User talk:Thanatos666/Archive 1

@This user can be reached by email.

Welcome!
Hello, Thanatos666, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Καλωσήρθες! NikoSilver 00:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Greece

I saw your transliteration changes. You've mainly replaced i's with e's. While your version is correct (also) there's been quite a lot of argumentation o the issue of Greek transliteration, and currently WP uses the i's. There are thousands of articles with Greek in them, so I would suggest you re-edit and post the previous version for consistency. Other than that, no-biggie from my side, and I really don't care so much. Παρεπιπτόντως, πιθανώς να ήθελες να διαβάσεις την πολιτική για τα ονόματα χρηστών. Φαίνεσαι αξιόλογος χρήστης, και επειδή το όνομα που διάλεξες είναι στο όριο της αποδοχής, πιθανόν η εικόνα του να κάνει άλλους χρήστες να σε αδικήσουν πριν δουν τις συνεισφορές σου. Για οτιδήποτε χρειαστείς, η σελίδα συζήτησής μου στη διάθεσή σου. NikoSilver 00:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The question is whether to use "ē" for ēta when referring to modern places in Greece. When it's an etymological root you're transliterating, then of course you can and should use it. When it's a modern Greek placename, the transcription should reflect how the word is pronounced - Athens in Greek is pronounced Athina, so transliterating it as Athēna would only confuse the reader. It all comes down the what the purpose of the transcription is: to indicate how the word is pronounced or to illustrate the root of a word.Domitius 00:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

For any future reference

Greeklish transliterations (whichever variety of infinite-many existant ones we're talking about)
though used by the vast majority of greeks (mainly due to ignorance)
and though even in formal ,state,road-signs etc usage and greek (elot) iso standards(due to ignorance and stupidity),
ARE SIMPLY WRONG.
From infinite-many perspectives.
Ie answering to Domitius above,the english pronounciation of the transliteration Athina of the word Αθήνα (Athens ,in modern greek instead of Αθήναι of ancient greek) is more equivalent or close to greek Αθάινα which means nothing,meaning it has no meaning. :)
And even if we could have 1-1 acoustical-phonetical mapping of modern greek to english alphabet and language,in doing so we would destroy the historic linkage between ancient greek and modern greek and in general greek and other european languages.
Dear Domitius for the usage you wrote about there is the IPA.
Auf wiederhoeren
Thanatos666 04:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the transliteration we are using here at Wikipedia isn't "Greeklish", it's an internationally accepted standard, proposed by ELOT and adopted for official use at the UN and elsewhere (see [1]). Well, you even seem to be aware of that... It also isn't "simply wrong" but makes very sound sense linguistically. Anyway, it's not up to us as wikipedia editors to invent our own new transliteration schemes; we'd better stick with those that exist. I'd strongly advise you against pushing such a huge change against long-standing consensus here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

the internationally used ,for centuries or millenia, transliteration of greek to european latin-derived alphabets is not elot based. elot transliteration doesn't make very sound sense linguistically.
it's not up to us as wikipedia editors to invent our own new transliteration schemes. very true.but I didn't invent any personal scheme.If you check out any foreign (non neohellenic) academic source (universities,texts,etc) on how greek to english (or any other western european language) transliterations take and have taken place,I believe that you will see a long standing tradition opposed to neohellenic ignorance.as I have mentioned above and also here and here, greeklish in general or elot greeklish in particular is wrong from any perspective.
see you
Thanatos666 20:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Κεφαλαία και μικρά γράμματα

Γεια σου, "Θάνατε". Έχω παρατηρήσει ότι γράφεις το "ελληνικά" στα αγγλικά ως "greek", δηλαδή με μικρό "g". Αυτό είναι λάθος, στα αγγλικά, σε αντίθεση με τα ελληνικά, τα γαλλικά, ιταλικά κλπ, τα ονόματα γλωσσών γράφονται πάντα με κεφαλαίο, δηλαδή στην συγκεκριμένη περίπτωση γράφεται "Greek". Επίσης, οι χρήστες της Βικιπαίδειας έχουν συμφωνήσει ότι τα ελληνικά γράμματα δεν πρέπει να γράφονται πλάγια (italics) αλλά ορθά για να φαίνονται πιο καθαρά, προσπάθησε να το τηρείς αυτό σε παρακαλώ. Σε πλάγια γράμματα να βάζεις τη μεταγραφή (transliteration) στο λατινικό αλφάβητο. Ευχαριστώ και καλωσόρισες.--Domitius 00:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Επίσης, πριν το ξεχάσω, όταν γράφεις πολυτονικά, να χρησιμοποιείς το πρότυπο {{polytonic|ΑΒΓ...}} και μέσα να βάζεις όλο το ελληνικό κείμενο όχι μόνο το εκτεταμένο γράμμα.--Domitius 00:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

trolling

Domitius in editing Athens wrote

who has been trolling this article? please see the "origin of name" for prior versions and do not dismiss the mainstream transliteration scheme of modern Greek (used also by Britannica) as "Greeklish"

trolling? ok Domitie,if you say so,trolling,...
so for the ,edited-written by neohellenes, part of the english wikipedia, correcting errors and adding concrete data and information to the encyclopaedia is obviously wrong.
dystychos anamenomenon.
I won't bother anymore with you guys.
Simply ανεπίδεκτοι μαθήσεως .

Νεοέλληνες με γειά σας ,τα καινούργια σας τα στέκια ,χάρισμά σας!

Thanatos666 22:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The Latin vocative of an -ius name is simply -i. Dunno whether Greek makes that same distinction, though. That is all. Tsunomaru 15:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct but usually (for ages) in greek we transliterate (and/or use) the latin or greco-latin -us words to -os ; the corresponding (second declension) vocative in greek is always -e, hence Domitie. The same is also 'valid' despite the fact Domitius doesn't name himself Domitios.
Τhat is Nom. Δομίτιος Δημήτριος Domitios Demetrios Voc. Δομίτιε Δημήτριε Domitie Demetrie etc.
Connections,relations,correspondence between greek and latin are unique,it's different, mostly of the opposite 'direction' of the ones between latin and western european languages since latin never was the basis for greek,quite the opposite is true I might add.
I guess it's a cultular thing.:-)
That is all.:-)
CU
Thanatos|talk 20:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Understood, and I know well the degree to which Latin's development was influenced by Greek. Surely my expectation was reasonable, though, that a non-English morpheme applied to a Latin name in the Latin alphabet would use the rules of Latin declension. I believe your original intent may have been clearer had you spelled the name in Greek: only an uncultured rube (poetic exaggeration) wouldn't understand the Greek alphabet, and there's no excuse for somebody concerned with matters on this page to be thusly ignorant. Tsunomaru 04:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

a non-English morpheme applied to a Latin name in the Latin alphabet would use the rules of Latin declension
you're right,but as I've explained it's a cultural thing.
only an uncultured rube (poetic exaggeration) wouldn't understand the Greek alphabet
I believe nowadays greek isn't very common in the curriculum or popular to study. And anyway the 6bn people of the earth aren't obliged to speak greek
I would like it if they did but...
ci vediamo Thanatos|talk 05:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Greek translation

Thanks for the info about the Battle of Thermopylae page. I've been studying the language a little in my spare time and it fascinates me, but I've never actually taken a formal class on it. I appreciate the response! Gitman00 14:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Your πορνογραφία comment on the Pornography page

Hi Thanatos.
I'm no scholar of ancient languages or history.

