Jump to content

User talk:Dr.K.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Activadvocate (talk | contribs) at 21:02, 26 February 2011 (→‎Original Research?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please leave a new message.
Archive
Archives
  1. Archive 1
  2. Archive 2
  3. Archive 3
  4. Archive 4
  5. Archive 5
  6. Archive 6
  7. Bot Messages and Image Problems Archive
  8. Newsletters
Thanks for the message. At least you have a sense of humour! Take care :) Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Free Dacians

Hi and Happy New Year! I noticed your mass revert for the contributions of 79.116.211.230 to Free Dacians article. Too bad he didn't sign in as a user... I reviewed the changes and noticed bad spellings and issues, but there were some pertinent sections there. Could you please explain the rationale? Thanks. I am running the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dacia. If you have an interest in the topic, please join.--Codrin.B (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for the good wishes. The same to you. My rationale is on my edit summary: Bad spelling, broken links, blanking not a good mixture make. Reverting If that is not enough, sorry, I cannot add any more points to this rationale. However if you feel that this is a good edit please feel free to restore it. I am as far removed from Dacian issues as can be imagined so really I do not care/mind. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

man..

again? I suggest he pick flower-names for a change... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. But you can't hide a DUCK even under a flower. :) Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

I was hoping that you might be kind enough to express your opinion at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Turkish_Republic_of_Northern_Cyprus_Representative_Office_in_New_York and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Foreign_relations_of_Northern_Cyprus Many thanks in anticipation, Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nipsonanomhmata for your kind message. Normally I would participate but this situation doesn't look particularly good for many reasons. For example, the articles dealing with the "Representative offices" are categorised under diplomatic missions. Now can you explain to me how can a mission be categorised as "diplomatic" when everyone working in it is not recognised by anyone as a diplomat? Obviously the POV of such a categorisation is way over my capabilities at a reasoned discussion and well into the realm of an impossible joke. Unfortunately I tend to shun such comical situations for many reasons. I apologise for refusing to participate, at least for the time being. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 01:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, Happy New Year to you too. Thank you very much and all the best to you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 02:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your response. There appears to be little justice in the world and even less on Wikipedia. It is hard resolving the fact that so much good information can be contributed when so much garbage sits next to it. Is there any benefit in adding accurate information when it only boosts the qudos of the garbage sitting next to it? Wikipedia appears to be an arms race between those who are prepared to say and do anything and those who are prepared to put accurate information in its place. Those who shout loudest and most persistently win. The minorities always lose. A playground where the bullies always win. I have been in situations where the accurate information, over time, has been deleted persistently but through extreme patience and persuasion I have won through. Funny thing is that even when you win they still tell you that you have lost the argument versus their perverted concept of "Consensus". I can live with that. The accurate information is still up there and others agree with it. But that doesn't guarantee that at some point in the future the accurate information won't be corrupted. Which begs the question ... what are we doing wasting our time in here? Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 10:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You raise some interesting questions. I think the state of affairs as you present it may well be accurate. In an open editing environment such as this it is to be expected that vandalism and propaganda will try to make their mark such as it is. I don't know how to answer your last question. I guess being here and editing is a statement of hope more than anything else. Hope that things will get better and hope that we have something to offer. Lastly our persistence in editing here may also be a sign of a lesser hope that a small fraction of what we contribute today may somehow survive for sometime. Everything else is unfounded speculation. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On a separate issue. I've noticed how the history of the name "Constantinople" is being twisted. Have you noticed how the name "Istanbul" has become "de-facto" despite the fact that the name "Constantinople" was being used up in to the late 1920s (until the Turkish Post Office put its foot down with the UPU). Anything to do with "Constantinople" or the name "Constantinople" is directed at "Istanbul". It's a successful movement to rub out the fact that the name was used consensus-wise up to the late 1920s. If someone was born in Constantinople in 1925 then their place of birth was Constantinople. However, we are being made to believe that no such place existed. Our children will come to assume that the name "Istanbul" applies from the day that Constantinople became part of the Ottoman Empire. And who will be around to correct them? Which reminds me of the song with the words "Istanbul not Constantinople". Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 10:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know about this but you shouldn't be so pessimistic. Propaganda has existed for ages on many issues. History however is well established for Constantinople. Any serious student of history can see through the smoke and mirrors and the falsifications. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you're right. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 08:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do too. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The vote is currently at 4 to 3. A nail-biting finish. They are likely to keep the article and there are no worthwhile references on it other than those that I introduced concerning the Class Action that were deleted. The only reference is from the PIO of the "TRNC". Oh well, it has been entertaining to watch either way. The bullies in the playground will probably win again. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I take it all back. The result was Delete because of the lack of references and notability! Yippee! The worm has turned. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 14:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unbelievable. The outcome shows that the AfD system can sometimes see through all the hype. You made some very good points and they were accepted by your peers. This shows that the system has integrity. And that's good for Wikipedia. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dr K about the Essence- Energies distinction article

