User:Hafspajen/Archive1

Welcome!

Hello, Hafspajen/Archive1! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages.

Getting Started

Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article
The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset
How to: edit a page • upload an image

Getting Help

Policies and Guidelines

Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research
Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines
What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons

Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule
Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy
External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry
Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community

Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program
Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette
No personal attacks • Resolving disputes
Build consensus • Village pump
Discord server • IRC channels • Mailing lists
The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)

Things to do

Task Center • Be bold in editing
Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles
Join a WikiProject • Translating articles
Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism

Miscellaneous

Happy editing! ~~~~ of course, here you go [1] [2] [3] [4] What kind of references are you looking for? --Jorgenpfhartogs (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC) [5]

It’s the [[Image:Salami aka.jpg |thumb|270px| Téliszalámi]]

doesn't have Wikipedia:Your first article

The five pillars of Wikipedia

How to edit a page

Help

Tips

Manual of Style

|

Debrecener

Thanks very much for the recipes! I don't speak or read Hungarian, but my partner does. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. That explains your interest in the Hungarian cuisine. Warrington (talk) 09:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Tokaji wine

Hello, why did you remove Tokaji from Category:Slovak wines? You may wish to refer to discussions under User talk:MagyarTürk to see that this is not appreciated. Also, some of the terms you introduced like calling Tokaj (which is a Protected Designation of Origin) a "brand" are perhaps not quite ideal, but I suppose I could polish them somewhat. Tomas e (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

Well, because there is a separate article on that. If you think is wrong, you can put it back again , of course. And please go on polishing the article. The article is a mess, and needs a lot of polishing. You saw all those tags... Good luck!! Warrington (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Since nothing happened, I will go on working on the article.

Warrington (talk) 09:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

wilsonii

Many other species with the epithet wilsonii are named after Ernest Henry Wilson, as well as other Wilsons, so you need to know the history of the naming of each individual species to determine who each was named after. Melburnian (talk) 10:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is there could be dozens of different Wilsons that plants are named after. If I were a botanist describing a new species, I could name it after a friend who need not be notable at all.--Melburnian (talk) 11:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I see. Some are, like Ludwig Späth. If you dicover a new plant in Australia, just don't call it Wilson, to awoyd further confusion...

Warrington (talk) 11:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Paprikas

Paprikas, paprikas, paprikás, paprikash, chicken paprikash, Paprikash, Chicken paprikash, to Goulash, instead of Pörkölt, see talk page pörkölt…?

Warrington (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You want to re-target the redirects so that "Paprikash" goes to pörkölt instead? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No, sorry, I want to re-target the redirects so that "Paprikash" goes to Goulas instead of Pörkölt.

Warrington (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Paprikash turns up as a red link. By the way, glad you liked my otter joke. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
There isn't an article on Paprikas because it's similar enough to other dishes. Paprikás is a redirect to Pörkölt, and that page has a link pointing to goulash. So technically, there already is a page on it, it's just scattered about. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and probably there is no need for a separate article either,

Paprikás is a redirect to Pörkölt, and that page has a link pointing to goulash. Yes, I made that remark.

So technically, there already is a page on it, it's just scattered about.

True. That is what I am trying to solve, this scattering or culinary confusion. People have complained about this... I can't solve this problem.

I did the first one on your list, Paprikas, as an example. To get back to the page that you want to change, just follow the link at the top of the page that says "redirected from..." Then you can change the redirect target to Goulash#Paprikás, which will go directly to the relevant section in that article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question: The link goes on the article that you want to redirect from- for example, I put the link on Paprikas. This can be difficult because, when you click on Paprikas, it automatically redirects you to the correct place. So:

Click on paprikás.
When it redirects you to Pörkölt, click on "Redirected from Paprikás," which is at the top of the page.
That will take you to the redirect page, which contains the link to redirect to.
You can edit the redirect page, changing the redirect link from Pörkölt to Goulash#Paprikás.

