User talk:Dr.K.

Archives
	Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Bot Messages and Image Problems Archive Newsletters

• Ahem* Don't mess with my work. K thanx bye! 68.162.211.170 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC).

Thanks for the message. At least you have a sense of humour! Take care :) Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

man..

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I hope you're right. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 08:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I do too. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Found another work of art: Michael Kefalianos. What a statue! Michelangelo-job.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 01:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks

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

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)

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)

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)

Eh, technical has its place.

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

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)

Humor I'm particularly good at. Of course, sometimes it doesn't work, but there you go... HalfShadow 09:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

This time it worked. Your comment was apt and funny. Thanks for the laugh :) Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 09:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI

User talk:Saunasolmu - you had previously given this user a warning - just a FYI that he had previously blanked the account's user talk page, so has actually vandalized and then engaged in disruption, after a level-4 warning and multiple other warnings. In addition, this account is almost certainly a sock of User:DavidYork71. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much Cirt for letting me know. I hadn't seen the older warnings so I assumed it was a case of a misguided user. I was wondering why they kept going despite all the warnings. Given DavidYork71's long career in socking, now I know. :) Cheers, Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

So...

What's going on with this guy? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't ask me Seb. The report is still at ANI yet no one has acted. Maybe we can report this new spate of edit-warring at WP:3RR/N as an example of long-term edit-warring on many articles. There may or may not be a technical WP:3RR violation, I haven't had time to check, but this editing pattern nevertheless looks egregious. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

So that block gives us a rest (hopefully); by the way, do you think Armenians deserved to be exterminated? Just asking... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully we'll now get some respite from this MOS-busting saga. As far as the edit you showed me it is clearly out of order. I'll check it out more thoroughly later. Thank you Seb. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dr.K.. You have new messages at La Pianista's talk page.
Message added 02:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Misunderstanding

Thanks for your note - I appreciate your taking the time to leave it. No hard feelings - I know how volatile editing on high visibility pages can be and this is clearly a sensitive topic I've blundered into, but I am firmly convinced that WP needs to discuss this since it is a major action on Obama's part and is being so widely covered as such that I was amazed to see no mention of it in this article. Happy editing! Jgui (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your nice message. No problem. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Image moves

Before you tag an image redirect for deletion, you must check and fix any uses of the image. Eg. special:whatlinkshere/File:Kuelapruins2.jpg.jpg. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 10:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Is human error allowed in these operations? Have you seen the rest of my csd redirect deletions both here and in the Commons? Because if you did you would have seen that, apart from this, I did not mistag any other manual move redirects from the many that I performed. I always check special:whatlinkshere for obvious reasons. Without a redirect to go to, the old filename will become a red link and it will not work. I did this for both the other two in this family of three pictures: File:Kuelapruins.jpg.jpg and File:Kuelapruins3.jpg.jpg. Since File:Kuelapruins2.jpg.jpg has a filename very similar to the redlinks, I must have double-checked the wrong one. So what you are actually advising me is not to be susceptible to the occasional human error. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

And I don't appreciate your use of </div> tags to modify the layout of my talkpage. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

25 March

First, Dr.K., let me assure you there was no chance of a wrong interpretation, and even if there had been one, my first impulse is always to clarify misunderstandings. Second, yes, I am definitely of a monarchical inclination. Speaking as an outsider with regard to Greece (though much the same is true of Romania), it seems to me that the monarchy gave the country a certain respectability on the European stage that it might otherwise have lacked, as well as providing a degree of stability above the constantly feuding parties. True, the early Otto was essentially a puppet for Bavarian influence, and of course Constantine's behavior during World War I was inexcusable, but by and large the Kings supported and encouraged the people's aspirations rather than defying them. Wouldn't you say that in the last century, the best time for Greece was in the 1950s through the mid-'60s? Of course that probably has more to do with General Papagos and Karamanlis (before he turned traitor), but still, the two Glücksburgs then reigning certainly didn't hurt matters either. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Biruitorul. How are you? It is very nice talking to you after such a long time. Thank you very much for your kind words. Since I have known you for a long time and I consider you a friend, I am very glad that you saw the humorous intent of my message. :) I respect your historical analysis but the period of Greek history you are referring to is not my forte. As far as Karamanlis, I respectfully disagree with your characterisation; I think he was one of the great political leaders of Greece. But in my view, disagreement on political points between friends is of no consequence at all. Take care and thank you for your visit here. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Greece newsletter - March 2011 issue

