that looks stale but where I added a few comments for context (not about if it should be split, just so the information is together). —PaleoNeonate – 00:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Symbolic Manipulation Program has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No independent sources; dubious notability; subject of promotional editing (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Badtoothfairy).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JBL (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Symbolic Manipulation Program is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symbolic Manipulation Program until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

JBL (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to put some kind of demarcation between your comments and the anonymous IP's or people could be confused about who said what... AnonMoos (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AnonMoos: You have a point... What happened to the auto-sign bot? --Macrakis (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have reversed a portion of your “concision” edit. The reason is that this was cited and attributed material, based squarely upon Lam's NYT piece as referenced, which most of the current section and article as a whole are not. The passive voice “has been compared” is exactly what we want to get away from. I am currently evaluating the Elias reference to see how much of the remainder of the section can be backed up.[4] It’s somewhat distortive that the current text says that “scholars” consider the slave origin hypothesis a myth, as Jessica B. Harris is herself an academic scholar of culinary history; this should be presented then as as a conversation or disagreement between scholars with opinions clearly attributed. Personally I think the truth somewhere in the middle, but that doesn’t count for much. Point being that we want to rebuild this article from reliable sources rather than speaking ex cathedra, as it were. I don’t mind your rewording of unreferenced text because it should all be vetted and rewritten anyway. The best way to help the article is to find more Wikipedia-worthy sources to substantiate (or not) what is already being said and add further detail where we can.Gustav Benedictis (talk) 10:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gustav Benedictis: I've tried to re-balance the section, which should primarily be about feijoada in a Brazilian context, and secondarily about comparison with similar foods in other cuisines. But it can certainly be improved.

As for removing Harris's name in the body text, I generally think it's a bad idea to write articles in the form "X said" and "Y said", unless we are describing a debate. --Macrakis (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alert! Yes, that works fine and is probably an improvement. Harris is not completely wrong, though, as several of the accompaniments are indeed of African origin. As for the names, I do intend to attribute the comments about history to Elias, since we don't currently have another source to establish that his is a consensus view, and it's not as if this history is common knowledge as is how feijoada is typically prepared today. Thanks for working with me on this. Minor point: Harris did not say what the alleged scraps were supposed to be, which is why the examples were part of a different sentence.Gustav Benedictis (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gustav Benedictis: There is certainly room for finding more and better sources! --Macrakis (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through a few of these sources, Elias and Botelho as currently cited. Both agree that the most common view is that expressed by Harris and then go on to rebut it. Botelho gives a source for this rebuttal, which is Leandro Narloch's 2009 book Guia Politicamente Incorreto da História do Brasil. Elias doesn't give his sources, but given the 2016 date and the very obvious similarity between his and Botelho's passages, it seems highly likely that Norlach is the immediate source for the Roman origin hypothesis. I will try to get a copy of Narloch at some point. For now, I think another rearrangement is warranted, as Norlach's view, while possibly correct, is actually revisionism of the more common belief, which should be presented as such rather than merely Harris' own take. Keep an eye out over the next few days (I'm hoping I'll get around to it) and let me know what you think of what I do with it.Gustav Benedictis (talk) 10:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Macrakis, I noticed that you were a major editor to the Ethics of philanthropy page. I usually wouldn't message editors about this but considering this wasn't too long ago and you've been editing over 16 years, you should probably know this. Further information templates should never go into the body of a paragraph; they only go underneath headers or titles. Also, a lot of the text in the "Tainted donors" section has a very unencyclopedic and/or unneutral tone which you typed ("for example," "similarly," "not only...but also," etc.). The section reads a lot like an argument, which goes against WP:NPOV. Please remember these general rules and maybe also brush up on some of Wikipedia's policies (I would especially urge you to read WP:TONE). Thanks. 98.116.113.241 (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anon,

Thanks for your comments. I am replying here on my Talk page because you were using the anonymous account User:98.116.113.241 for this and nothing else (so perhaps you simply forgot to log in).

