User talk:DoctorKubla

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, DoctorKubla. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikify/Drives/2012/March Mini.
Message added 12:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

After looking at my message there, you might be interested in User_talk:Magioladitis#Template:Wikify. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 12:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

right of existance of the Monarch programming article[edit]

I object to article's deletion. I insist it be taken through the AfD process, where I can make these arguments in a more public forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollmodel (talkcontribs) 10:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

For the shipwreck list work! cheers SatuSuro 11:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

One thing I don't understand is this "of the United States" stuff. Explain, please? - Denimadept (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? I changed the name to be consistent with all the other names, 'of Europe', 'of Asia' and so on. And those names are consistent with the pre-existing lists of shipwrecks. I know it sounds a bit odd, because the 'of' implies ownership, but it's better than 'in', which implies the wrecks are all inland. Is that what you're asking me about, or do you have a specific problem with the US article? DoctorKubla (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd have renamed all of them with "in" or "in/around/near", but I'm not trying to make waves. :-D - Denimadept (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, you might be right. I couldn't decide between 'of' and 'in' so I went with established convention. Feel free to rename them if you like. DoctorKubla (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, DoctorKubla. You have new messages at Talk:List of shipwrecks of Asia.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Hi Dr. K- just noticed your acknowledgement in the closure at Talk:List_of_Oregon_shipwrecks#Merge. Glad we were able to find a solution that worked for everybody! Thanks for the note. -Pete (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

U-20[edit]

I undid your move of the U-20 article. There is no point to distinguish between two ships of different navies by year of construction. Since only the German and the Austro-Hungarian Navy used the prefix SMS/SMU it makes more sense to distinguish by country. BTW can you make sure when you move an article that the links are changed accordingly? Thanks.ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 03:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Need help[edit]

I'm taking you up on your recent offer to help if I need it. Please refer to article Bob Chappuis. I added the last paragraph under "After Football" way at the bottom and embedded a reference, but in the reflist the reference looks all messed up and I can't figure out what's wrong with my formatting. Could you please look it over and let me know what the problem with it is? Mostly I want to know how to solve the problem myself next time. Cheers. Guyovski (talk) 10:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Easy mistake to make; you forgot to close the citation template with }}. I've fixed it for you [1]. DoctorKubla (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Gee whiz. <blush> Thank you. :) Guyovski (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Another help request[edit]

Could you please refer to Talk:Toronto, index item 9, "Minor edit request?" It has been ignored for about three days now and I don't see that it's a big deal. Guyovski (talk) 11:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance. Guyovski (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Deaths in May 2012[edit]

There are two outstanding requests on Talk:Deaths in 2012, one regarding Barry MacKay (June 15) and one regarding Thierry Roland (June 16). I also just added a brand new one at the bottom. All involve adding cause of death as per the full Wikipedia article on the deceased. Would you mind following up? (Once I'm autoconfirmed these kinds of requests will no longer be necessary.) Guyovski (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, please edit to add my ID to the cookie. :) Guyovski (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea how to do that, but thank you anyway! :) DoctorKubla (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I found out by asking at the Teahouse. Click edit to see the code, as it's quite simple. Guyovski (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Margie Hyams 14 June 2012[edit]

Please check Talk:Deaths in 2012#Margie Hyams 14 June 2012. I need clarification on your edit before I change what you did on the main article page. (Which I can do because alluvasudden I'm autoconfirmed. :) ) Guyovski (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Asking for an easy to do but very important favour[edit]

Please review Erica Kennedy and Talk:Erica Kennedy and join the discussion there. It would mean a lot to me. Guyovski (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Tang[edit]