The WikiProject Greece Newsletter Issue XII (VIII) – March 2011

Project news This is the eighth newsletter of the WikiProject Greece, and the first after a two-year-long hiatus! Please comment on its form, the way it is delivered, its content etc. We need your ideas and contributions! Recognized content: as of publication, our project stands at 47 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 11 A-class articles and 102 Good Articles, making up 1% of its ca. 15,000 tagged articles and lists. Ongoing drives and discussions – You can help! Due to the restructuring of the administrative divisions of Greece as a result of the Kallikratis reform, a large number of administrative units and settlements need to be updated. Please refer to the discussions at the project talk page and the overview table for more information. Project members are requested to aid in checking the huge backlog of articles created by Pumpie (talk · contribs) for mistranslations and original research. This affects over 2,000 Greece-related articles and lists, and your help is vital! A new portal on Greek Macedonia has been set up: Portal:Macedonia (Greece). Please contribute by adding content and improving it and the other portals related to our WikiProject! Additional input is always needed in the ongoing deletion discussions about Greece-related articles. You can help with assessing unassessed articles for quality and importance (Guidelines).

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece/Outreach#Delivery options.

Hello Doctor! I am well, and I hope you are too! I decided to restart the newsletter as a means to re-activate the almost moribund project, as well as to keep Greece-interested editors up to date on some important issues, i.e. the Kallikratis and Pumpie drives. If you have any suggestions on the newsletter or anything else, feel free to set them forth! Cheers, and best regards, Constantine ✍ 07:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kosta. I am happy to hear you are well; in fact it is always nice talking to you. You have undertaken a noble but difficult cause, given the WPGR relative inactivity, and you deserve a lot of credit. And this in addition of your regular contributions to mainspace articles. This is community service at its best. I will check into the issues you mentioned and let you know. Thank you very much and take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

..for helping out while I was on a wiki-break. Hohenloh ⁺ 00:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hohenloh. No problem, and thank you for your kind acknowledgment. Cheers. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

corrected errors regarding "the Erraou theory" on lucid dreaming

fair enough, i have added the deleted and added the appropriate references, and this theory is recognised, so please do not remove it again!!! please!

the reason to why it is elusive on the web at the moment is because the theory (the erraou theory, on Lucid dreaming) is relatively new, so give it time, and I assure you that it will become more known, so please do the kind thing and let it spread.

kind regards,

Sam Erraou, Representative for KCL college, Creative ideas institute, London, United Kingdom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swe41 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok....

Mate, please, just let this one go.

I am not trying to purposely undermine wikipedia, but i feel that it needs these new plausbile theories, please just let this ONE theory remain, just this once...what harm will it do.

In fact, just give it a month, and i assure you, the references i put up after that will be genuine, since by this point the theory would have spread sufficiently enough for it to be a recognised theory.

Please my friend, just let this one issue go, and i assure you, you will not regret it, as it soon will be a recognised theory, you just need to give it time to spread across the web.

Please.

Kind Regards,

Sam Erraou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swe41 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I replied on your talkpage but I will reiterate my advice here: Wikipedia cannot be used as an incubator to help grow and spread new and untried theories. You should also check our conflict of interest guidelines WP:COI because it appears that you are edit-warring to add your not-notable theory on Wikipedia despite multiple warnings. Please stop your edit-warring or you will be blocked. There can be no one-time exemptions to Wikipedia's policies. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Cut and paste move

Thank you for bringing these issues to my attention. I will be more careful next time I try to edit something as major as this on Wikipedia. Have a good day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.130.71.57 (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all. It was my pleasure. Thank you very much for being so kind. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Apologies but....

I apologise for any inconvenience/harassment on my behalf, and i assure you this will not happen again.

