User talk:Macrakis/Archive 3

Sorry!
Sorry, I should have foreseen the enormous interest that gathers around anything falafel-related. But I did immediately ask la:Usor:Iustinus, a long-term friend who is interested in Egyptian etymologies for food words (and whose Ph.D. is in this precise field) to comment. Meanwhile I quite see your point and I have added a note on the talk page to clarify my view.

Sorry also for not joining in at Aleppo soap as you asked. I have been busy; but my honest feeling, looking at the page, was that it was in a protean state (like all of Wikipedia around the year 2003) in which little if anything could yet be done because no reliable sources had yet been found.

All good wishes And rew D alby  17:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI, sourcing
FYI, I reverted your edit to Noah's Ark, which only added named refs to each sentence in the paragraph. Per your question in your edit summary, I thought I'd comment here to explain. Typically, you're right, we don't need to add a reference to every single sentence. I believe it is WP:V that mentions "dubious statements" must be cited, but typically we don't worry about citing uncontroversial facts. For those contested bits, if a reference is listed a sentence or two after the statement, that is sufficient for sourcing. Adding named refs throughout a paragraph only serves to clutter the prose (and reflist), and gives the reader a sense of added weight, as though a plethora of sources had been provided, when it reality it was only one or two. It also makes editing the sections harder, since one has to filter through all the ref tags littered through the text. I see you've been around for a while, so perhaps you know all this, and your edit summary was intended to be rhetorical. Either way, I figured I'd explain the revert. If the sources you listed cover that material, we can just remove the fact tags, instead of duplicating named refs every sentence. Feel free to engage me on my talk page, or the article talk page, if you have any questions/concerns/etc. All the best! &mdash; Jess · &Delta;&hearts; 02:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

nutrition facts
Hello, Thanks for your comments, your right the recipes for these foods are variable but usually I put the nutritional information for the most prepared recipe which is a typical one but I might be more specific by mentioning the ingredients used. Regarding my sources i have gone through many food websites and found shahiya.com and allrecipes.com the only websites that have nutritional facts for Arabic recipes. I am adding information from these websites that I consider reliable sources since I am a dietitian and have personally checked nutrition facts of some of these recipes and found that they conform to the USDA nutrient database. Regarding my sentence I will modify it Thanks, هاوية التغذيةNF 08:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by هاوية التغذية (talk • contribs)

Termes (olive oil)
Just a friendly note on Termes (olive oil). Although the article truly does not indicate the importance of the company, it's been around since 2007 and already had two speed requests removed. Consensus has been in the past that articles like that need to go to AfD rather than speedy. Cheers!-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  00:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

reply
Im not adding links for SEO reasons, i have explained why im adding the nutritional information from these websites that i trust and consider reliable sources. Anyway if my work is not considered valuable for wikipedia im gonna stop adding any posts. Thank you. هاوية التغذيةNF 06:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by هاوية التغذية (talk • contribs)

Eating habits of the Alans
Hi Macrakis! There is this interesting remark of Ammianus Marcellinus that I came across and which alludes to the way (and as to what?) the Alans used to eat. It is in Latin I wonder if you could spare a couple of seconds and look into it? Is Graminea standing for Gramineae? Many thanks! The details could be useful for various food-related wiki articles. Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 08:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. I somehow secretly hoped that the Alans were 'exposed' by A.M. as 'grain eaters' (in the form perhaps of kashk :), gachas :)) but I guess it had been more easy for them to simply tuck in the flesh of their accompanying flocks. They were definitely carnivorous, meat affording. Yet I found this interesting passage on them: (see link)"Like the barbarians on the Rhine and in southwestern Gaul, the "bandits" of Armorica had been tamed and were now growing grain."


 * As for what you call a wonderful collection of absurd etymologies, yes, they seem now obsolete indeed though you never know if the author struck genius with some of the more daring of them at least. What he basically does is to point out at the kinship between the Ancient Greek and the Celtic languages of Gaul and Britannia. Since the Celtic languages are quite obscure and very few of us have a fluent command of them at present, I think that we should give the author at least the benefit of the doubt.

(on a side note, how many a Greek suspect that their krevati ('bed') survives as the English crib) Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Re: "Where did you get the krevati>crib etymology?" From here (check CRIB at the bottom right of the page) Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Re: "Again, a 1783 publication on etymology is surely out of date!". You mean it is past its selling date!? That should not always amount to a defect unless expiring food is involved (and even in this case, some aged cheeses like barrel aged feta or classy teas such as Pu Erh, let alone vintage clarets improve their properties over the years). Anyway, joke apart, you are right and that's why I wouldn't go that far and make straight use out of these dodgy references in the wiki articles. Also, the author is one...Vossius. "The whole compiled from Vossius, ... and other etymologists. By the Reverend George William Lemon". Fair enough then! The 18th century abounded in polymaths, some of them incredibly smart and open minded religious men, especially when compared to our own hyper-specialized (and frankly speaking sectarian and narrow minded in its excessive prudence) century.But then I guess that wikipedia is above all a 21st century project and we must obey its peculiar ethos.


 * Re: "...the original meaning in English was not "a bed for an infant", but "a barred receptacle for fodder". A crib was baby Jesus' bed, or at least this was the term the Germanic people used for it. Afaik their Christian terminology had to adapt to whatever words were available at that time in their vocabulary. Interesting that the moden word creche comes from crib too...

creche "Christmas manger scene," 1792, from Fr. crèche, from O.Fr. cresche (13c.) "crib, manger, stall," ultimately from a Germanic source, cf. O.H.G. kripja, O.E. cribb (see crib). Also "a public nursery for infants where they are cared for while their mothers are at work" (1854). Probably related to Ger. krebe "basket." Meaning "child's bed with barred sides" is 1640s; probably from frequent use in reference to the manger where infant Jesus was laid Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 08:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Passes away
Sorry. My mistake. I've clarified my comment now. HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

John the Apostle
I have previously posted to the article's talk page (here) regarding the language template. Do you have the time to respond there? Regards  Tide  rolls  04:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Noah's ark
Thanks - interesting discussion, lightened my day. A sensible article on the ark would start from the proposition that it's a theological story with a theological purpose, and looking for a real ark or flood is about as sensible as looking for the real Screwtape. But I don't think that article's editors are the type to look for sensible treatments. PiCo (talk) 04:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Quiz
Hi Macrakis and ``Hronia Pola``! I wonder if, as a self-declared foodie, you could spare a couple of seconds by having a look at a food-related quiz that I devised in the form of 10 already existing wiki articles that I am not quite sure that you are aware of (and which we ought to improve in 2012). Start by reading the names (without clicking on the links) and see if you know at all what they stand for (culinarily). So what is a Cullen Skink?, a Noilly Prat?, a longaniza?, what are the two different drinks that correspond to the names Pommard and Pommery?, what's the dondurma?, which country does the Bomba rice hail from?, what herb is called in Turkish Frenk maydanozu ("Frankish parsley")?, what is a flummery?, what's the difference between tempeh and tempura? and finally what edible mollusca is called in Spanish "caracol"?

