Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ad hominem you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ComplexRational -- ComplexRational (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Albert Camus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On 23 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Albert Camus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Albert Camus's novel The Plague is based on an epidemic in Oran, Algeria, and examines how a government could turn tyrannical? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Albert Camus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Albert Camus), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
I wonder why you restore this -since 2019- cn tagged part [[2]] without addressing the issue on the cn template. If you can address the issue that's already raised it would be fine but otherwise I'm afraid this part will go per wp:OR.Alexikoua (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for discussing the issue. Maybe Talk page of the article would be a more suitable place to discuss it. Anyway, I will address the issue, but I need some time- a week or so. If I wont, please feek free to remove it. Thanks, Cinadon3604:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
@Cinadon36: Greetings! I saw that you got Ad Hominem to good article standard. I'm sure you're aware that, unfortunately, articles usually lose quality standards because many editors add or remove what they want to articles, especially highly viewed ones. If you could get a quick glance there are edit what should and shouldn't be there that would be great. Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 11:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cinadon36: You will probably have to look at it occasionaly because people add things without any consensus, and usually add content that has MOS errors or just poorly sourced (or sourced with unreliable refs). Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pre-Socratic philosophy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Melissus.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pre-Socratic philosophy you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An article you recently created, André Laks, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ...discospinstertalk18:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Discospinster:, it seems Andre Laks lacks notability. I created the article since I saw articles about him at french and german wikis, but I am not sure if he is notable enough. Mind, I am not familiar with french or german language. Cinadon3609:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pre-Socratic philosophy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Naturalism.
The article Pre-Socratic philosophy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pre-Socratic philosophy for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-Socratic philosophy
Hello:
The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Pre-Socratic philosophy has been completed.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
On 12 June 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pre-Socratic philosophy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that pre-Socratic philosophy included some of the earliest attempts to explain the cosmos as an ordered system without reference to the gods? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pre-Socratic philosophy. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Pre-Socratic philosophy), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Socrates you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ardenter -- Ardenter (talk) 07:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article Socrates you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Socrates for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ardenter -- Ardenter (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Completion of the initial Socrates review
I've completed my initial review of Socrates. My assessment was "on hold". Most problems are simply about wording. For my reasoning on each point see the review. If you want sentence by sentence grammatical and Manual of Style suggestions, just notify me. Thank you! Ardenter (talk) 07:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
Hi Cinadon36 and sorry for only seeing your comment at Talk:Maiorana now.
I asked NarkyBlert to summerize their opinion at Talk:Maiorana, guessing if they didn't WP:3O would remove the disagreement, but got no response.
I feel I've been clear enough whether asking at WP:3O, WP:APO or Talk:Maiorana and always linked back to the fuller discussion. I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor or admin so my solution might not be line with Wikipedia's guideline for name and dab pages, that's why I've been trying to start a discussion among seasoned editors. Thank you 22:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi, no problem dear. For 3O to be valid, the opinions of both users have to be on the talk page of the article. My advice is to re-start the discussion, this time at talk page, wait a couple of weeks, and if there is no response, proceed with your changes. If there is a response from one user, discuss the issue. Hopefully, other users watching the page will contribute their opinions. Follow that path, and if there is any problem, ping me again.Cinadon3605:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try that, thanks. 00:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Renewing an expired notification from March 2020