I hope those directions are clear. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You can create a new page as a redirect page; just copy the code from one of the pages you've already created onto the blank page and save it, making a new redirect page. Also, I love chicken paprikash. My mother makes the best chicken paprikash... and we're not even Hungarian. Mmm... paprikash. -FisherQueen (talk • contribs) 13:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Paprikash

A tag has been placed on Paprikash requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 13:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

it was a mistake, it should be deleted. Warrington (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Warrington: Thanks for getting in touch with me. I think what you were trying to do maybe is what we call a REDIRECT. To do this, create the page and type #REDIRECT [[<name of article here>]] - so to redirect Paprikash to Goulash, you would enter #REDIRECT [[Goulash]] on the page at Paprikash. I will redirect this article for you now, and if you ever need to do it again, remember this piece. Cheers - Thor Malmjursson (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not always on here, Warrington, but if you ever need help, drop me a note and I will see what I can do. Most of the time I am on Wikinews (en.wikinews.org). Cheers! Thor Malmjursson (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

croquette article

RFerreira has seemingly become obsessed with immediately removing all uncited material from that entry, which leaves only the lead and the section on the deviled crab. Not sure why - it's not exactly a high priority or controversial piece. Yes, it could use more citations, but wiping it isn't very helpful. Removing every non-sourced sentence from every obscure article would make wikipedia a whole lot thinner... and a lot less useful. Zeng8r (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, but than a tag is appropriate, or [citation needed] , not removing half of the article. That is called vandalism.

Warrington (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It happened AGAIN.... This is really annoying . People try to contribute and you just wipp out their contribs. It would take a long time to gather all that information all over again.

Warrington (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to gather the information all over again; it still exists in the article's history. You can try getting this user to discuss the problem on the article's talk page; that's the usual first step in disputes. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I will try...

Warrington (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

doesn't seems to help

Warrington (talk) 09:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the first time I ever met a a person acting like this, reverting edits on the croquette article with no obvious reason. Please give me some advice what to do. Shall I give upp reverting the missing information on the page again or ...? Well, what is the appropriate way to handle this matter? 1. I am feeling a bit stressed about this

Warrington (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there.. it's not really reverting without a reason; removing uncited material is perfectly acceptable. However! Your best bet is to engage the other editor on their talk page, and say something like "Hi. I noticed that you have been removing a lot of material. I think because it's uncontroversial it could probably stay, but how about we work together on finding references? I'll find references for sections ABC, can you find refs for sections XYZ?" Prince of Canada^{t | c} 21:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Prince of Canada. Nice to meet you. I have some questions.

1. There is a tremendous amount of articles with a tag on “no references!” Articles that do not present ANY references att all, and nobody had reverted them, or whipped them out. So it is a bit confusing to me, all this.

2. I added some references, but the part with international cuisine still gets removed.

The only thing I could find for Hungarian croquette was a Hungarian on line cookbook recipe. Is that a valid reference? I mean it is not in English...

3. The best bet is to engage the other editor on their talk page, well... I not exactly feel good about that person, calling the article for garbage... But what if they refuse?

Warrington (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks for not answering my questions

Warrington (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Be polite, I do a lot of things on Wikipedia and can't answer messages instantly. To answer your questions:

Some editors disagree about what to do with unreferenced sections. Some say 'delete'! Some say 'add references'! Some don't do anything. Our verifiability policy only actually requires references for facts which are controversial, or facts which are challenged. I don't think that a recipe is very controversial, so I don't think that references are needed, but they are definitely good to have.
English Wikipedia prefers English references
If they refuse, then they refuse. Be polite and respectful, and see how it goes. Prince of Canada^{t | c} 07:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it was not my intention to be unpolite. I got to deal with so many rude discussions lately, and so many contradictory ones, that I really was eager to find out what really is needed or really required. Everything was a big confusion. Thanks for your help.

Warrington (talk) 08:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your ansvers. Warrington (talk) 07:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

IP: 201.255.138.172 ; 201.255.167.247 ; and 201.255.171.185

Thank you very much for relying on me to help you solve this problem. Yes, I have noticed a trend among these three IP addresses and have began to think that these are either the same person or a group of friends that are trying to edit articles based on their POV without sources to back them up. Thus far, here is what I have found: "201.255.171.185" has made only small edits on the articles, but they are quite similar to the other two. This address cannot, yet, individually be banned because it has made only small edits. Nonetheless, you could file it for being the same as the other two. "201.255.167.247" clearly deserves a warning, so I've given him one. If that address continues with their destructive behavior then you will have a basis on which to turn it in to the Wikipedia administrators. "201.255.138.172" has certainly made quite a problem, but the main problem is that you have failed to give him a vandalism warning. He has been using the term "clean up" to satisfy his means, and that certainly is not good. I will notify him for his vandalism but I also recommend for you to notify him for his vandalism (two opinions are better than one). If any of these users continue with their destructive intentions, feel free to notify me once again and I will make sure to help you in presenting them to the administrators. Meanwhile, remember to keep your calm.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC) User:NawlinWiki