At least 8 correct answers out of ten are needed in order to pass the test. 10 out of 10 would make you stand apart as a true connoisseur... Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I failed on Cullen Skink, Bomba rice, and Frenk Maydanozu... Well done anyway! I bet you thought that Bomba(y) rice must Indian! As for the Frankish parsley of the Turks, well, chervil is quite an obscure herb anyway, though I'm surprised that you failed to connect it to the Greek φραγκομαϊντανός Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Börek
Cited article doesn't connect the Romanian word 'buric' "navel" with the food. That's correct. It doesn't. It is the missing link that ultimately invalidates the hypothesis. But buric is the rhotacized version of umbillicum, something that those who analyze the etymology of umbilico clearly specify (see etimo.it). Could it have entered the Turkish lexical/gastronomical repertoire? I really doubt since the map of boreka (see map) does not cover Romania. Also, there is the Italian burriche to be found on the same map but I guess that it is unrelated to 'navel'. Or is it?
 * A photo of a plate filled with burriche à la Ferrara. They look like kourampiedhes to me :)Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Now I found where I had seen the reference to "kurabiye" that I asked you the other day. Macrakis, in relation to the the change you made about Dolma: Those words (wrong usage) were added by me, some time ago. The reason was, mostly, in Turkey we see this use as vulgar, ignorant. (Upper class POV :-) Secondly, I think (personal observation POV) there are so many Turkish food "büfe"s in Europe (in German speaking countries called "imbiss") run by people who emigrated there to work as blue collar workers, and after making some money changed to independent (small scale) business owners, that they destroyed a bit both the Turkish food they sell and also the name list; simply because most of them were not very qualified to do what they do. (Some of them have excelled in taste but that is another thing.) Last but not the least of course, I also (again personally) believe that Turkish words have been altered or given wrong meanings by other nationalities of the Ottoman Empire, like in the case of using sarma and derivatives for dolma or viceversa. Thank you for deleting my unreferenced contribution, although I still think it was useful. All the best. --E4024 (talk) 13:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Isola Bella
Re [this edit]. Yes, that’s the literal translation of course: but wasn’t the island actually named as a contraction of Isabella, wife (or something) of one of the Borromeos? Ian Spackman (talk) 07:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually do ignore that: I see that we give the derivation at the start of the article proper, and it is useful to include the literal translation. Ian Spackman (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: R bugs
Sir, software bugs should be mentioned in the software articles. Especially in stable releases. Wikipedia strives for unbiased assessment of things, correct? If we do not mention bugs, this won't be unbiased. Bug in the "stable" release is a notable and reproducible feature.

And - deleting a section is vandalism, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.150.66.10 (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Levantine, derogatory/pejoritive/insulting
I was researching the term "Levant" in order to better understand a piece of literature. I think I am (at least a little) representative of many users, in that I was familiar with the term "Levant" but had never in my life heard the term Franco-Levantine. Furthermore, I never would have run a search on that term, and Wikipedia does not offer that term at all when I search for "Levant" or "Levantine" Therefore your burying the "derogatory" part in the Franco-Levantine section would have prevented me from understanding the literature I was researching.

Now I see that my efforts to improve the article have resulted in the article becoming worse; the "citation needed" section about "Levantine" being derogatory (in the post WWI years) has been moved/deleted. Is this a case of political correctness? Is someone worried that the Levantine community will be offended by reporting the fact that in the post WWI years "Levantine" was often used in a derogatory manner?


 * http://www.answers.com/topic/levantine-4#ixzz1kPR27aty
 * Google Books "In spite of partition: Jews, Arabs, and the limits of separatist imagination" by Gil Z. Hochbe http://books.google.co.il/books?id=gjtb7K2IK_EC&pg=PA46&lpg=PA45&ots=nRexrAKgBk&dq=levantine+derogatory&hl=iw
 * Search Google Books for "levantine, derogatory" http://www.google.co.il/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&hl=iw&q=levantine+derogatory&btnG=
 * Search Google Books for "levantine, pejoritive" http://www.google.co.il/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&hl=iw&q=levantine+pejoritive&btnG= — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmanoffesto (talk • contribs) 14:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Golindouch
Chalk it up to a brain fart. I've revised the cats. Though I suspect if she's pre-congregation she'd be venerated in the Catholic Church as well; such is my experience, as far as I know. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Crème Chantilly
Bonjour :). Puisque vous parlez français, je me permets d'utiliser ma langue maternelle, ce sera plus simple... Ce que vous avez écrit au sujet de la Crème Chantilly est tout simplement faux... Si vous aviez seulement lu le fichier PDF cité en référence, vous auriez constaté qu'il est fait mention du chateau de chantilly pour le déjeuner de la baronne d'Oberkirch. Ce n'est pas du tout le château de Versailles !! Traduction : it's not the château de Versailles but the château de Chantilly ! Le hameau du château de Chantilly a ensuite inspiré la reine Marie Antoinette pour la création d'un hameau identique au chateau de Versailles... C'est clairement expliqué dans le PDF page 4 . Savez-vous seulement lire le français ? Apparemment, pas du tout... Deuxièmement, la crème fouettée et la crème chantilly sont deux recettes différentes. Je suis français, et je suis bien placé pour le savoir je pense ? ... Il y a deux articles différents sur le wikipédia francophone... Désolé de vous contredire... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleur44 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Re-bonjour. Je vois que vous comprenez le français, félicitations :) ... Vos sources ne sont pas vérifiables, pourriez-vous me donner un lien consultable en ligne ? En français "whipped cream" se traduit exclusivement par "crème fouettée". La crème fouettée, comme son nom l'indique est simplement "battue" sans aucune addition. La crème Chantilly, comme indiquée dans l'article de wikipédia, contient du sucre et de la vanille. Pourquoi la baronne d'Orberkirch aurait-elle utilisée le terme "crème chantilly" s'il s'agissait simplement de "crème fouettée" (= whipped cream in english) ? La crème chantilly a été créée au château de Chantilly, voici la raison pour laquelle elle porte ce nom... François Vatel était « contrôleur général de la Bouche » du Grand Condé au château de Chantilly en 1663, il en est plus que certainement l'inventeur. Si le nom de "Chantilly" ne vous plait pas (pour une raison que j'ignore), vous pouvez la renommer "Freedom Cream" si vous préférez :) ... Le french bashing est toujours à la mode dirait-on ? :) :) :)  ... Je vous invite à lire la section "Stub Placement" dans la page de discussion  : 1 : Creme Chantilly is not the same as whipped cream. Whipped cream is 100% pure cream whipped until thick. Creme Chantilly is whipped cream that is sweetened and usually flavoured with vanilla - 2: The French name for whipped cream is more exactly crème fouettée. In my use of French (I'm a native speaker) this refers to the pure unsweetened version, while crème Chantilly is sweetened and usually lightly vanilla-flavoured. So this does not exactly refers to the same thing, even if the two are obviously related. I do not know about English use however, which may differ somewhat. Bertrand Bellet (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC). etc... Question subsidiaire : pouvez-vous me dire de quel pays provient la statue de la liberté ?? Bientôt on pourra lire sur Wikipédia qu'elle est une création américaine :) ... (humour) ... Fleur44 (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Vos sources ne sont absolument pas vérifiables, pourriez-vous faire une copie intégrale du texte d'origine ou mettre un lien vers le texte d'origine ? La crème fouettée ne contient aucun additif, la crème chantilly contient du sucre et de la vanille. C'est la recette : "Pour faire la crème Chantilly, on prend un demi litre de bonne crème de lait, on lui incorpore 50 grammes de sucre pulvérisé et vanillé, puis on fouette le tout; au bout de quelques minutes le mélange devient léger et ferme, il gonfle qu'on appelle une crème Chantilly."  "La cuisine rationnelle des malades et des bien portants" (1907). Autre source sur la crème fouettée cette fois-ci : : Creme fouettée : Crème qu'on fait mousser en la battant   "Larousse Grand Dictionnaire du XIXe siècle (1869)" . Il n'y a pas de sucre ni de vanille dans la crème fouettée !!! Vous écrivez vraiment n'importe quoi pour avoir raison. Fleur44 (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Changes to Absolute Value
Macrackis,
 * I appreciate the spirit of your recent edits to the absolute value page. Given your background, you are well qualified a contributor to the substance of this page.  However, as an inclusionist, I find it necessary to take a strong stance in favor of retaining mathematical material that you, and, indeed, even I, may take for granted.  Speaking specifically about your choice to remove the "trivial application of the chain rule", I believe that, for most of the people of who would visit this page, the derivatives of functions involving the absolute value are not trivial.  It is easy for someone who teaches at the graduate school level to take certain mathematical skill sets for granted when the reality is that most people do not posess them.   Therefore, I have decided, rather than reverting your edit, I am going to simply add the material once again, and provide a link to the chain rule.  My hope is that you will see this as a fair compromise that is best for the average reader.KlappCK (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for cleaning up after my messy editing. I sometimes get preoccupied with the math at the cost of clarity in my verbal description of the material.KlappCK (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

canonical
Quite right, it was a bit well camoflaged for me. If you are happy to do the split then I will not object. Op47 (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Commonwealth realm
I will raise your edit on the talk page for input. Hope you take the time to explain things for us. Thanks. 86.45.54.230 (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

leary-letvinn
Bud Collins' article is trash. I can sum up his entire article in a few words. According to Collins, Lettvin says "Bullshit", therefore he wins. Bud Collins article is clearly biased, far moreso than anything I've added to the page. At this point I've distilled the contents of my contribution to PURE facts. There is nothing in my post that cannot be substantiated from the source material.

