User talk:Nema Fakei

Unsigned comments other than those by Nema Fakei may be removed

No one wrote anything on your Talk page yet? Well, allow me to extend you a belated welcome to wikipedia, my friend! -- Edric O 21:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Classics

Hi,

I'm recruiting for the Classics portal at the moment so it can be improved. I see that expanded the sections on Philosophy and Science - does anything else strike you? I would be interested in any feedback. Many thanks. Pydos 16:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond on the talk page of the portal itself.--Nema Fakei 17:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, and many thanks. On the Antikythera note...this was because i was running out of ideas of what to put for science and Mathematics. Pydos 16:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

Will do — and let me know when you need specific help. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most grateful!--Nema Fakei 20:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pederasty in ancient Greece

My first instinct is to disagree with you about your re-categorization, since pederasty was such an important feature of Greek life (in the military, sports, education, recreation, philosophy, literature, art) and the new category seems a bit of a backwater. Plus there are about 100 articles in the main cat that could belong there equally well - the whole thing is a bit of a hodgepodge. But I'll wait a bit and see how things evolve. Haiduc 01:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at the moment, I've been trawling through the categories adding navigation-aid templates and keeping an eye out for things that need recategorising. I've already made a few changes to the category structure itself, and I reckon we need to put anything we can into subcategories, else we run the risk of either inconsistency or massive overcategorisation. Some backwaters may end up being bustling centres. Eventually. --Nema Fakei 03:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ancient Rome

I noticed you've removed the Classical Civilisation Category template from a few categories. I've been working my way through the Class Civ categories inserting the thing for use as a navigational aid, partly in an attempt to support the associated portal (P:CC). I'd be grateful if you had any advice as to making the template less "messy", as you put it, or perhaps making it more standardised (It's based on the portal templates). At the moment, the Class civ category tree is pretty big and poorly standardised. I've made some efforts to clean it up, but if you can make any suggestions for improvement, they would be much appreciated. The best place to put them would likely be in Category:Classical_studies or, better, Portal_talk:Classical_Civilisation (since it's visited by a modicum of editors). --Nema Fakei 12:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest two things:

Link each category to the Classical civilisation portal by adding {{portalpar|Classical Civilisation}} at the top of the page. I will do a few now.
Continue to work on the category system, which is not yet as close to maturity as are those for many other topic areas, but needs to be done some time. I might help out if I have time.

I think the top "article space" in category pages should be kept quite clean and it is usual practice across Wikipedia to do that. All the major navigation methods in Wikipedia are valuable, but people who arrive in a category have chosen to use categories just then and it seems inappropriate to me to make an alternative navigation tool highly intrusive at that point. A better and more standard location for the template is at the bottom of articles. CalJW 13:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

I just read your comment about the arthritic .... whatever it was. I got a good chuckle out of that. Thanks. Maggiethewolfstar 10:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check User

Requests for Check User may be done here. Just follow the instructions. Take care. Joelito (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When several accounts' contributions are identical, even when there is uncertainty over whether they are one user or two, it doesn't matter - by ruling of Arbcom, they may be treated as the same user. See [1]. And personally, I have had no complaints about banning all obvious socks of another sockpuppeteer without waiting for CheckUser evidence. It's pretty obvious that TMECM is going to end up blocked on here as he already has been on two Wikipedias, I see no reason why we have to let him do anything other than the minimum of damage before that happens. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious sockpuppets is one thing, I'm simply worried that there might just be two editors involved here, one from Norway, one from NZ. If not, then all well and good, it's clear dishonesty and he shouldn't be on WP. But if it's two users, then we need to deal with the content without prejudice. Granted, it's quite obvious spam editing, bordering on (and in some cases well into) vandalism. But I'm already sick to death of people shouting about moderators abusing their powers as a way of getting their ideologies into articles. The way you come across runs a little close to feeding the trolls. All that said, you're undisputably more experienced than I am, and I'm certainly not arguing with your cautious decision. --Nema Fakei 22:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's banned now and it looks like consensus is behind me. I don't think I was feeding him, personally. Agitating him, yes, but he stayed blocked in the end. Thanks for helping to round up the rest of his sockpuppets. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Greek Wikisource

There is now a test wiki for this project at incubator. The discussion at meta has brought up important points, and I urge all those who have already voted to read these points and consider alternatives, including building a portal and community within el:s.