However, the Wiki:ANI case was really not your place to intervene, was it not?

regards Swe41 (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyone with relevant evidence is welcome to contribute to an ANI case. Dr.K. clearly had plenty of evidence, and made a very useful contribution to our understanding of the disruption you had been causing -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You do not determine the places I intervene in. I do. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI

User_talk:Swe41#Blocked, blocked for this -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Boing. Good call. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Citing

I have fixed my Citing. Is it O.K now? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMainEditor (talk • contribs) 01:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It is great! Thank you very much. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

While the reference you found was reliable, on closer inspection, I found problems with the way your edit resembled the wording of the actual source, so unfortunately I had to revert it. I replied on your talk giving you some ideas. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Greeks

So? If there is no standard, then why did you revert it? --Stultiwikia^{text me} 00:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Quote from the move window: Warning! This can be a drastic and unexpected change for a popular page; please be sure you understand the consequences of this before proceeding. So, Greeks is a popular page. Discussion must take place before drastic changes are made to it. Please open a discussion on the talk of the article if you are still interested in moving it. Talking about it on my talk doesn't really help. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This was merely a question of curiosity, thanks for the misafirperverlik(!) (AGF on your userpage(!)) neighbor; talking about it on your talk did really help "me" actually, if you care, despite your anticipation. Moreover, although your initial reason (no-standard) is contradictory with your own edit, I definitely won't be making any further "move" changes to the article as I don't really that much care (I only thought of standardization while altering the title) and you provided a more reasonable second explanation. But still, while this latter explanation is more of relevance to the accuracy of your edit, I can't totally understand the consequences of such a change. Because if on server, your edit has the same effect; if on name, it really wouldn't matter I presume, as the redirect would work just fine; if on searches (i.e on google), both searches return the same result in Wikipedia on top (and "greek people" return 30 times more results than "greeks", which could actually be sufficient to move the page). But still, I reconclude, I won't move it again, and I don't expect an answer, sincerely, as I presume I won't have the gap of time to check your talk page again. Cheers. --Stultiwikia^{text me} 23:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Constantine XI

Thanks for a quick and decisive intervention. I guess I should have moved to request a page protection after the first couple of reverts, but I hoped they (or rather he) would get the message or at least discuss. Cheers, and best to you. Constantine ✍ 19:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Kostas for your kind comment. I agree. Initially, I also thought they would stop but obviously they kept going. I am glad I was of some help in resolving this. Take care and all the best to you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Human rights

My apologies for troubling you with this. I just wanted your opinion/advice on the following. I've worked quite hard to develop the article Human_rights_in_Northern_Cyprus. The only way that I can think of to avoid POV-based placement of historical events/references is by having strict chronological order. I don't know what Wikipedia rules are concerning chronological order but I think that it makes sense to record older events first (with a general introduction at the top). The article has been subject to edits where references from generalist annual reports about human rights (over a specific calendar year) are placed at the top of each section. Since they usually only report about one calendar year it is usually a clean bill of health for specific human rights (that ignore all that has gone before). Personally, I find this quite offensive (and I try very hard not to be offended by it or to say so). Is chronological order a fair approach? If it is, how should it be policed? Since chronological order is regularly and deliberately ignored. I'm finding that it is a high-maintenance article and I really do not enjoy editing it but it is an important article.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 22:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nipsonanomhmata. It is no trouble at all. This is an interesting problem which reveals the NPOV and WP:UNDUE implications of placing things in chronological order. I'm not aware of any MOS requirement that facts must be in chronological order but nonetheless it is widespread practice to present facts in chronological order in articles. I'll check into this some more to see if it is covered under any specific guidelines. On the other hand you could consider adding a history of human rights section and include the historical facts early on in the article, followed by the more recent developments. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 08:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks Dr. K. btw it appears that we have reached some sort of compromise on the chronology. Will see how that goes.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 11:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You are very welcome Nipsonanomhmata. Thank you for letting me know and good luck in the discussion. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Dominique Strauss-Kahn

Thanks for catching the copyvio there. Steven Walling 03:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the courtesy. It is very nice of you and I really appreciate it. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

JBKO's Name in Infobox

Hi Dr. K, could you provide some insight into the discussion on this issue on Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis' page? I don't want to get into a revision war with the other editor, so I thought I'd ask for another educated opinion on the matter (I've left the same message on the talk page of Tvoz, too.) Thank you! FrostySnows (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you FrostySnows. I am not a fan of infoboxes in general and this kind of false dilemma is one of the reasons. I'll see how the topic goes and maybe I'll try to pitch in. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hello friend, please take a look at this. It is a dicussion on de-jure versus de-facto names. Your advise is welcome. Neftchi (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Dyslexia

Thanks for catching my mix-up over here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ODB&action=historysubmit&diff=431089203&oldid=431088937

Found that a full minute before I realized my own mistake.