Lettvin brought insults, religion, and anecdotal evidence to the debate in support of his position. I was quite surprised that such a renowned scientist presented his case in that manner, but fact are facts, and that is what he did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.163.45 (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen those pages. How is the original research page even relevant at this point? Perhaps you could elaborate on exactly what the problem is with my contribution yourself rather than linking me to irrelevant pages. Which fact that I've posted in particular do you believe is untrue?

The original research page reads "such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist".

The facts I presented are not original research! The one or two sentences I had that may have been construed as such have been removed several edits ago. All that is left is pure unadulterated facts that are easily substantiated by reviewing the source material.

And as for neutral point of view, I'm neutral, though I'm beginning to suspect that you're not. Was Jerome a friend of yours? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.163.45 (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Tripe soup (Flaki)
-- moving this to Talk:Tripe soup --

Tripe soup (flaki) place of origin is Poland in the early 14th century. It's very traditional soup to the Polish people please keep what I had done do not change it. Comparing from other nations that we're influenced from Poland the soup looks nothing a like....... I know many Romanian, Turkish, and other peoples they do not eat this food as people of Poland. For Romanian, Turkish people it's like pizza not an everyday food as it has not origin in from their country but still part of their nation cuisine... — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrueHistoryPoland (talk • contribs) 23:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Please check...
... Talk:Ottoman period in the history of Serbia --FocalPoint (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: tripe soup
Please bring it up at WP:EWN. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Your perspective would be valued
Hi there. I would appreciate it if you could visit Talk:Muhammad. The article, Muhammad, has changed in a significant way since it originally passed WP:GA several years ago. It now states in the opening paragraph that Mohammad is the Founder of Islam and has relegated to a note at the end of the article that Muslims, themselves don't believe this. I have started a discussion on the talk page concerning this and would value your input. Thanks so much. Veritycheck (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion

 * 1. As the originator of the page Eggah, I thought you might like to know that User:Pare Mo initiated a merge request to merge Eggah into Kuku.  See Talk:Eggah if you wish to comment.  You will see that I oppose the merge.
 * 2. Why did you originally name the page Eggah (with gg).  Standard Arabic transcription should be Ajjah (with jj).  Since the name is used throughout the Arabic speaking world for omelettes, I think a standard transcription is desirable over any one dialect.  Could it be that Claudia Roden (the one and only reference) uses that spelling?  If so, remember that Roden, based on her heritage, probably uses either an Egyptian or a Syrian Halabi pronunciation, not standard Arabic.  After the merge discussion is put to rest and the article is expanded to include national variations, I would be in favor of renaming the article 'Ajjah. (unsigned comment by  User:Atefrat 2012-06-13T03:44:30‎)
 * (Hey Makrakis, the following comment may belong directly under your "Support" comment on the Eggah discussion. I just wasn't sure if it customary behavior to place a rebuttal there, so I put it here.): Should we merge Beef bourguignon, Carbonade flamande, Goulash and Mechado?  After all, they are all basically beef stews.  Should we merge Eggah and Kuku?  After all, they are both basically 'vegetable cakes bound by eggs'.  Wait a minute: Kuku is, indeed, a vegetable cake bound by eggs.  But Eggah is an egg dish flavored with vegetables. (based on the egg-to-vegetable ratios of the two different dishes)  --@Efrat (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Gourmets of the world: Unite!
Hello.

Is kouramphie? the same thing as "kurabiye"? Is Thinkfood only an Armenian who does not have much sympathy with the Turks or is he also a bit "obsessed" with Ottoman food etimology? :-)

All the best. --E4024 (talk) 23:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Bloody Christmas in Cyprus, 1963
Would you like to contribute to the discussion in WP? It is a humanitarian issue... Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Syntactic sugar
Hey there,

So it looks like you're the man for the job : ) Would you be so kind as to add an example to the lead section of the Syntactic sugar article? I would, but I'm not an expert.

InternetMeme (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fair. So, do you feel up to the task? Or do you know anyone that is? If not, I'll do my best, but I'm not really qualified to explain it very well. But anything's better than nothing at this stage.

InternetMeme (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Hell Gate Bridge plaque.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hell Gate Bridge plaque.jpg, has been listed atdq=crib+to+lie+in:+%22English+etymology%22 Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sreejith K (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tymshare SuperBasic


The article Tymshare SuperBasic has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No established notability through secondary sources

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing 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. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Baklava
Hi, Macrakis. How are you doing? (Ti kanis?) Would you mind putting Turkey on top at the "regional variations" section of Baklava. I could do it myself; it is the most approppiate thing to do, as no-one here would normally think Afghanistan and Cyprus have invented -or made famous worldwide- this dessert. However, there are people who instead of looking at the edition itself prefer to concentrate on the contributor and search for conspiracy behind any simple edition. This is why I request you to kindly do it; not for me, for the sake of baklava... Thanks in advance and all the best. --E4024 (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Excalibur (coating)


The article Excalibur (coating) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Not a notable product. Sources, such as they are, are a patent, a company brochure and one text that includes it in a list of the manufacturer's products (trivial coverage).

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing 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. Sum mer PhD (talk) 02:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Pastirma
Please see my comments. Regards --Greenmaven (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Surf and turf
I now better-understand your perspective upon reviewing your recent edit summary in the Revision history for the Surf and turf article regarding use of the book Grilling Surf and Turf in the article. This makes sense, and I won't revert the removal of the book. Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 03:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Boundary between meta-circular evaluation and low level languages
Hello good sir. I recently noticed that you are an expert on the design of programming languages. I have a question about a decent way to design a very efficient language that is still meta-circularly capable.

Let us assume that we would like to design a high level meta-circularly capable language ALPHA, and we would also like to translate it into low level commands in a language known as OMEGA before actually executing the code. However, we are worried that OMEGA is so low level that meta-circular evaluation would become completely impossible (or simply very difficult) at that level. Instead, we might choose to translate into the languages BETA or GAMMA rather than OMEGA.

Is this right? Is it possible for a language to be so low level, that the meta-circular evaluation of a higher level language becomes extremely difficult to design? Or can it be mathematically proven that any Turing complete language can always implement any meta-circularly capable language, even if that higher-level language is completely translated into the very basic Turing machine operations?

Also, most importantly, would it be possible to find Wikipedia article(s) or scholarly article(s) on this particular topic? I would like to see the facts for myself.