If it's not being quoted, it's being plagiarized, regardless if the source is mentioned. That alone doesn't make it. Nor does the fact it's not in copyright persuade me. And yes, considering how frequently this is happening, I would tag every page that does this. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I do, & I hold out scant hope for it.
"Misleading"? So what happens when somebody uses WP without quoting DANFS & gets nailed for plagiarizing? I call if fair warning. And it's also completely true, regardless what WP policy is, so what's misleading? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
It's not completely true, it's not even remotely true. Plagiarism, as any dictionary will tell you, means presenting another person's work as your own. If the text is followed by a note saying "this text is taken from DANFS", that's not plagiarism by anyone's standards. Except yours, apparently. Would you be happy if the entire article were encased in quotation marks? DoctorKubla (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Merely mentioning the source doesn't change the fact the exact wording has been copied, & that is plagiarism, whether you like it or not. Merely mentioning the source demands changing the wording. And no, just putting quotes around the whole page wouldn't please me, tho I'm sure it would satisfy the lazy people who are simply copying. How hard is it to change the phrasing when transcribing? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't have the energy for this, but one last time: that's not what plagiarism means. To quote again from WP:PLAG: "...the source's text can also be copied directly into a Wikipedia article verbatim...and attributed through the use of an appropriate attribution template". Yes, ideally, every article should be an original piece of work, but the fact that many of them aren't isn't an urgent problem. Readers don't need to be warned that the text of the article is plagiarised (because it isn't), and editors who want to rewrite the DANFS-based articles (which you could quite easily do yourself, by the way) can find them more easily through the category system. So the tag serves no purpose but to highlight a problem that doesn't exist. Since you've already acknowledged that consensus isn't on your side and you're acting contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines, wouldn't this be a good time to drop the stick? DoctorKubla (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, DoctorKubla. You have new messages at WWGB's talk page.
Message added 10:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TOCs[edit]

The 2005 TOCs look good, but you did not use the same format for 2006? I am copying the 2005 format to the corresponding 2006 pages. WWGB (talk) 10:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I'll try and keep it consistent. DoctorKubla (talk) 11:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Your recent Advance (1874) edit[edit]

Hi Mate
First off congratulations on your work of recent on the shipwreck lists and this is not meant to hassle you, although I hope that you could revisit your edit on the Advance (1874) as I feel that by your editing may be a little too aggressive
The “core” of the article (excluding info box and further reading) has been edited down from 3583 words down to 1590 words so removing more than half of the information about this vessel (-12,282 characters).
I leave this in your hands as to how you may wish to remove longer quotes but infomation should be retained Best Regards --Whodidwhat (talk) 11:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that more than half the information in the article has been lost. A lot of what I cut was either repetition or trivia. That's the problem with quoting directly from contemporary newspapers - they tend to include a lot of trivial detail that doesn't turn out to be historically significant. Paraphrasing allows us to identify what's relevant and what isn't. Having said that, I may have been a bt over-zealous in this case. I'll have another look at it later.
While we're on the subject of NSW wrecks, do you have any objections to my removing the "further reading" sections from these articles? I've started doing it already, but if it's going to be a problem I'd rather address it now. My reasoning is that the works listed under "further reading" should be directly relevant to the subject of the article (and I won't find out more about, say, the Advance by reading a five-volume book of Australian shipwrecks), but I'm happy to discuss the matter if you disagree. DoctorKubla (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mate
Thanks for the prompt response, its always hard to convey tone in these discussions so please accept that I am not trying to disrupt your work or bother you
2nd thing first, I have no issues at all with you removing the "further reading" sections feel free
I’m glad that you are willing to have another look at your edit in relation to the Advance please remember that “trivial detail” and “historically significant” are subjective and that these primary sources were recording the facts as they were known at the time
This level of contemporary detail (typically in the shipwreck events section) whether by quote or paraphrased has been used to successfully find some of these previously lost vessels with Wikipedia then the only real place that the history of some of these vessels being fully recorded.
All the best --Whodidwhat (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Unlinking common terms[edit]

Nice work. Please let me know if you encounter any difficulties. Tony (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...[edit]

...for making me chuckle. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Your Recent Editing[edit]