If by scholar you mean an academic specialist in this specific field then no problem.Nor am I.If on the other hand you mean you haven't studied at all (in example as an amateur) any language of the time and/or the history of the period then please don't jump to conclusions. :)

That said, I didn't realize that the Hebrew/Aramaic OT bible was ever translated to Greek. Is that what you said?

Yep.Read this article in full.

Also, I understand the Septuagint to have been written in latin during the rise of the Roman branch of christianity.

Nope sorry wrong.Again read more starting from the Septaguint.Also read much more about Hellenistic times and about Greco-Roman times.Thinking (and then studying) about the latter word itself,that is why they are called "Greco-Roman" times and world might help greatly... :)

I knew I should have read that single paragraph before making my comment :) ...serves me right...he said sheepishly :)

It will probably require several passes to do your comments justice. I thank you for all the time you spent on your long reply. But I can't avoid the suspicion that you are jumping to conclusions about what you think I meant.

You're partially right.Cause what I have written is not solely based on your comments but also on a long experience of reading about such issues in texts by many westerners that seem to have missed a lot of history in between of other commonly well known events.So I've just extrapolated from your comment "I understand the Septuagint to have been written in latin during the rise of the Roman branch of christianity" to much more broad conclusions.Perhaps erroneously but certainly not without reason:here,where I'm from(guess where :) ),topics like the lingua franca, the common civilisation of the Eastern mediterranean starting from around 300BC and continuing up until many centuries AD,the Septaguint,enough of the early Christian church history and so on and so forth are more or less trivial if one knows his history.

But to reiterate, I've been intrigued by the way so many (tel)evangelsts/preachers/priests insist the Christian bible is so against erotica despite the fact that the "eros" root (from which we get erotica), and the πορνογραφία conjunction (from which we get porn) don't appear in any form in the Christian bible.

These two words not appearing verbatim doesn't mean that the Bible approves of the subject or that it doesn't condemn it. ;-)

I freely grant this of course.

Then why do you write "But to reiterate, I've been intrigued by the way so many (tel)evangelsts/preachers/priests insist the Christian bible is so against erotica despite the fact that the "eros" root (from which we get erotica), and the πορνογραφία conjunction (from which we get porn) don't appear in any form in the Christian bible."?? -note-just to be clear, I'm obviously not writting this in order to support the moral views or the camp of (tel)evangelsts/preachers/priests...-end note-

By the way stop making anachronisms and assumptions about words and meanings just by what a word means in modern English.

Just because I was trying to be brief doesn't mean I was doing this.

Who cares then what the modern word "erotica" means in english and whence it came?Who cares that the -probably in later times coined and perhaps meaning thereof- word doesn't appear in the Bible? What then do all these have to do with eroticism (or lack of ) in the Bible? The whole passages in lust that you have cited are , at least to my mind, much more modern creative theology and much less factual history or philology/linguistics.

"Erotica" is an adjective derived from "eros".In Greek (ancient or modern) as such, it doesn't mean what it means and is used for in modern English:

I realize, of course,that eros can be applied to several cross-gender relationships, including e.g. what we might call romance.

It not only can, it does.Perhaps not so,or not so much or so commonly in English.

singular : (masc) erotikos - (fem) erotike - (neu) erotikon; plural : erotikoi - erotikai - erotika.Next time if not searching in LSG(available online at perseus.tufts.edu as I've pointed you to), use at least something like this...

Yes, I had done that.

Great. :)

Also, the word "lust" didn't exist in Helenistic Greek.

The modern English Word "lust" of course didn't exist in Greek.  ;-) Other words did (I haven't filtered for the specific period and/or the Bible but you get the point).And other similar in meaning words like "desire" also did.

Yes, I am aware of these words as well. I think you are jumping to conclusions if you think their citation is relevant to our discussion.

So let's say the verb "epithymein" is irrelevant to the discussion?? You may perhaps want to go again through the wiki-article you've cited on lust.It's relevant!You said the word "lust" didn't exist in Hellenistic Greek.Well sorry but it seems that it did.It may have not been written in a way that would translate isomorphically to modern (or King James) English but it did.Its meaning existed inside many Greek words.

There is no word in the ancient Greek that is uniquely translated as "lust" in the Koine Greek bible.

A.So? B.Translated from Greek to Greek????? See (part of)the problem?You mean (I guess) to English,King James Bible translation or other.Which is by no means enough to come to such conclusion.

I grant that this observation alone, out of context, is not enough to come to the conclusion I mentioned. Again, I think your are jumping to conclusions.

I think that you're trying to support modern theological hermeneutics-exegesis against more traditional theological hermeneutics-exegesis.I'm really not interested,I really don't care about either of them as such.But I very much care about history...

The word didn't come until much later, possibly as a synchretistic import from paganism, e.g. Demeter and/or Osiris.

Which word? Came where? Where do you get your info from? The Bible (translated OT or hellenophone NT) doesn't contain the whole Greek vocabulary. The Bible isn't the whole corpus of the Greek literature(ultra-hyper-super-huge understatement) you know(in fact a huge part of both Greek vocabulary and literature (of this and other times) is lost forever)...

My sentence was a passing comment, not a thesis with full bibliography.

Passing comment based on what? It's certainly not a thesis with full bibliography and citations but it's certainly either a very strong thesis or a vary strong vague thesis.I ask you again: Which word? That came where? Again please be more specific.The whole christian faith was created during a time that religious syncretism was the norm in the area(but for a few very stubborn Judeans :D ).Syncretism didn't come by later.It had already started centuries before.And continued for many centuries later.

I grant that much has been lost from the culture. I grant that the Christian bible did not use the entire corpus of the ancient Greek vocabulary. So what? I don't see the relevance.

An ancient text lacks one ancient and one more modern word-term.The language of the time also seems to be missing,judging from surving texts that is, the more modern word; the ancient word also has not been consistently used in describing a meaning in this specific text ,very much so when translated to another language 1500+ years later.So let us now,2000 later(or is about 1800 or less??? :) ), fool around creatively with all the relevant words and meanings in the text. No we can justify our modern ethics and morals on that text without feeling sorry for not being true to it(what ever that means for such a text);in fact somehow we always manage to be true to it.That's my understanding of what you've written...

Please, again, don't jump into conclusions without more in depth study of the relevant languages and/or history.