Thank you very much for your time. --Carrot Lord (talk) 07:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the reply on my Talk Page. It is good to hear a bit of knowledge from a very experienced software designer. --Carrot Lord (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Borges Influences
I wonder what your opinion is of the (unsourced) lists of influences on the author pages of authors such as Dostoevsky, Kafka, Flaubert, Kant, David Hume, Faulkner, etc.? As far as I know almost every author page on Wikipedia includes these lists. In this context it seems unreasonable to single out Borges for persecution. (Best wishes by the way, I am only eager to find a solution for this discrepancy.) Anti-Macrakis (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please also note the discussion here: Template_talk:Infobox_writer, which indicates that the influenced section may well be removed from the template for the reasons you have mentioned. Anti-Macrakis (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You are right. I think the best thing to do is to have a limited list of influences with citations linking from the box itself. I understand that that section is very susceptible to fly-by edits, which is unfortunate. However, the reason I am so interested is that on any author page this section provides a quick reference for further reading, which is useful for someone like me who uses author pages as reading guides. - Anti-Macrakis (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Goulash and Aloo goosht
Hi M.! Can you check the Turkish language reference of my latest edit which alludes to the common roots of the two dishes? Do you agree with it? Thanx in advance! Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There is nothing in the source you cited to support your claim. Apostolos, I notice you have repeatedly played fast and loose with unsourced and poorly sourced claims of etymological connections like this. You really need to stop. It's disruptive. Hands off from all topics related to etymology; you clearly lack the qualification to read and recognize reliable sources about such matters and distinguish them from unreliable ones. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Alright then, Fut.Perf. If you say so... (BTW Long time no see :)) Yet (unlike you) I am quite fluent in Hungarian language so let me make good use out of this expertise. It is important that you too stay away from topics that do not entirely overlap with your fields of interest and competence. "Gulya" translates in Hungarian by "beast". The Hungarians (and their language) consist of multiple tribal and ethnic layers, the Persian speaking Jassic_people being just one of them. Perhaps "gulya" (herd of cattle, multitude of beasts) and the Iranian "gosht" come from the same source given the fact that these Iranophones live since the early Middle Ages in the midst of the Hungarians and having become by now one and the same people. Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC) This reliable source says that "Gulya szavunk elsődleges jelentése ' szarvasmarha' lehetett, s felmerült kaukázusi származásának ötlete." (The original meaning of the word Gulya must have been that of "beef cattle" and the theory of the Caucasian origin of the word is credible) Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC) P.S. I apologize to Macrackis for having to answer Fut.Perf. as he interfered quite unexpectedly in what was a dialogue between me and you.


 * I'll move this discussion to Apostolos' talkpage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Alright then... this is the link I was talking about.... Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Mark Davis (Unicode)
Hello! Glad to see you are interested in Unicode related topics. Curious though, where your information on Unicode / Mark are from? Some of the items aren't quite correct. 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 16:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. Added a reference for CLDR. 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 20:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Greek alphabet
You are correct about the age :) my mistake, thank you for the help. Lactasamir (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter - September 2013

 * Posted by Northamerica1000(talk) 02:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Gigablast
i have taken the content from your saved version of the gigablast wikipedia pages an put it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigablast with some slight modifications. it has been there for a while without issue, but it has come up for a speedy deletion yesterday. i stated on the Talk page as to why it should not be deleted. do you have any advice (i am new at this)? Wiki12rt (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

now a deletion articles page has been formed. is there a way to vote on that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gigablast_%282nd_nomination%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki12rt (talk • contribs) 16:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:Food
It would be appreciated if you joined in the conversation occurring at WT:Food regarding the layout and presentation of the project's main page. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Notability (Gigablast etc.)
Though I certainly agree with you that articles on non-notable subjects don't belong on WP (i.e., I am not an "inclusionist"), and that we really do have to take seriously the significance of coverage, I don't agree with your interpretation of some of the rules.

In particular, it seems to me that undergraduate textbooks are an excellent indication of notability -- like encyclopedias, they are tertiary sources which must choose significant topics in their area. Academic works can also be excellent indicators of notability, though (like all sources), they have to be used judiciously: even if there is a whole (and very interesting) book about an 18th-century barber's writings, that doesn't mean that the barber himself (described by the book as a nobody, an individual commoner) is notable. Trade magazines are often good sources for the topics they cover, even if the topics fly below the NYT or WSJ's radar, though of course you have to be careful.

As for articles which often get bad edits from COI accounts, policy is I think pretty clear about this. Notability inheres to the topic, not to the text of the article or its contributors. Just because an article is of poor quality, or poorly edited by a COI editor, does not mean it should be deleted, unless it is "exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten". It should be improved, not deleted. I don't think your Covenant Eyes example shows the contrary; only that Covenant Eyes didn't have significant independent coverage. --Macrakis (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi.


 * I agree that academic sources often indicate notability; I was mistaken when I voted at the Gigablast and Vivisimo AfDs. (You may quote me as having said so if you like.)


 * I still feel that trade magazines are usually not good sources for proving notability; we can debate this more if you like.


 * About your last paragraph: I agree with that too.


 * Cheers, &mdash;Unforgettableid (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Slavery article
Hi, Please don't remove reference to where the Greek word came from in the slavery article. It is very important. There is a very long talk about it in the talk page of the article, so give it a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It already was discussed a thousand times and there was consensus to keep it in as it is relevant how the word got twisted to mean something totally opposite. And I am discussing it here because if you would have looked at the talk page you would have seen that. I am not going thru this again. And I am reverting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Stop reverting or you will be blocked, or removed from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter - October 2013

 * Delivered by Northamerica1000(talk) 21:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Cornell French Toast Project
Hi Macrakis,

Thank you so much for your feedback, it is much appreciated. Sorry for the errors. Getting back to you about the nutritional information, we added it again with references to the USDA, because we were under the impression it was taken down due to lack of sources. Is this not the case? Thanks again for your input.

Laurenjlloyd (talk) 03:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

APL
Please feel free to edit the first section as you wish as long as it states clearly that it is a HISTORIC language. This is the most important information for everybody that reaches this page. I didn't know what APL was and had to read 3-4 pages until I realized the only fact I needed to know. Uffish (talk) 09:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Tripoli, Greece
Hello. I would like to notify you that there has been going some sort of edit-warring on this article during the past two weeks over an old edit of yours. Your input in the relevant talk page will be welcome. --Omnipaedista (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Conseils de l'ordre des médecins en France listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Conseils de l&. Since you had some involvement with the Conseils de l'ordre des médecins en France redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Conseils de l'ordre des médecins en France listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Conseils de l&. Since you had some involvement with the Conseils de l'ordre des médecins en France redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Pantomime
Thanks for the message, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater: By simply reverting a series of edits, you deleted an unrelated request for citation. I have made some minor tweaks to what you did that I think you will find acceptable, for clarity and to merely fill out your shorthand to full sentences. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Gabriel's Sex/Gender
Hi Macrakis, With regard to this edit (12:19, November 16, 2013) and this edit (12:55, November 16, 2013), I reverted the changes you made back to this one (23:17, November 15, 2013). I did this pursuant to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy, which calls for "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic..." My full explanation for this revision pursuant to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy, along with a response to your concern over the Blogspot.com article and About.com page, is provided on the Gabriel Talk Page (12:44, November 17, 2013). Crice88 (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Versatile person
I have read your User:Macrakis and I think you are a versatile person which know technical and digital issues, languanges and also arts (architecture). Commonly who know well about languages and arts have difficulty in mathematic, but you got both. If you also know well about phylosophy, certainly I will call you a Perfect person.Gsarwa (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

stub tags
Please take care not to add stub to an article like Susan Landau Finch which already has a specific stub tag. It just wastes other editors' time. Please also note that stub tags go after categories (per WP:ORDER): if you go to the right part of the article you are more likely to spot that there's already a stub tag present. Thanks. Pam D  23:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Romaine and Cos
Thanks for the nudge questioning my {clarification needed} for the etymology section in the Romaine lettuce article. I had never heard of Cos, was thrown off by "Cos" being the first subject of the etymology, and mistook it as an incongruous first reference (completely missing the beginning few words of the article stating that Romaine is also known as Cos). I then checked the discussion on the talk page: It would appear that users of each term were not previously aware of the other term. I searched the Web for some discussion of the usage of the two terms and found only one reference, stating that "Cos" is used in Great Britain. I added that fact, cited it, and removed my {clarification needed}, although further clarification would be nice! Thanks again! --Frappyjohn (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Gabriel's Sex/Gender
Please see Gabriel's Sex/Gender section on Gabriel talk page for more information.