DoctorKubla I have raised a discussion of your recent editing at the Ships Talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships
Please feel free to put forward your point of view
Regards--Whodidwhat (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, DoctorKubla! About your editing 08/02/2012 "Space tourism"[edit]

I fully agree with your editing. Thank you for your detailed explanations. Another question. There is fully independent from me article [2]. How do you think, may I to place into "Space tourism" only one my picture of space habitant, which was analyzed in this article? Sincerely! --Segrim (talk) 11:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's only a blog, but as far as I'm concerned, it's enough to justify including that picture somewhere on Wikipedia. The problem is, it doesn't really fit into the space tourism article, which currently only describes specific proposals by specific companies. If there was a larger section about the technical challenges of building a space hotel and some of the ideas that have been put forward, that would be a good place for your picture, but then I think that kind of information would be more suited to one of the more in-depth articles, like space architecture.
If I can offer you some friendly advice, it's almost never a good idea to add material you've created yourself to Wikipedia. It could give the impression that you have a conflict of interest, i.e. that you're more concerned with promoting yourself than improving the encyclopedia. Whether or not that's true, it's better not to leave yourself open to that kind of accusation. Try not to edit articles that you have a personal interest in, and concentrate on getting your stuff published in reliable sources. Once you've demonstrated the encyclopedic merit of your work (by getting it published), then odds are good that somebody else will add it to Wikipedia, thus avoiding all the COI issues. DoctorKubla (talk) 12:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Souvenir Tang[edit]

If I wasn't clear, let me say it: I draw a distinction between "attribution" & "quotation". A verbatim copying, attributed or not, public domain or not, is taking somebody else's words & presenting them as your own (or, in this case, as WP's voice), & I call that plagiarism. I'm happy to have another view. Actually, since this is pervasive for the DANFS-sourced pages, an ask for broader comment yet might be good. If it opens debate on what is or isn't OK for WP, so much the better. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I've replied to your 3O request on this issue at Talk:USS Tang (SS-306)#Plagiarism concerns: 3O; if we could kinda centralize the discussion there, that'd be great. Thanks! Writ Keeper 15:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Small categories[edit]

While are deleting categories on minor Olympic sports, take at look at Category:Olympic glider pilots JMcC (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like those categories already went through CfD. Can't say I agree with the decision to keep, but if that's the consensus, there wouldn't be much point nominating them again. DoctorKubla (talk) 05:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Recategorization[edit]

Hi. I do understand the desire to recategorize all those Wikify tags, but the sudden rapid influx of new {{copyedit}} tags is hitting the current GOCE backlog elimination drive rather hard. Any chance you could slow down, please, while we consider how best to handle this? I'm in the UK, so going to bed now, but will look in in around 10 hours. --Stfg (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Removing {{Wikify}} tags[edit]

Hey, DoctorKubla! Great work so far. You may want to look into using AWB for quickly moving through pages in the category and making replacements. Anyway, I recently proposed the assumption that "the majority of pages in Category:Articles that need to be wikified are tagged because they have too few wikilinks." Based on what you've seen so far, how valid was that assumption? Guoguo12 (Talk)  21:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Pretty valid, it looks like – see my comment at the CfD. DoctorKubla (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Wonderful work on {{Underlinked}}. I have asked about AWB tag support here. I will also update the WikiProject Wikify (WP:WPWF) page(s) to reflect this change. Guoguo12 (Talk)  13:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, please do consider whether pages need additional tags to replace Wikify. You just used Underlinked at Timi Zhuo, which needs a good deal of copyediting, including external link removal and translation. – Fayenatic London 14:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm doing my best. I've got a lot of articles to get through. DoctorKubla (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Donation of Constantine[edit]

Thanks for your comment. I have posted a reply at Talk:Donation of Constantine, I am sure you will find my citations satisfactory. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edit of minor loop feedback[edit]