I always appreciate constructive criticism and collaborative editing, and it's nice to see that someone is reading the Ethics of philanthropy page, which admittedly needs considerable development.

That said, in my opinion, the changes to the Sackler paragraph are not an improvement. The new version starts with a convoluted run-on sentence where the antecedent of "which" is unclear. Then the "Due to the...programs" sentence repeats the idea of "association" and repeats "buildings and programs".

As for "not only... but also", that is directly reflecting the source, which underlines that there was "more to the story" than just accepting money from Epstein. I don't believe that reflecting the logic described in a WP:RS violates the letter or the spirit of WP:TONE.

I agree completely that the "For further information" line is clumsy, which is why I wrote a comment encouraging the next editor to come along to find a better way to include that cross-reference.

In any case, the article certainly needs improvement in many areas, both substantive and stylistic, which I hope you and I and other editors will continue to collaborate on. --Macrakis (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on City ticket office requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 07:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joel Rinaldo, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages New Yorker and William Winter.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Xenia epigram is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xenia epigram until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You suggested I archive talk page activity instead of deleting it. Can you please tell me how do I archive page history? Anon8787 (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I note you have previously commented on the talk page for the Civilian article. There is currently a straw poll open and I would appreciate feedback. Hemmers (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Boulevard, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rampart, Avenue and Bulwark.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop your campaign to disparage Campeol and to slyly manipulate the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ado Campeol. Your edits at the Campeol article are not constructive but reflective of your own feelings about the individual. If you continue to edit the article disruptively, as well as push your agenda on the article Talk page, I will have no choice but to report your conduct at WP:ANI, which is not something that would give me any pleasure.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DO programs distinguish themselves from MD programs by referring to their medical schools as "osteopathic" medical schools for marketing purposes only; it is essentially a way to say apply to medical schools that offer a DO degree. Medical schools that offer the DO are as medical school as any medical school that offer the MD, per the World Directory of Medical Schools. Laymen will confuse DO programs' identity as any other Western medical school by having affiliation with osteopathy, which is not the main subject of studies in these medical schools. which teach allopathic medicine and surgery; in order to avoid the confusion and grant the true title of medical school to DO programs, we must address DO programs given by "medical schools," as listed by the WDMS, not "osteopathic" medical school. The talk page overall agreed with this sentiment, whereby minority said otherwise.ORdeDocsaab (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ORdeDocsaab: This sort of discussion belongs on the Talk:Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine page. --Macrakis (talk) 13:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

• Hi Stavro, do you share my suspicion that OSheath (talk · contribs) and Aura Mind33 (talk · contribs) are socks of the above? I just filed an SPI, just for your information. Happy new year, Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Yes, both User:Aura Mind33 (first edit 2021-12-30T04:10, last edit 2021-12-31T04:57) and User:OSheath (first edit 2021-12-27T03:09, cluster of edits until 2021-12-27T15:44, then a few more edits after that) smell like purpose-made socks of User:ORdeDocsaab (first edit 2021-08-23T20:04). But I've never put much effort into sock-hunting, so I'm not sure what the criteria are, and to what extent one should WP:AGF. --Macrakis (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't false title qualify as WP:ENGVAR? To me (American), the phrase the Swedish astronomer Anders Celsius seems to say there is only one Swedish astronomer, and we are incidentally naming him. If I felt the need for an article (which I don't), I'd say a Swedish astronomer, Anders Celsius, rather than the. Since the Fahrenheit article is listed as "American English", that might suggest your application of false title as inappropriate for that article. Not an expert in grammar, just noting it doesn't match common usage on this side of the puddle. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 18:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was born in Boston and educated in American schools with good reputations. So it's not an WP:ENGVAR issue, though it is true that it is even less accepted in Britain than in the US.

It is a register issue: the phrase without the article is journalese, as described by the Columbia Guide to Standard American English (my emphasis) (1993). Even among newspapers, the best-respected newspaper in the US, the New York Times, does not allow it, with a NYT editor calling it an "unnatural journalistic mannerism" in 2012. You'll note that the two authors cited in the false title article who support it are both newspaper writers. Encyclopedias aren't written in journalese.

