User talk:Dennis Wagner EF: Difference between revisions

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Filo, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 16:04, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, but what exactly made the filo page worse?

Like Turkey is in West asia and so are any other countries that traditionally prepare these, also, theres a random cursive text at börek, which is inconsistent with the article, furthermore, there is no source backing the phrasing of the old version up, so what did I do wrong and what can I do to see my errors? Dennis Wagner EF (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like why is börek in italic script, or whatever its called and baklava isnt?

its i consistent and doesnt look professional. Dennis Wagner EF (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YOU made number of edits with edit summary:

While Grasshalm was a sockpuppet, this doesnt give you the permission to delete content that has been approved of by afministrators and go on a rampage bringing pages back to primitive states.

• First, In Wikipedia no content is “approved by administratirs”
• Seconnd, it is a routine process to revert contributions of abusers regardless content, to discuourage their editing.
• I see you account is new, please do not starrt with engaging in revert wars. —Altenmann >talk 16:16, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sowwy, what I meant was that the version of the page that the sock edited didnt only have edits of the sock, but also administrators contributed to it and he literially reverted work of multiple people, just because some random sock happened to also have edited these pages at some point in time.

Also, the administrators that commented on that users talk page also explained how deleting content, just because a sock once edited the same content isnt constructive. Dennis Wagner EF (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like what is the point of reverting something If It just makes the page worse?

All that counts is that the sock is banned, we dont have to disrupt our own pages because of it. Dennis Wagner EF (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page of that ip, I also found this:

“[Being blocked] not mean that [their] edits must be reverted just because they were made in violation of a block or ban…” See WP:BANREVERT. Dennis Wagner EF (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, for article content administrators do not have special rights.

Second, from what I understood, the edit of this guy are part of Armenia-Azerbaijan war, and we have no desire to waste time figuring out the validity of his contriibuutions, assuming that edits of an abuser were not made in good faith. —Altenmann >talk 16:28, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, assuming things and then you reverting the version back to a version edited by an ominous ip that removes entire sextions that werent even added by the the sock, without checking what infact was added by the ip is something I regard as reckless. We need to look at it with more nuance.

As seen at for other articles where this ominous ip deleted huge chunks and administrators had to tell him to stop, for he wasnt just deleting content of the sock, but deleting everything armenia related for some reason. Dennis Wagner EF (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this case may be you are right, and you can revert my reverts. But yoou edit summmary was misleading. —Altenmann >talk 16:36, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Third, yes, edits made in violation of bas should and will be reverted. That’s the whole eaning and purpose of banning the user. —Altenmann >talk 16:34, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of banning the user is to punish him and to prevent him from editing again, not reverting pages back to a primitive stage, just because amongst all credible users that edited the page, one sock also added something, It shouldnt make us revert and If we do, we should check for ourselfs what the sock added and what not. Not just revert the same things an ominous ip added, who tried to push his pov with a revert which you have „copied“. WP:BANREVERT is clear about this Dennis Wagner EF (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

However I didnt realize that these IP reverts were also part of ethnic war. Please restore what you see correct. —Altenmann >talk 16:39, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify two important points regarding the history and etymology of tzatziki.

First, the article already acknowledges that the word tzatziki is borrowed from Turkish cacık. This etymology is well-documented in linguistic sources and reflects the dish’s Ottoman/Turkish origin in its modern form.

Second, references to oxygala in Ancient Greek sources should not be conflated with tzatziki. Oxygala was a type of curdled or soured milk, sometimes consumed with honey or oil, but it was not prepared with cucumbers, garlic, or herbs. It is therefore not equivalent to tzatziki/cacık, which developed as a distinct yogurt–cucumber–garlic dish in the Ottoman period.

For accuracy and neutrality, it seems best to distinguish between ancient dairy products like oxygala and the modern yogurt-based dish known as cacık/tzatziki. The former shows that yogurt-like foods existed in antiquity, while the latter reflects the culinary evolution in the Ottoman and later regional cuisines. Erdemozcantr (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]