Thank you, Nema Fakei, for contacting me about the beginning of an ancient Greek Wikisource. I would be honored to contribute, and I certainly will vote in favor of it. --Drboisclair 20:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added my name as a contributor. I think it is a great idea, and I agree with you re Perseus. It's a good repository, but it can be a les than attractive format with which to work. Anyway, this sounds like it should be an interesting project, and I look forward to helping in any way I can. As my motto on my work e-mail states, Δος μοι που ςτω και κινω την γην. Jim62sch 21:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I heartily support this idea! I probably won't be able to contribute since I don't have a Greek font on my computer right now; but I could proofread if you needed that. --FeanorStar7 21:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you can read οὗτος, you have all the fonts you need. It'd be written in Unicode, so most people should be able to read it (and write if need be). I'll have to find a link to instructions for setting your keyboard up to type polytonic greek (you can do it through Control Panel if you're a Windows user). --Nema Fakei 21:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Το υμέτερον μήνυμα

Ελλάς666 Νέμα Φάκει χαίρειν. a)Thank your for your msg regarding the ancient gr. wikisource. If i understand well, the question is whether there should be a separatte wikisource for ancient gr. independent of the modern gr one. If this is what your proposal is about, I agree with it. b)Now regarding my ability to contribute- im a native modern gr speaker and i ve had some ancient greek courses both at high school and university level- however, i am not an ancient gr philologue and my knowledge on the subject is rather restricted. or to put it differently, using a dictionary i can follow a text of xenophon, but i have serious problems with sophocles. Apart from that, i might have some problems with writing in πολυτονικό, as from what i know, i have to install a special program in order to do so. c) would you classify the new testament as an ancient gr text?--Greece666 21:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, don't worry about contributing - there will be people from all across Europe and the world who can help once it's up, the important thing is to get the proposal accepted. However, there are still things you might be able to do even if you can't understand the ancient works precisely (I know I certainly can't read sophocles without some help). Because Wikisource isn't so much a compostional project like Wikipedia, not everyone needs a perfect grasp of the rules of accentuation, etc; there'll be a fair amount of copying texts in - either typed or through the clipboard. --Nema Fakei 21:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough- i ve already supported your proposal anyway. --Greece666 21:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De Lingua Graeca Editando

Thank you for letting me know about this project, i'll surely support this, if i might help concerning ancent greek please let me know. --Philx 11:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto

Dear Nema Fakei,

Just like Philx, I'm interested on your grc.source project. My only concern is about extracting Unicode characters from a keyboard (I learnt to type Greek using Macintosh-SuperGreek-Betacode, and Unicode like all precompilated combinations sounds weird to me). Of course if you know some resource to make it easy I'd be a happy man (however if you go to wikisophia you'll see on my User page there that WikiteX uses a slighly modified form of betacode). Let's see what future holds! - εΔ ω 12:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Greek

After serious consideration I got convinced that the Ancient Greek Wikisource is a brilliant idea and it can potentially become a very significant reference for everyone interested in ancient gr. I added my name to the contributors list. Thx for bringing up this issue! best--Greece666 15:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faeinè idéa! It's a great idea, surely! Sadly, I can't vote supporting it because I must create an account on meta first and, then, people will accuse me (or maybe you) of sockpuppetry. I'm sorry. But, it will be really a very good and useful tool for all that are interested in ancient greek, I'm sure of that. Keep working! --Neigel von Teighen 21:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Greek Wikisource

I was happy to add my name to the list of those supporting your proposal. Thank you for asking! -- Flauto Dolce 22:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polytonic Greek

For all those worried about contributing in Polytonic, the instructions for doing so are here.

Can I suggest a different method? I use Tavultesoft Keyman for Polytonic Greek input, it requires an extra program but is much better (from what I can see of the Windows version) for accenting and adding breathing marks. Find it at http://www.tavultesoft.com/keyman/. Da niel (‽) 15:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I normally use a home-made word template with things like CTRL+/ for acute, CTRL+( for rough breathing, etc., but each to his own. --Nema Fakei 15:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Septuagint