As for "the Swedish astronomer Celsius" implying that he is the only Swedish astronomer, that's a strange interpretation. "The" here simply implies that the reader knows or should know who Celsius was ("presumed familiar to... readers"), while "a" would imply that the reader does not know who Celsius is or that he was an unimportant figure. That said, the phrasing "Celsius, the Swedish astronomer" might be better than "the Swedish astronomer Celsius". --Macrakis (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on Celsius, the Swedish astronomer being slightly better, although I'd probably write it Celsius, a Swedish astronomer. What I've often seen in the British press (and not in American press), is constructs like: "The officer who signed the official secrets act". What they meant was "an officer, who happened to have signed the form acknowledging the application of the official secrets act to himself", as opposed to what sounded to me like: "The officer who signed the official secrets act into law". At least to my ear, "the" means singular, there is no other with this characteristic. C'est la vie. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To my ear, "Celsius, a Swedish astronomer" is implying that Celsius is a figure of no importance, something like "George Bush, a neighbor of mine" (i.e. you have no reason to know who this is) vs. "George Bush, the former president" (i.e. we're talking about the familiar politician). The latter certainly doesn't imply that there has only ever been one president. If you said "George Bush, a former president, spoke at my graduation", you're saying that the person you're talking to doesn't know who that is. --Macrakis (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is English your native language? There are lots of cases where "the" doesn't mean that there is just one of a category. Think of a a phrase like "the planet Earth" -- that does not at all mean that there is only one planet, any more than "the investor Bill Gross" (to distinguish him from the entrepreneur Bill Gross) means that there is only one investor. --Macrakis (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article description of Droit du seignor contains incorrect information that needs to be removed. Attempts to correct this were reverted, despite the banality of the error.

Article reads: "A majority of historians have concluded that the idea is a myth, and that all references to it are from later periods. Over the centuries, it became commonly portrayed in European literature as a practice that had occurred in earlier times or other places. In practice, it may have been the feudal lords using their power and influence over serfs to sexually exploit the women free of consequences, as opposed to a legitimate legal right."

There is no citation for this bizarre opinion and no reason to include it. This "majority of historians" is an invented number, the 'conclusion' and 'myth' are descriptions of a theory, not based in fact. This entire paragraph is harmful and misleading and has nothing to do with the rest of the subject and theme of the article. Jusprimaenoctis (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Macrakis. A quick remark: while I am in agreement with many of your edits on the 'Potager du roi' article, I was a bit perplexed by your reversion of my addition of the English language translation of the title. You explained that 'we don't translate titles' but you did not cite to a WP guideline. I looked up the WP guideline Wikipedia:Article titles and came to the opposite conclusion. See final paragraphe of the section 'Foreign names and Anglicization.' The advantage of tranlation is that it would make it easier for English speakers to find the article. What are your thoughts on this matter? --Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 09:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced by your logic. You will note that the only modern book (de Courtois) cited in the references uses both PdR and The King's Vegetable Garden in the title. As for Notre Dame de Paris, that works for English speakers because of the Disney movie and the famous novel. Le PdR is not there yet.

I cite below the operative paragraph from the WP guidelines(note, in particular, the text on greater understanding for the English-speaking reader):

In deciding whether and how to translate a foreign name into English, follow English-language usage. If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader.

The number of pageviews for this article is ridiculously low (8 per day over a 90 day period). There are millions of visitors to the Chateau every year! I suggest that we keep the title as you have altered it for the time being and take stock again when tourism has picked up in July-August. If pageviews don't increase, then it's clear that we need to change the title.

Best. Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Dobeaucoup: The paragraph above is about choosing between a foreign and an English name for a title, not about adding a translation to a name. If Notre-Dame de Paris is well-known because of Disney, how about Sacré-Cœur, Paris or Les Halles or La Défense.... These contrast with, say, Louvre Palace, Paris Opera, etc., which use an English name. I don't think there are any examples of a parenthetical translation in a title.