Formal warning
'''Note: I added this section to your talk page to fulfill the Wikipedia policy requirements in-case we cannot agree on a fair comprise and therefore end up having to go through additional options for dispute resolution. Discussion on non-user conduct issues, including article content disputes, should all be listed on the article’s talk page.'''

Please do not remove article content that is currently under dispute, especially when it has already been marked with in-text dispute tags. Removing content that is actively under dispute is disruptive and vandalistic, as it’s removal can be seen as a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The in-text dispute tags are there so people know the content is being disputed on the article’s talk page.

Your interpretations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines are not the only correct interpretations. If they were, there wouldn’t currently be an active dispute over article content. Moreover, consensus isn't reached just because a few people agree with you. Consensus and Closing discussions state this very clearly.

Additional attempts to remove or revert the article content currently under dispute will be reported on the Edit Warring Noticeboard. Edit warring isn’t necessary so let’s just please avoid it.

If we still cannot reach consensus after the 30-day RfC period has expired, we can always file disputes on the 1. Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, 2. No Original Research Noticeboard, and 3. Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I hope that some compromise can still be reached, but if it can't, at least we still have additional options available.

I’ve done my best to respond to your comments, all I ask is that you provide me with the same common courtesy. Wikipedia’s dispute resolution policy specifically requires discussion for a reason—accusations alone are not the same as discussion. Nothing will ever be resolved with accusations alone. I’m simply asking you to please follow Wikipedia’s dispute resolution policies, including Consensus and Closing discussions. Crice88 (talk) 07:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Reliable Sources Notice
Hello, This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Gabriel’s Sex/Gender. Thank you. Crice88 (talk) 11:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, Macrakis. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Crice88 (talk) 11:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

[] (Dispute about Lycos)
I noticed the above dispute when checking the progress of my own dispute. I would have thought WP:ani is the more appropriate place to go to. Good luck. Op47 (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Lycos case at WP:DRN
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Lycos". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 01:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Britain after Rome
Got the book from the library, read a few paragraphs and ordered my own copy. Shame it isn't an ebook as I've found I rarely get around to hard copy books anymore, it's so much easier to just grab my iPad and not have to search around for a book! Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Dougweller (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Baklava and devşirme cooks
Why ask for a reference confirming that devşirme recruits became cooks, if you feel, ultimately, that that section on devşirme cooks is not relevant anyway?

c.f. Köprülü Mehmed Pasha was a devshirme cook before he rose to his later fame as grand vizier, "Sultan Mehmed IV appointed the Albanian Köprülü Mehmed Pasha, who had risen from a cook serving Murad IV to a vizier in Ibrahim's Divan, to be grand vizier" from |Marc David Baer, Honored by the Glory of Islam, Oxford University Press, Jan 2, 2008. Piledhighandeep (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Older devşirme are not unheard of. According to Godfrey Goodwin, as cited on Mimar Sinan, Sinan was 20 or 21 when he was included in the devşirme. The Sinan WP article further states, "Sinan grew up helping his father in his work, and by the time that he was conscripted would have had a good grounding in the practicalities of building work," and cites the Encyclopedia Britannica.


 * I thought that the WP baklava article would be read mostly by generalists, not the specialists, and I thought, from my own experience in talking to others, that the average WP reader will not understand that the undisputed Ottoman palace origin of baklava could still leave it realistically open whether baklava developed from cooks with Turkish cultural roots, since most readers would not realize that other cultural influences in the Ottoman palace kitchens are not outlandish, but in fact equally likely. Right now the Ottoman kitchen origin seems to be getting conflated with the Central Asian thesis. Piledhighandeep (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Oxford Companion to Food
Macrakis, you removed my addition on the origin of filo, from the above source, from the baklava article saying it was "redundant" and "did not belong to the preparation" section. I cannot understand, how was it redundant? Because it says filo passed to English through Greek? What about its assertion of the "origin" of it (not the word, the real thing) You also removed it from filo article! (Sorry for the exclamation mark, it just came handy here.) How come "the origin" of filo not necessary for the "filo" article? Indeed, in this removal you didn't say anything regarding this deletion. You are some model objective user for me... Bad habits sticking from others?

You see, when a single purpose user comes with an obsession, imposing their POV (or dream) it has side effects on other, normal people. I had no interest in giving this much of my time to a dessert, which, in the end, is not even my favourite, only because somebody comes and tries to manipulate the truth.

I will hope, expect and wait for you to install my piece on the origin of filo, in both articles. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

P.D.Please don't tell me you did not notice the importance of the origin of filo in this discussion. (Even 10 year old kids, undoubtedly of a certain national background, not any other, came to the Ottoman palace kitchen -where Enderun students most possibly were only permitted to carry wood, clean the floor and wash the pans- with an expert knowledge on filo, because their mothers and older sisters were Amazons and the poor kids had to do that filo job at home from early age. I can also synthetize, no?)

Spying
Are you spying on me? Vagr7 (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

You are supposed to be smart? You change my 3 edits minutes after I ve done them and all of them were on your watchlist. Stop doing that. Next time you will be reported. Vagr7 (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Anne Warner's partner
Exactly who are you to decide that I am not as I stated? Anne told me all about you...and your "feelings" going way back to the 1980s. Isn't it time to move ahead?

The fact is, she and I have been together for nearly 15 years. She is divorced from Cliff Taubes (ask him yourself if you doubt this too.) And you have absolutely no right to tinker with her Wikipedia listing. (I apologize for tinkering with yours as a misguided form of expressing anger at your making those unwarranted and inaccurate deletions.)

We would both appreciate it greatly if, going forward, you would tend to your own affairs, and leave people who want nothing to do with you alone.

Thank you. Daniel PaulBanker212 (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

This is Anne Warner. I verify that I have lived with Daniel Paul for the last 12 years, and that Stavros Macrakis is an old school chum who, as far as I know, had no particular "feelings" for me that he ever openly expressed. Let's stop this please. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.214.167.142 (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Dolma
Good morning Macrakis I just invited a user to discuss his changes on the Dolma talk page. If he agrees with my invitation, you are welcome to join the discussion. Alex2006 (talk) 12:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC) P.S. These edits have been interrupted by an admin, but I am still interested to know your opinion about the "Armenian theory" of Dolma`s origin. And what do you think in general about philological theories (i.e., theories based on the name itself) to explain the origin of certain dishes? Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I think exactly the same, but unfortunately the user presently editing Dolma refuses to go to the talk page and discuss the issue, despite an admin intervention yesterday... In his edits I find also more problems: first of all, he writes that the Turks had learnt how to make dolma from the Armenians, but we don't know at all if this is a turkish dish at all, since it is prepared in the Middle East and surrounding regions; second, the source says explicitly that Armenians have an idiosincracy with "patriotic" roots in admitting that dolma is a turkish word; Third, to the variant tolma is given undue weight (bold). Fourth, in the lead in mentioned the "Armenian plateau", altough this region belong partly to Turkey (Middle East) and partly to Armenia (Caucasus) and both regions are already cited. i think that the armenian theory can stay there, but as it was before, in today's form it has undue weight. Of course, if one could find independent secundary sources which mention it with the due importance, this can change. Alex2006 (talk) 04:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Another question: in the article it was added a reference to William Pokhlyobkin, a famous Russian food writer, who asserts the Armenian origin of Dolma. The problem is that his assertion is quite generic: he presents no theory, no facts, just says that the Seljuks learned how to make Dolma from the Armenians. Do you know this food writer, and what do you think about him? P.S. At the moment there is a thread on the dolma talk page about that. Alex2006 (talk) 06:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry Macrakis, you are right, I wrote here since the other editor at that time had been stopped by an admin, and I thought that the issue was closed, but you are right, I should have asked you before. Do you want that I remove your copied comment from the Dolma talk page (I saw that you commented there now)? I think that in that case I should reinstate the other editor`s version, although it goes against BRD. Alex2006 (talk) 05:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Cookbooks
Could you point me to the policy in question? Then, by definition, that category should be scrapped and everything moved out to sub-sets. So, if anyone for some reason needs to assemble a list of cookbooks, onstead of having them all in one place, has to consult dozens of pages. I think that is counter-productive. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for Editing Spam (food) page
Hello my name is Kathy! I am a part of a project group consisting of three other members (Linda, Maggie,  Tiffany). We are from Cornell University, and intend to edit the Spam (food) page as a class assignment for INFO 3460. I noticed your involvement on the Wikiproject involving Food and Drink. You mention your specific interest on the history of food on your User page. My group members and I have proposed a list of changes to the article on the Spam (food) talk page along with a list of potential sources, we would really value your feedback and ideas, especially in regards to the history of Spam. For instance, how much of the historical aspect of Spam should be discussed/added? Should a separate section in regards to production of Spam be created, and would this be different from the section regarding its history? If this is the case how should the information on International Usage be presented? If you have any specific sources, advice, or know of other Wikipedians who can help that would be greatly appreciated. Any and all constructive criticism is welcome. Please respond on my Talk page if you can, Thanks!KathyQX94 (talk) 23:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Placenta
I have purchased the book Around the Roman Table: Food and Feasting in Ancient Rome - Patrick Faas, which is the second listed reference work on the Ancient Roman cuisine wikipedia article and was published by the University of Chicago Press in 2003. The section on placenta states,