I certainly grant that I need more study. The youtube reference below looks like it might be very interesting.

It is.I have in example some a few great objections to some historical positions stated in it but nothing is perfect so...

In this matter I strongly advice you to read more or watch something like this course.-edit-I've watched again some of the inital parts of the course.There are some errors,ommisions or oversimplifications in the history of the region but anyayay it's a very good start course on the topic-end edit-
Apropos (and on other relevant matters explained a few words later) a much common grave error of Westerners(especially Americans;I'm guessing you're one,no pun intended and sorry if you're not one) and especially Protestants concerning Christian matters, is to make a lot of big leaps and jumps in history (if they indeed study any European or Mediterranean ancient (or more recent) history at all that is): they end studying ancient Greece in Alexander's death, then focus henceforth only in Romans for some centuries, then think that the Roman empire ended about 300AD or 500AD or whatever and then at the end think that European history starts again with Charlemagne and/or Christian history with the Pope and Luther during the Protestant reformation...

I don't personally subscribe to the above simplification.

Great! Sorry but it's a very common thing, even coming from very educated people,so please excuse me if it seemed rude or out of place.As I've mentioned earlier things like the Septaguint being written in Greek in BC times are trivial knowledge here so I may have over overreacted.

Bottom line, it seems to me that the Christian bible is much more silent on eroticism (and all related concepts) than any (tel)evangelst/preacher/priest might claim. It certainly condemns prostitution and sex outside commitment (we call it marriage).But little more. ClickStudent (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Come on!!! Again, not containing the word "eros" or the (probably or evidently) more recent word "pornographia" doesn't mean that the Bible is sex friendly.

I would never claim the Christian bible is "sex friendly". Perhaps you got that phrase from someone else.

Well neutrality or silence on lust and various sex out of wedlock doesn't seem to me that is in agreement with the cited passages.When on top on them ones adds historical attitudes... ;-)

How about -just springing in mind- the evil (they were very sex friendly so they obviously must have certainly been Satanic while Lot offering his two daughters to them, to do whatever they liked to her, was obviously a man of God...) people of Sodom and Gomorrah? Or Paul on heterosexual anal sex(or whatever other one might imagine that "εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσιν" might mean) and/or male homosexuality (Rom 1.26-27): 26 Διὰ τοῦτο παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ Θεὸς εἰς πάθη ἀτιμίας. αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν μετήλλαξαν τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσιν, 27 ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ οἱ ἄρσενες ἀφέντες τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς θηλείας ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν εἰς ἀλλήλους, ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσι τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην κατεργαζόμενοι καὶ τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν ἣν ἔδει τῆς πλάνης αὐτῶν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἀπολαμβάνοντες.??? Or how about Amnon and Tamar???? The problem (and the objection) seems not to be incest but out of wedlock sex or out of wedlock incest... lol Thanatos|talk 03:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I am very aware of each of your biblical citations. Again, I think you are jumping to conclusions to assume they are relevant to what i said.

Somehow, I don't think we're talking about the same thing :) lol .... --ClickStudent (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok let me ask you again or let me put it in another way:How can such a text be silent in such an important fact of human life; that is erotic love,lust,sex????? What I've cited just refers to the well known not that sex-friendly attitude ;-) towards lust,love and sex -at least officialy- of both the ancient Hebrew religion and its syncretic offspring Christianity.Don't you get how is that related to the (not exclusively) modern nitpicking and free interpretation of the Bible in order to accomodate present moral norms on sexuality???

Afterthought: Let me recommend an interesting book (to return the favor)...The History of Sacerdotal Celibacy by Henry Charles Lea. It has much on the misapprehensions of sexuality as commonly thought to be described in the Christian Bible. I keep meaning to upload my excerpts to a Lea-referenced page. --ClickStudent (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The very first phrase in the summary "An unflattering description of the intimate role of priestly "celibacy" in the origins and rise of Roman Catholicism from 150AD up to the age of the author." is ridiculous and is exactly about what I've written above.
ROMAN CATHOLICISM in 150AD????Roman catholicism DIDN'T come to existence till about 900 years later...I hope this is what is really meant by and masked under "...in the origins..." and not the common prevailing Protestant(or Western or whatever) misconception and ignorance of history!!!! ;-)
Read in example about this or this(this is the ,let's say, official state-imperial church schism).And also in example in the Orthodox Church,the prevalent -for a long long time ;-)- Christian Church and denomination in my country and area, priests are not obliged to be celibate...
I hope the book is much better than its summary.But is there an online downloadble mainstream text format like pdf of it available? Daisy format??? Sorry can't read this...-edit- found one here,so I'm ok-end edit--reedit- oops that was only the second volume, first one can be found here-end reedit-
P.S. Ok I chose to begin answering phrase by phrase in order to respond to everything and not to have to copy/paste again and again your text.But admittedly it's very tiresome and time demanding to have a discussion in this manner.Perhaps, if continued, we should revert to writing continuous passages-comments-replies??? :D Thanatos|talk 02:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's agree to get together again after I've gone through the Yale youtubes on New Testament history (assuming my job doesn't collapse) and after you've read HC Lea. Should be interesting! :) --ClickStudent (talk) 04:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The course I've pointed you to is a very helpful and interesting class in (beginning to) understanding Christianity irrespectively of faith(or lack of),creed or denomination.It's many hours long but you can sit back and watch it without much discomfort if interested in the subject.

The book you've pointed me to on the other hand is,at least as I've understand it having gone briefly through it, 1000 pages centered (that I have to read on screen) on why and how it came to be that Catholic priests are obliged not to marry.

No comparison;you have to be joking!!!!!Sorry but I have many other more interesting and pressing books to read and vital stuff to do.I'm not interested in becoming a catholic priest(or fighting the catholic dogma) nor I have an urguing need to learn about celibacy.Nor to study in general theology and dogmatism. :) I may in due time have a look at it,most probably in brief and fast; no promises though...

If you watch the course,either during or after finish watching it, feel free to comment.Enjoy!

P.S.First phrase of the book(excluding prologue): "The Latin Church is the great fact which dominates the history of modern civilisation".Sorry, but over here it isn't and it hasn't.The influence has only either been indirect or when direct usually brief and/or of a different nature than the one you(again I'm guessing and assuming that you come from the west,feel free to correct me) Westerners have or have had,i.e. .Already western-christianity-centric... ;-)

P.P.S.FYI and for any future reference: As I've mentioned before ,for deeper background(and indeed manyatimes,like this one, foreground) understanding of the subject reading about at least the Hellenistic age is needed.This is greatly helpful in understanding all the later stuff: Romans,"Pagan" vs Christian Roman Empire,Greek East,Latin West,Syncretism,Platonic and Aristotelian influences in Christian theology and so on and so forth.Something like this(sorry,I haven't found a english translation on the web) by this gentleman is needed to be read if you later or ever want to study deeper...