If you think people are looking for King's kitchen garden using Wikipedia search (which seems awfully unlikely to me, but...), then the solution is to add a redirect from that term.

I would certainly love to make the Potager better-known, but using a novel style of page title is unlikely to help. After all, if they're searching on Google (much more common that searching within Wikipedia), they will see the Potager du roi article featured on the right side, even if they searched for [king's kitchen garden] or [king's vegetable garden]. --Macrakis (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea to add Versailles to the title. That might do the trick. Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Dobeaucoup: That wasn't my idea, and it is not WP policy, even for titles that appear generic, e.g., Les Halles, and not *Les Halles, Paris, even though there are halles in many cities.

As for attracting people to this page, I don't see how this, or the translation for that matter, will make any difference at all. The two things that drive views are Google searches and links from other pages on Wikipedia; in both of those cases, the title of the page is not important. --Macrakis (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about, in the examples you give above, Sacré-Coeur, Paris? Also, I know it wasn't your idea, but I got the idea while reading your note. Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Dobeaucoup: That's because Sacré-Coeur is a disambiguation page. It is a disambiguation page because it was decided (correctly or not is another issue) that Sacré-Coeur by itself doesn't predominantly mean the one in Paris. But there is no other well-known "Potager du roi". --Macrakis (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about disambiguation. Let us see if adding Versailles to the title provides a handle for Google searches leading to the article. In a few months we will know whether or not it makes a difference. Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite familiar with search -- I worked at Google for a few years, and am now a product manager on a search engine.

Having Versailles in the title will make essentially no difference to how many people find this article. --Macrakis (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to describe the tweet but everyone says it made history and I'm not quite sure how to word the description of how unless you want to quote. Even if you quote, it's just buzz words, really.

Would you find this appropriate? https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenniferrooney/2015/03/03/lisa-mann-had-her-hand-on-the-trigger-of-the-oreo-tweet-now-shes-heading-up-marketing-at-kind/?sh=52db40d828a0 "solidified the viability and necessity of real-time marketing." Is Jenny Rooney someone whose quote is worth including? That source also says "had to be approved by her", meaning Mann. In my other source, Mann does not say she tweeted. She said to the person who did "Go for it." And here is her quote from my source: "And literally the world changed when I woke up the next morning and the idea of commenting on culture, publishing every day being culturally relevant became the fore." Would you include that? That might work on Twitter but seems like too much detail for Oreo.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the details of this, but "oversaw the famous 'Oreo' tweet during Super Bowl 2013, which was the most discussed marketing campaign of the year" is from prnewswire, which I know we're not supposed to use.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vchimpanzee: the article should focus on Oreo marketing, and not the individuals involved. I've rewritten it, starting with the sources you mention. See what you think. --Macrakis (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. It did need to say that this was an important event in the history of tweeting, and you accomplished that. I wasn't looking at the short-term results but if what you said about its impact looks good to others, I like it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: per WP:MENTION notifications don't work with IPs.

I'm about at the point where I'll take that user to ANI. There does not seem to be any point in further discussion with that user, and after nine months there does not seem to be any end in sight. Meters (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Meters: Agreed. They are not being constructive. --Macrakis (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Macrakis, I nominated Levantine Article for FAC. As you contributed to Levant in the past and given your interest in languages, I thought you could be interested in reviewing this nomination. Thanks for any help you can provide. A455bcd9 (talk) 08:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I made a small edit to the article and look forward to seeing it as a featured article! --Macrakis (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! :) A455bcd9 (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a very good argument for removing content. Just trying to help you out! Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a case of "I don't like it". It's a case of unnecessary detail in the main text which is better found in the footnotes. I've got to say I'm surprised that you reverted this instantly as though it was vandalism. This is an article about a dish, not an index to cookbooks. --Macrakis (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, no content was removed -- it remained in the footnotes. In any case, the discussion is moot, since the person who added the material agreed about what belongs in the text vs. the footnotes and restored my version. --Macrakis (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Fake It Til You Make It (TV series) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Sources are about Jaleel White and only mention the show in passing