RE:Asado

Don't ask me. I'm not very familiar with South American dishes either. But it looked like vandalism because he was removing information, that is why I reverted him Juthani1 ^tcs 22:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem has its roots on the lack of sources these many articles contain. This "IP Address" is taking advantage of the lack of sources in order to make his deletions seem valid. Still, even though such a thing would generally be considered acceptable, there is a trend for this user to aim at deleting things for the sake of destruction of the article in order to push his POV and not to actually improve it. This is why the edits of this "IP Address" can and should be considered vandalism.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Paella Article

I'm afraid I disagree with you on two points.

With respect to mentioning Valencians speaking Catalan, here's what you said:

Not everybody knows who the Valencians are. Things which are obvious to you, a Spanish talking person – well, they might not be that clear for others, you know. That is why mentioning the language, some illiterate people from U.S. may think that they are Italian ppeople from Venice or get confused in other ways. You need to mention that when you introduce the information, not later, or below.

As I stated in the comment, the fact that Valencians speak Catalan is hardly central to an article on paella. In fact, I had included that information in the opening paragraphs of an earlier version of the article but another editor pointed out its lack of importance and, after some thought, I came to agree with him. Also, I fail to see how an illiterate American (by the way I'm an Hispanic-American) could assume an entire region of Spain could be Italian, especially when the article clearly points out that the Valencian region is part of Spain. However, in the interests of compromise, I moved that information down to the history section.

With respect to Valencians insisting on ingredients, you said:

Well, this sounds like: the Valencians insist , but you disagree. Anyway it is not a neutral way of expressing something. It is better to use some other , more neutral way of expressing this.

There's nothing biased about describing things as they really are. Valencians are, in fact, very insistent about the ingedients of Valencian paella. I see nothing wrong with the way I wrote that sentence. I intend to leave it as is. LuisGomez111 (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Have a nice day,

Warrington (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Gastronomy of South America

Can you support the information that you are adding in much articles? I am only cleaning the evidently fake facts, but you insists in support them. Why give false information? For not making the things wrong, I will not go back to remove it, but I hope that you can refer that information in the short term, and justify the categorizations. --201.255.136.53 (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not adding anything. The information was there before, you removed it and I put it back.

But your new approach asking for references is much much better, and you did a nice contribution on SOME articleS, organising it much better.

I asked for a third opinion, se below, Cuisine of Chile.

You should discuss your changes before removing banners on Wikipedia talk pages. Warrington (talk) 08:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

BUT YOU PROBABLY HAVEN'T SEEN THIS

Warning: Vandalism Your recent edits noted as "clean up" have been false allegations that have been pushing your POV rather than actually "cleaning up" the article. Also, you have been deleting project banners in TALK pages and that certainly does not help your cause. This is not meant to scare you or prevent you from making further edits to Wikipedia. I would recommend you to create an account if you seriously wish to contribute to Wikipedia, and in such a way other editors will be able to hold a better conversation with you and you'll also be able to present your points with much more validity. Thank you, and please remember to stop doing the mentioned things.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

AND THIS

Warning: Deleting Banners Please do not delete the project banners in talk pages. These are meant to represent that a specific group of editors in Wikipedia are focused on improving the article. No, contrary to what you seem to think the banners are not meant to symbolize ownership of the article or talk page. This is simply a warning, but if you continue doing these kind of acts please be aware that I or any other Wikipedist will have this message as a background to accuse you of continued vandalizing after being warned. Thank you, and please edit Wikipedia with constructive inclusions.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Cuisine of Chile

I have no formal sources in relation to this topic, but as a Chilean, I can say to you that they are a part of the Chilean cuisine, independently of the origin of those dishes. Jespinos (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I suspected it, and why not? Probably the cuisines of Latin America do share a lot of dishes with each other. But I think it is often the case that some countries feel that dishes are their own and forget that others also have them. People need to see that they share traditions with each other.