Could you please help me with the Essence–Energies distinction (Eastern Orthodox theology) article? I need help with clarifying things that are being said there and at History of Eastern Orthodox Christian theology. Thanks LoveMonkey (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LoveMonkey. I am afraid I am completely unfamiliar with this topic so I cannot help you. This is a highly specialised topic within the Orthodox dogma and probably needs the attention of a specialist. However if you need something other that interpretative advice please let me know. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 02:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yiannis Melanitis

Is this article worth keeping? Yiannis Melanitis. Have tried to save it.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 23:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks. Have also just rescued Michael Kefalianos. But still think that this is a mugs game.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 03:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a cultural thing, or should I say, thung. Who are these pesky Greeks and what are they doing with articles all over Wikipedia supported by funny-looking Greek citations? Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ty for reverting that one edit. Was just trying out a theory whilst working on Artsakh Air.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 01:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing synchronicity. I just left you a message without seeing this message. You can take it as my reply to your message. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 01:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Melanitis article was deleted because the delete vote was stronger but I asked the admin if he could extend the AfD because the article had been turned around in the last couple of days. This he did. I think that your sentence about Beuys clinched it and it certainly made it easier for me to find other things to put in to the article. Thank you.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 12:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mention it Nipsonanomhmata. Melanitis is a pioneer in a new form of art. His Cryography and Conductivity of Writing are fascinating new industrial concepts as applied to Art. He is the contemporary Andy Warhol of the Balkans. His only disadvantage is that he is from Greece and many of the citations in the article are in Greek. It is a cultural barrier which few artists unfortunate enough to be from there can overcome. Maybe we can translate them? At least the in-citation passages that are quoted in the article. I'll help out. It was very nice of the admin to undelete the article of the Andy Warhol of Greece. It was even nicer that you thought of asking the admin to do it. Well done, as usual. See you (relatively soon) at the Melanitis article. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 14:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Found another work of art: Michael Kefalianos. What a statue! Michelangelo-job.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 01:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another seemingly lost cause. You have done some exceptional work defending the AfDs of these articles. I hope this one about this remarkable athlete gets rescued as well. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 02:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UAA report

I have blocked that user indef. However, I'm not going to oversight or delete the edit because, however, offensive and racist it was, it isn't potentially libelous and doesn't constitute a BLP vio. Daniel Case (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Daniel for the courtesy. You described it well. I am surprised it doesn't qualify for RD2 but I will not second-guess your decision. Thanks again. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please do something with the user Agitatov in the Athens article?

He keeps on erasing the whole article of the European temperature record.It's been going on forever and this user has only created the account yesterday and since then he is on the Athens wiki article 24/7.Can I please ask for protection of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weatherextremes (talk • contribs) 13:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Athens

I've protected Athens for now. This really does look like a content dispute, so be cautious about reverting - being right is never an excuse... :) I've warned the other editor not to continue reverting once protection expires and to work it out on the talk page. Let me know if there are further issues. Dreadstar ☥ 17:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dreadstar. It was a good idea to protect Athens and to warn the SPA. Probable sock too. Anyway as far as this being a content dispute if you count the edit-warring-assisted injection of massive doses of WP:SYNTH, OR and blanking cited content as a content dispute I guess it is. But even under this generous definition, section blanking of RS supported content is still vandalism and WP:POINTY, i.e disruptive. Nonetheless I want to assure you that I have no interest in climate politics. I simply dislike synthesis, original research and, of course, section blanking. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Us doctors have to stick together eh?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, esteemed Doctor! Your visit here just made my day! It is always great talking to you but even greater that you decided to return. Thank you for dropping by and take care. :) Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rosetta Stone Barnstar

The Rosetta Barnstar
For excellence in translation at Yiannis Melanitis.
You have more than earned this appropriate translation relic.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 13:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Nipsonanomhmata. It is an honour to receive this great award, which I didn't even know existed, especially from someone as eloquent and knowledgeable as you. Take care and thanks again for the kind gesture. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, technical has its place.

But sometimes you just gotta be crude. HalfShadow 09:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was well framed and funny. Maybe I should have used humour tags in my reply to avoid any hint of crtiticism. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 09:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Humor I'm particularly good at. Of course, sometimes it doesn't work, but there you go... HalfShadow 09:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This time it worked. Your comment was apt and funny. Thanks for the laugh :) Dr.K. λogosπraxis 09:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research?

You stated that you could not accept original research, including new syntheses of existing published reliable sources. Why? In my submission expanding the Christianity cite on the entry for reincarnation, I quoted the New Jerusalem Bible, surely a reliable source, and your own Wikipedia reference to Sadducees. Is there a way to re-phrase my submission on Jesus' apparent belief in reincarnation to make it acceptable? I would think that many Christians who believe in reincarnation would find this evidence reassuring, since most Christian churches find it convenient to ignore these passages.

Also please tell me if you are the sole arbiter of such decisions? If so, I wonder how you obtained this authority, and even why Wikipedia would disallow a submission that includes reliable sources. It seems to fly in the face of what a wiki (and Wikipedia by derivation) is all about.

Thank you for responding.

Sincerely, Activadvocate

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dr.K.&oldid=416092460"