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge) Hi Macrakis, I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join the new page reviewing team, and after reviewing your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; the new page reviewing team needs help from experienced users like yourself. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, most pages are easy to review, and habits are quick to develop). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR. If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page or at the reviewer's discussion board. Cheers, and hope to see you around, (t · c) buidhe 22:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Presuming that this was some kind of glitch, maybe a weird, search/replace error of some sort, having to do with quasar? Mathglot (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot and JoePhin: How weird! I suspect I thought I was typing into a different window. Thanks for fixing it! --Macrakis (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS Obviously a link to the relevant article is needed, too. --Macrakis (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

lol, it will remain a mystery forever. The strange case of the aquastromony. Excellent page, btw! lolol Joe (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gnocci is a dumpling not pasta — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.177.136 (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@82.8.177.136: You should bring content issues like this up on the relevant Talk page, not here. For what it's worth, most Italian authors categorize gnocchi as pasta. --Macrakis (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

? Any insight on this topic. Ty542 50.34.110.94 (talk) 07:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about. --Macrakis (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Macrakis, Thank you for contributions to these pages. I've enjoyed adding to them. I'm appreciative that you got them going. Foodprof Foodprof (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Foodprof: Thanks for your kind words! I love it when articles are built by many contributors. When I see a hole in our coverage, I'll start with something basic and hope that people who are more knowledgeable or more passionate expand and correct it over time. --Macrakis (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Macrakis. I noticed the pronunciation in the Skordalia page has the accent on the middle syllable. I have only heard Greek friends and nationals pronounce it with the emphasis on the last syllable. I wonder whether this should be changed or given as an alternative? Any thoughts? SPECIFICO talk 21:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The pronunciation on the skordalia page is listed as [skorðaˈʎa], which correctly shows the accent as being on the last syllable. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the IPA stress convention? The stress mark appears before the stressed syllable. PS Comments on articles belong on the article Talk page, not on users' pages. --Macrakis (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Macrakis. I noticed that you edited the Glenn Dubin BLP a while back. I recently posted an edit request at Talk:Glenn Dubin#Lead, Career and Personal life sections and wonder if you wouldn't mind taking a look and implementing if you agree the edits improve the article. Much appreciated. AM for Dubin (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I very much appreciate the editing you did on Glenn Dubin's BLP, addressing what was a serious NPOV problem on the page. I wonder if you could also implement the bullet points #1, #3, and #4 that were in the edit request as well? Thanks so much. AM for Dubin (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Macrakis. Thanks again for your edits to the Glenn Dubin page. AM for Dubin (talk) 13:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Glenn Dubin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Institutional Investor.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stavros

I noticed that on your user page you have two user boxes regarding: Luxembourg, Switzerland, Ireland and Turkey. Is this because you visited them twice?

Ping welcome, Steue (talk) 06:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Steue: No, it's because the countries are listed under Continent/Language Family, and some countries are in more than one continent (Turkey) or have more than one major language family (Switzerland: Germanic/German + Latin/French,Italian,Romansh). I have visited some of these countries many times. --Macrakis (talk) 08:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Stavros,

I could have recognized this, but I only looked at the boxes --

and, I admit, the "Germanic" and "Latin" did not quite make sense to me.

It would have been more obvious, if there were a frame/border around each group. Plus an explanation that this is a Language family, and even with "Germanic" and "Latin" being links.

By the way: I love to hear the Greek language. It is one of the most beatiful languages which I have ever heard - besides Hawaiian and French - especially if it is sung by the (young) Vicki Leandros.

I even learned to say gathuni (right) (i know: this is a try to transliterate the word kitchen), from a Greek in Greece. You may know this Greek "g" is not one of the sounds outside of Greece.

Ping welcome, Steue (talk) 09:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Steue: Re country groupings, it's just a way to avoid having one long list.