(no worries at all, but your notification had expired)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in edits about, and articles related to, COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Thank you very much for my barnstar! I have really enjoyed copy editing this article and hope it gets the green badge it deserves. I really do feel that scholarship is missing a trick, though. The only real question, surely, is whether Socrates or Plato believed in reincarnation, given the Phaedo and the closing pages of Republic, or the detailed analogy in Phaedrus, where the emotion of love is seen as the result of our encounter with the divine form of Beauty in the outer reaches of the universe, before our return to a new life here on Earth. In fact, the whole thrust of many of the Socratic dialogues of Plato is to try to prove that our intuitions about virtues, such as love, courage, piety, justice, cannot be explained rationally, and the whole point of this endless questioning is to prove that we must have acquired these ideas in a previous life, since we cannot even define what we mean by them, and understand them only intuitively. Richard asr (talk) 09:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard asr:, This is a very interesting dimension on Socrates. I find it fascinating, Socrates, the first king of reasoning, reaching such a conclusion. Makes you wonder on the limitations of reasoning...Anyways, your point is very interesting but I would be hesitant adding something at the article. For, to add something, I must notice that RS are making it a big theme. And while reincarnations is discussed in some sources, it is not an extensive discussion. Nevertheless, I would like to ask you, what is your source, and if you could possible share? After GA-assessment, I will re-read RS and try to bring the article to a FA status. We will be in touch anyway! Thanks again for your help! Cinadon3610:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cinadon36, You'll have to remind me what RS is. I don't really have any sources for Socratic belief in reincarnation, so it's not really appropriate for the article. It is my own view, from reading the works of Plato in English translation. Original research, I suppose, but I'm surprised that it seems to have been downplayed by scholars over the years. It seems quite clear to me that Plato is having Socrates discuss the virtues in order to support a theory of reincarnation. In Meno for example, he takes a different tack and demonstrates, or tries to, that we possess knowledge that we don't know that we have. The opposite of not possessing knowledge that we think that we do have. But to the same end; to show that we possess knowledge that must be a memory, however vague, from before we were born. The whole of Plato's Socratic output, to my mind, at least prior to Laws, seems designed to this end.
I have transposed most of Plato's Socratic dialogues, massively abridged, into early sixteenth century England and cast them into a novel which is complete and (hopefully) awaiting publication, with Hannah Bokenham playing the part of Socrates. My intention was to investigate Plato's religious stance, since he gives hints that he is initiated into the mysteries, the ancient mystery religion, perhaps the Eleusinian Mysteries, and it is the exact nature of this that interests me. Transposing and abridging his works has been a very exciting journey and leaves me certain, in fact, that this was his prime motive: to try to prove the truth of the mysteries by intellectual means. Anyway, to bring Plato into a readable form for the non-specialist—into which category I include myself—is hopefully a useful thing to do in its own right, giving the reader a birds-eye-view. It is set in the genre of suspense, since many will know that Socrates was executed in the end. Richard asr (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard asr: RS stands for Reliable Sources.WP:RS. I should have made a wikilink, I know, sorry for omitting. As for Socrates reincarnation, I guess scholars tend to focus on more abstract issues rather than specific beliefs of Socrates- which are hard to separate from Plato's thoughts. It is hard to reconstruct the thought of any ancient philosopher. Cinadon3618:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits to 'Humanism'
I apologise in advance for any offense this comment may cause, but there is no kind way to say this. I was reading this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism#Criticism and found the 'Criticism' and 'Antihumanism' sections almost impossible to understand.
I think you should stop editing Wikipedia, or at least get someone fluent in English to heavily review your edits before you submit them. I understand that you are not a native English speaker, and may not realise quite how bad your English is. You are making some very basic grammatical errors while stringing out sentences with many clauses, perhaps trying to sound smart, but I often can't even tell what you're trying to say. I truly feel that you are making articles worse with your edits. Frankly, the quality of these sections is so poor that I would rather start from scratch than attempt to translate them back into readable English. It's also hard for me to trust that you have a complete understanding of the subject matter rather than repeating words you read in some random sources, when you can barely communicate those words properly.
Consistency with other articles (Plato's Symposium on Wikipedia)
For example, in the article on Plato's Symposium on Wikipedia, Socrates is given as the last speaker where the article states: "Socrates is late to arrive because he became lost in thought on the way. When they are done eating, Eryximachus takes the suggestion made by Phaedrus, that they should all make a speech in praise of Eros, the god of love and desire. It will be a competition of speeches to be judged by Dionysus. It is anticipated that the speeches will ultimately be bested by Socrates, who speaks last."