Warrington (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Paella

Thank you. LuisGomez111 (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Greek recipes

Hello from Athens! I didn't quite understand your comment on my talk page; was there a reference in the article leading to a deleted page? I'm not sure how to fix it, ask an administrator who is sure to be more competent than myself. However, if you are looking for Greek recipes, take a look at this link. It's a link to the Greek National Tourism Organisation that provides recipes in English. Happy cooking! Pel thal (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Unfortunately I cannot answer your question about whether the link to the cookbook was always empty or not, because I had never opened it before today(...). But I agree that a new cookbook should be created! As I'm not a good cook, I cannot help out with any recipes:) Cheers! Pel thal (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Paella Article RFC

I've placed a "Request For Comment" tag on the bottom of the discussion page for this article in an attempt to initiate dispute resolution. Please participate. LuisGomez111 (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Chicken marsala stub removal

Hi. I noticed that you removed the Italian cuisine stub from chicken marsala, and I was just curious as to your reasoning for that. Sure, it's really more Italian-American cuisine or Italian-inspired cuisine, but the stub is useful for sorting purposes and also to help direct editors to the article that needs expansion and editing. At a minimum, some sort of cuisine stub should be added, don't you think? --Friejose (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are right, the article needs expansion

Warrington (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for putting the stub back in, and I agree with you that it is appropriate right now. I'll try to do my part to expand the article so we can get rid of the stub. --Friejose (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Happy editing!

Warrington (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

I reverted this edit to Foie gras, per WP:LEAD. The guideline clearly states that the lead should be a summary of the important aspects of the article. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You are right.

Warrington (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2008 (

==Plagiarism from McKley==

There are several problems with the passage from Mackley. First of all, it is a verbatim copy of a passage from Mackley. Citing authors (i.e. giving credit for ideas) is fine, even quoting them verbatim (with quotation marks and a citation) can be useful. Simply copying their words is unacceptable.

Secondly, when one cites or quotes an author, it is important not to change the meaning of the author. In this case, the article reads:

Typical Greek food is simple, colorful and packed with robust flavours. Greek cuisine has a long tradition, the traditional Greek dishes showing influences from the Greek past

but the original passage reads

Greek food is simple, colorful and packed with robust flavours. Although many dishes show influences from Greece's past, particularly Arab, Turkish, and Italian, they have a distinctive style of their own; a style which has changed little over the years. Greece has a long tradition of fine cooking and the full range of delicious Greek dishes often remains undiscovered by the tourist.

The Wikipedia version does not faithfully reflect what the author said.

Finally, Lesley Mackley may be a fine cookbook author, but I don't think she's a particularly authoritative writer on Greek cuisine or Greek culinary history. And the language "simple, colorful and packed with robust flavours", while perfectly appropriate for a cookbook or a tourist brochure, really isn't encyclopedic.

Best, --macrakis (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It was not me who added this. I only rearranged the article Greek cuisine. But I have to say that this was the best part I found in the whole article that I could use as an opening phrase. My guess is thet the part might have changed ower the time, when other editors were editing it, in particularily removing the part about Greece's past, particularly Arab, Turkish, and Italian influences. I got the impression that some Greek editors would not like that part in the article Greek cuisine. So that can be an explanation to some changes, wich occured ( or maybe the original editor removed that part.)

And the citation = Greek food is simple, colorful and packed with robust flavours, it would make a greeat introduction, because Greek food is cooked in a simple way, and the flavours are robust, not refined and messy. In some way, there is a need to present the Greek cuisine as a whole in the begining, before start talking about the ingredients. I would like to put this part back in the article, cited with quotation marks and a citation in the proper way. I don't care what the turist discover or not, that is not important.

Secondly, do you agree whith this that: the traditional Greek dishes have a distinctive style of their own which has not changed much over the years? Because if this is true, than this sentence can be there in the begining, not something from Mackley, but like a simple sentence describing the style of the Greek cuisine.

Or like a correct citation as well, they have a distinctive style of their own; a style which has changed little over the years. Anyhow, there is a need to present the Greek cuisine in the begining, whit or without Mackley.

Warrington (talk) 10:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, I don't find puffery like "Greek food is simple, colorful and packed with robust flavours" very useful. And of course it is a gross overgeneralization. Baklava is not simple, rizogalo is not colorful or packed with robust flavours.