Thanatos|talk 06:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Thumbs up! 178.128.65.182 (talk) 05:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Ευχαριστώ αλλά γιατί;;;Thanatos|talk 18:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Privative a, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greek (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

For any future reference I will reply to this nice Bot: My mistake;fixed. :) 15:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Invitation

Although you seem to be a veteran user, you still might be interested to join /Wikipedia:WikiProject_Greece/Members wp:gr.Alexikoua (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I could only, at least for the near future, join nominally, i.e. being a member in name not practice.I usually edit-contribute at my own pace and whenever and on whatever I want;I also certainly don't have the time now to do long assigned projects...Thanatos|talk 15:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Thanatos666. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
Message added 15:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stefan2 (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Silence (2010 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frank Evers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you again, you're such a nice bot! :) Wikilink now fixed.Thanatos|talk 16:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Britain (placename)

Many thanks for the thanks, but...you left me in suspense. Please do finish your comment! --Mhbeals (talk) 07:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

In short some people didn't like the quotation or citation of so many primary sources or the form of the passage.Presenting the ancient authors and the record in a list, I had thought, would be at least more appealing, it would make more sense.But I was too tired etc to continue to work on that article...Thanatos|talk 15:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: Btw if you take a look here (ref.-note 3), you will see that there is also Pseudo Agathemerus and Eustathius;I did a quick web search on the former; no direct results.

Anyway if noone else does it, I may perhaps do it in due time(but not now); if I can find the texts etc, that is...Thanatos|talk 16:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Jus sanguinis

"(Rewritten-reorder section on Poland (fluency in English low) deleting the Pol. Constitution article quotation.Added citation needed tags not due to doubt about validity of the text but simply because of the many historical claims in need of verification.) (undo)"

Thank you for the revision of the "Jus sanguinis".

Do not suggest that my "fluency in English is low"... especially that you do not know me, and nothing about me, I am native English speaker, while your knowledge of American English is apparently trailing behind. I would like to remind you that attacking any one is contrary to good behavior and your comments are uncalled and only counterproductive.

. My suggestion stick to your native language, there is an expression "don't play Greek"... when not requested that you do so. Removed the tags [citation needed] - as the reference was (as required by the polish law) printed after it was ratified by Polish Sejm at the request of Polish President, in the Polish "Journal of law" (Dziennik Ustaw). There is no need to provide any additional citation, the link to polish constitution is more than sufficient. Also removed the reference (at the time of the Arab-Israeli War) as it has nothing to do with loosing the citizenship by those who were forced to leave Poland by the communist government, as it was strictly related to internal polish situation, and not Arab Israeli conflicts, nor with reinstatement of their citizenship. Israeli Arab war is completely irrelevant to their exodus. What Arab Israeli war have in common with internal political Polish - Russian situation? Also removed "the so called" (The first independent Polish President Lech Kaczyński, the so called guardian of the Polish constitution, ordered the reinstatement of Polish citizenship to all Poles that were forced against their will by the communist government to give up the rights to citizenship, by consequently issuing a presidential order to reinstate their citizenship due to having been unlawfully revoked). My suggestion to you do not correct any materials which are not based on your specific legal knowledge, as you are expressing only your prejudicial opinions while vandalizing the work of those who know it better than you. Thanks for your understanding and your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.237.150 (talk) 10:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

1.a. This is how the section on Poland looked like before my edits(i.e. after yours):

---

• Poland: The Polish citizenship for years is based on article 34 of Polish constitution as a Jus sanguinis right to citizenship. During the 1967 the Communist State illegally in violation of Polsih Constitution forced especially the Jews emigrating from Poland to Israel to exchange the exit visa, for denonciation of Polish Citizenship. Any child born of Polish parent unless by the 90 day from their birth parent(s) requested that the Polish citizenship be abolished is a is a legal polish citizen./par

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF POLAND - Article 34 Polish citizenship shall be acquired by birth to (at least one of the parents) parents being Polish citizens. Other methods of acquiring Polish citizenship shall be specified by statute./par
The first independent Polish President Lech Kaczyński, the guardian of the Polish constitution ordered the reinstatement of Polish citizenship to all poles against their wiil forced by the communist government to give up the rights to citizenship. Consequently the presidential order to reinstate their citizenship for unlawfully revoked their citizenship by the communist state. Those citizens who were forced against their will by the State to relinquish their citizenship between 1920 and 1989, by the presidential decret have had reinstated their citizenship. The reinstatement of Citizenship has nothing to do with any naturalization criteria.

http://www.sejm.gov.pl/prawo/konst/angielski/kon1.htm

---

b.This is how it looked like after my edits (that had come after yours):

---

• Poland: The definition of Polish citizenship has been based for years on article 34 of the Polish Constitution; this article is based on a Jus sanguinis right to citizenship. Moreover any child born by Polish parents is a de jure citizen of Poland unless its parent(s) request by the 90th day since its birth the Polish citizenship to be abolished. In 1967-1968 (at the time of the Arab-Israeli War) the Communist State illegally and in violation of the Polish Constitution, gave Jews emigrating from Poland to Israel a so called travel document (reading that the bearer of them was not a Polish citizen) instead of passports, in effect taking away their Polish citizenship for having supposedly, in emigrating or travelling to Israel, denounced it themselves. The first independent Polish President Lech Kaczyński, the so called guardian of the Polish constitution, ordered the reinstatement of Polish citizenship to all Poles that were forced against their will by the communist government to give up the rights to citizenship, by consequently issuing a presidential order to reinstate their citizenship due to having been unlawfully revoked. Those citizens who were forced by the State to relinquish their citizenship against their will between 1920 and 1989, have had their citizenship reinstated by a presidential decree. The reinstatement of Citizenship has nothing to do with any naturalization criteria.

---

Need I say more on fluency??I'm certainly not a native anglophone but this passage(i.e. your edition of it) seems to me not to have been written by a native anglophone either(huge understatement)...

Moreover need I also comment on page style, formatting etc?!?

2.This is my first edit-summary there after your edits:

"Rewritten-reorder section on Poland (fluency in English low) deleting the Pol. Constitution article quotation.Added citation needed tags not due to doubt about validity of the text but simply because of the many historical claims in need of verification."

This is your edit-summary after my edits:

"removed "Greek comments" which has nothing to do with the subject!"

This (i.e. my edits, edit-summaries, actions) hardly seems to me as an unjustified attack on the claims therein; or as something that has nothing to do with the subject.I was just stating the obvious, i.e. that on top of the meaningless syntax etc of the passage, the claims need citations, cause I'm very sorry to inform you but they're not self-evident...;-)

But I'll anyway let the page be as presently is.I won't reinsert citation needed tags or edit the now edited and altered again by you passage.To be sincere I'm not that interested in the topic (Polish-Israeli relations, Polish Citizenship-law etc).Again I must repeat that I was just stating the obvious, i.e. thay there are so many (specific historical) claims and evaluations therein that citation is badly needed.But as I've said, I'll let other people decide.I don't really care that much.