First let me say thanks because under-linked is far more understandable than wikify which left me dazed and confused. So, do you have any guideline as to how many links to other articles would be required to become no longer underlinked?Constant314 (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, WP:UNDERLINK is the relevant guideline. I have to say, though, I only gave minor loop feedback a cursory glance, and it's not really a field I know much about, so feel free to remove the tag if you think the article already has enough links. DoctorKubla (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Exley[edit]

You might care to look again at the entry for Thomas Exley, to offer guidance as to its development, especially regarding links within Wikipedia. It seems that inward links ro the article may be more of a problem than outward ones to other entries. Indeed, I rather wonder how Exley came by an entry in the first place. Others might want to fill out his scientific theories and his theology, but at least the article can serve to show something more of what it was like to teach mathematics in England in the early 1800s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.96.121.92 (talk) 05:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

User:YellowPegasus[edit]

I was wondering if all the new cleanup templates invented by YellowPegasus (talk · contribs) are appropriate? (like {{SAL-cleanup}}) I don't see any pages documenting them. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I've nominated them for deletion. Though I suspect that YellowPegasus is the same person as 96.50.22.205 (talk · contribs) ... -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Good call. I'll weigh in at the TfDs. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I think an examination of 96.50.22.205's template changes are also in order... I just rolled back a set of changes that removed CSS classes from {{Xfd-privacy}} -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
YellowPegasus was blocked for evading a block (apparently it wasn't a cleanstart) Should I initiate an SPI for the IP address 96.50.22.205 ? -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Looks like that IP's been blocked too. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Although now it's been pointed out at AN/I that YellowPegasus might have yet another account, User:AnnaHendren. Might be worth conducting aan SPI after all. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Someone else opened one at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PIPony22 -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I've nominated the "wikigraphist" template redirects for deletion at WP:RFD. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:LISTN[edit]

Thanks for mentioning WP:LISTN. I wasn't previously aware of this section. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article feedback[edit]

Thank you kindly for the grammar fixes. :-) I'm a little embarrassed by some of those. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

World records[edit]

What on earth are you doing? half the entries in "World records" are about things that have broken world records rather than world records themselves. Please stop.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

If the category were to contain articles about things that have broken world records, it would become so huge as to be unmanageable. That's why Category:World record holders was deleted. Well, that and the fact that our guidelines advise against categorising people by the awards they've won. I'm not in total agreement with that guideline, so if you want to make the case for recreating Category:World record holders, you'd likely have my support. But current consensus is that world record holders shouldn't be categorised, and certainly shouldn't be mixed in with pages about world records. DoctorKubla (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
McCauley, Edmonton, Spearfish, South Dakota, Organisms at high altitude, they're world records are they?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll be removing them from the category in due course. If you'd rather blue whale penis was the last to go, that's fine with me, but I can't see that it makes much difference. DoctorKubla (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not really bothered so long as you remove all entries which are not about records. To be honest I find the category problematic as most world records are indirectly world records and it seems too broad a scope. I'd empty and keep only specific records like world records in sport etc in sub categories.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deceased American comic book characters[edit]

Thanks for weighing in! I restrain myself from chiming in any more often that I already do. Doczilla STOMP! 10:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Flower Mocher[edit]

Tell me, how many 18th century British Generals do you know of that were known to their mates as Flower? Eddaido (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Links in a "See also" section should bear some relation to the subject of the article. Articles about people with similar names, or about flower-related Shakespearean soliloquies, have nothing to do with the 18th century general Flower Mocher. That said, I can't be bothered arguing about it; add the links back if you like, I won't stop you. DoctorKubla (talk) 10:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Of course I strongly disagree with you. May your day improve and may you grow less short-fused and less narrow-minded. Eddaido (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

A Man and His Edits[edit]

Great work on Sinatra, it does seem to have been neglected of late. Thankee. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

103rd Floor of Empire State Building[edit]

Regarding your edit on the RfC on the 103rd floor, it isn't accurate. The 103rd floor of the Empire State Building isn't just a catwalk. It has an inside that is a room and leads up to a higher level for maintenance. Leave a message on my Talk page if you'd like. Thank you. Leoesb1032 (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Abbanes‎ AFD[edit]