The current lead version is inconsistent and your reverts seems to put it back to being inconsistent with "..Socrates, who speaks last." ErnestKrause (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for consistency with other articles. Pls discuss this at the talk page of the article- more editors might be interested. I 've changed the title of the section to make it more relevant to the topic. Pls feel free to change it if you think it does not reflect your thoughts. Cinadon3619:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mass killings under communist regimes
In light of your many contributions, neutrality, and understanding of our policies and guidelines, I would like to ask your thoughts about Mass killings under communist regimes. As much as summary not being my strength, this is the best I could do to describe the whoel diatribe, which dates back to many archives. This is a very good summary. Please, read them whenever you can because you and Czar's help is desperately needed because they just keep saying there is consensus, there is no issues, "per sources", etc. when clearly that is not the case. Even The Black Book of Communism and Rummel are misinterpreted and do not support the article (see my "Analysis of main topics and sources").
Essentially, the problem is that scholars do not actually agree that "Mass killings took place in some/many communist states." (see Valentino 2013: "Communism has a bloody record, but most regimes that have described themselves as communist or have been described as such by others have not engaged in mass killing"), which makes this article remaining as it is even worse, because it clearly does not reflect what scholarly sources say and even misrepresent them. Like us, they only agree that awful things and tragedies did indeed happen and many people have lost their lives. Instead, Proposition B is a perfect summary. What I propose is to have a single article about history of genocide and mass killings, where we discuss the views of scholars of why they happened, what can we do to avoid them happening again, etc. but without using any single label or category, whether capitalism, Communism, totalitarian, etc. Same thing for Crimes against humanity under communist regimes, another content POV fork.
@Davide King: thanks for your nice words, but I can't help. This is a matter that I would need to dig into in order to provide a descent opinion and I do not have the time. But I would suggest you to consider noticeboards of WP (ie on Sources). Previous RfC is not the end of the road. You are right that the article has many gaps and might actually be OR. Thanks for reaching me.Cinadon3620:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, thanks to you for your comment. The fact you stated I may well be right that "the article has many gaps and might actually be OR" is both comforting and sad; comforting because I'm not crazy in seeing problems with it, and sad because I think your work would be very helpful, and because it looks like that page mainly attracts either supporters or those who have contributed to it directly, and so we're just arguing in circle, with me and other explaining source analysis, original research, etc., and they just stating the article is fine, no issue, etc.
"I would suggest you to consider noticeboards of WP (ie on Sources)." That is exactly what I told Czar, though I believe a proper RfC about the main topic (because we disagree on it, see TFD's Proposition A and Proposition B) is warranted, and an AfD could be next, if there's no consensus on the main topic, especially since the last one was a decade ago now. This, the result of my source analysis and research, is a more accurate and neutral summary of what scholars actually say and support. Davide King (talk) 06:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Socrates GA nomination
Hey, I have kept an eye on the article. Since several editors have made copy editing, maybe there is not anything left that the article now needs to pass. I will read it tomorrow, and if you need help with sth, tell me. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to pics like that? Nah, I do not think they should be removed. They are pics taken by a volunteer, no need for a source in the form of a book or journal article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just to let you know I left a comment wrt. Sophoclo-crates. BTW, I saw you mentioned interest in Ad Hominem. A small something, perhaps not for the article, but perhaps of historical interest: Schopenhauer postulated AdH to consist of two types, the one now described in the article, which he called "ad personam", and the other one an argument based on an opponent's belief, which he called "ad hominem", but which, IIRC, we now know as "ex concesso". Both types are "to the man", either in stead of "to the case", or in stead of "to the truth". I hope you enjoy trivia :) MVH, T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 03:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and alas, more remarks on mr. S. As an aside: let me know if you want refs for AS on AH for your archives; most material is in his Vorlesungsmanuskripte (Berlin University Lecture Manuscripts)(Do you read German?), which perhaps are not within everyone's reach. Thx for your patience :) T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, good luck with your planned GA nomination. I noted a [clarification needed] tag in the Themes --> Humanism and the meaning of life subsection; I wasn't sure what "each person must quest for a good life without the expense of others" means so I left it there. Otherwise the article is in good shape so once that is fixed, it should pass GA, I think. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab05:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I messed up the ping so wanted to note: I changed the formatting in your replies on Talk:Socrates/GA2 because they were hard for me to read in the way they were rendering before. I know it's generally bad form to change others' comments so I wanted to let you know. I'll respond to your replies after I'm done going through the text for the first time myself—would be too confusing for me to keep track of otherwise. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - my comments re pagination weren't about the pages cited, they're about the pagination of the essays cited. So "Reshotko 2013, p. 158." didn't make sense to me because the Reshotko essay is:
Reshotko, Naomi (3 January 2013). "Socratic eudaimonism". In Nicholas D. Smith (ed.). The Bloomsbury Companion to Socrates. John Bussanich. A&C Black. pp. 136–155. ISBN 978-1-4411-1284-2.