I won't do this even after or despite your silly reply and reaction dubbing my edits etc "Greek", "Greek comments", obviously meaning somehow something very bad...  ;-)

P.S.A factual example: As per the linked to page, this parenthesised text "(at least one of the parents)" doesn't seem to be included in Article 34 of the Polish Constitution. So this is not a direct quotation of the Article per se; therefore it's also, however true or not, misleading; it's also your an edit-text of yours; cause this is how the section on Poland looked like before your initial edits:

---

• Poland: The Statute on Polish Citizenship, as amended in 2000, permits the descendants of Poles who lost their nationality involuntarily between 1920 and 1989 to take up Polish citizenship without regard to ordinary naturalization criteria.

---

P.P.S.You can btw do the same (i.e. insert citation needed tags) about Greece or any other country mentioned therein if you think that what is being claimed is not obvious, self-evident...

P.P.P.S.When btw writing something new, when adding a new section on some user's talk page (as you did here), please press New section on the top right of the talk page and then write.Don't insert-edit-in what you have to say at the top of the page; these pages commonly and mostly follow a chronological order...Also please don't forget to sign your comments with this: ~~~~.Thank you.So long and thanks for all the fish...Thanatos|talk 03:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vigil may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 'Ndrangheta may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vigil may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

For any future reference, it's just a single parenthesis used by the LSJ template.False positive.Thanatos|talk 19:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Suda may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Atomism may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Net international investment position may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hadrosaurus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Zoology may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Organism may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ontology may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Deucalion may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Heta may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

'Ndrangheta etymology

Hi, I think your changes need more sources. You may be right, but you simply cannot change the content of a referenced source. Additionally, you should not only take in consideration Greek, but the Greek dialect spoken in Calabria, which is not the same. Before changing the etymology in the text, I think this needs more discussion on the talk page and other opinions. Thanks. - DonCalo (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not specific to Calabria.It's from the ancient Greek which when cited we usually mean Attic.But even if we weren't dealing with Attic but with some local ancient dialect of Magna Graecia it wouldn't make a difference in this case.Moreover it's not about the Griko dialect or something like that.It's about the ancient etymological origin of the word(s).Anyway I had been writing a new section at the page's talk page on this trying to stop the edit war but since you've commented here, here you go:

It's basic Greek but let me present you some LSJ et al references-sources so that hopefully this edit-war won't continue:

• ἀνήρ, anēr, man, genitive ἀνδρός, andros; Compound words are formed in most cases using the stem of the genitive, not of the nominative.Or put in another way, what does andròs, as per your quotation-edit mean?? It does NOT mean man.It means man's, of man, etc...
• andragathizomai; notice the theta (instead of a tau as per your source-edit)?? It's Greek not Italian; I must repeat: theta not tau! Its infinitive is btw andragathizesthai.
• andragathia Why would you btw want to delete this reference?

You might also want to read this.

And here are some tertiary sources (not about 'Ndrangheta per se but about andragathia in ancient Greece) found in a few seconds just by googling (in google books):

1 2 3 4.Notice in 4 the aner agathos.

You could also have just gooled aner agathos or aner agathos andragathia... ;-)

Thanatos|talk 08:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I've now reedited it providing inter alia much more references.It's getting ridiculous.I've even analysed-explained the verb forms for you in full which is ultra-ridiculous; this verb analysis is useless and should be deleted but since evidently I cannot prove I'm not an elephant... ;-) Please do not revert.Thanatos|talk 10:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia: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 do not need to participate; however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Economy of Greece". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 05:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Well deserved

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For all your great work at Economy of Greece; including but not limited to digging up all this important information from obscure tables and expertly hunting it down from so many menus and submenus. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Χα,χα,χα!! Το πρώτο μου βικιπαιδειοπαράσημο!!! Ευχαριστώ πολύ!!!! Thanatos|talk 23:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Χα, χα! Παράσημο. Δεν το είχα σκεφτεί ποτέ έτσι. :) Ούτως η άλλως όμως σου αξίζει. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Cladistics

Hi, I've reverted your edit that adds a citation for the etymology of the word because what I see at that link doesn't include such information, it includes only "cladistics (n.) "systematic classification of life forms," 1965; see cladism (also see -ics)." Are you seeing something more, or something clickable that gives the etymology? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

And I've reverted back; for god's sake it's trivial!!! Clados -> cladism -> cladistic (or as OED claims Clados -> cladistic -> cladism). Order of derivation may vary but anyway, as I've said, it's #$@#$@# trivial. All these forms but also others, in many languages, are predominantly derivatives of the Greek infinitive suffix -ίζειν, -izein (or -ίζω as in Greek and Greek Studies, it's the first person, singular, present, indicative form that is the cited norm on verbs).This suffix(es) (along with -ic <- ικός,-ική,-ικόν (athough one might say that this is of ultimate Indoeuropean through Latin, and not exclusively Greek, origin)) has acquired a life of its own whereby new words are coined up all the time (usually about Science) without necessarily having had an older-original Greek equivalent, at least attested in ancient sources... In this case for example I don't think kladismos or kladistikos or even kladizo had an attested Greek equivalent before the modern coining up of the words... ;-) Thanatos|talk 18:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

So now you're sticking your tongue out at me?? The problem is that you added a citation that doesn't belong, not that English speakers don't know something of word origins. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

As far I as I can see the citation is fine; the aforementioned OnlineED lemma-entry includes a hyperlink; next to the see imperative, that is... ;-) Thanatos|talk 19:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH and WP:INTEGRITY

Hello. Please stop adding etymological statements that are not supported by the cited references, as you did here and here. Also, note that Modern Greek terminology is irrelevant to articles whose titles are words composed from Ancient Greek roots. Please take a look at this thread. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Please refrain from meaningless accusations before researching things first much more deeply.Sorry but I will have to reply sharply and harshly because I'm very annoyed having to deal again with the same, exact silly thing (as I did with Sminthopsis84; see section above).

