User talk:Richwales/Archives/2012-08
Questions about Wikipedia & SuggestBot
Hi, we’ve been running a research experiment with SuggestBot and would like to ask you some questions about Wikipedia and SuggestBot. You can find more information and the questions on this page. It should take less than ten minutes to respond. We would greatly appreciate if you had the time to participate! Regards, Nettrom (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, just stopping by with a one-time reminder that we would really like to hear from you! Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Input needed at DRN
Hi. Input is needed about Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Pantheism_discussion regarding suitability of sources for the pantheism article. Your name was selected at random from WP:FRS. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:2012 Pacific hurricane season
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2012 Pacific hurricane season. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low 
to High 
.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Ordebehisht
Can you please keep an eye on user Ordebehisht, who is editing History of Pakistan - Achemenid empire. Is he Winston786 who was blocked? Thanks if it is found out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.103.0.135 (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hi. I have no idea at all whether this person is a sock or not. I'll look into it, though. If I may ask, what leads you to believe they may in fact be a sock of Winston786? — Richwales 23:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Your comments on improving the Rush Limbaugh - Sandra Fluke Controversy article on the Fluke AfD
Hi, Rich; Just FYI, I've put my outline of what needs to be done on the Talk:Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy article page; you commented on some aspect of the need for improvement on that page on the Fluke AfD, thought you might take a look; it is due to come off protection tomorrow (though it might be a good idea that it NOT yet, until issues are discussed), I am basically sending this message to anyone who mentioned the need to improve or add; hopefully at Talk first.209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
GOCE news and September drive invitation
Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors
 The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in its events:
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC) |
Deletion Review of Sandra Fluke
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sandra Fluke. Because you participated in the original deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
From a persistent seeker of truth
Hello,
I decided to send you this message since you seem like someone who really does care for Wikipedia.
I have come across some individual users that, by following a particular political agenda, deny others the right to change the content of inaccurately written pages. It does not matter to those individuals the fact that evidence is offered that corroborates the changes made; these people are simply set to change history itself using whatever means possible.
The following text, that I have tried time and again to post in the talk area of three specific pages (Hellenic languages, Ancient Macedonian language and Doric Greek), has been repeatedly taken off (courtesy of the hard efforts of these individual users and all those whom they have managed to sway).
The text bellow did not at first contain any usernames; but after having observed repeated changes made in all these three pages from every one of these four particular users (User:Jingiby, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, User:Taivo and User:Kwamikagami); and after having tried to speak to them, having observed their comments and personal pages (user Jingiby in particular), I have come to the conclusion that their purpose here is only to distort facts.
Please, just take 15 minutes from your time to browse the text and links bellow. My points are valid and my facts are straight. What is happening here is just wrong and it is up to people who care about the truth to make it right. Since I am forced to resort to changing IP addresses, you can contact me if you need any additional information at aplaenas.ellinas@gmail.com or through Skype (username aplaenas.ellinas).
Thank you, Giannis
Lengthy source material from Giannis collapsed for readability |
|---|
|
--Politically motivated moderators-- It is sad to see just how much damage is afforded to Wikipedia, and to science as a whole, by a handful of people with a pre-set political agenda. I am referring specifically to User:Jingiby, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, User:Taivo, User:Kwamikagami and all those who actively support their distorted view; the facts that I added have been long proven and are supported by the majority of the scientific community. But any proof presented here, that does not fit the personal beliefs of people as those mentioned above, gets removed; the users that present the information get blocked; attempts of discussion are scorned; and everyone who visits these pages attempting to learn something they did not know get misinformed.
show a deep lack of knowledge of both history and of the Greek language in particular.
This clearly states that Ancient Macedonians were not Greeks, which not only is a lie but only serves to complicate matters here. The correct answer here would be: “No. Most were (in the early stages of the campaign) other Greeks. (latter on, most of the army of Alexander would consist of non-Greek people)”
Again we see a distinction between Macedonian and Greek, which is false. But also it is not true that other Greeks (non-Macedonian) would not understand Alexander completely. They would, even if with difficulty. There is no evidence to suggest that the Ancient Macedonian Greek dialect was completely, or even for the most part, unintelligible to other Greeks. But being a dialect, distinct from other dialects, it is natural that communication would be somewhat obstructed.