One the projects I am working at Wikisource is s:WS:BIBLE. We have nearly finished 1 chapter as a sample of what we are shooting for. An example verse is s:Bible/Obadiah/1/4. In the long run, I would like to have the Septuagint linked to as the Vulgate is already done on that page. But even more important, I would like some verification on the source we are using. This is the only Septuagint that copies properly to my eyes. But do you think it looks proper, is it really ancient Greek? For all I know we are using a copyrighted version which would not be good. This is a long term project the idea is to end all the edit wars over which version the bible for WP to link to for a certain verse, but there is a lot to be done in all regards. Besides the above questions the books of the Bible spelled in Ancient Greek like Αβδιου would be very useful as the website above gives them in English. And in the end it would be great to have the whole thing up on Wikisource in whichever domain you end up working with.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This all looks like good greek. I have a copy of the Greek NT, and the Matthew matches up at a glance. To Greek readers, it can be a bit jarring to see foriegn (Hebrew) names, of course - especially ones that end in letters that would be impossible in Greek (David, Abraam), but if the text you're copying from (I assume you're copying and pasting, so as to retain the accents) is the same as mine, it's "The text underlying the English authorised version of 1611", known as the 'textus receptus' and therefore clearly outside copyright period. Even if it isn't, the editor's notes suggest there have been no real changes to the text itself since then and my copy does not mention the word copyright anywhere. I suspect the same is true of the septuagint. This zip also seems as good as any (easy to copy, too). Thing is, I can't seem to find any any apparatus criticus, so I can't really tell you if they're reliable editions. With the Bible, that's not much of a problem, though, as it's pretty well documented, unlike much of classical literature (strangely enough, mediaveal christian monks saw fit to produce more copies of the bible than of pagan texts). The 'version' issues are mostly 'which translation do we endorse', which is always going to have to change as English moves on. As to titles, I'll get back to you with a list.--Nema Fakei 15:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lord President

Hi Nema Fakei, I've been watching the Margaret Beckett page for some time and I've noticed the changing of the the above category, firstly after the Categories for Deletion discussion initiated by you and again by Cydebot after this exchange Talk:Lord_President_of_the_Council. I think you're probably correct and a lord president is a lord who presides in spite of the confidence with which one editor asserted the incorrectness - lord isn't modifying the name of a peer in this case - the contents page of this book seems to be a source of some authority [2]. But I'm guessing the people who changed the category didn't see the discussion. Anyway, I thought you might know more and might be in a better position than me to expand. Best and hope the wikisource project's going well.--Lo2u 15:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I didn't see it. I was going by the meager discussion at the category as well as the grammar, and hadn't noticed the article. Personally, I'd like to see it officially either changed for a peerage or a hyphen if it is Lord Presidents, but I suppose it's just one of those exceptions we have to live with. Thanks for pointing that out!--Nema Fakei 15:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ἰόσουα was renamed s:el:Ιησούς του Ναυή

Does this make sense? Andreas ^(T) 21:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on reorganisation of History of Greek and Roman Egypt

Hi there. You recently took part in a discussion on the reorganisation of the article History of Greek and Roman Egypt. I added some comments here that I'd welcome comments on. Thanks. Carcharoth 22:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Χαίρε

I noticed that you have been quite active in the proposal for an ancient Greek wikisource. How about an ancient Greek wikipedia? There is a proposal for it at the moment on meta, however only two people (myself and the proposer) have expressed an interest in actually editing it. Taking into account the new process for approving languages, we need as many supporters as possible to commit themslves to working on the wiki (rather than simply supporting it) χαίρε LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs 12:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the proposal for an ancient Greek wikisource has rather disappeared: it was accepted, but, as far as I'm aware, http://grc.wikisource.org/ hasn't been created, yet. I'm also afraid I'd be lying if I said I could find time to commit to an ancient greek WP. --Nema Fakei 13:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Greek Wikisource

Hello Nema Fakei. I am sending you this notice because you were one of the users who participated in the discussion on Meta for the creation of, and are willing to work on the Ancient Greek Wikisource: meta:Request_for_new_languages/grc. I am glad to announce you that the wiki has been approved!

The testing has already commenced on the Wikimedia Incubator. The Main Page of the testing is located here: incubator:Ws/grc. Currently the discussion about it takes place in the Greek Wikisource's Γραμματεία. You are more than welcome to participate!

This message will be or has already been sent to the other participators who expressed their will to work on the Ancient Greek Wikisource. You are encouraged to tell about the wiki to others who might be interested.

Greetings, --Dead3y3 ^{Talk page} 02:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHEELER

You have my heartfelt sympathy for attempting to deal with WHEELER. As far as I can make out, he has read, and deeply believes, two books: Karl Otfried Mueller's 1824 treatise on The Dorians, and Rahe, whose reviews describe him as weaving the myth of the perfection of the polis. Rahe is a Carolina eccentric, whom I have seen elsewhere arguing that the American Constitutional Convention was a mistake: it gives too much to democracy.

WHEELER's argument, such as it is, is that republic/res publica/politeia, wherever they are found (before 1700 or so), must mean one and the same thing: the mixed constitution of Polybius and some parts of Aristotle's Politics. I hope this helps. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for the clarification of the second paragraph, though I'd guessed as much, but the first paragraph was unnecessary. --Nema Fakei 21:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/List of Republics

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/List of Republics. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/List of Republics/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/List of Republics/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 19:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/List of Republics

This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. WHEELER is banned for one year. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 21:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Colourblinduserbox.gif or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]