I don't know what you mean by gathuni (γαθούνι? γκαθύνη?) -- that isn't a Greek word. The word for 'kitchen' is κουζίνα /ku'zina/. --Macrakis (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first one (γαθούνι) is, how I would expect it to be written.

I Just know enough Greek so I can use my Greek-foreign dictionary.

It was in the mid 1970s in Greece.

Could it be that is was a kind of slang word meaning "girl" or some improper word?

PS: Do you have a preference: "Stavros" or "Macrakis" (from me or all)?

Steue (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Steue:

a) Please use indentation (colons at the beginning of the line) when replying -- I have added it to your post.

b) There is no Greek word γαθούνι as far as I can tell, meaning kitchen or girl or anything else.

c) Macrakis is my name on Wikipedia. --Macrakis (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Geoheritage, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heritage.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe to us Multics is the best-known OS, but wasn’t GCOS the mainstream OS?. Peter Flass (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Flass:Well, it depends on the target audience, doesn't it? For computer scientists interested in the history of operating systems, Multics is clearly the most salient of the three. For commercial users, GCOS/GECOS was best-known. For Dartmouth and other college students at the time, DTSS may have been best known: every Dartmouth student (not just math and science students) had an account, and there were dozens of remote user sites at other colleges and even high schools. Apparently it had over 30,000 users in 1971 (which is when I used it...). For people who started in computing after 1990 or so, only Multics has any chance of being recognized. I'll add this to the article at some point, with evidence from ngrams. --Macrakis (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn’t Honeywell still market GCOS systems? Peter Flass (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Flass:The name "GCOS" has been used for years for all of Bull's (ex Honeywell) operating systems, for a variety of hardware. I don't know how similar their APIs, command languages, or code bases are today, but at one point there seem to have been at least 3 distinct systems called GCOS (-64, -62, -61). In any case, mainframe OS's remain a niche interest, whereas Multics is mentioned almost every time that that history of Unix is discussed (although it is often misrepresented). --Macrakis (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I want to alert you to some edits made by a new user recently to the Glenn Dubin article, which seem to once again violate Wikipedia's strict adherence to NPOV, especially when it comes to BLPs. I hope you can revert those edits and bring the article back to neutrality. Thanks so much, AM for Dubin (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I placed the above message in the wrong place, but now I am adding a heading, which I hope helps fix the mistake. I also want to thank you for your last edit to Glenn Dubin. All the best, AM for Dubin (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You previously discussed this issue, so please weigh in here if you care. —  AjaxSmack  14:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm 2603:7000:8E01:2B47:3595:F77C:F0A9:4EB6. Your recent edit(s) appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Preceding undated comment added 23:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Macrakis, maybe you have time and lust to comment here. Alex2006 (talk) 06:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Computerized Airline Sales and Marketing Association is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computerized Airline Sales and Marketing Association until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

— BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was notified that my edit on Capitalization was reverted by you. It included a reference to the Chicago Manual of Style that was certainly pertinent. Would you care to explain? Ereunetes (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I saw only the notification. I had not yet seen that you restored the reference. So you may ignore this. I am not emotionally invested enough in sparing non-English Britons the pain of seeing their languages deemed part of "English" to object to the other part of your revert :-) Ereunetes (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article DxO Labs is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DxO Labs (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Star Mississippi 16:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Macrakis, can you please comment (of course if you have time and lust) on the last edits, which I partially reverted, on supplì? Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Xerox Fellows has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It had a point, but it was was not meant to be disruptive re WP:POINT. On the talk page I argued that such a section needs to exist. Unfortunately I don't know enough about the subject to do that. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Stephen of Hierapolis has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