I thought your suggestion was a good one so I bundled the other article in with that nomination. My adding it after your comment means I effectively "made" you !vote for deleting both, though given it was your suggestion I didn't think you'd mind much! Stalwart111 08:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep, no problem. Thanks for letting me know. DoctorKubla (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Persian Princess[edit]

Of course I disagree. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

NEED YOUR HELP | unclear ciitation style HELP[edit]

Hey DoctorKubla,

I am asking you for help because I saw you are a pro and help other people. Stephan_Noller is declared as "unclear citation style" but I really do not know what to do as I am a rookie. Could you please help me out?

Many thanks Christoph Chriskle talk

UPDATE: Thank you very much for your help!!! talk Chriskle (talk) 09:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

About your edit on Nippon Budokan - Music section[edit]

One of the artists you removed from the Music section in 2012 is T-ara. They are indeed the first Korean girl group to have performed at Budokan with 2 sold out concerts on July 25 & 26 of 2012 in celebration of the group's 3rd year anniversary. The concert on the 26th was professionally recorded in HD audio/video quality and broadcasted in Japan's TBS channel in September 9 of the same year, and it was also transferred to DVD and Blu-ray formats to be commercialized with the name "T-ara Japan Tour 2012: Jewelry Box (Live in Budokan)". The group had other concerts in other cities and venues around Japan in 2012 before the Budokan, the whole concert tour was named precisely "T-ara Japan Tour 2012: Jewelry Box" in support of their first Japanese album "Jewelry Box".

Additional details of the concert tour of 2012, please refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-ara_Japan_Tour_2012:_Jewelry_Box

Additional details of the "T-ara Japan Tour 2012: Jewelry Box (Live in Budokan)" DVD/Blu-ray, please refer to http://www.t-araworld.net/2012/11/preorder-t-aras-japan-tour-2012-jewelry.html

Recently in July 12 & 13 of 2013, T-ara returned to the Budokan again with 2 sold out concerts to commemorate the group's 4th anniversary. In September of 2013 the group will go back to Japan for additional concerts in other cities and venues. The 2013 concert tour is called "T-ara Japan Tour 2013: Treasure Box" in support of their second Japanese album "Treasure Box". With this second visit T-ara has become not only the first Korean group to perform at the Budokan but also the first doing it in two consecutive years, 2012 and 2013.

Please verify your update. Thanks... --Andon5150 (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for correcting me. I'll add T-ara back to the list. DoctorKubla (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/On The Receipt Of My Mother's Picture[edit]

I have removed the poem and suggested an alt hook. It's odd to me that Ohconfucius complained about me needing to fix the poem, when it wasn't even supposed to be there. SL93 (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Removal of maintenance tags[edit]

I see that you have removed the tag ("This article or section may fail to make a clear distinction between fact and fiction...") I added to Antoine Charles Louis de Lasalle. Can I take it then that you intend to edit the article to remove much of the utter nonsense that currently makes up most of the supposedly encyclopedic article?

I select, at random, an unsourced piece of fiction, pure and unadulterated, for your enjoyment:

The captain of engineering in Salamanca had a very beautiful Spanish wife. Lasalle, though he was a tender and caring husband who wrote love letters daily to his wife, had his infidelities. He entered the home of the young Spanish lady without warning giving off slight surprise and fear. He charmed and wooed her, eventually making love to her unbeknownst to her husband who then walked in on them in the act. He was outraged and furious, insulting and screaming at Lasalle, which resulted in a duel by sabre, though Lasalle was the most skilled and terrifying duelist of the time. He considered himself as better horseman and swordsman than everybody else and was said to be “a man for high adventure and reckless deeds.” Lasalle was generous enough not attack the man, but contented himself with parrying. But he did so with such vigor that it broke the poor engineer’s wrist. As the engineer was doubled over with fatigue and pain, Lasalle let down a hard blow with the flat edge of his sabre on the man’s back and circled around the engineer amid countless jokes.