• 1.The modern Greek terminology phrase at biomechanics was already there.I am not the one that has edited it in.
• 2.
  • a.Meiosis is indeed from Greek; as I guess you obviously know being a navite hellenophone. It's so obvious that making a fuss about this makes me mad! The fact that the unverified and and uncited claims that were there before my addition of references, e.g. this The term meiosis was coined by J.B Farmer and J.B Moore in 1905 from the linked to this, seem to make no one object is even more annoying.
  • b.Again the phrase The term meiosis was coined by J.B Farmer and J.B Moore in 1905 was already there. I changed it a bit and added references. This specific reference might not say who did it in 1905 -it does read 1905- but imo it's better than having no reference.
  • c.Now one might, could, or should express this etymology in a much better way as in fact a user did being constructive instead of foolishly annoying, than the one I had used (The technical term meiosis was coined by J.B Farmer and J.B Moore in 1905 and is a transliteration of the Greek word μείωσις i.e. trying to explain the new coining up of the technical term, transliterating a Greek word) but the reference is neither synth or whatever. Meiosis as the cited ref says is "from Greek meiosis".End of story. If you don't like it remove J.B. Farmer or J.B.B Moore; or put a citation needed tag next to the them; as a user has already done...
• 3.
  • a.Are you people blind?? The Online Etymology Dictionary as many other dictionaries uses imperatives and being a part of the digital world and age hyperlinks. So the ref-article about physics i.e this reads

    physics (n.)
    1580s, "natural science," from physic in sense of "natural science." Also see -ics. Based on Latin physica (neuter plural), from Greek ta physika, literally "the natural things," name of Aristotle's treatise on nature. Specific sense of "science treating of properties of matter and energy" is from 1715.

    The hyperlinked article physic then reads (I haven't included hyperlinks this time)

    physic (n.)
    c.1300, fysike, "art of healing, medical science," also "natural science" (c.1300), from Old French fisike "natural science, art of healing" (12c.) and directly from Latin physica (fem. singular of physicus) "study of nature," from Greek physike (episteme) "(knowledge) of nature," from fem. of physikos "pertaining to nature," from physis "nature," from phyein "to bring forth, produce, make to grow" (cf. phyton "growth, plant," phyle "tribe, race," phyma "a growth, tumor") from PIE root *bheue- "to be exist, grow" (see be). Spelling with ph- attested from late 14c. (see ph). As a noun, "medicine that acts as a laxative," 1610s. The verb meaning "to dose with medicine" is attested from late 14c.

  • b.It's funny people that some editors seem to prefer uncited claims, sometimes inaccurate or lacking, than cited ones that may need an additional click on hyperlinks...
  • c.For god's sake one could quote-cite Φυσικά, Μετά τα Φυσικά, Φυσική Φιλοσοφία, Φυσικοί Φιλόσοφοι, Φυσική Επιστήμη and so on and so forth. It's trivial...
  • d.There is no way we could avoid some Synthesis. E.g. if we point to φυσικά should we leave out that physika is a neuter plural nominative adjective and that in Greek this is not the commonly cited form of the word as a lemma??
    Should we, that is, point to physike or physika or physikon or physikos or ....????
    No simple answer to that; again there is no way we could avoid some Synthesis or assumed prior knowledge; but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
• 5.I could argue that this From Ancient Greek: φύσις physis "nature" is, at least potentially, inaccurate or misleading; it also lacks a citation. It is inaccurate-misleading because in natural language understanding one might e.g. think that some old Englishman looked up nature in a English-Greek vocabulary, found physis and then coined up the term physics for the science of nature; while instead the term(s), although obviously derived from physis, has itself a long history in Greek and other languages... Physikoi Philosophoi etc...
• 6.Now since it seems you like to invoke wiki rules and regulations then Ι will gladly and happily do a meta-invocation :
  Wikipedia:Ignore all rules because Wikipedia:The rules are principles, not thesphata.
• 7.
  • As I've already said to another user, if you object so much to having to do one more click at the reference then why don't you add yourself the second link-reference instead of picking a silly fight?? Or how about adding, replacing the quoted Greek with physike philosophia?? Or whatever..
  • Going instead around at various articles (guessing after my edits) and changing format-style, citing various MOS subsections, doesn't count as a constructive edit in this case to me; it simply seems instead as something Vogons would do... ;-)
• 8.Doing what you've proposed would be nice but it's not always possible. Also, however famous, neither OED nor MW are absolutely necessary and certainly not mandatory, sorry; OnlineED is to say the least just fine as a handy replacement; in fact more than fine as far as etymology is concerned. Now, if you prefer the two former fine, I can understand this due to the primacy they have in the Anglosphaere; but on dealing with etymology and online access, we don't all own a copy of OED and MW is very lacking at the former.
  Comparing e.g. the aforementioned OnlineED entries above with MW entry on physics (including the MW entries physical and physic) presents the obvious edge the former, though admittedly not perfect, has in comparison by definition on etymology...

Thanatos|talk 20:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) Please stick to the subject and try to assume good faith. Endlessly ranting about how other editors are "blind," "foolishly annoying," bureaucratic, pugnacious, and inconsistent is quite pointless, let alone uncivil.

Sorry but having to deal with this instead of the essense is indeed imo x,y,z...

Re: biomechanics. I apologize about that. It was indeed another user who inserted the Modern Greek term. OK.

Re: meiosis. You wrote: "This specific reference might not say who did it in 1905 -it does read 1905- but imo it's better than having no reference." This is exactly where my objection lies; per WP:INTEGRITY, when using inline citations, it is important to maintain text–source integrity. You should not just editorialize a statement in a way that misleads the reader to thinking that this specific statement is validated by references, when in fact it is not. You should have done what User:Peter coxhead did.

No this is your opinion or interpretation. It is validated,verified by references; not 100% but still validated...
Put in another way how do you know the scope of the reference??
You see I can play this game too: I verified a passage; the reference I used may or may not refer to the whole of the passage you have in mind.
In other words common sense says that I'm not obliged to do every single subsequent edit of the text; others could do that... It's an incremental process... ;-)

Re: "formatting edits". It is properly called "cross-article consistency," and a vast project like Wikipedia needs this to a certain degree.

Ok go hunt this cross-article consistency as if this e.g. scheme GREEK, TRANSLITERATED_GREEK, i.e. "meaning_in_English" is highly problematic; I hope you have passed the 50% mark when the norm of consistency will be next changed...
To me form is serious almost only when it's indeed serious; e.g. if references where put at teh beginning of an article this however silly would be troublesome to read. Otherwise form to me is irrelevant; that doesn't mean btw that I won't abide by most wikinorms; it means that though I will abide by the most serious of them, most of the time, priority goes not to them but to adding in serious and valid content.
In other words yes by all means, go do that when major articles lack content, references, validation etc etc etc. ;-)

Re. "Going instead around at various articles (guessing after my edits) and changing format-style, citing various MOS subsections." If you are suggesting that you do not like other editors to follow or have a say on your contributions, please take the time to read WP:HA#NOT ("neither is tracking a user's contributions for policy violations"). Since your recent edits consisted in mild policy violations, I think that it is appropriate for someone to double-check your contributions. Also note that I have been a member of Wikipedia's Etymology Task Force since 2008, which effectively means that I am only trying to improve articles I have been editing for the past five years.

Double check my edits at will; the access is wide open. I can't and I won't forbid you to do so.

But to me, be it allowed or not, this is and would be Vogon-like behaviour...

Moreover if I would like to act very mean, I would say about the diacritics you "corrected" somewhere that has lead me to having to double and triple check even more your doublechecks...