Hello, Cinadon36. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "André Laks".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
The article Socrates you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Socrates for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AleatoryPonderings -- AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On 30 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ingeborg Beugel, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ingeborg Beugel left Greece following death threats and reported attacks after she questioned the prime minister about pushbacks? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ingeborg Beugel. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ingeborg Beugel), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Thanks for your nice words @ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη:. Indeed, I have contributed to a few important articles. This is why I love WP, you learn a lot by studying a topic and on top of that, you help others learn as well! Spreading knowledge, isn't that a joyful feeling? Stay around! Sorry for replying in English, it is for the sake of other users that might be reading us. Cinadon3608:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
O Thin k This is how i is done. I am bringing that Shameful Humanism page that Promotes Humanism and Attacks Religion, Especially Islam and most Especially Christianity, to the Attention of Arbitration. The page is Objectively not Unbiased. It is Clearly a One Sided promotion of Humanism. you used Exclusively Humanist Books to Write it and even the Critisism of Humanism came from the Books and You made no Effort to even Hide its Biases.
Hi, I am User:Bookku, On Wikipedia I engage in, finding information and knowledge gap areas in Wikipedia and promoting expansion of related drafts and articles. Came across your user profile from resource exchange.
MrDragonBoi has given you some kittens! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companions forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else some kittens, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kittens}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Hi @Baffle gab1978:, thank you very much for undertaking this task. I will keep an eye on the text but should you need anything, have a question, something is puzzling you, don't hesitate to ask! Cheers! Cinadon3611:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; I've found the c/e mostly straightforward until I reached the "Themes" --> "Religion" section, where some muddled text compares the works of several authors. I *think* I've correctly interpreted what is being said but you might like to check it over; the diff is here. I've also changed the "Criticism of humanism" subsection to its own section and moved it further down the article; this seems to be in line with most articles with such a section. I still think the article is rather essay-like in places. Cheers, Baffle☿gab12:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your C/E. Your changes are mostly correct. I feel the word "inception" might not be the best option as it implies a specific moment in time when humanism was incepted. Some may disagree with that, pointing that humanism came to light after advances made in a long period of time by many people. But still it is much better than the previous version. Also, I had to attribute various authors to avoid NPOV issues since very few opinions are universally accepted. Lastly, please let me know where the article has essay-like issues, and I 'll try to fix them. Thanks again for your input. Cinadon3613:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished my copy-edit. Per the above; I've changed "inception" to "beginning". I've re-titled some of the sections and moved material around; the subsections "Themes" --> "Politics" and "Humanist psychology and counselling" are now in a section called "In public life", for want of a better title. I've marked "Geographies of humanism" as an essay-like section; i think this could be removed or largely rewritten to present a worldview of this movement, though you'll need excellent sources and judicious editing.