Cheers! P₁h₃r₁e₃d₁₃ (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Cheers and take care. :) Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Need some advice/help

Have you had any dealings with self-published books as sources? If so, what exactly are the restrictions(if any) on such sources? Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kansas Bear. How are you? Nice to see you after such a long time. Overall, my experience with self-published sources is that they are not acceptable. Self-published books by experts who were frequently published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals may sometimes be acceptable depending on the claims made. For biographies of living people this interpretation may be even stricter. Also see WP:SPS. If everything else fails you can also try WP:RSN where they frequently deal with/interpret these kinds of questions. Let me know if you have any other questions. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok. So the publisher has been published by other 3rd party sources(thus confirming his/her expertise). So the next question:If the self-published book contains chapters written by others besides the publisher, would those chapters be acceptable? Or would only the chapters written by the person that published the book be acceptable according to Wikipedia policies? I hope this isn't too confusing. And yes, I have tried WP:RSN, to no avail! --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Being a self-published book, even one by an expert, is already a problem. It simply doesn't have the credibility of a peer-reviewed work in the first place, even when the primary author is involved. For the secondary authors, it depends solely on their credentials. It shouldn't matter that they were published under the umbrella of an expert author. They wouldn't inherit the expertise or credibility of the primary author. The main author can accept anyone's contributions to his self-published work. However his standards of inclusion are unknown, and are in no way equivalent to the well-known standards of a panel of experts in a peer-reviewed publication and do not bestow credibility to invitee contributing authors. So the primary author's chapters carry some credibility, especially if corroborated by other independent works. But the other authors' chapters should not be referenced if this self-published book is their only recognition. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank, doc! I was leaning towards that direction as well. I just needed another opinion. Take care! --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Anytime Kansas Bear. It is always a pleasure talking to you. Thank you for the opportunity to analyse this interesting problem. Cheers. :) Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Need some advice, help with blanking of "By feminists and anti-sexists" subsection in Dominique Strauss Kahn sexual assault allegations case

Hello Dr. K.

I see you've been keeping any eye on "Dominique Strauss Kahn sexual allegation assault case".

A user, apparently an experienced editor, has taken it upon himself/herself to delete the "By feminists and anti-sexists" subsection of "French reaction" saying it's a soapbox and has no place in the article. I've been restoring, although I haven't contributed to this section, beyond copy-editing it occasionally and wikilinking some of its names, nor have I commented on the section. He/she has now used Twinkle to overcome the 3RR rule. Is that legitimate and can you help if it's not?

I hope this isn't a troublesome request. FightingMac (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi FightingMac. No, it is no trouble at all, thanks for your concern. I can see both your inclusionist point and the other editor's concern regarding the addition of material not directly related to the case itself and its progress through the court system. It is a very controversial case with a wide impact on various social, political and economic levels. As such, the information added to the article must be carefully vetted so that the article does not get swamped with a myriad of other issues which, although related in some fashion to the case, can detract from the main focus. There are already two main "reaction" sections in the article. Adding more reaction sections into the article from the different social, political and economic strata affected by or concerned about the case, may lead some editors to think that the article is being slowly converted into a multitude of opinion pieces. Add to this BLP, WP:UNDUE, and other content quality concerns and you've got predictable editing conflict. Obviously edit-warring is not the answer but I would advise you to seek wider consensus to find out if it is ok to include or exclude this material. I hope this gave you some clearer perspective. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dr. K. Appreciated. I've started a section on it on the talk page. The editor took particular exception it seems to a citation of a primary source, a feminist petition, but his deleting the entire section seems extreme to me. Take your point about adding extra reaction sections. I didn't quite see the need for subsections given that some of us still retain the art of the paragraph :-). But the feminist and anti-sexist reaction has to be as notable a feature of French reaction as the political reaction. I hope I can persuade the editor to relent.

It was a pleasure FightingMac, don't mention it. I agree with your approach. By discussing it on talk you de-escalate the situation and avoid the edit-warring. You are a very reasonable editor and you make good arguments. There is no reason why a compromise cannot be reached between good-faith editors. Good luck. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Metapolitefsi

Hello Dr.K. I hope you will approve of this change in the translation of the ESA motto. I see you've done a lot of work on this article. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ed. Thank you very much for the courtesy of notifying me. Your version of the motto is perfectly fine. Good work on finding the Telegraph citation and thank you for adding it to the article. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Why are you phanatically loyal to Turkey ?

You seem to be exceptionally for Turkey. Reverting Nicosia article to place muslim churches and other religious muslim symbols will set you out of Wikipedia because you really do not respect the article. You are vandalizing it continously.