"Placenta, then, was made of layers of sheep's cheese alternating with layers of thin tracta. The whole thing was baked in pastry dough. The dish looks like the predecessor of modern baklava, except that nowadays the sheep's cheese would be replaced with nuts. The Greeks and the Turks still argue over which dishes were originally Greek and which Turkish. Baklava, for example, is claimed by both countries. Greek and Turkish cuisine both built upon the cookery of the Byzantine Empire, which was a continuation of the cooking of the Roman Empire. Roman cuisine had borrowed a great deal from the ancient Greeks, but placenta (and hence baklava) had a Latin, not a Greek, origin--please note that the conservative, ant-Greek Cato left us this recipe. Also, placenta played a traditional role in ancient Roman religion." (Patrick Faas, 2003, p. 185)

I am placing the full relevant citation on the baklava talk page. Is this not a sufficient independent, recent source to present two possible origins of layered baked filo pastries (Turkish and Byzantine/Roman) as equally likely theories on the relevant pages without committing the sin of OR?

Piledhighandeep (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It is true that Faas' translation of Cato's recipe (which I will excerpt on the baklava talk page for reference) doesn't include nuts, and sounds much like tiropita, but Faas has at least drawn the connection between placenta and the baked layered-dough pastry concept. Also, like baklava, this recipe contained honey, and, in fact, honey was poured over it after baking, just as with baklava, which I find interesting. Piledhighandeep (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

As you had suggested I inserted references in tiropita and börek to included Faas and the placenta (food) theory. Piledhighandeep (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Spam (food) Edits Update
Hello Macrakis!

Thanks for the advice, my group members and I have started to edit the Spam (food) page. Our biggest edits include creating a History section, as well as an In Popular Culture section. The sources we have used are cited on the article. As beginner editors, we would greatly appreciate any feedback. Should more information about the product's history prior to WW2 be added to the section? Does the overall section placement flow with the rest of the article? Are there any specific pieces of information you think we should include or further touch upon? Thanks so much for the help. Please respond on the Talk:Spam_(food) page if possible.

KathyQX94 (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Reply about glosses
MOS:QUOTEMARKS says that double quotation marks are to be used rather than single quotation marks except for (a) quotations within quotations and (b) "conventional codified exceptions", because "consistency keeps searches predictable" and "double quotation marks are more difficult to mistake for apostrophes than single quotes are". I couldn't find anything saying that glosses are meant to be in single quotes in Wikipedia, so I think they then come under the general rule of using double quotes instead. BreakfastJr (talk) 06:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The thing is that, under a technical linguistic perspective, a meaning gloss isn't a quotation at all; that's why we linguists like to distinguish it from quotations. A quotation means: I am talking about the fact that somebody else used a particular word on a particular occasion. A gloss means: I am using a word in order to define the meaning of something. It's admittedly a fine distinction, and maybe not one that lay readers always need in general-purpose articles, but in linguistics articles we do need to maintain it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there a policy or guideline or something in Wikipedia saying that glosses should be placed in single quotation marks rather than double? I understand the distinction between quotations and glosses, and it is true that technically MOS:QUOTEMARKS only says "Enclose quotations with double quotation marks", rather than that all uses of quotation marks (apart from quotes within quotes and "conventional codified exceptions") are to be double rather than single. However, it at least appears that quotation marks when used for purposes other than actual quotations (e.g., titles of short stories) are to be double rather than single, given that I can't find a usage of single quotation marks in a guideline other than when it's a quotation within a quotation or that one example of a conventional codified exception. So glosses being distinct from quotations doesn't necessarily mean that single rather than double quotation marks should be used for glosses.
 * But I can see the value of having single quotation marks for glosses to make distinction from quotations easier, so I'd definitely be open to single quotation marks for glosses becoming a conventional codified exception. For the meantime, I'll just leave glosses as they are. I'm not opposed to you changing any article's glosses to having single quotation marks rather than double if you want. BreakfastJr (talk) 10:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Shad Al-Sherif Pasha article
The article Shad Al-Sherif Pasha, which you have contributed to, is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Some reasons that make the article unsuitable are on its Talk page. See, and if desired contribute to, deletion discussion at Articles for deletion/Shad Al-Sherif Pasha. Pol098 (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Mutual intelligibility of Quebec French and Parisian French
Dear Macrakis

I posted a couple of comments from 147.188.71.12 about the mutual intelligibility of varieties of French. Thanks for your reply. It turns out that there actually isn't too much material on the issue, for the reason that as far as everyone is concerned in the French-speaking world, they are both a variety of French.

Yet besides the reference that I mentioned stating that both varieties are mutually intelligible, I found another one which confirms it and states that the phonology of Quebec French and France French are closer than US and British english. The reference states that there is a continuum of mutual intelligibility throughout France, Belgium, Switzerland and Canada. This reference also states that while both varieties have their slangs (just like US and UK english) all speakers are speak standard French.

The reference is

Salien, JM. Quebec French: Attitudes and Pedagodical Perspectives. The Modern Language Journal. 1998 82(1):pp95-102

On page 99

The best analogy might be the same as for Germany: while there are local dialects, everyone speaks standard german, and so standard (international) french.

There are also many sources stating that the written forms are identical. As for the point about the availability of Parisian French in Quebec this can easily be debunked by stating the obvious, as in that TV5 for example (with French programmes) is broadcasted in Quebec. A link to the wikipedia page for TV5 in Quebec (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV5_Québec_Canada) should be sufficient.

Shall I edit the page or send you a preview (source) beforehand?

Cheers,

Pierre — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcauchy (talk • contribs) 01:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Toponym changes
You reverted a place name changes article on Greece. It is not an article on theories of national identity, pet racial theories by narrating post modernist authors, or alleged human rights. I would also note there are no similar length dedicated Wiki articles on forced toponym name changes by neighbouring states that frame their own national identities as an "ideology". There are other ways of looking at Greek identity then the selectively sourced authors. Here's 370 authors that would disagree with narrative. http://macedonia-evidence.org/obama-letter.html

The article clearly has a one-sided political agenda to it (see Macedonia name dispute to look for motives). Thus my suggestion is either just stick to what names were changed (rather than injecting motivations and pet theories on Greek identity), nuke the article entirely, or start creating similar deconstructive articles on other regional "ideology" of nations to at least show moral and intellectual consistency between everyone. All I ask is whatever choice you make it should be rationally consistent by having similar articles that explore national identity with similar terminology.