There's also some confusing text. In "In politics", what does "contemporary humanism is sculptured by two main axons" mean? An axon is a nerve fiber—it cannot sculpt anything of its own accord! In "Humanist organizations" final sentence, who are the "High-profile members of academia and public figures"? I've added a few more tags where I've found confusing text and/or missing refs. Anyway I feel I've done my best with this one but I think it will need more work to bring it to GA status. Good luck with it and cheers, Baffle☿gab12:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
axons Axioms, perhaps? Let me know if I can help with any specific phrasing/translation stuff, Cinadon. Glad to see this article being improved! czar11:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Czar, thanks for your suggestion but is not actually an improvement. I used the term "Axons" having in mind the greek word "άξων," which in english axis, not axon. My silly mistake. Does it make sense now? Since I am familiar with the meaning, I can not tell. What do you think? Cinadon3613:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I started to take a stab at rephrasing that section but in a general overview of humanism, I wonder why Baker's views are even important to note at all. If anything, I would drop the axes part, which isn't necessarily confusing but just seems to be peripheral to understanding the article, and keep the part that speaks to the differences between how individualists and collectivists view humanism differently. I could take that to the talk page though. czar03:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that's great news @Czar! I am looking forward to your contributions! My reasoning for Baker is that, he authored the chapter on politics, at The Oxford Handbook of Humanism (2020) which is the most RS on Humanism so far, in my opinion.Cinadon3608:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eva Kaili source
I have replaced the Newsit citation with To Vima. I still think Newsit was fine, but since To Vima was readily available with the same information, I see no problem. Apart from newsit, iefimerida and cnngr that you already mentioned in the Eva Kaili article talkpage, are there other major Greek news sites you consider problematic as sources to be included? Note that I disagree about iefimerida, but I want to work with you. Ανδρέας Κρυστάλλης (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message @Ανδρέας Κρυστάλλης. I 'd love to work with you too. I think CNN, iefrimerida and star channel should be left out. Maybe Alpha TV as well. Kathimerini, TaNea, ToVima, efsyn are pretty decent. Cinadon3608:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A note
I'd like to apologize for abandoning the work at coronary artery bypass surgery and in general being so slow with it. Things outside my control have dictated I get off Wikipedia for the next month or so. Thanks for your patience, and I hope at least some of my input was helpful. Ovinus (talk) 07:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize dear @Ovinus! You have done a magnificent work at the article. I would like to thank you for your patience to fix all those small and big errors of mine! Real life comes first, I know! Hope to hear from you soon! See ya! Cinadon3612:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello my friend. I write to you in English because you haved askem me for, but i use translator so be patient with my mistakes!!
I made a note here https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum#Admins_of_Greek_wikipedia
because the situation with admins it's getting worse. Now we have the dictatorship of Focal and Ευθυμένης. The others have practicly abandon the ship. If you wanth to make together something, help me.
If you want, respond here, because in el i am blocked.
Hi. I 'm not sure whether you are User:ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη or not. In any case, I 'll restrain from voicing my experience and opinion, since it might be seen as an canvassing attempt. If you are Dora, my advice would be: Stop being involved with el.WP. It 's pointless. Let it go. Stop beating a dead horse. It 's aint going nowhere. Cinadon3610:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη, I can feel your frustration but this is not the place, nor the time, nor am I the proper user to discuss the situation at el.WP with. If you 'ld like any kind of help regarding en.WP, I will gladly assist. Cinadon3621:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive
The article Humanism you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Humanism for comments about the article, and Talk:Humanism/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Argenti Aertheri -- Argenti Aertheri (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello my fellow Wikipedian
I hope everything is going well for you.
We haven't communicated since that great effort of ours to make Socrates a Featured article back at the Greek Wikipedia; we 've missed you!
I recently created this article and would like to hear your opinion on its form, language, on what's missing —"Criticism" maybe?— etc.
If you have some spare time, check it out and let me know.
Thank you in advance, and congratulations for your overall work on en.Wikipedia!
Hi @L'OrfeoGreco, yes, I recall those nice times we (primarily you) worked upon Socrates! Lovely memories!
I am not sure I can help you with this article. Reasons are:
There seems to be a shortage of academic secondary sources that address this issue comprehensively. As a result, we lack guidance on what is essential and what isn't. This doesn't mean the article lacks notability or significance, of course it does.