Meanwhile, if you know of any better tag with which to show the unsuspecting reader that responsible editors at Wikipedia are aware of the article's serious failings, please go ahead and add it – as soon as possible. Wikipedia already has enough credibility issues without misleading its readers into thinking that that kind of article is what we consider encyclopedic. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the tag you're looking for is {{story}}. I'll add it to the article. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. Thanks. --Technopat (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Manby[edit]

Hi. Following my return from leave, I have done some more work on the above article, adding new references, shortening and rewording sections, and making corrections. I would be grateful if you could have a further look and let me know any areas that continue to cause you concern. Many thanks. Paul W (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Florence Margaret Durham[edit]

I've suggested a possible workable hook for Florence Margaret Durham, which has been stalled. The fact used is confirmed from the 1933 online source, and gives some idea of what is really involved in scientific research :-) Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be great if you could revisit the review, since you're already familiar with the article, though there have been significant edits since last you saw it, both from Orlady and Mary Mark Ockerbloom. Thanks! Note: if not, I have added it to the list of articles needing review, so someone might eventually come by ... BlueMoonset (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Stanislav Krakov[edit]

DoctorKubla, could you go back and take another look at this one? While there has been work on it, and sourcing has been added, the primary source template has been added to the article. This may prove problematic for the nomination. I'm also disappointed (as I imagine you are) that the nominator has not replied at the nomination. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

TEAR DOWN THIS WALL[edit]

Hi I was wondering why you took down my sections for the Tear Down This Wall Page. I thought they were good contributions because they discussed the rhetorical importance of the speech and the major significance behind the meaning of the words "Tear Down this Wall"

Germainefung (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Everything in Wikipedia must be supported by reliable sources. Editors aren't allowed to contribute their own analysis of an event – this is called original research. If Reagan's use of rhetoric has been discussed in reliable sources, you can use that information to explain in the article how others have analysed the speech, but you can't put forth your own opinions. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Civility Barnstar Hires.png The Civility Barnstar
For keeping a cool head and being diplomatic under difficult circumstances :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for not getting back about the DYK; this is my first proper day at the computer after being taken down by a stomach bug, a cold, resurgence of the stomach bug and then a short bout of influenza - and all after a failed drive led me to have to reinstall Vista and Win7 on this PC during all of that! Chaosdruid (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

BEAST[edit]

Hi Doc. You made some edits here that have me a little confused. Mostly all good, the one that I don't get is the changing of "their" to "its". Is it because the name suggests a singularity? I looked through various other pages like Blur - In recording their follow-up, Blur (1997), the band underwent... Queens of The Stone Age - Their sound has since evolved to incorporate a variety of different styles... Radiohead - Radiohead recorded their debut release, the Drill EP, with Chris Hufford.... and all use the "their". Please could you explain your motivation for the change and why did you not change the "their" in the last sentence of the lead? Cheers. Robvanvee 15:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind whether the article treats the name as a singular or a plural, but as it stood it was varying between the two. I wanted to make the article consistent so I had to pick one or the other – I went with the singular because the article begins "BEAST is...". By all means change it to the plural form if you prefer. DoctorKubla (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
OK makes sense. thanks for the explanation! Robvanvee 05:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Cannibalism[edit]