fails GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Macrakis,

I noticed your interest in food history and common misconceptions. I've been working on editing the Choux Pastry article, but I'm facing some challenges with a user who keeps reverting my edits, despite providing references and explanations in the talk section. I was wondering if you could take a look at the page and provide some insights. One of the points I added is a nuance about the character Popelini, who some historians consider to be fictional. There is absolutely no source of his existence before the late 19th century. Additionally, I believe the place of origin should be Paris, as it is said that this Popelini was working at the court of the King of France. Your expertise and input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance for your time and assistance. 77.205.143.79 (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I believe you are correct on the history. However, you have apparently made yourself unwelcome on Wikipedia through past bad behavior. I will edit the Choux pastry article based on the nice source you found. --Macrakis (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Archaic is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archaic until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Clarityfiend (talk) 06:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Macrakis, I hope you are doing well. This is a gentle reminder that I posted an edit request recently at Talk:Glenn_Dubin#Improve_NPOV. I would be grateful if you could take a look and implement the edits if you agree they will improve the article's neutrality. Thanks, AM for Dubin (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Macrakis. I wonder if you would mind taking a look at the answer I sent you at Talk:Glenn_Dubin#Improve_NPOV. I included a quote from the WSJ article in the source. Perhaps that will allow you to change the sentence as I requested. Thanks so much. AM for Dubin (talk) 12:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the final time, threatening to report people for challenges that are not inappropriate or written rudely is an actual WP:CIVIL violation. Please stop.

As for my "tone", I fail to see what you actually take issue with - me not coddling an editor that was suspicious from their first edit? We are allowed to freely speak suspicions, and absolutely allowed to confront users about how they are using sources in disputes. Me warning a user that their behaviour is quacking, and giving actual hard evidence when suggesting they are lying about sources, are not personal attacks and are not not-AGF (which does not mean always believe users on everything, it means believe they are WP:HERE even if they're going about it the wrong way).

But anyway, you must also remember Wikipedia:Our social policies are not a suicide pact – as I am, I must point out, genuinely discussing, then if I was being a bit rude because of legitimate suspicions it is not something for you to focus on more than the content. Kingsif (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'll see I added a suspicion about you, but I have quickly decided there is no reason to bring that into this, especially as it would likely prolong any discussion and fuel tension. It was unwise and I apologise for thinking it was a good idea even briefly.
The facts are that after pleasant if circular discussion you - IMO - massively overreacted to me leaving a note about another user 1. being an SPA and 2. either deliberately or confusedly lying (from my perspective based on my familiarity) about sources. Perhaps I could've said "that's not what they say" without the "stop lying", but I did expressly try my best to be kind about writing the initial note rather than templating or such. Anyway, you know I would rather we all constructively contributed.
I have added this note to say something you'll perhaps like: I will only comment on content in discussion from here on.
Though it's not because of your messages (to be perfectly honest, because you were the only one who actually pinged me to the talkpage, I always saw your comments first, and I do think that going into a content/source discussion only to be confronted with what to me came across as bullishness did make me want to stand my ground ...another reason such threats are a bad idea). No, a step back and I've noticed the other user quite helpfully replies with one thought at a time, making responses simpler. Indeed, sticking to one thread would probably be beneficial to discussion for everyone. Kingsif (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Macrakis. I hope you can please take a look at my edit request at Talk:Glenn_Dubin#Remove_statement. This request addresses a clear violation of BLP which has already been on the page for too long. Thanks so much. AM for Dubin (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Macrakis I would like to ask for your contribution in the croissant talk section. I see that you have participated before in this page and discussed about the question of the origin of the croissant. I think that the Austrian origin should be removed from the info box and there is a discussion about it. 45.70.56.229 (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly did you revert my edit to the short description in the PDP-14 article? The given reason '"control CPU and system" is too low-level a description' makes no sense -- "low level" in what way? Also, you're missing the "Industrial" from the reverted short description. The original description, "Industrial controller from Digital" violates the convention of generality and is stylistically incorrect, eg. what is the general reader supposed to make of "Digital"? "DEC" maybe, but just "Digital"? And as I just mentioned, even using "Digital" alone or replacing it by "DEC" or "D.E.C." would be confusing and non-general and not in the style of the vast majority of short descriptions of ISAs, CPUs / microprocessors and other computer systems on Wikipedia.