Re: physics. Your edits to this article are quite problematic: This edit featured an especially unclear citation style, while this edit is downright misleading. You write: "Physics (from Greek ("φυσική φιλοσοφία")." None of the following five (!) citations contains this piece of information. This piece of information consists only of original research. Moreover, I cannot understand why you keep omitting the grave accent (βαρεία); the correct rendering is "φυσικὴ ἐπιστήμη/φιλοσοφία". If you are going to use the polytonic system, try to get it right. The phrase "From Ancient Greek: φύσις physis "nature"" may be too brief, but it is technically accurate; it just indicates the ultimate etymology of the English word physics.

1.LSJ and common sense
e.g. "of or concerning the order of external nature, natural, physical, “ἡ φ. ἐπιστήμη” Arist.PA640a2; φ. φιλοσοφία ib.653a9; “ἡ φ.” Id.Metaph.1026a6, etc.; opp. μαθηματική, θεολογική, ib.1064b2; τὰ φ. ib.1026a4; οἱ φ. λόγοι f.l. for οἱ φυσιολόγοι, Id.EN1154b7; φ. προτάσεις, opp. ἠθικαί, λογικαί, Id.Top.105b21; τὸ φ., τὸ ἠθικόν, τὸ λογικόν, the three branches of philosophy, Zeno Stoic.1.15, etc., cf. S.E.P.2.13; τὰ πρῶτα καὶ -ώτατα the primal elements of things, Plu.2.395d."

Sorry but you're doing the same thing.It's ridiculous wasting my time thus!!!!
LSJ IS ONE OF THE CITED SOURCES BY ME!!! IT'S COMMON KNOWLEDGE TO ANYONE KNOWING ANY HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY OR SCIENCE THAT AFTER TRACING BACK TO PHYSIKE THEN THE MOST LIKELY ROUTE WOULD BE TO TRACE TO PHYSIKE PHILOSOPHIA (OR THE ANALOGOUS NAME PHILOSOPHIA NATURALIS).

IN FACT JUST SAYING THAT THE WORD (AND THE CONCEPT AS A GENERAL TRADITION BEFORE THE BRANCHING OFF OF VARIOUS PHILOSOPHICAL SUBFIELDS ETC) PHYSICS COMES FROM THE GREEK PHYSIKE PHILOSOPHIA WOULD BE ENOUGH!!

I'VE TOLD YOU THEY'RE IS NO WAY OF AVOIDING 100% SYNTHESIS OR OTHER STUFF.

DO YOU WANT ME TO GO EVEN MORE CRAZY AND GO POSTMODERN ON YOU??? ;-)

PLEASE FOCUS ON THE ESSENCE, NOT OF THE FORM AND CERTAINLY NOT ON THE SILLY APPLICATION OF OTHERWISE IMPORTANT RULES!!!

Had I done a huge unfounded leap I would concur and object to synthesising or whatever sources. But this is trivial, it's even there present VERBATIM at LSJ!!!

2.Bareia is manyatimes not used; even by scholars; even more so here. Here in wikipedia, personally, sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Put in another way there are many polytonic systems: Some use bareiai some don't; some use iota subscripts some don't; some, however rare, even use daseiai on intervocalic Rs etc...

Now though I'm in favour of using them, do you want us to have a discussion on your certainty that the correct way is using bareiai??? May it be that many scholarly people think that they're symbols much later added absent from the original tonal ancient Greek and hence without any importance?? Or should we discuss how important a matter is this generally in comparison to what we're discussing? ;-)

For the record, WP:IGNORE is inapplicable here (I do not advocate blind obedience to the rules—I advocate common sense), and WP:RAP is just an essay, not a policy.

Cheers. --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record please stop speaking, sounding ex cathedra especially when it's about wikirules and not content but also when you add to the wikirules-stuff, real stuff; it's getting very, very, very, very, silly. I TRY TO EDIT IN CONTENT. Though I've read many wiki rules from time to time, though I certainly accept that we must more or less follow some basic rules, I won't waste my time going around reading every rule that you cite; you've got me to the point that I don't care at all if WP:IGNORE, whatever that is, or whatever else you might invoke, is valid or not; I prefer spending my precious time adding as much as possible serious content!!!! OK?!?!?!? Thanatos|talk 13:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Try not to write in CAPS LOCK because it gives the impression that you are yelling and no one wants to be yelled at. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I was yelling, HENCE THE CAPITAL LETTERS, I'M NOT A INTERNET NEWBIE; YOU AGAIN WERE AGAIN BEING CONDESENDING, trying to teach me internet etiquette stuff that I already know about and as if the CAPS or the yelling were the problem or the essence thereof...
So nothing has changed; it's utterly meaningless....Thanatos|talk 13:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Ήθελα να ήξερα αν συνειδητοποιείς ή αν σου διαφεύγει ότι αυτή η στείρα εμμονή, το τυφλό κόλλημα στο γράμμα του νόμου σε οδηγεί σε αντίστροφες πορείες από αυτές που νομίζεις:
αν ειρήσθω εν παρόδω (αφορμή το τελευταίο edit-revert σου στο physics) και λόγου χάριν συγκριτέα τα φυσική φιλοσοφία και φυσική επιστήμη τότε φυσική φιλοσοφία είναι αυτό με τις πολύ λιγότερες ή πολύ ασθενέστερες δυνάμει ενστάσεις γιατί μεταξύ άλλων παρ'ότι επιστήμη και scientia-science λέξεις χρησιμοποιούμενες από αρχαιότητος, την σύγχρονη εποχή έχουν πάρει σημαντικά νοήματα ή/και συμπαρανοήματα (connotations) ιδιάζοντα στην εποχή και την ιστορική εξέλιξη... ;-) Thanatos|talk 14:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Καλοτοποθετημένο. Alas, this is not a forum ;-) --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hellenistic period may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

{{LSJ}} and AWB

See Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs#Template:LSJ causes Unbalanced brackets alert Bgwhite (talk) 04:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, the link will take you nowhere now because it has been fixed in the latest release of AWB. Hopefully you won't be seeing me mess up LSJ templates. Bgwhite (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Would not be problem even if you kept messing up LSJ templates; that's one of the reasons we're here: to correct each others mistakes.
P.S. How come it has vanished? If after being fixed the reports get erased, what's the reason for having an archive? Anyway, strange...Thanatos|talk 20:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice catch there

That was a very helpful comment. I just found the sources. I hope you won't mind me fixing the garbled text. --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Why would I mind?? :) Thanatos|talk|contributions 04:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Johannes Oecolampadius may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 'oikos'', "house," and λαμπάς ([[genitive|gen]] λαμπάδος) ''lampas'', "lamp".<ref name=LSJ>{{LSJ|oi){{=}}kos1|οἶκος}}, {{LSJ|lampa/s1|λαμπάς|ref}}.</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Artemis may have broken the syntax by modifying 3 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Artemis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Phrygian