Isn't cannibalism more like, Killing a person and then eating it, or eating the dead human? While Aghoris only eat the left overs of the dead body, it's hard to say, if they are actually cannibal. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Added a reliable source, in regards of "aging", none of the given sources mentioned about aging, that's why. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Cannibalism is just the consumption, by humans, of human flesh/organs/etc. It doesn't really matter whether the person being eaten is dead or alive, or who killed them. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
"They steal the flesh when the family of the deceased is distracted, sitting on the steps, taking tea. The whole body doesn't always burn and turn to ash, some flesh remains and it floats in the river, so they take this and eat it.", that's the whole line. The person didn't really accused them of stealing dead bodies. So that line can be removed, don't you think so? Bladesmulti (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Something like "one of the member of dom report that they eat the remains of human dead body, whether they are ashes or left over of cremated one" ? Bladesmulti (talk) 10:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
"They steal the flesh when the family of the deceased is distracted". How else can you interpret that, other than as saying that they steal dead bodies? DoctorKubla (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but still, not the dead body, dead body is burned, people left, whatever remain, aghoris will take it away. That's how it is. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I see what you're saying. I'll replace the word "steal" with "take", then. The main point is that it contradicts the claim that Aghoris only eat volunteered flesh. DoctorKubla (talk) 11:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Either remove the line, or just add something that re-directs that they eat the human remains. Sorry for bothering. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Anyways, just checked, it's enough for now. CYA Bladesmulti (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify: November Newsletter and December Drive[edit]

Delivered on behalf of WikiProject Wikify. To unsubscribe remove your username from this list. EdwardsBot (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Stanislav Krakov[edit]

DoctorKubla, from what I can see, the nominator took your DYK talk-page message on November 9 and combined it under the heading for the previous message, but didn't do a thing about the issues you raised on the article. It's been just about a month: I think it's time to do a final review. If it's really close, then say so; if significant sourcing issues remain, then I think it's probably time to close this very old nomination. Thanks for anything you can do to move this along. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

NFPA 1906[edit]

Thanks for reverting my addition. I overlooked the fact that it was a "See Also" section. I am actually planning on adding a page for it, but until there is a page, it shouldn't be listed under see also. :-) --Zackmann08 (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

On Cannbalism again[edit]

Aghoris are "northern indian splinter sect of hinduism" is clearly Wikipedia:UNDUE#Due_and_undue_weight, there's no need of introduction since they have their own page. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

A few extra words explaining who the Aghoris are is not undue weight. See the final bullet at WP:LINKSTYLE: don't make readers have to to click a link in order to understand the sentence. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Aghoris "of north india", is dubious, since aghori is not just limited with the cremation ground. "splinter sect of hinduism", is WP:FRINGE since there's no such sect of Hinduism see Hindu denominations. And finally, its not even sourced. So? Bladesmulti (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
"Aghoris are Indian ascetics... who", may work, there are multiple sources, of this info, first, second, third, and more. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
There are already three sources present in the paragraph. One of them ("Indian doc...", Today) describes Aghoris as "a secretive sect of Hindu ascetics" living "in the hills of northern India". Another (Encounter, ABC) calls them "a little-known community in north India" and says that "the most visible Aghoris share much in common with Hindu sadhus". But look, I really don't care all that much. "Indian ascetics" is fine, if calling them a Hindu sect is so controversial. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Cannibalism suggestion.[edit]

You had viewed this? :-

Talk:Cannibalism#On_20th_Century_section

Bladesmulti (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Inchdrewer Castle[edit]

Hi DoctorKubla, thanks for reviewing the DYK nomination for Inchdrewer and George Ogilvy. I've left a note on the nomination template. Sorry to also post here but I wasn't sure if you watch listed them or not. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, DoctorKubla. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Biker bar.
Message added 12:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Northamerica1000(talk) 12:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Cute grey kitten.jpg

This wiki-kitten is here to express my thanks for your help with maintaining the DYK process. Your assistance is highly appreciated!