As for "traditional Greek dishes have a distinctive style of their own which has not changed much over the years", this is almost tautological (if they're traditional, they haven't changed much over the years) but also false in many ways: moussaka in its present form was apparently invented by Tselementes in the early 20th century; the "distinctive" part is also questionable, since many traditional dishes are shared with neighboring cuisines; the "has not changed much over the years" is true for some dishes -- apparently something very similar to skordalia was eaten by the ancient Greeks, but we don't have evidence for many others; and tomatoes were only introduced in the 18th and 19th centuries (see p.10 of the editors' introduction to Sami Zubaida and Richard Tapper, A Taste of Thyme: Culinary Cultures of the Middle East, London and New York, 1994 and 2000, ISBN 1-86064-603-4).

In general, I am very skeptical of characterizations of food like "traditional" -- see my essay Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Original, authentic, and traditional. --macrakis (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so the part of the Greece's history is not entirely correct. Some basic ingredients and cooking methods have changed little over time, some are new. Anyway, there is an entire section about Greek cooking traditions, more thorough, so that is not so important. Greek cooking style is generally simple and robust, compared to that of, let's say French Haute cuisine's , characterised by an obsesion for details, labor-intense recipes, with intimidating, polished, elaborate preparation and presentation methods. I mean (generally) that Greek cuisine has an elegant simplicity, a generous menu with rustic overtones and basic, easy-to-follow recipes. But what is important now is to have a good introduction to the Greek cuisine, as I said before, whith or without Mackley.

There is a need to present the Greek cuisine in the begining of the article, defined by its general characteristics, presented somehow, in a good, correct and interesting way. If you ãre uncomfortable with the expression Greek food is simple, colorful and with robust flavours (the whole internet is “packed” with this expression, it is apparently a very popular one) than maybe you consider wrighting a good introduction yourself?

Warrington (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Stolen or borrowed

Plagiarism is the use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work, failing to include quotations or give the appropriate citation. A citation is a line of text that uniquely identifies a source which allows a reader to find the source and verify that it supports material in Wikipedia. Sources should be cited when adding material or quoting someone, even more important that material in Wikipedia is verifiable. Citations are usually presented within articles using inline citations within the text, which link to a numbered list with sorces.

Image:Havanese Image 1.jpg white Warrington (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Polite

Unfortunately there are, as you have found out, many instances of editors who aren't as polite or as civil as they could be. There are, indeed, policies set in place that attempt to prevent this from occuring, such as WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA; however, these policies aren't always followed as well as they could be. I guess the trick is to have a thick skin and let these types of comments roll off your back. If it gets really bad, you can make a report at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Useight (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I will think about it Warrington (talk) 10:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Greek cuisine

...Greek cooking style is generally simple and robust, compared to that of, let's say French Haute cuisine's, characterised by an obsesion for details, labor-intense recipes, with intimidating, polished, elaborate preparation and presentation methods.

French Haute Cuisine is complicated compared to just about anything (including French cuisine bourgeoise) except maybe Japanese kaiseki cuisine (which works very hard to make everything look utterly simple). I don't think Greek cooking as a whole is any more or less simple and robust than any other cuisine. There are certainly many simple dishes, like say boiled greens (horta) with lemon and olive oil -- but I don't know if that counts as "robust".

...There is a need to present the Greek cuisine in the begining of the article, defined by its general characteristics, presented somehow, in a good, correct and interesting way.

Perhaps, but it's hard to do that without slipping into cliché. --macrakis (talk) 03:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

My question is, don't you care for the Greek cuisine article? Don't you want that it should be a good article? I really care for that article, and I want to make it better. You are Greek, you know a lot about Greek cooking... If you don't agree whith me, than you can formulate something that makes you content. You removed the opening part from it, why not replace it whith something else, that you think is satisfactory? Warrington (talk) 10:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I want to improve the article. But I don't find that adding the characterization "simple and robust" improves it. --macrakis (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Than let's forget about that, and add some other, better characterization. How would you describe the Greek cuisine and its general characteristics?

Warrington (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I am waiting for an introduction...

Warrington (talk) 14:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Komondor

I understand, but it's important to use the right kind of references, ones that meet our standards of reliability. Breed and/or pet websites do not have an editorial structure and traditional fact checking like a book, newspaper, scientific journal or other reliable source. Steven Walling (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

lancelot Capability Brown

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Capability Brown a different title by copying its content and pasting it into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is considered undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Unfortunately I can't help you right now to fix the move, and I also think it is better discussed. So please try to undo your actions using also the {{db-author}} tag and then list it at WP:RM, so we can do it right. --Tikiwont (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Terribly sorry, I tried to fix that myself in many ways but it wouldn't_work. But I listed the article for mending

sorry

Warrington (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)