Artemisia I of Caria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Phrygian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you dear bot. Thanatos|talk|contributions 11:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Psiloi may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• </ref> or ''[[euzonoi]]'' (light armored; after who the modern [[Evzones]] are named),<ref>{{LSJ|eu)/zwnos|euzonoi|ref}}.</ref> ''[[grosphomachoi]]'' and ''[[akontistai]]'' (javelineers),<ref>{{LSJ|
• ,<ref>{{LSJ|grosfoma/xos|grosphomachoi}}, {{LSJ|gro/sfos|grosphos|ref}}.</ref><ref>{{LSJ|a)kontisth/s|akontistai|ref}}.</ref> ''[[sphendonetai]]'' (slingers),<ref>{{LSJ|sfendonh/ths|

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Antonomasia may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• the verb {{lang|grc|ἀντονομάζειν}}, ''antonomazein'', meaning "to name differently".<ref>{{LSJ|a)ntonomasi/a|ἀντονομασία}},{{LSJ|a)ntonoma/zw|ἀντονομάζειν|ref}}.</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=antonomasia|url=http://www.etymonline.com/

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Horology may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• allowed_in_frame=0|title=horology |publisher=[[Online Etymology Dictionary]]}}</ref><ref>{{LSJ|w(rolo/gion|ὡρολόγιον}}, {{LSJ|w(/ra2|ὥρα|ref}}.</ref> is the art or science of measuring [[time]]. [[Clocks]], [[watches]], [[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Archbishop may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• language|Greek]] {{lang|grc|ἀρχιεπίσκοπος}}, from ἀρχι-, chief, and ἐπίσκοπος, bishop)<ref>{{LSJ|a)rxiepi/skopos|ἀρχιεπίσκοπος|ref}}.</ref><ref>{{L&S|archiepiscopus|ref}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Aegis may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• The [[Greek language|Greek]] {{lang|grc|Αἰγίς}}, has many meanings including:<ref>{{LSJ|ai)gi/s|αἰγίς|ref}}.</ref>
• , from the verb {{lang|grc|ἀΐσσω}}<ref>"to quickly move, to shoot, dart, to put in motion": {{LSJ|a)i/ssw|ἀΐσσω|ref|mLSJ}}.</ref> ([[stem (linguistics)|stem]] {{lang|grc|ἀïγ-}}) = "I rush or move

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Etymology may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• and the suffix ''-logia'', denoting "the study of".<ref>{{OEtymD|etymology}}</ref><ref>{{LSJ|e)tumologi/a|ἐτυμολογία}}, {{LSJ|e)/tumos|ἔτυμον|ref}}.</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Halo (optical phenomenon) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• A '''halo''' (from [[Greek language|Greek]] {{lang|grc|ἅλως}};<ref>{{OEtymD|halo}} {{LSJ|a(/lws|ἅλως|ref}}.</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Claude Mossé may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * ''La Tyrannie dans la Grèce antique'', Paris, PUF]], 1969

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Acropolis may have broken the syntax by modifying 3 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ''acropoles'', ''acropoleis'' or ''acropolises'')<ref>{{OEtymD|acropolis}}</ref><ref>{{LSJ|a)kro/polis|acropolis}}, {{LSJ|a)/kros|akros}}, {{LSJ|a)/kron|akron|ref}}.</ref> is a [[Human settlement|settlement]], especially a [[citadel]], built upon

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Cippi of Melqart

Hey! Thanks a lot for our help on the Cippi of Melqart page! I notice you added the phoenician text - I have the 'ALPHABETUM Unicode', 'MPH 2B Damase', Aegean, Code2001, font installed on my machine, but I'm only seeing unidentified "boxes" in the characters you added...what do you think of integrating the text found on the French version of Wikipedia into the text:

[𐤋‏𐤀‏𐤃‏𐤍‏𐤍‏ 𐤋‏𐤌‏𐤋‏𐤒‏𐤓‏𐤕‏ 𐤁‏𐤏‏𐤋‏ 𐤑‏‏‏𐤓‏ 𐤀‏𐤔‏ 𐤍‏𐤃‏𐤓‏ 𐤏‏𐤁‏𐤃‏‏𐤊 𐤏‏𐤁‏𐤃‏‏𐤀‏𐤎‏‏𐤓‏ 𐤅‏‏𐤀‏𐤇‏𐤉‏ 𐤀‏𐤎‏‏‏𐤓‏𐤔‏𐤌‏𐤓‏ 𐤔‏𐤍‏ 𐤁‏𐤍‏ 𐤀‏𐤎‏‏𐤓‏𐤔‏𐤌‏𐤓‏ 𐤁‏𐤍‏ 𐤏‏𐤓‏𐤃‏𐤀‏𐤔‏‏𐤓‏ 𐤊‏𐤔‏𐤌‏𐤏‏ 𐤒‏𐤋‏𐤌‏ 𐤍‏𐤁‏𐤓‏𐤊‏𐤌] Error: {{Lang}}: unrecognized language tag: Phnx (help)

Thanks for your help! reuv ^T 20:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

1.You're welcome. Congrats in fact to you for doing serious work on the article. 2.Try now again.I've copied the font code (only that, not the phoenician text itself) from the french article. Let me know whether it works. PS.Totally not fluent in Semitic languages or scripts. Only just installed the MPH 2B Damase; no install of relevant keyboard. Had to do the job by hand... Thanatos|talk|contributions 21:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I speak Maltese, so some verbs and bits of the structure are comprehensible: Everything else...no! Now it works just fine. I wanted to put the Phoenician text in, but with the image I thought it might be overdoing it. If you agreed with putting it in, I'm guessing it's fine. Am trying to give this article the importance it deserves really...It was in a terrible state before I started! (By hand?! You're very patient!) Thanks again! reuv ^T 21:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

If I had known that the french wikipedia article had already included the text, I wouldn't have lost an hour or two going back and forth from the stated at the article transliteration/transcription to the Phoenician alphabet article searching for a match, checking the image whether the nth -manyatimes missing the place/count- character matches, checking the sources just to be sure the transliteration stated in the article is correct, copying it and pasting therefrom (the Ph. alph. article) to first the browser search bar (had two browser windows open) and after finishing a line, to the (Cippi of Melqart) article and here we go again from the start... P.S.A big problem and fear were the, I guess, character variants seen on the images as opposed to the form of the characters displayed in MPH 2B Damase... P.P.S. The only thing that I did understood or anyway the closest thing to it, was when I had been researching/googling the missing grandpa issue on whether the Louvre page translation or the other sources are correct: I realised/confirmed/congratulated my self that it is indeed the latter when I saw the 2 bens-bins in the transcription; that much, Semitic, I do know... :D Thanatos|talk|contributions 21:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI: Talk:Cippi of Melqart#Phoenician text.Thanatos|talk|contributions 12:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)