If you insist in going in the the latter direction of new articles on the "ideology" of neighbouring states identities and their own name changes and their own nationalist motivations. I recall Skopje itself was officially called Turkish Uskub prior to renaming of many cities from Turkish to Slavic. Important to also note in prior recent centuries the assimilating Ottomans renamed virtually the entire region from largely Greek and Roman city names into Turkish sounding ones and how that influenced modern Turkish identity. How about a list on that too rather than just start clock at arbitrarily point in time only on Greeks? (which is highly political and frankly comes of as prejudicial)

You might also want to equally mention modern Turkish, Albanian, and Skopje's recent identity quick change into ancient Macedonians as an "ideology". There is plenty of academics that see nations in terms of "imagined communities" and "constructed identities" with specialization in other neighboring states to draw references from. For instance, Loring Danforth, mentioned in Greek name change article, listed on MHRMI website as alleged expert and long time supporter of Skopje (thus can't be accused of being "Greek nationalist" or "Greek propaganda"), used to claim this about their "Macedonian" identity.

"Extreme Macedonian nationalists, who are concerned with demonstrating the continuity between ancient and modern Macedonians, deny that they are Slavs and claim to be the direct descendants of Alexander the Great and the ancient Macedonians. The more moderate Macedonian position, generally adopted by better educated Macedonians and publicly endorsed by Kiro Gligorov, the first president of the newly independent Republic of Macedonia, is that modern Macedonians have no relation to Alexander the Great, but are a Slavic people whose ancestors arrived in Macedonia in the sixth century AD" www.gate.net/~mango/Danforth_National_Conflict.htm

Unfortunately this same author, whose often referenced on Macedonia name articles, seems to have developed case of memory and vision problems with their recent change of identity from Slavs into descendents of ancient Macedonians -- as have many that called them "Macedonians". I'm sure these mass selective vision problems and selective reporting has absolutely nothing to do with bigotry towards Greeks and herd mentality that sometimes comes with Milgram effect. Just because someone can't accurately report history in their own time doesn't mean they may be biased about the past too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.215.34 (talk) 09:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Toponyms2
I typically don't have time to edit much less involve myself in nationalist trolling matches clearly going on around Greek related articles. Even a particular admin I won't name seems to have a covert nationalist agenda in the matter given the tenacity and duration of his contributions to Macedonia related articles. Obviously my focus shows I'm Greek and thus in a potential conflict of interest. However I like to think I'm objective and I'm probably more familiar with the issues related to name dispute than most regulars here. (going on 12 years of heavy involvement). To address a few of your counterpoints.

"I agree that some of the wording in the article had a one-sided political agenda. The solution to this in WP terms is to improve those passages, not to wholesale delete things you don't like. I have started with one passage"

Have to strongly disagree. Passages framing Greeks as an "ideology", conspiratorial narratives on motives, and alleged minority abuses (missing the context of how Greeks were also being treated by the "victims" and even how the "victims" themselves treated each other during sundry conflicts in the region during that era) -- have no business being in an article on name changes. Period. The ONLY reason the "extras" are there is to promote demagoguery against Greeks and score politic points in ongoing disputes. I can virtually guarantee you the ones that slip material like that into the article had nationalist motives.

You claim Wikipedia is against nationalist trolling but the evidence suggests it's being tolerated in this case. The article is supposed to be about toponym changes in Greece but it goes far far beyond that into utterly unqualified post modernist writers quack racial theories on Greeks and alleged minority rights. I'm not going to get into edit war over the matter but I hold to position  either the political related comments need to be all deleted or a new article be created about name changes in neighboring states that also include comments of their identity in a similar  "ideology" and "ethnic engineering" wording -- and that also document the atrocities they committed against neighboring states -- in a single sided fashion. There is no shortage of such material in the Balkans.

"You are confusing the "organic" changes of names with the legal changes."

I am not confusing anything. Your rule of "organic" is an invention of foreign nationalists hostile towards ethnic Greeks. In the real world there are no such rules. Whomever controls the place decides. To wit, thousands of place names were changed in the United States when imperialists invaded the place (sorry "discovered it"). Again, where is the article on those name changes framing American identity as conspiratorial "ideology" and mentioning all the atrocities committed against indigenous populations in a single sided fashion? Other than Greek toponym article, can't find a single toponym article on Wikipedia that takes that "ideology" tone and ejects all the extra political commentary. Not one. The article also picks a, arbitrary point of time and "forgets" about the prior name change from Greek into non-Greek.

The reason why the foreign nationalists that created this article don't care to mention those prior name changes (which also involved forceful invasion) is because they are trying to make claims on Greece. (which incidentally is precisely why Greek law still forbids use of alternate names)

"As for some Slav Macedonians claiming that they are descendants of the ancient Macedonians, that is probably true in the strictly biological sense"

Speculation is not evidence. The most comprehensive DNA study to date (conducted by Skopje's own scientists) suggests biologically speaking they are indistinguishable from their 19th century mostly self-identifying Bulgarian ancestors. If your claim was true that would mean Bulgarians are biologically ancient Macedonians too, and Serbs, and goodness know who else. http://www.b92.net/eng/news/society-article.php?yyyy=2012&mm=01&dd=22&nav_id=78407

"The modern Slav Macedonians are not culturally or linguistically "descendants of Alexander the Great", and are culturally and linguistically largely Slavic. I believe the relevant Wikipedia articles make this quite clear."

Not anymore. Ever since VMRO's "minor" change into "ancient Macedonians" many of their officials now claim it's "racist" to even call them Slavs. Most Wikipedia articles downplay their obvious conscious state propaganda against Greece. One article now even claims they have a better case for being descendents of ancient Macedonians.

Ever since Gruevski's identity flip flop into "ancients" most of their foreign nationalist apologists unethically pretend the competing claims to Alexander was the issue all along. They act as if they don't know that Skopje's own government officials used to assure them they weren't related to ancient Macedonians. To make matters worse, the antihellenic trolls argue it fine for Skopje to suddenly flip-flip identities into "ancient Macedonians" and still blame Greeks for situation. They virtually all (including Human rights groups and major western media) unethically pretend not to notice blatantly obvious state sponsored irredentism.

I'm not kidding when I say there is severe prejudice towards Greeks going on (including here on Wikipedia). The witch burning mentality has taken over (especailly since Greece botched up its finances) I don't say this to gather sympathy by Skopje's supporters here. I feel an extreme sense of hostility towards any foreign apologists in this matter. You won't read it in any news source that calls them "Macedonia" but this unethical behavior is the primary fuel behind rising xenophobia and nationalism in Greece. Many Greeks feel, myself included, that Skopje's foreign apologists, are now effectively colluding in a subtle attempt to ethnic cleanse Greeks (since of course the two historical narratives are incompatible). That's what articles framing Greek identity as an "ideology" are really about. It's an attempt to slowly narrate Greeks out of existence.

"Have you read Loring Danforth? His book is very carefully divided into chapters, each of which presents different perspectives. He is an anthropologist whose intent is to describe, not to prescribe. So I would not characterize him as a "supporter of Skopje"

To say that you clearly have very superficial knowledge of Danforth. He's listed at this very moment of MHRMI's "human rights" website as an "expert" precisely because he's been a very public supporter of Skopje being named "Macedonia" (for decades). He's writes to NGOs and politicians to pressure Greeks into recognizing Skopje. He goes to UMD sponsered "human rights" events on "divided Macedonia". I could go on.

Not only do I know Danforth's book but I have communicated back and forth with him on many occasions over the years. There are major flaws, contradictions, and omissions in both his book and public statements Most recently Danforth ridiculously claimed to an online US news source that there was no evidence of irredentism. He's in complete denial of their identity quick change into descendents ancient Macedonians and constant state sponsored "United Macedonia" agenda. We still goes to UMD sponsored conferences -- that now have an Alexander the Great Visa card. Mistakes happen to everyone but when they are that extreme and keep happening that can't be attributed to simply incompetence. It's clearly prejudices.