Personally, I don't have a strong interest in contemporary government planning or politics, nor do I actively follow them.
That being said, my recommendation would be to rely more on academic papers, such as the one authored by Balampanides, and newspaper articles from sources like Kathimerini or WSJ. Additionally, it would be advisable to minimize the use of primary sources from EU institutions or the Greek government gazette. These primary sources may not be suitable for guiding us in crafting an easily comprehensible article.
I recently brought the article Nausicaa to the English Wikipedia. It is a piece of work for which I have made extensive research, meticulous writing and careful styling, a project I have worked on for a very long time.
I am of the opinion that it could earn the badge of the "Good Article" —in fact, a "Featured Article" would be nicer, for I found out that there is a featured article of only 9.000 bytes, please do tell me what you think—, but know not how to nominate it, etc.
You have contributed to many a good article —congratulations, by the way, great work!— and thus I thought you might know what must be done...?
Hi @L'OrfeoGreco, Thank you for your message! I'm flattered, to be honest. Yes, I'd be happy to help promote this article. As I see it, it's not far from being a Good Article, if it's not already there. As for Featured Article, I don't know; I do not have the slightest experience with that. I have to note, though, that both the GA and FA processes are much more rigorous than their counterparts in Greek Wikipedia, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I will take a look at the article and leave my comments on the Talk Page. Give me a day or two! Cinadon3609:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You had been most meticulous in your assessment of the Σωκράτης article a few years ago, and at first I thought it was all a matter of your being pedantic, almost as if you meant to "correct" my work, discredit it even.
But I was new to the Wikipedia world, to its methods and rules and knew not that such profound surveying is most important if errors/fallacies/omissions are to be targeted and fixed. I did not realise then that one has to ask for a good reviewer, not fend them off when they willingly intervene.
So, after all these realisations, I can now say that it is with great joy that I welcome our collaboration and that I am pleased to have such a hard working reviewer processing the article! L'OrfeoSon io10:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words. I understand how it feels; I had the exact same feelings when I had my first review. Looking back, it warms my heart to know that other community members are equally, or more, motivated to contribute to building a quality encyclopedia. Cinadon3610:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A well deserved barnstar
The Helping Hand Barnstar
For making me feel welcome by helping me out on more than one occasion, thus motivating me to contribute more to en.Wikipedia. Φχαριστώ σε! L'OrfeoSon io10:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there! I just wanted to thank you for the recent work you've been doing in keeping the article on anarchism and the history of anarchism good and tightened up. It's really important work and it's very much appreciated. I have noticed that, although you are on the WikiProject Anarchism members list, you haven't been very active on our noticeboard, which has recently had an upsurge in activity. In case you haven't seen what we've been up to, here's an update of our most recent activity:
In the past couple years, we have brought four articles to Featured status, including the ones on Nestor Makhno, La Salute è in voi, The May Pamphlet and "The Day Before the Revolution". We're likely to get even more to this status in the near future, so stay tuned to the front page for some of our best articles on the platform.
We recently hit the first milestone for our stub-expansion project, getting the number of stubs down to under 1/5th of our total articles. This means that the vast majority of our articles are now relatively substantial, as we expand and add greater detail to the articles that lack sufficient information. We hope to narrow this number down even further, so more articles have the information they deserve.
We just started a cleanup drive, in which we are aiming to resolve the problematic parts of our articles, from finding citations for unsourced sections to fixing up formatting errors. In doing this, we intend to make sure our articles provide the best possible reading experience, without unsourced claims or ugly tags littering the page.
If you'd like to be more closely involved in our collective efforts, consider adding our noticeboard to your watchlist or adding your name to our mailing list. We'd be very happy to see you more around the project.
Thank you @Grnrchst for your nice words, really appreciated. Unfortunately, no free time due to RL commitments. I do not forget about WP though, I frequently pass by and have a look on what 's going on. I had missed anarchist noticepad though. Now it is added yo my watchlist. Thanks for the message, cheers. Cinadon3622:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