I'll go ahead and change it back. Jdbtwo (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss on Talk:PDP-14. --Macrakis (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry -- noted and added ( what seems like the first? ) comment to the talk page of the PDP-14 article -- the discussion will continue from there. Jdbtwo (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask you this question? why did my user page crash automatically? From a mobile device, it's horrible. The day before yesterday, there wasn't that problem. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JackkBrown: Sorry, I have no idea. What exactly do you mean by "crash"? When you say your user page, I assume you mean User:JackkBrown? Is it not visible at all? Is it unresponsive? Is it badly formatted (if so, a screenshot would be useful)? ...? What mobile device are you using? Have you customized your Preferences, notably the skin? In looking at it on my phone, I see that "barnstars received" overlaps with the user boxes. Is that what you're talking about? You can just fiddle with the formatting if that's what you're talking about -- although I wouldn't call that "crashing". --Macrakis (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly, that's what I mean. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll just have to fiddle with formatting. Maybe use <hr/> or organize things using <table>.

But it's pretty melodramatic to call that crashing! --Macrakis (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know what to call that, I'm not a native English speaker. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I tried but it doesn't seem to work. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I tried various things but I can't figure out the problem. You might want to ask WP:HELPDESK --Macrakis (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JackkBrown: I see that my user page on mobile has the same problem! --Macrakis (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page still has problems. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JackkBrown: Thanks for letting me know. I added back the &nbsp; after the initial table and before the first header, and that seems to have fixed the problem, which had gone away for a while if I remember correctly. --Macrakis (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Macrakis. Thank you for your work on Piedmontese cuisine. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Affogato&diff=prev&oldid=1224294123; why? The title of the page is "Vin Santo", not "vinsanto". JacktheBrown (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lowercase form emphasizes that it's a generic vin santo, not a particular one. The source actually refers to "Vinsanto di Caratello", but surely the lesson we take from that is not that affogato is made specifically with that origin of vinsanto, but with vinsanto in general. Similarly, we don't say that affogato is made with Scotch Whisky, but just with whisky in general. The uppercase letters are also distracting. --Macrakis (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Macrakis: thank you, I understand. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, why have all the other paragraphs been grouped into one paragraph? That's strange. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JackkBrown: I'm not sure what you're talking about. What has been grouped, and what has not been grouped? Are you talking about using multiple-column layout? I see that User:Numbens deleted some formatting, but you added it back. I agree that multi-column layout would be good for every section. Why don't you add it for the other sections? Or ask Numbens what they were trying to do. --Macrakis (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping in to say what a pleasure it is to work with someone like you who is (i) interested in food and (ii) a truly collegiate colleague. Best wishes, Tim riley talk 18:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Macrakis,

I responded to your comment and edit on LOCM a few days ago. I'm not sure if you missed it, if you did I'm pinging you here. If you didn't then feel free to ignore this. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Answered there. --Macrakis (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Writer's Barnstar

Hi. about the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sajjad and your edit, I'm PERSIAN, my name is Sajjad, i lived with this name for 23 years and i know everything about it. don't re-edit the pages i've done ever again. you're an american, you have no culture. there's no culture in your blood! don't try to correct me about myself or my literature with something you picked-up somewhere, you can't even read FARSI. Thank you. Baph6met (talk) 02:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Baph6met: Discussion about articles belongs on the article's Talk page, in this case Talk:Sajjad. Also, please review our article on personal attacks like "you have no culture" etc. --Macrakis (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I have changed a bit your edition in this article named 'nduja. Can you have a look and see if it's correct, some people are removing it. 77.205.69.61 (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this IP address is most probably Xiaomichel evading the indefinite block; see also: [5]. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the templates {{Cbeam}}, {{Hbeam}}, {{Lbeam}}, {{Tbeam}} should be deleted from Wikipedia.

The templates will be discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Cbeam, Hbeam, Lbeam, Tbeam character-substitution templates until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the templates during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the template-for-deletion notice from the top of the templates until the discussion has finished.  — sbb (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steak has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]