The use of 'dialect' here makes a clear impression to the reader that the word dialect is not used in its full meaning, when it should precisely be used as such. Ancient Macedonian was a Greek dialect, not a Greek 'dialect'. Further, being a Pontic Greek myself (third generation expatriated from Pontos), I can personally attest that our dialect is in fact understood, of course with some difficulty, by other Greeks today. It mostly depends on the cultural background of each individual Greek (and it also helps that we do not have the strong accent that our parents and grandparents have had). For example, it is much easier to converse using Pontic Greek with someone from Crete than it is with someone from Athens.
You are trying to change the subject from proof about historical and linguistic facts to politics. This of course suits your own political agenda just fine. I am not convinced that you are not biased when you disregard proof based solely on historical and linguistic facts and shout “fire” to diverge attention from the matter at hand.
Following are four links that provide evidence, and together they form proof, that the Ancient Macedonian language was in fact a Greek dialect and not a separate language in itself. Also that the people who spoke the Ancient Macedonian dialect were people of Greek ethnicity and that they were in fact understood by other Greek people, even with some difficulty (something that is comparable to the American English dialect of the Southern States in the USA).
and and and and and The pages indicated above provide proof that Pontic is a Greek dialect and not a distinct language and also give evidence of the same for the Ancient Macedonian Greek dialect.
and The conclusion of the thorough examination of the Ancient Macedonian Greek dialect based on phonetic characteristics shows that it did not in fact comprise a different language.
A contemporary to Ancient Macedonians, a Roman historian, clearly stated that the Macedonians spoke the same language with the Aetolians and the Acarnanians, which were other Doric Greek speaking Greeks. No mention of other, non-Doric speaking Greeks, is made by the ancient historian (so he is not referring to the koini dialect). Hence, the Ancient Macedonian Greek dialect was in itself a Doric Greek dialect.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letter_to_Obama_about_ancient_Macedonia and http://macedonia-evidence.org/obama-letter.html#obamacosigners A total of 372 Classical Scholars from Universities from around the world all have signed the letter above, all claiming that the Ancient Macedonians were Greeks and that they spoke the Ancient Macedonian Greek dialect. Plain and simple. The opinions of biased moderators in Wikipedia is less than insignificant in comparison. Hopefully one day, Wikipedia can escape the tyranny of the few malignant individuals that keep the general public misinformed. |
Thank you. 212.226.42.25 (talk) 23:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for these source items. I had to look for the books you cited on the main Google Books site (I am in the USA, and the Finnish site wouldn't let me see anything). I've read the pages you referred me to, and I will need to do further reading in order to have a clearer understanding of exactly where the "Hellenic languages" article fits in the overall Greek-Macedonian discussion.
- Regardless of what conclusions I might personally come to after further research, you need to understand that there is really only so much that I can do. When dealing with controversial topics like this one, Wikipedia's stated goal is to achieve a neutral, balanced treatment that gives fair acknowledgment to all views that have been published by reliable mainstream sources. We are not allowed to draw our own conclusions from the source material, and we are most emphatically not allowed to conclude that one reliably sourced view is "the" correct view and suppress other reliably sourced views because they contradict the view we choose to endorse. See WP:NPOV (neutral point of view) and WP:RS (reliable sources).
- Additionally, the general topic area of the Balkans has been put under special scrutiny by Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee. I would strongly advise you to read the material in the 2007 "Macedonia" arbitration case, which you can find at WP:ARBMAC. Regardless of whether you agree with the views or conclusions of the Arbitration Committee on this topic, this is how we are all required to conduct ourselves, and persistent defiance of ArbCom's position will not be tolerated (and will quickly result in banishment from Wikipedia). In general, ArbCom rulings deal primarily with the way editors behave as they work together — ArbCom rarely makes rulings dealing directly with the content of articles.
- Finally, I would recommend in the strongest possible terms that you, personally, need to follow Wikipedia's policies regarding editor conduct. You have already been violating core policies and practices here by engaging in "edit warring" (which is NOT ACCEPTABLE on Wikipedia, even in cases where you are convinced that you are in the right and other editors are in the wrong) — as well as by evading enforcement blocks through the intentional use of multiple IP addresses. I am willing to do more reading on the Greek-Macedonian topic and help improve its coverage if I can, but if you want to help to achieve improvements, you need to follow the rules here. If there are genuine cases of established editors engaging in a conspiracy to suppress legitimate information, that can be dealt with — but I need to tell you that, right now, it doesn't look to me like that is what's happening. — Richwales 04:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)