"(by which you presumably mean of the Republic of Macedonia)."

No. I don't. I understand why you have to say that here (else foreign nationalists that supported the Skopians will attempt to ban you) but my real world principles decide for me. I don't take the "ethics" of bigoted trolls that downplay Skopje's bizarre behavior seriously.

For the record, ever since the current inhabitants of ancient Paeonia's sudden change into "ancient Macedonians" along with the behavior of their foreign apologists, I no longer support any use of the name "Macedonia". A compound name solution won't work. They'll just keep playing these "United Macedonia" games and their supporters will keep evasively trying to whitewash the matter to hide their mistake of supporting them.

"Finally, you are confusing all the above with the question of the name of the modern Macedonians, again irrelevant to the toponym article"

The article is in the state it is, along with many Greek related articles, precisely because former Yugoslavians are trolling them. (while their supporters look the other way and in some cases even aid them.). One would think some one that claims to be against nationalism would do something to remove the nationalist agenda oriented material. Article is about place names not racial theories on Greeks.

"I look forward to your becoming a constructive contributor to WP. --Macrakis (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)"

Even if I had the time I wouldn't survive a week here. I won't buckle to the current rules on Macedonia naming nor will would I back down calling out any foreign nationalist that supports them as bigots.

"By the way, there are articles on other name changes"

Indeed -- but again such article don't go on and one about alleged minority rights abuses and the "ideology" of their identity. That lack of moral and intellectual consistency is the exact problem I'm complaining about. Very real prejudice being directed at Greeks. The antihellenic nationalists that troll this website selectively use pomo "imagined community" deconstructive authors when it comes to Greeks -- then do an ideological flip-flop on their own identities. Trying to pretend this double standard is not real won't make the behavior go away — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.215.34 (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Rollbacker
I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AMacrakis granted] rollback rights to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. 15:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)– Gilliam (talk)
 * Huh, rollbacker? What an honour, at last ;-) Seriously, why aren't you an admin, Stavro? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

pipe character
Overall I approve of the way you reworded the lede on this, but if your peeing in it is going to take away the 'Why' note, at least compensate by deleting the section as well. It is said: "the man who knows how will always have a job, but the man who knows why will always be his boss."


 * Not sure why you'd want to take away 'any why' in an educational project, but consider just about everyone under thirty has little conception of how different computing was in the eighties... That note compensated for that a bit. It also obviated the need for the anal citation needed hung so needlessly so often by the ignorant on 'crystallized knowledge'.
 * just in case you want to undo your damage, just cut and paste.

Nice peeing with you. No damn wonder I hesitate to make edits here anymore! // Fra nkB 14:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Lord Laitinen/Profiterole

 * I completely agree with you. I do not like, in fact I hate being aggressive on Wikipedia, but such aggression is sometimes necessary to put these one-timer/newbie editors in their place.  I feel confident that my aggressive comment will make them think twice about vandalizing on this site again.  Have a pleasant day, and go with God.   Lord Laitinen (talk)  19:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

How silly of me
Carry on. EEng (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Lavash
Hallo Macrakis at the moment there is an interesting discussion going on about the origins of Lavash. Do you have any source about that? Apparently lately there was a statement of UNESCO about its origins. Do you think that this is a reliable source? My opinion is that this issue is similar of that of Dolma (if I understood well, Lavash is the middle east version of Piadina). P.S. I promise that this time I won't copy paste your answer to the article's talk page :-) Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 05:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Yes, what UNESCO writes makes sense, altough I don't think that those who are discussing on Lavash Talk page have read it... Alex2006 (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

TYPSET and RUNOFF
Hi there, sorry about this edit. I'm laughing at myself now because that went right over my head, but it was an honest mistake. I had been fixing some manual of style in record label articles, one of them must have linked to the wrong article, in fact I thought I was still on a record label article and seen the text. I assumed someone was trying to advertise the labels products, so I removed it. I messed that one up good. Sorry, but thanks for fixing right away. Cmr08 (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Please Contribute
I am currently busy with my current research project. Please edit the list, and make your own contributions. I wish to contribute to this article heavily next year, when an AL project is there in my pipeline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Payyan-2000 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Then, "Citation needed" tag is to be used. Rollback is not for this purpose. Let us stop this discussion here. I will be improving the list later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Payyan-2000 (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 16:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Please help: align left
Hi Macrakis. I recall that you are good at the technical stuff, which I am not. Could you please have a look at these bullet points here in the infobox? I am trying to tidy up the box and wanted to align-left the bullet points, but it is not working. Your halp would be appreciated. Regards, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Greek is also called Hellenic in English
Greek is also called Hellenic in English, see here: http://hellenic-center.uoi.gr/index.php?lang=en-GB Christina Neofotistou (talk) 10:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Washington, Mississippi
Thanks for your message. I'm going to add a source to some of the article. It was only the territorial seat until 1817. I haven't found anything about it being a second state capitol. I added part of your edit back. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Who is Robert Israel
In repy to your question in this edit summary:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Klein_bottle&diff=prev&oldid=678207335

Possibly this http://math.stackexchange.com/users/8508/robert-israel is him...?

--CiaPan (talk) 07:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Italian orthography
I decided to remove the asterisks: I had left a message on the talk page, but it seems you didn't see it. IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Naupactus
I've requested Naupactus be moved to Nafpaktos as you suggested on its talk page. I'd have boldly moved it if not for the target already existing as a redirect. See for discussion. Hairy Dude (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Jugdev tries to play the vandalism card
Jugdev actually changed the heading on my own Talk page to "Vandalism on Programmatic Media".

The following interaction with Jugdev nicely shows the style of interaction that (among many other things) led to his site ban. --Macrakis (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

{{Quote frame|

Vandalism on Programmatic Media

 * Information orange.svg Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at programmatic media. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -JG (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit Warring Warning
Please refrain from reverting good faith edits. You are one edit away from the 3RR (unsigned note from Jugdev) }}

Regarding your revert on Arabic in unicode
Hey man.

If you actually try the unicode on the cell that I changed, you get ه and not ﻫ which it wrongly said before my edit.

Both of these letters are the arabic letter he, but ﻫ is how it's written when joined to a letter after it, while ه is it's isolated form. If you look at the page I changed every single character has the same symbol under General Unicode as in Isolated. So I'll go remove your edit.

You can go and try the unicodes yourself, 0647 gives you ه (he isolated) and FEEB gives ﻫ (he initial)

Xy~svwiki (talk) 10:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your revert on Đuveč
You wrote "Both names are used; no reason to prefer one." Are you sure that the spelling "güveç" is used to refer to Đuveč? As far as I can see in English güveç is normally used as in Turkish, referring to Güveç (cooking), and the spelling Đuveč refers to this dish. Spellings in other languages is already given in parentheses. Also, if you are knowledgeable about it, maybe you can express your opinion on Talk:Güveç.--Orwellianist (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -JG (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 31 October
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Alcohol powder page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=688432887 your edit] caused a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F688432887%7CAlcohol powder%5D%5D Ask for help])

Digital amnesia (moving to Talk:Google effect)
You contributed to "Google effect", or at least the talk page discussion. I could really use some help with incorporating the Kaspersky study of what they called "digital amnesia". Other people may know more about how to write about scientific studies.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  15:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Talk:Google effect — please follow up there, not here. --Macrakis (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015 newsletter
– Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 23:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Re:Saints
I saw other saints given their titles, like Saint Francis. Saint Paul is not known as Paul the Apostle. I know that religious titles can be controversial, but I'm just saying. I don't think that putting the title they are known by is that big a deal. I appreciate you reaching out to me and suggesting a WikiProject that I may be interested in. I saw that Saint Francis was given his title, so I thought that it would be okay to add that title to other saints. I have realized that St. couldn't be in the lead, but since I've seen Saint has been used in WP, I figured Saint would be alright to use for other saints. NapoleonX (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)