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 25[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Review need for DYK[edit]

Hi, could you review this ({{Did you know nominations/Armatix iP1}}) and let me know the lacking parts. I watch your talk page and nomination template. --AntonTalk 01:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to hijack someone else's review. I will suggest, however, that you re-read the article and do some copyediting (the final sentence, for example, just doesn't make sense). DoctorKubla (talk) 07:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Ride on, Ride on in Majesty DYK[edit]

I noticed your comment about alt2 needing the date in the article, this has since been added so could I ask if you could please give it a green tick? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Hello DoctorKubla, I'm here onbehalf of WP:ORPHAN in which you are also a participant. So, we want your opinion to a WP:ORPHAN related matter. It is a proposal by Technical 13. Please have a look here. Your opinion (i.e support, oppose etc) are very much appreciated there. Thank you. By Jim Cartar through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Backlog drive[edit]

Wiki letter w.svg

Hello DoctorKubla,

WikiProject Orphanage is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive to de-orphan articles which have orphan tags!
The goal is to eliminate the backlog of orphan articles. There are currently 120292 articles which have orphan tags. The drive is running from April 12, 2014 to May 12, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all editors participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive. To add your name in the participants list click here.
So start de-orphaning articles! Click here to see the list of articles need de-orphaning. Visit Suggestions for how to de-orphan an article to know more!

Thanks. Opt-out Instructions by Jim Cartar on behalf of WikiProject Orphanage through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Dead-end pages[edit]

I just read your "Restructuring" section on the 'Talk' page of the article "Dead-end pages". Regarding your statement "I've kept the stuff about how to generate a list of dead-end pages using AWB", I think that the entire section "Finding dead-end pages" should be deleted for these reasons:

  1. It's irrelevant. The lead section of the "Dead-end pages" article contains a "Dead-end pages progress" template with a link to "Category:All dead-end pages".
  2. It's confusing to new users. I read the "Dead-end pages" article, hoping to participate in a Wiki cleanup project. When I hit the section "Finding dead-end pages", I first thought that I would actually need to perform those 11 steps to generate the list of articles with no internal links.

If a valid reason exists for keeping the 11 steps around, then I think that the "Articles written by a single editor" project handles their similar procedure much more gracefully. See the section "Notes", specifically the bullet that begins "Technophiles might be interested in collaborating on the source code..." in the article Wikipedia:Articles written by a single editor.

Why am I writing these thoughts to you? Because you were bold enough to make many changes to the "Dead-end pages" article before, so I'm hoping you'll be bold enough to delete the "Finding dead-end pages" section now. I'm not. Smile.png

--LukasMatt (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

List of assassinations in Asia[edit]

Hello! i had a look at your page and patrolled it, i was wondering if you could go over why it has to be in a full list when you could slowly write a page about each of them? Thanks! Dudel250 (talk) 07:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't create that list, I just split it off from the overlong List of assassinations. I'm not sure what you mean about writing a page about each of them – most of the people on the list do have an article, and even if they all did, the list wouldn't be any less useful. I see you've added some tags: I removed {{overcoverage}} on the basis that this is just part of a larger list with a global scope, and I'd appreciate an explanation of the {{overly detailed}} tag – do you mean the entries aren't concise enough? Thanks. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I meant it as terms like "communist coup" and suggested the pages because people who didn't do any research on the people may not get some terms or Phrases or wonder about things. i do notice now that most of the people have a page though so i guess thats fair enough. did over react a bit with the {{tl|overcoverage}} tag and i do admit i am a fairly new patroler anyway. sorry for any hassle i have caused Dudel250 (talk) 08:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Gunter's chain[edit]

I have a link from the archives of the city of Alkmaar of this map:

http://www.archiefalkmaar.nl/beeldbank/9a5bede0-ce28-4584-9494-06c0abef1af9

The picture is self explanatory, the map is from a reliable source.

I intend to add this to the page using the link above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik Springelkamp (talkcontribs) 14:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I can see that the map features a picture of a chain similar to Gunter's. That's all that can be said about it. However, you inferred from that picture that Gunter didn't invent the chain described in the article, and that an identical device was being used in Holland a decade earlier. Per WP:OR, Wikipedia editors can't draw conclusions that aren't explicitly stated in a reliable source; if you want to claim that Gunter's chain – not just a similar chain, but one meeting the exact same description as Gunter's – had already been invented in 1607, you'll need a very reliable source making that exact claim. A picture doesn't cut it. DoctorKubla (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)